Category Archives: Free Speech

(Photo by Ian Gavan/Getty Images)

This shouldnt need to be said, but The Simpsons is satire. It often makes fun of people. In a recent episode it sorta, kinda mocked the singer Morrissey, as most of the episode was about Lisas obsession with a band called the Snuffs and its moody lead singer Quilloughby (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch). It was pretty clearly satirizing Morissey, and exaggerating a bunch of character traits many people associate with Morrissey, and mixing in some stereotypical character traits associated with washed up old rock stars. I can understand why some people might not like being gently mocked on a popular TV show, though I think some well adjusted folks might recognize that even being relevant enough to be mocked on The Simpons is probably a nice nod towards your cultural relevance, but apparently not Morrissey.

After his manager got all pissy and accused the show ofbeing racistfor its portrayal of Morrissey (?!?). Morrissey himself then posted a bizarre rantsaying he wanted to sueand that theres no free speech any more and none of it makes any sense at all.

This is my first comment (and hopefully my last) on The Simpsons episode which I know has enraged many people. The hatred shown towards me from the creators of The Simpsons is obviously a taunting lawsuit, but one that requires more funding than I could possibly muster in order to make a challenge. Neither do I have a determined business squad of legal practitioners ready to pounce. I think this is generally understood and is the reason why I am so carelessly and noisily attacked.

For what its worth, Morrisseydoeshave a decently extensivehistory of litigationover mentions of him in the mediahe disagreed with so, uh, the idea that people would think they could attack him because he wont sue is already almost certainly not true. Hehasa history of suing. So, if anything that seems more likely to create chilling effects around anyone talking about him.

But, I guess were sort of leaping over the larger point here:sue over what? Its a satire. They dont even call the character Morrissey. There isno legal basis for any kind of lawsuit. Especially in the US where The Simpsons is made. What possible violation of the law is there in lightly mocking the concept of an aging rock star? And how fucking huge of an ego must you have to think that thats something you can sue over?

But, his comment gets even dumber.

In a world obsessed with Hate Laws, there are none that protect me.

Um. Yeah, sorry, but no hate laws any where are designed to protect the flailing egos of aging rock stars from being gently satirized on a popular TV show. If you think thats what hate laws are for then youve got some serious ego problems.

Anyway, forgive me, we all know this because we can see how music and the world in general, has become a mesmerizing mess, and we must let it go spinning along unbearably because free speech no longer exists. We all know this.

Wait, what? How does this even make any sense. Free speech no longer exists because you cant sue a TV show for satirizing someone kinda like you for hate speech? Its a weird sort of brain that complains about a lack of free speech just sentences after whining about how you cant sue someone for their speech.

Everyone reacts to being mocked in different ways, but whining about how you want to sue to silence people, while simultaneously claiming theres no more free speech seems dumber than most options out there.

Morrissey Thinks Free Speech No Longer Exists Because He Cant Sue The Simpsons For Satirizing Him

More Law-Related Stories From Techdirt:

Wyden-Backed Bill Would Make It Illegal For Government To Obtain Location Data Without A WarrantCaptive Markets Are Just Hostages; Or Why Your McDonalds Never Seems To Have A Functioning Shake MachineLaw Enforcement Officials Confirm Clearviews Facial Recognition Tech Is Mostly Useless

Read more from the original source:
Morrissey Thinks Free Speech No Longer Exists Because He Cant Sue The Simpsons For Satirizing Him - Above the Law

A new party in this years elections has said political correctness has become suffocating and aims to stop cancel culture.

Rebecca Robb, 26, is standing for the Heritage Party in Louth South ward in the Lincolnshire County Council elections in May.

She spoke to reporters alongside party leader and London Mayoral candidateDavid Kurten at a campaign event in Louth on Wednesday, April 21.

She said: [Im standing] because there isnt a party currently that reflects my views and I didnt see anyone standing for an alternative party. I want to be the person to stand up for people who do have different ideas.

Nationally, the party said it stands for liberty, low immigration and preserving the environment.

It calls for the end to lockdown, politically-correct policing, divisive identity politics such as Black Lives Matter and radical feminism and cancel culture.

The murder of George Floyd by Derek Chauvin in America last year sparked riots and demonstrations all over the world including calls for reforms and accusations of institutional racism.

Chauvin was this week found guilty on three charges: second-degree murder, third-degree murder and manslaughter, which BLM campaigners have claimed as a victory in their fight for equality.

The Heritage Party promotes the protection of freedom of speech, the rejection of vaccine passports and traditional family values including being pro-life.

Marriage, they say, is between a man and a woman and LGBT relationship and sex education shouldnt be taught in schools.

Gay marriage has been legal since 2014, while from September 2020, all secondary schools in England have been required to teach LGBT-inclusive RSE.

There are 30 Heritage Party candidates across the country in this years local elections. Leader David Kurten is in the running to be London Mayor.

Visiting Louth on Wednesday, Mr Kurten said: Political correctness has grown and grown and grown, and its become suffocating.

You have people being no platformed because they have the wrong opinions, not politically correct opinions.

People are actually being thrown out of their jobs, some people are getting pursued by the police for having the wrong opinions or making a joke on the internet.

We think thats absolutely wrong and we need to restore free speech and a bit of sanity in that area.

He said terms such as racist or homophobic speech were trigger words.

If someone tells a joke or something, and its not harassing or abusing a specific individual person, they should be allowed to tell that joke.

Rebecca is originally from Mablethorpe and moved to Louth three years ago in order to access better schools for her children.

Louths a nice quiet little town to bring up our children and thats why Id like to keep it a nice area not just for us but for our children so they have a good future.

Her aims as a candidate will be to get businesses to re-open following the last year and fight a further lockdown, to get the council to take more responsibility over tackling litter and fly-tipping in the town, including increasing bin collections, rather than relying on volunteers.

She has also suggested a net for Louth Canal to keep it clean, moving a zebra crossing on St Bernards Avenue further up to increase safety, turning streetlights back on and more community policing. She said she would lobby the government for the reinstatement of the East Lincolnshire railway.

She agreed with her party boss though: Political correctness has just gone gone too far, we dont need these radical groups to bring us together and I think, actually, if we focused on treating each other based on character rather than our skin colour or our background, you would get along much better.

Rebecca will be running against incumbent Independent Sarah Parkin, who in 2017 ran won under the Labour banner taking 40.8% of the vote. This time shes been replaced by her party with Ros Jackson.

Fellow indy Jill Makinson-Sanders was second place last time round with 27.9% of the vote, while Terry Taylor will be hoping to do better than his predecessor Chris Greens 26.4% tally.

Protest parties UKIP and the BNP came last in 2017 with 3.4% and 1.5% of the vote respectively.

Spotted an error? Please notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

More here:
New Heritage Party: 'In with free speech, out with BLM and LGBTQ education' - The Lincolnite

The state Capitol building in Olympia. (Getty Images)

Sen. Mike Paddens (R-Spokane Valley) measure to help protect citizens and whistleblowers and members of the press from frivolous lawsuits will become law, a measure which many believe bolsters free speech rights. The bill essentially reinstates these Anti-SLAPP protections, SLAPP standing for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Well, the state Supreme Court in a case called Davis v. Cox ruled our previous Anti-SLAPP law unconstitutional, and that was about four years ago. And weve been trying ever since to get something through this year, Padden told the Jason Rantz Show on KTTH.

Washington Senator: Phase 2 rollback is Inslee enacting his full authority that we seceded to him

This year we had the benefit of the uniform law commission suggesting a uniform bill that was the starter, and then its made its way through the legislative process and just yesterday was sent off to the governor. So its been approved by the House and then its up to the governor. Hopefully he will sign it.

What is an Anti-SLAPP law?

Its basically a way to get into court quickly when a lawsuit has been filed against you to basically harass you for exercising your free speech rights. So its a benefit to activists from the right or the left, he said.

Its a way to get into court quickly, get these so-called frivolous lawsuits aimed to impinge on your free speech rights, and get them thrown out of court and get reasonable attorneys fees and costs for doing so, he continued.

State lawmaker introduces bill to provide legal counsel to victims of violent crimes

As Jason noted, the bill could apply protections to situations when a whistleblower points out wrongdoing with a company, at which point the corporation sues in a frivolous way, essentially to stop that person from speaking out, since the person cant afford to fight back against the corporation.

Right, it could be a corporation, it could be very wealthy individuals that are on the other side of of the issue, Padden responded. I think it really should help everybody whos interested in free speech and not being harassed by somebody that has more resources to just try to shut you up.

Listen to the Jason Rantz Show weekday afternoons from 3 6 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (or HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to thepodcast here.

Continued here:
New bill from state Republican should help everybody interested in free speech - MyNorthwest.com

Volokh is a professor of law at UCLA School of Law. He lives in Los Angeles. Goldstein is a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He lives in Virginia.

University of San Diego Law School professor Thomas Smith is facing calls for his firing. His offense: a blog post that characterized defenders of Chinas coronavirus response as swallowing so much Chinese ---- swaddle.

His critics are characterizing this as a racial slur, and the law schools dean appears to be agreeing. They are wrong, but worse, this reaction chills the ability to criticize governments around the world.

We provide this platform for community commentary free of charge. Thank you to all the Union-Tribune subscribers whose support makes our journalism possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider becoming one today.

The title of Smiths post is about China, and the quote refers four times to China in ways that unambiguously reference the government. Though the word Chinese can refer to the government, the nation or the ethnic group, here the referent is clear. If there had been any ambiguity, Smith later added a note reinforcing the ordinary reading of his words: I was referring to the Chinese government.

And yet, Dean Robert Shapiro wrote a letter to the University of San Diego Law School community where he described Smiths phrase as offensive language in reference to people from China. Indeed, Smith is now apparently being investigated for possible violations of law school policies. But Smith was no more referencing the Chinese people writ large than criticism of the Israeli government would be in reference to people from Israel.

Smiths speech is protected by state law, which prohibits even private employers from attempting to coerce or influence employees to follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. And the California Supreme Court has made clear that political activity includes espousal of a cause. In the leading precedent, that activity included support for gay rights, but the precedents logic equally applies to opposing the Chinese government.

To say speech is protected as a matter of law is merely a starting point. Smiths speech must be protected as a matter of academic freedom, social mores, and a culture of liberty. We must always have the right to forcefully criticize governments American, Chinese, Israeli, Russian, Saudi or whatever else.

Such freedom of criticism is necessary so that we can help influence our own governments internal behavior. Its necessary so that we can help influence our own governments behavior towards other governments. Its necessary so that we can figure out the perils that these governments might be posing, to us, to their own citizens, or to their neighbors.

Governments are powerful, important institutions. As with any other powerful institutions, they can only be controlled if subjected to constant discussion, evaluation and criticism.

Of course, governments are also associated with people: their employees, their citizens, and often people who share an ethnic background with the government. Because of this, some suggest that such harsh condemnation of the Chinese government might increase the risk of hate crimes against Asians.

But while hate crimes are obviously wrong, it would be no triumph of human rights to insulate dictators from criticism if they have the good fortune to share an ethnicity with a domestic minority group. And if we adopt such a principle that criticism of the powerful must be prohibited if readers might be inflamed to commit crimes that would equally justify prohibiting criticism of police, the Congress or the courts, all of whom have been subjected to both harsh criticism and physical attack within the last year.

To the extent people who feel some connection to China find Smiths speech offensive, that is no basis for the university to prohibit such speech, or chill it with an investigation. And whatever one might say about the vulgarity of the post our best guess is that it stemmed from an inadvertent mashup of codswallop or cock-and-bull story its clear that the University of San Diego isnt (and shouldnt be) trying to implement an evenhanded no-vulgar-posts rule.

To preserve our ability to criticize governments, we must be careful not to assume that all criticism of a government stems from bigotry against an ethnic group. When the speech is mistaken, or when a particular criticism is demonstrably based on racial or ethnic hostility, or when a government is being unfairly faulted for behavior in which other governments engage, that should be pointed out, in a substantive response. But we shouldnt just categorically assert that Chinese, even when it clearly refers to China, is somehow inherently a bigoted term.

And the University of San Diego should end its investigation of professor Smith, and recommit itself to principles of academic freedom and a culture of free speech.

Originally posted here:
Opinion: A USD law professor is under investigation. Instead, his right to free speech must be protected. - The San Diego Union-Tribune

In a win for free speech, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court ruling in order to protect a professor that had been punished for using a students first and last name rather than using opposite-sex pronouns, due to the professors beliefs about gender.

This ruling correctly identifies the constitutionally protected right to freely express your beliefs and the freedom not to say something you disagree with without fear of losing your job, says Randall Wenger, Chief Counsel for the Independence Law Center. As the Court said, Our universities traditionally have been beacons of intellectual diversity and academic freedom, and rightly so. This ruling simply affirms that tradition.

Dr. Nicolas Meriwether, a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University, was punished by the university because he declined a male students demand to be referred to as a woman, with feminine titles and feminine pronouns. Dr. Meriwether offered to use the students first or last name, but the public university in Ohio and the student demanded the professor speak and act contrary to his philosophical and religious convictions. The university formally charged him with creating a hostile work environment, placed a written warning in his personnel file and threatened further corrective actions unless he articulated the universitys ideological message.

The Independence Law Center represented amici curiae parties, numerous academics in philosophy, theology, law, political science, and medicine, by filing an amici brief on their behalf supporting Dr. Meriwether. The brief explains some of the problems with applying gender identity in this context and argues that professors have the right to free speech on issues of public importance such as the nature of sex. Public universities shouldnt force teachers to endorse a belief with which they disagree.

Original post:
Professor wins appeal in defense of right to free speech in public university classrooms - huntingdondailynews.com

The issue of free speech in universities continues to plague UK campuses. Earlier this year, the government announced landmark proposals to tackle the issue, including appointing a free speech tsar and giving the Office for Students powers to sanction institutions deemed to be doing too little to promote free speech and academic freedom.

But hot-button issues from perceived transphobia to Islamophobia continue to plague university campuses and its not clear the governments plans will do much to help.

Some of the proposals replicate existing legal requirements on universities. Others, like the proposal to extend free speech requirements to student unions, would have a much bigger impact because it would prevent unions from denying platforms to people with lawful views that they dont like.

But perhaps the biggest consequence of these plans is how theyll affect the sectors reputation. Far from restoring confidence in universities, its likely this intervention will just inflame longstanding moral outrage about universities failing to be bastions of liberal democracy. As we argue in our new book, Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, Charities and Counter-terrorism, theres a popular binary narrative that accuses universities and students either of unfairly restricting legitimate free speech, or of giving too much freedom to extremists (particularly Muslim ones).

Indeed, according to a 2019 poll by Theos, the religion and society think tank, 52% of adults think that free speech is under threat in universities, and 29% think that Islamic extremism is common on campus. Neither assumption is accurate. According to the Office for Students, in 2017-18 only a tiny number of referrals (15) were made by English universities to Prevent, the deradicalisation programme. In the same year, out of 62,094 requests for external speakers, only 53 were rejected. High-profile incidents of student no-platforming do not reflect the huge number of speaker events which go ahead every year unimpeded.

Story continues

Though free speech isnt in a major crisis on campus, that doesnt mean there arent issues that should be taken seriously. Survey evidence suggests that a significant minority of right-leaning students feel unable to express their views as freely as they would like on campus. As our research shows, there are structural factors which push universities and student unions towards being cautious.

One of those issues is the Prevent Duty, the requirement on universities to identify people at risk of radicalisation into terrorism and to report them to the authorities. Prevent relies on ordinary, untrained people to spot radicalisation. This means that many, particularly those with socially conservative views, are at risk of being wrongly labelled extremists.

A major project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, looks at free speech in relation to Islam and the experiences of Muslims on campus. Led by Alison Scott-Baumann in 2015-18, over half of the 253 students and staff (Muslim and non-Muslim) who were interviewed commented negatively about Prevent or described it as chilling free speech. Some said they needed to self-censor in order to avoid arousing false suspicion of extremism.

Charity law (which affects student unions because theyre considered charities) can also inhibit speech on campus. As student unions have been regulated by the Charity Commission since 2010, the law requires unions to ensure their activities dont risk damaging their reputations. Charity Commission guidance also requires charities, including unions, to be cautious about or even avoid hosting views that, though controversial, might fall well below the criminal threshold.

Our interviews with student union managers in 2016-17 found that some have felt forced to be wary, turning down requests for potentially controversial (though lawful) speakers in fear of breaching charity law. One manager described these charity law requirements as clipping our wings on free speech and making him risk-averse regarding speakers: I say no more than yes these days, its disappointing.

We also found that, while the Charity Commission is generally a light-touch regulator, when it has intervened it has pushed some student unions to avoid controversial speakers. The governments proposal to make student unions subject to the free speech legal requirement fails to address the fact that charity law would continue to push them in the opposite direction.

University managers need to respond to these structural issues. In terms of Prevent specifically, there should be transparent, regular dialogue with Muslim students and staff to help address any concerns about the programme. Managers should also encourage student unions to be bold and host controversial speakers if theyre requested, rather than being unnecessarily cautious.

But beyond this, universities should be far more proactive in creating opportunities for students in all disciplines to engage in rigorous debate about relevant controversial issues. Our book explains how lecturers can create a community of inquiry in the classroom a space for frank debate, where participants agree ground rules at the outset and thus take ownership of the debating process.

Finally, universities need to push back against the damaging narratives that undermine their reputation. This in part means better explaining how theyre handling free speech and difficult debate. Rather than the simplistic choice between more or less free speech, we argue there are in fact four options:

libertarian (where there are no constraints at all on language or content as long as both are lawful);

liberal (where free speech on any topic is upheld as far as lawfully possible, but the most offensive language is avoided);

guarded liberal (where some restrictions may be in place); and,

no-platforming (where particular ideas or speakers are denied a platform).

Universities should take the liberal approach by default, although it might occasionally be reasonable to use different approaches for particularly controversial topics. Either way, by using this model flexibly and transparently in conversations with event organisers, universities can explain which approach they have used and why.

Only through university-led reforms like these can we address the issues chilling speech on campus. The governments sanctions-heavy approach will achieve little apart from fostering more needless outrage.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Conversation

Alison Scott-Baumann has received funding from AHRC.

Simon Perfect is a Researcher at Theos, the religion and society think tank.

Continue reading here:
Free speech on campus: universities need to create 'safe but critical' spaces for debate here's how they can do it - Yahoo Eurosport UK

CNNs Jake Tapper drew quite a reaction with a recent tweet about a British regulatory agency investigating comments made by television personality Piers Morgan.

This is what happens when you live in a country where there is no First Amendment, he wrote. Insanity.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy, a journalist on Britains Channel 4 News, took exception.

Not insanity, he wrote. A democratic choice to have broadcast media regulated with a duty to be fair and duly impartial. It stops TV from taking sides to support or oppose things the way you do in America and upholds a code of standards.

Morgans remarks came in response to Oprah Winfreys interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Morgan said he was skeptical of Markles claim that she had been turned down by people in the royal institution when she asked for help in dealing with thoughts of suicide.

Who did you go to? Morgan demanded. What did they say to you? Im sorry, I dont believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldnt believe it if she read me a weather report.

Tappers tweet included a link to a Variety story reporting that Britains Office of Communication, better known as Ofcom, had received more than 40,000 complaints about Morgans comments by 2 p.m. the next day.

We have launched an investigation into Mondays episode of Good Morning Britain under our harm and offence rules, an agency spokesperson told the publication.

Like any good champion of free speech, Tapper was beside himself.

Governments should have no role in policing news broadcasts, he wrote. You can tweet Piers what you think of his comments. Thats not what this is about.

Iesha Mae Thomas, social media producer for a country radio station in London, had a different take.

Jake, honey, do your research, she tweeted. Were perfectly fine without a First Amendment. (And Ofcom isnt the government.) Part of the problem, Tapper later acknowledged, could be summed up by the old saw that the United States and Britain are two countries separated by a common language. We use the same words, but those words dont necessarily have the same meaning.

Take the word government.

For Tapper, it seemed obvious that a public agency would be considered an arm of the government. For the British, though, a government is more tied to politics. Its what a prime minister forms after putting together a majority in Parliament. The word is used in a way similar to the way Americans use the word administration.

On its website, Ofcom describes itself as an independent agency funded through fees paid by the companies it regulates. The agency has broad responsibility. It oversees all types of communication, including not just radio and television, but also broadband, telephone services and even mail delivery.

British citizens responding to Tapper suggested that the real insanity was in an American system where news operations broadcast lies with near impunity.

OAN wouldnt last five minutes here, one said, referring to the Donald Trump allies at One America News Network.

Neither would MSNBC, another shot back.

For Guru-Murthy, putting oversight of broadcast news outlets into the hands of a nonpartisan agency only makes sense.

The alternative is TV news that can mislead, manipulate and lie without consequence acting as cheerleaders for politicians, helping grow division and conspiracy theories with the only regulator being the commercial market, he tweeted. To many Brits, thats dangerous and undesirable.

Hyunsu Yim, business reporter for the Korea Herald, said its not just the British who look askance at the American model.

Its really hard to emphasize and get it through to Americans sometimes, he tweeted, but most countries are NOT envious of Americas no-holds-barred approach to freedom which seems like pure chaos to the rest of the world.

To be honest, it sometimes seems that way to Americans.

Kelly Hawes is a columnist for CNHI newspapers in Indiana. Send comments to editorial@therepublic.com.

Read more:
Is it free speech or a free-for-all? - The Republic

I have never been a big fan of Piers Morgan, but I dont understand why he was forced to quit his show.

Piers Morgan recently criticized Prince Harry and Meghan Markles interview with Oprah Winfrey. In response to Morgans comments, more than 41,000 complaints were filed against Morgan to the Office of Communications (Ofcom).

Its pretty ludicrous that talk show hosts cannot express their opinions in a free society. Personally, I think Morgans comments were very negative toward Markle. Morgan was friends with her briefly and doesnt trust her.

That said, commentators should not be fired for criticizing a public figure, even if some of that criticism arose from a personal dislike.

If people dont like what a pundit is saying, they can change the channel. Any government agency that can punish members of the media for their opinions will ultimately protect the powerful and entrenched at the expense of everyone else.

One of the greatest British journalists of the 20th century was Garreth Jones. In the 1930s, Jones was the first to report about a manmade famine that killed almost 10 million people in the former Soviet Union. Most of the casualties were in the Ukraine, where the 1932-33 famine is known as Holodomor.

Other journalists based in Moscow refused to write any story that was critical of the Soviet government.

One such journalist, Walter Duranty, who was based in Moscow for the New York Times, decided to deliberately lie about Jones.

Duranty wrote an article accusing Jones of writing a big scare story.

In the same article, Duranty wrote: In short, conditions are definitely bad in certain sections the Ukraine, North Caucasus and Lower Volga. The rest of the country is on short rations but nothing worse. These conditions are bad, but there is no famine.

While Durantys brand of journalism resulted in him having a nice apartment, a mistress and international prestige, Jones was condemned as a liar.

In 1935, Jones was murdered under mysterious circumstances.

While reporting in Japanese-occupied Manchuria as a foreign correspondent, Jones and a German journalist were captured by a group of thieves. They demanded a ransom. The German journalist was released while Jones was killed.

While the level of Soviet involvement in Jones death is unclear, further investigation indicated that a Chinese contact for Jones and his German colleague loaned them a car to drive into Mongolia.

This Chinese contact is now believed to have been a Soviet NKVD agent.

Jones chose to tell the truth while Duranty publicly attacked Jones character and his reporting.

If we dont oppose the idea of journalists cozying up to powerful people, some of these journalists will eventually give in to the temptation of preserving their status at the expense of exposing the truth.

If Ofcom can take down a journalist as powerful as Morgan, other journalists will fall in line with what the UK government wants.

That is what happened with Duranty in the Soviet Union. There must be zero tolerance for this dangerous dynamic.

In 1990 and 2003, the survivors of the manmade famine and their descendants fought two unsuccessful campaigns to force the Pulitzer Board to revoke Durantys Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times refused to support either campaign.

In 2003, the Pulitzer Prize Board claimed that no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deceptionwas found in Durantys reporting from 1931. If only it were so.

The New York Times conceded two very important points in 2003 in an official statement regarding Duranty.

First, they pointed out that Durantys cabled dispatches had to pass Soviet censorship, and Stalins propaganda machine was powerful and omnipresent.

In other words, Duranty had to comply with Soviet censorship at all times.

The second concession in that official statement was even more chilling: Since the 1980s, the paper has been publicly acknowledging his failures.

In other words, for decades the New York Times refused to publicly acknowledge Durantys duplicity in the 1930s.

It was only after the publication of Robert Conquests book Harvest of Sorrow in 1986 that the truth could no longer be denied. Although the New York Times has criticized Durantys articles, the paper still refuses to join the campaign to revoke Durantys Pulitzer Prize. For instance, as late as October 2017, Bret Stephens wrote a review in his column about Anne Applebaums book about the Holodomor.

Stephens notes that Durantys coverage of the Soviet Union was extremely misleading, but his column does not suggest that his Pulitzer be revoked.

Stephens then ponders: How many readers, I wonder, are familiar with this history of atrocity and denial, except in a vague way?

For understandable reasons, he chose not to consider the possibility that maybe the reason people know so little about this famine, or the cover-up, is because of Durantys articles in the New York Times denying its very existence.

In her book Red Famine, Anne Applebaum points out that Duranty was not the only one to engage in this deception. Applebaum quoted William Henry Chamberlin, who was correspondent in Moscow for the Christian Science Monitor. Chamberlin explained that any journalist whose articles did not comply with Moscows wishes works under a Sword of Damoclesthe threat of expulsion from the country or of the refusal of permission to re-enter it, which of course amounts to the same thing.

Applebaum also quoted Eugene Lyons, who was the United Press (now United Press International) correspondent in Moscow from 1928-1934:

The truth is that we did not seek corroboration for the simple reason that we entertained no doubts on the subject. There are facts too large to require eyewitness confirmationThere was no more need for investigation to establish the mere existence of the Russian famine than investigation to establish the existence of the American depression. Inside Russia the matter was not disputed.

It is time for the New York Times to demand that Durantys Pulitzer Prize be revoked. Jones and millions of Ukrainians died while Duranty and other journalists benefited from this lie.

While I doubt media censorship in Britain or the United States will ever reach Soviet levels, recent journalistic trends in both countries are highly troubling.

Whether it is the overreaching of Ofcom, or the willful lack of objectivity and accuracy that has become so common in American newsrooms, we must fight for freedom of speech at every opportunity.

Robert Zapesochny is a researcher and writer whose work focuses on foreign affairs, national security and presidential history. He has been published in numerous outlets, including The American Spectator, the Washington Times, and The American Conservative. When hes not writing, Robert works for a medical research company in New York. Read Robert Zapesochnys Reports More Here.

2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

View post:
Lessons on Free Speech from the Soviet Union - KKOH

Political speech in the United States is generally unfettered, with historically strong legal protections. Contrast that with the broader limitations that public colleges and universities may place on the expression of non-faculty employees, especially in the workplace. Sitting somewhere in between political speech and the limitations on employee speech is the freedom of expression rights of faculty members as encompassed by academic freedom, particularly in the classroom.

Historically, the classroom has been the domain of the faculty member, providing them a pulpit to impart information and knowledge to students, often through provocative stories or language. However, a faculty members right to engage in expression that may be offensive or even provoke anger or discomfort is not without boundaries. In fact, there are multiple and often conflicting standards that address acceptable in-classroom expression.

Faculty members will frequently assert their rights to freedom of expression in their classroom under the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Declaration of Principles (1915). This Declaration was modified in 1940 to state that, Teachers are entitled to full freedom of research and in the publication of the results, and Freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject . However, this Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (1940) further cautioned that, [teachers] should be careful not to introduce into the teaching controversial matter which has no other relation to their subject. The U.S. Supreme Court has never fully accepted the term academic freedom as defined by the AAUP as a legal right. In fact, the landmark Supreme Court decision, Sweezy v. New Hampshire (354 U.S. 263, 1957), recognizes academic freedom as a First Amendment right of the institution, not of the individual faculty member.

The legal philosophy of in loco parentis gave administrators and faculty broad latitude to act in the place of a parent. Since the courts started to shift away from in loco parentis in the 1970s, the concept of academic freedom held solely by a faculty member in the classroom has been challenged by students more frequently.

For example:

Academic freedom remains an important protection for faculty and for students. While limitations on faculty expression in the public university classroom are few, the expression may not create a hostile learning environment that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive; the speech or expression must be germane to the subject matter being taught, have a nexus to the course material, and advance a legitimate academic purpose.

While offensive, provocative speech in the academic setting will likely always be a challenge to institutions, they must strive to balance the rights of free speech with the schools interest in preserving a vigorous learning environment. In many cases, the institution feels compelled to react because of outcry about the speech, but the initial inclination often comes off as overreaction, at least legally.

To calibrate the appropriate response, it will often make sense to consult general counsel, or outside counsel with specific free speech expertise, such as TNG. For further reading on free speech in the higher educations setting, you may be interested in our previous blog post.

See more here:
Crossing the Line: The Challenges of Addressing University Faculty Free Speech - JD Supra

The issue of free speech in universities continues to plague UK campuses. Earlier this year, the government announced landmark proposals to tackle the issue, including appointing a free speech tsar and giving the Office for Students powers to sanction institutions deemed to be doing too little to promote free speech and academic freedom.

But hot-button issues from perceived transphobia to Islamophobia continue to plague university campuses and its not clear the governments plans will do much to help.

Some of the proposals replicate existing legal requirements on universities. Others, like the proposal to extend free speech requirements to student unions, would have a much bigger impact because it would prevent unions from denying platforms to people with lawful views that they dont like.

But perhaps the biggest consequence of these plans is how theyll affect the sectors reputation. Far from restoring confidence in universities, its likely this intervention will just inflame longstanding moral outrage about universities failing to be bastions of liberal democracy. As we argue in our new book, Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, Charities and Counter-terrorism, theres a popular binary narrative that accuses universities and students either of unfairly restricting legitimate free speech, or of giving too much freedom to extremists (particularly Muslim ones).

Indeed, according to a 2019 poll by Theos, the religion and society think tank, 52% of adults think that free speech is under threat in universities, and 29% think that Islamic extremism is common on campus. Neither assumption is accurate. According to the Office for Students, in 2017-18 only a tiny number of referrals (15) were made by English universities to Prevent, the deradicalisation programme. In the same year, out of 62,094 requests for external speakers, only 53 were rejected. High-profile incidents of student no-platforming do not reflect the huge number of speaker events which go ahead every year unimpeded.

Though free speech isnt in a major crisis on campus, that doesnt mean there arent issues that should be taken seriously. Survey evidence suggests that a significant minority of right-leaning students feel unable to express their views as freely as they would like on campus. As our research shows, there are structural factors which push universities and student unions towards being cautious.

One of those issues is the Prevent Duty, the requirement on universities to identify people at risk of radicalisation into terrorism and to report them to the authorities. Prevent relies on ordinary, untrained people to spot radicalisation. This means that many, particularly those with socially conservative views, are at risk of being wrongly labelled extremists.

A major project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, looks at free speech in relation to Islam and the experiences of Muslims on campus. Led by Alison Scott-Baumann in 2015-18, over half of the 253 students and staff (Muslim and non-Muslim) who were interviewed commented negatively about Prevent or described it as chilling free speech. Some said they needed to self-censor in order to avoid arousing false suspicion of extremism.

Charity law (which affects student unions because theyre considered charities) can also inhibit speech on campus. As student unions have been regulated by the Charity Commission since 2010, the law requires unions to ensure their activities dont risk damaging their reputations. Charity Commission guidance also requires charities, including unions, to be cautious about or even avoid hosting views that, though controversial, might fall well below the criminal threshold.

Our interviews with student union managers in 2016-17 found that some have felt forced to be wary, turning down requests for potentially controversial (though lawful) speakers in fear of breaching charity law. One manager described these charity law requirements as clipping our wings on free speech and making him risk-averse regarding speakers: I say no more than yes these days, its disappointing.

We also found that, while the Charity Commission is generally a light-touch regulator, when it has intervened it has pushed some student unions to avoid controversial speakers. The governments proposal to make student unions subject to the free speech legal requirement fails to address the fact that charity law would continue to push them in the opposite direction.

University managers need to respond to these structural issues. In terms of Prevent specifically, there should be transparent, regular dialogue with Muslim students and staff to help address any concerns about the programme. Managers should also encourage student unions to be bold and host controversial speakers if theyre requested, rather than being unnecessarily cautious.

But beyond this, universities should be far more proactive in creating opportunities for students in all disciplines to engage in rigorous debate about relevant controversial issues. Our book explains how lecturers can create a community of inquiry in the classroom a space for frank debate, where participants agree ground rules at the outset and thus take ownership of the debating process.

Finally, universities need to push back against the damaging narratives that undermine their reputation. This in part means better explaining how theyre handling free speech and difficult debate. Rather than the simplistic choice between more or less free speech, we argue there are in fact four options:

Universities should take the liberal approach by default, although it might occasionally be reasonable to use different approaches for particularly controversial topics. Either way, by using this model flexibly and transparently in conversations with event organisers, universities can explain which approach they have used and why.

Only through university-led reforms like these can we address the issues chilling speech on campus. The governments sanctions-heavy approach will achieve little apart from fostering more needless outrage.

Read the original:
Free speech on campus: universities need to create 'safe but critical' spaces for debate here's how they can do it - The Conversation UK