Category Archives: Free Speech

Pictured above: SamuelRechekisthepresident of First Amendment Forum, a student organization at USF that is committed to promoting the value of free speech on campus.

Courtesy of SamuelRechek

By SamuelRechek

Inrecent years, the Halloween season hasbecomeasourceof debatessurroundingfreedom of speech, offensivecostumesand university restrictions.This Halloween season, the University of Florida(UF)is playing host to adifferentkind offreespeech controversy.

On Oct.29,theNew York Timesbroke astoryabout threeUF professors who weresupposed toserve as expert witnessesin a lawsuit againstFlorida Senate Bill(SB)90,whichenacted new restrictions on Floridas vote-by-mail and ballot drop-offprocedures.

When voting rightsadvocatesfiled alawsuitagainstSB90, UFprofessors Sharon Austin, Michael McDonald, Daniel Smith and Jeffrey Goldhagenwereaskedtoserve as expert witnesses inthelawsuitbut were denied permission by university administration.

UFsinitialjustificationfor this denial was that the testimony would pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida.

ButonOct. 31,the university changed itsposition, arguing that it denied the professors requests becausesomewerebeing compensatedand because the testimony would be harmful to UFs interests as a Florida institution.

UFs denial of its professors requests to testify violatesboth its institutional commitment toacademic freedomand the professors legal right to freedom of expression.

Inastatementon Nov. 1,UFPresident Kent Fuchs and Provost and Senior Academic Affairs Vice President Joe Gloverasserted thatUF standsfirmly behinditscommitment to uphold our most sacred right as Americansthe right to free speechand to faculty members right to academic freedom.

Butprecedent emanating fromsimilar disputessuggests thatUFfailedto recognize whatitscommitment entails.

According tothe U.S. Supreme Court, academic freedom isa special concern of the First Amendment, and it protectsthe right of students and teachers at educational institutions to freely conduct academic investigationwithout fear of government interference.

The First Amendments most famous metaphor, the marketplace of ideas, rings most true on college and university campuses, but only if academic freedom safeguardstherobust exchange and debate of ideas.

There are limits to this principle,however.

For example, if a government employeeis actingwithin the scope of their job dutiesor speaking publicly in a way that interferes with their employers operations, they can besubject to some limitations.

To see the situation at UF asfalling withinsuchexceptions is toseverely misunderstandthe facts.Voting rights concerns are surely a matter of public interest, and it is not clear at all how speaking against one state law impedes UFs ability to operate efficiently.

InLane v. Franks, theSupremeCourt ruled that public employees havethe very rightthat these professors were attempting to exercise: Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. Even if this testimony includes information relating to or obtained as a result of the job duties,this protection still applies.

Given this legal background, it would have beencostlyfor UF to justify its action against these professors.In all likelihood, the courtswouldlikelyhavecome down on the side of free speech.

Buton Nov. 5, UFrecognizedits mistake.Fuchs released anotherstatementindicating that he had asked the relevant offices to reverse the decisions on recent requests by UFemployeesto serve as expert witnessesand to approve the requests regardless of personal compensation.

UF has a good reputation when it comes to protecting expressive rights on campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), givesUF agreen lightformaintainingno restrictivespeechpolicies.

By comparison, the University of South Florida is a yellow lightinstitution.

Perhaps itis because of this good reputation that thisbreak in characterhas attracted national attention.

However, I thinkthe attention around this controversy also stems fromFloridasmaking a name for itself in the national free speech debate.

In 2021,the Republican-majoritystate legislature passed three bills that touched on First Amendment issues, includingHB1,HB233andSB 7072, regulating protest, postsecondaryeducationand social media, respectively.

DespiteGov. RonDeSantisand hisadministrationscommendablecommitmenttofree speech, open inquiry, and viewpoint diversity,I think these bills suggest an inconsistency in this pledge:ina conflict between appealing to the party base and upholding the nonpartisan ideal of free speech, ideology will win out.

Is it too muchfor voters to ask that ourpolitical officials and university leaders set aside ideology in favor ofa nonpartisan application of theFirst Amendment? Maybesolong as weexpect them to put this above the interests of theirvoters.

But herein lies a possible solution:if students and faculty fromall ideologiesspeak out in support of free expression, then itisinpoliticiansinterest to protect this right for all.

The late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurterwrotethat civil liberties draw at best only limited strength from legal guaranties.In other words,those who care about libertymust take theBill of Rightsas nothing more than lip service. Forourprotectionstomean anything inday-to-daylife, they must be taken up by each of us. Otherwise, theywill be violated by those who dontembrace themandenforced onlyaftersuchviolations have occurred.

Inthis case, theissueisnotwhetherthe professors rights wereviolated.Theproblem isthatthe infraction occurred. Anend to such infractions isostensiblythe true goal of any robust system offreedom of speech.

So,students and faculty atUSFthough we come from a different institutionshould care about this story.

Yes, we shouldcommendour sister institutionfor reversing itsmistake. But more importantly, we should take the opportunity tomake our support for the First Amendment loud and clear. Doing so is the best way to say to our elected officials andtoour own university,This will not happen here.

SamuelRechekis ajuniorpoliticalscience and philosophy major with minors in history and economicsat USF Tampa.

Post Views:311

The rest is here:
OPINION: UF's free speech crisis, and why it matters for USF The Crow's Nest at USF St. Petersburg - The Crow's Nest

Free Speech TV speaks with Dr. Grieve Chelwa, on the latest #JustSolutions for an accurate analysis of the current workers strikes happening right now across the United States.

The month of October saw wave after wave of strikes breaking out across the US as workers in multiple industries demand better pay, better benefits, and better working conditions. This comes at a time when millions of Americans are leaving the workforce in what is being dubbed "The Great Resignation." Corporate America is dubbing it a "labor shortage," but labor rights activists say that instead, it's a shortage of good wages, affordable childcare, and adequate benefits, and they say workers have had enough.

Our guest today is economist Dr. Grieve Chelwa, Director of Research at the Institute on Race and Political Economy at The New School."

FSTVs Just Solutions features inspiring conversations with activists, community leaders, and others working to make our world a better place. We discuss the many challenges we are facing, while exploring the solutions emerging from the grassroots.

Missed an episode? Check out Just Solutions on FSTV VOD anytime 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.

Corporate American Dr. Grieve Chelwa Free Speech TV Just Solutions Labor Shortage Workers' Rights

Read the original:
Analysis of workers' strikes across the United States - Free Speech TV

Nov 8th 2021

by Helen Joyce: Britain editor, The Economist

IN ON LIBERTY, the greatest defence of free speech ever penned, John Stuart Mill, the son of a Scottish philosopher and economist, condemned the assumption of infallibilitybeing so certain you are right that you take it upon yourself to settle a question for everyone else without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. If only todays Scottish politicians were listening. The countrys new Hate Crime Act, which is expected to come into force in 2022, will make certain political arguments punishable by up to seven years in jail. It creates an offence of stirring up hatred, criminalising utterances that are considered inflammatory or insulting even when they cause no actual harm and are not intended to incite a specific act. And it covers private conversations, even within the home.

As debate in the Scottish Parliament during its passage made clear, it is largely aimed at silencing women who argue that access to single-sex spaces and services should be according to biological sex, not self-declared gender identity. Speech considered abusive of a trans personsomeone who does not identify with their natal sexis criminalised; abusing someone because of their sex is not. A proposal to carve out protection for factual statements, such as that human beings cannot change their biological sex, failed.

Stirring up offences in England and Wales covering race, religion and sexuality are narrowly drawn and hardly ever used. The new Scottish offences, by contrast, seem likely to be prosecuted with vigour. In 2021 Marion Millar of For Women Scotland, a feminist group, faced prosecution under existing laws after being accused of sending transphobic tweets. One included the slogan #WomenWontWheesht (women wont shut up) and a picture of ribbons in the suffragette colours that supposedly looked like a noose. The case was eventually dropped, though only after much expense and stress. The new act will make such prosecutions easier.

The new offence of stirring up hatred covers private conversations, even within the home

It is the latest authoritarian move by the Scottish National Party (SNP), which has dominated Scotlands Parliament for a decade. Critics say its focus on Scottish independence, which has given it a near-majority, allows it to avoid stating a coherent political philosophy or listening to critics. In 2012 it forced through a law criminalising sectarian chants at football matches, which was repealed in 2018 after human-rights challenges. In 2019 it was forced to drop a named persons scheme, which would have nominated a public-sector worker with responsibility for every child, after the Supreme Court ruled the plan breached privacy rights. Delays in implementing the latest act, which passed in March, may suggest cold feet. Unless amended, it is likely to face legal challenges, says Joanna Cherry, a QC who sits in Westminster for the SNP, and who (despite her party affiliation) represented Ms Millar.

Hate-crime laws often end up criminalising minorities, says Beth Grossman, a barrister specialising in media lawincluding those they were intended to protect, and more generally anyone who falls foul of the authorities. And they have a chilling effect, she adds, as people self-censor for fear of being reported, perhaps maliciously. As Mill put it: Unmeasured vituperation, employed on the side of prevailing opinion, really does deter people from expressing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who express them.

Helen Joyce: Britain editor, The Economist

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition of The World Ahead 2022 under the headline A new Scottish authoritarianism

Read more:
Scotlands new Hate Crime Act will have a chilling effect on free speech - The Economist

While most of the attention at the Supreme Court has been on high-profile cases over Texas abortion law and gun rights, the justices are about to hear another case involving something seemingly more mundane: Austins billboard laws.

The justices will hear a case Wednesday over a city ordinance that prevents billboard companies from changing their existing analog signs into digital ones.

The case may be about billboards, but its also about a more fundamental question of free speech rights.

For decades, Austin has outlawed what it calls "off-premises signs" that is, billboards advertising something that's not on the same property as the sign. The billboards you do see around town existed before the ban went into effect and were allowed to stay up. The city says the limitations on billboards were for aesthetic and safety reasons, basically arguing billboards are ugly and distracting to drivers.

Reagan National Advertising applied for a city permit in 2017 to turn its regular billboards into electronic ones giant digital screens that can change images or messages, as opposed to static billboards that show only whatever information is manually glued onto them. Lamar Advertising also filed an application to digitize its billboards.

The requests were denied because the city ordinance allows only on-premises signs to be digitized. So, the companies sued.

Their argument: The citys distinction between off-premises and on-premises signs is an unconstitutional infringement on the companies First Amendment rights.

Why? Because the only way to know if the sign is off premises is to read it.

Content based vs. content neutral

OK, lets back up a little. When it comes to regulating speech and yes, billboards are a form of speech there are a few ways courts can judge whether a regulation is constitutional. In general, regulations fall into two categories: content neutral and content based.

A content-neutral regulation is one that regulates speech based on the form it takes, regardless of what the message is. These are also called time, place and manner restrictions. In the case of billboards, that could be restrictions on the size or shape of signs regulations that apply to all billboards.

On the other hand, a regulation thats content based would be something that restricts the kinds of messages on a billboard for example, a rule that says you cant advertise cars or show political messages.

Courts treat those kinds of regulations much more skeptically. Theyre subject to whats called strict scrutiny" basically the highest standard a court will use to judge whether a law is constitutional.

If a court finds that a law is content based, its extremely difficult for the law to survive, Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said. She filed a brief in the Austin case, arguing the citys ordinance should be upheld.

Even though Austins billboard regulations might not sound like traditional content-based restrictions, the billboard companies argue the distinction between on-premises and off-premises signs is content based. You'd have to read a sign advertising a car dealership that's miles away, for example, in order to know that it's an off-premises sign.

The city, of course, disagrees.

Longstanding First Amendment principles apply strict scrutiny to content-based laws to avoid governmental favoritism of certain messages or viewpoints, the city said in written arguments to the Supreme Court. Austins sign code does not do so.

The question for the court is whether having to read a billboard just to figure out if its advertising something on the same property automatically makes the law a content-based regulation.

Beyond billboards

The legal test for whether a restriction is content based comes from a 2015 Supreme Court case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert. It revolved around an Arizona towns restrictions on posting certain kinds of signs, in this case a sign advertising a church service.

The court unanimously struck down Gilberts law because it treated signs with different kinds of messages differently and you would need to read the sign to determine how to treat it under the law.

Supporters of the billboard companies argue that while this may seem like an odd set of circumstances, its important for the court to keep this read the sign test to ward off what could be illegitimate content-based restrictions on speech.

Its an important constitutional test in other situations like political speech, where governments might pass a law that they might say isnt about the content of the speech, but is actually about the content of the speech, said Trevor Burrus, a fellow at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. Burrus also filed a brief in the case arguing Austins on- and off-premises distinction should be considered content based and subject to strict scrutiny.

But just how expansive should the definition of content based be? Should it apply to what appear to be benign limits designed to serve a public interest that are only tangentially related to the content?

Lakier, the University of Chicago law professor, points to concerns raised by privacy advocates that such a broad definition of what makes a regulation content based could be applied to something like health privacy laws. For instance, she said, how would you know if a health care provider is disclosing protected health information unless you read the information? Does restricting speech based on the content of the health information also make it a content-based regulation?

Privacy scholars have been yelling for years that this makes no sense and it threatens all of these really important privacy laws for no good reason, she said.

The on- and off-premises distinction is a common one in laws regulating signs and billboards across the country, so the outcome of this case could have consequences far beyond Austin.

If you found the reporting above valuable, please consider making a donation to support it. Your gift pays for everything you find on KUT.org. Thanks for donating today.

Read more from the original source:
Austin's ban on 'off-premises' digital billboards is going to the Supreme Court. Here's what the case is about. - KUT

An outspoken free speech advocate who promotes conspiracies about police and judicial corruption has been ordered not to publish anything on his website while on bail.

Russell Gordon Haig Mathews has been behind bars on remand since February after being charged with stalking several police and government officials.

On Tuesday the disability pensioner was granted bail at Brisbane Supreme Court several months after a different bid was quashed.

As part of his strict conditions, Mathews will not be allowed to publish anything on his website.

The site in question promotes conspiracy theories, some alleging police, judicial and government corruption and a worldwide terrorist Catholic mafia.

The court was told Mathews, 71, was refused bail in July as he didnt appear to understand he needed to comply with conditions.

Justice Frances Williams said there was a risk he might continue with the conduct which is the subject of the offences.

She noted there had been a substantial change in his position since then as Mathews was now assisted by the Caxton Legal Centre and had ongoing support from a social worker.

The applicant now recognises that he understands the court has jurisdiction over him, Justice Williams said.

Mathews, from Booval, is charged with multiple counts of unlawful stalking, along with charges of contravening an order about electronically stored information and failing to appear at court.

Police allege Mathews stalked three police officers and a senior court registrar online.

He maintains his innocence and has indicated he will fight the charges.

During a bail hearing at Ipswich Magistrates Court in May, crown prosecutor Andreas Galloway said Mathews considered himself to be subject to a conspiracy or believed there is corruption in a system against him.

On Tuesday, Mathews defence lawyer Lily Fletcher submitted her client could comply with not publishing material on his website and having no contact with the complainants.

(His) affidavit states he now understands he must refrain from such conduct, whether he considers it to be legally justifiable or not, Justice Williams said.

Under his bail conditions, Mathews will also need to report to police and refrain from displaying signage relating to the complainants.

Read the original post:
Free speech advocate Russell Gordon Haig Mathews granted bail but ordered to stay off his website - The West Australian

The Old Vics cancellation of Stephen Sondheims musical Into the Woods, co-directed by Terry Gilliam, is a shameful act of political and cultural censorship that has far-reaching implications for artists and audiences alike.

Last weeks decision has no precedent on Londons West End, with an entire production effectively disappeared in retribution for Gilliams public criticism of the #MeToo movement.

The 80-year-old Monty Python co-creator, animator, actor and director has previously skewered gender and identity politics and described #MeToo as a witch hunt.

The theatres brief update last Thursday announced that The Old Vic and co-producers Scenario Two have mutually agreed that the production of Into the Woods, scheduled for spring 2022, will not take place at The Old Vic, with the insincere sign-off that, The Old Vic wishes the show well for its future life.

Industry publication The Stage reported the show was cancelled following unrest within the organisation about its original decision to programme the production. A number of people closely associated with the London theatre revealed that dissatisfaction among staff and regular freelancers began back in May when the show was originally announced.

The unrest, writes The Stage, is understood to have stemmed from director Gilliams previous comments in the press relating to trans rights, race and the #MeToo movement, which some within the Old Vic team felt to be at odds with the theatres culture and values.

One can think of many legitimate reasons for unrest at this time. A preventable global pandemic has killed five million people worldwide, 160,000 of these in the UK, with artists livelihoods decimated. Low pay and precarious employment for the vast majority of workers in the industry have worsened considerably. But those targeting Gilliam are driven by selfish objectives, indifferent to the foul environment their actions will help create.

In a statement issued to The Stage, the Old Vic confirmed that its senior management met with Gilliam and co-director Leah Housman earlier this year as a matter of course to discuss our culture and values. According to the Evening Standard, Gilliam was told he had to apologise for his [#MeToo] comments if the show was to go ahead. But before an apology could be agreed, Gilliam is said to have further offended staff when he used his Facebook account to tell his almost half-a-million followers to watch [Dave]] Chapelles new Netflix show.

Gilliams Facebook post encouraged his followers to watch Dave Chappelles new show, The Closer, describing him as the greatest standup comedian alive today: incredibly intelligent, socially aware, dangerously provocative, and gut-wrenchingly funny. He added, There is a storm brewing over Netflixs support for the show. Id love to hear your opinions.

In fact, Chappelles special was neither intelligent, socially aware, dangerously provocative nor gut-wrenchingly funny, and Gilliams response reveals the limitations in his own outlook, a type of amorphous iconoclasm. However, Gilliams support for Chappelle was merely icing on the cake for his opponents, with the director already in the crosshairs over his statements critical of #MeToo.

In 2018, he was one of the few artists to speak out against the campaign. He told AFP: The mob is out there, they are carrying their torches and they are going to burn down Frankensteins castle.

Producer Harvey Weinstein had been targeted, Gilliam explained, because he is an asshole and he made so many enemies. But he stated pointedly, It is a world of victims. I think some people did very well out of meeting with Harvey and others didnt. The ones who did, knew what they were doing. These are adults, we are talking about adults with a lot of ambition. I know enough girls who were in Harveys suites who were not victims and walked out.

Later that year, Gilliam criticised the BBCs new comedy guidelines after Shane Allen, the state broadcasters controller of comedy commissioning, took a swipe at Monty Python during a press conference, asserting, If youre going to assemble a [comedy] team now, its not going to be six Oxbridge white blokes. Its going to be a diverse range of people who reflect the modern world.

Gilliam responded at the launch of his film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote (2018), telling the audience, I no longer want to be a white male, I dont want to be blamed for everything wrong in the world: I tell the world now Im a black lesbian. Invoking a sketch from Pythons The Life of Brian, Gilliam quipped, My name is Loretta and Im a BLT, a black lesbian in transition.

He concluded on a serious note, [Allens] statement made me so angry, all of us so angry. Comedy is not assembled, its not like putting together a boy band where you put together one of this, one of that, [until] everyone is represented.

Gilliam has continued to stick his neck out, telling the Independents Alexandra Pollard in January 2020, Yeah, I said #MeToo is a witch hunt. I really feel there were a lot of people, decent people, or mildly irritating people, who were getting hammered. Thats wrong. I dont like mob mentality. These were ambitious adults.

Challenged by Pollard that white men are born with certain privileges that, too often, they exploit, Gilliam responded with a rebuke to racial and gender stereotyping: I dont like the term black or white. Im now referring to myself as a melanin-light male. I cant stand the simplistic, tribalistic behaviour that were going through at the moment.

A glimpse into the subjective and vindictive climate in major arts organisations has been provided in recent days by members of the Old Vic 12, young beneficiaries of a scheme that provides access and insights into top-level theatre-making, mentoring from industry experts and paid opportunities to collaborate with each other to create brand new work.

Scheme beneficiary Nassy Konan tweeted last Friday to welcome Into the Woodss cancellation, This should have been scrapped over a year ago, but its taken them this long to do something right for ONCE.

Not to be outdone, her colleague Penny Babakhani tweeted, Good. It should have been cancelled over a year ago. And the leadership at the Old Vic who owe many of us an apology for the awful, awful way this was handled.

Their statements conjure an image of Gilliams animated Monty Python boot, stamping on the banished production, squashing its cast, crew and audience members underfoot.

Have Babakhani and Konan, in their rush to dispense with the old guard, even stopped to consider the implications of cancelling an entire theatrical production based on the personal views and opinions of a given director or producer? Who will be next? And how can young theatre practitioners learn anything if 80-year-old veterans of stage and screen are to be cancelled, with all that this implies for their future work and legacy?

Powerful social and economic interests are at work. The Old Vic reportedly cancelled Into the Woods despite warnings it may face legal action. It is also refunding 300,000 in ticket sales for the musical that was due to open a three-month run next April. The Telegraph reported on Tuesday, The London theatre needed Sondheims Into the Woods to survive 2022.

The Old Vics role in the #MeToo witch-hunt of actor Kevin Spacey in 2017 looms large in all of this. Spacey was artistic director at the Old Vic from 2003-2015, his tenure widely acclaimed a triumph. He lured some of the biggest names in acting and directing to the theatre. In the (2015) words of the Guardians theatre critic Michael Billington, Spacey had, through his tireless work and advocacy, rescued a theatre that looked as if it might be heading for oblivion and given the Old Vic a civic purpose even without a penny of public subsidy.

But then came Spaceys #MeToo moment. In October 2017, actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of making inappropriate advances to him some 30 years previously. Two days later, Spacey was accused of groping then-18-year-old William Little, late at night in a Nantucket, Massachusetts bar and restaurant in July 2016. Two years later the case collapsed, with Little refusing to testify about a key piece of exculpatory evidence. The WSWS described the sordid outcome as a blow to the #MeToo sexual witch-hunt .

The Old Vics contribution to Spaceys destruction came with an investigation, in October-November 2017, into 20 anonymous allegations of inappropriate behaviour during his tenure at the theatre.

Law firm Lewis Silken took just two weeks to issue findings, with the Old Vic concluding, it has not been possible to verify any of these allegations. It added, With the exception of one of the claims, none of the reported incidents were raised formally or informally with management. The Old Vic thanked those who had provided information against Spacey via its helpline and pledged the anonymity of his accusers would be respected along with the content of the alleged inappropriate behaviour.

Despite the lack of evidence against Spacey, the Old Vic gave blanket credence to his accusers, For those who were affected during Kevins tenure, our victim support counselling service will continue to be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for the next 12 months.

Gilliams production of Into the Woods is currently in search of a venue. He is no stranger to censorship. Monty Pythons Life of Brian (1979) had its funding pulled by EMI just days before production (George Harrison famously stepped in), and screenings were banned in several countries. More than four decades later, the senior management team at Britains leading independent not-for-profit theatre have themselves become chief censors, basing themselves on the anti-democratic, irrationalist theories of gender and identity politics. Their actions can only play into the hands of the far right.

Sign up for the WSWS email newsletter

Read the original post:
Old Vic cancels Terry Gilliam and Into the Woods: An attack on free speech and artistic freedom - WSWS

Frustrated by the U.S. attorney general's failure to investigate or take legal action against former President Donald Trump and his associates for various potential crimes, Free Speech for People argued Thursday that because Merrick Garland "is unwilling to step up, it is time for him to step down."

"Garland is no longer fit to serve as attorney general."

Free Speech for People's call for Garland to resign came in a lengthy statement outlining his inaction as well as Trump's troubling behavior while running for and serving as president. It followed the U.S. legal advocacy group urging Garland to "establish an independent task force to centralize and coordinate criminal investigations of Trump and his associates."

The organization called for a task force in January, just days after news broke that incoming President Joe Biden would nominate Garland to lead the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Since the Senate confirmed his nomination in March, the statement says, Garland hasn't taken "any meaningful action" to hold accountable Trump or "his co-conspirators for attempting to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021 and a flurry" of earlier criminal acts.

While Trump was president, the House of Representatives impeached him twice: in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, and this past January for "high crimes and misdemeanors" after he incited a deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Warning that "DOJ's inactionGarland's inactionendangers the rule of law," Free Speech for People's statement outlines some of what came before and after the 45th president's address that was followed by a violent mob of his supporters storming the halls of Congress:

Even before the 2020 election, Trump conspired with key aides to sabotage a free and fair election by extorting (or, viewed another way, bribing) the president of Ukraine to embarrass Joe Biden politically in exchange for military aid. (Although the Senate failed to convict him in an impeachment trial for this conduct, that has no impact on criminal proceedings.) And as the election approached, Trump bragged that he was deliberately sabotaging the Postal Service to limit voting-by-mail.

After his election defeat, Trump called Georgia's secretary of state and pressured him to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn the presidential election outcome in that state. (Two members of Congress have already sent a criminal referral to the FBI regarding that phone call.) He also pressured another Georgia official to investigate counties where Biden received more votes. Since overturning Georgia's election results alone wouldn't yield a victory for Trump, it's almost certain that he made or attempted similar conversations with elections officials in other states.

"That is not all of Trump's potential criminal liability," the statement notes, explaining that despite "extensive evidence that Trump obstructed justice," Robert Mueller, the special counsel who investigated his actions related to the 2016 election, didn't consider filing charges because of a DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting presidenta policy that now doesn't apply.

"The same policy probably protected Trump from the federal criminal charges against his former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, who paid off Trump's mistresses for their silence during the campaign," the statement continues, also highlighting that the businessman and former reality television host "spent his entire time in office misusing the presidency for personal profit."

While primarily focusing on Trump's actions and Garland's lack thereof, Free Speech for People also raised alarm about members of Congress "who appear to have helped plan" the insurrection: GOP Reps. Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Madison Cawthorn (N.C.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), and Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.).

Along with failing to investigate those Republicans, the statement says, the department Garland oversees has "inexcusably sat on its hands" since the House voted last month to hold former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in contempt of Congress while the attorney general "has actively defended or continued many Trump-era DOJ policies, including the cover-up of the key DOJ legal memo regarding Trump's obstruction of justice, and defending Trump's libel of a rape victim."

"For all these reasons, Garland is no longer fit to serve as attorney general," the statement declares. "His previous record of federal service should not blind us to the fact that he is simply the wrong person for this job at this time."

"As long as Trump and his co-conspirators walk free, American democracy is in danger. We need an attorney general who understands that danger and is willing to take action to protect democracy and the rule of law," the statement concludes. "Merrick Garland must resign."

Read the original post:
Citing Failure to Prosecute Trump and Cronies, Legal Group Calls On AG Garland to Resign - Common Dreams

The algorithms that govern how we find information online are once again in the newsbut you have to squint to find them.

Trump Accuses Google of Burying Conservative News in Search Results, reads an August 28 New York Times headline. The piece features a bombastic president, a string of bitter tweets, and accusations of censorship. Algorithms are mentioned, but not until the twelfth paragraph.

Trumplike so many other politicians and punditshas found search and social media companies to be convenient targets in the debate over free speech and censorship online. They have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD, the president recently tweeted. He added: They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation---will be addressed!

Trump is partly right: They are controlling what we can and cannot see. But they arent the executives leading Google, Facebook, and other technology companies. They are the opaque, influential algorithms that determine what content billions of internet users read, watch, and share next.

These algorithms are invisible, but they have an outsized impact on shaping individuals experience online and society at large. Indeed, YouTubes video-recommendation algorithm inspires 700,000,000 hours of watch time per dayand can spread misinformation, disrupt elections, and incite violence. Algorithms like this need fixing.

But in this moment, the conversation we should be havinghow can we fix the algorithms?is instead being co-opted and twisted by politicians and pundits howling about censorship and miscasting content moderation as the demise of free speech online. It would be good to remind them that free speech does not mean free reach. There is no right to algorithmic amplification. In fact, thats the very problem that needs fixing.

To see how this algorithm amplification works, simply look to RT, or Russia Today, a Russian state-owned propaganda outlet thats also among the most popular YouTube presences. RT has amassed more than 6 billion views across 22 channels, more than MSNBC and Fox News combined. According to YouTube chief product officer Neal Mohan, 70 percent of views on YouTube are from recommendationsso the sites algorithms are largely responsible for amplifying RTs propaganda hundreds of millions of times.

How? Most RT viewers dont set out in search of Russian propaganda. The videos that rack up the views are RTs clickbait-y, gateway content: videos of towering tsunamis, meteors striking buildings, shark attacks, amusement park accidents, some that are years old but have comments from within an hour ago. This disaster porn is highly engaging; the videos have been viewed tens of millions of times and are likely watched until the end. As a result, YouTubes algorithm likely believes other RT content is worth suggesting to the viewers of that contentand so, quickly, an American YouTube user looking for news finds themselves watching Russias take on Hillary Clinton, immigration, and current events. These videos are served up in autoplay playlists alongside content from legitimate news organizations, giving RT itself increased legitimacy by association.

The social internet is mediated by algorithms: recommendation engines, search, trending, autocomplete, and other mechanisms that predict what we want to see next. The algorithms dont understand what is propaganda and what isnt, or what is fake news and what is fact-checked. Their job is to surface relevant content (relevant to the user, of course), and they do it exceedingly well. So well, in fact, that the engineers who built these algorithms are sometimes baffled: Even the creators dont always understand why it recommends one video instead of another, says Guillaume Chaslot, an ex-YouTube engineer who worked on the sites algorithm.

Read more:
Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach | WIRED

WASHINGTON The basic question at a Supreme Court argument on Tuesday was whether elected bodies can violate the First Amendment when they censure their members for something they said. Put another way: Are censures, which are formal reprimands and a kind of punishment, a form of free speech or a threat to it?

The answer to that question, several justices said, did not seem difficult.

Unless theres something special about the word censure, and maybe there is, this is a very easy case, said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. One person says something derogatory about another person, and then the other person responds by saying something derogatory about the first person. Nobodys free speech rights are violated there.

The case was brought by David Wilson, a former elected trustee of the Houston Community College System and an energetic critic of its work. In addition to airing his concerns in interviews and on a website, Mr. Wilson sued the systems board, orchestrated robocalls and hired private investigators to look into whether another trustee had lied about where she lived.

He was, a federal appeals court judge wrote in a dissent, a gadfly legislator.

Mr. Wilson said there was plenty to criticize about the college system. In a Supreme Court brief, his lawyers said the board had been investigated for rampant political graft. In 2018, a former trustee was convicted of accepting bribes from people seeking contracts with the college.

That same year, Mr. Wilsons fellow board members censured him. The board finds that Mr. Wilsons conduct was not only inappropriate, but reprehensible, and such conduct warrants disciplinary action, the resolution said.

Mr. Wilson sued, saying the censure had violated the First Amendment.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, allowed the case to proceed, ruling last year that punishing an elected official for his speech can run afoul of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has long stressed the importance of allowing elected officials to speak on matters of public concern, Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote for the panel. A reprimand against an elected official for speech addressing a matter of public concern is an actionable First Amendment claim.

At Tuesdays argument, Michael B. Kimberly, a lawyer for Mr. Wilson, drew distinctions that appeared to frustrate some of the justices. He said, for instance, that elected bodies can punish their members for what they say during the lawmaking process but cannot issue formal reprimands for speech in other settings.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to find that distinction surprising. Lets imagine that a member engages in really offensive speech full of racial slurs that he said on the floor, lets say, in the debate about some civil rights legislation, she said. Under Mr. Kimberlys theory, she said, that speech could be the subject of a censure resolution.

But, Justice Barrett added, if the same member walks out onto the steps and gives a press conference and repeats those exact same racial slurs, that is not subject to censure ever?

Thats correct, Mr. Kimberly said.

Other justices expressed concerns about ruling on clashes between politicians.

Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, appeared wary of having courts become involved in the rough and tumble of politics. Justice Stephen G. Breyer echoed that point, saying that if we get into the business of starting to really oversee this, then weve changed the government structure significantly.

The Mississippi abortion case. The court is poised to use achallenge to a Mississippi lawthat bars most abortions after 15 weeks to undermine and perhaps overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

A major decision on guns. The justices will consider the constitutionality of a longstanding New York lawthat imposes strict limits on carrying guns in public. The court has not issued a major Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.

A drop in public support. Chief JusticeRoberts now leads a court increasingly associated with partisanship. Recent pollsshow the court is suffering a distinct drop in public support following a spate of unusual late-night summer rulingsin politically charged cases.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the court should consider a narrow ruling. Do we have to get into any of this in this case? he asked. I thought the issue, all we had to decide, was a mere censure does not trigger a retaliation claim.

Sopan Joshi, a lawyer for the federal government arguing in support of the systems board, said there were ample historical examples to establish that a censure resolution adopted by an elected body against one of its members does not abridge that members freedom of speech.

Richard A. Morris, a lawyer for the systems board in the case, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, said the power to censure was essential in the current political climate.

Elected officials these days can be their own independent misinformation machines, he said, and they can do great damage to institutions, all on social media.

The rest is here:
Supreme Court Hears Free Speech Case on Politicians Censure - The New York Times

Three Republican members of Congress and various representatives for free speech alumni groups on Monday suggested taking legal action against colleges that allow students to be bullied for expressing certain beliefs.

Republican Reps. Greg Murphy of North Carolina, Elise Stefanik of New York and Kat Cammack of Florida hosted a roundtable discussion regarding free speech on college campuses with individuals representing various free speech groups, including the Young Americas Foundation (YAF), the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (AFSA).

"Maybe we will take legal action," Murphy said during the roundtable discussion. " I'm a doctor. I hate to turn to lawyers for answers, but maybe [we] will."

Reps. Elise Stefanik, Greg Murphy and Kat Cammack host a roundtable discussion about free speech on college campuses (Greg Murphy's office)

Murphy's comments followed a suggestion from Ed Yingling of AFSA and Princetonians for Free Speech that schools that have adopted "the Chicago principles" or the University of Chicago's "Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression" and then violate those principles may become subject to legal action.

The Chicago principles state that "it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive."

HAWLEY TEARS INTO MEDIA'S GOAL AS GATEKEEPERS OF FREE SPEECH: THEY'LL REGRET THEIR BARGAIN WITH BIG TECH

"Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community," the rules state, according to the University of Chicago.

Reps. Elise Stefanik, Greg Murphy and Kat Cammack host a roundtable discussion about free speech on college campuses (Greg Murphy's office)

More than 80 schools have adopted the free-speech standard, according to FIRE.

NORTH CAROLINA REP. GREG MURPHY INTRODUCES BILL TO GIVE PROTECTIONS FOR REOPENING SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

"If you're a university that's signed the Chicago principles, and you allow a student to be bullied you have a right of action against that college because you went to that college, and you had the right to rely on those rules," Yingling said during the discussion. "And if they don't enforce those rules Stuart [Taylor] and I believe that you have a right of action against that university."

He added that the role of alumni groups that promote free speech on college campuses, like AFSA, is to support students enrolled at schools where faculty members and groups take issue with certain student ideologies and do not protect their rights to free speech.

AFSA's Ed Yingling, Raj Kannappan and Kenny Xu (Greg Murphy's office)

HAWLEY, COTTON GRILL DOJ OFFICIAL ON MEMO TARGETING THREATS AGAINST TEACHERS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

"There is a role for alumni here, and that is there's a small group at Princeton there are like 20 people, young kids who speak up, very brave but there's a role for alumni because we can support them," the Princeton alumnus said.

Stefanik, Cammack and other speakers shared anecdotal evidence of colleges taking action against people who express right-leaning points of view on campus. Stefanik, a graduate of Harvard College, explained how she was booted out of Harvards Institute of Politics over her vote to support former President Trumps unsuccessful push to reverse his presidential election defeat at the hands of Joe Biden.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The discussion comes as a 2021 FIRE survey of about 37,000 college students found that more than 80% of students have censored their own viewpoints on campus, with 21% saying they censor their viewpoints "often." More than two-thirds of students said it is "acceptable to shout down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus," and 23% said "it is acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech."

Read more:
Lawmakers, alumni groups call for free speech on campuses: There has to be some legal action - Fox News