Category Archives: Free Speech

Californians rightly pride themselves in leading the nation in numerous areas from stewardship of the environment, to embracing the many virtues of diversity and multiculturalism, to the media and technology magic being created in sectors sprawling from San Diego to and San Francisco.

Californians should be equally gratified in their public higher education system, which has transformed the lives of millions and produced incredible public goods for both the state and the world. However, the future of higher education in California may not be as bright if its students today are not willing to engage in open discourse.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has just released a new survey about speech on college campuses, capturing the voices of over 37,000 students at 159 colleges. Over 3,000 respondents attend school in California, at institutions including 13 schools from the University of California system, along with the California State system and private research universities like Stanford and colleges like Claremont McKenna.

The FIRE data show that censorship on campuses is quite high nationwide. Seventy-nine percent of students across the country report they self-censor themselves by not asking questions or sharing an opinion at least occasionally or more often. Over a fifth (21 percent) of students nationwide say they silence themselves fairly or very often.

In California specifically, the numbers are not any better. Fifty percent of Californias students report self-silencing occasionally or more often, with 18 percent reporting doing this fairly or very often. This is a deeply disturbing finding, as colleges and universities should be places where beliefs are challenged and ideas flow freely.

Regarding the protection of speech and expression, the results are not very encouraging. Only a third (32 percent) of Californias students believe their schools administration very or extremely clearly protects free speech identical to the national average (32 percent). A quarter (26 percent) of students in California report that they do not expect the administration to protect free speech compared to 27 percent of students nationwide.

Far too often, when a controversy emerges over what some may deem offensive speech on campus, school administrations fail to defend the speaker's right to express ones views. Only a quarter (25 percent) of students nationwide believe their schools administration would be very or extremely likely to support a speakers right to present, while 28 percent say the administration would not defend right to speak. The plurality (47 percent) of students are somewhere in the middle, thinking that the speaker may or may not have speech protections.

The numbers in California are almost identical to those of the national as a whole. About a quarter (26 percent) of Californias students say their schools administration would be at least very likely to support a speakers right to speak, while 25 percent say their administration would be not very or not at all likely to do so. Again, almost half (48 percent) of students in California say their school would only be somewhat likely to defend a speakers right to speak, showing that the Golden State is not leading the nation on promoting open dialogue or real diversity of thought.

Finally, when it comes to reacting to speakers that some may find controversial, threatening, or inappropriate, far too many students are open trying to shout down the presentation of ideas in both California and the nation. A third (33 percent) of students nationally believe that it is either always or sometimes acceptable to shout down a controversial speaker, and another third (33 percent) agree that there are circumstances where shouting down is acceptable. Only 34 percent state that shouting down is never acceptable. Again, the California trend is indistinguishable from the national picture: A third (33 percent) of California students say this behavior is always or sometimes acceptable, while 32 percent say it is rarely and 35 percent say it is never acceptable.

As for blocking students from hearing a speaker, 40 percent of students nationwide maintain that there are circumstances when this behavior would be acceptable, 59 percent think that there are no situations where blocking students from a speech would be acceptable. Once again, the California figures are within points of the national average 44 percent of California students say there are situations where this behavior is acceptable while 56 percent say it never is.

California and its institutions of higher education have rightly earned their reputation as national leaders on many fronts, from promoting social change to technological innovation. But this leadership position will fade quickly if the free exchange of ideas continues to be under threat.

From Ronald Reagan to Cesar Chavez, speakers across the political and ideological spectrums have spoken on Californias campuses upsetting many, galvanizing movements, and sparking new paradigms of thinking. Students and ideas progress when they are challenged, reconsidered, and develop in the face of dissonance. All Californians should want the free exchange of ideas to continue on campus fueling the numerous breakthroughs and insights that Californias remarkable schools have become known for over the past century.

Samuel J. Abrams is professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Photo: Ken Lund via Flickr under CC 2.0 License.

View post:
California's Students are Not Leading the Way on Free Speech - newgeography.com

Three teachers in Virginia are suing for the right to violate a school district nondiscrimination policy that requires teachers to accept the pronouns provided by students. Despite being a neutral policy and well within the traditional strictures of what public schools can demand of teachers, this Troika of Transphobes have gone to court claiming that it violates their free speech interest in, um, bullying children while on the taxpayers dime? I guess?

Theyve also made a free exercise claim that using someone elses pronouns goes against their religion, which is both entirely laughable based on well-established precedent and doubtless an upcoming 5-4 opinion from the 2022 Term.

In any event, the ACLU of Virginia filed an amicus brief in the matter, available here, because there are more civil liberties in the country than free speech and preventing a state actor from discriminating against children in compulsory public education is about as core of a civil liberty as one can get. Not to mention the fact that the ACLU has an institutional interest in pushing back on specious free speech claims in the interest of protecting the overarching principle.

But this is making a certain corner of the internet very angry:

Wow. Were a Joe Rogan away from the white guy grievance trifecta!

This claim, that the ACLU is violating their core mission by opposing the teachers in this case, is pure nonsense. In fact, the ACLU has gotten into tussles against specious free speech claims before, like when the ACLU entered the Kim Davis wedding license debacle in defense of the liberty interest at the heart of marriage equality despite Davis trying to invoke as a state actor the same bad arguments the teachers raise here.

And thats the whole key here: these are state actors. These teachers are free to be bigoted jackholes all they want in their spare time, but the government is not allowed to force kids into a room to face discriminatory attacks. Its no less a state action just because its individuals seeking to use their state-granted positions of authority to speak.

Greenwald extended his argument against the ACLU defending the civil liberties of trans kids claiming that the ACLU is doing so at the expense of the real civil liberties crises of our time, like efforts to force tech companies to censor speech or putting MAGA insurrectionists on the no fly list issues which Greenwald claims the ACLU says nothing. Putting aside the broken logic that keeping children free from discrimination in government-run schools is a secondary crisis, the ACLU is deeply embroiled in defending Section 230 and have been fighting the no fly list for years. Filing an amicus brief on school discrimination only trades off with these issues in Glenns head.

But all this Twitter whining is right about one thing: the ACLU is going to keep appearing in these cases pushing back against litigants invoking the Amendment that made the organization famous. Thats not a sign that the ACLU has turned over a new leaf, its a testament to the cynical actors trying to twist free speech and free exercise into an excuse to rubberstamp state-sponsored discrimination.

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

See the original post here:
Why Cant ACLU Get Back To Protecting Nazis? Whine Twitter Trolls - Above the Law

Hate

Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship

by Nadine Strossen

Roseanne's tweet.

NFL players kneeling.

The President blocking people on Twitter.

These stories are all about the same thing: what is free speech? Who gets to decide? And what happens when one person's speech offends another?

As Sam observes in this episode, those questions are part of a national conversation that sounds very different on the left and on the right. Nadine Strossen's new book attempts to dispel misunderstandings on both sides. It's called Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship. Strossen spoke to Sam about several recent news stories with free speech entanglements, and laid out her argument for why the best response to hate speech is more speech.

--Producer Brent Baughman

Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen

On the central argument of her book

The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech which conveys discriminatory or hateful views on the basis of race, religion, gender, and so forth is not through censorship, but rather through more speech. And that censorship of hate speech, no matter how well-intended, has been shown around the world and throughout history to do more harm than good in actually promoting equality, dignity, inclusivity, diversity, and societal harmony.

On hateful speech and why it's legal (most of the time)

You very frequently get public officials and even lawyers saying "hate speech is not free speech." But that is not correct! The Supreme Court never has created a category of speech that is defined by its hateful conduct, labeled it hate speech, and said that that is categorically excluded by the first amendment. Speech cannot be punished just because of its hateful content. But when you get beyond content and look at context, speech with a hateful message may be punished, if in a particular context it directly causes certain specific, imminent, serious harm such as a genuine threat that means to instill a reasonable fear on the part of the person at whom the threat is targeted that he or she is going be subject to violence.

On feeling physically threatened by hateful speech

Not only threatened. You can feel emotionally disturbed. You can feel psychic trauma, which can have physiological manifestations. You can feel silenced. These are all real harms that may be suffered by people who are subject to hate speech that is not punishable.

[Because] even though we acknowledge those harms, loosening up the constraints on government to allow it to punish speech because of those less tangible, more speculative, more indirect harms that censorial power will do more harm that good, precisely because the pendulum can swing. Not that shockingly long ago it was left-wing speakers, communists and socialist, who were kept off campuses. And civil rights activists were kept off many campuses, because their ideas were certainly hated, certainly seen as dangerous and insulting. And today, there are serious government officials who are saying that Black Lives Matter is a hate group.

Students gather in response to the election of Donald Trump at the University of California Los Angeles on November 10, 2016. College campuses have become a focal point in the free speech debate. Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Students gather in response to the election of Donald Trump at the University of California Los Angeles on November 10, 2016. College campuses have become a focal point in the free speech debate.

On the right of colleges to refuse to allow a controversial speaker due to security costs

First of all, nobody has a right necessarily to speak on a particular campus. Campuses can set viewpoint-neutral time-, place-, and manner-rules to allocate this scarce resource of the opportunity to speak on campus. Just the way in the city of New York, you can't automatically get a parade permit it's first-come, first-served.

And make no mistake about it, in an ACLU case I'm proud to say, quite a few years ago the Supreme Court held that imposing higher security costs on the speaker because the viewpoint is seen to be more controversial and therefore it's more likely to generate protests and therefore security costs that that is just an indirect way of discriminating against the viewpoint. And you cannot do that.

On the ACLU's public image perception becoming more aligned with the left under President Trump

That's always been a misconception. People tend not to look at the underlying principle, but instead they look at whose ox is gored in the underlying case. And the reason that we're attacking specific policies of Trump is that those specific policies violate civil liberties principles. We did the same with Barack Obama, with Bill Clinton. The ACLU will issue criticism or praise on an issue-by-issue basis. Trump, no doubt, as a record number of issues on which he is earning criticism. But I don't think there is a single official about whom we cannot issue at least some praise and some criticism.

On the ACLU defending the speech rights of groups like the KKK and NAMBLA, and whether it was ever too much for her to stomach

I think the one that to me was the most vile was the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That to me they are advocating what I see as a form of child abuse. But I do agree with the Supreme Court that advocacy of illegal conduct, including child abuse, is constitutionally protected. And people may be surprised to hear that. [The Supreme Court] drew a distinction between advocacy of illegal conduct versus intentional incitement of illegal conduct.

Because if we say, 'Oh, well, mere advocacy as opposed to intentional incitement will be enough for this speech that's particularly distasteful to me' well once you make one exception, you can't hold the line. I know that if we loosened the standard for what was deemed to be advocacy that might be dangerous, Black Lives Matter would probably be the first thing that's endangered. So I think you have to look at the abstract principle and just tell yourself: that is what I'm defending.

On whether the NFL's new rule against player protests violates their free speech

Most people don't know and are somewhat disappointed to find out the first amendment with its free speech guarantee only applies to the government. Any private-sector entity, including such a powerful one as the NFL, is not constrained by constitutional free speech guarantees. That said, one can make an argument that they should voluntarily choose to protect such a quintessential patriotic value as freedom of speech.

Read more here:
Free Speech vs. Hate Speech : It's Been a Minute with Sam ...

Eugene V. Debs leaving the Federal Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia, on Christmas Day 1921. He had been imprisoned in 1918 under the Sedition Act, for giving a speech against participation in the First World War. President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence to time served in December 1921. (Photo via Wikimedia Commons, public domain)

Freedom of speech often suffers during times of war. Patriotism at times devolves into jingoism and civil liberties take a backseat to security and order.

The pattern has been consistent in American history from the Revolutionary War to the modern-day War on Terror after the infamous terrorist strikes on U.S. soil on Sept. 11, 2001.

Writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared inSchenck v. United States (1919) that [w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

In other words, the Supreme Court declared that the government could restrict speech more in times of war than in times of peace.

The Revolutionary War era featured numerous restrictions on free speech and free press. Those who were considered loyal to the King of England loyalists were subject to a host of onerous restrictions by colonial leaders. Some colonies passed laws declaring it treasonous to support the British King.

Even after the United States declared its independence from England, restrictions on speech continued. It is one of the great ironies of history, that many of the same political leaders that ratified the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) were the same leaders who passed the Sedition Act of 1798 a law inimical to freedom of speech.The law and its companion Alien Acts were a product of the times a silent war with France.

The Sedition Act of 1798 criminalized the writing, printing, uttering or publishing [of] any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings about the government of the United States. The law was used by the Federalist Party to silence Democratic-Republic newspaper editors men like Matthew Lyon, Benjamin Bache, and William Duane.

The Civil War period was also a time of government repression of freedom of speech and the press. President Abraham Lincoln seized the telegraph lines, suspended habeas corpus and issued an order prohibiting the printing of war news about military movements without approval. People were arrested for supporting the Confederacy even wearing buttons or singing Confederate songs

When the Civil War began in April 1861, the Lincoln administration censored telegraph dispatches to and from Washington. His administration created military tribunals to deal with disloyalty.

Government officials shut down newspapers, such as the Chicago Times, for criticizing President Lincoln and his cabinet members. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton approved of the destruction of a Washington, D.C. newspaper called the Sunday Chronicle.

Prominent Democratic politician Clement L. Vallandingham faced imprisonment and banishment for delivering an anti-war speech that was highly critical of President Lincoln. He called the President King Lincoln and criticized the war in stark terms.

Several congressmen attempted to expel Ohio Rep. Alexander Long from Congress for an unpatriotic speech made on the House floor. One congressman stated: A man is free to speak so long as he speaks for the nation [but not] against the nation on this floor.

World War I featured a pattern of serious repression of speech considered disloyal. Legal historian Paul Murphy explained in his scholarship that the speech repressions during World War I created the modern civil liberties movement.

Congress became concerned with internal dissent, particularly with those whom they suspected of sympathizing with the Germans and the Russians. It passed the Espionage Act of 1917, which has been described as an overt assault upon First Amendment freedoms.

The law criminalized attempting to cause insubordination to the war effort, willfully attempting to cause insurrection and obstructing the recruiting or enlistment of potential volunteers. Another section of the law gave the postmaster general the power to ban from the mail any material advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance to any law of the United States.

Congress passed an amendment to the Espionage Act called the Sedition Act of 1918 which further infringed on First Amendment freedoms. The law prohibited:

Uttering, printing, writing, or publishing any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language intended to cause contempt, scorn as regards the form of government of the United States or Constitution, or the flag or the uniform of the Army or Navy urging any curtailment of the war with intent to hinder its prosecution; advocating, teaching, defending, or acts supporting or favoring the cause of any country at war with the United States, or opposing the cause of the United States.

In one of the more high-profile examples of censorship during this time period, officials arrested famed labor organizer and socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs who criticized the war and the draft. Debs famously stated during his speech in Canton, Ohio: You need at this time especially to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.

Federal officials charged Debs with violating the Espionage Act of 1917.The U.S. Supreme Court upheld his conviction in Debs v. United States(1919).

Rose Pastor Stokes was prosecuted, in part, for writing to a newspaper: I am for the people and the government is for the profiteers.

Murphy details numerous examples of draconian restrictions on free speech during this time period, including:

The pattern of government overreaction continued during the second World War and the Korean War. During this time, the government committed perhaps the greatest civil liberties violation in the history of the country since slavery the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this travesty in Korematsu v. United States (1944).

The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover emergency authority to censor all news and control all communications in and out of the country.

Before the start of World War II, Congress passed the countrys first peacetime sedition law, called the Alien Registration Act of 1940, sometimes called the Smith Act because Title I of the law was named after Rep. Howard W. Smith of Virginia.

The law prohibited advocating or teaching the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence and the printing or publishing of any material advocating or teaching the violent overthrow of the country.

In Dennis v. United States (1951), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the conviction of 12 people for Communist Party activity. The Court wrote: To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic straitjacket we must reply that all concepts are relative. Many view this decision as a product of the times when the Court was not sensitive enough to free-speech concerns.

The Vietnam War witnessed assaults on free speech in many dimensions. Protestors outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention suffered at the hands of a violent police force.

Civil rights leader Julian Bond, a member of the Georgia legislature, was forced to battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep his legislative seat, because he criticized the Vietnam War. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bond v. Floyd (1966) that Georgia officials could not expel Bond from his seat for his political views.

The manifest function of the First Amendment in a representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issue of policy, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court. Just as erroneous statements must be protected to give freedom of expression the breathing space it needs to survive, so statements criticizing public policy and the implementation of it must be similarly protected.

In perhaps the most important First Amendment case during this era, the U.S. Supreme ruled in New York Times Co. v. United States(1971)that the government could not prohibit The New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing a series of articles about some highly classified documents, called the Pentagon Papers, about the U.S. governments role in the Vietnam War.

In his opinion, Justice Hugo Black wrote: The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.

The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 seared the collective conscience of the country and provided the perfect storm for government legislators to push through comprehensive federal legislation known as the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. The law, passed only 45 days after the attacks, is better known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the Patriot Act impact First Amendment freedoms in a fundamental way. One provision so-called Section 215 allowed government officials the ability to read business records, library records, health-care records, logs of Internet service providers and other documents and papers without the traditional protections that individuals have. Several lawsuits were filed challenging Section 215 on First Amendment and other grounds. The provision has since been modified.

Another provision of the Patriot Act broadened the definition in federal law of providing material support or resources to terrorist organizations. That provision, Section 805(a)(2)(B), added expert assistance or advice to the definition of material support to terrorists. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of that provision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project(2010).

American history confirms that in times of war, freedom of speech suffers. The understandable push for security and order unfortunately has caused excess efforts at branding many who dissent as disloyal. First Amendment scholar Thomas Emerson wrote it well in 1968: The full protection theory of the first amendment is viable in wartime, but it needs further support to survive as a reality. (1011).

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.

Read the original:
Free Speech During Wartime | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

The internet supports a global ecosystem of social interaction. Modern life revolves around the network, with its status updates, news feeds, comment chains, political advocacy, omnipresent reviews, rankings and ratings. For its first few decades, this connected world was idealized as an unfettered civic forum: a space where disparate views, ideas and conversations could constructively converge. Its creators were inspired by the optimism underlying Stuart Brands WELL in 1985, Tim Berners-Lees World Wide Web and Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Perry Barlows 1996 Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. They expected the internet to create a level playing field for information sharing and communal activity among individuals, businesses, other organizations and government actors.

One of the biggest challenges will be finding an appropriate balance between protecting anonymity and enforcing consequences for the abusive behavior that has been allowed to characterize online discussions for far too long.Bailey Poland

Since the early 2000s, the wider diffusion of the network, the dawn of Web 2.0 and social medias increasingly influential impacts, and the maturation of strategic uses of online platforms to influence the public for economic and political gain have altered discourse. In recent years, prominent internet analysts and the public at large have expressed increasing concerns that the content, tone and intent of online interactions have undergone an evolution that threatens its future and theirs. Events and discussions unfolding over the past year highlight the struggles ahead. Among them:

To illuminate current attitudes about the potential impacts of online social interaction over the next decade, Pew Research Center and Elon Universitys Imagining the Internet Center conducted a large-scale canvassing of technology experts, scholars, corporate practitioners and government leaders. Some 1,537 responded to this effort between July 1 and Aug. 12, 2016 (prior to the late-2016 revelations about potential manipulation of public opinion via hacking of social media). They were asked:

In the next decade, will public discourse online become more or less shaped by bad actors, harassment, trolls, and an overall tone of griping, distrust, and disgust?

In response to this question, 42% of respondents indicated that they expect no major change in online social climate in the coming decade and 39% said they expect the online future will be more shaped by negative activities. Those who said they expect the internet to be less shaped by harassment, trolling and distrust were in the minority. Some 19% said this. Respondents were asked to elaborate on how they anticipate online interaction progressing over the next decade. (See About this canvassing of experts for further details about the limits of this sample.)

Participants were also asked to explain their answers in a written elaboration and asked to consider the following prompts: 1) How do you expect social media and digital commentary will evolve in the coming decade? 2) Do you think we will see a widespread demand for technological systems or solutions that encourage more inclusive online interactions? 3) What do you think will happen to free speech? And 4) What might be the consequences for anonymity and privacy?

While respondents expressed a range of opinions from deep concern to disappointment to resignation to optimism, most agreed that people at their best and their worst are empowered by networked communication technologies. Some said the flame wars and strategic manipulation of the zeitgeist might just be getting started if technological and human solutions are not put in place to bolster diverse civil discourse.

A number of respondents predicted online reputation systems and much better security and moderation solutions will become near ubiquitous in the future, making it increasingly difficult for bad actors to act out disruptively. Some expressed concerns that such systems especially those that remove the ability to participate anonymously online will result in an altered power dynamic between government/state-level actors, the elites and regular citizens.

Anonymity, a key affordance of the early internet, is an element that many in this canvassing attributed to enabling bad behavior and facilitating uncivil discourse in shared online spaces. The purging of user anonymity is seen as possibly leading to a more inclusive online environment and also setting the stage for governments and dominant institutions to even more freely employ surveillance tools to monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape social debate.

Most experts predicted that the builders of open social spaces on global communications networks will find it difficult to support positive change in cleaning up the real-time exchange of information and sharing of diverse ideologies over the next decade, as millions more people around the world become connected for the first time and among the billions already online are many who compete in an arms race of sorts to hack and subvert corrective systems.

Those who believe the problems of trolling and other toxic behaviors can be solved say the cure might also be quite damaging. One of the biggest challenges will be finding an appropriate balance between protecting anonymity and enforcing consequences for the abusive behavior that has been allowed to characterize online discussions for far too long, explained expert respondent Bailey Poland, author of Haters: Harassment, Abuse, and Violence Online.

The majority in this canvassing were sympathetic to those abused or misled in the current online environment while expressing concerns that the most likely solutions will allow governments and big businesses to employ surveillance systems that monitor citizens, suppress free speech and shape discourse via algorithms, allowing those who write the algorithms to sculpt civil debate.

Susan Etlinger, an industry analyst at Altimeter Group, walked through a future scenario of tit-for-tat, action-reaction that ends in what she calls a Potemkin internet. She wrote: In the next several years we will see an increase in the type and volume of bad behavior online, mostly because there will be a corresponding increase in digital activity. Cyberattacks, doxing, and trolling will continue, while social platforms, security experts, ethicists, and others will wrangle over the best ways to balance security and privacy, freedom of speech, and user protections. A great deal of this will happen in public view. The more worrisome possibility is that privacy and safety advocates, in an effort to create a more safe and equal internet, will push bad actors into more-hidden channels such as Tor. Of course, this is already happening, just out of sight of most of us. The worst outcome is that we end up with a kind of Potemkin internet in which everything looks reasonably bright and sunny, which hides a more troubling and less transparent reality.

One other point of context for this non-representative sample of a particular population: While the question we posed was not necessarily aimed at getting peoples views about the role of political material in online social spaces, it inevitably drew commentary along those lines because this survey was fielded in the midst of a bitter, intense election in the United States where one of the candidates, in particular, was a provocative user of Twitter.

Most participants in this canvassing wrote detailed elaborations explaining their positions. Their well-considered comments provide insights about hopeful and concerning trends. They were allowed to respond anonymously, and many chose to do so.

These findings do not represent all points of view possible, but they do reveal a wide range of striking observations. Respondents collectively articulated four key themes that are introduced and briefly explained below and then expanded upon in more-detailed sections.

The following section presents a brief overview of the most evident themes extracted from the written responses, including a small selection of representative quotes supporting each point. Some responses are lightly edited for style or due to length.

While some respondents saw issues with uncivil behavior online on somewhat of a plateau at the time of this canvassing in the summer of 2016 and a few expect solutions will cut hate speech, misinformation and manipulation, the vast majority shared at least some concerns that things could get worse, thus two of the four overarching themes of this report start with the phrase, Things will stay bad.

The individuals voice has a much higher perceived value than it has in the past. As a result, there are more people who will complain online in an attempt to get attention, sympathy, or retribution.Anonymous software engineer

A number of expert respondents observed that negative online discourse is just the latest example of the many ways humans have exercised social vitriol for millennia. Jerry Michalski, founder at REX, wrote, I would very much love to believe that discourse will improve over the next decade, but I fear the forces making it worse havent played out at all yet. After all, it took us almost 70 years to mandate seatbelts. And were not uniformly wise about how to conduct dependable online conversations, never mind debates on difficult subjects. In that long arc of history that bends toward justice, particularly given our accelerated times, I do think we figure this out. But not within the decade.

Vint Cerf, Internet Hall of Fame member, Google vice president and co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, summarized some of the harmful effects of disruptive discourse:

The internet is threatened with fragmentation, he wrote. People feel free to make unsupported claims, assertions, and accusations in online media. As things now stand, people are attracted to forums that align with their thinking, leading to an echo effect. This self-reinforcement has some of the elements of mob (flash-crowd) behavior. Bad behavior is somehow condoned because everyone is doing it. It is hard to see where this phenomenon may be heading. Social media bring every bad event to our attention, making us feel as if they all happened in our back yards leading to an overall sense of unease. The combination of bias-reinforcing enclaves and global access to bad actions seems like a toxic mix. It is not clear whether there is a way to counter-balance their socially harmful effects.

An anonymous respondent commented, The tone of discourse online is dictated by fundamental human psychology and will not easily be changed. This statement reflects the attitude of expert internet technologists, researchers and pundits, most of whom agree that it is the people using the network, not the network, that is the root of the problem.

Paul Jones, clinical professor and director of ibiblio.org at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, commented, The id unbound from the monitoring and control by the superego is both the originator of communication and the nemesis of understanding and civility.

John Cato, a senior software engineer, wrote, Trolling for arguments has been an internet tradition since Usenet. Some services may be able to mitigate the problem slightly by forcing people to use their real identities, but wherever you have anonymity you will have people who are there just to make other people angry.

And an anonymous software engineer explained why the usual level of human incivility has been magnified by the internet, noting, The individuals voice has a much higher perceived value than it has in the past. As a result, there are more people who will complain online in an attempt to get attention, sympathy, or retribution.

Michael Kleeman, formerly with the Boston Consulting Group, Arthur D. Little and Sprint, now senior fellow at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego, explained: Historically, communities of practice and conversation had other, often physical, linkages that created norms of behavior. And actors would normally be identified, not anonymous. Increased anonymity coupled with an increase in less-than-informed input, with no responsibility by the actors, has tended and will continue to create less open and honest conversations and more one-sided and negative activities.

Trolls now know that their methods are effective and carry only minimal chance of social stigma and essentially no other punishment.Anonymous respondent

An expert respondent who chose not to be identified commented, People are snarky and awful online in large part because they can be anonymous. And another such respondent wrote, Trolls now know that their methods are effective and carry only minimal chance of social stigma and essentially no other punishment. If Gamergate can harass and dox any woman with an opinion and experience no punishment as a result, how can things get better?

Anonymously, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) commented, We see a dark current of people who equate free speech with the right to say anything, even hate speech, even speech that does not sync with respected research findings. They find in unmediated technology a place where their opinions can have a multiplier effect, where they become the elites.

Some leading participants in this canvassing said the tone of discourse will worsen in the next decade due to inequities and prejudice, noting wealth disparity, the hollowing out of the middle class, and homophily (the tendency of people to bond with those similar to themselves and thus also at times to shun those seen as the other).

Unfortunately, I see the present prevalence of trolling as an expression of a broader societal trend across many developed nations, towards belligerent factionalism in public debate, with particular attacks directed at women as well as ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities.Axel Bruns

Cory Doctorow, writer, computer science activist-in-residence at MIT Media Lab and co-owner of Boing Boing, offered a bleak assessment, writing, Thomas Piketty, etc., have correctly predicted that we are in an era of greater social instability created by greater wealth disparity which can only be solved through either the wealthy collectively opting for a redistributive solution (which feels unlikely) or everyone else compelling redistribution (which feels messy, unstable, and potentially violent). The internet is the natural battleground for whatever breaking point we reach to play out, and its also a useful surveillance, control, and propaganda tool for monied people hoping to forestall a redistributive future. The Chinese internet playbook the 50c army, masses of astroturfers, libel campaigns against enemies of the state, paranoid war-on-terror rhetoric has become the playbook of all states, to some extent (see, e.g., the HB Gary leak that revealed U.S. Air Force was putting out procurement tenders for persona management software that allowed their operatives to control up to 20 distinct online identities, each). That will create even more inflammatory dialogue, flamewars, polarized debates, etc.

And an anonymous professor at MIT remarked, Traditional elites have lost their credibility because they have become associated with income inequality and social injustice. This dynamic has to shift before online life can play a livelier part in the life of the polity. I believe that it will, but slowly.

Axel Bruns, a professor at the Queensland University of Technologys Digital Media Research Centre, said, Unfortunately, I see the present prevalence of trolling as an expression of a broader societal trend across many developed nations, towards belligerent factionalism in public debate, with particular attacks directed at women as well as ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities.

As billions more people are connected online and technologies such as AI chatbots, the Internet of Things, and virtual and augmented reality continue to mature, complexity is always on the rise. Some respondents said well-intentioned attempts to raise the level of discourse are less likely to succeed in a rapidly changing and widening information environment.

As more people get internet access and especially smartphones, which allow people to connect 24/7 there will be increased opportunities for bad behavior.Jessica Vitak

Matt Hamblen, senior editor at Computerworld, commented, [By 2026] social media and other forms of discourse will include all kinds of actors who had no voice in the past; these include terrorists, critics of all kinds of products and art forms, amateur political pundits, and more.

An anonymous respondent wrote, Bad actors will have means to do more, and more significant bad actors will be automated as bots are funded in extra-statial ways to do more damage because people are profiting from this.

Jessica Vitak, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, commented, Social medias affordances, including increased visibility and persistence of content, amplify the volume of negative commentary. As more people get internet access and especially smartphones, which allow people to connect 24/7 there will be increased opportunities for bad behavior.

Bryan Alexander, president of Bryan Alexander Consulting, added, The number of venues will rise with the expansion of the Internet of Things and when consumer-production tools become available for virtual and mixed reality.

Many respondents said power dynamics push trolling along. The business model of social media platforms is driven by advertising revenues generated by engaged platform users. The more raucous and incendiary the material, at times, the more income a site generates. The more contentious a political conflict is, the more likely it is to be an attention getter. Online forums lend themselves to ever-more hostile arguments.

Frank Pasquale, professor of law at the University of Maryland and author of Black Box Society, commented, The major internet platforms are driven by a profit motive. Very often, hate, anxiety and anger drive participation with the platform. Whatever behavior increases ad revenue will not only be permitted, but encouraged, excepting of course some egregious cases.

Its a brawl, a forum for rage and outrage. The more we come back, the more money they make off of ads and data about us. So the shouting match goes on.Andrew Nachison

Kate Crawford, a well-known internet researcher studying how people engage with networked technologies, observed, Distrust and trolling is happening at the highest levels of political debate, and the lowest. The Overton Window has been widened considerably by the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, and not in a good way. We have heard presidential candidates speak of banning Muslims from entering the country, asking foreign powers to hack former White House officials, retweeting neo-Nazis. Trolling is a mainstream form of political discourse.

Andrew Nachison, founder at We Media, said, Its a brawl, a forum for rage and outrage. Its also dominated social media platforms on the one hand and content producers on the other that collude and optimize for quantity over quality. Facebook adjusts its algorithm to provide a kind of quality relevance for individuals. But thats really a ruse to optimize for quantity. The more we come back, the more money they make off of ads and data about us. So the shouting match goes on. I dont know that prevalence of harassment and bad actors will change its already bad but if the overall tone is lousy, if the culture tilts negative, if political leaders popularize hate, then theres good reason to think all of that will dominate the digital debate as well.

Several of the expert respondents said because algorithmic solutions tend to reward that which keeps us agitated, it is especially damaging that the pre-internet news organizations that once employed fairly objective and well-trained (if not well-paid) armies of arbiters as democratic shapers of the defining climate of social and political discourse have fallen out of favor, replaced by creators of clickbait headlines read and shared by short-attention-span social sharers.

It is in the interest of the paid-for media and most political groups to continue to encourage echo-chamber thinking and to consider pragmatism and compromise as things to be discouraged.David Durant

David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT and Internet Hall of Famer commented that he worries over the loss of character in the internet community. It is possible, with attention to the details of design that lead to good social behavior, to produce applications that better regulate negative behavior, he wrote. However, it is not clear what actor has the motivation to design and introduce such tools. The application space on the internet today is shaped by large commercial actors, and their goals are profit-seeking, not the creation of a better commons. I do not see tools for public discourse being good money makers, so we are coming to a fork in the road either a new class of actor emerges with a different set of motivations, one that is prepared to build and sustain a new generation of tools, or I fear the overall character of discourse will decline.

An anonymous principal security consultant wrote, As long as success and in the current climate, profit as a common proxy for success is determined by metrics that can be easily improved by throwing users under the bus, places that run public areas online will continue to do just that.

Steven Waldman, founder and CEO of LifePosts, said, It certainly sounds noble to say the internet has democratized public opinion. But its now clear: It has given voice to those who had been voiceless because they were oppressed minorities and to those who were voiceless because they are crackpots. It may not necessarily be bad actors i.e., racists, misogynists, etc. who win the day, but I do fear it will be the more strident. I suspect there will be ventures geared toward counter-programming against this, since many people are uncomfortable with it. But venture-backed tech companies have a huge bias toward algorithmic solutions that have tended to reward that which keeps us agitated. Very few media companies now have staff dedicated to guiding conversations online.

John Anderson, director of journalism and media studies at Brooklyn College, wrote, The continuing diminution of what Cass Sunstein once called general-interest intermediaries such as newspapers, network television, etc. means we have reached a point in our society where wildly different versions of reality can be chosen and customized by people to fit their existing ideological and other biases. In such an environment there is little hope for collaborative dialogue and consensus.

David Durant, a business analyst at U.K. Government Digital Service, argued, It is in the interest of the paid-for media and most political groups to continue to encourage echo-chamber thinking and to consider pragmatism and compromise as things to be discouraged. While this trend continues, the ability for serious civilized conversations about many topics will remain very hard to achieve.

The weaponization of social media and capture of online belief systems, also known as narratives, emerged from obscurity in 2016 due to the perceived impact of social media uses by terror organizations and political factions. Accusations of Russian influence via social media on the U.S. presidential election brought to public view the ways in which strategists of all stripes are endeavoring to influence people through the sharing of often false or misleading stories, photos and videos. Fake news moved to the forefront of ongoing discussions about the displacement of traditional media by social platforms. Earlier, in the summer of 2016, participants in this canvassing submitted concerns about misinformation in online discourse creating distorted views.

Theres money, power, and geopolitical stability at stake now, its not a mere matter of personal grumpiness from trolls.Anonymous respondent

Anonymously, a futurist, writer, and author at Wired, explained, New levels of cyberspace sovereignty and heavy-duty state and non-state actors are involved; theres money, power, and geopolitical stability at stake now, its not a mere matter of personal grumpiness from trolls.

Karen Blackmore, a lecturer in IT at the University of Newcastle, wrote, Misinformation and anti-social networking are degrading our ability to debate and engage in online discourse. When opinions based on misinformation are given the same weight as those of experts and propelled to create online activity, we tread a dangerous path. Online social behaviour, without community-imposed guidelines, is subject to many potentially negative forces. In particular, social online communities such as Facebook also function as marketing tools, where sensationalism is widely employed and community members who view this dialogue as their news source gain a very distorted view of current events and community views on issues. This is exacerbated with social network and search engine algorithms effectively sorting what people see to reinforce worldviews.

Laurent Schpbach, a neuropsychologist at University Hospital in Zurich, focused his entire response about negative tone online on burgeoning acts of economic and political manipulation, writing, The reason it will probably get worse is that companies and governments are starting to realise that they can influence peoples opinions that way. And these entities sure know how to circumvent any protection in place. Russian troll armies are a good example of something that will become more and more common in the future.

David Wuertele, a software engineer at Tesla Motors, commented, Unfortunately, most people are easily manipulated by fear. Negative activities on the internet will exploit those fears, and disproportionate responses will also attempt to exploit those fears. Soon, everyone will have to take off their shoes and endure a cavity search before boarding the internet.

Most respondents said it is likely that the coming decade will see a widespread move to more-secure services, applications, and platforms and more robust user-identification policies. Some said people born into the social media age will adapt. Some predict that more online systems will require clear identification of participants. This means that the online social forums could splinter into various formats, some of which are highly protected and monitored and others which could retain the free-for-all character of todays platforms.

Some experts in this canvassing say progress is already being made on some fronts toward better technological and human solutions.

The future Web will give people much better ways to control the information that they receive, which will ultimately make problems like trolling manageable.David Karger

Galen Hunt, a research manager at Microsoft Research NExT, replied, As language-processing technology develops, technology will help us identify and remove bad actors, harassment, and trolls from accredited public discourse.

Stowe Boyd, chief researcher at Gigaom, observed, I anticipate that AIs will be developed that will rapidly decrease the impact of trolls. Free speech will remain possible, although AI filtering will make a major dent on how views are expressed, and hate speech will be blocked.

Marina Gorbis, executive director at the Institute for the Future, added, I expect we will develop more social bots and algorithmic filters that would weed out the some of the trolls and hateful speech. I expect we will create bots that would promote beneficial connections and potentially insert context-specific data/facts/stories that would benefit more positive discourse. Of course, any filters and algorithms will create issues around what is being filtered out and what values are embedded in algorithms.

Jean Russell of Thrivable Futures wrote, First, conversations can have better containers that filter for real people who consistently act with decency. Second, software is getting better and more nuanced in sentiment analysis, making it easier for software to augment our filtering out of trolls. Third, we are at peak identity crisis and a new wave of people want to cross the gap in dialogue to connect with others before the consequences of being tribal get worse (Brexit, Trump, etc.).

David Karger, a professor of computer science at MIT, said, My own research group is exploring several novel directions in digital commentary. In the not too distant future all this work will yield results. Trolling, doxxing, echo chambers, click-bait, and other problems can be solved. We will be able to ascribe sources and track provenance in order to increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of information online. We will create tools that increase peoples awareness of opinions differing from their own and support conversations with and learning from people who hold those opinions. The future Web will give people much better ways to control the information that they receive, which will ultimately make problems like trolling manageable (trolls will be able to say what they want, but few will be listening).

Technology will mediate who and what we see online more and more, so that we are drawn more toward communities with similar interests than those who are dissimilar.Lindsay Kenzig

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and other platform providers already shape and thus limit what the public views via the implementation of algorithms. As people have become disenchanted with uncivil discourse open platforms they stop using them or close their accounts, sometimes moving to smaller online communities of people with similar needs or ideologies. Some experts expect that these trends will continue and even more partitions, divisions and exclusions may emerge as measures are taken to clean things up. For instance, it is expected that the capabilities of AI-based bots dispatched to assist with information sorting, security, and regulation of the tone and content of discourse will continue to be refined.

Lindsay Kenzig, a senior design researcher, said, Technology will mediate who and what we see online more and more, so that we are drawn more toward communities with similar interests than those who are dissimilar. There will still be some places where you can find those with whom to argue, but they will be more concentrated into only a few locations than they are now.

Valerie Bock, of VCB Consulting, commented, Spaces where people must post under their real names and where they interact with people with whom they have multiple bonds regularly have a higher quality of discourse. In response to this reality, well see some consolidation as it becomes easier to shape commercial interactive spaces to the desired audience. There will be free-for-all spaces and more-tightly-moderated walled gardens, depending on the sponsors strategic goals. There will also be private spaces maintained by individuals and groups for specific purposes.

Lisa Heinz, a doctoral student at Ohio University, commented, Humanitys reaction to negative forces will likely contribute more to the ever-narrowing filter bubble, which will continue to create an online environment that lacks inclusivity by its exclusion of opposing viewpoints. An increased demand for systemic internet-based AI will create bots that will begin to interact as proxies for the humans that train them with humans online in real-time and with what would be recognized as conversational language, not the word-parroting bot behavior we see on Twitter now. When this happens, we will see bots become part of the filter bubble phenomenon as a sort of mental bodyguard that prevents an intrusion of people and conversations to which individuals want no part. The unfortunate aspect of this iteration of the filter bubble means that while free speech itself will not be affected, people will project their voices into the chasm, but few will hear them.

Bob Frankston, internet pioneer and software innovator, wrote, I see negative activities having an effect but the effect will likely be from communities that shield themselves from the larger world. Were still working out how to form and scale communities.

The expert comments in response to this canvassing were recorded in the summer of 2016; by early 2017, after many events (Brexit, the U.S. election, others mentioned earlier in this report) surfaced concerns about civil discourse, misinformation and impacts on democracy, an acceleration of activity tied to solutions emerged. Facebook, Twitter and Google announced some new efforts toward technological approaches; many conversations about creating new methods of support for public affairs journalism began to be undertaken; and consumer bubble-busting tools including Outside Your Bubble and Escape Your Bubble were introduced.

Some participants in this canvassing said they expect the already-existing continuous arms race dynamic will expand, as some people create and apply new measures to ride herd over online discourse while others constantly endeavor to thwart them.

Cathy Davidson, founding director of the Futures Initiative at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said, Were in a spy vs. spy internet world where the faster that hackers and trolls attack, the faster companies (Mozilla, thank you!) plus for-profits come up with ways to protect against them and then the hackers develop new strategies against those protections, and so it goes. I dont see that ending. I would not be surprised at more publicity in the future, as a form of cyber-terror. Thats different from trolls, more geo-politically orchestrated to force a national or multinational response. That is terrifying if we do not have sound, smart, calm leadership.

Sam Anderson, coordinator of instructional design at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, said, It will be an arms race between companies and communities that begin to realize (as some online games companies like Riot have) that toxic online communities will lower their long-term viability and potential for growth. This will war with incentives for short-term gains that can arise out of bursts of angry or sectarian activity (Twitters character limit inhibits nuance, which increases reaction and response).

A share of respondents said greater regulation of speech and technological solutions to curb harassment and trolling will result in more surveillance, censorship and cloistered communities. They worry this will change peoples sharing behaviors online, limit exposure to diverse ideas and challenge freedom.

While several respondents indicated that there is no longer a chance of anonymity online, many say privacy and choice are still options, and they should be protected.

Terrorism and harassment by trolls will be presented as the excuses, but the effect will be dangerous for democracy.Richard Stallman

Longtime internet civil libertarian Richard Stallman, Internet Hall of Fame member and president of the Free Software Foundation, spoke to this fear. He predicted, Surveillance and censorship will become more systematic, even in supposedly free countries such as the U.S. Terrorism and harassment by trolls will be presented as the excuses, but the effect will be dangerous for democracy.

Rebecca MacKinnon, director of Ranking Digital Rights at New America, wrote, Im very concerned about the future of free speech given current trends. The demands for governments and companies to censor and monitor internet users are coming from an increasingly diverse set of actors with very legitimate concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about whether civil discourse is becoming so poisoned as to make rational governance based on actual facts impossible. Im increasingly inclined to think that the solutions, if they ever come about, will be human/social/political/cultural and not technical.

James Kalin of Virtually Green wrote, Surveillance capitalism is increasingly grabbing and mining data on everything that anyone says, does, or buys online. The growing use of machine learning processing of the data will drive ever more subtle and pervasive manipulation of our purchasing, politics, cultural attributes, and general behavior. On top of this, the data is being stolen routinely by bad actors who will also be using machine learning processing to steal or destroy things we value as individuals: our identities, privacy, money, reputations, property, elections, you name it. I see a backlash brewing, with people abandoning public forums and social network sites in favor of intensely private black forums and networks.

A number of respondents said they expect governments or other authorities will begin implementing regulation or other reforms to address these issues, most indicating that the competitive instincts of platform providers do not work in favor of the implementation of appropriate remedies without some incentive.

My fear is that because of the virtually unlimited opportunities for negative use of social media globally we will experience a rising worldwide demand for restrictive regulation.Paula Hooper Mayhew

Michael Rogers, author and futurist at Practical Futurist, predicted governments will assume control over identifying internet users. He observed, I expect there will be a move toward firm identities even legal identities issued by nations for most users of the Web. There will as a result be public discussion forums in which it is impossible to be anonymous. There would still be anonymity available, just as there is in the real world today. But there would be online activities in which anonymity was not permitted. Clearly this could have negative free-speech impacts in totalitarian countries but, again, there would still be alternatives for anonymity.

Paula Hooper Mayhew, a professor of humanities at Fairleigh Dickinson University, commented, My fear is that because of the virtually unlimited opportunities for negative use of social media globally we will experience a rising worldwide demand for restrictive regulation. This response may work against support of free speech in the U.S.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), wrote, The regulation of online communications is a natural response to the identification of real problems, the maturing of the industry, and the increasing expertise of government regulators.

John Markoff, senior writer at The New York Times, commented, There is growing evidence that that the Net is a polarizing force in the world. I dont believe to completely understand the dynamic, but my surmise is that it is actually building more walls than it is tearing down.

Marcus Foth, a professor at Queensland University of Technology, said, Public discourse online will become less shaped by bad actors because the majority of interactions will take place inside walled gardens. Social media platforms hosted by corporations such as Facebook and Twitter use algorithms to filter, select, and curate content. With less anonymity and less diversity, the two biggest problems of the Web 1.0 era have been solved from a commercial perspective: fewer trolls who can hide behind anonymity. Yet, what are we losing in the process? Algorithmic culture creates filter bubbles, which risk an opinion polarisation inside echo chambers.

Emily Shaw, a U.S. civic technologies researcher for mySociety, predicted, Since social networks are the most likely future direction for public discourse, a million (self)-walled gardens are more likely to be the outcome than is an increase in hostility, because thats whats more commercially profitable.

Experts predict increased oversight and surveillance, left unchecked, could lead to dominant institutions and actors using their power to suppress alternative news sources, censor ideas, track individuals, and selectively block network access. This, in turn, could mean publics might never know what they are missing out on, since information will be filtered, removed, or concealed.

The fairness and freedom of the internets early days are gone. Now its run by big data, Big Brother, and big profits.Thorlaug Agustsdottir

Thorlaug Agustsdottir of Icelands Pirate Party, said, Monitoring is and will be a massive problem, with increased government control and abuse. The fairness and freedom of the internets early days are gone. Now its run by big data, Big Brother, and big profits. Anonymity is a myth, it only exists for end-users who lack lookup resources.

Joe McNamee, executive director at European Digital Rights, said, In the context of a political environment where deregulation has reached the status of ideology, it is easy for governments to demand that social media companies do more to regulate everything that happens online. We see this with the European Unions code of conduct with social media companies. This privatisation of regulation of free speech (in a context of huge, disproportionate, asymmetrical power due to the data stored and the financial reserves of such companies) raises existential questions for the functioning of healthy democracies.

Randy Bush, Internet Hall of Fame member and research fellow at Internet Initiative Japan, wrote, Between troll attacks, chilling effects of government surveillance and censorship, etc., the internet is becoming narrower every day.

Dan York, senior content strategist at the Internet Society, wrote, Unfortunately, we are in for a period where the negative activities may outshine the positive activities until new social norms can develop that push back against the negativity. It is far too easy right now for anyone to launch a large-scale public negative attack on someone through social media and other channels and often to do so anonymously (or hiding behind bogus names). This then can be picked up by others and spread. The mob mentality can be easily fed, and there is little fact-checking or source-checking these days before people spread information and links through social media. I think this will cause some governments to want to step in to protect citizens and thereby potentially endanger both free speech and privacy.

This section features responses by several more of the many top analysts who participated in this canvassing. Following this wide-ranging set of comments on the topic will be a much-more expansive set of quotations directly tied to the set of four themes.

Baratunde Thurston, a directors fellow at MIT Media Lab, Fast Company columnist, and former digital director of The Onion, replied, To quote everyone ever, things will get worse before they get better. Weve built a system in which access and connectivity are easy, the cost of publishing is near zero, and accountability and consequences for bad action are difficult to impose or toothless when they do. Plus consider that more people are getting online everyday with no norm-setting for their behavior and the systems that prevail now reward attention grabbing and extended time online. They reward emotional investment whether positive or negative. They reward conflict. So well see more bad before more good because the governing culture is weak and will remain so while the financial models backing these platforms remain largely ad-based and rapid/scaled user growth-centric.

See original here:
The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News ...

Yesterday The House Committee Issued Criminal Contempt Complaint Against Steve Bannon. But what does that mean? #RandiRhodes explains it all in this clip from #TheRandiRhodesShow!

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplifies free speech.

Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Missed an episode? Check out The Randi Rhodes Show on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

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

Jan 6th Select Committee Politics Randi Rhodes Steve Bannon The Randi Rhodes Show

Original post:
There Is NO Executive Privilege - Free Speech TV

A battle over free speech and abortion rights is brewing in the East Bay.

The city of Walnut Creek is considering a buffer zone law that will force anti-abortion protestors to stand further away from a Planned Parenthood clinic after reports of aggressive protesters at clinics nationwide. But local Demonstrators say theyre anything but aggressive and simply want to offer pregnant women alternatives to an abortion.

Stacey Cavanagh deals with fetuses 24/7. At work shes an ultrasound tech.

Ive been doing this for 22 years and Ive seen so much stuff, she said.

And when shes home, she sees abortion rights opponents picketing outside the Planned Parenthood clinic in Walnut Creek.

My dogs bark of course at them but I dont have a problem with them being there, said Cavanah. I see babies at every stage and I hear lots of very sad stories, Im pro-choice and Ive always been that way.

On Monday, members of the group 40 Days for Life, quietly held signs opposing abortion steps away from the clinics parking lot.

40 days for life tries to stay off the sidewalk as much as possible, I feel like we have not intimidated anyone, said a member.

But that wasnt always the case. A year ago, the abortion rights opponents brought four armed guards with them to demonstrate there. Two of those private security guards were charged for pepper-spraying abortion rights supporters. Mayor Kevin Wilk wants to avoid a repeat of that, especially during a time when abortion rights are threatened in states like Texas and Mississippi. Thats why hes called on city staff to come up with options on how to set up a buffer zone that will keep demonstrators further away from the clinic.

I think that it is important to review the options of a buffer zone, how much that buffer zone is, whether its twenty feet, or 30 feet or whatever it is the law allows, he said.

The Walnut Creek City Council will consider a buffer zone ordinance at their meeting Friday.

We hope that they will decide not to do such a thing we feel like we are in our rights, where we are, were keeping our boundary away from our driveway, said a member of 40 Days for Life.

The Mayor says protecting womens reproductive rights is one of his personal priorities.

If the buffer zone law passes, it will be up to the Walnut Creek Police Department to enforce it.

Continued here:
Battle Over Free Speech and Abortion Rights Brewing in the East Bay - NBC Bay Area

One of the hallmarks of Jewish tradition is its intense focus on debate and disagreement. Unfortunately, it appears that this value is being lost on many of the nations younger Jews namely those currently enrolled in colleges and universities.

A just-released survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education captures the voices of over 37,000 students at 159 colleges and provides empirical insight into the current state of speech and expression on campus today.The picture is not good.

The data show that one-third of all students think trying to disrupt and shout down speakers when they visit campuses is sometimes or always acceptable. Among Jewish students surveyed, 40% reported feeling this way.

As for blocking other students from attending a campus speech and hearing potentially controversial ideas, 13% of students surveyed, and 18% of Jewish students, think this is sometimes or always acceptable.

Two-thirds of Jewish students compared to just about half of students nationally answered that blocking other students from attending a campus speech is justifiable.

These data suggest that Jewish students are more open to the idea of shutting down speech and the dissemination of ideas than other college students. How are we to understand these troubling findings?

Political identity is a good place to start. Like American Jews overall, Jewish college students tend to be Democrats. The data show that 54% of Jewish students surveyed identify as a Democrat, compared to 35% of students surveyed overall. When you include self-identifying Independents who lean Democratic, 67% of Jewish college students fall into the Democratic column compared to a lower national figure of 55%.

In this survey, identifying as a Democrat strongly correlates with espousing anti-free speech positions.

The data show that 81% of Democratic identifying Jewish students believe that there are cases when shouting down speakers is acceptable, compared to a much lower 59% of Jewish political independents and leaners and just 44% of Republicans.

Similarly, almost 60% of college Jewish Democrats maintain that blocking their peers from hearing the ideas of others can be justified, while slightly more than a third of Jewish Independents and leaners and a quarter of Jewish Republicans feel the same way.

Most troublingly, 27% of Democratic students surveyed responded that it is acceptable to use violence to stop a campus speech, though the number is 22% for Jewish Independents and leaners and 17% for Jewish Republicans.

This data is deeply upsetting to me as a professor who has watched collegiate life change drastically over the past two decades. One of the great values of an American collegiate experience is that students have the chance to engage deeply with differing opinions. To this day, I am grateful for the cornucopia of people, traditions, views and cultures that I was able to engage with two decades ago when I, then a fairly conservative Jewish teenager, left the East Coast to attend Stanford University.

I would be lying if I said that there were no evenings in college when I felt hurt, misunderstood, shocked and angry when my ideas were challenged and came into conflict with others. But there were far more nights during which I was able to connect, learn and grow in ways unimaginable to me in high school. I certainly recall the frustrations and agony of being challenged, but I remember more powerfully the ecstasy of having my mind opened up to new ideas and changing my opinions when I heard someone or something new.

While I, along with significant numbers of other students, did not like nor agree with the ideas shared by many of the speakers we heard, their perspectives were always worth hearing and then debating late into the night.

Sadly, my undergraduate experience of being able to hear, respond to and then reject or accept a plethora of views is under threat. Today, cancel culture runs rampant on our college campuses, and viewpoint diversity is no longer considered a sacred, core value in higher education and Jewish students seem to be helping lead the charge to silence others, missing out on genuine opportunities to learn, grow and connect.

Perhaps many Jewish students think that they occupy a noble place on the front lines of cancel culture in the spirit of social justice. But these progressive and woke impulses are misguided and ignore another equally important Jewish precept real discourse which involves learning, listening and debate.

Discourse is so prized and cherished in Jewish thought and history that Judaism has sometimes been called a culture of argument. Jewish students and all students for that matter must recognize that true equity and inclusion must include viewpoint diversity, respect for real and meaningful political differences and outlooks and embracing a multitude of ideas even if they make some members of the community uncomfortable.

Social justice values are certainly important, and a big part of Jewish thought. But they do not override the virtues of argument and respecting viewpoint diversity.

Both the Jewish community and our system of higher education have long embraced the idea that a competition of ideas is foundational to free and prosperous societies. The Jewish community cannot lose sight of one of our unique and virtuous features.

Instead of leading the charge to silence speech, our students should be doing just the opposite, demanding more speech and more ideas, not enforcing a culture of silence and cancellation.

Samuel J. Abrams is professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.To contact the author, email opinion@forward.com.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Here is the original post:
Jewish college students are more likely to oppose free speech and that should scare us - Forward

had the woman's sign not specifically names Dr. craft, then I believe they would have let her wear it. However, her campaign finds its self in complete folly. COVID cases are dropping significantly across the district and county. Not a single student had died as a result of infection from COVID. There are multiple studies, one by Waterloo University and one by U of Virginia, that show there is 10% or less protection provided by mask wearing. KISD has protected parent's rights and right fully let us decide what is best for our children. They have not prevented one person from wearing a mask if they chose to wear one. Masking is and should remain the choice of the individual.

Go here to see the original:
Is the Killeen school board denying a resident's free speech rights by making them not wear their protest sign at a recent Killeen ISD meeting? - The...

Steve Bannon is taking a page out of Mike Lindells playbook and backing the narrative that Donald Trump will be reinstated before the next election. Bannon said on his Real Americas Voice program The War Room, the return of Trump aint going to be in 2024, its going to be in 2022 or maybe even before as we start the decertification process out in Arizona. This prediction is a dumb one for a few reasons: Biden has already been president for nine months, several states would need to be overturned to make Trump the victor, and there is no constitutional process in place for bringing back an ex-president or defeated candidate. But also, the Republican-led audit in Arizona did not show the widespread voter fraud they were promising and in fact only served to add slightly to Joe Bidens margin of victory. Bannon is smart enough to know that what hes saying doesnt make sense and so the best case scenario is that hes trying to trick his audience to give them a glimmer of hope so that they keep watching his program. The worst case scenario is that he is trying to rile them up to take action into their own hands and inspire another coup attempt like what happened on January 6th.

--

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel 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

2020 2022 2024 David Pakman Donald Trump Election Joe Biden Mike Lindell Steve Bannon The David Pakman Show

Go here to read the rest:
Steve Bannon: Trump's Return Will Be "2022 or Maybe Before" - Free Speech TV