Category Archives: Free Speech

About 15 people signed up to speak at Thursdays Board of Education meeting at CMS. Many parents voiced opposition to proposed policy 9325 which would reduce allotted time for speakers from 3 minutes to 2, limit public hearing to an hour and hold remaining comments to the end of the meeting.

The policy falls under Meeting Conduct in the Boards bylaws.

Since the start of the pandemic, there have been numerous speakers during public comment, and the two minute limit would allow more people to speak.

During Thursdays public hearing portion of the meeting, there were comments on policy 9325, as well as the practice of teachers bringing students outdoors for lunch in winter.

Also, there were comments that have come up previously, including complaints about use of federal funding, children being required to wear masks in school and social-emotional learning curriculum.

Jackie Homan suggested time limits was shorten because the Board didnt want to listen to certain opinions.

You dont want to hear about medical freedom from parents who have come here month after month to plead with you to change blatantly discriminatory Covid policies, and to beg you to start following the science instead of blindly adhering to the false belief and that a piece of fabric stops an airborne virus. It doesnt, said Homan, who has a medical exemption from the mask mandate.

Homan continued, You seem to have adopted another policy for Covid, one I dont recall coming to a vote. This is the policy that requires young children to eat outside in 28 weather with 30MPH winds. Who made that policy decision?

Lastly, she asked, (Are) masks, testing or vaccine strings are tied to the ESSER III (federal) money?

Carl Higbie, a North Mianus School parent, said he was unhappy that his child had eaten lunch outdoors earlier in the week.

I find out that kids, including my daughter, are outside in 30 weather, in 37MPH winds, having lunch. This is completely intolerable.There was a small craft advisory warning on the day she was eating outside, sitting on the ground. Its January in Connecticut, not Miami.

Not voted on here. Just arbitrary policy, he added. There is no mechanism for dialogue in these meetings. Im asking who is at fault and who is going to be punished for it? How about we move your desk outside into the courtyard for the rest of the year? Im good with that. You dont seem too thrilled about it. And you shouldnt be, because its dumb. Just as dumb as the kids eating outside.

Higbie noted that teachers eat indoors and attend professional development without masks.

My kids gotta have this thing strapped to his face like a diaper all day. They go outside for five seconds they get yelled at to put it back on during recess.

I swear to God, if my kids going to be eating outside for one more day, its going to be real bad for you guys, Higbie added.

Another NMS parent, Susan Diana, said she wanted to provide a counter point. She thanked the NMS principal, vice principal and the entire teaching staff, noting they had kept children safe during the pandemic, dealt with the ceiling collapse at the school and necessity to relocate half the students to another location for the first half of the year.

We must not let the toxicity that is spewed in these meetings permeate our school, she continued. Im here to represent the majority of Greenwich parents to say thank you.

James Waters, a North Mianus parent and strong advocate for public schools, said in an email Friday morning, I think our community is tired of hearing the same small handful of people whining at Board of Education meetings. They speak loudly but carry small sticks, peddling false information gleaned from fringe websites, and sadly have now destroyed their own credibility. The rest of us are rolling up our sleeves and helping affect positive change while they howl at the moon. I feel sorry for them and hope theyll find a more productive way to make our community better going forward.

As an example, several people texted me about how sad it was that Mr. Higbie, a former Navy SEAL, was up there whining about the temperature in January, after having harassed the North Mianus principal during the day, when pretty much every other parent in the class he was referring to was completely fine with the school leaderships judgment.

Others who opposed the new public comment policy included Kristen Niemynski, who said the board should add opportunities for parents to speak out.

Instead of becoming more restrictive, the BOE should add a public speaking meeting or town hall every month where they give parents two to three hours to voice any concerns in a Q&A session, she suggested.

She went on to say, We do not want social justice and political issues embedded in the curriculum, Niemynski said. You are creating stress, anxiety, depression, feelings of isolation and segregation with your policies, and then you spend funding and steer everything toward social and emotional learning to fix the very problems your policies are causing.

Elizabeth Hopley said the public comment policy would give too much authority to the board chair.

There are a lot of very smart people in this room and in this town. If you ignore them its only to your detriment. Theyre here to inform and help you. And inform you they have, meeting after meeting, warning you of the harm being inflicted on children due to mask mandates, quarantines and coercive actions to promote Covid vaccines.

She said the district was practicing medicine without a license.

Roger Rosenthal made similar comments.

I have previously spoken against teaching our children to hate the country and themselves, as either oppressors or victims. Ive also spoken against the speaking of untruthsIve spoken about the importance of freedom of choice, including the ability to make the wrong decisions. Ive made them myself. I did get vaxxed and boostered, under pressure from my millennial sons. But they did tell me, Its your choice, and I made it.

Rosenthal said the board needed to be more accountable.

Last October, someone on the board mentioned theres no link between federal funding and any actions to be taken. Thats a false statement, he said. Its a bribe to go woke.

RTC chair, and Greenwich schools parent, Dan Quigley, thanked the board and administration.

Although we have seen school boards become politicized nationally, each of you deserves our respect for your service during these unique and difficult times, he said.

Dr. Jones, Im grateful for your steadfastness in keeping our kids in school. Most of the other superintendents in surrounding areas did not. This has, in my opinion, been the most important decision made during the pandemic, and its biggest beneficiaries are the children of the public school system.

The topic of students eating outdoors in winter came up again.

NMS parent Graeme Fattedad asked why children couldnt eat in their classrooms rather than sit on the floor in the hallway or outdoors? He said in response to his complaint, his daughter was given the option of eating indoors in the cafeteria, but other children didnt have the same choice.

On Tuesday, my daughters class was sent outside to eat lunch. It was 33 weather, with a 25MPH wind. Real feel 22F, Fattedad said. At what point is the risk of these children contracting Pneumonia supersede Covid? What about the dangers of falling branches or falling ice when children are we going to be worried about kids safety.

These are children, not dogs, and to be fair, my dog gets to eat inside. These children are being treated like criminals, he said, describing the situation as a prison mentality.

Board member Karen Kowalski asked about current practice of bringing children outdoors for lunch when its cold out.

Dr. Jones said there was no set policy, but rather common sense decisions made daily at the building level. She said when it is above freezing, children have always gone outdoors.

If children want to go outside, and generally when it is above freezing children do go outside, parents send them in coats and gloves. If for some reason they didnt have what they needed to be outside, the teacher wouldnt just take them outside.

Jones said a variety of outdoor spaces are utilized at lunchtime.

Do we want to take them out if its 30? No. And the children were not out in 30 weather. It was around 34 or 35 around 1:30 in the afternoonthey were inside a courtyard where you really cant feel the wind. There arent big icicles to fall on their heads.

Understand the teacher is there with them, she continued. Our teachers dont want to be outside if its really so cold its uncomfortableKids like to be outside. These teachers there were several of them who played outside that day and felt it was very comfortable.

BOE member Karen Kowalski said there was a difference between playing outside at recess with gloves on, versus eating ourdoors.

Why is the classroom not an option? she asked.

It is an option, Jones said. Teachers all across the district eat in classrooms. In a building referenced tonight, they dont use their cafeteria for lunch, they use the gymThere is a rotation. Its not the same every single day.

BOE member Joe Kelly said there should be more explicit rules about eating outdoors.

BOE member Karen Hirsh said while there was no policy, if parents knew their children might be eating outdoors, they could send them to school with warmer clothing.

This might be something that should be communicated to parents, she said.

It seems like a particularly poor example of judgement, said BOE member Cody Kittle. What should be done from an accountability standpoint?

It was not 30 and there was not a 30(mph) windchill, Dr. Jones said. We had several teachers who chose to eat in the courtyard on that particular day. We can certainly review that. But to say, a teachers poor judgement, when we werent there. The principal could see the courtyard.

I dont think that we stood in a place to be able to judge when we were not there, Jones continued. The principal has received other emails from parents who do not agree with the viewpoint presented tonight.

Dr. Jones said she would talk to the elementary school principals about eating outdoors and follow up.

The schools budget will be presented to the BET on Jan 25 via Zoom, with public comment invited live and in writing.

See the original post here:
BOE Public Comment Focuses on Free Speech, Students Eating Outdoors in the Cold - Greenwich Free Press

Editors note: This story appeared in theJanuary 2022 edition ofThe Daily Universe Magazine.

A small monument in an obscure park in Pleasant Grove, Utah, ignited a Supreme Court case on the clash between the free speech of private citizens and messages promoted by the government. The echoes are still being felt today in cases involving the maintaining or removal of Confederate monuments.

In the landmark 2009 case Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, a unanimous Court ruled a Ten Commandments monument in Pleasant Groves Pioneer Park as government speech instead of private speech. The decision also made it so the government could selectively choose which messages are memorialized in monuments in public parks.

Summum, a small religious sect based in Salt Lake City, brought a lawsuit against the city of Pleasant Grove for displaying the monument, and for declining a request to display a monument of Summums Seven Aphorisms.

The precedent from that case is being invoked in courtrooms across the Southeastern United States in battles over Confederate monuments.

According to a 2020 article in the Kentucky Law Journal by scholar Richard C. Schragger, the Pleasant Grove case could enable cities that want to get rid of Confederate monuments to overrule their state legislatures demands that the monuments stay. At the same time, cities that want to keep the monuments could oppose efforts to the contrary by claiming the monuments are government speech and their presence cannot be challenged under the First Amendment.

Schragger recorded that more than 1,000 Confederate monuments exist in the United States. Three of them sit in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a clash between groups of protesters in 2017 brought attention to ongoing issues of racial injustice. Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee and other states attempted to pass legislation so that cities in those states could not remove the monuments.

In the Pleasant Grove case, Summum claimed the Aphorisms are part of the higher law initially given to Moses on Mount Sinai before he was given the Ten Commandments. They include statements like Nothing rests; everything moves, everything vibrates and Summum is mind, thought; the universe is a mental creation. Practices of the religion, founded in 1975 by Claude Corky Newell, include the Egyptian-inspired practice of mummification and meditation on the aphorisms.

Summum argued that because the city of Pleasant Grove denied their request to erect their Seven Aphorisms monument, the city was inhibiting their free speech, and discriminating in favor of the Christian religion. The Tenth Circuit court agreed, reversing an initial decision made by a district court, saying that because public parks are public forums, the government was not allowed to accept a request to place one monument and deny a request to place another.

The Supreme Court reversed the decision again, unanimously deciding that monuments are government speech, and the government has the right to choose which messages take up limited space in public parks. The Ten Commandments Monument, donated by an organization with longstanding ties to the community and representing the historical pioneer heritage of the area, did not need to be removed and the Summum monument was not required to be accepted.

The Court argued that though activities like distributing leaflets or giving talks in a public park are protected under the free speech clause, the same protection does not extend to monuments.

I mean, you have a Statue of Liberty; do we have to have a statue of despotism? Chief Justice John Roberts asked during the oral arguments in favor of Summum. Or do we have to put any president who wants to be on Mount Rushmore?

Pamela Harris, the lawyer presenting oral argument for Summum, saidPleasant Grove should issue a statement publicly claiming that the monument was the official speech of the city, if the Ten Commandments monument was indeed government speech. Justice Samuel Alito pushed back.

If somebody came up to you and said Id like to put up a monument in your front yard, and you said sure go ahead, do that, arent you accepting that, whatever the monument says, in a sense? Similarly, the judges decided a monument in a public park was government speech. The city of Pleasant Grove won the case 9-0.

What is government speech?

Government speech, the ability of the government to not merely regulate speech but also to participate in it, is a relatively recent development in First Amendment jurisprudence. It began in 1990 with the case Rust v. Sullivan, when the Court ruled that if the government is the speaker, it cant be found guilty of First Amendment violations such as viewpoint discrimination. Traditionally the governments role has been to protect the speech of those who are marginalized, not to void speech by participating in the conversation itself.

The ability of government speech may not always be a negative thing: In 2003, the infamous Reverend Fred Phelps wanted to erect a statue of Matthew Shepard, the gay University of Wyoming student who was tortured and murdered, in a historic plaza in Casper, Wyoming. The epitaph would say: Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998 According to the government speech doctrine, the city of Casper is free to decline Phelps request.

Government speech means that not everyone will have a monument in a public park and indeed, some organizations like Summum, with little representation in a city like Pleasant Grove, may not but it also means the statues that are memorialized will supposedly be representative of the entire city.

However, government speech is also extremely broad and at times difficult to distinguish from private speech.

In Rust, government speech involved the ability of government-funded healthcare workers to recommend abortion, but Summum said privately donated monuments on government property constituted government speech. A later case, Texas v. Walker Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans, said privately-sponsored images on government-issued license plates were government speech.

As legal scholar Helen Norton noted, government speech goes beyond the easily-recognizable State of the Union address and congressional resolutions government speech is also Smoky Bear, warning us that Only you can prevent wildfires.

The Transparency Principle

BYU law professor John Fee said problems with accountability can arise when the government initially doesnt claim a message as their own speech, but then later claims government speech when they get sued, in order to protect itself from free speech claims.

In the case of Pleasant Grove, Fee said the city may have been reluctant to claim the Ten Commandments monument as government speech because of concerns with the Establishment Clause, but chose to do so after Summum brought the lawsuit.

You dont want a government thats trying to have it both ways, where they are essentially creating a forum that is available to some people, but if they get sued, their lawyers simply claim government speech, Fee said.

Fee said if government is upfront about when it is speaking, citizens will know whom to hold accountable. Norton calls this the transparency principle and argues that if individuals know when the government is speaking, they can hold the government accountable for the messages it chooses to promote by using the political process.

Under this transparency principle, the government is not free to claim the government speech defense to a First Amendment challenge unless it has made the contested messages governmental source clear to the public, Norton said.

Application to Confederate and other monuments

Claiming the government is violating the Free Speech clause by allowing some statues in public parks and not others (for example, Confederate generals rather than Civil Rights heroes) is unlikely to work, based on the ruling of Pleasant Grove. The city will likely make the government speech claim and exempt itself from free speech clause scrutiny.

This is why Fee says the transparency principle becomes important: If city and state governments are transparent about whether memorials constitute messages from government officials or private individuals, citizens can take action. They know where to apply political pressure. In cases of government speech, people can vote public servants out of office when they promote messages the citizenry finds offensive.

If the transparency principle is applied, Fee said government speech doctrine as laid down by the Supreme Court, has the potential to make government more responsible to the desires and preferences of its citizens, because city and state governments will have to own the messages they promote.

Pay attention to what messages your own government is sending and take responsibility for those, Fee said. Speech is powerful, and government speech is powerful. Ultimately, its in the control of the people, and we are responsible for the content of whatever the government speaks.

See the original post:
Case stemming from Utah County 'Ten Commandments' monument now being invoked in Confederate statue disputes - The Daily Universe - Universe.byu.edu

Should a teacher be allowed to place a Black Lives Matter sticker on their desk to let students know they oppose racism, or hang a Pride flag from their door to let their LGBTQ students know the classroom is a safe space?

Or are those actions another way for teachers to politically influence and divide students?

Across the country in recent months, board members, administrators, and teachers have been at odds over the express purpose of Black Lives Matter logos and Pride flags and what free speech rights teachers have when it comes to decorating their classrooms.

Dozens of educators across the country have recently been asked and ordered to take down stickers, posters, banners, and flags containing those symbols, according to media reports.

One such district is Newberg, Ore., where a school communitys divided opinions on whether Pride flags and Black Lives Matter symbols are signs of support for historically marginalized students or political and inflammatory symbols has resulted in multiple lawsuits, a superintendents firing, protests, and, most recently, board member recall elections.

Elsewhere, districts in Indiana, Nevada, and Utah have all banned teachers from displaying the Pride flag or Black Lives Matter symbols, or both, in schools since November 2020.

In September 2020, a teacher in Texas was fired after she refused to stop wearing her Black Lives Matter face mask, CBS Austin reported.

Last fall, a teacher in Iowa was put on administrative leave after he included the Pride flag in a presentation about images that described him and told students when asked that he was bisexual, according to the Des Moines Register.

And in September 2021, a teacher in Missouri resigned after being forced to take down a Pride flag in his classroom and forced to sign a letter prohibiting him from discussing sexuality or sexual preference, according to USA Today.

In Newberg, the uproar started when school board members issued a directive at an August 2021 meeting ordering the superintendent to enforce removal of all Black Lives Matter and Pride flag posters, banners, stickers, pins, and clothing from school buildings.

A month later, the board scrapped the policy based on legal advice and passed a new iteration which banned all symbols that can be considered political, quasi-political, or controversial.

Weve hijacked a beautiful rainbow sticker into something different. It is political, Newberg school board chair Dave Brown, who voted for the ban, said during a school board meeting last summer. These things are dividing our schools.

The districts teachers union, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, has sued, calling the ban arbitrary, confusing and an infringement on teachers free speech. Andrew Gallagher, a high school history teacher and a plaintiff in the teachers union lawsuit, said that he believes the board members agenda is driven by a national movement to censor conversations about race and gender in the classroom.

The vagueness around the definitions of controversial and political have caused confusion among educators, Gallagher said.

Whos going to be the arbiter of what is considered controversial? he said. And it creates a chilling effect for our staff, which does impede on our free speech.

At the August board meeting, several parents urged the board to reconsider the directive, but a few were in support of the ban on Black Lives Matter and Pride flags.

Newberg parent Raquel Peregrino de Britoa said LGBTQ propaganda causes gender dysphoria, BLM is designed to be divisive and schools should instead be about math and reading.

There are only two genders and all lives matter, she said during a school board meeting in August, according to a recording. The BLM and LGBTQ ideology and curriculum are shattering the innocence of children, promoting racial divide, and negatively impacting the lives of our kids forever.

Generally speaking, teachers have few rights when it comes to free speech in the classroom, said, Richard Geisel, a lawyer and professor of educational leadership at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. A school board has the right to tell teachers what they can or cant do if its trying to eliminate disruption to learning, assuming the boards policies come from a neutral perspective, he said.

In Newbergs case, the first policy the school board passed in August 2021 that specifically banned rainbow flags and Black Lives Matter symbols would likely have been discriminatory, Geisel said.

If their policy just singles out certain viewpoints and is not generally applicable, thats problematic, he said.

Its newest policy that bans political or controversial symbols might be much harder to challenge, Geisel said.

I think its pretty typical to go into a public school these days and find those symbols for those express purposes, of helping all students feel included and welcome, Geisel said. But to what extent are they both messages of inclusion, as well as potentially political statements? I dont know the answer to that. Its going to be interesting for the court to wrestle with that.

For students of color and LGBTQ students, who disproportionately experience discrimination in school buildings, symbols such as a Black Lives Matter poster or a Pride flag can be useful tools for navigating their social and physical surroundings, according to Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, the interim executive director of GLSEN, an LGBTQ awareness and inclusion advocacy group.

LGBTQ students experience stronger academic outcomes as well as more positive emotional and mental health outcomes when schools are inclusive and affirming, Willingham-Jaggers said.

And its visible displays of support for LGBTQ students like Pride flags [that] are all critical components of creating a kind of welcoming environment that helps young people be successful in schools, she said.

The Black Lives Matter hashtag is perceived by many educators to serve a similar function. It was created in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martins murderer, George Zimmerman. The movement gained traction as Black Lives Matter became the rallying cry of protests against police brutality across the country that followed George Floyds murder in 2020.

Its really only controversial if you think that if you believe in white supremacy, Willingham-Jaggers said. If only white folks belong in our schools and only white folks need to be comfortable or have their identity affirmed, a Pride flag and BLM poster disrupts that comfort.

The two symbols can become flashpoints in communities already divided.

Newbergs school board, student activists and teachers has been at loggerheads over the last two years over how to fight racism and homophobia within the district.

The communty had already dealt with incidents including a white Newberg teacher who showed up to school in blackface and a student who posted racial slurs and homophobic comments to a Snapchat group called Slave Trade.

In 2020, Newberg passed two resolutions condemning racism and promising to make all students feel welcome. For the rest of the school year, teachers displayed rainbow flags or Black Lives Matter posters without disruption to the education environment, the Newberg Education Association lawsuit said.

As the 2021 school year began, however, four board memberstwo of them newly electedpushed to ban Pride flags and Black Lives Matter symbols in Newberg schools. After two months of fierce debate between board members and the school community, the four board members passed the ban in a 4-3 vote and issued a directive to the superintendent to make sure all flags, banners, posters and stickers associated with Black Lives Matter and Pride were removed from Newberg schools.

Some community members organized rallies protesting the ban. They built plywood Pride flags and Black Lives Matter signs and displayed them on a hill within view of Newberg High School. They continued voicing dissent at board meetings, but the ban stayed.

Some building leaders, such as District Mountainview principal Terry McElligot were already making changes in their buildings. The principal told a school counselor to take down the Pride flag in the counseling office, according to the lawsuit. The next day, at a staff meeting, the lawsuit said she told her employees I dont want any of you telling students its ok to be gay or trans.

The district did not respond to requests for comment.

In September, Superintendent Joe Morelock informed the board, after consulting with the school attorney, that enforcing the ban would be unconstitutional. The board then rescinded the directive and issued a new policy, this time the blanket ban on anything political, quasi-political or controversial, without offering much explanation as to what that might entail.

Two months later, Morelock was fired. Many in the Newberg community protested again. The teachers union filed its lawsuit, and a recall effort for the chair and vice chair of the board was initiated. Both board members did not respond to requests for comment.

Currently, the town is the site of prolonged protests by those who believe the values represented by the Black Lives Matter posters and Pride flags have a place in Newberg.

Some teachers still hang those flags on their classroom doors, according to Brandy Penner, a board member who has spoken out against the ban since the first board discussion.

Local business owners display these symbols in their businesses to show their solidarity to Black, brown and LGBTQ students and teachers.

But as the fate of both the ACLU and the teachers association lawsuits remains uncertain, the ban on political symbols stays.

It has now transcended this cultural war of pride and BLM to be more like, no, but who are we as a community? Penner said. It is asinine to think you can suppress people to a point where they will no longer be able to express their Pride.

See more here:
Pride Flags and Black Lives Matter Signs in the Classroom: Supportive Symbols or Propaganda? - Education Week

A bill aimed at punishing colleges and universities for violating free speech and academic freedom rules set by Republicans has passed a legislative committee by a party-line vote. This comes after a GOP author amended the legislation to remove provisions that were potentially unconstitutional.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Rachel Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, and Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, bars technical colleges and universities from enforcing time, place or other restrictions on free speech events happening anywhere on campus except classrooms.

The legislation also requires colleges to survey students annually about First Amendment rights, academic freedom, whether they feel there is perceived political bias at their school or the "campus culture promotes self-censorship."

If anyone feels a college or university violated their rights, the bill allows them, a district attorney or state attorney general to sue the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents or a technical college district board. If a judge rules against a college, the court must award a minimum of $500 in damages and a maximum of $100,000 in damages to plaintiffs.

In addition to financial penalties, if a school violates the bill's regulations, it will be required to notify incoming students that it has "violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes."

The bill passed by the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday looked different from the original legislation introduced Dec. 2.

An amendment offered by Rep. Cabral-Guevara removed aspects that were potentially unconstitutional, including a provision that would have allowed legislative committees, like her own, to rule on alleged violations. The amendment also removed a proposal to block state grant funding for scholarships from going to schools found to have violated free speech rights.

Stay informed with WPR's email newsletter.

During a Dec. 8 public hearing on the bill, an attorney with the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council said lawmakers giving themselves judicial authority "very well could be subject to separation of powers issues" and that "it's kind of questionable" whether a legislative committee could restrict financial aid to colleges.

During a meeting of the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday, Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point, said the legislation is unnecessary because First Amendment protections already exist at the federal and state level. She also pointed to a 2017 UW Board of Regents policy that punishes students for repeatedly violating free speech rights of others.

"So, at the end of the day, I do think at least some of the bill authors were more interested in putting forward a bill that was designed to be political and furnish political talking points during the year 2022, to which you can conclude pretty reasonably that it has more to do with outside the building politics than it certainly does within making laws," said Shankland.

Cabral-Guevara pushed back, saying the legislation is needed due to genuine concerns from constituents who said they feel campus environments stifle free speech rights of conservative students or teachers.

"I hope that students and instructors will have a platform in the future, no matter what side you stand on and where you stand, to speak freely their passions and their desires (and) their concerns on the campuses that are supported here in Wisconsin," said Cabral-Guevara.

State Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, said the majority of professors and instructors at state colleges are "great, great people."

"But there are some that are abusing their position where they're supposed to be encouraging free thought and open discussions," said Moses.

Read more from the original source:
GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward - Wisconsin Public Radio News

Jeff BezosJeffrey (Jeff) Preston BezosFree speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace Space: One important thing that might retain bipartisan focus Virtual realities may solve Fermi's paradox about extraterrestrials MORE has always told his staff tostart with the customer and work backward. That could now change in a dispute betweenAmazon-owned Whole Foods and both Black Lives Matter and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). NLRB lawyers are arguing that Whole Foods must allow workers to wearBlack Lives Matter masks at work, suggesting in effect that Bezos should start with the worker and work forward by allowing them to advocate for social change. The company is arguing that such a rule would constitute a violation of its own free speech rights.

Whole Foods is fighting for the right to maintain a workplace free of political slogans or demonstrations.

In herconsolidated complaintagainst Whole Foods Market, Inc., San Francisco Regional Director Jill Coffman declared that the company is violating the rights of workers in 10 different states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Washington, Indiana, and California). Coffman maintained that through this complaint, we hope to enforce the Act and protect workers rights to speak up about these important issues.

The problem is that there are speech interests on both sides.

The complaint also highlights an increasingly incomprehensible position on corporate speech for many on the left. Democraticpoliticians(includingPresident Biden) have called for more censorship and interventions from social media corporations to protect customers from their owndangerous proclivities in reading material.When some of us have objected to such censorship,advocates have insistedthat these private companies have every right to limit speech under the First Amendment.Of course, the First Amendment argument in support of corporate censorship ignores that the amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. These companies, and their government supporters, have created the largest system of censorship in history and its impact on political and social speech is enormous.

Given that support for corporate censorship, you would think that Whole Foods would have support in limiting speech for its actual workers. Its not censoring its customers, but rather keeping the company neutral on political issues as customers shop for wild caught salmon or organic avocados.

Whole Foods, it seems, does not want to follow social media companies like Twitter and effectively write off whole groups within its customer base.

In claiming workers have the right "to speak up about these important issues, the NLRB complaint does not grapple with the obvious problem: Can employees wear "Blue Lives Matter" or pro-life or pro-choice masks? How about Proud Boy or MAGA masks?

This week, American Airlinesissued a public apologyfor a pilot who had aLets Go Brandonsticker on his personal luggage. If the pilot had a BLM sticker, would the NLRB consider it protected?

The NLRB complaint also does not state if workers can wear hats or other garments to proclaim political viewpoints. Some companies like McDonalds require actual uniforms. Would those uniforms now be subject to important messaging by workers or do companies like Whole Foods have to require actual uniforms to prevent divisive messaging?

Finally, if workers can wear items espousing political viewpoints, can they demonstrate in other ways? Can they say their piece or take a knee at Starbucks before handing over a doubleFrappuccino? The complaint really does not say. It just wants BLM masks to be protected but does not address the slippery slope that such a rule creates.

The fact is that many customers and companies may support the principle of black lives matter, but not the organization. Indeed, Whole Foods might object that BLM called upon customersto boycott Whole Foods and other "white-owned" businessesrecently. Others object to theMarxist viewsof some of the BLM founders, theanti-police rhetoric, or apparentquestioning the nuclear family.

The controversy raises obvious comparisons to the NFL controversy. While widely debated among fans and commentators,there was not a credible argument that players had a "right"to demonstrate at the workplace any more than Whole Foods workers could periodically demonstrate in the middle of the store on any political issue.

The Supreme Court has pushed back on federal agencies trying to regulate speech. In 2017, inMatal v. Tam,eight of nine justices rejected the use of the Lanham Act's disparagement clause to bar the trademarking of a name considered offensive. The question in the Whole Foods case is whether the government can require companies to allow speech deemed unacceptable or offensive.

Last February, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughsdismissedsuch a challenge involving a Whole Foods in Cambridge, Mass., after employees claimed that the company was selectively enforcing its dress code by banning "Black Lives Matter" face masks. In heropinion, Burroughs found that this long-standing policy was not strictly enforced until recently, including instances where employees wore "LGBTQ+ messaging, National Rifle Association (NRA) messaging, the anarchist symbol, the phrase 'Lock Him Up' and other non-Whole Foods messaging," including a SpongeBob SquarePants mask. The Court ruled that these allegations did not amount to race-based discrimination under Title VII and the law does not protect free speech in a private workplace.

The position of the NLRB would negate corporate policies requiring uniformity in appearance and apolitical workplace environments. Whole Foods wants customers to focus on produce, not politics. Employees can cover their cars with slogans and engage in any protests outside of work. However, Whole Foods has every right to dictate the appearance of its stores and staff.

There is an inescapable irony in targeting this corporation despite its$10 million in donations to social justicecauses and groups.The Whole Foods, Whole People, Whole Planet slogan highlights the common ground with its clientele. Of course, what constitutes good produce is not without some political elements. Whole Foods, for example, markets its selection of food fromindigenous groups and local farms. Those causes, however, are tied to how food is raised and where it comes from.

It is not surprising that the company wants to reinforce common interests in organic food rather than contemporary politics. It remains focused on produce-related causes.

What is surprising is that the NLRB would radically alter the right of companies to make such decisions in the appearance and messaging in the workplace.

That, of course, could change the minute an NLRB lawyer shows up wearing a MAGA hat.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter@JonathanTurley.

See the original post here:
Free speech, Whole Foods, and the endangered apolitical workplace | TheHill - The Hill

It is important that specific and durable legislative provisions be enacted to combat hate speech

The rising frequency of hate speech in India has not gone unnoticed. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition on the events organised by the Hindu Yuva Vahini in Delhi and by Yati Narsinghanand in Haridwar on December 17 and 19, 2021, respectively, wherein calls to violence were made against Muslims. But the laws dealing with hate speech are ineffective and deficient. So, the Supreme Court has been asked to review hate speech laws and various High Courts have been called upon to provide interpretation of ingredients of hate speech. The lack of clear legislative guidance has meant that we are seeing discordant judicial outcomes. Nevertheless, this growing incidence of hate speeches, especially those targeting minorities, in combination with the judicial ambiguity has provided an opportunity to chart legislative reforms.

Hate speech is neither defined in the Indian legal framework nor can it be easily reduced to a standard definition due to the myriad forms it can take. Blacks Law Dictionary has defined it as speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. Building on this, the Supreme Court, in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), described hate speech as an effort to marginalise individuals based on their membership in a group and one that seeks to delegitimise group members in the eyes of the majority, reducing their social standing and acceptance within society.

Editorial | Striking fear: On Haridwar hate speech and legal action

The current legislative set-up has several provisions to criminalise offences which can be characterised as hate speech. The High Court of Karnataka, in Campaign Against Hate Speech v. The State of Karnataka (2020), was of the opinion that the Indian Penal Code illegalises speeches that are intended to promote enmity or prejudice the maintenance of harmony between different classes. Specifically, sections of the IPC, such as 153A, which penalises promotion of enmity between different groups; 153B, which punishes imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration; 505, which punishes rumours and news intended to promote communal enmity, and 295A, which criminalises insults to the religious beliefs of a class by words with deliberate or malicious intention, contribute to combating hate speeches. The Supreme Court has upheld the view that the objective behind such provisions is to check fissiparous communal and separatist tendencies and secure fraternity so as to ensure the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation.

The Supreme Court, in State of Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004), emphasised the need to sustain communal harmony to ensure the welfare of the people. In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan case, the Supreme Court underlined the impact hate speech can have on the targeted groups ability to respond and how it can be a stimulus to further attacks.

The Madras High Court has on several instances dealt with the issue of hate speech, characterising it as small spark capable of merely lighting a lamp to destroying a forest. In G. Thirumurugan Gandhi v. State (2019), the Madras High Court explained that hate speeches cause discord between classes and that responsibility attached to free speech should not be forgotten. Summing up these legal principles, in Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court held that hate speech has no redeeming or legitimate purpose other than hatred towards a particular group.

Despite judicial guidance from the Amish Devgan case, uncertainty around interpretation of hate speech has resulted in the adoption of varying standards. The Madras High Court, in Maridhas v. State (2021), quashed an FIR alleging hate speech involving targeting of minorities by holding that the YouTuber is entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and distinguished this case from the application of the Who? What? Where? test laid down in the Amish Devgan case. Per contra, the Madras High Court, in the case of Fr. P. George Ponnaiah v. Inspector of Police (2022), gave no relief to the petitioner by holding him to be a person of influence. By doing so, the High Court has failed to appreciate that a YouTuber with more than 4 lakh subscribers and a periodic record of publishing motivated content would have more influence than a priest with a limited audience from an isolated incident. It is trite that statements made by persons with influence having the mere likelihood of breach of peace have to be construed to constitute hate speech.

Unfortunately, divergent decisions from constitutional courts expose the lack of established legal standards in defining hate speech, especially those propagated via the digital medium.

The Law Commission of India, in its 267th report, recommended the insertion of two new provisions to criminalise and punish the propagation of hate speech: Section 153C and Section 505A of IPC. Section 153C was drafted to cover an offence committed when any person uses threatening words which are intended to cause fear, or commends hatred for the purpose of inducing violence through words, spoken or written, visible representation or signs on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex, gender identity and other characteristics. Section 505A was to include provisions penalising causing of fear, alarm, or provocation of violence. Furthermore, the 189th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs, in 2015, recommended the incorporation of separate and specific provisions in the Information Technology Act to deal with online hate speech. None of the recommendations have been acted upon and this has partly given rise to ambiguity in construing hate speech by various constitutional courts.

Much of the existing penal provisions deal with hate speech belong to the pre-Internet era. The need of the hour is specialised legislation that will govern hate speech propagated via the Internet and, especially, social media. Reference can be drawn to the Australian federal law called the Criminal Code Amendment Act, 2019, which imposes liability upon Internet service providers if such persons are aware that any abhorrent violent material, which is defined to include material that a reasonable man would regard as offensive, is accessible through the service provided by them.

Editorial | Incorporating limits: On IPC and hate speech

Action commonly taken against modern-day hate speeches have a whack-a-mole effect wherein the underlying objective of inciting communal disharmony or hatred, despite the detention of the offender, survives through digital or social media platforms for eternity. Thus, taking cue from best international standards, it is important that specific and durable legislative provisions that combat hate speech, especially that which is propagated online and through social media, is enacted by amending the IPC and the Information Technology Act. Ultimately, this would be possible only when hate speech is recognised as a reasonable restriction to free speech.

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is Advocate, Madras High Court and Spokesperson, DMK. Inputs for the article were provided by Thiyagarajan B.

Read the original post:
Hate speech in the time of free speech - The Hindu

Professor Chris Frost, the former head of journalism at Liverpool John Moores University, told Index of the importance of allowing every individual view to be heard, and that those who fear taking onopposing ideas and seek to silence or no-platform should consider that it is their ideas that may be wrong. He said: If someones views or policies are that appalling then they need to be challenged in public for fear they will, as a prejudice, capture support for lack of challenge. If we are unable to defeat our opponents arguments then perhaps it is us that is wrong.

I would also be concerned at the fascism of a majority (or often a minority) preventing views from being spoken in public merely because they dont like them and find them difficult to counter. Whether it is through violence or the abuse of power such as no-platform we should always fear those who seek to close down debate and impose their view, right or wrong. They are the tyrants. We need to hear many truths and live many experiences in order to gain the wisdom to make the right and justified decisions.

Free speech has been the topic of many debates in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. The terrorist attack on the satirical magazines Paris office, in January 2015, has led to many questioning whether free speech is used as an excuse to be offensive.

Many world leaders spoke out in support of Charlie Hebdo and the hashtag #Jesuischarlie was used worldwide as an act of solidarity. However, the hashtag also faced some criticism as those who denounced the attacks but also found the magazines use of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed offensive instead spoke out on Twitter with the hashtag#Jenesuispascharlie.

After the city was the victim of another terrorist attack at the hands of ISIS at the Bataclan Theatre in November 2015, President Franois Hollande released a statement in which he said: Freedom will always be stronger than barbarity. This statement showed solidarity across the country and gave a message that no amount of violence or attacks could take away a persons freedom.

French cartoonist t0ad told Index about the importance of free speech in allowing him to do his job as a cartoonist, and the effect the attacks have had on free speech in France: Mundanely and along the same tracks, it means I can draw and post (social media has changed a hell of a lot of notions there) a drawing without expecting the police or secret services knocking at my door and sending me to jail, or risking being lynched. Cartoonists in some other countries do not have that chance, as we are brutally reminded. Free speech makes cartooning a relatively risk-free activity; however

Well, you know the howevers: Charlie Hebdo attacks, country law while globalisation of images and ideas, rise of intolerances, complex realities and ever shorter time and thought, etc.

As we all see, and it concerns the other attacks, the other countries. From where I stand (behind a screen, as many of us), speech seems to have gone freer where it consists of hate though this should not be defined as freedom.

In the spring 2015 issue of Index on Censorship, following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Richard Sambrook, professor of Journalism and director of the Centre for Journalism at Cardiff University, took the opportunity to highlight the number journalists that a murdered around the world every day for doing their job, yet go unnoticed.

Sambrook told Index why everyone should have the right to free speech: Firstly, its a basic liberty. Intellectual restriction is as serious as physical incarceration. Freedom to think and to speak is a basic human right. Anyone seeking to restrict it only does so in the name of seeking further power over individuals against their will. So free speech is an indicator of other freedoms.

Secondly, it is important for a healthy society. Free speech and the free exchange of ideas is essential to a healthy democracy and as the UN and the World Bank have researched and indicated it is crucial for social and economic development. So free speech is not just nice to have, it is essential to the well-being, prosperity and development of societies.

Ian Morse, a member of the Index on Censorship youth advisory board told Index how he believes free speech is important for a society to have access to informationand know what options are available to them.

He said: One thing I am beginning to realise is immensely important for a society is for individuals to know what other ideas are out there. Turkey is a baffling case study that I have been looking at for a while, but still evades my understanding. The vast majority of educated and young populations (indeed some older generations as well) realise how detrimental the AKP government has been to the country, internationally and socially. Yet the party still won a large portion of the vote in recent elections.

I think whats critical in each of these elections is that right before, the government has blocked Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook so theyve simultaneously controlled which information is released and produced a damaging image of the news media. The media crackdown perpetuates the idea that the news and social media, except the ones controlled by the AKP, are bad for the country.

See the original post:
Why is free speech important? - Index on Censorship Index ...

At a time when freedom of speech seems to be under assault, its worth stepping back to reconsider why it matters.

In a free society, all citizens must be able to pursue their own paths, set their own goals, and think for themselves. Of course, in America and elsewhere, there are norms, orthodoxies, and taboos. And dissident personalities frequently challenge these norms by eschewing orthodoxy and venturing into the taboo.

How a society treats these dissidents can tell you a lot about how truly free that society is. In some places, government silences or punishes those with unpopular viewpoints for refusing to sacrifice their independence and their ideas (the recent protests in Hong Kong are an instructive example).

America offers a richer tradition. People are free to express their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong (though, in many cases, they may eventually be proven right). Americans are thus free to participate in peaceful protests, wear black armbands to school, and even burn the nations flag. A speaker may say things that are unpopular, uncomfortable, or downright grotesque. But in a free society, we engage dissent through discussion and debate rather than through censorship and punishment.

Free speech is inextricably linked to prosperity. After all, prosperity comes from ideas, and new ideas can thrive only in a society in which they are free from suppression. Its easy to think of widely embraced ideas that were once controversialfor example, the idea that all children, regardless of race, should have the same educational opportunities. Thanks to our tradition of free speech, such forward-looking ideas reshaped our society for the better.

Today it is more important than ever to protect our freedom of speech. Too many people have come to believe that discussion and debate are inadequate; they seek a society that squelches dissent with force. In law, government regulations are censoring speech that is disparaging, immoral, and offensive.

In culture, people attack the speaker rather than engaging their ideas. Opponents vilify speakers as misogynists, or racists, and then attempt to drive them from the public square, or deprive them of their livelihood. In worst-case scenarios, disagreeable speech is met with violence. These attacks on the tradition of free speech are damaging to a free society and suppress uninhibited, robust, and wide open debate.

Freedom of speech is an invaluable cornerstone of a free societyand its worth fighting to protect.

Original post:
Remembering why free speech is important | Pacific Legal ...

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more:
Glad officers have the right to free speech, by Karl Hecker - The Keene Sentinel

EFF is deeply saddened and angered by the news that our friend, Egyptian blogger, coder, and free speech activist Alaa Abd El Fattah, long a target of oppression by Egypt's successive authoritarian regimes,was sentenced to five years in prison by an emergency state security court just before the holidays.

According to media reports and social media posts of family members, Fattah, human rights lawyer Mohamed el-Baqer, and blogger Mohamed 'Oxygen' Ibrahim were convicted on December 20 of spreading false news undermining national security" by the court, which has extraordinary powers under Egypt's state of emergency. El-Baqer and Ibrahim received four-year sentences.

A trial on the charges held in November was a travesty, with defense lawyers denied access to case files or a chance to present arguments. At least 48 human rights defenders, activists, and opposition politicians in pre-trial detention for months and years were referred to the emergency courts for trial just before Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi lifted the state of emergency in October, Human Rights Watch reported.

The profoundly unjust conviction and years-long targeting of Fattah and other civil and human rights activists is a testament to the lengths the Egyptian government will go to attack and shut down, through harassment, physical violence, arrest, and imprisonment, those speaking out for free speech and expression and sharing information. In the years since the revolution, journalists, bloggers, activists and peaceful protestors have been arrested and charged under draconian press regulations and anti-cybercrime laws being used to suppress dissent and silence those criticizing the government.

A free speech advocate and software developer, Fattah, who turned 40 on November 18, has repeatedly been targeted and jailed for working to ensure Egyptians and others in the Middle East and North Africa have a voice, and privacy, online. He has been detained under every Egyptian head of state in his lifetime, and has spent the last two years at a maximum-security prison in Tora, 12 miles south of Cairo, since his arrest in 2019.

Its clear that Egypt has used the emergency courts as another tool of oppression to punish Fattah and other activists and government critics. We condemn the governments actions and call for Fattahs conviction to be set aside and his immediate release. We stand in solidarity with #SaveAlaa, and Fattahs family and network of supporters. Fattah has never stopped fighting for free speech, and the idea that through struggle and debate, change is possible. In his own words (from a collection of Fattahs prison writings, interviews, and articles, entitled You Have Not Yet Been Defeated, order here or here):

Im in prison because the regime wants to make an example of us. So let us be an example, but of our own choosing. The war on meaning is not yet over in the rest of the world. Let us be an example, not a warning. Lets communicate with the world again, not to send distress signals nor to cry over ruins or spilled milk, but to draw lessons, summarize experiences, and deepen observations, may it help those struggling in the post-truth era.

every step of debate and struggle in society is a chance. A chance to understand, a chance to network, a chance to dream, a chance to plan. Even if things appear simple and indisputable, and we aligned early on with one side of a struggle, or abstained early from it altogether, seizing such opportunities to pursue and produce meaning re- mains a necessity. Without it we will never get past defeat.

Fattahs lawyer said in September that Fattah was contemplating suicide because of the conditions under which he is being held. He has been denied due process, with the court refusing to give his lawyers access to case files or evidence against him, and jailed without access to books or newspapers, exercise time or time out of the cell andsince COVID-19 restrictions came in to playwith only one visit, for twenty minutes, once a month.

Laila Soueif, a mathematics professor and Fattahs mother,wrote in a New York Times op-ed just days before his sentencing that her sons crime is that, like millions of young people in Egypt and far beyond, he believed another world was possible. And he dared to try to make it happen. He is charged with spreading false news, she said, for retweeting a tweet about a prisoner who died after being tortured, in the same prison where Alaa is now held.

Fattah himself addressed the court at trial: The truth is, in order for me to understand this, I must understand why I am standing here, he said, according to an English translation of a Facebook post of his statement. My mind does not accept that I am standing here for the sake of sharing.

We urge everyone to order Fattahs book and send a message to the Egyptian government and all authoritarian regimes that his fight for human rights, and our support for this courageous activist, will never be defeated.

See more here:
EFF Condemns the Unjust Conviction and Sentencing of Activist and Friend Alaa Fatttah - EFF