Category Archives: Free Speech

Constitutional law attorney Jenna Ellis Twitter account was restricted this week for hate speech.

Ellis said the restriction came after a tweet that quoted a White House correspondent who said 30,000 Afghan supposed refugees, unvetted, were going to be coming into the United States because of Bidens orders.

So Biden is literally bringing in terrorists, Ellis tweeted. #IMPEACHBIDENNOW.

Wow, such hate from Ellis. Just reading that tweet made me want to find a safe space and talk to someone about how it made me feel (insert eye roll).

Somehow, @jack (Jack Dorsey, Chief Tweet King) thinks that Ellis is promoting hate. However, on Jacks platform, this morning, are Afghan citizens getting beaten in the streets by the not so hateful Taliban, and that is all good Im assuming since Twitter hasnt restricted those videos.

Watch for yourself. Is this not hate or violence?

In other news: the Spokesman of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Zabihullah Mujahids Twitter account is up and running with updates on the terror unfolding on the Afghan people. Yes, we can get live, unfiltered, news directly from the Taliban on Twitter.

Id like to know what the hell has happened to the #metoo crowd, and why the silence? My only guess is confusion as those on the far left are trying to figure out what they stand for.

Maybe nothing at all in reality. Yeah, maybe thats it, like a shiny object one day and on to the next shiny object the next.

Maybe it was all bullsh*t. Womens right? LGBTQ+ rights?

Jack, You stand for those rights? Dont you? Or not?

Jack, why dont you fly your wealthy tail over to Afghanistan, or whats left of it, and ask the new leader his stance on womens rights and the rights of LGBTQ+. You see, in this country, America, those rights exist already, but some want to act as they dont.

A woman was killed by the Taliban on the street of Talogan, Takhar province (Afghanistan), for going out in colorful clothes and without a burqa.

This occurred on the same day that a Taliban spokesperson mentioned that it was would respect womens rights under Islamic doctrine.

As reported byFox Newsthe woman refused to cover her hair and face with the traditional burqa, which was requested on the street by the Taliban.

In the images released, the womans body is observed on the ground and surrounded by her relatives for the actions of the taliban.

Yeah, maybe it was all bullsh*t. Ask yourself, regardless of where you stand politically, what do you stand for?

Jack, what do you stand for? Maybe spend some time reflecting on what this great country of ours has allowed you to become, and stop stifling the conversation of those with who you disagree, but rather listen to a different point of view. We can all agree to disagree.

But to smother freedom of speech from Americans, and at the same time allow terrorists to have a voice on your platform, that speaks volumes of your character.

Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

Related

The rest is here:
Free Speech Is Dead: American Conservatives Silenced Online As Taliban Broadcast Beatings - The Free Press

The Rock was delivered to homes in eight parishes by Jersey Post earlier this week (31511547)

The Rock, which was delivered to homes in eight parishes by Jersey Post earlier this week, contained articles questioning the legitimacy of vaccinations, the need for restrictions and included an article entitled the Nazification of the NHS.

Jersey Post halted delivery following complaints and criticism on social media, and said they would be carrying out an internal investigation. Deputy Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham said that it was concerning to hear that a publication with potential misinformation is in circulation.

However, in a statement, the head of media and public relations for The Rock, Claire Stone, said that it was of great concern that circulation had been unilaterally stopped by the postal company.

She said: Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental freedoms that all of us enjoy, and as such, they have been enshrined in law.

Why is the government launching a probe, and on what grounds is it doing so? The real question here is how can such enshrined freedoms be taken away so lightly?

The Postal Services (Jersey) Law 2004 outlines material that should not be posted which includes anything that may harm persons or contains anything indecent, obscene or grossly offensive.

Ms Stone added: If the material contained in The Rock falls within these categories, it is for the people asserting this to prove it under the law, not for a small number of complaints to trigger the banning of delivery of The Rock.

The backers of The Rock take their freedom of expression very seriously, and it does seem very strange that across the world the press have taken a one-sided approach to the issue of Covid-19.

She added that the newspaper had tried to give an alternative voice to the Covid-19 debate and accused Jersey Post of attempting to silence any voice other than those supporting the flagrant breaches of our human rights and civil liberties.

Earlier this week reality television star Hedi Green who appeared in The Real Housewives of Jersey said she was one of more than 100 people who were involved in The Rocks publication.

The JEP understands that those behind the newspaper are planning to give out more copies in St Helier this week.

Go here to see the original:
Stopping publication of The Rock 'breaches free speech' - Jersey Evening Post

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi:The Bombay High Court Saturday partially stayed the controversial Information Technology Rules 2021 noting that certain provisions prima facie went beyond the scope of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The order came on two sets of pleas, filed by legal news portal The Leafletand Mumbai-based journalist Nikhil Wagle, which challenged the newly notified IT Rules for being ultra vires of Information Technology Act, 2000 the act these rules were made under and for being violative of Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 19 (Right to Free Speech) of the Constitution.

The 2021 rules were notified on 25 February and supersede the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011.

Representing The Leaflet, Senior Advocate Darius Khambata argued before the court that the rules were ex-facie draconian, arbitrary and patently ultra vires the provisions of the IT Act and the provisions of Articles 14 and 19.

To this end, the Bombay HC in an interim order stayed Rule 9(1) and Rule 9(3) of the IT Rules.

ThePrint explains the reason behind the stay.

Also read: The meaning of govts new IT rules for OTT, digital media & the serious concerns they raise

Clauses (1) and (3) of Rule 9 are related to the new regulatory regime created by the IT Rules, a large part of which is prescribed in the Code of Ethics in the Appendix to the Rules.

The code states that norms made under the Press Council Act, which determines the standards in print media, and the Cable TV Act, which provides a framework for TV programmes, shall now apply to online publishers as well.

This code applies to two classes of entities publishers of news and current affairs and publishers of online curated content such as OTT (over-the-top) platforms.

Rule 9(1) states that these publishers shall observe and adhere to the Code of Ethics laid down in the Rules.

Meanwhile, Rule 9(3) creates a three-tier regulatory structure that will ensure that the code is adhered to.

This structure consists of three levels self-regulation by the publishers, a self-regulatory body of the publishers, and an oversight mechanism of the central government.

The Bombay High Court held that the IT Rules cannot impose an obligation on publishers of online news and online curated platforms to follow provisions that were previously advisory in nature such as the Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India under the Press Council Act (PCA).

The HC cited the norms under the Press Council Act and said that the sanction behind them is moral, not statutory.

Furthermore, it observed that the Programme Code under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act is mainly intended to provide a framework for the regulation of programmes on television and it would not be proper to subject online publishers to the loosely worded restrictions under the code.

However, the 2021 rules raise the status of both these subordinate legislations to mandatory compliance for online publishers.

The court also said that Section 87 of the IT Act does not allow the central government to frame rules such as Rule 9. This means that the Executive cannot make advisory norms under another legislation mandatory, for a different purpose through a subordinate legislation.

The court, therefore, held the two clauses of Rule 9 to be ultra vires of the IT Act because the authority exercised through it was beyond the power conferred by law.

Also read: Around 1,460 news sites, 40 OTTs submit company details to Modi govt under new IT rules

The HC said that subjecting online publishers to action under the three-tier statutory regime, enshrined in Rule 9, would have a chilling effect on free speech.

People would be starved of the liberty of thought and feel suffocated to exercise their right of freedom of speech and expression, said the HC.

On the importance of holding public figures accountable through criticism, the court said, For proper administration of the State, it is healthy to invite criticism of all those who are in public service for the nation to have a structured growth but with the 2021 Rules in place, one would have to think twice before criticizing.

In its opinion, it would become quite possible for a writer, editor or publisher to face the risk of punishment if the inter-departmental committee turns out to be not in favour of criticism of a particular public figure.

They can be hauled up for anything if such a committee so wishes, the court said.

Tushar Kohli is an intern with ThePrint

(Edited by Rachel John)

Also read:What was the necessity to bring in new IT Rules? Bombay HC asks Centre

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Why news media is in crisis & How you can fix it

India needs free, fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism even more as it faces multiple crises.

But the news media is in a crisis of its own. There have been brutal layoffs and pay-cuts. The best of journalism is shrinking, yielding to crude prime-time spectacle.

ThePrint has the finest young reporters, columnists and editors working for it. Sustaining journalism of this quality needs smart and thinking people like you to pay for it. Whether you live in India or overseas, you can do it here.

Support Our Journalism

More:
Chilling effect on free speech Why Bombay HC stayed certain provisions of new IT rules - ThePrint

The American appetite for social media censorship is apparently increasing: 48 percent of survey respondents now want the government to restrict misinformation, compared with just 39 percent in 2018.

That's according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, which asked respondents what should be done about "false information online." The percentage of people who thought the social media companies themselves should curb misinformation has barely changed over the last few years (59 percent today versus 56 percent three years ago), but support for governmentaction jumped 9points.

That figure48 percentis significant. It means, that just about half of all people want the government to violate the First Amendment, which protects the free speech rights of private actors, including tech companies. Free speech can be messy, but the authors of the Bill of Rights believed that the federal government should not have the right to decide what ideas the people are allowed to express. After all, the government might accidentally criminalize true information rather than false information, or nefariously censor criticism of its own actions.

Indeed, this is precisely what has occurred over the course of the pandemic. Federal health bureaucrats and their allies in the White House have repeatedly urged tech platforms to take action against so-called misinformation relating to COVID-19. But over and over again, it has subsequently been the case that the misinformation in question was not quite so clear-cut. For instance, after weeks and weeks of the government's preferred health experts shrieking that the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origins was unthinkable and no one should be allowed to even discuss it, the idea gained enough mainstream traction that social media sites had to revise their policies of censoring the topic.

The government's own health guidance has varied wildly from moment to moment. At the beginning of the pandemic, top White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci discouraged the use of masks among the general population. Then, for months, masks became an urgent necessity in any and all circumstances. Eventually, health officials relented and said that masks were only necessary indoors. After the vaccine rollout began, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky said that vaccinated individuals didn't need masks at all. But the CDC's current position is that in many circumstances, masks should be worn regardless of vaccination status.

The constantly shifting expert consensus, as well as the government's own history of issuing confusing and contradictory statements, should make people morereticent to entrust a single entity with the task of determining truth from falsehood. So it's a bit concerning that the American public has grown even hungrier for a central information czar since Pew last conducted this survey.

Note that the increasing appetite for censorship is mostly a reflection of increasing openness toward government action on the part of Democrats. While Republicans have grown even less willing to let either governments or the tech companies themselves restrict misinformation, Democrats have moved dramatically away from a robust defense of the First Amendment.

Pew also notes that the demographic differences pertaining to this question have largely disappeared.

"Three years ago, older Americans and those with less education were more likely than younger and more educated adults, respectively, to say the U.S. government should take steps to restrict false information online, even if means limiting some freedoms," write the survey's authors. "Now, Americans across nearly all age groups are fairly evenly divided between the two views. Similar changes have occurred when it comes to Americans' educational background."

View post:
48% of Americans Want the Government To Restrict Misinformation on Social Media - Reason

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid. Photo: Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The world has changed since the Taliban last controlled Afghanistan 20 years ago. One major difference: the rise of social media. The extremist group now has a major, public-facing presence on the internet, presenting companies like Google and Facebook with a dilemma about how to regulate or not regulate their output. On the latest Pivot podcast, Kara Swisher and guest co-host Casey Newton discuss how the tech giants are thinking about this problem.

Kara Swisher: The Talibans rise to power in Afghanistan could have implications for big tech, as companies and users scramble to protect their data and services. The Taliban is likely in possession of biometric databases compiled by the previous Afghan government that might include fingerprints, facial recognition, and scans, according to Human Rights First. There are concerns that the Taliban could use the data to track down previous government employees, international workers, womens-rights activists, and educators. They also are trying very hard to stay on these platforms. Facebook has kept the Taliban off of Facebook. Twitter has let them stay on as long as they dont break the rules. YouTube has kept them off of it based on U.S. government sanctions laws. Youve written quite a bit about this. So what do you think about whats happening here? Again, its these social-media companies smack in the middle of an international crisis as always.

Twice weekly, Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher host Pivot, a New York Magazine podcast about business, technology, and politics.

Casey Newton:Yeah. I mean, the first thing to say is what an absolutely heartbreaking situation. Its hard not to see the stories over the past few days and not just feel constantly in pain over all the human suffering that were watching unfold. For the platforms, this is such a no-win question, because up until now, most of them have said, based on our interpretation of U.S. law, were not going to keep the Taliban and their posts up.

Swisher: Not Twitter.

Newton: Well, so Twitter is a weird one and I have reported that out a little bit. And basically, I think the reason that the Taliban has not been off Twitter is that they are not on this list that the State Department maintains called the Foreign Terrorist Organizations List. Twitter says, for whatever reason, were going to allow them to be on.

But I actually think that six months from now, most platforms positions will look a lot more like Twitter. Then its going to be the other platforms that are going to have to backtrack, because I mean, even in the recent Biden interview you sort of get the impression that the Taliban is going to get some kind of recognition from the international community, at which point they probably are going to have a Facebook page and a Twitter account and all of that. But yeah, I mean, this goes right to the question of, well, is this a town square, where no matter who is the mayor, you got to have an account? Or do the platforms say, you have committed war crimes and atrocities and human-rights abuses, and youre not welcome on the platform.

Swisher: I think one of the things thats interesting is it begs the question of what happens if President Trump returns to office. What does Twitter do?

Newton: Well, I will go into hiding. Im going to catch the next Jeff Bezos rocket to space, I think, if that happens. And then humans will be on their own.

Swisher: Okay, Casey, but in any case, what is Twitter going to do? Thats the thing.

Newton: Facebook suspended him for two years. If Trump becomes president again, I do believe that Facebook would reinstate him.

Swisher: Unless he misbehaved, right?

Newton: Yeah. If he broke the rules again, they would get rid of him. And the thing is he would break the rules again hes incapable of not breaking the rules. I actually think if they had to make the decision today if one of these demented QAnon fantasies came true and Trump became president tomorrow Twitter would still keep him off the platform. Everyone Ive talked to at Twitter has said that he is permanently suspended, like there is no avenue for appeal.

Swisher: Theres no avenue for appeal. Thats right. It still will be an interesting question if he rises back to power. But getting back to the Taliban, one of the most ironic things is that one of the spokesmen for the Taliban was sort of calling out Mark Zuckerberg. Its like, He believes in free speech and yet he censors us? He sounded very much like the Trump administration and Republicans or Ted Cruz.

Newton: Yeah. I mean, it got a lot of pick up, but I thought it was kind of a dumb deflection, because the question that he got asked was, like, Are you going to permit free speech in Afghanistan? Which is a very good and important question. He was like, Free speech? Why dont you go ask Facebook about free speech? Which is a very Don Trump Jr.level burn.

Swisher: Yes it was. It was strange.

Newton: And Donald Trump Jr. did approvingly quote-tweet it, by the way.

Swisher: Of course he did. But in any case, the more serious issue is that theyre getting all this data because the U.S. government pushed for and funded programs to capture Afghans biometric data during the occupation. What is going to happen here with their ability to use all this data?

Newton: I dont know exactly what data is on which devices. My understanding is that they have collected a lot of biometric data about citizens. There are stories that, in the past, the Taliban has gotten access to similar data and used it in essentially terror campaigns against Afghani citizens. So we do have to assume that that is going to happen again. I hope it doesnt happen. I also hope that people who make this kind of hardware and these kinds of services take this as a lesson that they need to build in fail-safes for when their products fall into the wrong hands, because they will fall into the wrong hands. Theres this company, Clearview AI theyre scraping every face they can find on the internet and putting it in a database and selling it to governments.

It is not hard to figure out that this is all going to be used against us. To your point, what happens when a Trump-like figure comes back into power? Well, I think theyre going to use a database like that to harass us all and to punish dissidents and journalists, and God knows what else.

Swisher: Well, they did do that with immigrants.

Newton: Yeah, absolutely. If youre coming into this country as an immigrant, all of a sudden you have to show your social-media handles, right? Its a climate-change-like problem, because the creep is slow and no one thing makes it feel like a crisis. And then you turn around five or ten years later, and you realize that your freedoms have been dramatically reduced. So I do hope people pay attention to this one.

Pivot is produced by Lara Naaman, Evan Engel, and Taylor Griffin

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Link:
Will Twitter Boot the Taliban? - New York Magazine

In part one publishedlast week, I was very clear that by now our society ought to have gone past making issues of the above freedoms, which have been provided for in our Constitution; we should be rather focused on new matters that are of major national concern. Unfortunately, we have kept at them because of inadequate knowledge among the leadership class about what should be priority matters in country making. The second explanation for this would be self and group interest, followed by absence of a standard vision for pursuing our national development

The crux of democratic order is citizens mass participation in the electoral process, followed by active collaboration in civil governance, and next in importance is their freedom. Sovereignty belongs to the people, and one way of giving expression and vent to it, is citizens rights. When the people give away their sovereignty on short time basis, elections and retention of critical natural rights like the right to free speech and to demand accountability, provide them some measure of safety against very possible tyranny. That is the exact reason those who know give all to protect civil rights.

We ought not to be begging for freedom of expression or freedom of the press. Besides the fact that they belong to the category of natural rights, they are factors without which any society will be something else, and definitely not a setting fit for human habitation. Freedom is right of humans to express themselves without let. When you kill or abridge this right all one has left will be ghosts masquerading as humans. One can guess no one will want this, not even those rural folks we pass for ignorant. Some of us have heard many them challenge us at community meetings by saying, Anyone who will stop me from talking, let him or her not only grow dumb, but give birth to dumb children as well. This is indicative that they know about freedom of expression and the power it has in making the human and then his society. No serious, sane people, and in particular leadership, will fail to take in this and its lessons. This is why many are appalled at recent events surrounding press freedom and freedom of expression in our society.

Many wish our leaders knew and appreciated a few more things about the right to talk. Perhaps if they knew, what they do now would not be, for the simple reason that it is not necessary at all. It is difficult to know what ought to be in a setting where square pegs are forced into round holes. For instance, appointing a lawyer to man information management at the highest level is the apex of aberrations, the situation has not been helped one bit by professional information managers who are lily-livered when they should step out to be counted in moments when the only desire of those who want power by all means is to hurt the people and the society for personal aggrandisement. If professionals in power stood to be counted things would definitely turn out differently and far better. The way things are going they must stand to be counted in the few days ahead and where they fail, their colleagues have a cardinal responsibility to ask to make where they stand public. It is not enough to tell us after office that they gave advice but nobody listened to them. We have seen this pattern long enough, and given where we are this style should be done away with right way if it has not given way long before now.

The freedoms in question are vital to be left to be tampered with by men and women in power, who want to hide under public good to commit blue murder. A leader in America had this to say about these freedoms: They are not just part of democracy, they are democracy themselves. Thomas Jefferson (who told the world that if he had to make a choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he wont hesitate a minute to opt for the latter) let us know that freedom of speech and free press are interwoven with the right to liberty. He made it clear that government cannot abridge any of them without the loss of right to liberty of the citizens. Harold Lasswell could not have put it better when he said: Open interplay of the people and their government is the distinguishing mark of popular rule.

These positions are unassailable; they come into dispute only when farcists are in power and are rearing to circumvent checks against reckless use of state power. Freedom of speech is inherent right, freedom of the press is an outlet and not about profit making. It is an organ that enhances the peoples participation in daily governance routines and empowers them with opportunities to hold those in their service accountable. If truth be told the Core North has dominated power and they have not handled it too well. Poor governance, especially deep abuse of our diversity, is provoking sounds they would like to see buried, and that desire is driving the current efforts to gag the people.

Current heightened efforts to make media laws draconian can be rightly situated within this circle of wish, and exact reason no highly recognized leader from that part of the country has condemned this overreach. The Buhari administration is finding in this regressive desire a source for legitimacy, but this is at the unfortunate expense of building a virile country capable of holding her own in the comity of nations. Other motivations include the urge by leaders to keep their activities secret, forgetting that openness is also a key principle in a democracy. We must not fail to remind the government that the peoples right to know is sacrosanct. The media has a responsibility to report developments to the extent that is limited by social responsibility as professionally dictated, not as prescribed by those in power.

What is more, the Giant of Africa, as we claim, should be a beacon of great examples for others, but we are not. Instead, countries like Ghana, Kenya and others are teaching us things we should teach them. If truly our leaders mean well and are committed to building a great nation where life will be abundant for all, then it should be very clear to them that stifling of voices would always end up provoking a fiasco of unimaginable dimension, and one that would do no one any good. When people ventilate their grievances, the tendency is to relax in the consolation that they have at least voiced out their anger. They hope to have been heard and expect solutions to follow. It is in the solution or lack of it we have peace or conflicts.

We have had conflicts and conflagrations more of the time because those in whose power it is to assuage grievances refuse to ask questions, to listen, take serious the complaints and fail to provide answers or suitable solutions. That is the root cause of tensions and underdevelopment, not what the people say or write. Destruction and killings have always come from raw ambitions of the political class and reckless, blood-filled actions to achieve same, not from what the people say even against each other or as published or aired by the media. Rwanda didnt boil over because of hate speech; it boiled over when someone shot down the plane of the president.

No one is afraid of regulation, what should happen should be the existence of a consensus that no new law from either the parliament or government agencies should seek to take away what the constitution has rightly given. In the event of amendment or new policies, collaboration with stakeholders must precede enactment. When a regulation seeks to suggest what media guest should say or not say, this is not only an attempt to gag, it is a disingenuous undertaking to turn human beings into animals, entities without intelligence. No right thinking guest to media sessions will go right out to inflate passion except he is on a mission. The media should know who they invite but if genuinely along the line slips occur, trained minds who moderate, ought to know what to do to mellow negative eruptions and wipe off any damage done; it is not a task that can be handled mechanically through one for all legislation.

There are concerns about media engaging in activism. There is nothing wrong with that; without media activism our fight for independence would have lasted far longer and at a point turned very bloody. A famous writer, Samuel Gompers, captures what should be when he said: Freedom of speech and and freedom of the press are not granted to the people in order that they may say things which please, and which are based upon accepted thought, but the right to say the things which displease, right to convey the new and yet unexpected thoughts, right to say things even if they amount to wrong.

This is it. Here we say dont discuss security or self determination because it looks strange and harmful, or restructuring because it could lead to dissolution of the country,yet in Britain it is not only discussed, people are encouraged to hold rallies, print banners and other things to express their preferences and heaven wont fall, rather government looks at the issues and tries to find answers which it quickly applies. Here we wont discuss, we rather would wish time and fatigue would wear the people out and wipe the concerns away. Things dont work that way!

Today, absence of sound professional advice has left us with phrases like too much details, glamourising negative news, divisive rhetorics and making something sacred out of security challenges. What amounts to much details in accurately reporting an event ? What is glamourising a bad issue for which state actors seem totally helpness? So citizens should be killed and none should speak or report on matters that ordinarily throw governments out of power elsewhere? On security, which is more harmful: to know the causes and pretend not to know? Could it be the news or security agents announcing intention to storm an area long before they go to do a show of their presence before embarking on actual combating of menace ? Which one?

If we love this country then we owe it responsibility to act in ways that will make it possible for all hands to be on deck for her development. Our objectives must not only be noble our actions must correspond with our heartbeat. We must cease from turning minor issues into major. The judiciary must watch out for those who want to abridge our liberty. Perhaps many dont know it was the judiciary that helped America maintain sense of balance around those issues. Same can be done here. As we conclude we bring forth this immutable remark from Justice Felix Frankfurter taken from one of his adjudications on press freedom: Without a free press there can be no society. That is axiomatic. However, freedom of the press is not an end in itself but a means to the end of a free society. The scope and nature of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of press are to be viewed and applied in that light. One cant add more. This is erudition, the kind that produces modern nations. The people and the press must be left alone. Lets focus on real matters. We know them or dont we?

Concluded.

Originally posted here:
Press freedom and free speech (2) The Sun Nigeria - Daily Sun

Paul F. deLespinasse| The Daily Telegram

As a long-time observer of American radio, TVand newspapers, I am appalled by claims some people are placing on Facebook that we no longer have a free press. These claims, freely transmitted over the internet, would seem to contradict themselves.

One wonders if these people have any understanding of what life was like in a country that really did not have a free press: the Soviet Union prior to Mikhail Gorbachevs glasnost (free speech).

The Soviet censorship agency, Glavlit, employed 80,000 people. Nothing could be published even a message on a book of matches without its permission. The government devoted tons of money, and a lot of electricity, to broadcast jamming signals so Soviet citizens could not listen to shortwave radio stations like the Voice of America and the BBC.

A license from the police was required to own a typewriter, which was considered a dangerous weapon. Copy machines were tightly controlled.

Boris Pasternak defied these controls in 1956 by smuggling the manuscript for his novel, "Dr. Zhivago," out of the country after Soviet authorities refused to allow publication. Pasternak was under tremendous pressure not to do this. After it was published abroad his situation became so intolerable that he briefly considered killing himself.

At the Writers Union, dozens of his friends and colleagues were forced to denounce him in the most vicious terms. He was expelled from the Writers Union by a vote which the leader of the meeting deemed unanimous even though one dissenter shouted Not true! Not unanimously! I voted against!" (Ironically, the dissenter was the sister-in-law of the late dictator, Josef Stalin!)

Earlier, Pasternak had gotten in trouble for refusing to sign petitions demanding execution of enemies of the state. Dont yell at me, he told some fellow writers at a public meeting. But if you must yell, at least dont do it in unison.

Then the controlled press got into the act. Letters denouncing Pasternak were published, along with articles reviewing "Dr. Zhivago" in the most negative possible way. Naturally no rebuttals were allowed. Some reviewers admitted that they had not read the book. Probably none of them had read it, since it hadnt come out in Russian yet and copies in other languages could not be brought into the country.

Of course, the Soviet editors who allowed these reviews to be published were under the thumb of the authorities and knew they would be fired (or worse) if they defied their orders. But their predicament reminds me of one of my students at Adrian College, Tiffany B., one of the editors of the College World newspaper.

A very controversial bookhad recently been published. One of our students asked Tiffany if he could write a criticism of it for the College World. She replied, as any good editor would have,Sure, but you have to read it first."

I thought this was a good idea.

The two leading newspapers in the Soviet Union were Pravda ("truth") and Izvestia ("news"). They both trumpeted the party line. There was a cynical joke that "in Pravda there is no news, and in Izvestia there is no truth." (It sounded better when told in Russian.)

Thank goodness that Americans are not limited to hearing only about facts and ideas that are approved by some central authority. We should appreciate the fact that we still have a press which is free to express a variety of perspectives on the issues of our day.

And we should all take advantage of this variety by not relying on only one source for our news.

We see the world in three dimensions because the separation between our two eyes gives us different perspectives. By analogy, evaluating conflicting reports and interpretations of the news can give us a more accurate idea of what is going on.

Paul F. deLespinasse is professor emeritus of political science and computer science at Adrian College. He can be reached atpdeles@proaxis.com.

Original post:
At least we still have free speech and press - Monroe Evening News

The Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), a United States foreign policy institution, has said that Nigerian press freedom is in danger under President Muhammadu Buhari.

CFR in an article published on Thursday, said that the endorsement of Koo shortly after banning Twitter proved the Nigerian governments ongoing attempt to suppress free expression.

In recent months, Koo, Twitters Indian rival, has begun advertising to Nigerians with the support of a powerful brand ambassador: President Muhammadu Buhari. The endorsement comes more than two months after Buhari banned Twitter from Nigeria, in response to the social media company deleting a controversial tweet from Buhari threatening violence against supporters of a secessionist movement in the South East.

Endorsing a specific media company is just the latest development in the governments ongoing attempt to suppress free expression. Last month, the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), Nigerias media regulatory body, issued a letter to broadcast stations in Nigeria requiring them to downplay the worsening security situation in Nigeria, particularly, the threats of Boko Haram and banditry.

NBC justified their position by arguing that reporting these issues has a tendency to ignite more violence. This explanation might have merit if the government had not been progressively rolling back rights to free speech. For example, last October, after the #EndSARS protests against police brutality, NBC fined media organizations for reporting on the protests.

Nigeria is ranked 120 on the World Press Freedom Index, a drop of five spots from its ranking in 2020. Reporters Without Borders describes Nigeria as one of West Africas most dangerous and difficult countries for journalists, and the situation seems to be getting worse.

Following the Twitter ban, NBC directed all social media platforms and online broadcasting service providers operating in Nigeria to apply for a broadcast license. This was followed by a controversial amendment to the NBC Act which sought to stifle media organizations. These actions have prompted huge protests from all the major media houses in Nigeria, with each outlet publishing a front-page advertisement campaigning against undue media regulation in the country.

In a political environment where the government has shown its proclivity for dictatorial action, restrictions on free speech pose significant challenges for civil society. The failure to report news freely could lead to a situation where the government controls what is regarded as fact or fiction. This portends grave consequences, especially for a country that is facing its most significant security challenges since the 1967 Civil War, the article reads in part.

CFR added that the suppression of the Nigerian media seems to be a desperate attempt to keep Nigerians in the dark about how little the government has been able to deliver on its promises to curb insecurity.

Many of the governments supporters have argued that improper reporting of conflict newsboth on social or mainstream mediacould exacerbate deep divisions in the country, then leading people to take laws into their hands. While this is a potential risk, it should be stated that the country already has laws in place to address this risk and punish offenders. For example, the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act (2015) [PDF] addresses threats to cyberspaces, including internet usage and safety with regard to preventing and combating cybercrimes. The Defamatory and Offensive Publications Act (1966) also exists to criminalize defamation. The governments focus should be to implement these laws rather than continuously chipping away at freedom of the press.

In his 2015 inauguration speech, President Buhari stated that democracy is the chosen route to national development and pledged to consciously work the democratic system. Safeguarding free speech and guaranteeing fundamental freedoms are responsibilities of a democratic government. It is important that the government strives to fulfill these responsibilities.

There has been a clampdown on journalists by the Buhari-led government in recent times.

In August 2019, Nigerias secret police with a history of repression arrested human rights activist and Publisher of SaharaReporters, Omoyele Sowore in Lagos.

Sowore was moved to the agency's headquarters in Abuja where he was illegally detained for 144 days despite different court orders issued for his release.

The Department of State Services (DSS) accused the activist of baseless crimes like money laundering and that he was plotting to overthrow President Muhammadu Buhari even though it failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim.

In March 2018, the DSS arrested Daily Independent Abuja Bureau Chief Tony Ezimakor. Later in the year, the secret police arrested Jones Abiri and detained him for two years for allegedly having links with rebels.

He was re-arrested in March 2019.

In August 2019, former Editor at Daily Trust Ibrahim Dan-Halilu was arrested for a Facebook post expressing support for the RevolutionNow campaign.

In December 2019, TVCs journalist Bukola Samuel-Wemimo was detained by the secret police at its Magodo office in Lagos.

In 2020, former Premium Times investigative reporter Samuel Ogundipe was hounded by the DSS because he reported on the rift between the National Security Adviser, Babagana Monguno and President Muhammadu Buharis late Chief of Staff, Abba Kyari.

Continued here:
Buhari Government's Endorsement Of Indian App, Koo After Twitter Ban Was To Suppress Free ExpressionUS Think Tank - SaharaReporters.com

A stray thought for Hollywood: Just because Donald Trump is campaigning for free speechlast week, he announced a class-action anti-censorship lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Googledoesnt mean its a bad idea.

Free speech, that is. I dont know about the lawsuit, which will have to reconcile the tech giants First Amendment rights and legal protections with a claim that they have abused their immunity by acting as politically one-sided censors.

More heat than light will be shed as the suit works its way through the courts and media mill. But never mind Trump. Freedom of expression is something the movie business should start worrying about, sooner rather than later.

Its no secret that the movieslike the rest of pop culturehave been operating in an ever-narrower field when it comes to what can be portrayed on-screen, and by whom. Even to identify the growing list of prohibitions would invite attack.

Related StorySean Penn Slams Donald Trump's "Obscene" Covid Response; Likens It To Gunning Down Vulnerable Communities - Cannes

Suffice it to say that Sean Penn had a point when he suggested on a recent Conan OBrien podcast that today, as a straight person, he probably couldnt be cast as the gay activist Harvey Milk, a role for which he won an Oscar in 2009. You wonder at some point if only Danish princes can play Hamlet, he said.

On another front, Lin-Manuel Miranda apologized for his lack of racial sensitivity in In The Heights. Rita Moreno then apologized for defending Miranda. Meanwhile, John Cena scrambled to salvage F9 by apologizing for an offense to China.

In truth, Hollywood might as well be operating under the Hays Code, which, in a version adopted on June 29, 1927, outlawed the portrayal, irrespective of the manner in which they are treated, of, among other things, any willful offense to any nation, race or creed.

Obviously, this cant go onnot if a supposedly creative business that has long taken pride in its rule-breakers (Warren Beatty, Quentin Tarantino), anti-heroes (Super Fly, Thelma & Louise), and incorrigible irreverence (from Charlie Chaplin, through Monty Python, to The Hangover and beyond), is ever going to breathe again.

This isnt to say that the film industry, as a whole, has ever been especially brave when it comes to free expression. The aforementioned Hays Code, from a century ago, set a now familiar pattern. When under attack, the movie business and those in it tend to preempt censorship by censoring themselves. For a while, it seems to work. The Code, which sterilized American film for decades, certainly put a cork in dozens of local censorship measures that would have made national theatrical distribution impossible.

But the wonderful thing about Hollywood is its buoyancy. Just when you think its about to sink in abject surrender to finger-wagging moralists who object to gangsters, or sex, or cigarettes, or whatever, filmdoms rebel spirit bobs back up, like a self-righting sailboat.

Thus, long before it was abandoned in the late 1960s, the Code was defied by vibrant rule-breaking movies like The Pawnbroker, Anatomy Of A Murder, and Some Like It Hot. (It helped that the United States Supreme Court, reversing its own previous position, held in 1952 that movies are indeed a form of constitutionally protected free speech.)

In much the same way, the current film ratings systemdesigned to forestall next-wave censorship with age-restrictions at the theater doorstretched and bent until finally it allowed almost anything into PG-13 pictures, and just about everything else into accessible-to-all-but-kids R films.

Ultimately, even the anti-Communist blacklist didnt snuff free expression. Kirk Douglas hired the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo to write Spartacus, which won four Oscars. Jay Roach told the back story in Trumbo. The incorrigibly irreverent Coen Brothers had fun with it in Hail, Caesar!

But back to the present.

The uncodified but very real strictures on filmas with those curbing speech on campus, in social media, at comedy showsare piling up faster than offenders can Tweet apologies. Yet the industrys key players and institutions have been slow to campaign for free expression (as even Harvey Weinstein once did, with his endless ratings appeals). Sometimes, in fact, they have actually narrowed the movie safe zone, whether with disclaimers attached to classics like Gone With The Wind, or with forthcoming Best Picture inclusion and representation standards that will ask whether a would-be Oscar contender delivers a main storyline(s), theme or narrative that is centered on an underrepresented group(s).

Its another version of the old tactic, preemption. But that is a high-risk approachplaying along, while waiting for the boat to right itself in an online world where cancellation is immediate, and almost total.

Something more emphatic is in order. (Much more than the safely historical bravery of a Mank.)

Comedians like Ricky Gervais, Bill Maher and Jerry Seinfeld have already spoken up. Journalists like Glenn Greenwald have joined in. Musician Winston Marshall, late of Mumford & Sons, just took a stand.

Its time for movie people to do as much. No matter what Trump says.

Go here to read the rest:
Without Apology, The Movies And Those Who Make Them Should Campaign For Free Speech - Deadline

The government has denied that its controversial new free speech legislation will provide a platform for Holocaust deniers on campuses, arguing that the bill is vital in order to tackle a growing intolerance in universities.

The higher education (freedom of speech) bill came under sustained attack from Labour, which claimed the legislation amounted to nothing more than legal protection for hate speech.

The House of Commons voted by 367 to 216 to reject Labours amendment that sought to deny the bill a second reading, which the bill later cleared and will undergo further scrutiny at a later date.

The shadow education secretary, Kate Green, told MPs there was no free speech crisis in universities that necessitated the proposed legislation, which she described as an evidence-free zone.

On the contrary, she said: This is a bill to enshrine legal protections for hateful, harmful and divisive speech. The kind of speech that we would not tolerate in this House would be protected in universities across the country.

It is a bill that creates a new legal framework to allow those responsible for such harmful speech to take legal action against universities, eating into the resources that ought to be educating our young people and supporting our world-class research programmes.

It is a bill that is unnecessary, it is poorly drafted, but above all it is deeply wrong, and on this side of the House we will not support it.

The bill proposes a raft of new laws that the government says are necessary to safeguard free speech in universities, including the introduction of a free speech and academic freedom champion to investigate alleged infringements of free speech in higher education and then recommend redress.

It will also require the universities regulator in England, the Office for Students (OfS), to introduce a new registration condition on free speech, with powers to impose sanctions including fines in case of breaches.

Higher education providers and student unions will have a duty to actively promote freedom of speech under the proposed legislation, which also seeks to introduce a statutory tort for breach of the duty, enabling individuals to seek legal redress for any loss they have suffered as a result of any breach.

Outlining the details of the bill, the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, told MPs: Our universities must not become spaces where ideas are debated within a narrow consensus with those who challenge majority views subject to censorship themselves.

He went on: Its absolutely clear that this bill will not and never will create a platform for Holocaust deniers. The 1986 Public Order Act, the 2010 Equality Act, introduced by Labour, as well as the Prevent duties in 2015 this bill if made an act will not create the space to tolerate Holocaust deniers and never shall.

Williamson added: These legal duties are key to ensuring that the higher education sector in England continues to be an environment in which students, staff and visiting speakers are not just able but welcome to freely express their views, as long as those views are lawful.

Green told MPs, however, that an assessment by the Office for Students found that just 53 of 59,574 events with external speakers were refused permission in 2017-18. So perhaps that was an unusually slow year for cancel culture, and there is a real problem. But last year, a survey found that of 10,000 events with external speakers, only six were cancelled.

She said it was not acceptable, when there were so many other priorities, to use valuable parliamentary time to introduce legislation to tackle a small number of cases that could in any case be dealt with more effectively without additional legislation.

Supporting the governments proposed legislation, former cabinet minister David Davis described so-called cancel culture as modern McCarthyism.

He told the Commons: The bill before us is to correct a small, and I grant you it is small, but extraordinarily important symbolic aspect of this modern McCarthyism, namely an attempt to no-platform a number of speakers including Amber Rudd, Julie Bindel, Peter Hitchens, Peter Tatchell and others. I hope it is just a first step actually in a programme to bring free speech back to Britain.

Continue reading here:
Free speech bill gives legal protection to hate speech, says Labour - The Guardian