Category Archives: Free Speech

Oct 9th 2021

DISASTER STRUCK the worlds biggest social network on October 4th when Facebook and its sister apps were knocked offline for six hours. It was one of the less embarrassing moments of the companys week. The next day a whistleblower, Frances Haugen, told Congress of all manner of wickedness at the firm, from promoting eating disorders to endangering democracy. Some wondered whether the world would be a better place if the outage were permanent.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

A share of the opprobrium heaped on Facebook is incoherent. Politicians are angry but so far seem incapable of co-ordinating reform to rein it in. And investors have kept buying the stock, regardless of the bad headlines. Yet the company should take no comfort from this. The blind fury unleashed shows that its reputational problems have got out of hand.

Some of this weeks criticism was tendentious. Reports highlighted internal research showing that Instagram, Facebooks photo-sharing app, makes one in five American teenagers feel worse about themselves. They paid less attention to the finding that Instagram makes twice as many feel better about themselves. Facebooks critics are right that it should be more open. But the firm has half a point when it says that the hysterical reaction to unsurprising findings will lead companies to conclude that it is safer not to do such research at all.

Other complaints are really criticisms of the broader internet. The question of how to regulate viral content for children goes beyond Facebook, as any parent who has left their child with YouTube knows. Likewise, dilemmas over how the firm amplifies attention and how to draw the line between upholding free speech and minimising harm. Facebook repeated its plea that Congress should weigh in on matters such as minimum ages, rather than leaving it to firms. It has made a better stab than most at settling free-speech questions with its oversight board, a pompous-sounding but quietly useful body which dispenses rulings on matters from misogyny to misinformation.

The most damaging claim this week gained the least attention. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline in its young American users. She revealed internal projections that a drop in teenagers engagement could lead to an overall decline in American users of 45% within the next two years. Investors have long faced a lack of open disclosure. Misleading advertisers would undermine the source of nearly all the firms sales, and potentially break the law. (The firm denies it.)

Does any of this matter? Although Facebooks share price has lagged behind some tech giants, it has risen by almost 30% in the past 12 months. Politicians threaten to break the company up, but the antitrust case is flawed. The Justice Departments claim that Facebook is a monopoly rests on defining its market so as to exclude most social networks. The nonsense of this was demonstrated by the outage, when users flocked to apps like Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. The action is more an expression of frustration than a powerful argument about competition law.

But fury may matter. Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return. Even when it set out plausible responses to Ms Haugen, people no longer wanted to hear. The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate untouchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff. Even if its ageing customers stick with the social network, Facebook has bigger ambitions that could be foiled if public opinion continues to curdle. Who wants a metaverse created by Facebook? Perhaps as many people as would like their health care provided by Philip Morris.

If rational argument alone is no longer enough to get Facebook out of its hole, the company should look hard at its public face. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks all-powerful founder, made a reasoned statement after this weeks wave of anger. He was ignored or ridiculed and increasingly looks like a liability.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Facepalm"

See more here:
Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return - The Economist

To the editor: The Los Angeles Police Department is committed to continuing to improve our performance with regard to protests, including documentation of dispersal orders and protecting the rights of peaceful demonstrators and journalists. (Too few checks on police dispersal orders, editorial, Sept. 30)

Over time we have observed police officers confronted with violent and destructive behavior intermixed with otherwise peaceful protests. Efforts to separate peaceful demonstrators from those seeking to injure police officers or commit acts of arson and looting is difficult during a volatile incident. The department has no interest in blocking or kettling peaceful protesters who are complying with police orders.

Ensuring that department personnel from our top commanders to the officers on the front line perform with the needed precision requires ongoing training and improvements. That is just what our recent After-Action Implementation Plan intends to accomplish.

I am hopeful with the collective demands of everyone involved that our After-Action Implementation Plan is met with the necessary investment by the city to ensure our most recent experiences set the stage for lasting change.

Michel R. Moore, Los Angeles

The writer is chief of the LAPD

Visit link:
LAPD chief: We have no interest in curbing free speech right - Los Angeles Times

Free speech appears to be going in the wrong direction. Not just access to it, but the privilege to express it without fear, harm, or retribution. Not only an essential read, but a timely one Im loving what Johnathan Zimmerman is laying down in his book Free Speech: And Why You Should Give a Damn.

Something incredibly stupid and weak happens when ideas and speech are censored: we remain stupid and weak. Perhaps its the philosopher in me; perhaps the martial artist, but I like to think that all of us deep down become better when our ideas are tested in the octagon. Or maybe its the scientist in me that sees ideas like evolution and through mutation and natural selection we see what stands the test of time.

Censorship fixes the fight and provides a controlled habitat (of course, whatever the habitat the censor is comfortable with). If ideas are at their best when tested, evolved, and developed so too our shared collective thought. And its not just that potentially good ideas are gagged, but the open market of idea exchange itself. Instead of rational deliberation where all are allowed to express their views it removes the debate and our collective intellectual rigor. When the censors gags the opposing viewpoint, their motivations are now in question. Arent their ideas good enough to stand on their own merits?

This double-edge sword is where Zimmerman takes aim. Its not justless of a carrot (maximizing human potential) with censorship, but it also guarantees the stick. In places and times of injustice or tyranny, censorship provides the vehicle for the status quo to remain. On the shoulders of giants like Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Eugene V. Debs, and Martin Luther King Junior, Zimmerman reminds us that:

Every great champion of the poor and dispossessed in United States history has also been a champion of free speech, which allowed them to critique inequality and oppression. Thats why Douglass called free speech the greatest moral renovator of society and government. Without it, people who were oppressed and subjugated could not call public attention to their plight. Lacking other resources and privileges, free speech was their only weapon. If you took that away, they had nothing. [page 20]

If youre sympathetic to censorship, perhaps to ideas you may despise, you have to contend with the aforementioned world changers. Zimmerman cites another piercing Douglass quote:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of money. (page 23)

At the far end of censorship lies this fundamental truth that the greatest movements towards justice and equality are hampered. Weve learned from the sins of the past in our own nations history(and watch these sins continue in the present with many countries where free speech is far from empowered) that this suppression is objectively wrong in Douglass words a double wrong violating the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

And for those still sympathetic to censorship for those really unethical, unscientific, and corruptibly contempt ideas/speech beware! Gagging the movement only gives it power. Zimmerman gives us a number of examples in the text where censorship only fueled fire to the movement. One in particular was Margaret Sanger and the contraception movement. In her magazine The Woman Rebel, she claimed women have the right to be an un-married mother the right to destroy The right to create The right to live The right to love It also published information on contraception all resulting in indictment, four counts of obscenity, and a potential 45 year jail sentence for which she would flee the country.

Upon her return when the charges were later dropped, she would go to a speaking engagement in St. Louis where city officials urged the venue theatre to disallow her in the door.Zimmerman urges us to consider the result: the next day, a local newspaper declared that shutting out Sanger had aroused more popular interest than her speech would have done (page 28).

Perhaps this should be a warning to academia and Big Tech that every time they muzzle what Zuckerberg or Woke University finds contemptible they are just fueling the fire of these movements.

Throughout the book, Zimmerman lays out how important the 1st Amendment has been in allowing us to criticize our leaders (Chapter 1), allowing minorities/women/LGBTQ/working-class American challenging their oppression (Chapter 2), allowing us to create art, film, and literature (Chapter 3), allowing students and teachers to speak their minds at school (Chapter 4).

In Chapter 3, I thoroughly enjoyed Zimmermans tour through the 1900s with some case studies ofpoems, books, and even pornography that many found obscene (can you imagine what they would think today?). Through these case studies, were again reminded that all have a right to their own moral standards, but censoring not only fuels the demand, but amounts to something else for the censors. In Zimmermans words, they simply wanted to impose their morality on someone else, which is the essence of censorship in all times and places (page 50).

One assertively supporting censorship becomes an exemplar of self-refutation, for such view requires use of free speech to condemn it; not to mention hypocritical as it ultimately amounts to their views should be limited as they could be harmful, just not mine. AndZimmermans mic drop:

If you believe in free speech, you have to guarantee it for everyone. Full stop. And when you start to make exceptions, watch out! The next time, the censors maybe coming for you. Sadly we keep forgetting that lesson so we have to re-learn it, over and over again (page 70).

Amen.

Zimmermans book is an outstanding and accessible read. The par excellence artwork, done by Signa Wilkinson, brings the concepts to life in a profound way. In this brief eighty-three page text lay a goldmine of fantastic historical resources on the matter, along with a relevant warning for the present day (and tomorrow).

Censorship is weak-minded and hypocritical. It violates the golden rule (and if by the government, the 1st Amendment) and ultimately empowers the muzzled. The remedy for bad ideas is good ideas. And nobody wants to watch a fixed fight let ideas stand on their own merits. If you disagree and have the heart, engage and convince. If youre morally offended/outraged, youre not required to engage/consume. Express your rights, but dont violate others and their ability to engage/consume/ideate/speak.

Progress, and actualizing human potential, is just not possible without free speech. Neither is freedom, for that matter.

See the original post here:
Book Review: Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn - Patheos

Video: New Hope's Wedgwood Inn haunted by 12-year-old girl, owners say

The spirit of a 12-year-old girl haunts New Hope's Wedgwood Inn, owners say. Psychics say she was a runaway slave lost on the Underground Railroad.

James McGinnis, Bucks County Courier Times

First, it was the masking of children that triggered a recent parent-led lawsuit against Pennsbury.

This time, allegedfree speech censorship is at issue as theschool district faceslegal action for the second time in a matter of weeks.

Four Pennsbury taxpayers Doug Marshall, Simon Campbell, Robert Abrams and Tim Daly filed a lawsuit asking that Pennsbury School Boards speech policies be deemed unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs are suing the school district, school board and the districts solicitors, Michael Clarke and Peter Amuso.

Equity, diversity and education director Cherrissa Gibson is also named as a defendant in the federal lawsuit.

Filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the suit claims Pennsbury repeatedly violated the First Amendment through its previous censorship of public school board meetings.

Each individually named defendant has either perpetuated the censorship of plaintiffs speech, personally directed that censorshipor exhibited actual knowledge of and acquiescence in the censorship, the court document reads, claiming Gibson acted as a prime ringleader.

Last spring,Pennsbury came under fire for its restricting and editing of certain public comments from its school board meetings.

Comments from the plaintiffs were cut short and removed from recordings of the public meetings, with the school board citing a violation of Pennsbury School Board Policy 903. The edited videos were then posted on district social media.

(The defendants) have done everything from shouting down citizens who dare question the official narrative; conspired to silence and denounce dissenters; and even memory holed speech based on its viewpoint, deleting speech from public records as though it was never spoken, the document stated.

Related: Pennsbury cut public comments in BOE meeting videos. When a resident blasted the move, it went viral.

In March and May, the comments of Marshall, Abrams and Daly were cut from the uploaded versions of the school board meetings, with the comments in May alsocut short during their live comments.

Following the March meeting,Gibson calledMarshalls commentsoffensiveandabusive" via emails obtained via Right-to-Know requests.

She asked that the comments, focused on diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory,be removed frompublic record as a Policy 903 violation.

Campbells fiery speech at the June meeting denouncing Pennsburys editing of the meetings gained national attention and his video went viral.

CRT talks in Pennsbury: Pennsbury equity and diversity plan again bashed as critical race theory agenda

Read more: Three Pennsbury parents sue school district over COVID-19 masking requirements

The 65-page lawsuit documentreferences Policy 903, part of which says the presiding officer can interrupt or stop a public comment if thestatement "is personally directed, abusive, obscene or irrelevant.

Defendants have also interpreted Policy 903 to allow them to excise such speech from the official recordings of Pennsbury School Board meetings, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also called out the school board for editing the policy in June. Prior to that, speakers during both pre-vote and post-vote comment periods werent limited to discussing only agenda items.

At the June 17 meeting, the board updated the rule. Now, speakers during the first public comment period can only address agenda items and cant speak again during the second period about topics not on the agenda.

Thelawsuitalso claims the boards members dont believe public commenters have First Amendment protections, noting a March 2014 remark from Clarke to Abrams at a school board meeting.

The suit says Clarke had attempted to censor Abrams, speaking over him and declaring, you dont have First Amendment rights in here;this is public comment during a board meeting, and as Ive indicated before, if youre going to say things that are factually inaccurate, Im going to have to correct you.

The document cites several other instances where the plaintiffs felt Pennsbury was in violation of theFirst Amendment, including during the virtual meetings held during the pandemic.

The school board accepted written comments to be read at the online meetings during that period.

Daly asserts via the lawsuit that his criticism of the board for filling vacancies with controlled votes of members of their preferred political party was neither read or posted online at the Dec. 17, 2020 meeting.

Changes in Central Bucks: Divided Central Bucks School District board to choose new temporary member Tuesday

Abrams had also submitted a written comment that same meeting.

It accused the board of violating free speech and criticized Pennsburys academic and financial performance. The comment, like Dalys, was not read or posted online.

Pennsbury officials are trampling on the First Amendment rights of parents and residents to speak their mind about their schools, said Institute for Free Speechs vice president for litigation, Alan Gura, who is representing the plaintiffs.

Pennsbury'ssupervisor of public relations, Jennifer Neill, said as of Monday afternoon that the district had not yet been served with the lawsuit.

"We will respond appropriately through our solicitor if and when we are served," Neill said.

See original here:
Pennsbury hit with second lawsuit in two weeks. This one challenges censorship of board meetings - Bucks County Courier Times

Milan Varia

There has always been a challenge with freedom of speech when it comes to students. But, how do these issues affect student journalists?

The Supreme Court may have ruled Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. in favor of the student, Brandi Levy. However, answers were absent. This was not a step forward in the right direction but merely a step to the side.

No solution to the problem provides leeway for schools to punish other students for actions that could be exposing school issues.

The situation started when Levy got suspended from her school for posting profane words to her Snapchat story, which portrayed poor views on the school. It asked the question of how much authority schools had on off-campus and online school-related incidents. While ruling in favor of Levy, the court also held that schools could restrict any speech that would obstruct schooling environments. This begs another question: what are the limits of the student journalist?

For those in school, reporting is often done on important school board decisions and issues that need exposure. If a student publishes an investigative piece, and the student body rallies behind the article, the student may receive punishment.

While this may seem like a stretch, student journalists have had their content censored before. At Maury High School in Norfolk, Virginia, students were forced to take down a filmed report on their schools infrastructure. The schools building was aging poorly and had not seen many renovations since 1910. Students on the paper felt as if they were pointing out the obvious, but all that is left of the report is a link that no longer works. The school said the teacher in the video said things that violated the schools policies.

At first, this might seem to justify the reasoning behind the censorship. However, Mark Goodman, a professor of scholastic journalism at Kent State University and former executive director at the Student Press Law Center said if the story was accurate, there is no educational reason to take the video down. Del. Chris Hurst, a Democratic delegate from Southwest Virginia, also agreed that this was not a justified removal and felt that this censorship was beyond pale.

The school silenced the voice of the journalist. This punishment does not reflect on the students record, but it is the removal of free speech. In this situation, student reporters are covering a serious school concern that directly affects all current and incoming students, but their voice was silenced.

At Radford University, a school faculty member stole 800 newspapers written by the student staff. The cover story was about a professor who had recently passed away- telling his story in his memorial. The school cited that they found it could be too soon and triggering. Inherently, the action of the students is not offensive in any way. Yet schools are still stopping the spread of their voices.

These two issues are a small representation of a larger problem that has plagued the voices of students who want to be the light. This not only disempowers student journalists but also extends to those in things like activism clubs and student political associations.

Some may argue the courts decision provides an example to follow, but the lines of student free speech are very blurry. If there is a lack of clear-cut solutions, schools can continue to take advantage of the student journalist. The student could take legal action, but it will just perpetuate a tiring cycle that lacks clarity.

With no new answer, test, or standard, issues like this are bound to persist.

Read the original:
EDITORIAL: Where do the limits of student free speech lie? - Knight Crier

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in an important legal challenge to New Yorks concealed carry law. The law requires people registering for concealed carry gun licenses to demonstrate proper cause in order to do so, and in particular to demonstrate a specific need for self-defense if they seek to carry a gun for that purpose.

The question in the case is whether the Second Amendment permits New York to restrict the carriage of firearms in this manner. The meaning, intent and reach of the Second Amendment remain a matter of deep controversy, but the Supreme Court has made clear that Second Amendment rights are not absolute. Regulations on carrying guns in public, both open and concealed, have been common measures throughout American history as a means of maintaining peace and safety in public places. On September 21, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a friend-of-court brief in the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arguing that New Yorks limits on carrying guns in public spaces are constitutional. In particular, we argued that states have an important, and historically grounded, interest in restricting the carrying of guns in order to make public spaces safe for democratic participation, including First Amendment activity such as assembly, association, and speech.

What important First Amendment interests are at stake when it comes to carrying guns in public? We sat down with David Cole, ACLU national legal director and Perry Grossman, senior staff attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union, to address some key questions.

How and why are concealed carry restrictions a First Amendment issue?

States have many justifications for regulating the public carrying of weapons, concealed or otherwise, but one especially important justification is that such restrictions can facilitate civic engagement by promoting safety in public spaces and reducing the chances that any disagreements do not lead to lethal violence.

Democratic self-governance depends on the free-flowing, sometimes heated exchange of ideas, including views that may be shocking, upsetting, or infuriating. Streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces are essential spaces for airing views that may be controversial or unpopular. When people dont know who may be carrying a concealed weapon, but know that state law allows most, if not all, people to do so, they may rightly fear voicing opinions or assembling with groups that may be controversial or unpopular. One cannot know whether or when an armed person will turn to violence in response to a remark that offends them. Regulating concealed weapons in public promotes robust public debate and even harsh criticism by reducing the likelihood that heated arguments will escalate to intimidation and violence.

What is your response to concerns that criminal laws restricting the possession and carrying of guns continue to be disproportionately applied against Black people?

Black and Brown communities are undeniably disproportionately targeted, policed, and harmed by our criminal legal system, and there is no reason to believe gun law enforcement is any exception. We condemn such discrimination. Discriminatory law enforcement, of gun laws or any other laws, violates the Equal Protection Clause, and warrants serious attention from courts, the police, and our political leaders. But the question presented here is whether the Second Amendment prohibits the states from imposing any restrictions on carrying guns in public, regardless of their motivation or enforcement. Research shows that Black communities are disproportionately harmed by gun violence and that restrictions on gun possession can reduce that harm. Where criminal laws governing firearm possession are either motivated by discrimination or enforced in discriminatory ways, those laws should be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause and other anti-discrimination laws. At the same time, states should not be prohibited from enacting gun restrictions that can reduce injuries and deaths.

Have the ACLU and NYCLU historically advocated proactively on Second Amendment issues? If not, why now?

Until recently, Second Amendment jurisprudence was fairly well-settled and stable. Given the amendments reference to a well regulated Militia and the security of a free State, the courts for nearly 100 years took the position that the Second Amendment protected only a collective right, not an individual right. That longstanding view was upended in 2008 when the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess common firearms in the home for self-defense. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court ruled that the Second Amendment also limited the ability of state and local governments to restrict possession of common firearms in the home. So Second Amendment jurisprudence at the Supreme Court is still in its infancy. This is only the third gun rights case the court will decide since the early 20th century.

We filed a brief with the Supreme Court because in our view, this Second Amendment case has important free speech and First Amendment implications.

Is there a meaningful difference between concealed carry and open carry in terms of their effect on public life?

Whether carried openly or concealed, weapons in public places present safety risks that can inhibit the full exercise of First Amendment rights. Where states have adopted more permissive public carry laws, there have been recent examples of guns interfering with free speech, free assembly, and even the democratic process itself. Open carry can disrupt the public square through the intimidating display of lethal weapons. For example, in 2020, armed protesters forced the suspension of the activities of democratically-elected state legislatures in Michigan and Oregon.

Permissive concealed carry laws can have similarly pernicious consequences. People carrying concealed weapons have used their guns to threaten, injure, or kill people or disrupt speakers and protests espousing views with which they disagreed. Permissive concealed carry can deter people from speaking freely, protesting, or otherwise engaging in civic life by undermining confidence in the safety of spaces where public exchange takes place. Concealed carry restrictions will reduce the fear of intimidation and violence that can deter people from participating in civic life in public places.

What research supports the link between the proliferation of guns and a chilling effect on the exercise of First Amendment speech and assembly rights?

An analysis of more than 30,000 public demonstrations in the United States between January 2020 and June 2021 found that protests in which people are carrying arms are more than six times as likely to escalate into violence or destruction as unarmed demonstrations. The relatively greater eruption of violence or destruction at armed protests is consistent with social science research on the weapons effect, showing that the presence of weapons is likely to make both the carrier and non-carrier more aggressive. Research aggregated by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that the presence of guns can escalate arguments into incidents of intimidation and violence and the utility of guns as instruments of self-defense may be limited. Research further shows that most Americans are not impervious to the psychological effects of guns in their community, and that by a margin of more than three to one, more guns make others in the community feel less safe rather than more safe, with women and members of minority groups substantially more likely to report feeling less safe than men and whites.

Read more here:
Conceal and Carry Restrictions Can Help Protect Freedom of Expression - nyclu.org

Its opening day for the most important court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. While there might not be a marching band present to usher in the first day of the new term on Monday, there will surely be some fireworks this Supreme Court season.

This year we barely had time to miss the Supreme Court.

This year we barely had time to miss the Supreme Court. Typically, justices sign our yearbooks in June with a perfunctory HAGS! (Have a Great Summer!) and disappear for months as they give well-paid speeches in far-off places. This year, they stuck around, busying themselves with many so-called shadow docket decisions. They allowed Texas restrictive abortion law to go into effect and gave a big thumbs down to President Joe Bidens attempt to extend the federal eviction moratorium and to his effort to end former President Trumps Remain in Mexico policy.

Now they return to their regularly scheduled programming. Theyve already set oral arguments in a number of key cases that could reshape our legal and political landscape and exacerbate societys existing fault lines.

On Dec. 1, the court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of Mississippis law, which bans almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law is at odds with current Supreme Court precedent, set almost 30 years ago in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the court upheld the essential holding of its landmark decision in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. The Casey court held that once a fetus is viable, states can ban abortions, but pre-viability, states can only implement restrictions that do not present an undue burden on a womans ability to obtain an abortion.

Because fetal viability typically begins at about 24 weeks of pregnancy, there seems to be no way to honestly square Mississippis law banning abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy, with the Casey standard. Twenty-four weeks is more than 15 weeks, and a ban is more than an undue burden. By agreeing to review Mississippis abortion law, at least four members of the court have almost certainly signaled that theyre comfortable overturning Roe and Casey. That number is likely closer to six, the same number that voted to allow Texas abortion law to remain in effect.

On Nov. 3, the court will hear arguments in the second most controversial and consequential question facing justices this term: whether the state of New York can mandate that people who want to obtain a license to carry a concealed gun show good reason, such as self-defense.

The Supreme Court, much to the chagrin of some of its more conservative justices, has largely shied away from taking big Second Amendment cases since it struck down a District of Columbia law in 2008 that banned the carrying of unregistered handguns and barred the registration of handguns, but allowed the chief of police to issue one-year licenses for handguns. The D.C. law also required that people who legally own registered firearms keep them in a nonfunctional state (for instance by binding them with trigger locks) in the home. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a majority of the court, famously concluded that the Second Amendment includes an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to a right given only to the militia, and that this right includes the ability to own a functional gun in ones home for self-defense.

The courts decision in the gun case it will hear Nov. 3 will tell us how much power states have to restrict a persons ability to carry a gun outside of the home. In addition to New York, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island also place restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons outside the home. All of those laws could be on the chopping block.

The court will be addressing much more than abortion and gun control this term.

On Wednesday, the court will consider whether the government can prevent a prisoner at Guantnamo Bay from obtaining information in a suit against CIA contractors who tortured him. The legal issue in the case is whether the government can use the state secrets privilege to prevent the release of national security information. The courts decision could affect other pending cases, such as the separate case of five men being charged in the U.S. Military Tribunal at Guantnamo Bay for aiding the men who perpetrated the Sept. 11 attacks.

The court will be addressing much more than abortion and gun control this term.

A week later, on Oct. 13, the court will hear arguments in a case concerning Dzhozhar Tsarnaez, who, along with his brother, is one of the two Boston Marathon bombers. Tsarnaezs death sentence was thrown out by an appeals court because the trial court failed to ask potential jurors about the media coverage they had consumed about the case and excluded evidence from the sentencing phase about his brothers involvement in a separate murder case. The Supreme Court will determine if the death sentence should be reinstated.

November will be First Amendment month at the Supreme Court as justices hear one case addressing the freedom of religion and two dealing with the scope of the free speech clause. On the first of that month, the court will hear the case of death row inmate John Ramirez, who claims, in part, that he has a constitutionally protected right to have his Baptist pastor put his hands on him and pray out loud while he is put to death. Texas has thus far denied those requests. The previous cases to reach the court in this area address whether a death row inmate can have a spiritual advisor present in the execution chamber, not what actions that advisor can take once inside.

On Thursday the court agreed to hear a challenge filed by a Christian group, Camp Constitution, against the city of Boston. Camp Constitution wanted to use a City Hall flag pole to raise its flag, which bears a Latin cross. What about the separation of church and state? you ask. Well, Camp Constitution complains that Boston allows tons of other groups to use its flag poles, such as those celebrating gay pride and Juneteenth. Both lower courts to review the case ruled in favor of the city.

In a case regarding the free speech clause of the First Amendment, on Nov. 2, the court will consider the Houston Community College Systems Board of Trustees public censure of one of its members for things he said about the other board members. That member claimed the censure violated his First Amendment rights, a claim the federal district court dismissed, finding that the censure was no more than a statement of the boards dissatisfaction. The court of appeals disagreed. The case asks more broadly whether a local elected body has the power to censure one of its members as a result of that members speech.

And there is another yet-to-be-scheduled case dealing with the free speech clause, this one addressing the ever-expanding problem of money and politics. When Texas Sen. Ted Cruz loaned money to his re-election campaign in 2018, he admits he did so to challenge a federal law that caps at $250,000 the amount of money candidates can raise post-election to repay their personal loans to the campaign. Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 the day before the election and wants to be able to raise money after the election to pay back his full $260,000 loan. He says the law violates the First Amendment by burdening political speech without a sufficient reason. The government says the law is necessary to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption that could occur when candidates fundraise after the election to help retire their personal debts to the campaign.

This is the Supreme Courts first full term with its new six-to-three conservative majority.

This is the Supreme Courts first full term with its new list of players and a solid six-to-three conservative majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in a few weeks after last years term began.

Only fools make predictions, so here we go. Ten months from now, when the courts term ends, Roe and Casey will no longer be the law of the land. They will either be expressly or implicitly eviscerated. States will no longer possess the authority to restrict peoples ability to carry concealed weapons outside the home, or that authority will be severely narrowed. Cruz, and his colleagues, will be able to raise as much money as they want after an election to repay their personal loans to their campaigns.

There are other consequential cases that the court will consider that could change our understanding of the contours of the First Amendment and the state secrets privilege. But if the only two cases the court heard all term were the abortion and gun control cases, we can already predict that thanks to at least five people in a country of almost 330 million, our world is about to look a lot different.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court will likely kill Roe v. Wade and gun restriction laws this term - MSNBC

A friend who knows that I am an advocate for child speech therapy e-mailed me the compelling letter to the editor from Michael Niemeyer of Westerly that titled Tell legislators early intervention needs help. Mr. Niemeyer made the strong argument for more funding and attention for the Early Intervention program, as special needs children need a variety of therapies, such as physical therapy and speech therapy. I thought that his statement of how a society treats its most vulnerable was powerful. If I may, I would like to point out something in terms of therapy for children which may interest Sun readers.

Parents of children with speech issues should know that every child in the U.S. has the right to FREE speech therapy due to federal legislation passed 43 years ago. The free therapy can begin in preschool and run throughout the high school years. It covers all the types of speech problems. A brochure titled Special Education Law and Children Who Stutter is available for download on the website of the Stuttering Foundation (www.stutteringhelp.org), a site which has great resources for children and adults who stutter. Again, the free speech therapy encompasses all speech problems, and not just stuttering. If more parents knew about this amazing benefit of free speech therapy, then more children could be helped.

It is saddening that in the last 12 years while the topic of national health care policy has been prominent in the news that no media outlet ever once mentioned this amazing benefit of free speech therapy. The U.S. has the best policy in the world for children with the speech problems, even better than some nations with well-known socialized medicine policies. There are so many different speech problems that plague the lives of children. Kids need this free speech therapy.

Ed Herrington

Naples, Fla.

Read this article:
Letter: Kids with speech issues have right to free therapy - The Westerly Sun

Joel FeiginGoleta, Calif.The writer is professor emeritus of music composition at the University of California Santa Barbara.

To the Editor:

Michelle Goldberg argues that older liberals complaining about cancel culture are upset because they used to be cool young lefties and now they arent. There is surely some truth to this. At least at universities, however, concerns about free speech arent confined to just this group.

For instance, in a recent survey of Harvards Division of Science, only 52 percent of graduate students reported feeling comfort disagreeing with majority opinion, the lowest percentage of any group in the survey. This is deeply worrying, since, for scientists, dissent is a core job responsibility. If todays scientists-in-training remain so apprehensive about expressing unpopular opinions, tomorrows scientific leaders will be less honest and less effective.

Maybe this isnt a political emergency, but it isnt just a societywide midlife crisis either.

Colm P. KelleherCambridge, Mass.The writer is a postdoctoral researcher at Harvards Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology.

To the Editor:

There are alarming numbers of incidents of Jewish students, especially Jewish students who support Israel, being canceled campaigns of harassment, ousters or preventing Jewish students from serving on student government positions. In addition, many thousands of professors, administrators, students and alumni have signed letters essentially saying Zionism has no place on their campus.

Cancel culture is toxic and alarming.

Beth LevineRockville, Md.

We introduce a new feature in which our Opinion writers will occasionally respond to letters from readers.

I was gratified by how many people responded to this column, but some of the responses made me realize that I didnt communicate as precisely as Id wished. To be clear: The middle-aged sadness I referred to is very much my own. Im nostalgic for the more freewheeling intellectual culture in which I grew up, even though I think our cultures greater sensitivity to racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination is an unalloyed good. I empathize with Mary Emerson, who feels as if she has to tiptoe around her own daughter. Many people I know feel similarly inhibited around people younger than they are.

See the original post here:
Opinion | Cancel Culture: Are We Overreacting? - The New York Times

Austin, TX, September 29, 2021 Last year, students ranked the University of Texas at Austin (UT) second from the bottom in a nationwide survey of tolerance for expression. Now, in a larger sample of universities, two schools have ranked lower than UT: the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) and Rice University.

According to a new study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech advocacy and research group, Rice students show relatively low tolerance for certain controversial opinions and feel that their administration and professors do not clearly protect free speech.

The study collects survey data from 159 colleges around the country. Six Texas colleges are included in the ranking: Texas A&M University (TAMU), Southern Methodist University (SMU), Texas Tech, UT, UTD, and Rice.

TAMU was 25 on the list, the highest rank out of the six. Rice was the least tolerant in Texas with a rank of 135.

Baylor University was included in the survey but did not appear in the ranking because FIRE keeps a separate category for schools that openly prioritize other values above free speech, often religious or military schools.

Importantly, the survey is not a rating of official speech policies. It is a simple questionnaire given to students regarding how comfortable they feel expressing themselves and their tolerance for the expression of others.

Texas-Specific Data

For example, one section of the survey asked respondents how strongly they would support or oppose their schools allowing speakers to promote certain controversial ideas. 38 percent of Rice students would support the rights of a speaker with the message, The police should be abolished because they are racist, the highest percentage out of all the Texas schools. Rice tied with UT for the most support for a speaker with the message, Looting is a justifiable form of protest, with 21 percent of students at both schools saying they would support their school allowing the message.

By contrast, 17 percent of Rice students would support the rights of a speaker with the message, Abortion should be completely illegal. Only one school showed lower support for the rights of a speaker with this message: Texas Tech, at 16 percent.

With regards to campus leadership, students at Rice seemed to find their administration less committed to free expression than other schools. 3 percent of Rice students said it was extremely clear that their administration protects free speech, the lowest out of any included Texas school. By comparison, 20 percent of Texas Tech students said it was extremely clear that their administration protects free speech.

Another question asked respondents how comfortable they would feel publicly disagreeing with a professor on a controversial topic. At both Texas Tech and UTD, 14 percent of students said they would feel very comfortable challenging their professors, the highest percentage out of all the Texas schools. Rice came in last with only 4 percent of students saying they would feel very comfortable challenging their professor.

More students at Rice than any other included Texas school said it was not at all likely for their administration to defend the speech rights of a controversial speaker.

Rice also led the pack with the greatest share of students willing to block others from attending a campus speech. Compared to the other schools, Rice students are also more willing to shout down campus speakers to prevent them from speaking.

Overall Data

The collected results of the nationwide survey reflect the Texas trend of greater tolerance for left-leaning controversial views than right-leaning controversial views. 11 percent of students in the total survey would strongly support the rights of a speaker with the message, Transgender people have a mental disorder. By contrast, 34 percent of students would strongly support the rights of a speaker with the message, White people are collectively responsible for structural racism and use it to protect their privilege.

The surveys authors also note widespread willingness to disrupt or stop campus lectures. Two-thirds of all students say it is acceptable to shout down speakers to prevent them from speaking. 40 percent of students say blocking others from attending a campus speech is acceptable, and just under a quarter of students say violence can be acceptable to stop a campus event a 4 percent increase from last years data.

Other Schools

Another free speech advocacy group sued UT over its vague speech policies and won last year. After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals called UTs Campus Climate Response Team the clenched fist in the velvet glove of student speech regulation and remanded the case, UT agreed to change its speech codes and the case was resolved.

Survey questions and answers for each of the included Texas schools can be read here.

The rest is here:
Rice University Ranks Last Among Texas Schools in Survey of Free Speech Tolerance - The Texan