Category Archives: Free Speech

AUSTIN, TXAccording to the latest reports, inflation has hit a 40-year high affecting the prices of many consumer goods. However, one consumer staple is actually at an all-time high. Speech, which as recently as earlier this year was free, is now valued at $43 billion.

The free exchange of ideas has been under attack, causing massive inflation under the Biden presidency, explained Joe Squawk of CNBC. It used to be that people could argue about all kinds of things on Twitter, a bastion of free speech. Then liberals started saying a lot of dumb things, and conservatives started making fun of them. So, the liberals started crying a lot, and the people working at Twitter just started kicking the conservatives off so no one would laugh at them for being dumb.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has explained that free speech isnt free anymore because it isnt important for people to just say what they think. It takes a lot of money to run a social network in a way that protects approved speech and suppresses or blocks unapproved speech.

Liberals like me are smart and sensitive, explained Agrawal, and people shouldnt challenge our ideas or laugh at us. If conservatives cant play by those rules, they can just go make their own social network.

Elon Musk has offered $43 billion to restore free speech for Twitter, which appears to be the market rate, though some liberals at Twitter are rejecting the deal, saying free speech is "dangerous and shouldn't be freely available on the streets of America for any price."

Mandy is absolutely triggered by Twitter's possible takeover by Elon Musk. She attends a Twitter-sponsored therapy session to help her cope.

Link:
Due To Inflation, Cost Of Free Speech Rises Sharply To $43 Billion - The Babylon Bee

A Shawnee State University professor has settled for $400,000 in a lawsuit against his employer, arguing it was within his First Amendment rights to refuse using the preferred pronouns of a student who identifies as female.

Nicholas Meriwether, a Shawnee philosophy professor, was issued a written rebuke after a 2018 Title IX investigation into the situation, prompting the lawsuit, which was originally dismissed in February 2020, when a lower district court found there were no broader societal concerns, but revived by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Shawnee State University, located in Portsmouth, Ohio, agreed to settle the case Thursday. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Meriwether, released a statement saying the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwethers attorneys fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuits ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether.

Shawnee State University issued a statement saying its decision to settle was made for economic reasons.

"Though we have decided to settle, we adamantly deny that anyone at Shawnee State deprived Dr. Meriwether of his free speech rights or his rights to freely exercise his religion," the statement said. "Over the course of this lawsuit, it became clear that the case was being used to advance divisive social and political agendas at a cost to the university and its students. That cost is better spent on fulfilling Shawnee States mission of service to our students, families and community."

WATCH: POPE FRANCIS CALLS FOR PEACE IN 'EASTER OF WAR MESSAGE

ADF praised the outcome, noting that the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. Significantly, the university agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex."

In the case, Meriwether argued he was standing by his Christian beliefs in refusing to use the preferred pronouns of the student and that he instead offered to call his students by either Mr. or Ms. and their last name, or simply by their last name.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldnt endorse an ideology that he believes is false, ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham said. Were pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwether and every other American the right to speak and act in a manner consistent with ones faith and convictions.

Read the original:
University settles with professor in free speech case over pronoun use - Washington Examiner

We invited you to share your opinion on if Elon Musk should use his clout on Twitter to get Donald Trump back on the platform. The Tesla and SpaceX guru owns nearly 9% of Twitters stock and is a champion of free speech. We said he should bring Trump back in our editorial. Many agree on our online poll, others not so much. Heres what you said in emails to our new quick-hit comment line Kvetch@bostonherald.com.

* * * *

Until Twitter becomes a platform for free speech, I will stay away. I am shocked at the number of freedom-loving Americans who feed this biased platform. Can Elon Musk jump in and save Facebook and YouTube as well? Your closing quote from George Washington says it all.

Elizabeth

The Washington quote: If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

* * * *

I am a 62-year-old veteran from Cape Cod sending a quick note in response to your Elon Musk should lift Trumps Twitter ban article. Thank you for the opportunity.

I am a lifelong Republican. I voted for Trump twice. My wife is still a supporter while I am not.

Yes, Twitter should allow Trump back on and my reasoning is the same as Mr. Musks, which is in support of free speech. Let him drive the left even more insane than they are now. Having said that, my feeling even at the time of Trumps inauguration, someone should have taken his phone and skipped it across the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool.

I blame Trump entirely for his not being re-elected. His policies were great and they were working. America has suffered greatly under this new administration and the damage is only 25% done. Had Trump not acted and spoken like an infantile ass for his entire presidency, the world would look a lot different today.

Unfortunately Trumps rhetoric and behavior provided the left with all of the ammunition needed to thwart him in every way possible.No one is better at underhanded sleaze than the dems and their media cohorts, and Trump licensed them to do all of it and more.

Trump will not be re-elected because he will not get the nomination if he does decide to run. I pray he does not. Clearly these next election cycles are a blatant opportunity for sanity to begin to return to the White House & Congress. The greatest impediment to that would be a Trump nomination.

What we need is a president that is presidential; a leader that has some inkling of what decorum is, and a president that will enact the Trump pro-American policies without the nonsense.

Steve Silva

* * * *

Of course Trump should be allowed on Twitter. Also, the U.S. and/or any company should never censor anybody or any organization unless they are directly promoting violence. When someone writes something offensive on Twitter there will be a slew of responding tweets that will confront said behavior. Thank you for asking.

Daniel

* * * *

Free Trump on twitter or whatever it is!

Allan

* * * *

Please do not let that toxic instigator back on confusing, upsetting and conning everyone.

Leah

* * * *

I absolutely feel that Donald Trump should be allowed back on Twitter. Jihadists and terrorists as well as anyone in the left can exercise their constitutional right to free speech on Twitter. It is only when someone from the right wants to speak out that Twitter shuts down their account. Heaven forbid that someone should post an opinion that disagrees with their far-left/woke ideology.

Andrea Thon

* * * *

To frame the ban in terms of freedom of speech is disingenuous. Trump is not being punished by the federal government for anything he posted on Twitter. Nor has Trump lost any freedom of speech protection.

Twitter is a private enterprise. Twitter has freedom of speech too and can use their own judgment to filter their content. Trump can start his own platform, although like everything else he does, his attempts to do so have failed spectacularly. Now that Trump is out of the presidency his words have less sway than when he was banned so lifting the ban would not be earth-shattering and would go unnoticed by most Americans.

Paul Dowd

Your opinions are welcome to Kvetch@bostonherald.com.

Read more:
Your Turn: Musk, Trump and Twitter at the crossroads of free speech - Boston Herald

For the 10 people who read my columns regularly (five of them being ATLs editorial staff), they might know it is now my eighth year writing for this website. So today, I think I can get away with writing about a topic that makes no sense. On that note, I want to write about freedom of speech.

In the past few years, most peoples thoughts about freedom of speech have changed to some degree. The topic has become confusing, divisive, and at times, contradictory.

One problem is how to handle two opposing groups who both claim to be exercising freedom of speech. For example, at least once a year, I hear about a protest at a college or law school because a controversial figure was invited to speak there. Some of the students disrupt the event by making noise or preventing people from entering the venue. Sometimes, they succeed in getting the event cancelled. The event organizers claim that the disruption or cancellation violates their right to free expression. But the protesters justify their action as protected speech.

So were the organizers or the protesters morally and legally correct? It depends on who you ask although I believe that in general, the group that resorts to fear and intimidation are likely in the wrong. But it doesnt matter because one day, events with controversial speakers will be conducted virtually. The speakers can stay at their home or office. It will be almost impossible to disrupt these events and attendees can feel comfortable attending anonymously if they choose to.

The second issue involving free speech is allegations of censorship or deplatforming by the major social media platforms, primarily to conservatives. Defenders say that they are private entities who should be allowed to moderate their platforms to combat misinformation and to protect the safety of their users.

The most well known example of censorship was when Twitter and Facebook fully or partially blocked the New York Posts coverage of Hunter Bidens laptop left at a computer repair shop. That laptop contained emails that suggested that the Ukrainian company Burisma was paying Hunter to get access to his father, Joe Biden, before he was president. Twitter later reversed the ban, with then CEO Jack Dorsey calling the ban unacceptable. Recently, the New York Times confirmed that the New York Posts coverage of the laptop was true.

Most would agree that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private entities that should not abide by First Amendment rules. In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, a recent Supreme Court case, the five conservative justices ruled that an organization merely hosting speech for others is not a traditional, public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

Also, users have the choice to use less censored/moderated social media platforms. They are out there and will likely gain more attention and users during the 2024 election year.

And the final modern free speech issue is cancel culture, or as some call it, accountability. The idea is that if you are caught in a compromising position (usually saying or doing something offensive) and it goes viral online, the internet mob will destroy you. If you have a job, your boss will be pressured to fire you and you will be unemployable for the foreseeable future. If you own a business, it will be deluged with negative reviews in the hopes of driving away customers and shutting it down.

Cancel culture has been praised because it allowed ordinary people to take down or influence powerful people who are normally untouchable because of their influence or wealth. But it has been criticized for chilling speech on controversial topics, punishing past behavior that may have been socially acceptable at the time, the social punishment being excessive to average people and being inconsistently applied, usually with punishments being harsher to conservatives.

Cancel culture is also affecting the legal profession as some law firms must think about the negative public consequences of taking on an unpopular client. While representing unpopular people is something that lawyers must do from time to time, existing clients have been more vocal about threatening to stop doing business with the firms. While some firms can take the financial hit, others will get around this by working behind the scenes through a lesser-known law firm, or limiting the work to a few trusted partners on a very confidential basis.

But this can be troublesome in the criminal defense setting where this could bring up due process and right to counsel issues. Yes, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to competent counsel but not the counsel of your choice. Will the threat of cancel culture negatively affect a lawyers professional judgment that can result in deficient performance, thus raising a Strickland claim of ineffective assistance of counsel? It may result in retrials or even conviction reversals. But, in response, the internet mob might try to cancel culture the judge by encouraging a recall or impeachment campaign.

Today, due to excessive tribalism, freedom of speech seems to be used ironically as a sword rather than a shield. When I first started writing for Above The Law, I wrote anonymously for a number of reasons, one of them being so that I would be able to say what I wanted without worrying about the consequences. I know that most regular readers have a certain viewpoint and some of the writers here cater to it. But people should be free to express an unpopular opinion without having to worry about being moderated or cancelled. Because once in a while, the popular ideas are stupid.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him onLinkedIn.

View original post here:
Free Speech Has Become Confusing And Chaotic - Above the LawAbove the Law - Above the Law

Think twice before you toot. House lawmakers are weighing whether to ban aggressive horn-honking.

The omnibus bike and traffic safety bill, sponsored by RepresentativesRebecca Kislak, Michelle McGaw, Liana Cassar, Brandon Potter and Teresa Tanzi, was presented to the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday night.

If enacted, it would institute a host of initiatives, such as:

Allowing cities and towns to reduce speed limits on state roads in densely populated areas

Establishing a training program to rehabilitate reckless drivers

Requiring the development of a school curriculum on traffic laws and bike safety

Outlawing horn-honking deemed unnecessary.

Anything other than honking to warn wouldnt be allowed. According to the bill, that means no honking to make an unreasonably loud or harsh sound and no honking at bicyclists unless a crash is imminent.

But the proposal is facing criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Islandfor what it says could be a violation of First Amendment rights.

More: Motor vehicle or conventional bicycle? Cyclists and RIDOT at odds over e-bike rules

In a letter urging the deletion of that section of the bill, the ACLU cited a 2011 case in Washington state that struck down a similar law. The organization contended that such a broadly worded ban implicates free speech rights when drivers honk their horns to convey messages unrelated to public safety including political messages.

In that case, the states Supreme Court said examples of free speech via horn might include: a driver of a carpool vehicle who toots a horn to let a coworker know it is time to go, a driver who responds to a sign that says Honk if you support our troops, wedding guests who celebrate nuptials by sounding their horns, and a motorist who honks in support of someone picketing on a street corner.

The ACLU, in its letter, also raised concerns over whether such a law in Rhode Island could be arbitrarily applied, as determining whether a honk is necessary creates an extremely vague standard.

More: License plate-reading devices draw criticism from ACLU

More: New surveillance cameras make inroads in RI, raising privacy concerns

Kislak called the free-speech concerns valid, and said she flagged them to the Rhode Island Bicycle Coalition, which helped to draft the bill three years ago. However, Kislak so far has kept the honking rule in the legislation.

I have been on the receiving end of dangerous honking while riding my bike in another state, and so I know that aggressive honking can cause incredibly hazardous conditions for bicycles, she said. So I was happy to keep that in so that we have a conversation, but I do want to flag that there are also First Amendment concerns, so an important conversation to be had there.

The bill has been held for further study.

Visit link:
RI bill would ban 'aggressive honking' by drivers. Would that violate free speech? - The Providence Journal

The right to speak and the right to print, without the right to know, are pretty empty.

These are the words of Harold Cross, author of The Peoples Right to Know, a book largely regarded as inspiration for the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) , which Congress passed in 1967.

The FOIA and its state-level counterparts guarantees us the right to request records from any government agency, allowing the public to oversee the activities of government. It not only enhances our exercise of the rights to free speech and freedom of the press (as well as the other three freedoms religion, assembly and petition) but also directly benefits society by potentially exposing government waste, abuse and corruption.

While many view the FOIA as a federal law for journalists to use in their role as watchdogs of government activity, access to records provides an ongoing benefit to all of us.

Reporters from The New York Times used FOIA to track the expenses and meetings of Scott Pruitt , the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who resigned in 2018 amid allegations of corruption. A blog associated with the Times also used FOIA to learn that the Department of Agriculture received 64 complaints from 2007 to 2009 about foreign objects such as glass, a rubber glove and an insect found in hot dogs sold to the public. (I can hear some of you saying, Actually, Id rather not know that.)

At the local level, the Associated Press used FOIA in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to determine that 122 other levees built by the Army Corp of Engineers around the country contained deficiencies . That FOIA request brought the issue to the attention of the residents of those 122 communities, allowing them to take steps to protect themselves and their homes from flood risk and resulting in repairs where necessary.

But its not just reporters who use FOIA. Ordinary people even those who are skeptical of the role of the media in overseeing government use the law to great effect. In 2019, students at Back of the Yards High School in Chicago used public records to learn that the two white police officers at their mostly minority school each had substantial misconduct complaints against them, including allegations of use of force, false arrest and verbal abuse, often against people of color. The students then used this information to ask for the removal police officers from their public schools.

Other Gen Zers have used their digital skills to access and analyze public records, especially large datasets, through technology.

Jack Sweeney, a freshman at the University of Central Florida, has used publicly available flight information to track SpaceX founder Elon Musks private jet which he then reported via Twitter @ElonJet. As Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Sweeney launched @RUOligarchJets, which tracks the movement of Russian oligarchs.

On a larger scale, FOIA requesters should applaud the recent creation of Gumshoe by graduate students at NYUs Center for Data Science . Gumshoe is an artificial intelligence tool that sorts through large swaths of information. This is more necessary than ever given the explosion of information that is created by the government every year and the hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of text that one might receive via a public records request. The Gumshoe team has already received funding including a $200,000 grant from the Patrick J. McGovern Foundation to build out the product for widespread distribution.

You dont have to be a journalist or computer genius to use public records laws and certainly not to benefit from their use. Thats why we all should celebrate Sunshine Week and public records all year round.

Kevin Goldberg is a Freedom Forum First Amendment specialist. First Five is a monthly column on First Amendment issues produced by The Freedom Forum, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by Al Neuharth. First Five is an effort to inform citizens on the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

Read more:
First Five: Free speech and press need freedom of information - The Dickinson Press

Floyd AbramsNew YorkThe writer, a First Amendment lawyer, is the author of The Soul of the First Amendment.

To the Editor:

You write, Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all. That is correct. Cancel culture is a meme, not a reality. It is a right-wing talking point, and I am sorry to see that The Times has fallen for it.

Brian RoseBrooklyn

To the Editor:

Freedom of speech, as provided for in the First Amendment, is the cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. Its meaning and crucial importance to a free society have been and continue to be misunderstood and not sufficiently respected.

The First Amendment limits the power of any government agency to violate the right to generally express oneself, regardless of the content of the view or whether its offensive, politically incorrect or wrong. That means the government is prohibited from determining which views are permitted and which are not.

But the First Amendment does not limit the power of private, nongovernment actors. The private sector, including newspapers, private universities and businesses, have their own rights to free speech but sometimes improperly repress or punish the speech of their employees. The private sector should be encouraged to develop and enforce free expression policies that allow individuals in their employ to express views that are not job-related without fear of retaliation.

Historically, the struggle to achieve justice (e.g., civil rights, womens rights, the labor movement, L.G.B.T.Q.+) has always depended on the right to free speech. As John Lewis said, Without freedom of speech and the right to dissent, the civil rights movement would have been a bird without wings.

Norman SiegelIra GlasserNew YorkThe writers are former executive directors of the New York and American Civil Liberties Unions, respectively.

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion | Is Free Speech Endangered? - The New York Times

To the Editor:

Re Self-Censorship Is Stifling Campuses, by Emma Camp (Opinion guest essay, March 9):

I applaud Ms. Camps essay about the state of intellectual freedom (or the lack thereof) on college campuses in this country.

She accurately and perceptively criticizes the growing trend in academia to promote and enforce an inflexible social ideology that intimidates any student or professor who does not embrace it.

Colleges and universities, instead of being a fertile environment to question, learn and grow, are now teaching our children to be intolerant and judgmental, and to humiliate any who might disagree with the official perspective. And if you happen to be a professor who challenges this dogma, you face disgrace or even termination.

It is a sad state of affairs when our institutions of higher learning are embracing such a biased and disparaging environment that their students feel the need to censor their own thoughts and expressions on campus.

Zealotry serves no one well, regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum.

John M. SingerPortsmouth, N.H.

To the Editor:

I am exceedingly grateful to Emma Camp for expressing an unpopular opinion that must necessarily be harbored (cautiously, on the sly) by countless undergraduate and graduate students. The pressure to bow before majority opinion has indeed become increasingly burdensome.

We might well fear for the state of unbounded, undiluted intellectualism in America. Not only self-censorship, but also censorship from without coercion, intimidation and silencing threatens to transform our once eclectic nation into a tepid, homogeneous whole.

I implore my fellow students to comport themselves boldly and courageously in the face of this ever more fearful prospect. Do not permit your original, piquant ideas and opinions to be rejected out of hand; when enough iconoclasts stand bravely together, tyranny of the majority loses power. One grows tired of hearing the same hyperbolized viewpoints iterated and reiterated ad nauseam.

Collectively, let us attempt to provide balance and restore our fellow citizens to reason and open-mindedness.

Donna SandersNew YorkThe writer is a junior at Columbia University.

To the Editor:

I welcome Emma Camps plea for free speech, but it is important to remember that pressures to censor come from the political right as well as from the left.

With Floridas lawmakers passing a bill that forbids teaching about gender identity and sexual orientation in kindergarten through third grade, teachers and even young children will find they must suppress expression of any comments that offend conservative orthodoxy.

This leads to the stifling of alternative viewpoints, producing what public opinion scholars call a spiral of silence, a phenomenon in which people, fearing isolation or ostracism, decline to offer unpopular but legitimate views, spanning conservative political perspectives in University of Virginia classrooms to gender diversity in Florida elementary schools.

The ensuing silence and self-censorship offend the Enlightenment-based affirmation of free speech and tolerance that animated our greatest social philosophers.

As John Stuart Mill famously wrote, discussing problems bearing on opinion self-censorship, If the opinion is right, [people] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Richard M. PerloffClevelandThe writer, a professor of communication and political science at Cleveland State University, is author of The Dynamics of Political Communication.

To the Editor:

Emma Camp describes experiencing a shift in the demeanor of other students when she raised issues that were disliked. I would hope that in such a situation the professor would say something like: I notice some discomfort with Ms. Camps position. Will one of you please respond. Come on. Speak up!

Then the professor should alternate between sides, commenting as appropriate to bring out the lessons to be learned. I would hope for a parallel reaction from the president and deans with the faculty in times of dissent.

The student newspaper could contribute by publishing both sides: pro on one side of the page and con on the other side. It is the responsibility of the faculty to keep the college safe for debate by encouraging and monitoring the process to keep discussions flowing and nondestructive.

Beth BartholomewSeattle

To the Editor:

To encourage free speech on campus, colleges should expand their existing prohibitions on harassment based on race, sex, etc. to prohibit all harassment, including that based on politics and ideology.

Too many people on and off campus seem to think they can make the world a better place by harassing people who disagree with them.

James G. RussellMidlothian, Va.

To the Editor:

As a lifelong teacher of argumentation and debating, I find myself in agreement with the frustration Emma Camp feels but disagree with the causes. Debate does not come naturally; it is something we have to practice and learn.

Human beings argue as a form of communication, but this is highly personal in its reach. Debate is for people we dont know. We can appreciate a beautiful image with others, but to paint it and hang it before a crowd is a different matter.

Universities across the United States have failed in their obligation to teach debating, which is as important as STEM in creating the thoughtful, intelligent people who will soon lead the world. Debate should be a general education requirement, as Ms. Camp aptly proves.

Stephen M. LlanoQueensThe writer is an associate professor of rhetoric in the communication studies department at St. Johns University.

To the Editor:

Emma Camp provides a clear description of one consequence of the recent culture wars and the passage of anti-woke legislation in multiple states, including mine.

What is also evident is that some professors lack the skill to conduct conversations that give all students space to express their views. Such classroom interaction is how we help students become analytical thinkers, develop appreciation for diverse perspectives and understand the complexity of so many issues.

Instead of letting students pile on one student and triggering self-censorship, educators at all levels need to give students opportunities to carefully consider alternative ideas and possible explanations for them. This is how we learn, how we mature and become effective decision makers.

Jill Lewis-SpectorSarasota, Fla.The writer is emerita professor of literacy education at New Jersey City University and past president of the International Literacy Association.

To the Editor:

I am a retired college professor and a Christian social conservative who values free speech and civil discourse. Emma Camps article speaks to both my head and my heart as she presents a defense of free speech on college campuses.

Although Ms. Camp and I probably disagree politically, I feel that she and I could discuss controversial issues, and each learn from our exchanges. Her discussion about self-censorship by college students and faculty resonates with me; college administrators must ensure that no one on campus must adhere to any particular ideology for fear of retribution.

John C. GardnerOnalaska, Wis.

Continue reading here:
Opinion | Is Freedom of Thought Curbed on Campus? - The New York Times

Controversial legislation on free speech on English campuses has stalled in Parliament due to dwindling political support, some in the sector suggest, although the bills supporters and the Department for Education insist ministers remain committed to new laws.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill had its first reading in the House of Commons in May 2021. Committee stage for the bill concluded in September 2021, but there is still no date for the report stage to start, and the bill is still to be introduced to the House of Lords.

Following the recent announcement that the next session of Parliament will begin on 10 May, the bill, a Tory manifesto commitment, appears to have run out of time in the current parliamentary session. At the end of the 2019-21 session,five bills were carried over so there is technical scope for the bill to continue.For that to happen, a carry-over motion would need to be tabled and approved by the Commons before the end of the current session.

Universitiesarenervous about the potential impact of some of the bills provisions, which include the appointment of a free speech and academic freedom champion to the Office for Students board and enabling individuals to sue institutions for compensation over breaches of strengthened free speech duties.

One factor potentially impacting the bill is Gavin Williamsons sacking as education secretary and replacement by Nadhim Zahawi in September. That left Mr Williamsons former special adviser Iain Mansfield, the chief architect of the free speech bill, with a less influential DfE role as adviser to higher education minister Michelle Donelan.

Meanwhile, Munira Mirza, the former Spiked writer and critic of activist academics, resigned as head of policy in No 10 in February.

Diana Beech, chief executive of London Higher and a former policy adviser to Conservative universities ministers, said it was no surprise that the free speech bill has fallen down the list of the governments priorities and Ms Mirzas exit has left the bill without an obvious champion in the corridors of power.

Other issues on the DfE agenda such as lifelong loans ought to be seen as more of a vote winner than any measures reigniting accusations of culture wars for a government heading into a general election in just two years time, she added.

However, Nigel Biggar, Regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, chair of the Free Speech Union and a prominent advocate for the bill, said: The current stalling of the bill in the House of Commons is regrettable, but sources confirm that the government is committed to revive it in the autumn. It is vital for the promotion of liberal space on campus that it should.

Amid the failure of university authorities to defend staff against vexatious complaints, as well as the authoritarian rolling out of decolonisation policies, the bill would strengthen the arm of dissidents, he added.

A DfE spokesman said: The government remains committed to strengthening freedom of speech in higher education in line with its manifesto and passage of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will continue as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Nick Hillman, Higher Education Policy Institute director, said the bill does seem to have lost some of its momentum since Mr Williamsons exit. But he noted that Ms Donelan still talks about it, as in herspeech to the Conservative party spring conferencethis month.

So I wouldnt write its obituary yet, Mr Hillman said.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

Go here to read the rest:
England's campus free speech bill stalls - Times Higher Education

The Details

Eligibility

Open to juniors and seniors in U.S. high schools, including home-schooled students, as well as U.S. citizens attending high school overseas. Additional questions regarding eligibility may be emailed to essaycontest@thefire.org.

Word Length

Students must submit an essay between 700 and 900 words on the provided topic below.

Deadline

FIRE must receive all entries by 11:59 EST, December 31, 2021. Winners will be announced by February 15, 2022.

Scholarship Prizes

One $10,000 first prize, one $5,000 second prize, three $1,000 third place prizes and four $500 prizes will be awarded.

Get to know us! The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of consciencethe essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. In addition to defending the rights of students and faculty, FIRE works to educate students and the general public on the necessity of free speech and its importance to a thriving democratic society.

The freedom of speech, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, is a foundational American right. Nowhere is that right more important than on our college campuses, where the free flow of ideas and the clash of opposing views advance knowledge and promote human progress. It is on our college campuses, however, where some of the most serious violations of free speech occur, and where students are regularly censored simply because their expression might offend others.

In a persuasive letter or essay, convince your peers that free speech is a better idea than censorship.

Your letter or essay must be between 700-900 words. We encourage you to draw from current events, historical examples, our free speech comic, other resources on FIREs website, and/or your own personal experiences.

Note: While there is no required format for your submission, many entrants use MLA guidelines. Successful entries will show an understanding of the importance of free speech and the pitfalls of censorship. You may use in-text citations, and do not need to include a References or Works Cited page. Essays that do not address the prompt question or fail to meet the word-count requirements will not be considered. View the essays of some of our past winners here!

Entering this essay contest constitutes agreement to having your name and essay published on FIREs website if you are selected as a winner. FIRE reserves the right to make minor edits to winning essays before publication on our website.

The contest will reopen in September 2022.

Here is the original post:
Free Speech Essay Contest - FIRE