Category Archives: Free Speech

Voting rights are important but are you willing to put your life on the line for the right to vote? After Republicans gutted voting rights across the country, Civil and Human rights activists, Joe Madison decided to do something drastic...

Madison is on day 38 of his hunger strike. He will post weekly "waste up" photos as he continues to shed weight. Joe Madison, The Black Eagle, is on a hunger strike until President Joe Biden signs the bills and voting rights are passed in the Senate. Joe Madison says the right to vote sustains democracy.

He joins Thom Hartmann to give an update on his efforts.

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

The rest is here:
What Will it Take To Restore and Protect The Right to Vote? - Free Speech TV

Dominic Raab has been accused of a blatant and unashamed power grab as he prepares to outline significant reforms of human rights laws that he said will counter wokery and political correctness.

The justice secretary said the overhaul of existing legislation will protect the quintessentially British right to freedom of expression, giving existing protections extra weight amid concerns they are being undermined by the rise of cancel culture.

Writing inThe Telegraph, Attorney General Suella Braverman said the proposed changes to the Human Rights Act would strengthen the right to freedom of expression and preserve space for wide and vigorous democratic debate.

She added: We propose that the Bill should make clear the utmost importance attached to this right and that in balancing competing rights the courts should only interfere with it where there are exceptional reasons to do so.

Politicos London Playbook said that the announcement from the Ministry of Justice is a big one, adding that in practice it means the UK remains a party to the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights]but the Supreme Court has the final say.

The proposals for a new bill of rights aim to make clear that free speech is pre-eminent, the Daily Mail said, and stress that parliament is the ultimate decision maker on legislation not judges.

The government is concerned that parliaments role as the authoritative voice on British law has been blurred by judges, the paper continued. Ministers have voiced concerns that the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights, agreed in 1951, has been expanded far beyond what was originally intended.

The paper cited a legal case between the Duchess of Sussex and the Mail on Sunday, in which the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court decision that the Duchesshad a reasonable expectation of privacy over a letter written to her estranged father, Thomas Markle.

Lawyers and media experts said the ruling set a dangerous precedent by extending the right of privacy to benefit the rich and powerful.

Supporters of the governments plans have pointed to the recent row at Durham University, where Professor Tim Luckhurst, a journalist and academic, was barred from public duties for five weeks and is being investigated after he criticised students who walked out during a speech by journalist Rod Liddle.

But The Guardian said the highly controversial reforms amount to a sweeping overhaul of human rights law that will serve to change the balance between freedom of expression and privacy.

Amnesty International led the protests, saying human rights were not sweets ministers can pick and choose from and that the aggressive attempt to roll-back the laws must be stopped.

Amnesty chief executive Sacha Deshmukh told Sky News that ministers risk aligning themselves with authoritarian regimes around the world if the legislation is passed.

Martha Spurrier, director at Liberty, told the broadcaster that the plans are a blatant, unashamed power grab from a government that wants to put themselves above the law, adding that although the legislation is being cast as an attempt at strengthening our rights, they will be fatally weakened.

View original post here:
The new free speech law aiming to end wokery and cancel culture - The Week UK

With the holiday season upon us, its the perfect time to reflect on the many things for which we can and should be grateful. And yes, 2021, like the year before it, was a challenging year for most of us. But free speech actually had quite a good year.

Given the state of civil discourse and the human impulse to silence or punish others because of their speech, this may come as a surprise to many. Surely, our free speech culture is a cause for concern. However, if you look more closely, there are also plenty of reasons to be thankful. For example, although America seems more divided today than it has been for the past 50 years, the truth is that Americans are less polarized than we think.

But even if we grant that our free speech culture has seen better days, our First Amendment rights have never been better protected than they are now, at the end of 2021. While our culture continues to try to remind itself that free speech really is a good idea, the judiciary continues to do its job of protecting those freedoms.

So this year, Im thankful for four Supreme Court decisions upholding every Americans First Amendment rights.

Future law students may not appreciate needing to remember the names in the first one, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, but the Supreme Courts 8-1 decision will make it easier to vindicate First Amendment rights in court. Georgia Gwinnett College violated the free speech rights of a student by restricting his speech to a small speech zone and then imposing a speech code to censor him because his religious speech disturbed the tranquility of another student. The violation didnt cost Chike Uzuegbunam anything except many months of not exercising his First Amendment rights. Like many government defendants, the college later tried to avoid adjudication and responsibility for its violation of Uzuegbunams free speech rights by changing its policies, arguing that his $1 nominal damages claim wasnt sufficient to keep the case in court if the colleges free speech violations didnt cost him out of pocket. The Supreme Court held that Uzuegbunams free speech rights were priceless, not worthless, and his case could go forward. This resolves an important question and makes it much more likely that campus and other free speech claimants will get their day in court.

Second is Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., which will forever be known as the cursing cheerleader case. The 8-1decision in this case affirms that in all but the rarest circumstances, a public schools jurisdiction over student speech ends at the schoolhouse gate. Parents, not principals, should be the ones policing a students social media posts during nonschool hours. While not a home run, the decision was a solid double for free speech. And importantly, it avoided the strikeout scenario, in which the court could have opened the door wide to public schools policing their students speech during nonschool hours.

Third is our own case: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. This 6-3 decision protects and reaffirms the freedom to support causes and charities anonymously. In reaffirming its decision in NAACPv.Alabama, the court held that the California attorney general could not collect data on charitable contributions for tens of thousands of charities all over the country. A former executive director of the NAACP described the case as one of the most significant wins for civil rights in decades. Underscoring this point is the most diverse set of organizations ever on one side of a constitutional case in the Supreme Court.

Finally, I am grateful for Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. Philadelphia had disqualified a Catholic foster parent placement service because of the stated views of Catholic clergy about foster parent placements with same-sex couples. As we argued to the court, free and voluntary association to address social ills is crucial to maintaining our system of government. Throughout our nations history, fights for civil rights have relied on the simultaneous exercise of civil liberties, including this ability to associate freely. Excluding some volunteers from working to address a problem on the basis of their views would imperil ... the very building blocks of civil society. As in Mahanoy, the court failed to go as far as it could have, but it did side unanimously with the Catholic foster placement agency, protecting its freedom to continue to serve children and foster parents in Philadelphia. This was a win for pluralism and First Amendment rights.

As we enjoy the holidays and close in on the end of 2021, when youre tempted to be despondent about the state of our politics and culture, remember that there are bright spots to be appreciated. You get to watch Alabama in the College Football Playoff (maybe thats just something Im happy about), and your First Amendment rights are on firmer footing now than theyve ever been as we leave 2021 behind. Heres to using those freedoms more in 2022.

Casey Mattox is the vice president for legal and judicial strategy atAmericans for Prosperity.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment rights are reason for cheer this holiday season - Washington Examiner

Published: 12/15/2021 3:41:20 PM

Modified: 12/15/2021 3:40:46 PM

AMHERST Residents at an Amherst condominium complex are amending the sites master deed to ensure that no one living there will be prevented from displaying signs supporting political candidates or promoting their religious or moral beliefs.

In an exercise of free speech, in part the result of a successful ACLU case earlier this year that allowed a Belchertown resident to keep her Black Lives Matter sign up, Hampshire Village Condominium residents voted to file a revised master deed with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds.

The right to express political opinions, particularly from ones own home, has been a cornerstone of our democracy, Bill Newman, an attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts Western Massachusetts office, said in a statement. We deeply appreciate the Hampshire Village trustees and residents recognizing the importance of the fundamental right to speech.

A Hampshire Superior Court judge ruled in January that a woman must be allowed to display a Black Lives Matter sign outside her Summer Hill Estates home in Belchertown, citing the free speech provision of the Massachusetts Constitution in ruling against the condominium development. The ruling came after the woman had been ordered to remove the sign by trustees at the complex.

And in 2019, a federal district court permanently blocked Holyoke from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting temporary lawn signs on private property in the city during three months of the year, and prohibiting bumper stickers all year. Plymouth recently agreed to stop enforcing similar ordinances following ACLU action.

The new Hampshire Village rule, prompted by legal analysis provided by the ACLU, states that All Unit Owners have a right to display a non-commercial posting (e.g., a sign, flag, banner, or other decoration), including a posting of a political, religious, moral, cultural, or scientific nature, or one that otherwise contributes to the free marketplace of ideas.

The new language does limit the size of signs to 20 inches by 30 inches, and limits where signs can be placed, such as the garden bed adjacent to a unit owners building, or on a unit owners front door or its frame, or in a unit owners window.

Read more here:
Amherst condo association bans banning signs - GazetteNET

from the not-this-again dept

Canada, despite being our friendly neighbor to the north, has been known to have some not great laws regarding speech. Over the years, we've covered a few too many distressing lawsuits that attack speech, including by going after intermediaries rather than the speakers themselves. While sometimes (but not always), Canadian courts eventually get to the right decision, it's often many years later, and after a whole lot of censorial nonsense.

It's happening yet again. A Canadian businessman, Frank Giustra, is mad at Twitter. He's really mad at some idiots on Twitter who claimed he was somehow tied into Pizzagate because he's done some philanthropic work with the Clinton Foundation, but it's turned into a lawsuit against Twitter itself -- because silly people continually want to go after the intermediary, rather than the speaker. Obviously, in the US, any such case would be dead in the water, because common sense, the 1st Amendment, and Section 230 would all protect Twitter. Unfortunately, Canadian courts have none of those three to rely on. So, back in 2019, Giustra sued Twitter in Canada, and not the silly people who may have actually defamed him. Because why go after the actual speakers, when you can go after the tools they use?

Twitter had argued that Canada has no jurisdiction over the case, and it should be filed in California (where it would be tossed out immediately). Unfortunately, earlier this year, a court sided with Giustra over Twitter and now the appeals court has now ruled that Giustra's lawsuit against Twitter can move forward, upholding the original decision. The full ruling is difficult to read without repeatedly wanting to scream about how dumb it is, but that's what happens when you have no real intermediary liability protections, and people want to go after websites instead of actual speakers.

What happened in this case was that a bunch of stupid, ignorant people said ridiculously stupid stuff about Giustra online as part of the Pizzagate nonsense, a precursor to today's metastasized Q-anon conspiracy theory. Giustra was (understandably!) upset about this and alerted Twitter about how people were spewing nonsense about him. Twitter then actually took down the vast majority of the tweets in question, and made most of the rest unviewable in Canada. But then Giustra, who lives in both California and Canada decided to engage in some libel tourism, seeking out the friendliest jurisdiction to go after Twitter: and that's Canada. As the ruling itself notes:

In this case, Twitter submits, a careful examination demonstrates that the presumptive factor here does not point to any real relationship between the subject matter of the litigation and British Columbia as the forum. Whatever connection there may be between British Columbia and the subject matter of the complaint, Twitter asserts, it is anything but substantial.

In this regard, it points out that Mr. Giustra has a residence not only in West Vancouver, BC, but also one in Beverly Hills, California, and the tweets of which he complains were overwhelmingly posted by Americans about United States topics, particularly in reference to the 2016 US election and the connections between Mr. Giustra and the Clintons. Twitter says that Mr. Giustras pleadings did not single out British Columbia as a place of harm, and he filed no evidence that located any particular harm in British Columbia. In Twitters submission, the Sikhs for Justice case establishes that a plaintiff is obliged to lead evidence of harm to reputation in his chosen forum if he wishes to meet the case of a defendant who is seeking to rebut the presumption, and the judge erred in distinguishing that case as he did.

Twitter further asserts that, unlike the defendants in Haaretz (where jurisdiction was found not to have been rebutted), it did not choose to create content about the plaintiff. Twitter merely provided the platform and cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of the reputation and location of any given person mentioned on its platform. Moreover, contrary to the judges finding, Twitter maintains, the correspondence directed to Twitter on his behalf did not alert Twitter to concern about reputational harm in BC.

Giustra's response to this seems incredibly silly. He argues that because Twitter made the content available in Canada, that's enough to say it proactively was subjecting itself to Canadian libel laws. That's a completely nonsensical argument on a (mostly) borderless internet:

As to Twitters submission that it could not reasonably have been expected to be aware of the reputation or location of any particular person mentioned in tweets because it did not create the content, Mr. Giustra points out that Twitter chose to make the content of its platform available worldwideincluding Canadaand must be taken to have understood that defamation law may expose it to jeopardy in jurisdictions other than California. Moreover, Twitter continued to publish defamatory tweets after Mr. Giustra and his lawyers brought them to its attention. From that point on, Twitter had actual knowledge of Mr. Giustras connection to British Columbia and Canada.

The court, playing to the home crowd, accepts Giustra's argument.

Here, Twitter submits, although the correspondence brought the existence of allegedly defamatory tweets to its attention, nothing in the communications suggested a connection with British Columbia. Consequently, in Twitters submission, it would not have known of Mr. Giustras connection to British Columbia, and would have no reason to expect to be sued in that jurisdiction.

In my view, there is no merit to this proposition. The correspondence in question comprised two letters from Mr. Giustras Toronto solicitors concerning abusive Twitter posts, and one letter with attachments directly from Mr. Giustra on the letterhead of Fiore Financial Corporation in Vancouver.

So, apparently the letterhead is key to putting you on notice that you might be dragged into a Canadian court.

Twitter further argued that California is clearly the more appropriate forum, but again, the Canadian court says Canada wins, basically just saying that the lower court did enough under the law to say that Canada was the right jurisdiction.

Then there's the important jurisdiction shopping point that Twitter raised. It highlighted to the court that such a case would clearly fail in the US, and thus it was only being brought in Canada to avoid that fate. The court here basically said that Twitter's free speech protections in the US... are even more of a reason that Canada is the proper venue. That's... eye-opening, but certainly fits with earlier rulings in which Canada has demanded US companies block content globally, with no concern to free speech considerations as applied to other countries.

A question arises as to whether the circumstance of Twitters immunity under US law is properly analysed as a question of applicable law, or of juridical advantage. The judge approached it primarily as a question of juridical advantage, and the parties argued it on that basis. But the judge also dealt with the effect of Twitters immunity in California as relevant to the factor of applicable law.

The court then says that because Canada has a much weaker and different intermediary liability protection law, it's as if Canada has its own Section 230.

As Twitter was at pains to point out, should it be obliged to proceed to trial in British Columbia, it will raise the defence that, in law, it cannot properly be considered a publisher of tweets read in British Columbia (or anywhere else) that it did not author or create, and accordingly will need to bring a number of witnesses to British Columbia to assist it in that regard.

This is the same defence that is afforded to it in California by the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The difference is that in California, Twitter will be in a position to have Mr. Giustras claim summarily dismissed on the basis of that defence, while in British Columbia, it will have only the opportunity to persuade a court that the defence is available to it on the merits. Consequently, as a substantive matter, the defence is notionally available in both jurisdictions. Procedurally, however, it is a defence that is arguable in British Columbia, but is bound to succeed in California. In this sense, it can be properly considered under the factor of juridical advantage.

As I understand Twitters argument, it does not really matter under which circumstance the matter of Twitters immunity is analysed. Either way, the effect of US law should be given little weight in the forum non conveniens comparative analysis and the judges approach offended the underlying principle of comity. I agree with Twitter to this extent: whether the matter of its immunity under US law should be considered as a circumstance of applicable law or juridical advantage need not be resolved on this appeal. It is a relevant circumstance, and one that must be considered in the context of comity.

Except, the fact that under 230 such cases are "summarily dismissed" is the key point of Section 230, procedurally ending silly mis-targeted cases before they get ridiculously expensive for the defendant. So, the Canadian's court's dismissal of this point as if it's only slightly different ignores the entire rationale for Section 230.

The court then flat out admits that under US law, courts would never enforce a ruling in Canada, but basically shrugs, and says that's no reason not to try:

While courts in the United States are prohibited from respecting and enforcing any order made against Twitter in Canada, that is not so of Canadian courts in relation to any order pronounced in the United States. As the Equustek Solutions Inc v Google Inc litigation demonstrated, the courts in the United States are legislatively prohibited from respecting the different constitutional and legal approach in Canada, notwithstanding our shared values.

But that does not make proceeding in British Columbia a pointless exercise, for Mr. Giustra would at least have the opportunity to obtain a judgment vindicating his reputation (see Banro at para 45)an opportunity denied from the outset in California.

The advantage-disadvantage balance that Twitter relies on is accordingly unequal between the jurisdictions and tilts in favour of British Columbia. In BC, Mr. Giustra would have the opportunity to establish his claim and vindicate his reputation; in California he would not. But Twitter would be in a position to raise the defence of lack of publication in either jurisdiction. In British Columbia, it would be a matter of argument; in California, its success would be a foregone conclusion.

And thus, this silly case moves forward. It's possible that Twitter will still win in the end, but once again this ruling highlights just how important Section 230 is. It gets rid of these mistargeted, silly lawsuits upfront. Giustra remains free to sue the actual people who he claims defamed him. He has chosen not to do so, and instead focused on Twitter. That, alone, is silly, and it makes a mockery of common sense for Canadian courts to allow it to move forward.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: canada, defamation, frank giustra, free speech, intermediary liability, jurisdiction, pizzagate, section 230, speech actCompanies: twitter

Read more here:
Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users - Techdirt

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

(THE CONVERSATION) University of Florida officials in November blocked three professors from offering expert testimony in a lawsuit that challenged recently enacted state voting restrictions. But the university soon reversed course amid a public outcry.

The criticism leveled at the university included charges that the scholars academic freedom had been violated, along with their First Amendment rights to free speech. The professors themselves filed a lawsuit against the university after the reversal, saying that the university had violated foundational principles of academic freedom and free speech.

From my perspective as a constitutional law scholar and lawyer, untangling how these two claims are both related and distinct can help us understand how these kinds of disputes ultimately pit robust protections for free inquiry and debate against public institutions desire to manage their operations as they choose. It turns out that courts reach very mixed results when deciding these disputes.

Protecting speech

Public universities like the University of Florida are government employers. They sometimes restrict the speech of faculty members, who are their employees. For example, the University of Florida asserted that professors testimony in a lawsuit against the state was adverse to the universitys interests as a state of Florida institution when it first sought to block that testimony. Such restrictions can trigger both First Amendment and academic freedom concerns.

First Amendment law is the body of constitutional law that protects speech from the governments unjustified interference. For example, it prohibits the government from punishing critics for speaking out.

Academic freedom describes an academic communitys customs and practices that allow free intellectual inquiry and debate. These customs and practices help advance universities mission of creating and disseminating knowledge.

Under these customs and practices, for instance, scholars have the freedom to choose which topics to explore and which conclusions to draw.

Academic freedom protections are enforced by academic communities, like universities. First Amendment protections are enforced by courts.

Government often limits its employees speech

First Amendment law generally prohibits the government from restricting individuals right to speak freely. But the First Amendment rules that apply to the government when it limits the speech of its own employees are much more government-friendly, allowing greater restrictions of those workers speech.

Under these rules, the First Amendment protects a public employees speech as an individual citizen on a matter of public concern, so long as that speech does not unduly interfere with her government employers operations.

So, for example, the First Amendment would protect a public school teachers letter to the editor or social media posting that criticizes the mayor. The lawsuit filed by the University of Florida professors who were originally told they couldnt give testimony similarly argues that, through that testimony, the professors sought to offer their views as individual citizens on the important matter of voting rights.

In contrast, according to the Supreme Court, public employees speech pursuant to to their official duties is entirely unprotected by the First Amendment.

According to one landmark ruling, thats because government employers must, as a practical matter, have power over their employees job-related speech, to control what the Supreme Court called what the employer itself has commissioned or created. In other words, what a person says as part of her official duties as a government employee is not protected by the First Amendment. This is so, according to the court, even when the employees job-related speech is on a matter of great concern to the public.

What about whistleblowers?

The Supreme Court first announced this rule in a 2006 decision called Garcetti v. Ceballos. In that case, the justices rejected a prosecutors claim that he was exercising his First Amendment rights to free speech and should not have been punished by his governmental employer for his internal memo that questioned a warrants legitimacy.

Lower courts now frequently apply the Garcetti ruling to dismiss the First Amendment claims of government workers punished for truthfully reporting government misconduct when it was their job to report it.

For example, courts found that the First Amendment did not protect public health care workers who were disciplined after conveying their concerns about patient care. Likewise, it didnt protect police officers who were fired after reporting public corruption.

The Garcetti ruling sometimes makes it hard to figure out when public employees speech occurs pursuant to their official duties and thus loses any First Amendment protection.

One court even applied Garcetti to conclude that the First Amendment permits the government to punish a public employee for truthfully testifying that a state legislator on a state agency payroll had not been reporting to work when the employees testimony involved information that he acquired on the job.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in Lane v. Franks, holding that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provided truthful sworn testimony when his job duties did not ordinarily involve such testimony.

Crowded intersection

Another important question that remains unanswered is whether the Garcetti ruling strips public university faculty members of First Amendment protection for their research, teaching and other job-related speech. Its a First Amendment question complicated by its intersection with academic freedom protections.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that academic freedom is key to universities mission of creating and disseminating knowledge. This mission, the justices said, advances First Amendment values by contributing to the marketplace of ideas and a vibrant democracy.

The court relied on this observation in two mid-20th-century decisions to say that the First Amendment protected universities from legislatures that sought to squelch unorthodox beliefs or unpopular expression. Lawmakers had tried to do that by requiring loyalty oaths of faculty members or by investigating faculty members allegedly subversive activities.

If the First Amendment protects universities from that sort of legislative interference with their academic mission, does it also protect public university faculty members from employer interference with their job-related speech?

Decades later in the Garcetti case, the Supreme Court punted on this question. Its still not clear whether the First Amendment protects public university faculty members research, teaching or other on-the-job speech from their employers restrictions.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court ultimately rules on this First Amendment question, academic freedom principles which rely on academic communities themselves for their enforcement rather than on courts can still provide an independent source of protection for faculty members job-related speech.

In other words, universities themselves can choose to respect those principles in their treatment of their faculty members.

For these reasons, those who objected to the University of Floridas efforts to silence its professors testimony argued not only that the university was violating the First Amendment, but also that it was violating its own institutional commitment to academic freedom.

Editors note: The University of Florida is a supporting member of The Conversation.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here: https://theconversation.com/professors-free-speech-rights-can-clash-with-public-universities-interest-in-managing-their-employees-as-they-choose-171446.

Continued here:
Professors free speech rights can clash with public universities interest in managing their employees as they choose - The Edwardsville Intelligencer

A bill introduced by Republican state lawmakers would punish Wisconsin state universities and technical colleges for free speech or academic freedom violations. Campuses found to be in violation of the law would face financial penalties and potential lawsuits and would be forced to notify incoming students of any violations for the 10 years following the incident.

Wisconsin Republicans have been pushing the UW System to get tougher on students who disrupt free speech events on campuses since 2017. A prior bill, which failed, aimed to expel students who shout down or disrupt speakers, invited by student organization, three or more times.

In 2017, the UW Board of Regents passed a resolution that mirrored the bill. The regents vote and legislation were spurred by incidents at places like the University of California, Berkeley, where protests broke out after former Breitbart news editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak on campus.

But the latest Republican initiative focuses on punishing colleges and administrators rather than students.

Under the new bill, any campus that restricts when and where speech can happen or charges a fee for "additional security based on the anticipated content of speech or anticipated reaction to speech" more than one time within 10 years will face a litany of sanctions. Those include a potential loss of student grants from the Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board, which would have to instead be paid using campus funds for one year or until the university or technical college "administrator is permanently removed from his or her administrative role."

The bill would also allow state or federal courts, the state Higher Educational Aids Board, or state lawmakers to weigh evidence and decide if a university or technical college violated free speech rights.

In addition to losing state scholarship funds, a campus found to be in violation of the law would be forced to include a disclaimer on admissions documents going to potential applicants. The disclaimer would read:

"NOTICE: We are required by the State of Wisconsin to inform you that within the last 10 years [insert name of UW institution or technical college] has violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes."

Lastly, the bill would allow the state attorney general, district attorneys or individuals whose "expressive rights were violated" to sue the UW Board of Regents or a technical college district board. If a court finds a violation occurred, the presiding judge would be required to award plaintiffs a minimum of $500 for the violation and $50 for each day after the complaint is served if the violation continues. The maximum award for plaintiffs would be $100,000 plus legal fees. The bill mandates that such awards would come from a campus' administration budget.

Policymakers respond to bill, criticize student aid component

The legislation, authored by state Rep. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, received a public hearing Wednesday with the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.

Cabral-Guevara taught at UW-Oshkosh. She said the proposal stems from conversations she had with former students who said they wished everyone could feel comfortable speaking up for what they believe in. Students told her they wished she spoke up more on campus and that they were afraid of voicing certain beliefs out of fear they would not be allowed to graduate, Cabral-Guevara said.

"If I wasn't strong enough, how can I ask my students to be strong also?" Cabral-Guevara asked. "And so overall, when we look at this bill here, what we're doing is trying to protect, and we're trying to promote an environment where students can be free with their thoughts and their ideas."

Committee chair state Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, also testified in favor of the bill. He said empowering legislative committees, like his own, to take disciplinary actions against colleges violating the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions was appropriate because "government is supposed to protect our free speech rights."

Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point, took issue with that assertion and noted that Republicans were granting themselves powers to act like a court, weighing evidence and assigning penalties.

"You talked about the constitution at length in your testimony," said Shankland. "How does the ability to bring a cause of action to a legislative committee comport with our constitution?"

Murphy referred the question to a Wisconsin Legislative Council attorney at the hearing, who said that part of the bill "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.

State Rep. Robert Wittke, R-Racine, said he supported protecting free speech at state colleges but was a "little wary" about using state grant funding meant for student scholarships to punish universities.

"I would also prefer to hold those that guide these institutions accountable rather than limiting financial aid, because I'm concerned that there would be too many unintended consequences for students that aren't wrapped up in this," Wittke said.

After hearing concerns about the grant fund punishment, Murphy stated he was open to amending the bill at a later date.

Jeff Buhrandt, UW System vice president for the Office of University Relations, pointed out to the committee that state universities have always strived to promote free speech and diversity of thought on campus.

"Our current policy recognizes that each institution has a solemn responsibility not only to promote lively and fearless exploration, deliberation and debate of ideas, but also to protect those freedoms when others attempt to restrict them," said Buhrandt.

Joe Cohn is the legislative and policy director for national the campus free speech organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He told the committee there are things he likes in the latest iteration of the Republican campus free speech bill and some things he doesn't like.

Cohn said he's glad lawmakers are working to codify campus free speech protections in statute, but he's unhappy with the provision that would restrict state grants to colleges until a campus administrator associated with a policy violating the law is fired. Cohn, who is usually a critic of college administrators, said he was glad to hear lawmakers were open to amending the bill and said if the grant restriction provision was still included during a final hearing on the legislation, he would recommend a no-vote.

The rest is here:
Republican bill would punish universities, technical colleges for free speech violations - KPVI News 6

When Chad Sabora started working in harm reduction, he worked out of his car on the streets of St. Louis, Mo. Saboras beat-up sedan was a familiar sight in neighborhoods frequented by people who use drugs. Sabora, an attorney and former prosecutor in Chicago, had been in recovery for years and experienced addiction firsthand. Based on decades of research and his own experience, he knew sterile syringes prevented infectious disease transmission, naloxone saves lives by reversing overdoses, and that a well-timed pep-talk or caring gesture could profoundly help someone in the throes of addiction. He took a boots-on-the ground approach to helping others in his hometown.

As Americas unprecedented overdose crisis became a national issue, Sabora thought of ways to scale-up his operation. Like many people do, he took to social media, where he tried spreading the gospel of harm reduction and sharing simple strategies to help people survive their substance use disorder.Never use alone. Carry naloxone. Use new syringes.Statistically speaking, there are millions of drug users and people with addiction online. Tragically, over 200 people die from drug overdoses every day in America, and over 100,000 Americans died in the last year alone. But on Facebook, Sabora felt something was keeping him from reaching the masses. Then he noticed his posts ran afoul of the almighty algorithm.

Ive been put in time-out just for posting about naloxone, Sabora said. When he created educational posts about the risks of illicit fentanyl, teaching people how to use fentanyl test strips, his account would be disabled. He realized that by mentioning drugs, his account was dinged by Facebooks automated content censors meant to curb drug sales on social media platforms. The algorithm couldn't distinguish his content from that of a suspected drug dealer. The algorithm picks up particular words, phrases, or speech patterns that are flagged and suppressed. Entire groups of harm reduction activistshave disappeared, along with scores of informational posts and threads. Some accounts have been banned for life.

Sabora was confident he could use social media tools to make a difference and help educate people about harm reduction. Instead, he found himself silenced by social media censors.

An obscure regulation called Section 230 shields social media companies from being held liable for the questionable content generated by users. Naturally, some politicians and activists are calling to rewrite Section 230 in order to incentivize tech giants to do a better job at moderating content that users post. While there is unquestionably a credible argument to do so, we must also be careful. Re-writing Section 230 could backfire. Instead of ending online drug sales, these new rules could further censor activists like Sabora who are trying to use social media to save lives during an overdose crisis. Congress must be cautious when crafting content moderation regulations around substance use disorderas companies are likely to shut down all related conversations to avoid liability.

Section 230is a decades-old law that regulates speech online and governs nearly every interaction on social media. The law is part of the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 also protects social media platforms from being held responsible for the content users post. For example, ifa QAnon group plans and enacts a traitorous insurrection in Washington, DC, the website that hosted this group has immunity. They cant be prosecuted for what people post online. However, advocates have often tried to alter Section 230 to support their own political aims.

Sex trafficking is one of the most recent and thorny instances of Congress rewriting Section 230. Claiming to want to protect children and vulnerable people from being abducted and trafficked, advocates pressured lawmakers to pass a package of laws known as FOSTA/SESTA. This law amended Section 230 by holding websites and online platforms responsible for user content that might facilitate sexual exploitation. Although the Department of Justice went on record warning that FOSTA/SESTA would make it more difficult to prosecute sex trafficking cases, it was passed anyway. Disaster ensued. Instant crackdowns were implemented by websites, and some websites that were a safe haven for sex workers to vet their clients shutdown entirely. These measuresfailed to slow sex trafficking. In fact,the law has only been usedonceby federal prosecutorswho said they didnt really need it; they were able to use other, already existing laws to prosecute sex-trafficking offenses in the past. While FOSTA/SESTA did nothing to help potential victims or catch traffickers, it had an immediate, negative effect on another vulnerable group: sex workers.

A similar crackdown could harm people who use drugs and harm reduction advocates like Sabora who are trying to broadcast lifesaving information. Just as advocates urged Congress to rewrite Section 230 to prevent sexual exploitationa similar campaign is underway to prevent drug sales and curb Americas soaring overdose death rate. Horrificstoriesinvolving young adults buyingdrugs on Snapchatand TikTok abound. Some parents and advocates want Section 230 rewritten to increase liability of social media companies for drug sales on their platforms. But efforts to clamp down on online drug sales through Section 230 carve outs are somewhat misguided. Without careful considerations, these reforms would endanger the recovery community and harm reduction advocatesand threaten to stifle productive speech that is critical for progress to combat the overdose crisis. Current proposed230 carve-outs could undermine access tolifesavingresources, mandating takedowns of broad categories of content, and forcing vulnerable populations, including those navigatingsupportive services, off-platform. For criminalized communities, the risk for exploitation and harm offline is significant, and support and resources can be limited.

Harm reduction effortsand conversationsare often nuanced and specific to the individual, aiming to minimize harms of substance use. Blanket content bans, prescribed without consideration of context and nuance, could punish those seeking helphamstringing legitimate, proven approaches to combatting overdoses.

Instead of broadly crushing free speech and pushing social media companies to eliminate our ability to share resources, the U.S. government should focus its efforts on things that work. To save lives, policymakers must develop a realistic national strategy to combat the overdose crisis, including implementing evidence-based prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support services on the community-based level. Dont kill the conversation. Instead, we need to coordinate with localities to identify authentic places for support.Most leading platforms where these conversations take place have clear rules prohibiting the online sale and promotion of drugs and controlled substances,and companies must do a better job at policing those efforts.The federal government must work together with online platforms to coordinate a more effective strategy to remove bad actors, and work with law enforcement to prosecute drug traffickers.

Theres a world of difference between a syringe exchange and a drug deal. Until our governmentand our social media companiesrecognize that, we will continue to lose friends, loved ones, neighbors, and family members to preventable overdoses. Not because they wanted to die. But because they were silencedand separated from the people who were trying to help them.

Ryan Hampton is a nationally recognized recovery advocate, community organizer, and person in long-term recovery from addiction.He is the author of "Unsettled: How the Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Failed the Victims of the American Overdose Crisis."Follow him on Twitter:@RyanForRecovery

Read the rest here:
Free speech restrictions on social media could squash harm reduction and addiction recovery efforts | TheHill - The Hill

Could the Feds "accidentally" trigger a recession just in time for the 2022 election? Richard Wolff warns that our economy is in "serious trouble."

Biden reconfirmed Trump appointee Jerome Powell as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Some are speculating that Jerome Powell is planning to trigger a recession to tank the economy so the Democratic Party and President Biden take the blame.

Richard Wolff is an economist, co-founder of Democracy at work and the author of numerous books. His latest is "The Sickness is The System: Why Capitalism Fails to Save Us From Pandemics and Itself."

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Donald Trump Economy Federal Reserve Jerome Powell Joe Biden Recession Richard Wolff The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post:
Will the Feds Trigger A Full-Blown Recession? - Free Speech TV

Three Texas universities received the harshest, or "red light", rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, also known as FIRE. The national survey issued by the organization was published Tuesday and studies free speech policies at institutions of higher education.

The report included 481 U.S. four-year colleges and universities.

Red light-rated Texas schoolsUniversity of Texas, Dallas

Rice University

University of Houston, Downtown.

We disagree with this assessment," the University of Texas, Dallas said in a statement. "We make every effort to create an environment that supports and encourages free speech while protecting students, faculty and staff from harassment."

The University of Houston, Downtown said while they have long promoted constructive conversations on campus among students, faculty and staff, they do maintain email and anti-discrimination policies.

"Such policies are in place not to limit freedom of expression or speech but rather to ensure that UHD Community members can continue to work and learn in a safe environment," the university said in a statement.

Rice University did not respond to a request for comment.

Green light-rated Texas schools

Texas A&M University

What warrants a red light rating?

Laura Beltz, the author of FIRE's report said red rated schools have severely restrictive policies that constitute a serious threat to protected expression. She said the University of Houston, Downtown maintains an IT policy that students shall not send messages or make postings that could be construed as offensive. That could include anything from a rude tweet about a sports theme or an off-color joke. And that's protected speech.

FIRE said 86% of colleges restrict free speech in some capacity.

Middle of the pack

Beltz said 16 Texas schools, like Texas State University, scored a yellow rating, which is average. She said Texas State for example, prohibits information resource use for political purposes because the state school itself cannot legally advocate for politicians. But she said, students can.

So we flag this one, explained Beltz, because students could read this and think, oh, I'm not allowed to engage in any political expression over the university's IT resources, and that's just not the case.

The lone green light

Beltz said that among the rated Texas colleges, only Texas A&M earned a green light rating, meaning the school doesnt maintain any policies that compromise student expression. Only 12% of FIREs rated schools, 58 nationwide, scored a green light.

KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, considermaking a tax-deductible gifttoday. Thank you.

Got a tip? Email Reporter Bill Zeeble atbzeeble@kera.org. You can follow him on Twitter@bzeeble.

Read the original here:
3 Texas universities receive 'red light' rating for freedom of expression - KERA News