Category Archives: Free Speech

The guidance, which has been opened for consultation, covers a variety of scenarios surrounding free speech and academic freedom and is due to come into force in August 2024.

One scenario it puts forward is a university accepting students on visiting scholarships funded by their home government where scholars must accept the principles of the ruling party of [their home] country.

Depending on the circumstances, these arrangements may undermine free speech and academic freedom at [the university]. If so, that university is likely to have to terminate or amend the scholarship agreement, the scenario reads.

Many universities across the UK currently accept international students on government funded scholarships from multiple countries where it is widely suspected that academic freedom is much less prevalent, including China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others.

Is it better to educate people who have strings attached to them by their own governments or to refuse to educate them? Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, told The PIE News

On paper, the purity of refusal makes a lot of sense and we should of course always strive not to compromise on what we stand for.

The reason it could conceivably seem challenging to some institutions in the short term, however, is that four-in-10 people across the globe live under authoritarian regimes, and many of these regimes make day-to-day life quite grim for their local populations, he said, noting the Economists Democracy Index.

China is one of the most prevalent countries being discussed due to concerns around how it has previously curtailed academic freedom of its students in various countries, including the US and Sweden.

The director of freedom of speech and academic freedom at the OfS told the BBCs Today program that a variety of international institutions across the UK in response to a question regarding Confucius Institutes and each one will be examined based on the evidence that we have.

Its important these students arent discriminated against based on the views or actions of their government

Were seeing reports that there may be concerns related to connections with foreign institutes this applies everywhere. Any such arrangements, insofar as it creates restrictions on academic freedom and speech, not only for the students and academics that come, but also students in English universities, is a cause of concern for us, said Arif Ahmed.

The guidance clearly takes aim at those Confucius Institutes and the China Scholarship Council, according to international education advisor Peter Brady, who predicted universities may take the pragmatic option of closing the institutes and not renewing CSC agreements.

The reason universities require academic freedom is to keep them free from government intervention, having a government body intervening in the area of academic freedom is a bit of an oxymoron, Brady also argued.

The Russell Group said its initial assessment sees areas that could have unintended consequences, especially surrounding discrimination against international students on scholarships.

Whilst some receive scholarships funded by their home nation to attend university in the UK, this does not mean those individuals necessarily share or represent the views and political position of their home state.

Its important these students arent discriminated against based on the views or actions of their government, a spokesperson told The PIE.

Universities UK called the issue extraordinarily complex in an already complicated landscape, adding it is essential that any decisions made on the basis of this consultation are considered and proportionate.

A new complaints scheme will also be launched in August alongside the guidance, allowing people to submit their own concerns about breaches of academic freedom through a portal.

Brady noted, however, that the OFS complaints system will be open, possibly creating the opportunity for any member of a group opposing one country or another to register complaints about the commitment the student has made to gain the scholarship.

International partnerships could also be affected by the guidance in other scenarios, but Ahmed said each case would be judged on its own facts.

There have been public reports about concerns people have about international arrangements.

If we see evidence through the complaints scheme that gives us reason to think that there is a breach of the free speech guidance then we will firmly act, he confirmed.

The draft guidance also refers to the funding of universities, wherein if universities are partly funded by a commercial entity in from a different country and attempts are made to ideologically test incoming staff as its laid out in one scenario or there are notable challenges to their academic freedom, arrangements may need to be terminated or amended.

While the guidance promotes a debate on how universities approach the issue and how it could impact or undermine their own approach to academic freedom, Hillman still believes at its core that education is the most important aspect.

Educating people from countries with unpalatable regimes can nonetheless build understanding of the benefits of democracy, transparency and openness.

We must hope this new guidance builds understanding among undemocratic regime that UK education is built on our values. Time will tell if it works out like that, Hillman added.

One might argue that it may push universities to develop transparent ethical systems to review these relationships. But under these guidelines, even if the universities have taken into consideration the ethical issues and decided to enter in an agreement the OfS will be the ultimate arbiter, Brady noted.

Both the Russell Group and UUK also said that they would continue to consider the implication of the document.

Link:
OfS free speech guidance: time will tell if it builds understanding - The PIE News

Something is wrong.

Suffield First Selectman Colin Moll wants to exempt the Town Green from First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

Moll has proposed extensive rules to regulate activity on the towns centuries old public Green. Moll told the Courant in a statement on Jan. 19, At no point does this policy infringe on any First Amendment rights. Moll must not have read his own revolting proposal, let alone the amendment that is the cornerstone of our democracy.

The policy is designed to better protect the Town and its assets, Moll continued. Anybody can use the Town Green. A policy would simply give guidelines for use. Our First Amendment rights are first for a reason. They are the rights from which all others flow. Moll has proposed requirements, not guidelines.

Molls notion of freedom to assemble includes obtaining permits from his office 30 days before an event and securing $1 million in liability insurance to cover the event. A permit will not be automatically granted. Oh no, there are rules the first selectman will apply in his discretion. The proposed activity event, and/or display will not unreasonably interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health, welfare, safety and recreation. It must not incite violence or crime or disorderly conduct. Maybe it would allow silent vigils, but not if they disrupted traffic, another Moll burden on Constitutional rights.

The Suffield War Memorial lists 257 local residents who served in the Revolutionary War, from David, Joel and John Adams Jr. to Justus, Phineas and Reuben Woolworth. They fought for freedom. They did not leave whatever rudimentary comforts they knew to risk or give their lives in that glorious cause so that nearly 250 years later the towns selectmen could enact rules to silence speech and ban the assembly of citizens.

The War Memorial inspires from its honored place on the Town Green.

Moll is making a name for himself as more than a tiresome crank. He tried out his heavy hand last year on Suffields Kent Memorial Library. Two directors resigned in a year. Other employees quit. Moll wanted to know who was reserving rooms for meetings at the library. He had a beef with a library kindness display that included a childrens book on pronouns.

Moll and his fellow Republicans refused to reappoint four Democrats to the library board. The Suffield Republicans are not only unmindful of freedom of speech rights, they are jaw-dropping ignoramuses. Last fall, one Republican selectman candidate made the nonsensical argument that the kindness display violated the publics First Amendment rights. And now they have widened their war with Molls blitzkrieg against free speech on the Town Green.

Last month Molls proposal came to the attention of the sentinels of freedom at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). It describes itself as a nonpartisan nonprofit [organization] dedicated to defending freedom of speech. In a Feb. 15 letter to Moll and his colleagues, Aaron Terr, FIREs Director of Public Advocacy, explained in six pages why Suffield would be violating the Constitution if it continued on its path of silencing residents and others.

As other organizations go wobbly on the paramount importance of free speech, FIRE has become its preeminent defender. It began as an advocate for free speech on college campuses and has broadened its mission to places like suffocating Suffield.

Suffields proposed regulations, according to FIREs Terr, could restrict activity from an acoustic guitarist to a book club meeting, from a 10-person protest to a lone pamphleteer. The Suffield Town Green has long been a place, as the Supreme Court describes them, for assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.

Molls 30-day application requirement is an exercise in eliminating spontaneous speech. If next week, Hamas was destroyed and Palestinians in Gaza were liberated from its brutal rule or the Houthis were defeated and the children it forces to become soldiers were freed, it would be cause for celebration across much of the world. People in Suffield might want to gather immediately to rejoice. Under Molls rules, they could not assemble on the Town Green.

Unpopular speech requires protection from the mob, and our Constitution provides it. Molls bombardment of free speech and assembly is especially dangerous for speech that is out of favor. He provides the dreaded hecklers veto to those expressing hostility to some points of view. Loudmouthed locals intent on disrupting a protest on the Town Green would become an excuse for the selectman to ban a gathering. The selectman would be on the wrong side.

Free market capitalism has been very good indeed to tony Suffield. Moll would ban, Terr points out, activities, events, and displays designed to be held for private profit. This would ban, for example, someone being paid to speak and the sale of books, pamphlets and newspapers at an event.

One day Suffield selectmen may require you to show your papers in order to enter the town with leaders who hate our freedom. If they do, remember that it started in the library and on the Town Green.

You can reach Kevin Rennie atkfrennie@yahoo.com.

Follow this link:
Kevin Rennie: Jaw-dropping attack on free speech and assembly in a CT town. It hurts us all. - Hartford Courant

Bentley recently hosted Harvey Silverglate, free speech advocate and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for a conversation on academic freedom and freedom of speech. Sponsored by the Jeanne and Dan Valente Center for Arts and Sciences and the History Department, the discussion tackled the ongoing debate over what constitutes free speech on college campuses.

Free speech in the United States, Silverglate said, essentially distinguishes this country from virtually every other country, noting that while other countries have free speech, they also have strict anti-defamation laws. Emphasizing the consensus of both liberal and conservative views to protect free speech, he said, Its not a partisan issue anymore. This is a great victory that we have achieved.

Silverglate a criminal defense and civil liberties litigator who has argued free speech cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and is the author of books including The Shadow University and The Betrayal of Liberty on Americas Campuses called himself an absolutist when it comes to free speech. The right to express both hate and love speech, he said, should be fully protected in accordance with the law. He noted the particular importance for free speech on liberal arts college campuses meant to encourage conversations from different points of view. Academic freedom is a subset of free speech; and in theory at least, academic freedom should be even more absolute ... But campuses today are actually roiling in debates on this fundamental issue of free speech.

He called for more universities to adopt the Chicago Principles, a model free speech policy statement affirming their commitment to free expression, developed by the University of Chicago.

Universities should be a forum for people to express their views without a stifling atmosphere of censorship, Silverglate said.

Following Silverglates presentation, a question-and-answer session moderated by Valente Center Director Johannes (Hans) Eijmberts provided a forum for debate on issues such as the balance between allowing free speech and prioritizing an institutions values and campus safety, the governments role to protect free speech on college campuses and censorship by social media platforms.

Originally posted here:
Bentley Hosts Forum on Free Speech on College Campuses with Legal Expert Harvey Silverglate - Bentley University

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 27, 2024 More than two-thirds of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track when it comes to freedom of speech, according to new survey results from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and thePolarization Research Lab at Dartmouth College.

When asked about whether people are able to freely express their views, 69% of respondents said things in America are heading in the wrong direction, compared to only 31% who believe that things are heading in the right direction.

The poll also shows that only a quarter of Americans believe the right to freedom of speech is very or completely secure, and almost a third (29%) say it is not at all secure.

The average American already thinks that free speech in America is in dire straits. Most worryingly, they think it will get worse, said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. These findings should be a wake-up call for the nation to recommit to a vibrant free speech culture before its too late.

Thenew poll, conducted from January 12-19, is the first installment in the National Speech Index, a new quarterly survey designed by FIRE and PRL to measure support for the First Amendment and track how Americans think about the state of free speech in the country over time.

Polarization not only divides Americans on policy, but it fractures our assessments of the stability of the bedrock features of our democracy, said PRL Director Sean Westwood. Nearly half of Democrats think free speech rights are headed in the right direction, compared to only 26 percent of Republicans. And more than a third of Republicans think the right to free speech is not secure, compared to only 17 percent of Democrats.

One alarmingly common belief that crosses partisan lines is that idea that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Around a third of Republicans and a third of Democrats completely or mostly agree with that statement.

To gauge public acceptance of protecting even unpopular beliefs, the survey also presented a list of statements that were controversial, but protected by the First Amendment. Respondents were asked which belief they found most offensive, then asked if they supported several forms of censorship targeting that belief. The most disliked belief varied by race and party, but the most frequent selections were All whites are racist oppressors, America got what it deserved on 9/11, and January 6th was a peaceful protest.

Roughly half of respondents (52%) said their community should not allow a public speech that espouses the belief they selected as the most offensive. A supermajority, 69%, said their local college should not allow a professor who espoused that belief to teach classes.

Those results were disappointing, but not exactly surprising, said Stevens. Here at FIRE, weve long observed that many people who say theyre concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.

Other forms of censorship are less popular. Americans do not support removing books from public libraries that espouse the belief they found most offensive, with roughly three-fifths (59%) opposed to such actions. And almost three-quarters (72%) believe people who voice the belief they found most offensive should not be fired from their jobs.

The National Speech Index is a new quarterly component of Americas Political Pulse, an ongoing weekly survey conducted by the Polarization Research Lab, which will allow researchers to track shifting free speech sentiment in America over time. Each week, a sample of 1,000 individual YouGov panelists is surveyed on partisan animosity in the United States. All data and results presented are weighted to nationally representative demographic targets. The raw data file is availablehere.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.

CONTACT:

Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Read the original post:
POLL: 69% of Americans believe country on wrong track on free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

On today's free speech news roundup, we discuss the recent NetChoice oral argument, Taylor Swift, doxxing, October 7 fallout on campus, and Satan in Iowa.

Joining us on the show are Alex Morey, FIRE director of Campus Rights Advocacy; Aaron Terr, director of Public Advocacy; and Ronnie London, our general counsel.

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction

0:44 NetChoice oral arguments

19:39 Taylor Swift cease and desist letter

29:20 Publishing unlawfully obtained information

39:28 Harvard and doxxing

47:44 Princeton no contact orders

55:52 Columbia law denies recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism

1:02:38 Columbia adopts Kalven Report

1:06:06 Indiana University art exhibit canceled, professor suspended

1:14:55 Satan in Iowa

1:21:59 Outro

Show Notes

"So to Speak" 2023-24 Supreme Court Preview (contains discussion of NetChoice cases)

Correspondence between Taylor Swift and Jack Sweeney's attorneys

Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001)

Princeton no contact order

Columbia university grants recognition to Law Students Against Antisemitism

IHRA definition of anti-Semitism

List of universities that have adopted the Kalven Report

Indiana University art exhibit story

Indiana University professor suspended for improper reservation

Iowa Satanism bill

Shurtleff v. Boston (2022)

"So to Speak": Substack

Link:
So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast | Free speech news: NetChoice, Taylor Swift, October 7, and Satan - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The most important First Amendment cases of the internet era, to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, may turn on a single question: Do platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X most closely resemble newspapers or shopping centers or phone companies?

The two cases arrive at the court garbed in politics, as they concern laws in Florida and Texas aimed at protecting conservative speech by forbidding leading social media sites from removing posts based on the views they express.

But the outsize question the cases present transcends ideology. It is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments. Picking the apt analogy from the courts precedents could decide the matter, but none of the available ones is a perfect fit.

If the platforms are like newspapers, they may publish what they want without government interference. If they are like private shopping centers open to the public, they may be required to let visitors say what they like. And if they are like phone companies, they must transmit everyones speech.

It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a 2022 dissent when one of the cases briefly reached the Supreme Court.

Supporters of the state laws say they foster free speech, giving the public access to all points of view. Opponents say the laws trample on the platforms own First Amendment rights and would turn them into cesspools of filth, hate and lies. One contrarian brief, from liberal professors, urged the justices to uphold the key provision of the Texas law despite the harm they said it would cause.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit andlog intoyour Times account, orsubscribefor all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?Log in.

Want all of The Times?Subscribe.

Go here to see the original:
Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media - The New York Times

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

For nearly four hours on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases that challenge how far states can go to limit the content social media companies allow on their platforms.

The lawsuits, which were brought by two tech trade groups, challenge whether Texas and Florida can legally prohibit large social media companies from banning certain political posts or users. Both states passed laws in 2021 to stop what Republican state leaders considered censorship of conservative viewpoints.

The laws came on the heels of the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which led Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms to suspend former president Donald Trumps social media accounts because his posts were thought to glorify violence.

The Florida and Texas laws are similar in that they both limit social media companies content moderation. But they differ in their details. Texas law is broader in that it prohibits companies from removing content based on their authors viewpoint, whereas Floridas law bars companies from removing politicians from their site.

NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association brought lawsuits in which they argued both laws are unconstitutional because they conflict with the First Amendment, which protects against government infringement of speech.

On Monday, attorneys for NetChoice argued that social media companies should be treated the same as newspapers or bookstores, which are free to choose what to publish or which books to sell without government interference. Paul Clemente, arguing on behalf of NetChoice, said social media companies are not censoring certain users but are exercising editorial discretion.

Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson meanwhile argued that internet platforms should be considered common carriers like telecommunications companies or mail services that are required to transmit everyones messages.

The Supreme Court Justices appeared conflicted. Most justices noted that the laws posed free speech challenges, but they seemed hesitant to strike down the laws entirely. They questioned both sides on whether the laws may be legal in some respects but unconstitutional in others. For example, some large social media companies, including Facebook, offer direct messaging. The justices indicated that the laws applications on direct messaging would not implicate free speech and therefore should not be struck down.

At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said her inclination would be to remand the case back to the lower courts for more discussion, a view that several justices appeared to favor. The Court is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.

The Supreme Courts review of the laws represents the first major examination of if and how free-speech laws apply to social media companies. Legal experts say that the high courts decision could have significant implications for statehouses across the country as they begin writing laws to address misinformation online.

The stakes for free speech online are potentially enormous, said Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. The court here is being presented with diametrically opposed interpretations of the law, and what the court does could, on the one hand, allow the government free rein to regulate social media platforms, or, on the other, prohibit the government from regulating them at all.

The free speech provisions included in the First Amendment do not mean that private companies are forced to allow certain speech. Instead, the Constitution states that the government cannot compel or prohibit speech from private actors.

Willkens said he believes the Court should take a middle ground and rule that while the platforms have a right to make editorial judgements, states can still regulate the platforms in ways that would promote democracy. For example, he said the platforms should be required to disclose how they curate their content.

That is a view that Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, took on Monday. She sided with tech industry groups and argued that the laws should be struck down. But she emphasized that the government could still regulate social media companies by other legal means, such as through antitrust, consumer protection or privacy laws.

I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting that governments are powerless, Prelogar said. One natural place to go is disclosure, to ensure that if you think a platform has Orwellian policies, you at least make sure users have information about how they are acting, what their policies are.

Texas social media law, referred to as House Bill 20, would mandate that tech companies publicly disclose how they curate their content. The Supreme Court is not considering the legality of that portion of the law. They are focusing on other provisions of law, including its prohibition on social media companies with more than 50 million active monthly users from banning users based on their viewpoints. The Court will also consider the laws requirement that platforms produce regular reports of removed content and create a complaint system to allow users to raise flags about removed content.

The laws also have political implications. President Joe Bidens administration has backed the tech companies legal challenge while former President Donald Trump filed an amicus brief in support of Florida and Texas.

Tech companies argue that giving the government any control over their content opens the door to a flood of misinformation that would be harmful to users.

What could end up happening is that websites are flooded with lawful but awful content, Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice, said prior to oral arguments in an interview with The Texas Tribune. That renders our ability to access the information we want and not see the information we dont want, impossible.

Szabo said social media companies remove billions of pieces of content from their platforms each month, including sexually explicit material, spam, or other content that violates their terms of services.

Gov. Greg Abbott, who made the bill a priority during a special legislative session in 2021, said after the law was passed that it was intended to protect individuals freedom of speech.

Allowing biased social media companies to cancel conservative speech erodes America's free speech foundations, Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. Social media websites are a modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy debate where information should be able to flow freely but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas.

Disclosure: Facebook has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

We cant wait to welcome you to downtown Austin Sept. 5-7 for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival! Join us at Texas breakout politics and policy event as we dig into the 2024 elections, state and national politics, the state of democracy, and so much more. When tickets go on sale this spring, Tribune members will save big. Donate to join or renew today.

Read the original:
U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Texas social media law - The Texas Tribune

COLUMBIA Using lawsuits to silence public criticism would be more difficult under a bill advancing in the South Carolina House.

Legislation sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton would allow people slapped with a lawsuit in an attempt to shut them up to file a motion within 60 days asking the court to dismiss it.

This protects the little guy the guy who wants to speak out and then is going to be completely silenced by some entity or some cause, this protects the little guys First Amendment rights, Newton, R-Bluffton, told the SC Daily Gazette.

He and other supporters pointed to cases where lawsuits alleging defamation were filed in South Carolina to tie up critics in litigation and mounting legal fees, even when the case was unlikely to succeed.

Nationwide, 33 states already have laws making these so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP, cases more difficult. New Jersey was the latest state, with a law taking effect in October, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Newton told a House panel Thursday he learned about the issue when Kevin Hennelly of Beaufort County was sued for defamation after making critical comments about a developer working on the Hilton Head National Golf Course. The case was eventually dismissed but not before Hennelly racked up over $75,000 in legal fees, Newton said.

Under his bill, if a lawsuit is legitimate, the person suing must prove it, Newton said.

And if its not a legitimate lawsuit and they cant demonstrate it, then theres also a provision where the defendant can recover their attorney fees, he said.

Thursdays vote sent the bill to the full Judiciary Committee. Since its the chairmans bill, its almost certain to advance to the House floor.

Nobody spoke against the bill to the subcommittee.

Taylor Smith, an attorney who represents the S.C. Press Association, was among those who testified in favor of it, citing some of his own clients who have faced these lawsuits.

Its the South Carolinians, not necessarily the press, who are bearing the burden of the cost associated with defending these suits, he said.

Read the original:
Bill aimed at protecting free speech rights advancing in SC House - News From The States

Margaret Talev discusses the mission and vision for the Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship, how distrust in election results and politicians is at an all-time high and the challenges artificial intelligence poses.

Margaret Talev can vividly recall the specific moment she knew journalism had failed to properly inform and educate a large portion of the American voting electorate.

It was Jan. 6, 2021. More than 1,000 citizens were protesting at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Talev was working as managing editor at Axios, overseeing the outlets political coverage. During the events, one of her reporters became trapped in the chambers of the House of Representatives, while another was trapped in the Senates chambers.

A decorated and accomplished national political journalist, Talev prided herself on helping people understand the news, both in the short-term and big picture. Talev covered American politics and the White House for 30 years, including working the campaign trail for presidential elections in 2008, 2012 and 2016 as a White House correspondent for Bloomberg News and McClatchy Newspapers.

Talev watched the events unfold and was left wondering how thousands of her fellow citizens could stage a protest based on misinformation.

Unsure of her future in journalism, Talev wanted to focus her career efforts on the relationship between the news that was being produced and consumed by voters and how that was impacting their views on democracy and governance.

Margaret Talev

She was immediately interested in serving as the Kramer Director of the Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship (IDJC), a joint effort of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications and the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Based in Washington, the institute promotes nonpartisan, evidence-based research and dialogue in the public interest, striving to create new knowledge, foster a more informed and engaged citizenry and better equip students for success.

I cared about focusing on the governance and the information piece of this, which is, how is democracy working for people? What do people believe democracy is? And why are a segment of Americans so upset with the process that theyre willing to resort to violence or willing to believe conspiracy theories? That became the central question that I was interested in reporting on, and the chance to build an institute that would really be dedicated to looking at the connection between news and government, between journalism and politics, between how people perceive the way their country is working and the news theyre ingesting, Talev says of the IDJC, which will formally open its headquarters in Washington later this spring.

On this Cuse Conversation, Talev discusses the mission and vision for the IDJC, how distrust in election results and politicians is at an all-time high, the role citizens can play to address issues facing our democracy and the challenges artificial intelligence poses.

Check out episode 158 of the Cuse Conversations podcast featuring Talev. A transcript [PDF] is also available.

Go here to read the rest:
Champion of Free Speech and Journalism Margaret Talev Leads Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship ... - Syracuse University News

A Friends of Kinsey member said an IU administrator infringed on free speech rights by demanding the group move their table from Sample Gates.

Following the IU Board of Trustees decision to table discussions Nov. 10 to form a separate nonprofit to manage some of the institutes functions, Kinsey students formed Friends of Kinsey, an organization advocating against the proposed separation of the institute from the university. Over the past two weeks, as the fate of the institute remains uncertain, members have demonstrated in front of Sample Gates handing out flyers, candy and condoms.

On Feb. 13, Zoe Moscovici, a doctoral student and member of Friends of Kinsey, demonstrated in front of Sample Gates, when she was approached by Mary Waggoner, who identified herself as a member of IU administration. Waggoner told Moscovici she was not permitted to demonstrate at that location.

Moscovici drafted a written statement detailing the interaction with Waggoner, which was sent to Kinsey Institute Executive Director Justin Garcia.

According to the statement, Waggoner, who is the IU Office of Student Life Services Assistant for Space Reservations, told Moscovici she was not allowed to be at Sample Gates without IU approval. Moscovici responded that she was not in charge of the demonstration, but she believed Friends of Kinsey had the proper permission. Waggoner replied that she oversaw space reservation, and she had not approved a demonstration at Sample Gates.

Waggoner also said, according to the statement, that Friends of Kinsey needed to be an approved student organization with permission to demonstrate there and that tabling is never permitted for Sample Gates. Waggoner did not say where these rules were posted.

Moscovici said Waggoner demanded she move the table immediately. However, Moscovici had not set up the table, and she said she was watching other peoples possessions, so she told Waggoner that she did not want to move it. At this point, Waggoner grabbed materials from the table and began packing them up herself.

The main tone I was getting was condescending, Moscovici said.

The boards next meeting is Feb. 29-March 1.

Meanwhile, a man accompanying Waggoner began filming the incident on his phone, according to Moscovicis statement. He did not identify himself to Moscovici.

Moscovici said she called Melissa Blundell, a Kinsey Institute doctoral student and Friends of Kinsey member, who had coordinated the tabling effort and was at the demonstration but left prior to Waggoners arrival. According to the statement, Waggoner asked to speak to Blundell on the phone, but Moscovici refused. Blundell said she could return to campus in 20 minutes to speak to Waggoner, but Waggoner said she had a meeting in 20 minutes and Moscovici would have to move immediately.

Through the phone, I could hear Mary Waggoner being very aggressive and very angry, Blundell said.

Moscovici said she offered to compromise by temporarily stopping the demonstration, but Waggoner called IUPD to report that Moscovici had resisted her demands and would likely return to Sample Gates even if she moved.

Moscovici agreed to move the table across Indiana Avenue in an attempt to de-escalate the situation, according to the statement. Waggoner and the man helped her carry the materials across the street.

After moving the table across the street, Moscovici said Waggoners attitude changed, and she stopped yelling. She said Waggoner told her it was just the rules and had nothing to do with the topic of the demonstration.

Waggoner and the man then left together, Moscovici said. Blundell and Moscovici said there have been no further incidents with Waggoner or IU administration, and Friends of Kinsey have continued to table at that location.

Jessica Hille, assistant director for education at the Kinsey Institute, learned about the incident from Cynthia Graham, Moscovicis direct supervisor.

After reviewing the IU Office of Student Lifes page about planning an event, Blundell, Moscovici and Hille do not believe the demonstration violated the rules. Hille said that the regulations are somewhat unclear.

The page states that registered student organizations may request indoor and outdoor campus spaces, and that student groups must be registered on beINvolved. Friends of Kinsey is not registered on beINvolved.

The Office of Student Life requires all events to submit the Space Reservation Request Form. Small events and meetings, which are events with 1-49 attendees, are supposed to request a space 10 business days in advance. They are not, however, required to submit a request to the University Event Registration committee.

Blundell said Friends of Kinsey did not fill out the Space Reservation Request Form. However, Blundell, Moscovici and Hille point to a different section titled Demonstrations and counterdemonstrations, which they say implies a reservation is not necessary.

While not required, students are encouraged to reserve appropriate space and seek event approval through the UERC process to help ensure public health, and to gain access to helpful infrastructure such as stages and sound equipment, the page reads.

The page does not outline procedures for unofficial student organizations.

The page also specifically mentions Sample Gates as a location available for expressive activity. There is no mention of tabling being prohibited at Sample Gates tabling is referenced as an example of a small event.

Moscovici said Waggoners behavior was unacceptable, regardless of the policies.

I was maybe expecting some locals or students who had heard misinformation arguing with me or something, but I was not expecting a professional at IU to do that, Moscovici said.

In her statement, Moscovici also said she believes Waggoner infringed on her free speech rights as a student at IU.

It is my hope that, in the future, I and other students at IU will be able to voice our opinions and advocate for important causes on campus without fear of retaliation, the statement read.

The rally comes after several controversies on campus.

Hille said although Kinsey Institute students have been brave acting on behalf of the institute, they shouldnt have to face this kind of opposition.

Our grad students have been wonderful and incredibly brave in light of whats been going on and the sort of opposition that Kinseys been facing, Hille said. And from a policy standpoint, Im concerned that something like this would have a chilling effect on students ability to exercise their rights to free speech on campus.

Waggoner did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

The encounter on February 13 was the result of a miscommunication regarding tabling policies in certain areas on campus, an IU spokesperson said in an email. IU encourages the civil and free exchange of ideas. Our freedom of speech policy is available at freespeech.iu.edu.

See the rest here:
Kinsey student says IU administrator infringed on free speech rights at demonstration - Indiana Daily Student