Category Archives: Free Speech

A handout picture taken September 8, 2021 and obtained September 16, 2021 shows an election poster saying "Hang The Greens", placed by The Third Way, a far-right party with suspected links to neo-Nazi groups, in Zwickau, Germany. Radio Zwickau/Handout via REUTERS

BERLIN, Sept 21 (Reuters) - A German court on Tuesday ordered the removal of election posters reading "Hang The Greens" put up by a far-right party suspected of links to neo-Nazi groups.

The posters were put up around the eastern city of Zwickau by the Third Way, a small party monitored by security services, days before a vote that will set the course of Europe's leading power after the departure of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Greens, third in the polls, are likely to be part of a coalition government after the Sept. 26 vote.

The top regional court in the state of Saxony overruled a lower court that had said the posters could stay up as long as they were not displayed within 100 metres (yards) of Greens posters.

"The party's freedom of expression must take a back seat to the protection of public safety," the regional court said in a statement. It said the posters could be seen as inciting hatred and violence against members of the Greens.

The Third Way had argued that the slogan was ambiguous, especially in the context of an election, as its campaign posters were themselves green in colour, and that there was a free speech justification for keeping them 'hung up'.

Separately, Germany's highest court threw out a petition filed by the Third Way for its Facebook (FB.O) page, which is currently suspended, to be unblocked until after the election.

The Constitutional Court said the party, which fielding candidates in the states of Saxony and Bavaria, had failed to submit adequate arguments.

German concerns about far-right violence were heightened two years ago when conservative politician Walter Luebcke was shot dead by a neo-Nazi for his pro-immigration views.

Reporting by Emma Thomasson and Douglas Busvine; Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Kevin Liffey

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

See the original post:
German court orders removal of 'Hang the Greens' posters - Reuters

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

There are some really bizarre ideas out there -- and one that has popped up a bunch recently is the idea that fact checking is antithetical to free speech. We've seen a few faux "conservatives" arguing that fact checkers should be regulated and that they're not protected by the 1st Amendment. This is wrong of course. Fact checking is (1) speech, and (2) stating an opinion on the veracity of some other content. It's quintessential protected opinion.

But, the most bizarrely stupid version of this argument was published recently in the Hill, by columnist Armstrong Williams, in a piece entitled: Uninhibited Speech is the Ultimate Weapon in the Fight Against Misinformation. You might think from this title that he would support fact checking -- which is part of that "uninhabited speech." Instead, he seems to think it's an infringement on rights.

For too long, Big Tech has controlled what we say by imprinting into the minds of the masses a certain worldview. Big Tech has silenced dissenters, making those who dare to disagree with them outcasts. The fact-checkers, both manual and automated systems, review social media posts and censor them when they determine a post to be false or misleading. The very notion that a company would hire someone to fact-check private speech is outrageous. We should not tolerate lies, but it is not the job of a powerful few to label something as a lie; it is the job of the content consumer to do so. Giving a few entities the power to brand people as liars gives them disproportionate power to determine truth by labeling some lies as fake news but not others, according to their agenda.

So... we should have uninhibited free speech... unless that speech is coming from a big tech company? Because that's no longer uninhibited.

Now, there is a legitimate point buried amidst all the muck here, noting that just because someone has done a "fact check" on a piece of content, does not necessarily mean that the fact check is accurate. But a fact check is, undeniably part of the "more speech" approach. Williams isn't mad about "fact checking." He's mad that he doesn't agree with the results of these fact checks. Indeed, he could have made a stronger point if he had argued not against fact checking (which is clearly speech), but what is then done with the results of those fact checks (though, again, moderation decisions by private companies are also protected expression). Either way, when you get to the crux of his argument, it's that companies who fact check don't deserve any free speech rights to do so.

Did we need fact-checkers to end the idea that slavery was natural, as Aristotle said? Did we need fact-checkers to guide our Founding Fathers hands in writing the Constitution? No, what we needed was the natural, unfiltered flow of ideas from one person to another.

And... some of that "natural, unfiltered flow of ideas" is someone fact checking the content. That's how the marketplace of ideas works. You can criticize the fact checkers and the end result of their fact checks. That's reasonable. Fact checkers often get stuff wrong. But to argue that their speech somehow impinges on someone's speech is nonsense.

It's really funny how much he wants to silence speech in favor of letting speech flow if he likes that speech. I mean, this paragraph is just pure nonsense:

Rational thought spread like wildfire without the need of social media, and irrational thought died with the few patrons who consumed it. The world was changed by the thoughts of a few ordinary people who dared to think. Of course, people disagreed, and some even became violent, but a persons right to open his mouth and unleash volumes of unique ideas upon his neighbors should not be stifled by the vitriol that their thoughts create.

Apparently, a person's right to open his mouth should not be stifled unless that person is fact checking.

Does Williams have no principles at all?

Labels make it easy to destroy people. They shift burdens of proof to the party being labeled, making it impossible to peel away the label one is given.

Labels are speech, dude. If you disagree, you should speak up and explain why the label is incorrect, misleading or inappropriate. That is uninhibited speech. But fact checking and labels (and moderation decisions) are all speech in themselves.

We should all continue to express our thoughts honestly, unfiltered and uninhibited.

Unless you're a fact checker or someone who labels people in a way that Armstrong Williams does not like?

Every person should conduct his or her own research to determine whether something someone says appears to be true.

Again, unless you're a fact checker or someone who labels people in a way that Amstrong Williams does not like?

Each of us must consider the facts, connect the dots, and come to our own conclusions.

And, a fact checker is part of that discussion. No one says you have to believe everything a fact checker says.

Sure, we might get it wrong; everyone does that sometimes because we are human. But right always prevails over wrong, the truth overcomes fallacies, and good triumphs over evil.

Apparently, Williams believes this applies to everyone... except fact checkers.

What a bunch of censorial garbage.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: armstrong williams, fact checking, free speech, more speech, social mediaCompanies: facebook, twitter

Read this article:
Commentator Insists That Fact Checking Is An Attack On Free Speech - Techdirt

After the Virginia Supreme Court's upheld the reinstatement of teacher Tanner Cross, the Loudoun County School Board is set to vote on a revised policy of professional conduct.

WTOP's Neal Augenstein reports that the Loudoun County School Board is set to revise its policy on professional conduct.

In the wake of court rulings overturning the suspension of physical education teacher Tanner Cross, the Loudoun County School Board is set to vote on a revised professional conduct policy for public school employees.

On Aug. 30, the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled the board failed to prove a lower court abused its discretion in ordering the reinstatement of Cross, who was put on administrative leave after criticizing a then-proposed transgender policy.

The draft policy, which the board is scheduled to vote on Tuesday evening, would specify that school employees have the First Amendment right to engage in protected speech in their free time, but also reinforces the expectation that employees support the school systems equity and nondiscrimination practices.

Cross told the countys school boardthat the use of preferred gender pronouns for transgender students was against his religion during a board meeting in May.

Also in August, the school board voted to pass a measure that would expand the rights of transgender students in the countys schools.

Cross filed a civil lawsuit, seeking to stop the policy from going into effect. Two other teachers are seeking to join the suit.

In a section labeled protected speech, employees are reminded they are in a position of public trust.

However, nothing in this policy or any other policy shall be interpreted as abridging an employees First Amendment right to engage in protected speech or their right to a private life outside their work responsibilities except as provided by law.

Circuit Court Judge James Plowman had ruled Crosss statements were made on his own time in a public meeting, rather on than a classroom, and that the suspension violated his free speech rights. Virginias Supreme Court upheld Plowmans ruling.

The draft policy also includes a section called Commitment to Equitable Treatment, which says the school system rejects behavior and language that denigrates or demeans people of protected classes, and that such behavior encourages discrimination, hatred, oppression, and violence.

While not referring to the preferred-pronoun issue in Crosss lawsuit, the draft policy specifies in-school actions: Employees are expected to support the school divisions commitment to action-oriented equity and nondiscrimination practices, through the performance of their job duties in order to promote respect, professionalism, civility and inclusivity for all persons.

The boards Human Resources and Talent Development Committee of the School Board had voted 3-0 to send the recommended policy to the full board for approval.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

2021 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

Read more:
Loudoun Co. School Board to codify free speech after courts overturn teacher suspension - WTOP

Roe v. Wade: Can Adding Seats to the Supreme Court Save America? SCOTUS letting TX's 6-week abortion law stand is very likely the beginning of the chain reaction that could gut Roe v. Wade as we know it.

How should America respond to the latest actions in Texas on Roe vs Wade? The Supreme Court wants to overturn the decision. How will this all work out?

Meagan Hatcher-Mays joins Thom Hartmann to discuss the possible expansion of the Supreme Court.

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel 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

Abortion Pro-Choice Right To Choose Roe V. Wade Supreme Court Texas The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

Read this article:
Can Roe v. Wade Be Saved By Altering The Supreme Court? - Free Speech TV

In the days following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on August 23, 2020, hundreds of protestors marched in the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin. Federal law enforcement, it turns out, collected location data on many of those protesters. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) used a series of geofence warrants to force Google to hand over data on people who were in the vicinity ofbut potentially as far as a football field away fromproperty damage incidents. These warrants, which police are increasingly using across the country, threaten the right to protest and violate the Fourth Amendment.

Geofence warrants require companies to provide information on every electronic device in a geographical area during a given time period. ATF used at least 12 geofence warrants issued to Googlethe only company known to provide data in response to these warrantsto collect peoples location data during the Kenosha protests. The center of each geographic area was a suspected arson incident. However, the warrants reach broadly and require location data for long periods of time. One of the warrants encompassed a third of a major public park for a two-hour window during the protests. The ATF effectively threw a surveillance dragnet over many protesters, using general warrants that violate the Fourth Amendment and threaten the First Amendment right to protest free from government spying.

Police can use geofence warrants to collect information on and movements of innocent people at protests. This can include device information, account information, email addresses, phone numbers, and information on Google services used by the device owner, and the data can come from both Android and Apple devices. Someone who goes to a protest and happens to be nearby when a crime occurs may get caught up in a police investigation. Police in Minneapolis, for example, used a geofence warrant during the protests over the killing of George Floyd. The public only learned about it because the dragnet, centered around a property damage incident, caught an innocent bystander filming the protests, and Google notified him (which it doesnt always do). The police can also use this data to create dossiers on activists and organizers.

In this way, geofence warrants also eliminate anonymity that people may rely on in order to protest or otherwise freely associate in public spaces. Law enforcements ability to catalogue the location of peaceful protestors will chill their exercise of their First Amendment rights. This is especially problematic when, as with the August 2020 protests in Kenosha, people are taking to the streets to hold the police themselves accountable.

Google recently published data showing that police have issued at least 20,000 warrants, just over the last three years, and the sheer volume of these warrants is increasing exponentially year over year. For example, California issued 209 geofence warrant requests in 2018, but in 2020, it issued nearly 2,000. Each warrant may result in the disclosure of information on tens or hundreds of devices. The vast majority of these warrants are issued by state and local police, which makes them difficult to track.

Google must start standing up for its users against this massive overreach. In addition to serious harms to privacy and free expression, geofence warrants operate without transparency. After years of pressure, Google has finally provided some limited data. But the vast majority of geofence warrants remain sealed, with no information from Google or law enforcement on their targets, geographic area and length of time, and their purported justifications. As a result, most people have no way of knowing whether they are caught up in one of these dragnets. Such uncertainty further chills the constitutional rights to freely protest and associate.

Read the rest here:
Geofence Warrants Threaten Civil Liberties and Free Speech Rights in Kenosha and Nationwide - EFF

Editors note: This message was sent to on-campus students on Sept. 13, 2021.

The Lory Student Center Plaza has always been a space of activity, conversations, and the sharing of ideas. At times, the ideas have been celebratory, welcoming, affirming, and uplifting. Other times, the ideas have been offensive, racist, homophobic, and hurtful. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution has been discussed, interpreted, and debated for centuries. Although free speech is one of the bedrocks of our nation, it can be a difficult concept in practice. One issue that we constantly grapple with is how to ensure our students feel welcomed, affirmed and respected while upholding the laws that govern freedom of speech, including those that protect speech that may be offensive or wholeheartedly opposed to our personal and institutional values.

Sometimes we have missed the mark in communicating our responsibility as a state institution to uphold free speech rights. Too often, we may have talked more about our duty to protect offensive speech and less about what you can do to exercise your own free speech rights, the often-disproportionate impacts of free speech on individuals holding marginalized identities, and how our Principles of Community call for us to care for one another.

As evidenced by the #CallOutCSU, free speech works both ways. Your voice is vital, just as valuable and can be used equally as effectively. For example, if a speaker whose ideology is opposed to yours comes on campus, the university cannot legally disinvite the speaker, but you can invite your own speaker, host a counter program, or peacefully protest. We encourage you to learn how to challenge, advocate, demonstrate, disagree and object to unpopular opinions in a way that moves public discourse forward. These critical skills are vital for democratic life and essential to the collective growth of our society. We also encourage you to care for one another, reach out to individuals who may be harmed by the offensive and hurtful speech.

For our part, while the law may guide us in what we, as an administration, can do to curtail offensive speech, we will always use our own university platforms to condemn speech that is not reflective of our institutional values. We recognize that what is legally permissible for the university to do sometimes doesnt feel like enough. As a state institution, we are essentially legally prevented from punishing, suspending or expelling students who say or write something many of us find insulting, derogatory and disrespectful. Still, we promise you this we will always do what is within the letter of the law to assert and affirm our own standards and disavow any speech that does not conform to our Principles of Community.

Finally, we want to acknowledge that speech hurts. The adage that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me, is simply not true. Negative and mean things that people say can cause real pain and mental anguish. We have resources available for those students who are impacted by hurtful words. For more information about available resources, go to the Student Affairs student support list online. And any time you experience or witness an incidence of bias, you can always submit a Bias Report online.

Link:
Statement on the First Amendment on campus - Source

The Westminster governments campus free speech bill could be helpful to universities, provided it is proportionate and manageable, according to Universities UK.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which would strengthen existing free speech duties on English universities and extend them to students unions, is currently passing through the House of Commons.

Giving evidence at the committee stage on 14 September, Paul Layzell, chair of Universities UKs advisory group on free speech and academic freedom, said that the bill, which would also enable individuals to sue for compensation if their free speech rights have been breached, could be helpful as long as it does not cut across existing mechanisms in universities for complaints.

Professor Layzell, who is principal of Royal Holloway, University of London, said that vice-chancellors and their senior teams are concerned about the interplay of this legislation with other legislation.

There are plenty of mechanisms within universities to deal with complaints internally, he said, alongside, other routes such as employment tribunals, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and the English regulator, the Office for Students.

However, if the bill helps clarify the rules where a number of issues come together and brings transparency and clarity, then its welcome, he said.

Critics have pointed out that the bill could result in universities and students unions risk-assessing the life out of campus or even givefree rein to Holocaust deniers and other extremists.

Professor Layzell said that free speech was already a priority for the sector, and so did not believe that anybody in the sector would have a problem with the requirement positively promote freedom of speech. What we want is something that ends up being proportionate and manageable, he said.

This should include mechanisms to prevent frivolous and vexatious claims being made. Universities UK would also recommend that the scope was limited to those who are directly affected by alleged breaches of a freedom of speech. Our worry is this is apparatus get to use for other purposes, he said.

The bill also includes the creation of a director of free speech and academic freedom on the OfS board empowered to ensure compliance with the duties. Professor Layzell said it would be important that any sanctions given out should encourage greater consideration and greater opportunities to learn from one another.

He added that UUK would be concerned if there was no right to appeal those sanctions.

Also giving evidence at the hearings was Jonathan Grant, professor of public policy at Kings College London, who said that the bill was somewhat overkill.

This was particularly evident around so-called cancel culture, a particular focus of the Westminster government.

When you look at the data, it is a very rare events that events are cancelled or people get no platformed, Professor Grant said. But I do have concerns around issues the chilling effect, where people are self-censoring themselves in classrooms, but I wonder whether regulation is the way to address those concerns.

How we have a more sort of open culture on campus where people have different views, feel competent in expressing them; I think that would be a much more useful conversation.

anna.mckie@timeshighereducation.com

Go here to see the original:
'Proportionate' free speech bill would be 'welcome', says UUK - Times Higher Education (THE)

Last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill into law that forbids the largest social media companies from removing users or their posts based on their political viewpoints. It also lets Texans sue social media websites with more than 50 million US users over perceived violations.

The law categorizes social media platforms as public forums and common carriers, a term often used to describe phone companies or utilities that in most cases cannot discriminate against customers. The law empowers the states attorney general and private citizens to sue over alleged violations.

While the law claims it protects individuals from censorship on social media websites, it also appears to violate private corporations own speech rights. Free speech scholars and advocacy groups say the Texas state government unconstitutionally dictates political speech on the worlds largest platforms by forcing platforms to carry favored views.

The tech industry group NetChoice wrote in a statement the Texas law forces websites to host obscene, antisemitic, racist, hateful, and otherwise awful content.

Kate Huddleston, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, says governments forcing private parties to carry political content violates the First Amendment protections under the US Constitution. Government efforts to curate online content on particular platforms is an impermissible exercise of editorial controljust as government cannot force newspapers to carry political speech, she said. A similar state law in Florida, which would have forced social media sites to host political candidates and their speech, was blocked by a federal judge on June 30 on First Amendment grounds.

Social media platforms enjoy First Amendment rights to set and enforce rules about content free from government restrictions, says Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia School of Law. That means the platforms can decide what may be posted, who may have an account and under what conditions, when to honor requests to remove content, how to display and prioritize content using algorithms, and so on, he said.

Aaron Mackey, a senior staff attorney at digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation says Texas will face a tough battle to ensure the law survives judicial review. It does not appear that any lawsuit has been filed yet. Mackey explained that any law that restricts speech based on content would be subject to the strict scrutiny standard under the First Amendment, a high bar requiring the government to show the law was narrowly tailored with a compelling public interest. Mackey argued the law fails to meet this standard.

The office of Texas governor Greg Abbott did not respond to press inquiries.

Legal analysts say laws like the new Texas bill also appear to violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a clause shielding internet companies from liability for publishing and moderating potentially objectionable user-generated content.

The clause, which has enabled the internets evolution as a relatively unregulated forum, gives the worlds largest tech companies safe harbor to host, remove, or ignore content without fear of litigation.

But the foundational law is now under attack by Democrats and Republicans alike who say they want to reign in online excesses. Liberals have largely criticized social media companies for being too lax on policing their platforms from hate speech and misinformation during the Trump era, while conservatives have claimed (without much evidence) that these platforms stifle conservative speech. Peters at the University of Georgia School of Law said the Texas law amounts to political theater rather than a good faith effort to protect speech.

The Texas law is plainly unconstitutional, and it will be struck down, Peters said. It violates the First Amendment while cynically pretending to protect the First Amendment.

Visit link:
Texass new social media law is a clear violation of the First Amendment - Quartz

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2021, considered the definitive ranking of the best universities and colleges in the country, was released last week.

The list contained the usual suspects: the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras placed first in the Overall Category for the sixth consecutive year and in the Engineering Category. The Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad placed first in the Management Category. The rest of the IITs, IIMs and Indian Institutes of Sciences (IISc) followed closely behind most of the eleven categories. Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) was also awarded a top spot in the University Category.

The consistent positioning of these institutes as the best deserves scrutiny in light of recent events. Two months ago, an Assistant Professor at IIT Madras resigned after allegedly facing casteism in the institution. His resignation lent faculty support to the issue of institutional casteism in supposedly elite higher education spaces. Many students and alumni responded by demanding grievance redressal cells for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities within campuses.

Related on The Swaddle:

IIT Madras Faculty Resigns Citing Casteism, Serving as Another Reminder To Hold Premier Institutes Accountable

IIT Kharagpur, which secured the top 5 spots in two categories, came under fire recently when a video of a professor hurling casteist abuse at students went viral. A letter, signed by more than 1,000 alumni across IITs, responded to the incident by stating: IITs are already notoriously hostile to Dalit, Adivasi and backward caste students.

When the NIRF was set up in 2015, the then Minister for Human Resource Development Smriti Irani said that the framework follows an Indian approach that considers India-centric parameters like diversity and inclusiveness apart from excellence in teaching and learning and research.However, a look at the specifics of the ranking system shows that this is far from the case.

The ranking is based on the following parameters: Teaching, Learning, & Resources (TLR), Research and Professional Practice (RP), Graduation Outcomes (GO), Outreach and Inclusivity (OI), and Peer Perception. Each parameter has its own subset of parameters. The one that deserves attention, however, is the vaguely defined Outreach and Inclusivity parameter.

Across all categories, OI is given a mere 10% weightage in the ranking the lowest, along with Peer Perception, among all five parameters. Further, OI has four sub-parameters: Percentage of Students from Other States/Countries (Region Diversity RD), Percentage of Women (Women Diversity WD), Economically and Socially Challenged Students (ESCS), Facilities for Physically Challenged Students (PCS). Out of a 100 mark OI score, ESCS constitutes a total of 20 marks. This means that the inclusion of marginalized students is given a 2% weightage to the overall rank in a particular category.

This is reflected in the percentage of marginalized students in the elite institutions listed in the rankings. The glaring exclusion of marginalized students in Ph.D. admissions at the IITs, as well as the high rate of dropouts, have been a subject of debate in recent months.

Moreover, while parameters include metrics like patents and publication quality, there is no metric to measure academic freedom a rapidly deteriorating quality. The Academic Freedom in India Status Report 2020 by The India Forum noted that attacks on dissenting students and faculty, political appointments, faculty selection, and the freedom to teach, study, and have an opinion, among others, have all contributed to academic freedom seeing a downturn in recent years.

Related on The Swaddle:

India Plummets From B to D Grade on International Scale of Academic Freedom

Further, the Free to Think 2020 report by Scholars at Risk (SAR), an international network to protect academic freedom, noted the rise in incidents compromising academic freedom. It also pointed out that Indias ranking in the Academic Freedom Index was at par with countries like Saudi Arabia and Libya. Over the past two years the space for ideas and dialogue in India is being constricted, and dissent punished, endangering scholars and students whose views are disfavoured by the ruling government. This pattern has the potential to shrink the space for academic inquiry and impede the development of a national higher education sector that benefits and is inclusive of all members of Indian society, the report said.

A few recent examples come to mind. A government rule, without state consultation, has made it mandatory for universities and academics to obtain clearance from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) before holding online seminars or discussions on internal and sensitive topics that compromise national security. The rule specifically singles out the northeastern states, Jammu and Kashmir, and the Ladakh region as subjects not allowed for discussion. Academics have widely criticized the move as it has far-reaching implications.

Everything can potentially have security implications, and organizers will be under great pressure to also screen participants who are known to have critical positions, Alka Acharya, a professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), toldUniversity World News.

Syllabus and curriculum changes have also become a recent point of contention. Just last month, Delhi University removed renowned Dalit authors Bama and Sukhartharini from the English Syllabus.

With ranking parameters elevating certain universities as bastions of quality education, questions about what education means and whom it is meant for get overlooked. Moreover, in an atmosphere of shrinking space to ask these questions, education stands to lose its moral foundations and merely serves as a depoliticized vehicle towards job markets for an elite few. We may already be on our way there.

Read the original post:
Amid Free Speech, Casteism Concerns, Should University Rankings Be Revisited? - The Swaddle

Britons believe freedom from abuse on the internet is more important than protecting freedom of speech, polling on the Governments online harms legislation suggests.

Nearly two thirds (60%) including a majority of both Tory and Labour voters prioritised the right to be protected from violence and abuse over the right for people to say what they want online (24%).

They urged the Government to make tackling abuse the top priority in its Online Safety Bill (44%), with tackling misinformation seen as less important (22%), according to Opinium polling published in a report backed by Compassion in Politics, FairVote UK, Glitch, and Clean Up The Internet.

The draft law will impose a duty of care on internet companies which compels them to remove legal but harmful content, including incitement to self-harm and Covid-19 misinformation.

Ministers argue that the changes will keep children safer online and make web firms responsible for the content they host.

But it has provoked concerns in some quarters.

Tory former Cabinet minister and civil liberties campaigner David Davis has warned it will amount to a censors charter that will allow trolls to escape the consequences of their actions by hiding behind big companies.

Comedian Stephen Fry has meanwhile led warnings that the laws could curb the free speech of LGBT people and other marginalised groups.

But a vast majority (69%) of respondents to the poll said the legislation should go further than planned by protecting adults as well as children from the spread of harmful content.

Under the current draft, platforms will have to publish terms and conditions which make it clear to users that content which is harmful to adults may be removed, but not act proactively to stop the circulation of harmful content, according to the report.

Racism (64%), hate (62%) and personal insults (57%) were identified the top priorities for social media companies to tackle on their platforms, with around half also calling for action against homophobic, xenophobic, ableist, sexist and transphobic content.

Jennifer Nadel, co-director of Compassion in Politics, said: This is a public mandate for the government to be bold and ambitious in tackling the scourge of online abuse and misinformation.

Its current proposals fall way short their draft Online Safety Bill marks yet another concession to the big social media companies who will continue to determine exactly how far they should go in moderating abusive content and judging how good they are at doing so. It is like giving the poachers the key to the chicken coop.

Kyle Taylor, Director of Fair Vote UK said: Big tech have shown time and again that they are incapable of regulating themselves.

From Covid disinformation that has led to loss of human life to racist abuse targeted at footballers and public servants, the evidence is clear and something must be done.

:: Opinium carried out the research on behalf of Compassion in Politics, FairVote UK, Glitch, and Clean Up The Internet. A representative poll of 2,000 adults was conducted online on 13 August.

More:
Online safety: Freedom from abuse more important than freedom of speech on the internet, poll finds - iNews