Category Archives: Free Speech

The right'sdesire to suppress any speech they don't like is metastasizing.

Look no further than Donald Trump's latest effort to create his own social media networkfor the perfect example ofthe Orwellian way in which conservatives use the term "free speech." The authoritarian right is always claimingto defend against allegedly censorious liberals, buteagle-eyed readers of the terms of service noticed straight away that Trump's "free speech" network forbids users from hurting his snowflake delicatefeelings in any waywith a rule against users who "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." In other words, no making fun of Trump's fingers or mentioning the "pee tape" in this "free speech" paradise!

On the right, "free speech" tends to mean freedom from speech, specifically any speech that contradicts conservative beliefs. It's basically the "right" of conservatives and only conservatives not to be exposed to any speech that might offend, startle, or upset their tender feelings in any way. As Trump's terms of service indicate, it means a belief in the"right" of conservatives to be free of criticism. Thus "free speech," in Republican circles, becomes a justification for blatant censorship and even, in violation of the constitution, using government power to suppress any speech that makes them uncomfortable. To make the situation even more dire, Republicans are increasingly championing their "right"to use violence to silence political dissent.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

The national war on what has been misleadingly described as "critical racetheory" in public schools is, in reality, of course, a right-wing attempt to censor any discussion of racism, historical or otherwise. This has been perfectly illustrated in the Virginia governor's race, in which the GOP candidate, Glenn Youngkin, has been running ads calling for schools to censor materials that tell the historical truth about slavery.The ad, which features a woman telling a maudlin story about her son having "night terrors" from an assigned high school reading, is oblique about what book, exactly, Youngkin thinks should be censored. Of course, Youngkin is embarrassed to admit itbecausethe answer is "Beloved," a canonical novel by Nobel prize winner Toni Morrison.It's not a mystery why conservatives want to censor this classic novel about the evils of racism. It's for the same reason that Texas Republicans are circulating lists of other books to censor, the vast majority of which are about racism being bad or LGBTQ people being normal. As I noted in last week's newsletter, this is the same fascist urge to suppress free thoughtthat led to the Nazi book burnings, and there's no reason to sugarcoat it or play the "can't happen here" games. It can happen here, and is happening, as evidenced by a Republican running for statewide office on a pro-censorship platform in Virginia.

RELATED:Don't be fooled by parents' "critical race theory" tantrums they're a part of the GOP's strategy

A similarly chilling situation is playing out in Florida, where three political science professors at the University of Florida have been barred from testifying or otherwise offering expert opinion in an ongoing court case over voting rights in the state. The school isn't even trying that hard to conceal that their reason is to placate Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed the racist voting restrictions, citing"a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the state of Florida." DeSantis has been quite open out his eagerness to cut funding to punish schools that allow any speech that he disagrees with, so it's not surprising that the university administration is fearful. But, as the New York Times noted, universities typically allow "academic experts to offer expert testimony in lawsuits, even when they oppose the interests of the political party in power," and legal experts say "the action was probably unconstitutional."Indeed, the school's accreditor has already opened an investigation into this issue, which could threaten the university's access to federal student aid.

RELATED:DeSantis signs bill requiring Florida students, professors to register political views with state

To make the situation even more troubling, the right is increasingly embracing the view that they should be allowed to useviolence to silence political opponents. Many red states have basically legalized the use of cars as weaponsfor conservatives who wish to violently attack protesters, especially Black Lives Matterprotesters. Laws allowing people to run over protesters so long as they pretend, in the aftermath, to be afraid haveresulted, according to the Boston Globe, in "scores of people hit, dozens of injuries, at least three deaths, but precious little justice, much less sympathy, for the demonstrators injured, killed, or just plain terrified."

It's the moral equivalent of siding "with Bull Connor's firehoses over the Black children of Birmingham," or "with the cops with clubs over the brave, battered souls who traversed Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge," Jess Bidgood writes.

Last week, court proceedingsrevealed that the police in San Marcos, Texas, similarly sided with a group ofmotorists who used threats of violence to force Democratic organizers to cancel a campaign event for Joe Biden last year. After Trump supporters chased down and menaced a Biden campaign bus, threatening to run it off the road, police appear to have ignoredmultiple calls for help. The policemade fun of the Democrats insteadof doing their job. Afterward, Trump and other Republican politicians cheered on the threats of violence used to forcibly shut downwhat was supposed to be a mundane Biden campaign event.

RELATED:Cops and their allies have pushed hard for new wave of stringent anti-protest bills

This week, the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse also begins. Rittenhouse is allegedto have shot three Black Lives Matter protesters last year, killing two. His case has become a cause clbre on the right. Not that conservatives think Rittenhouse is innocent, really. It's quite clear that he loaded up with bullets and went out to the protest looking for trouble. No, the situation as with the laws legalizing car attacks on protesters is quite clearly about reinforcing this authoritarian view that progressive speech should be suppressed, by any means necessary.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

That the right is the true threat to free speechshould have always been obvious, starting with the way that Trump and his allies waged war on Black athletes and their allies who protested police violence by kneeling during the national anthem. It became even more obvious when Trump ordered the police to tear gas peaceful protesters so that he could walk to a photo-op without having to endure public criticism.Trollinggestures like Trump doing the "tomahawk chop" during the World Series, in this light,aren't really about free speech in the traditional sense. It's about asserting thatracists are the only people free to express their views, and that anti-racists are obliged to shut up. Most importantly, the right should be empowered to use both the law and violence to silence their critics.

RELATED:What the Kenosha shooter tells us about Donald Trump's America

Sadly, a gullible press has allowed the right's fake panic over "cancel culture" to muddy the waters and create the illusion that it's the left that is somehow the real threat to free speech. There are, unfortunately, situations where overeagerleftists harass and abuse people usually people on their own side, however for perceived and often inconsequential heresies, and it would be foolish to deny it. But on the whole, as writer Michael Hobbes has persuasively argued, most "cancel culture" stories aren't really about censorship at all, but the exaggerated anxieties of older centrists who don't like being yelled at by young people on Twitter. Certainly, it has no relationship to the right's campaign for overt censorship of progressive opinions or even uncomfortable facts.While it would be good for some on the left to get a little more measured and thoughtful in responding to folks they disagree with (or think they do, anyway), when it comes to actual censorship, the far more pressing concern is what the right is up to.

As countless examples show, there's a nationwide movement by Republicans to use whatever tools they have including government power and even violence to silence political opponents and rewrite history. Mean tweets are but a faint shadow of the overt threat of censorship coming from the increasingly fascist right.

See more here:
Surge in GOP's war on free speech should sound alarms - Salon

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. tore into the liberal media's ambition of being "gatekeepers" of free speech in America in an interview with Fox News Digital.

"The liberal media want to be the gatekeepers for speech in this country, what you can or cannot say that's acceptable speech. And what we found is the American people don't want them to be the gatekeepers," Hawley said. "They want them, the media, just to report on the facts. Tell us what is actually happening and let the American people draw their own conclusions. So that's not what the left-wing media wants."

THE HAWLEYS GET VULNERABLE ON FAMILY LIFE IN NEW THIS IS LIVING' PODCAST: NOT A POLITICAL HOT TAKES SHOW

"And the media doesn't like the power that the American people have now to choose among different media outlets. They don't like the proliferation of different voices. They want to control it all themselves. This is why they love the power of Big Tech because it centralizes control again. So, I ignore all of those media folks who tell me, you know, what I can and cannot say or tell me what the right answer is or not. You know, they shouldn't have that kind of power," Hawley said.

Senator Josh Hawley, R-Missouri., speaks during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled "Texas Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket", in Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, U.S., September 29, 2021. Tom Williams/Pool via REUTERS

Hawley, who spoke at the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando, insisted the media is cheerleading the censorship from Big Tech because it "enforces their party line."

"I think the media has made a dangerous bargain with tech because tech wants to and if something doesn't change will eat the existing media platforms alive," Hawley said. "Tech wants to own the news industry, tech wants to own the entertainment industry, they want to own the sports industry. So I think that some of these liberal journalists who are cheering on Big Tech's war on conservative speech, I think that they're going to be sadly disappointed when tech turns around and gobbles up their platform and starts telling them what they can print and starts telling them what to do."

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

"And we know they'll do that because Facebook has been trying it. You know, Facebook has said you need to pivot to video. Oh no, you need to use this format for your news stories. Google doing the same thing. I mean, Google is the most powerful publisher in America now. So I think that the left's bargain with Big Tech is going to turn out to be a fool's bargain," Hawley added.

The GOP senator railed against the "so-called fact-checkers" that have emerged in recent years to combat what they deem is "misinformation" as part of the media's effort to control speech, calling them "Democratic operatives, many of whom are "paid" to be partisans.

Hawley also spoke about his new podcast "This is Living," which he co-hosts with his wife, Erin Hawley, and how the emerging medium stands out.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"What I like about podcasting, which is a new medium to me I haven't previously done a podcast of my own, is it's a little bit longer-form format, and so it gives you a chance to be a little less hurried," Hawley told Fox News Digital. "You can have a conversation and for me, this podcast with my wife, this is something we want to do for a long time. It's just a sharing about our family, about our married life, I mean, the things that, to us, really mattered the most to life."

smart city file image: istock (istock)

"I spend my working hours in politics. My wife is an attorney, a constitutional lawyer, a Supreme Court lawyer. And of course, we love those things. We think those are really important, but we think that family and faith and marriage is even more important. And so for us, this is just a fun chance to share some of that journey," he added.

More:
Hawley tears into media's goal as 'gatekeepers' of free speech: They'll regret their 'bargain' with Big Tech - Fox News

An advertisement is part of "free speech" but it cannot be at the cost of the trademark of an owner as it amounts to a misleading ad, the Delhi High Court has said, asking Google to investigate a complaint about diversion of Web traffic to an imposter's site.

The high court said Google, which earns revenue through ads, is equally liable for the omissions and commissions of an advertiser who, through oblique motives, is cashing upon goodwill of the trademark owner for his own benefit.

The court noted that as per Googles policy, they investigate use of the trademark as a keyword but that is only confined for the European Union (EU) and not being followed in India and it was in addition to the investigation undertaken for an infringement of trademark in Ad-title and Ad-text.

The high courts order came while directing Google India Ltd and Google LLC to investigate any complaint to be made to them by the plaintiff, Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd, alleging use of its trademark and variations as keywords resulting in the diversion of traffic from the website of the plaintiff to that of the advertiser.

There cannot be any dispute that the advertisement is part of free speech, but surely that free speech cannot be at the cost of the trademark of an owner which amounts to a misleading advertisement, Justice V Kameswar Rao said in a 137-page order.

Also read:Sabyasachi withdraws Mangalsutra campaign advertisement amid controversy

The high court said there is no doubt that the usage of trademark as keyword results in diversion of traffic from the trademark owners website to the webpage of the advertiser which causes prejudice to the owner in terms of goodwill and credibility for the services and should be investigated by Google.

The judge said it was only a prima facie conclusion and not a final determination of the suit.

The order came on a plea filed by Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd (APML) and DRS Logistics Pvt Ltd against Google India Ltd, Google Inc and Just Dial, seeking to prevent infringement and misuse of their trademark Agarwal Packers & Movers (APM).

The court directed Google India and Google LLC to also investigate and review the overall effect of an advertisement to ascertain that it is not infringing or passing off the trademark of the plaintiff and if a violation is found, it shall restrain the advertiser from using the same and remove such advertisements.

The plea said the search results showing the imposters website at the top in Google search engine were causing confusion and deception with the intention to ride on the goodwill of the original owner of the trademark.

APML, represented through senior advocate Chander M Lall, claimed that Google was diverting the traffic meant for it towards imposter sites just because they were offering a higher bid price to Google for its trademark.

By this mechanism while APML was being forced to bid/ compete for its own trademarks with imposters, the unsuspecting consumers and public were being misled into handing over its valuable household goods into the hands of these imposters and then losing their life-earned items, it said.

Google, represented through senior advocate Sandeeep Sethi, contended that it was an intermediary and cannot be held liable for such violations and that the key words are chosen by advertisers and any complaints by APML should be addressed to the advertiser and not Google.

About the different policies followed by the Internet giant on the issue, the high court order said: It is clear that the fact that Google is investigating an Ad where use of trademark as a keyword is being used, there cannot be any reason why such a procedure is not followed in India.

"It appears this stipulation has been incorporated in their policy with regard to EU countries for the reason that there might be a chance of deception/ confusion in a given Ad which pops-up on the basis of search query which has also been chosen as a keyword, which may trigger the advertisement consisting of the infringed trademark/ references to it.

The court said it was unclear that on what basis a distinction has been drawn by Google between certain countries with regard to the trademark policies so formulated and followed.

Be that as it may, it is clear from Googles EU and EFTA (European Free Trade Association) policy that Google provides a higher duty of care in a jurisdiction where large portions of the population are internet literate. This aspect further fortifies my finding as to why such a policy should be followed in India, the judge said.

Allowing individuals who are not owners of a trademark to choose a keyword which is a trademarked term or use parts of the trademark interspersed with generic words in the Ad-title and / or Ad-text may constitute an infringement of a trademark and / or passing off, the court said.

The court took into account an affidavit filed by a consumer who had searched for APML but got confused while making the web search and suffered huge damages due to the confusion created by the defendants.

It does prima facie reveal that with usage of trademark of plaintiff as a keyword the traffic from the webpage of the plaintiff is being diverted to the webpage of the competitor/ advertiser which means that a normal consumer who on typing the trademark of plaintiff as a search query was led to a webpage which had caused confusion regarding the origin of the webpage, whether belonging to the plaintiff or not.

"In cases of intellectual property, the courts must also be mindful of the fact that it is ultimately the public at large which gets cheated and feels the brunt of spurious goods and services in the market, it said.

Check out latest videos fromDH:

Read this article:
Ad part of free speech but not at cost of other trademark owner, says HC; directs Google to probe plaint - Deccan Herald

On Sept. 21, College Pulse, RealClearEducation and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education published the 2021 College Free Speech Rankings, a comprehensive comparison of student assessment of free speech on college campuses. The takeaway? Georgetown Universitys free speech rating is horrendous.

As a premier school for the studies of domestic and international politics, Georgetown embarrassingly falls below the 18th percentile of the 159 American colleges, coming in at No. 131. A deeper analysis of the data reveals troubling insights on the state of free speech at Georgetown. According to the report, of the 250 Georgetown undergraduate respondents, only 24% say it is never acceptable to shoutdown a speaker on campus, and just 73% of students say it is never acceptable to use violent protest to stop a speech on campus. Despite these sentiments, it is critical speakers not be shut down, as exposure to different beliefs broadens student perspectives. We must address the disrespect for free speech on campus and engage speakers and students with critical questions about their beliefs.

In October 2019, the Georgetown University Law Center invited Kevin McAleenan, the then-acting U.S. secretary of homeland security, to give a keynote address. As he attempted to speak, protesters shouted him off the stage because of the Trump administrations immigration policies. These hecklers included law students and, to make matters worse, professors. Similarly, in September 2019, the loud disruptions of student protesters at an event featuring a conservative perspective to climate change required Geoffrey Bible, the director of protocols and events, and the Georgetown University Police Department to step in and restart the event.

Students on both sides of the political aisle feel their speech is repressed. The unofficial status of H*yas for Choice, a student-run pro-abortion rights organization, and the cancellation of its past workshops are a great frustration for many. Because of Georgetowns status a Catholic and Jesuit university, pro-abortion rights students believe their perspectives are censored because of their content. Restrictions on speech have become commonplace on our campus. Our student body should take action to protect freedom of speech and welcome ideological diversity while respecting rights to protest. Indeed, protests indicate a healthy free speech culture on campus. Yet the most effective forms of protest reveal themselves in the form of pointed questions that challenge views and ideas presented. Shutting down a speaker or ending an event sets a precedent that makes other crucial perspectives and voices less likely to be heard.

The warnings in the free speech rankings are troubling in themselves, but especially so today. Following almost three semesters of virtual learning, only one class of undergraduate students has experienced a full academic year on the Hilltop. As a result, many of Georgetowns cherished values and traditions remain unfamiliar to the majority of our student body. Now more than ever, we are in a critical time to rediscover, reinvigorate and become active participants in the spirit of Georgetown. This process includes recognizing our Jesuit value of community in diversity, which calls on us to engage with those unlike ourselves and embrace our differences a principle central to free speech on our campus. We have not only the burden of rekindling Georgetown post-pandemic but also the honor of reshaping it into something we are proud of.

Low confidence in the campuss capacity to uphold the right of free speech is antithetical to the vibrant political activism culture that students have worked so hard to construct at Georgetown. As a training ground for future public servants and political actors, our student body must create a movement in order for students of all ideological backgrounds to feel comfortable expressing their ideas. We should expect our ideas to be challenged by others in the classroom. We should attend speaker events that contradict our long-held political views with an open mind. We should protest events we strongly disagree with while respecting others right to speak. We should see students regularly engaging in critical and substantive conversation in Red Square with excitement for the truth we can discern when we put our diversity of backgrounds and opinions together. Let us break a different Georgetown bubble that of our own persistent values and views and escape the perpetual echo chamber we find ourselves in, so we can become more engaged and balanced members of campus and society. Together, we can create a greater Georgetown.

Matteo Caulfield is a junior in the College.

View original post here:
VIEWPOINT: Protect Free Speech on Campus - Georgetown University The Hoya

On a cold winter day in February 2020, BJP leader and turncoat politician Kapil Mishra tweeted a video, asking his followers to "prevent another Shaheen Bagh," referring to the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 demonstrations that were being held in Shaheen Bagh of Delhi since December 15, 2019. Prior to this, Mishra threatened the protesters during a rally near Jaffrabad metro station, saying that he would take matters into his own hands if the police failed to disperse them. What followed was one of the bloodiest chapters of modern-day Indian politics: the 2020 Delhi riots, which led to the killing of more than 40 people, mostly Muslims.

Earlier in January this year, Twitter and Facebook had to ban the account of Donald Trump after his provocative social media posts further fuelled the attack on the US Capitol, which initially started as a result of Trump's instigating speech towards his predominantly white supremacist followers after losing the US presidential election to Joe Biden. In a statement, Twitter said, "After assessing the language in these Tweets against our Glorification of Violence policy, we have determined that these Tweets are in violation of the Glorification of Violence Policy and the user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service."

Twitter also banned the accounts of former Trump associates Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn for promoting far-right conspiracy theories.

In recent days, we have seen a surge in violence globallyoften communal and politicalincited by vested quarters through social media. Even in Bangladesh, during the recent Durga Puja celebrationsone of the biggest religious festivals in the countrycommunal violence erupted after vested quarters posted false, staged, misleading and provocative content on social media. The attacks continued for days, spanning the length and breadth of the country.

The initial incident took place in Cumilla, where a man made a Facebook live post, accusing the Hindu community of desecrating the Quran at a puja mandap. Early on the morning of October 13, police received a call from Ekram Hossain regarding the alleged defamation of the Quran. After police arrived at the spotNanua Dighir Par puja mandaparound 7:30am, a man named Foyez Ahmed started making a Facebook live video, showing the OC, Anwarul Azim, and urging people to rise up against the defamatory act.

The video started gaining traction with increased views and shares, and by 8am there was a throng of people at the spot. By 9am, there were even more people. They all sought revenge. The police and local administration could not do much to contain the swelling crowd. What followed was a brutal onslaught on the Hindu community.

While the government now needs to take a hard look at the context of the attacks, the factors that enabled it, and the reasons why the government and its intelligence agencies failed to take preventive measures, or even why the curative actions took so long to quell the violence, it also needs to look at how social media is being misused by vested quarters to stoke communal violence in the country.

An investigative report published by The Daily Star on October 22 revealed that, as of the publication of the report, over 300 provocative videos were available on various YouTube channelsmost of them uploaded within hours of the October 13 attacks. And all of these videos feature highly loaded and divisive messages. They are filled with hate speech, aimed at instigating the viewersby appealing to their religious sentimentsto act against the Hindu community. Facebook was also found to be filled with inflammatory content against the minority community.

While the government should not resort to an overall internet blackout or indiscriminate banning of social media platforms, it needs to work on formulating a comprehensive social media policy that can tackle their unchecked misuse, while ensuring people's fundamental right to freedom of speech at the same time.

The government currently has the Digital Security Act (DSA) in place, but the DSA or similar draconian laws cannot be a solution to this problem. These are highly controversial laws that verge on the suppression of freedom of speech, and more than helping curb the ever-spiralling infodemic, these laws are rather used selectively and to serve the interests of powerful quarters.

What we need right now is a holistic policy and an environment that takes into account fact-checking, social media platform verification and authentication, and social media usage literacy and etiquettes, among other mechanisms, to counter the spread of disinformation, fake news and loaded content.

In a country like Bangladesh where people with limited literacy on safe internet usage have easy access to the internet, the users need to be adequately educated so that they can use social media platforms in a responsible manner.

The government should also scrutinise the social media accounts and platforms that are spreading harmful and divisive content, understand if these are premeditated and synchronised, identify the actors behind them, and take appropriate action to neutralise them. The accounts that have intentionally inflamed violence in the past should also be banned, and the perpetrators should be held accountable for their deeds.

The social media platforms also need to be much more proactive in screening the content that they allow to circulate on their sites. Facebook has recently come under fire after internal documents and reports revealed that the company failed to curb divisive, hate-filled content directed at the Muslim community in India. And the build-up of such content, it has been reported, might have played a role in inflaming the 2020 Delhi riots.

With regard to these allegations, in a statement to the Associated Press, Facebook said the platform had "invested significantly in technology to find hate speech in various languages, including Hindi and Bengali," which, in 2021, reduced "the amount of hate speech that people see by half." However, more needs to be done to ensure that provocative content are screened, flagged and removed on time, along with close monitoring of groups and platforms that have a tendency to promote fake information and disinformation.

Similarly, people in general need to be more aware of the facts and be responsible in consuming, engaging with and sharing such content on social media. Rather than blindly believing every bit of information that is out there on social media, people should check for content validated by the news media.

And the government should encourage and promote press freedom in order to be able to tackle the problem of disinformation. Unless there is a free flow of credible information from the press, the risk of people resorting to social media to quench their thirst for news and information will remain. Stringent government regulation on social media platforms, which can at times infringe on people's right to free speech, is a highly undesirable scenario, and everyone, including the social media users, must do their part to avoid such a situation.

While the government needs to create an ecosystem that promotes healthy usage of social media, the platforms themselves must focus on greater vigilance with regard to what messages are being circulated on their sites. And people should look to the news media as a source of information, rather than dubious social media content. To ensure productive social media engagement, the responsibility falls on all of us, on what we choose to consume, and on where we draw the line.

Tasneem Tayeb is a columnist for The Daily Star.

Her Twitter handle is @tasneem_tayeb

Read the original:
Where to draw the line between free speech and hate speech? - The Daily Star

Stand-up comedy translates poorly in print, but here goes: Comedian Louis C.K. has an excellent bit where he talks about sexual assault (which is awkward since he has been accused of exposing himself to women without their consent) where he suggests that you should never rape anyone unless you have a reason. For example, he continues, you want to have sex with someone and they wont let you.

His delivery which involves crass language makes clear that the joke is actually at the expense of those who commit sexual assault, and not at their victims or at the act itself. Yet many have made the case that topics such as rape should never be so trivialized as to be included in a public stand-up routine.

Quebec comedian Mike Ward was trying to challenge that idea more than a decade ago when he made fun of Jrmy Gabriel, who was a child at the time and something of a mini-celebrity in the province. Mr. Gabriel has Treacher Collins Syndrome, which is characterized by facial deformities and profound hearing loss.

Mr. Wards bit was about deflating the provinces sacred cows, and so he used his act to mock Mr. Gabriel for having a subwoofer on his head and joked about drowning him when he found out the condition was not terminal. Mr. Wards intention was to poke fun at the sacrosanctity of Quebecs celebrities, though unlike Louis C.K., he made the point by dragging a specific person: a kid with a disability.

Arguably that makes for cheap comedy, or evidence of a moral deficiency, or some combination thereof. But what it doesnt make for, according to a split 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, is a breach of Mr. Gabriels rights. In its decision, the majority wrote that: The exercise of freedom of expression, for its part, presupposes, at the same time that it fosters, societys tolerance of expression that is unpopular, offensive or repugnant.

The case was essentially one of competing rights: the right to free speech versus the right to the safeguard of ones dignity and the freedom from discrimination as defined by Sections 4 and 10 of Quebecs Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The majority noted that the test of discrimination is not about the emotional harm suffered by the target (which could be a matter for civil court), but whether a distinction was made of an individual based one of the grounds listed in Sec. 10 (race, sex, gender identity, etc.) and whether a reasonable person would view the expression as inciting others to vilify them or to detest their humanity and would be likely to lead to discriminatory treatment. In the end, the majority decided this test was not met.

The more interesting if alarming reasoning came by way of the dissenting justices, who focused almost entirely on the individual harm caused by Mr. Wards comments. Indeed, they offered little to no acknowledgement of the chilling effect that a decision in favour of the plaintiff would have on wider principles of freedom of expression.

The four justices labelled Mr. Wards jokes willful emotional abuse and compared his words to abusive conduct toward Mr. Gabriel. They wrote that the comedian invoked archaic attitudes about segregating children with disabilities when he joked about drowning the boy, and they cited a lower courts finding that freedom of expression could not serve as a defence in this case because Mr. Wards jokes did not raise an issue of public importance as if the test of whether a breach of ones right to preserve his or her dignity hinges on whether the offender has something objectively important to say.

The dissenting justices suggested unacceptable speech is characterized by being so harmful that a reasonable person in their circumstances would refuse to tolerate it, which is an imprecise test since reasonable people have varying levels of tolerance. And they concluded by writing that punitive damages serve not only a denunciatory purpose, but serve to deter people like [Mr. Ward] from profiting from the intentional interference with the Charter rights of others.

That last line is perhaps the most unintentionally poignant of the justices dissent. In their view, a positive effect of finding that Mr. Ward violated Mr. Gabriels Charter rights is that it would have dissuaded other comedians from telling jokes that could contravene protections under Sec. 10 out of fear of legal reprisal. That would be proving the point Mr. Ward was trying to make.

This case was an important victory for free speech, but it was not a comfortable one. The court was just one vote away from deeming the infliction of emotional distress a Charter violation. That wouldve created a harm much more profound than Mr. Wards tasteless words.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: In Mike Ward's case, the SCC was one vote away from setting a disturbing new free speech precedent - The Globe and Mail

Nearly one-quarter of college students are comfortable with using violence to stop a speaker on their campus, according to the 2021 Free Speech rankings released Wednesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The 23% of students at 159 university campuses who thought violence was acceptable was an increase of 5% from the figure in last years total.

It was 18% last year, which we thought was alarmingly high, and we find it very disturbing that number is up and is as high as it is, FIRE executive director Robert Shibley said.

The countrys top-ranked schools were among the least tolerant in terms of free speech, FIRE found. And it was the message sent by the administration that often proved key, either to wholeheartedly support a wide-open and robust discussion of events and topics or, more often, to send a rather muddled picture of where it stood for, in terms of free speech and censorship, the survey found.

If college administrators are willing to take leadership on free speech that would be a major factor in a schools performance, Mr. Shibley said.

Conducted between February and May, FIRE surveyed 37,104 students to come up with the most complete picture the group has been able to provide of the campus climate since their first such survey in 2020. The survey was done in conjunction with College Pulse.com and is available there.

Claremont-McKenna, a private college in California, edged out last years leader, the University of Chicago, to take top honors in terms of having and encouraging a climate that supports debate on myriad topics from race to climate, according to the survey.

The University of New Hampshire, Emory University and Florida State rounded out the top 5 ranked schools for their free speech climate in 2021.

On the other end of the spectrum, DePauw University ranked as the worst school for a free speech environment for the second year in a row. Joining DePauw at the bottom were Marquette, Louisiana State University, Boston College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

DePauw officials noted that 57% of its students think it is likely that the DePauw administration will defend a speakers rights in a controversy.

The university is taking steps to underscore its commitment to that value, as well as inclusion and equity, said DePauw spokeswoman Mary Dieter.

DePauw is rewriting its freedom of expression statement while will be finalized this academic year, she said.

We want to be a university where all students, no matter where they reside on the political spectrum or any other form of identity, believe they can express themselves freely, Ms. Dieter told TWT.

While the students at almost all of the schools identify as more liberal than conservative, students across the political spectrum reported self-censoring.

The self-censorship was most pronounced in terms of class discussions and disagreeing with a professor, according to the survey.

Its amazing how universal this is regardless of your views on the political spectrum, Mr. Shibley said. You really cant predict the thing thats going to cause a problem on your campus.

But students who identified as conservative were more likely to feel uncomfortable voicing their opinions on campus.

The survey showed more than half of them felt that way in every proposed situation, from private discussions in a dorm to class.

Overall, 66% of students felt a hecklers veto shouting down a speaker was acceptable, an increase of 4% from 2020, while only 40% of students were comfortable disagreeing with a professor publicly, an increase of 5%, the study found.

The acceptance of violence or a hecklers veto to muzzle speech with which they disagree is considerably more pronounced among Ivy League schools than Big Ten, FIRE researcher Sean Stevens said. The question did not measure a persons own willingness to engage in those forceful forms of censorship, he noted.

The percentage of students saying they were not comfortable voicing their opinion on various issues is particularly discouraging given college campuses should be perhaps the one place where such behavior occurs least often, Mr. Shibley said.

I dont want people to get outrage fatigue, but the numbers should be lower, he said.

The survey found that some topics trigger more self-censorship than others. Discussions about race inequality led that list, followed by abortion, gun control, George Floyds death and transgender issues.

The pattern of students at elite universities which FIRE defined Wednesday as the Ivy League finding disruptive behavior against speakers more acceptable is also emerging in surveys of top liberal arts colleges, too, Mr. Stevens said.

There are exceptions to both rules. Students at Duke, Emory and Claremont-McKenna were, on the whole, more tolerant toward speakers with whom they disagree than their Ivy League counterparts.

Similarly, at schools where the student body reflects less intellectual diversity, students reported being more comfortable voicing and listening to opinions. This was most telling at Wesleyan University, which is overwhelmingly liberal, and Hillsdale College, which is overwhelmingly conservative, Mr. Stevens said.

Read the original here:
One in four students OK with violence to stop free speech on campuses - Washington Times

Right to Life

John and Barbara Willke came up with a strategy to reverse Roe v. Wade. Many anti-abortion activists think their plan is about to pay off.

Wochit

A new California law aimed at protecting the public and front line workers from being harassedwhile getting and administeringvaccineshas turned into a freedom of speechbattle for one Fresno anti-abortion group.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled in Right to Life of Central California versusBontathat Senate Bill 742likely discriminates against Right to Lifes outreach to women.

The law was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October.

Free speech won the day not just for our client, Right to Life, but for every other speaker in California," said Denise Harle, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom."We applaud the courts decision to protect the First Amendment rights of every Californian, regardless of their viewpoint, and halt enforcement of this unconstitutional state law."

The bill was designed in the COVID-19 era and aims to protect the rights of people to get vaccinated, while preserving the right of protesters to assemble.

The law bans certain free-speech activities when a speaker is within 30 feet of another person and that other person is in a public way or on a sidewalk area and within 100 feet of the entrance or exit of a vaccination site and is seeking to enter or exit a vaccination site.

Right to Lifeis located next to a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Fresno, which also administers the HPV vaccine.Under the law, Right to Life staff and volunteers are banned from speaking with potential clients outside itsfacility because the two organizations share a sidewalk.

SB 472 also makes it a misdemeanor to harass, intimidate, injure or obstruct people on their way to get vaccinated. Those found guilty of breaking the law face amaximum $1,000 fine and/or up to six months in jail.

Right to Life is not the only organization to voice its concern with the measure. Many have questioned whether SB 472 violates the First Amendment.Free speech advocates including First Amendment Coalitions Glen Smith believe the 30-foot barrier is "excessive and out of compliance with court rulings."

However, Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), who authored the bill, said SB 472 gives local officials the tools they need to protect patients and frontline workers when getting the COVID-19 vaccine, or any other vaccine.

"Health care workers administering vaccines and saving lives need local officials to have SB 742 to keep them and their patients safe from extremists who obstruct and threaten people with violence and loss of privacy for participating in COVID-19 vaccination clinics," Pan said in October.

The court order stated that the defendants arguments demonstrate that SB 742 is so vague that it is conducive to different and conflicting interpretations on what conduct is even prohibited by its terms.

Right to Life shares free resources, provides support servicesand offers informational leaflets while standing on the public sidewalks in front of its Outreach Center and between the Outreach Center and Planned Parenthoods property, according to Alliance Defending Freedom.

The court granted the anti-abortiongroups request for a temporary restraining order to halt enforcement of discriminatory parts of the law against any speaker while the lawsuit moves forward.

The court rightly acknowledged SB 742s double standard in restricting prolife outreach while permitting other types of speech, such as picketing about a labor dispute,"Harle said. "We are thankful Right to Lifes staff and volunteers can continue their critical mission of serving vulnerable women in the central California region with their free, life-giving services.

Sheyanne Romero covers Tulare County public safety, local government and business for the Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register newspapers. Follow her on Twitter @sheyanne_VTD. Get alerts and keep up on all things Tulare County for as little as $1 a month. Subscribe today.

Read this article:
Central Valley Right to Life group claims vaccine protection law prohibits freedom of speech - Visalia Times-Delta and Tulare Advance-Register

THE hypocrisy of those who claim the mantle of progress was recently exposed in a variety of unusual settings.

First off, we had the strange cancelling of Novara Media on YouTube for apparently breaching some obscure community guideline. Cue outrage from the Corbyn-supporting group and from Gary McQuiggin, Novaras head of video, who rightly argued, Whether or not you agree with what we publish, it shouldnt be the whim of giant tech companies to delete us overnight with no explanation.

Hear hear, Mr McQuiggan. This is clearly a man of principle who understands the dangerous power of Big Tech companies determining who can speak on these most important public platforms.

But is this the same Mr McQuiggan who, in 2020, when discussing the problem of people cancelled online said: Its not censorship when a private company decides to remove you from its platform. You dont have an inalienable right to a Twitter account.

READ MORE: Why we need free expression

For this man, it appears there are important principles for some, ie himself, but not for others.

Next up we have the outrageous Crystal Palace fans who dared to cross their masters by unfurling a banner of their own, mocking the new Saudi owners of Newcastle United.

The banner raised questions that many commentators and football pundits had raised about the lack of ethics involved in owning a football club in the UK. The banner read: Owners Test: Terrorism, Beheadings, Civil Rights Abuses, Murder, Censorship, Persecution.

Rather than celebrate these fans who appear to have educated themselves about the oppressive nature of the Saudi regime and the hypocrisy of the politically correct Football Association, the Palace fans in question found themselves under investigation from the police who claim the banner could be offensive and possibly racist.

The mistake these silly fans made was to think that, at a time when sport is being filled up with political campaigns and expressions of virtue, they had a right to think for themselves and express their own opinions. Get back in your box, you uncouth hoi polio, well tell you when to take the knee.

READ MORE: Politics and sport don't mix

Then we have the case of South African cricketer Quinton de Kock who, along with his teammates, was instructed to Take the Knee, before their T20 match against the West Indies. De Kock, who is from a mixed-race family refused cue more outrage with demands for Quinton to justify himself.

Quinton has apologised for thinking for himself. He now understands that when they scream Educate Yourself, what they really mean is, Do as youre told.

And finally, we have the hilarious incident of the Netflix protesters who oppose the allegedly transphobic comedian Dave Chappelle.

These progressives had to contest with the counter-protesting comedian, Vito Gesualdi, who came along to the demonstration with his outrageous placard that read, We Like Dave. One protestor grabbed the placard and smashed it up, stamping on it and leaving Gesualdi with nothing but the stick left. Cue more outrage from the placard stamper who now pointed at the stick and screamed, Hes got a weapon, Hes got a weapon!

One of the protestors repeatedly swore and screamed, Repent into the face of the remarkably well-humoured Gesualdi who explained out loud, I dont know why all the violence. I dont know why all the hate. I just love Dave Chappelle! Dave Chappelle! Woooo!

The key report of the incident came from the progressive and principled Associated Press who describe themselves as a body with a long-standing role setting the industry standard for ethics in journalism. And yet the picture of Gesualdi released by the Associated Press had a caption falsely claiming he screams profanities as he engages with peaceful protestors begging him to leave.

So, for all modern progressives out there who want to challenge fake news, hypocrisy, hatred and violence, including the huge power and violence of the state, I have a suggestion. Take a look at yourselves and ask, Have I become a man without qualities?.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.

Read the original here:
Stuart Waiton: Football and double standards of the woke over free speech - HeraldScotland

Each year, Americans mark the third week in October as Free Speech Week: a nationwide event aiming to raise public awareness of the importance of freedom of speech and of freedom of the press. Free Speech Week is a nonpartisan, non-ideological occasion in which organizations from various parts of the political spectrum promote these fundamental rights.

This year, as always, there will be a primary focus on the first word of the phrase free. Yet little attention comes to speech itself, or how citizens, journalists, and others should use the First Amendment rights they have been given.

The nature of free speech in America, in contrast to even other developed Anglophone countries like Canada, the U.K., and Australia, is such that the right to individual expression is nearly unlimited. For example, Canada criminalized hate speech in 1992, and the government is currently pushing legislation that would curtail online hate speech too, under the absurdly broad definition of communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

But in the United States, only the most egregious of violations obscenity, true threats, and incitement of imminent violent action to name a few fall outside of constitutional protections. The broad scope of free speech gives Americans a wide berth to choose what to say.

Traditionally, these choices have been moderated by social norms that have narrowed what is considered appropriate speech for the appropriate situation. But in the era of the internet, which facilitates rapid communication between everyone all at once, these norms have quickly fallen away. The ease of hitting send on a tweet or Facebook post, and the ensuing instant confirmation of ones thoughts by likes and shares, overwhelmed the longstanding rules of conversation that live on when we meet face to face.

Without social restraints, weve entered an era where internet trolling is increasingly common, and the unmoderated internet is essentially unusable. The impersonal nature of the internet discourages direct and thoughtful conversations between individuals. Indeed, examples of intemperate online speech have been used to criticize free speech more broadly.

Even people who are pro-free speech often want some restraints on speech if they are the subject of pugnacious online posts. They want something to be done about obnoxious or hateful speech, whether by the social media company hosting the speech or even by the government.

Free speech advocates can head off some of this criticism and the restrictions that often follow by embracing virtue. Political philosopher and former National Review writer Frank Meyer put it plainly: Free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.

So, what virtues could help our speech problem? All of Aristotles 12 virtues, except maybe ambition. But specific emphasis should be placed on temperance, truthfulness, and magnanimity: temperance to encourage self-restraint, magnanimity to be generous to those you disagree with, and truthfulness to assist in furthering the discourse in our country.

For those in censorious environments like a college campus, courage becomes the most significant virtue. It is particularly important that younger Americans, those just coming to grips with the internet and their right to voice their opinions, achieve a balanced understanding of free speech, and of both the rights and responsibilities it confers. The alternative would be an even greater degradation of our civic discourse, and the possible acceptance of even more draconian restrictions in order to govern it.

Although free speech need not be virtuous to be free, Meyer also emphasized that virtue must be freely chosen to be truly virtuous. Speech codes and restrictions enforced by social media companies and university administrations are not solutions to the problem. An abrogation of liberty by the government will not miraculously make individual citizens more responsible. As Meyer said, truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it.

While Americans should certainly appreciate and advocate for the fundamental constitutional right to free expression, this Free Speech Week, we should all try and encourage a little virtuous speech, too.

Ryan Wolfe is the Manager of Continuing Education Programs at The Fund for American Studies (TFAS), a nonprofit educational organization that promotes the principles of limited government, free-market economics, and honorable leadership.

Go here to read the rest:
People Who Love Free Speech Can Protect It By Doing It Virtuously - The Federalist