Category Archives: Free Speech

Illustration by Micky Flores-Nieves

The topic of free speech at Seattle Pacific University and on college campuses across the country has recently become a topic of much contention.

Organizations like Turning Point USA and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education make the claim that free speech is under attack and that Conservative political and cultural ideals are being forced out in favor of political correctness. Former President Donald Trump even signed an executive order in 2019 that demanded publicly funded universities extend the freedom of speech to everyone on campus.

But is free speech even being threatened at all, or are people just afraid of accepting the consequences of their actions?

The idea of free speech in America comes from the First Amendment, which prohibits the government and public institutions from denying people the right to express their beliefs. Simply put, people are allowed to believe and say whatever they want, so long as their words dont incite harm to others (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).

This is a very important right that we have in this country, but it is often misunderstood.

While any individual can publicly say anything, so long as it doesnt cause harm to other people, the public can say whatever they want in response. In that situation, the public is not violating the individuals free speech at all; they are simply expressing their own free speech.

An argument could be made that the freedom of speech is being violated at SPU if, and only if, the Board of Trustees declared that certain ideas or ideologies were not allowed to be expressed on campus. This hasnt happened, though, and there are no signs of that ever changing.

So, what even is happening, and why is SPU having this conversation?

In his recent article for The Falcon, alumni Carl Cederborg makes the claim that students who are accused of any myriad of so-called phobias are being ostracized and people are no longer putting politics aside to agree to disagree. This apparently is a sign that free speech on campus is in a perilous state.

I struggle to see how this ostracization for holding homophobic, Islamophobic, or transphobic ideas (which Cederborg brings up as examples) is even a problem, much less a sign of declining free speech. If most students at SPU are refusing to accept discriminatory ideas and are ostracizing those who hold them, then theyre just expressing their own right to free speech, not violating anyone elses.

No one at SPU is being censored (as evidenced by the article in question), and last years decision by the Board of Trustees to keep their homophobic hiring policy proves that the people in power at this school certainly arent going to stop or punish anyone who is accused of or holds homophobic beliefs. So, it must be asked, in what way is your free speech even being threatened?

The problem here seems to be that free speech at SPU isnt being threatened at all, but rather peoples actions now have consequences. This seems to be upsetting for those who refuse to reflect on the ways in which their beliefs and words can harm others. Hateful beliefs inspire hateful actions, and those that would be harmed by those actions have every right to refuse to associate with it.

Even if Cederborg was correct about the perilous state of free speech at SPU, students shouldnt have to interact and associate with hateful ideas, especially ideas that are hateful to them specifically. A persons sexual, religious, and gender identity is an immensely important part of who they are and refusing to associate with these so-called phobias is how identities that arent either straight, cisgender, or Christian will become accepted and part of everyday life. This hardly seems like a problem.

There are still many healthy political discussions and disagreements at SPU, but if your politics amount to not accepting another person for who they are, why should anyone else have to abide by that? The only eggshells that folks right-of-center have to walk on deal only with the question of being an accepting and humane person. No one is being ostracized for wanting taxes to be lower or for preferring less government control.

Peoples identities arent politics.

View post:
Free speech at SPU isn't the issue - The Falcon

Boston City Hall(peterspiro/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court took five more cases this morning for this years term, including a Ted Cruz challenge to campaign finance rules. The most hot-button case isShurtleff v. City of Boston, a lawsuit against the city of Boston for refusing to temporarily raise a Christian flag on a government-owned flagpole in front of its city hall. (Sadly, the suit does not demand that anything more dramatic be done to Boston City Hall, which is possibly the ugliest public building in America). The plaintiffs are Harold Shurtleff and the organization he runs, Camp Constitution, which seeks to promote awareness and understanding of Americas Judeo-Christian moral heritage. Shurtleff argues that the city discriminated against his speech by refusing to fly an explicitly Christian symbol, given that it has flown other flags with partially religious or anti-religious messages but justified its decision on the grounds that [t]he City of Boston maintains a policy and practice of respectfully refraining from flying non-secular flags on the City Hall flagpoles. . As the First Circuit, which ruled in favor of Boston, summarized Shurtleffs case:

In the past, the pole in dispute has displayed country flags (according to the complaint, those of Albania, Brazil, Cuba, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, Panama, the Peoples Republic of China, Peru, Portugal, and also that of the territory of Puerto Rico) as well as the flag of the Chinese Progressive Association, the LGBT rainbow flag, the transgender rights flag, the Juneteenth flag commemorating the end of slavery, and that of the Bunker Hill Association. Some of these third-party flags contain what Shurtleff alleges is religious symbolism. For instance, the Portuguese flag contains dots inside the blue shields represent[ing] the five wounds of Christ when crucified and thirty dots that represents [sic] the coins Judas received for having betrayed Christ. The Bunker Hill Flag contains a red St. Georges cross. And the City flag itself includes the Boston seals Latin inscription, which translates to God be with us as he was with our fathers. But nothing in the record indicates that the City has ever allowed the flag of any religion to be raised on the flagpole at issue.

Two years ago, the Court upheld the maintenance of a cross on public property as a World War I memorial. That, however, was an easier case for the cross: the government was defending keeping it rather than resisting it, so there was no free speech issue, only an Establishment Clause issue, and the cross had clear secular historical significance as a war memorial as well as its religious significance. Shurtleffs challenge asks the Court to go further in defending religious speech as free speech, and may explicitly draw the contrast to some of the flags the government refused to fly. The case will likely be decided in May or June.

View original post here:
Supreme Court to Hear Case Involving Free Speech for Christian Flag on Government Property - National Review

The European Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the proposals discussed here on Sept. 30 by a vote of 15+/9-. The proposals now go to the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), which will develop a position with a vote scheduled for November 8.

European Union (EU) civil society organizations, led by EFF and Access Now, are keeping a sharp eye on the myriad proposals to amend the European Commissions Digital Services Act (DSA) ahead of important committee votes in the European Parliament (EP). We want to see the DSA, which will overhaul regulations for online platforms, foster a new era of transparency and openness between tech platforms and Internet users. It should protect fundamental rights online and provide Europeans withgreater control over their Internet experience.

To ensure the DSA is moving in the right direction, we are calling on the European Parliament to reject proposals that cross the line to undermine pillars of the e-Commerce Directive crucial in a free and democratic society. In a letter to members of Parliament today, we are sending a clear message that free speech online,protection of marginalized groups, and respect for users private communication are key principles that should not be up for negotiation.

Specifically, proposals by the EP Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) to limit liability exemptions for internet companies that perform basic functions of content moderation and content curation would contradict EU Court of Justice case law and result in over-removal of legitimate content at large scale. These dangerous ideas, up for committee vote this week, should be rejected. The DSA should make sure that online intermediaries continue to benefit from comprehensive liability exemptions in the EU and not be held liable for content provided by users. Any modifications that result in short-sighted content removals of legitimate speech or which otherwise do not comply with fundamental rights protections under the EU Charter and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice should be rejected.

Further, measures that would force companies to analyze and indiscriminately monitor users communication or use upload filters have no place in the DSA. Protecting the privacy of users and their personal data is a fundamental right laid down in the EU Charter. They should honor users expectation of privacy and protect their right to communicate free of monitoring and censorship.

We are extremely concerned about trusted flaggers proposals that favor the powerful and would give politicians and popular public figures special advantages not available to ordinary users. Government and law enforcement agencies would get first-class treatment if platforms are obligated to prioritize their notices. This not only opens the door to misuse, but affords ordinary users second-class treatmentan anathema to free expression in democratic societies. Platforms should not be forced to apply one set of rules to ordinary users and a more permissive set of rules to influencer accounts and politician.

For the letter to the European Parliament:https://www.eff.org/document/dsa-joint-letter-ep

For more on the DSA:https://www.eff.org/issues/eu-policy-principles

For the statement by Access Now:https://accessnow.org/civil-society-eu-digital-services-act

Read the original here:
EFF, Access Now, and Partners to European Parliament: Free Speech, Privacy and Other Fundamental Rights Should Not be Up for Negotiation in the...

Updated at 8:45 p.m. with the judges ruling.

A judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order against Grapevine-Colleyville ISD on Monday after a Grapevine Republican Party precinct chair claimed board president Jorge Rodriguez and the district violated his free speech rights.

Mitchell Ryans lawsuit states that he was prevented from speaking at length about Colleyville Heritage Principal James Whitfield during an August board meeting. The district has a policy prohibiting speakers from identifying district employees and other people by name during the open public forum, and Ryan mentioned Whitfield by name.

U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas said there wasnt enough proof that a policy to limit speech was unconstitutional, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

The judges ruling came on the same night trustees for Grapevine-Colleyville ISD met for a regularly scheduled school board meeting, one week after a special meeting moved the group one step closer to not renewing the contract of the embattled principal.

In the lawsuit, Ryan said he tried to speak in support of Whitfield but Rodriguez would not allow him to continue. Rodriguez asked Ryan to stop using Whitfields name, to which Ryan asked if the president was trying to keep him from speaking.

GCISD spokeswoman Kristin Snively said the policy about not using names has been in place since 2004, with few changes.

Ryan has retained Austin-based Tony McDonald as his attorney. McDonald is the general counsel for Empower Texans, a statewide conservative political group that endorses Republican candidates with hard-line conservative views.

Ryan did not speak during the public forum at Monday nights meeting, despite his attorneys assertion last week that he had planned to.

According to a copy of the lawsuit posted on the Facebook group Colleyville Citizens for Accountability, Ryan sought nominal damages, actual damages and injunctive relief to remedy unconstitutional restrictions of Mr. Ryans rights protected under the First Amendment.

The lawsuit says Ryan has been and will be prohibited from addressing the board regarding Principal Whitfields efforts to promote critical [race] theory at Colleyville Heritage High School.

It also states that Ryan opposes critical race theory and is vocal about Whitfields efforts to promote it, and that the board can reasonably expect Ryan and others to share their opinions about the matter.

In a July 26 board meeting, former school board candidate Stetson Clark invoked Whitfields name multiple times in an effort to allege that the principal, who is on paid administrative leave, was responsible for introducing critical race theory into the district.

The district and Whitfield have said numerous times that critical race theory, an academic framework that probes the way policies and laws uphold systemic racism, is not taught in GCISD. After months of back-and-forth, Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law a bill that aims to further ban critical race theory from Texas classrooms, even after educators and advocacy groups fought against the move for months.

Read more here:
Colleyville principals critical race theory controversy spurs free speech lawsuit against district - The Dallas Morning News

Businessman Otavio Fakhoury has denied being a promoter of fake news and hate speech. But he defended his posts against vaccination and for the benefit of the covid group. He alleged persecution for being a right-wing political activist. Despite highlighting the row with the businessman, Senator Marcos Ruggiero (DEM-RO) warned against disrespecting free speech. The argument was refuted by Ruggiero Carvalho (PT-SE), who was cited as having committed a crime.

copyPublications deprive businessmen of fake and anti-democratic news, and he says he is persecuted for being politically active. Governors are demanding freedom of speech, but the opposition alerts that false news about the pandemic is a crime. Reporter Herica Christian. Businessman Otavio Fakhoury denied the accusation that he is an advocate of false news and hate speech. He confirmed posts on social media in which he expressed his opposition to vaccination and the use of masks in favor of the so-called covid kit and the herd immunity thesis based on his own experiences. They said they are personal opinions within the right to freedom of expression. Ottavio Fakhoury declared that he is not a friend of President Bolsonaro, but confirmed his closeness to Federal Representative Eduardo Bolsonaro and his electoral donations in the 2018 elections and more recently from works for the government. About the Forsa Brasil Institute, which brokered an alleged contract between AstraZeneca and the Ministry of Health through vaccine sellers, Ottavio Fakhoury said he was the vice president and financier of FIFA, but denied his participation in anti-democratic and anti-science positions. The businessman is being investigated by the Supreme Court in the Fake News investigation, but has claimed he was harassed for being politically active. It is clear and obvious a persecution of the conservative view and field of ideas. In fact, prosecutor Augusto Arras, in his statement, when analyzing the same tweets posted here, said that although they were harsh statements, they were not a crime. So, this view is there. The way I understand it is that they criminalize opinion in Brazil. By stating that he disagrees with many of Ottavio Fakhourys positions, Senator Marcos Ruggiero, of the Rondnia Democratic Party, warned against trying to censor because the businessman defends the government. This is a guarantee that the voice of the citizens will be heard in showing their different political and ideological currents that exist in the society. Freedom of expression acts as a thermometer for a democratic state. When freedom of expression begins to diminish, the trend is to become an authoritarian state. The former President of the Republic spoke of nonsense. whats up? Will anyone be free? The current president is also talking about nonsense. Will anyone be free? Senator Ruggiero Carvalho, of the PTSD Sergipe party, rejected the argument for free speech. One thing is freedom of expression, and the other is encouraging people to act in a way that puts their lives and the lives of others at risk. Todays agent also contributed to 596,163 deaths. He did not exercise freedom of expression, but rather the form of opinion that generated behavior that threatened peoples lives. This is a crime. Ottavio Fakhoury confirmed a contract with Petrobras to rent a property, but denied using the money to promote pocket sites. He also defended Prevent Senior and said he had intended to launch a teleconsulting app to prescribe a covid toolkit, such as the Health Ministrys Tratecov, which was eventually scrapped. From Senate Radio, Herica Christian.

View post:
Businessman defends free speech in posts against science and in favor of Bolsonaro's government - Rdio Senado - Lodi Valley News.com

Free speech has been a hot topic on campus lately.

Colorado Mesa University (CMU) has always allowed the public to speak and promote their ideas with little to no restriction. As long as there are no students or staff in danger, the First Amendment right to speak freely has been upheld.

On Sept. 16, President John Marshall emailed a statement addressing the recent controversy on campus. A member of the public attracted students when he started to preach outside of Dominguez Hall. This is not unusual.

The right to free speech is what allows us to be individuals. He was just being himself. I think his message was received poorly because of all the people heckling him, freshman mechanical engineering major Colin McArthur said.

Many students brought flags to the gathering, ranging from Pride flags to flags featuring pentagrams. These actions are also protected by the right to free speech. The debates drew a crowd that began a yelling match. The public speaker declined to comment.

I want to be clear that our campus is a public place where free speech must be fiercely protected. As many scholars have noted over the years, protecting free speech can be messy. To be sure, protecting the rights of people to utter objectionable and offensive things can be tough but its vital in our constitutional republic, Marshall wrote in his address to the situation.

Multiple incidents like this have occurred over the years. When violence or harm has been incited, the universitys security and local police will step in and remove antagonizers when needed.

Here is the original post:
Free speech on campus - The Criterion

Julia Wille, Student Government ReporterOctober 1, 2021

On Wednesday,Sept.29,theUniversity of Wisconsin-La Crosse Student Association (SA) invited guest speakers from the Counseling and Testing Centerand heard from students about free speech claims.

In the general student body open forum, student Aaron Hinz came to talk to the SA. He came to speak in response to the event on campus last week in which the College Republicans chalked the sidewalks of campus in protest of the mask mandate at UWL.

Hinz stated that he is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent and said, I passionately advocated for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities however I was devastated to hear the next morning that my Jewish voice was silenced by students and university staff. I feel the trauma and pain of my ancestors as my voice was silenced just as their voices were silenced.

He informed the senate that he has filed an incident report with the Anti Defamation League (ADL) that will include UWLs name, the names of campus police that were involved, the names of the resident assistants who were heard bragging about erasing chalk, and the members of the SA. Hinz said, I am sorry it had to come to this, but the community feels it has no other option as this university blatantly allows intellectual genocide and suppresses its most vulnerable population.

Next,the SA was joined by guest speakers from the UWL counseling and testing center,directorGretchen Reinders andassistant directorCrysChampion. They went over the new website set up for the testing center to try and make it more accessible for students. They also now have many options for online counseling. Reinders said, If you are or know a student that is struggling, dont hesitate and send them to our office right away and we will get someone who can talk to them.

In the officer reports SA President Jared Zwettler announced that Higher education emergency relief funding (HEERF) is going to be made available for students in the near future. He said that all Pell Grant-eligible students will receive $2,000 from federal funding and students that are not eligible for the Pell Grant will be able to apply for $1500 each. This will be available beginning Monday and an email will be sent out with information on how to apply. Zwettler said, They are estimating that about 4,200 students will get funding from this which is really really exciting.

SA also discussed the wellness weekend that is coming up. It will be Oct. 16, through the 18, and there will be therapy dogs and music performances on the union lawn on Saturday. There will also be a wellness fair from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. at the Recreational Eagle Center (REC) on Monday Oct, 18.

The SA also passed a resolution that formallyRecognizesIndigenous Peoples Day in La Crosse. As of 2019,the city of La Crosse made the second Monday in October Indigenous Peoples Day.This was formally recognized as Columbus Day. This resolution will now honor it as indigenous peoples day instead.

Follow this link:
Student Association hears claims about the inability to exercise free speech on campus - The Racquet

'Persecution for the expression of opinions'

It was disheartening to read that the chairman of the Bourne School Committee, the governing board of an institution that should value free speech, has, at the least, encouraged Kari MacRae, a member of the committee, to resign over something MacRae said, on the basis that her words were in direct violation of school policy.

It is at times like these that we should remember the wisdom of Justice Oliver Wendell HolmesJr. who in his dissent inAbrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), had this to say:

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. …

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. …

Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. … I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country."

Dana A. Berry, West Barnstable

See original here:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - Cape Cod Times

Pfizer announced COVID-19 vaccine is safe for kids: Here's how long it could take for approval

A smaller dose of Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine is safe to use on children ages 5-11 years old. Heres why it could take weeks for approval.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

OXFORD, Wis. A federal judge has ruled in favor of a high school girl who said she was threatened with jail if she didn't take down her social media posts about her brush with COVID-19 last year.

Amyiah Cohoon, then a sophomore, took a spring break trip to Florida with the Westfield Area High School band in 2020.The students returned to Wisconsin on March 15, earlier than planned, because of the coronavirus outbreak.

Cohoonposted on Instagram that she thought she had been infected, had been to hospitals, and though she tested negative, her doctors thought she probably had had it earlier. In a final post, she is wearing an oxygen mask and says she's beaten COVID-19, and urges others to stay safe.

On March 27, Marquette County Sheriff's Sgt. Cameron Klumpcame to the Cohoon home and said Sheriff Joseph Konrath had ordered the posts be taken down, as he didn't believe there were any confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the county.

Earlier that day, the school district administrator had notified parents there was "no truth" to rumors a student had contracted COVID-19 during the band trip. He called Cohoon's posts,"a foolish means to get attention and the source of the rumor has been addressed.

Cohoon took down the posts butsued Konrath and his deputya month later.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig granted her summary judgment in the case.

The First Amendment is not a game setting for the government to toggle off and on. It applies in times of tranquility and times of strife," Ludwig wrote in a 16-page decision."While Defendants in this case may have believed their actions served the greater good, that belief cannot insulate them. Demanding a 16-year-old remove protected speech from her Instagram account is a First Amendment violation.

Cohoon and her parents were represented by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty. WILL deputy counselLuke Bergsaid the decision shows free speech rights don't disappear in an emergency.

I grew up 'under a rock': My parents banned social media until I was 17. I'm glad they did.

'I don't have COVID': Doctor says some COVID-19patients deny virus, decry vaccines from their deathbed

More importantly, law enforcement has no business trying to regulate the social media posts of local teenagers, Berg said.

In addition to a declaration that Konrath and Klumphad violated their First Amendment rights, Cohoon and her parents had sought an injunction against anychargesor threats of jail over any future social media posts about her COVID-19 scare.

Ludwig denied the injunction request, saying it was too broad and unnecessary in light of his order that Konrath and his deputy had violated Cohoon's free speech rights.

The defendants tried to get the suit thrown out, saying Klump had probable cause to charge Cohoon with disorderly conduct because he had reason to believe her posts were causing"significant disturbance, anxiety, fear, concern, and even panic among other citizens."

Ludwig said that argument dramatically understated the analysis for probable cause, and if accepted, would gut free speech protection, "allowing police officers a free hand to wrongfully arrest anyone engaging in protected speech so long as the offending officer could point to a possible disturbance or perceived anxiety among those who opposed the speech."

And as to the defendants' claim of qualified immunity, Ludwig noted it simply does not apply to requests for declaratory relief.

Follow Bruce Vielmetti on Twitter at @ProofHearsay.

Visit link:
A girl was threatened with jail over COVID-19 social media posts. A judge ruled in her favor - USA TODAY

Sept. 30, 2021 4:27 pm ET

In Great Art Doesnt Care About Fairness, Equality or Identity (op-ed, Sept. 25), James Campbell writes, It is surely one of the strangest of recent cultural phenomena that, whereas it was traditionally young radicals who fought to throw off the shackles of censorship, it is their radical heirs who lead the campaign to fasten them on again.

There is nothing strange about it. Those young radicals of the 1960s to whom Mr. Campbell refers were not fighting for free speech. They were exploiting Americas commitment to free speech to spread their own radical leftist beliefs. Now that they have completed their long march through the institutions, giving them near-monopoly control of the propagation of ideas in the U.S., they find that freedom of speech has become something of an inconvenience. That pesky thing called truth keeps rearing its head. Better to stifle the opposition altogether. Welcome to the revolution.

See the original post:
Censorship and the Possibility of Great Art - The Wall Street Journal