Category Archives: Free Speech

Only the nerdiest of nerds are familiar with the Supreme Courts customs and traditions, and if theres anyone who may be inclined to treat these things as if they were holy sacraments, it is Justice Stephen Breyer. Among those rituals is the issuance of decisions by seniority, and as a result, Breyer, in back-to-back rulings on Wednesday, had starring turns as the senior-most member of the Supreme Courts liberal bloc, to make a statement about what the law is, or should be, for people it tends to treat with a measure of suspicion: students and workers without labor protections.

Broadly speaking, Breyer, in one case, stood up for the First Amendment right of students to express unpopular views when theyre not at school. In the other, he stood up for a California regulation that, for more than 40 years, has granted farmworkers one means to organize in the absence of federal protections that leaves them vulnerable to abuse.

Neither case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. or Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, will likely be remembered as landmarks that will stand the test of time. When I virtually attended the oral argument for both cases, in March and April, that much was clearboth cases felt important, if only because each rested on history, and historic struggles, that this Supreme Court could decide to upend. Neither received the breathlessness of, say, the justices third bite at the Affordable Care Act. Or the future of gay rights in the face of an ascendant conservative, religious majority. In each of those cases, decided last week, the Supreme Court got away with limited rulings that had the virtue of deciding as little as possible, with as much consensus as possible, to feed the perception, at least outwardly, that everything is fine with the nine. Washington may be broken, but they arent. And Breyer, who has received a barrage of calls to retire to ensure President Joe Biden can make a Supreme Court appointment, may have wanted to keep things that way.

Yet if you read a little more closely, both Mahanoy and Cedar Point Nursery do break new ground in constitutional law that will remain with usone for the better, because students, after Wednesday, will have a little more freedom to be themselves on social mediaat least when theyre beyond the schoolhouse gate; the other for the worse, because if theres one group of people who deserve the laws auspices, it is the largely migrant workforce, essential since the pandemic began, that puts food on our tables.

Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority in both cases, and he may have decided to assign Mahanoy to Breyer because Breyer is the kind of judge who enjoys the work of judgingbalancing tests, cost-benefit analyses, things other than bright-line rules and strict constructionism. Law is hard, and Mahanoy, which asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the First Amendment protects the speech of a cheerleader who expressed a few choice words about cheer on Snapchat, seemed well-suited for a pragmatist, Breyer-like solution. Best of all, he didnt self-censor, as his colleagues or lawyers are sometimes wont to do when F-bombs are implicated: The first image B. L. posted showed B. L. and a friend with middle fingers raised; it bore the caption: Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything, he wrote, referring to Brandi Levy, the student, by her initials.

That language got her suspended from the junior-varsity cheerleading squad. And near unanimously, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that punishing this sort of speech violated her right to self-expression off school premises. But Breyer, writing for the court, pretty much stopped there. Given the many different kinds of off-campus speech, the different potential school-related and circumstance-specific justifications, and the differing extent to which those justifications may call for First Amendment leeway, Breyer wrote, schools simply have a diminished interest, under the First Amendment, in controlling how students behave or express themselves on, say, TikTok or Instagram.

The Supreme Court left it for future cases to decide where, when, and how different circumstances may call for a different outcome. These include serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers, Breyer added. The lone dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas, who did self-censor and criticized Breyers vague considerationshe wouldve simply allowed the school to punish the student for her off-campus profanity, consistent with the 150 years of history supporting the coach. (One scholar of these kinds of cases has already branded the ruling painfully narrow.)

If Mahanoy, on the surface, seems like an exercise in unity and splitting hairs, Cedar Point Nursery, the other big case the Supreme Court decided on Wednesday, is breathtaking in its reach, bringing us back to the usual, conservative-liberal divisions of the new, 63 Roberts court. Implicitly, the case is about another freedom the First Amendment protects: the right of workers to organize for better wages and working conditions under a states labor laws. Except the Supreme Court looks a lot different since Donald Trump, who was no friend to labor, transformed it, and the case arrived at its doorstep, instead, as a case about property rights: Does a California law that allows labor organizers to briefly enter farmland, during nonwork hours, a few months a year, to engage in union-organizing activities violate the Constitutions prohibition against the government taking property without just compensation?

See the article here:
Better the Devil We Know: Supreme Court Rulings on Free Speech and Labor Put Justice Stephen Breyer in the Spotlight - Vanity Fair

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The Texas House gave preliminary approval on Monday to the so-called Star Spangled Banner Protection Act, a conservative-backed bill that would require any professional sports teams with contracts with the Texas state government to play the national anthem before the start of a game.

Senate Bill 4 was passed on a voice vote, with no changes by the House. It is expected to receive a record vote and final passage on Tuesday and head to Gov. Greg Abbotts desk.

House Republicans defeated several proposed amendments along partisan lines, signalling more division on the issue in the lower chamber than was seen in the Senate, which passed the bill last month with overwhelming bipartisan support and only two votes against it.

Athletes protesting the national anthem has become a divisive and partisan issue since NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling in 2016 to protest police brutality against Black Americans.

In February, Patrick named the bill one of his legislative priorities after Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, stopped playing the anthem prior to home games, which went largely unnoticed during the pandemic with no fans in the stands.

That decision quickly drew the ire of conservative lawmakers in the state.

Sell the franchise & some Texas Patriots will buy it, Patrick said in a tweet at the time. We ARE the land of free & the home of the brave.

In a public response to the outcry condemning his decision, Cuban expressed support for the anthem, but he said team executives also loudly hear the voices of those who feel that the anthem does not represent them. The NBA later said all teams would play the anthem before games.

During Mondays debate on the House floor, opponents questioned the constitutionality of a law that they said ties funding to free speech by threatening negative action against sports teams that choose to express their opinions by declining to play the anthem.

Once again, were carrying legislation that is openly and aggressively unconstitutional, said state Rep. Gene Wu, a Houston Democrat who unsuccessfully tried to turn the bill into a resolution, allowing the House to take a stand in favor of the anthem without the force of law.

The bills House sponsor, state Rep. Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, said the bill does not violate free speech because teams can still choose not to play the anthem and forgo the funding and business relationship with the state.

Its very simple. If they do not want to play the national anthem, they dont take the tax dollars, Burrows said. If were going to go ahead and subsidize with hard-earned American dollars the sporting facilities and the teams in the different ways that I think is articulated in this bill, then this would apply.

Attempts by Democrats to require teams to play both the Star-Spangled Banner and Lift Every Voice and Sing, or to choose between them, were shut down along partisan lines.

Lift Every Voice and Sing is commonly known as the Black National Anthem, said Rep. Jasmine Felicia Crockett, D-Dallas, who authored one of the amendments.

I dont even understand why we would feel the need to force someone into singing any song, Crockett said. But if we are going to force people to sing a song, we should at least be mindful of the people playing on these teams, the people that are actually in the stands supporting these teams.

Burrows opposed the amendments with the deepest amount of respect to my friend and colleague because he wanted to avoid any changes to the bill, which would slow its progress to the governors desk during the final week of the legislative session.

Go here to read the rest:
Texas House votes to yank state funding from sports teams that don't play national anthem at games - The Texas Tribune

Resignations, cancellations, breakings of connections and partnerships.

These are the impacts of the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) censure of U of T, following the universitys failed efforts to dissipate the months-long hiring scandal at the Faculty of Laws International Human Rights Program (IHRP).

The controversy began last September over allegations that Dr. Valentina Azarova was denied the position of director of the IHRP after a university donor suggested that she would be an unwelcome choice, due to writings of hers that were critical of Israels policies toward Palestine. U of T has denied these allegations since they first arose.

The scandal bubbled beneath the surface for many months as U of Ts efforts to move on were moderately effective. Though individuals most concerned by it such as law faculty professors and former IHRP directors remained outspoken, the scandal had not fully caught the attention of the community at large.

That is, until the CAUT announced a rare censure of the university, and its members listened. Suddenly, countless events that would have improved the quality of learning and community experience at the university were cancelled. Entire groups, such as Amnesty International and Citizen Lab, have cut ties with U of T over the censure.

Support for the censure appears to grow by the day, as entire departments of the university most recently, the School of the Environment are expressing their support.

So what happens now?

The university has already attempted to put the matter at rest by commissioning an independent and transparent review, which has been criticized for being neither.

The Varsity has published many articles on the controversy as it has unfolded over the past year, and weve reported on the criticisms levied at the university by faculty and by the law community almost every step of the way. At any of these points, the university could have stopped its doomed attempts to sweep it under the rug and instead make substantive changes. For example, when met with criticism that the review process would be ineffective and lack transparency, U of T could have created a review body composed of a group of multiple diverse individuals, rather than tasking one former Supreme Court judge with the investigation.

As a result of the review, U of T has committed to creating guidelines around external attempts to interfere in hiring processes, and to review suggestions that academic freedom protections be implemented for certain managerial positions, such as law clinic directors.

Still, little attention seems to be paid to the many U of T community members, especially faculty, who wholeheartedly support the censure and have been calling for action from the university for weeks. It is clear that this will not end without substantive efforts made by the university.

The most prominent solution circulating and the solution that the CAUT cites as a requirement to end the censure is that U of T should re-offer Azarova the position. This idea has been offered for months, yet U of T has not acted upon it. U of T responded to this suggestion by saying that Azarova is welcome to apply for the position again following a review of the program as a whole.

So far, the university has not taken any productive action following the censure it has not even taken responsibility for the inadvertent effects of its inaction on the campus community. When the CAUT censure was announced, the universitys response was that it disagreed with the decision and that the CAUT had no jurisdiction over the case. Instead of taking the CAUTs censure as a sign that something was wrong, the university merely attempted to pretend that everything was business as usual.

Following the censure, a U of T spokesperson wrote to The Varsity: We remain committed to academic freedom for academics, including academic administrators, and to search processes that are confidential and insulated from external pressures whatever their source.

Despite its statements, we are echoing the calls for U of T to stop the scandal here by finally taking responsibility and accountability for any wrongdoing, and expressing an interest in true transparency so that the university may begin to repair its reputation.

Supporters of the censure have also been trying to shift the narrative to refocus around Palestinian rights, rather than just academic freedom, as the escalation of the censure has also coincided with escalating violence between Israel and Palestine.

The central question of the scandal is really whether U of T will unequivocally support individuals right to speak freely on Israel and Palestine. Ensuring this right to free speech is also a moral imperative right now, as Palestinians have been disproportionately killed by Israel over the past two weeks.

Violence erupted between the two sides after an Israeli court decided to forcibly remove Palestinian families from the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah a decision that the United Nations called a potential war crime in addition to Israeli raids on al-Aqsa mosque that injured many Palestinians.

While there have been casualties on both sides, the effect on Palestinians has been far greater. In addition, there is an extreme imbalance of power between Israel and Palestine that makes it impossible to accept that both sides are suffering equally. Israel has an incredibly well-funded military, and the Palestinian people lack the same rights as Israeli individuals.

These developments also did not appear out of nowhere. Israel has been occupying Palestine and displacing Palestinians for decades, which has been widely criticized by the international community.

During the most recent fighting, Israel also targeted the offices of the Associated Press and Al-Jazeera in Palestine, claiming it was an attack on Hamas, rather than the media. As journalists, these developments are extremely concerning.

The Varsity stands in solidarity with Palestine and Palestinian community members at U of T. Over the next few weeks and throughout this volume of The Varsity we hope to increase our reporting on what the violence in Palestine means for our community members, as well as to make room for community members to write their own stories and experiences.

This is in line with an open letter that The Varsity has signed, along with hundreds of other prominent journalists and news organizations in Canada, demanding better and more nuanced coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict from Canadian newsrooms.

In addition, The Varsity has donated $200 to Save the Children, a non-governmental organization working in Palestine, as 58 children in Gaza and two in Israel have been killed. We do so out of a sincere belief that anyone regardless of their politics, background or religion can sympathize with the tragedy of violence that takes the lives of innocents.

Yet, despite the stance expressed here, The Varsity remains committed to a Comment section that is open to all well-meaning U of T community members. Students may write for the section from any position that is fair, well-reasoned, and based on evidence.

In light of recent events, at minimum, the university needs to affirm its commitment to protecting speech about Palestine, as that is the fundamental question of the IHRP hiring scandal: will U of T protect speech that is critical of Israel, even when pushed back upon?

The Varsity calls on U of T to finally listen to what its community has been saying, to take action and accountability, and to affirm a commitment to free speech for all community members but particularly for the Palestinian people who have felt silenced for so long.

The Varsitys editorial board is elected by the masthead at the beginning of each semester. For more information about the editorial policy, email [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:
Editorial: In light of censure, U of T must take action to support free speech particularly speech about Palestine - Varsity

Just over a century ago, the United States government in the midst of World War I undertook unprecedented efforts to control and restrict what it saw as unpatriotic speech through passage of the Sedition Act of 1918, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on May 16 of that year.

The restrictions and the courts reactions to them mark an important landmark in testing the limits of the First Amendment, and the beginnings of the current understanding of free speech in the U.S.

As a scholar and lawyer focused on freedom of speech in the U.S., I have studied the federal governments attempts to restrict speech, including during World War I, and the legal cases that challenged them. These cases helped form the modern idea of the First Amendment right of free speech. But the conflict between patriotism and free expression continues to be an issue a century later.

The onset of war led to a patriotic fervor, fed by an intense government propaganda campaign. It also led to new challenges to the concept of free speech.

Within a few weeks of declaring war in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Espionage Act.

This law, which is still largely in effect, makes it a crime to do three things. First, to convey false information in order to interfere with the American military, or promote the success of Americas enemies. Second, to cause or attempt to cause insubordination within the military. Third, to willfully obstruct military recruitment or enlistment.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations used this law to investigate unauthorized leaks of government information, including obtaining reporters phone records.

The more restrictive Sedition Act of 1918 went further, amending the Espionage Act to criminalize disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive speech about the United States or its symbols; speech to impede war production; and statements supporting a country with which the U.S. is at war.

These laws were unprecedented restrictions on speech, and challenged the First Amendments founding concept of tolerating criticism of government. But the courts, including the United States Supreme Court, generally upheld them as necessary wartime restrictions.

When a nation is at war, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schenk v. United States (1919), many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.

More than 2,000 people were prosecuted under the Espionage and Sedition acts during the war. About half were convicted, many of whom were given jail time.

These included several people who distributed leaflets arguing that the draft constituted slavery (as in the Schenk case) and those who urged labor strikes against munitions plants (as in the U.S. Supreme Court case Abrams v. United States (1919). Those convicted included leaders of the Socialist and Communist parties, including anarchist writer Emma Goldman and Socialist presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs, whose 1920 campaign was mounted from prison.

A few judges notably U.S. Supreme Court justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed concerns that the prosecution of war dissenters was contrary to the First Amendment protection of free speech. As Holmes explained in his famous dissent in the Abrams case, Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change the mind of the country.

The war ended in November 1918, but the Sedition Act continued to be used against so-called radicals, including a Justice Department campaign known as the Palmer Raids in response to several terrorist bombings. The effort was named for Wilsons attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, whose home was among the locations bombed.

The Sedition Act was finally repealed on Wilsons last day in office in 1921, although the Espionage Act remains.

All those who were jailed under the laws saw their sentences commuted by 1923. In 1924, Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone concluded that law enforcement should be concerned with only the conduct of individuals, not their political or other opinions. In 1931, President Franklin Roosevelt offered amnesty to all those convicted under the Espionage or Sedition acts during the war.

But speech restrictions returned. In the run-up to American entry into World War II, Congress adopted the Smith Act in 1940, which barred speech and organizations intended to overthrow any government in the United States. It was used during the war and the Red Scare of the 1950s to suppress dissemination of Communist ideas and thought.

Eventually, however, in 1969 the Supreme Court settled on the current legal standard, under which speech can be restricted only if it presents a threat of "imminent lawless action, based on the circumstances in which it is made.

This standard allows for controversial, even incendiary, speech, unless there is an immediate threat that the speech will foreseeably lead to illegal behavior by the audience.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversations newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Despite calls for repression of dissent after the Sept. 11 attacks, no direct restrictions on speech were enacted. In 2020 Attorney General William Barr called for prosecutions of violent protesters, but no such charges were filed. There were also calls for President Donald Trump to be prosecuted for the fiery speech that preceded the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6. But the imminent lawless action standard is a high threshold.

This reluctance to prosecute speech may well reflect the lessons learned from the excesses of repression under the Espionage Act a century ago. The First Amendment right of free speech exists as a means of keeping a critical eye on government. Such scrutiny is always important, but is especially critical during times of war.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on April 6, 2017.

Read the rest here:
Free speech wasn't so free 103 years ago, when 'seditious' and 'unpatriotic' speech was criminalized in the US - The Conversation US

A controversial bill forcing universities in England to promote free speech has been attacked by freedom of expression campaigners, who say the legislation is more likely to have the opposite effect.

A letter to the education secretary, Gavin Williamson, from the leaders of Index on Censorship, English PEN and Article 19 says the governments plans including a free speech enforcer with powers to fine universities may have the inverse effect of further limiting what is deemed acceptable speech on campus and introducing a chilling effect both on the content of what is taught and the scope of academic research exploration.

The three organisations told Williamson they had significant concerns about the scope of the proposals, which would allow speakers to claim compensation if their free speech was curtailed by universities or student unions, and would appoint a free speech champion to the Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator in England.

Universities will also have to satisfy new conditions on freedom of speech to maintain their registration with the OfS, which allows their students access to public funding and government-backed loans.

Universities are already bound by government legislation and have a legally binding duty to support and actively encourage freedom of expression on campus, including the right to protest. Blunt statutory tools may fail to recognise the various rights at play in any given situation, for example the rights of the speaker and the rights of students to protest against that speaker, the letter states.

This is a delicate balancing act that universities are best placed to navigate, not state regulators or courts of law. On university campuses, freedom of expression issues are best dealt with by existing legislation and by the universities and student unions themselves.

The group said the extent of no platforming on campus needed to be further investigated, noting that the OfSs own research found it was rare. Of the 62,000 requests by students for external speaker events at English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by a student union or university, less than 0.1% of the total.

None of the signatory organisations have been meaningfully consulted in the development of the legislation thus far. We would welcome the opportunity for genuine engagement in the issue of academic freedom, the letter said.

Further research is needed on the main threats to speech on campus, while the scope of inquiry into academic freedom should be widened to encompass government interference.

Universities say they already comply with a complex set of legal obligations protecting free speech for staff and students, as well as Prevent anti-extremism regulations requiring them to monitor events and speakers.

The published bill will require student unions to register with the OfS, which will have new powers to fine them for failing to comply with free speech provisions. The bill also allows students, staff, applicants for academic jobs and visiting speakers to complain to the OfS, although they must first use internal complaints procedures.

The bill has also created conflict between the Department for Education and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, which hears complaints from students about their experience and education, over a regulatory overlap.

The OIA said in a statement: We remain concerned that it may be difficult for students to make a fully informed decision about which route is best for their individual circumstances and that the complexity of arrangements is still likely to create confusion for students.

The former universities minister Jo Johnson gave support to the new bill as a means of stopping universities self-censorship towards China, because of fear of retribution against students and staff. That to me is a genuine and real threat to freedom of speech and I think if the bill can perhaps help address that issue, too, it will serve a very useful purpose, he told a conference on UK-China research links.

Go here to see the original:
Campus free speech law in England likely to have opposite effect - The Guardian

The government has been accused of over-exaggerating the threat to free speech on campus in order to push through new laws by a university union.

New legislation will be introduced in parliament for the first time on Wednesday, which the education secretary said would tackle the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

It would place new requirements on universities and student unions and allow a regulator able to issue fines for any breaches, among other measures.

But the move has faced backlash from a union representing thousands of university staff in the UK who have been left incredibly concerned by the move.

Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), told BBC Radio 4sToday programme. We think that this bill itself is a serious threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.

She added: We think that it is an incredibly over-exaggeration of issues in order to push this through."

When asked about former home secretary, Amber Rudd, having an invitation to speak at an event at Oxford University retracted due to the Windrush scandal, Ms Grady said there were far more serious threats to free speech among university workers.

She claimed staff were facing job losses because their research agendas dont align with what the university wants and others on precarious contracts having to to align their research agendas, again, with what university wants

These are genuine threats, not people who already have very privileged jobs not being allowed to speak in an event 30 minutes before, Ms Grady said.

UK universities have said they share the governments commitment to free speech on campus - but said any new measures must be proportionate.

A spokesperson for the Russell Group, a group of leading universities, said: Our universities have always protected the right to have free and open discussion of challenging or controversial ideas.

They added: It is vital that any further changes or additions to an already complex system are proportionate, protect university autonomy and avoid creating unnecessary or burdensome bureaucracy.

Last month, the group vowed to protect free speech on campus, adding their institutions already facilitate free and frank intellectual exchanges.

A spokesperson for Universities UK - which represents 140 institutions - said: "It is important that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is proportionate - focusing on the small number of incidents - and does not duplicate existing legislation or create unnecessary bureaucracy for universities which could have unintended consequences."

On Tuesday, the Queens Speech set out government plans to introduce new laws on freedom of speech at universities.

The Department for Education (DfE) said registered universities and colleges in England will be required to promote and defend freedom of speech and academic freedom under the proposed legislation.

For the first time, students unions at universities would be required to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers under the measures in the Bill.

This follows controversy over cases of the no-platforming of speakers - where they are refused a platform to speak - on campuses, including of Ms Rudd.

The new Bill also covers the creation of a free speech champion at regulator the Office for Students (OfS), with the power to issue sanctions.

Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said: It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.

"Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they dont meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

He added: "Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all."

In a statement, Jo Grady from the UCU said the government was using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students.

An OfS spokesperson said: "Free speech and academic freedom are essential elements to effective teaching and research.

"Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.

They added: "We will ensure that the changes that result from proposals expressed in [the] Queens Speech reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law.

Additional reporting by Press Association

Read the rest here:
Government exaggerating threat to freedom of speech to push through new laws, says university union - The Independent

Consequences matter. If there was one clear message from footballs temporary boycott of social media earlier this month, in protest at the torrent of online hate experienced disproportionately by black players, that was it.

The former England striker Ian Wright has said that hed almost given up reporting the vile stuff he receives daily because nothing ever seemed to happen to the perpetrators. It makes you feel very dehumanised. You feel like theres nothing you can do, youre helpless, he said. So two cheers, at least, for the inclusion in this weeks Queens speech of a long-delayed online safety bill aimed at holding big tech more accountable. Who wouldnt agree with the culture secretary Oliver Dowdens desire to rid social media of what he called the bile and the threats?

For all the good social media brings, it has also created unrivalled opportunities for the resentful, the bitter and the frankly sociopathic to reach those they couldnt previously touch. Children have been groomed for sexual exploitation, terrorists radicalised, the gullible sucked into conspiracy theories, teenage girls coached to self-harm, and hate normalised on platforms that have faced too little by way of consequence. Unlike some of the straw men set up by this Queens speech for ministers to knock down noisily, this problem is real. But as with too many of this governments grand plans, its one thing to announce youre going to fix the internet, and another to actually do it.

The case for action is so overwhelming that even Silicon Valleys smarter players are actively lobbying for governments to step in and regulate them, like teenagers whose illicit party has been gatecrashed by some scary-looking characters and who just want an adult to step in and deal with the problem they unwittingly created. Facebooks vice-president for global affairs, Nick Clegg, has long argued that its job would be easier if some of the sensitive decisions we have to make were instead taken by people who are democratically accountable to the people at large not by a private company. Let someone else take the flak for deciding whether Donald Trump should be banned for inciting riots, or in what circumstances posting an exposed nipple is acceptable. Judging by this rather vague and in places contradictory bill, however, it wont be that easy.

The governments proposals require tech companies to curb the use of their platforms for illegal purposes, under threat of sanction from Ofcom. So far, so clear. But it also imposes a duty of care on the biggest companies to prevent activities that arent necessarily illegal, but are potentially harmful capable of causing physical or psychological impact while simultaneously safeguarding the right to free expression, protecting political campaigners right to argue their case online and avoiding taking sides in political arguments.

All of which sounds eminently sensible, until you try applying it all in practice. Dowden ducked the question when asked by ITVs Robert Peston whether calling gay men tank-topped bumboys, as Boris Johnson once did in a newspaper column, should be outlawed online. But thats almost the easy bit.

To say that biological sex is real, and immutable, would be seen in some circles as transphobic hate speech, and in others as a perfectly reasonable statement of fact. Who decides whats harmful to whom when teenagers on TikTok are shocked and upset by very different things to their parents on Mumsnet? What about comments that arent discriminatory but are obnoxious, stupid or exhausting enough to cause cumulative psychological impacts if youre swamped with them? Where does an individuals responsibility to walk away end and the platforms responsibility to stop people feeling they have to leave begin? And how can a site not take sides in political arguments where one party chooses a liar or a bigot for a leader, and the other doesnt?

Answering these questions will shape popular culture profoundly, making the still vacant position of the Ofcom chair contenders for which reportedly include the former Daily Mail editor-in-chief Paul Dacre very powerful indeed. But they will also require from tech executives the judgment of Solomon, or at the very least, editorial skills more usually demanded of the BBC and newspaper executives who wont, incidentally, be covered by this bill. Online journalism is exempt in the interests of press freedom, but, interestingly, so is below-the-line comment by readers, meaning that what a person can write underneath a tabloid article about Meghan Markle may diverge sharply from what can be said about her on Twitter or indeed in a student union debate, where a separate free speech bill will guarantee the right of controversialists to sue for compensation if theyre no-platformed by universities.

Whats the guiding principle here, the one rule that makes the boundaries of free speech clear to everyone? There isnt one, partly because Dowden is right that in a democracy there are some things politicians shouldnt dictate, and partly because setting hard-and-fast rules on this stuff is like nailing jelly to a moving wall. Yet the success of this bill depends in some ways on pretending that there is; that deep down we know whats right, and that social media companies therefore have the power to fix things, if only theyre threatened with the right stick. Well, maybe. But if not, then the story of regulating big tech may continue to be one of a shrinking circle of people passing the hot potato endlessly, each one desperately hoping the music doesnt stop with them.

See more here:
The online safety bill will show just how blurred the boundaries of free speech are - The Guardian

Todd J. Williams| Correspondent

The power of nature prevails in climb to recovery

Laura Waits and Per Hagen developed an outdoor adventure program, Sync Recovery Community, to guide those in recovery to drug-free activities.

Marion Callahan, Bucks County Courier Times

We live in an era of individual expression. You dont have to look very far in our culture to see this. A few minutes spent on social media or watching the late-night talk shows is all it takes to see that contemporary culture not only embraces but encourages the idea that if you feel it, say it, unfiltered never mind the accuracy or what the implications are of what you say.

If you think it,if you feel it, if it is your reaction to a circumstance, event, or other person just say whatever you want, in whatever way you want, with whatever tone you want. That is your right. To be fair, this in fact is a freedom or a right in this land.

After all, the Constitution guarantees the right of expression. The freedom of expression is a core principle of our constitutional republic. We do not censor. We do not stifle. It is an American ideal.

What I am referring to, though, is something different. I am referring to the dangers of unfiltered, unrestrained and unmeasured personal expression:saying things without thought, without considering the truthfulness, the accuracy and the implications of our words.

This is not a wise way to live. Of course,we can say and do whatever we want, but there is a very poignant verse in the Bible where the apostle Paul says,All things are lawful,but not all things are helpful (1 Cor. 10:13). Another way of expressing this is to use a more contemporary axiom, Just because we can do something, doesnt mean we should.

Knowing what to say, when to say it, and how to say it; knowing when we should do something because it is the best course of action and not just simply because we canthese require judgment. This is the way of wisdom.

It is not a way of repression but a way of restraint, of self control, and of choosing what is best.

The Old Testament book of Proverbs has numerous references to the importance and impact of our words. In Proverbs 17:27, we see that restraint regarding our words says something about our character: Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding.

The real question is whether we as a society value the personal character qualities of being knowledgeable and having understanding. Another implication of this passage is that when people do not restrain themselves, they show themselves to be the opposite of having knowledge and understanding.

It is possible to assess the character of people by their lack of verbal restraint. We have all experienced this on a relational level. But it has larger societal and cultural implications that begin with us as individuals on a relational level.

We must also consider the damage done by words expressed without filter or consideration. In Proverbs 12:18 we read, There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Words have the power to inflict pain and wound. They also have the power to bring healing.

This proverb underscores again the character associated with painful words versus healing words. Do we aspire to be rash or wise? If our words are as sword thrusts, inflicting pain on others, we show ourselves to be rash. If our words rather bring healing, we show ourselves to be wise.

The unrestrained and unfiltered expression that we see running rampant in our worldwhether haters on social media or character assassins on late-night talk showssays something about us as a people and our level of tolerance of rashness at best or ourenamormentwith it at worst.

Words matter. Our speech has an impact on those around us, on culture and society and on future generations.It is also true that we are responsible for what we say, when we say it and how we say it. We can choose a different path. We can reject the unfiltered norm of our day and choose the way of self-control, restraint and wisdom.

I often consider what a different world we would be living in if we took full responsibility for our words and considered the power of truthfulness when we disagree and graciousness in the way we talk to our coworkers, our children, our friends and strangers.

Again, Proverbs speaks to this. In Proverbs 16:24 we read, Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. We could use a little of this these days. Our disagreements and divisions are real. Whether personal, political, social, or cultural, we are not of one mind.

This is a reality of life and part of being human. Another part of being human is our ability and inclination to express ourselves. Yet another part of being human is the moral capacity to consider the implications of our expressions, to hold our tongues when appropriate, to consider others, to weigh facts and speak truth and to season our speech with grace and wisdom.

These things are not impossible. We have the capacity. Do we have the desire?

Dr. Todd J. Williams is president of Cairn University in Langhorne Manor. From a Faith Perspective is a weekly column written by members of the local faith communities.

Read the original here:
From a Faith Perspective: We have a right to free speech. But do we use it wisely? - Bucks County Courier Times

MPs on the House of Commons heritage committee agreedtoday to pause a detailed review of the federal government's broadcasting bill while the Department of Justice looks into whether recent amendments violate the free speech rights of social media users.

Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP MPsall voted in favour of asking for a revised "charter statement" on Bill C-10. Such statements are issued by the justice minister to examine the potential impact new legislation may have on Canadians' rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion also requests that both Justice Minister David Lametti and Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault, along with a panel of experts, appear beforethe committee to discuss the implications of recent amendments to the bill and take questions from committee members.

Today's vote breaks a weeks-long deadlock at the committee and is a loss for the Liberals, who wanted the clause-by-clause review of the legislation to continue while the updated charter statement wasbeing prepared bythe Department of Justice.

Instead, that review has been shelved while the committee waits to see the charter statement and to hear fromthe ministers and experts.

Bill C-10 was introduced by Guilbeaultto bring digital streaming services under the purview of the Broadcasting Act. It would allowthe Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)the country's broadcasting regulatorto require them to contribute to the creation, production and promotion of Canadian content, similar to howthe CRTCregulates radio and TV content now.

The bill came under fireafter the committee removed a clause that would have excluded user-generated content posted to social media sites from CRTC regulation.

The government said the exclusion would have allowed YouTube to escape the same reporting requirements and obligations to contribute to Canadian culture that would have applied to streaming sites like Spotify, Netflix and Amazon.

But legal experts argued the changes gave the CRTC the power to regulate the posts that millions of Canadians upload every day to platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTubesomething they saw as a violation of thecharter right to freedom ofexpression.

The Liberals proposed an amendment to the bill last week to clarify the role of the CRTC. The amendment proposed allowing the CRTCto requirethe sitesto make Canadian content more visible to Canadian users.

The amendment failed to mollify critics.

"Guilbeault and the government promised to remove regulation of user generated content by the CRTC. Instead ... it effectively confirmed that denials about the effects of the bill were inaccurate and left a regulatory framework in place," Michael Geist,a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in internet law, wrote recentlyin his blog.

WhileGuilbeault has insisted that CRTC regulation will apply onlyto professional content posted to platforms that act as broadcasters, he muddied the waters himself over the weekend.

In an interview on CTV's Question Period,Guilbeault appeared to suggest that C-10 would allow the CRTC to impose discoverability regulations on individuals who have large online followings,or who generate significant revenue through their online content. Guilbeault's office laterbacktracked, saying individuals who usesocial media will never be consideredbroadcasters.

At a press conference today, Liberal MP Julie Dabrusinrepeated the Liberal assertion that any CRTC-imposedobligations would only apply to the platforms. Dabrusin said such obligations include:

Dabrusin accused the Conservatives of holding up the committee's work for the past two weeks.

Conservative MPs have been especially vocal in their opposition to C-10 in its current form, saying that it would lead to governmentcensorship of the internet.

During question period in the House of Commons today, MPRachael Harder the Conservatives'digitalgovernment critic accused the Liberals of launching an attack on YouTubers to censor what people post to social media.

Guilbeault responded that the bill is not about what Canadians can or can't post online. He said the bill will make sure big streaming companies "pay their fair share" and make Canadian content more discoverable on their platforms.

See the original post:
MPs agree to legal review of broadcasting bill over free speech concerns - CBC.ca

Despite all the preening about "free speech" on the right, the truth is complaints about"cancel culture" havealways been code for "conservatives can say whatever terrible things they want, and liberals can shut up about it." Andwhile play-acting as the victims of censorship because liberals mock or criticize them, Republicans have been busy actually silencing free speech: from demanding that athletes be fired for kneeling during the national anthem to, memorably, Donald Trump ordering thetear-gassing of peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park. While conservatives whine about oppression because people call them "racist" on Twitter, they are actually using complaints about "wokeness" as an excuse for the literal government censorship of discourse that acknowledges the reality of racism, as Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times chronicled.

That's conservatism, of course: Always projecting their own sins onto their liberal opponents.

But the Republican enthusiasm for censorship has become even more pronouncedin the past few weeks, as they've escalated the purge of any party members who refuse to sign onto the Big Lie that Joe Biden "stole" the election and that the Capitol insurrection was no big deal.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. followingin the footsteps of that other, more infamous McCarthy escalated the blacklisting ofRep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., foradmitting that the insurrection was a real thing that really happened because Donald Trump was really trying to steal an election that Joe Biden really won. McCarthysent a letter to theRepublican caucus declaring his intention to lead the effort to remove Cheney from her leadership position for said thought crimes and included a real howler of a closing paragraph.

"We are a big tent party," McCarthy insisted, as they purge anyone who refuses to sign off the Big Lie."And unlike the left, we embrace free thought and debate."

Of course, not if you think thoughts about admitting realityor debate those who insist on fealty to a lie.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

McCarthy got ripped on Twitter, as he rightly deserved.But really, his Orwellian use of "free thought" is just more of the same from Republicans, who have continually used claims of support for "free speech" and opposition to "cancel culture" as cover for their efforts to stifle speech, protest, and debate.

Witness, for instance, the right-wing freakout du jour, over a speech last week from Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., in which she used the term "birthing people."Bush's speech was about the lack of decent maternal care in the U.S., and drew on her own personal experiences of watching a son nearly die and almost losing another pregnancy because doctors didn't take her health concerns seriously. But conservatives decided to harp on her word choice, accusing Bush of trying to replace the term "mother" with "birthing people."

But Bush did no such thing, as anyone who actually listened to her speech heard.She said, "I sit before you today as a single mom, as a nurse, as an activist, and as a Congresswoman, and I am committed to doing the absolute most to protect Black mothers. To protect Black babies. To protect Black birthing people. And to save lives."

Emphasis mine, because Bush's critics clearly don't read so good. Or really, they do, but they are lying liars who are arguing in bad faith, pretending to be victims of "cancel culture" while actually launching a massive pressure campaign designed to stifle any discussion or acknowledgment of the fact that "mother" and "person who gave birth" are not neatly overlapping categories, due to practices like adoption or the existence of transidentities.

No doubt, "birthing persons" is a clunky phrase that is unlikely to take off in the common parlance. But the issue here isn't awkward phrasing, it's about the right trying to cancel thoughts or discussions that make them uncomfortable and doing so, in their Orwellian way, while pretending to actually be for "free speech."

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

But this is par for the course with right wing hysterics over "cancel culture."Scratch the surfaceand they are typically aimed not at expanding the discourse, but contracting itso that the only allowable ideas are those that fit comfortably into conservative orthodoxy.

The meltdown over the estate of Dr. Seuss delisting a few obscure titles for racist imagery? That's really more about conservatives being unwilling to deal honestly with the history of racism than it is about "free speech."The whining about Mr. Potato Head rebranding to a more gender-neutral Potato Head? That's mostly about conservatives wanting to crush any childish experimentation with gender presentation, which is more about silencing rather than empowering free expression.

Even some Republicans are starting to be a little uncomfortable with the contradictionbetween Republicanclaims of being for "free thought" and their actual behavior, which is about cracking down on anyone who disagrees or even just acknowledges inconvenient truths. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, got angry over Cheney's defenestration and told reporters, "I feel it's okay to go ahead and express what you feel is right to express and, you know, cancel culture is cancel culture," and complained about "those that are trying to silence others in the party."

But this is nothing new, as demonstrated by the widespread support for Donald Trump and his lengthy efforts to stifle anti-racism protesters, whether they're playing professional sports or just trying to avoid tear gas canisters in front of the White House. Anger over "cancel culture" was never a robust defense of free speech. As with the Republican war on democracy itself, it's an assertion that the shrinking white conservative minority should have political and social hegemony, untouched by either progressive criticism or pushbackat the ballotbox.

The Cheney purge illustrates this reality perfectly.She's being blacklisted both for saying things that make Republicans uncomfortable and for asserting that the person who won the election should be president. Republicans were never for "free speech," and recent events just make that almost comically apparent.

Read the original here:
Canceling the anti-insurrectionists in the GOP proves Republicans never cared about "free speech" - Salon