Category Archives: Free Speech

Members of the Trump family, including Donald Trump as well as his son Donald Trump Jr., short-circuit on Twitter as news of Trump's impeachment trial goes public. These types of meltdowns seem to be a daily occurrence.

The David Pakman Showis a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out TDPS on FSTV VOD anytime or visit theshow pagefor the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTVis one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available onDish,DirectTV, AppleTV,Roku,Slingand online atfreespeech.org.

David Pakman Donald Trump Donald Trump Jr. Free Speech TV Impeachment Trial The David Pakman Show Trump Family

Excerpt from:
The David Pakman Show Trump Family Short-Circuits on Twitter Over Impeachment Trial Trump Family Short - Free Speech TV

The Free Speech Movement Caf inside Moffitt Library will celebrate its 20th anniversary Jan. 24 by giving away coffee and other goodies. (Photo by Cade Johnson for the UC Berkeley Library)

Free coffee.

As anyone who has attended a so-early-its-still-dark-out class or work function can certainly attest, there are scarcely two words in the English language that perk up a morning crowd more than those.

A fitting way to end the first week of classes, UC Berkeleys Free Speech Movement Caf, at Moffitt Library, will be slinging free java (and other goodies) on Friday, Jan. 24. Why? Well, on that date, the cafe a tribute to activism at Berkeley is turning 20.

What drinks will be free?And when can you grab a cup?

Heres what you need to know about this glorious day.

Festivities will include a giveaway of 20th anniversary T-shirts (from 8 a.m. to noon) and the chance to spin a wheel for prizes, including gift cards good at the Free Speech Movement Caf, Press (outside of Moffitts fourth floor), Caff Strada, Free House Restaurant, Caf Zeb (at the law school), Caf Think (at the business school), and the I-House Caf (at the International House).

Then theres the free coffee.

From 8 a.m. until noon, the cafe will be serving coffee gratis, according to Daryl Ross, the cafes owner (and a Cal alum who graduated in 1985). The event is similar to last years 30th anniversary celebration at Caff Strada, which Ross also runs.

All coffee drinks (in all sizes) will be free. Yes, all this includes drip coffee and all espresso-based drinks. So youre in luck, whether you favor an Americano, mocha, latte, the house drip, or any of the cafes other coffee offerings. If you need a pick-me-up after the long winter break, a Spider (a coffee with a shot of espresso) might do the trick.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with Berkeley knows that it is the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement, which gripped the campus in 1964. The Free Speech Movement Caf, which opened in January of 2000, pays tribute to that legacy. Inside the cafe, the walls are embedded with memories of the movement and its de facto leader, Mario Savio.

As a Cal student in the 80s, Ross made a film about Savio, lamenting the changes that had happened since the Free Speech Movement took hold just two decades earlier. (Marios son, Daniel, worked at the cafe for a time, Ross noted.)

I am absolutely privileged to operate the cafe and be a part of the library and the legacy of Cal, Ross said. I am thrilled to be a part of so many students lives at Cal, by exposing them to this great history and to keep them going during their studies.

Elizabeth Dupuis senior associate university librarian and director of many libraries on campus, including Moffitt said the memory of the Free Speech Movement is as alive as ever.

Berkeley student activism and engagement with meaningful issues of our times then free speech, now social justice continues to be a hallmark of our campus, she said. The Library proudly serves as home to the FSM Caf as a reminder of the positive impact that individuals and groups can have in shaping our world.

Plus, she said, its a great place to hang out and sense the spirit of campus.

Read the rest here:
Free coffee? The java will be flowing at the Free Speech Movement Caf's 20th anniversary bonanza. - UC Berkeley Library News

Caged for seeking freedom migrants and refugees in the land of the free. Next, zooming out on the global refugee industry because yes, that too is a booming business. Finally, global droughts, and the fires of human folly; coal scare tactics leading Australia's climate policy and how grassroots climate activists are fighting a massive mining project in the midst of a firestorm.

Act Out! covers the news corporate media won't touch. Stories from the front lines of our movements to fight and build a better world. Act Out! is the brainchild of activist/writer/singer Eleanor Goldfield. Focused on creative and grassroots activism, this weekly show gives updates on activism around the country, focusing on artists and creatives, grassroots actions and how people anywhere can get involved, from tweets to marching in the streets. Watch every Saturday on Free Speech TV or on-demand right here.

Missed an episode? Check out Act Out! on FSTV VOD anytime or visit freespeech.org/show/Act-Out for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

Act Out Act Out! Eleanor Goldfield Austrailian Wildfires coal Immigration Refugees

Read this article:
The Refugee Industry & Australia Is Still Burning Coal The Refugee Industry & Australia - Free Speech TV

Tamim Ansary, the acclaimed and award-winning author of West of Kabul, East of New York, Destiny Disrupted, and Games Without Rules. His new book is called The Invention of Yesterday: A 50,000 Year History of Human Culture, Conflict, and Connection.

Rising Up with Sonali is an all-women run radio and a television show that brings progressive news coverage rooted in gender and racial justice to a wide audience. Rising Up With Sonali was built on the foundation of Sonali Kolhatkar's earlier show, Uprising, which became the longest-running drive-time radio show on KPFK in Los Angeles hosted by a woman. RUS airs on Free Speech TV every weekday.

Missed an episode? Check outRising Up with Sonali on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

Conflict Free Speech TV Human Culture Rising Up with Sonali

View original post here:
A 50,000 Year History of Human Culture, Conflict, and Connection - Free Speech TV

Speech has never been freer than it was in this decade. But only if you take a broad view of what free speech means, and only if you look at the right parts of the decade.

There is an argument that says free speech isn't just a matter of stopping direct government censorship, nor of keeping the state from indirectly chilling what we say. True freedom of expression, the theory goes, requires a broader culture of free speecha society where art, information, and commentary face fewer restraints of all kinds, not just the restraints that have the government's guns behind them.

Now, I'm not crazy about conflating the concept of free speech with those bigger, messier social questions. But they are undeniably linkeda culture hostile to open expression is surely more likely to pass legal limits on speechand those big social questions are worth thinking about in their own right. So let's roll with it. If by "free speech" you mean the capacity and willingness to speak, not just a shield from the institutions that could forcibly stop you from speaking, then the early to mid 2010s arguably saw the freest speech in history.

As the decade dawned, it was cheaper and easier than ever before to create and transmit a text, an image, or an audio or video recording. That transmission, in turn, had a bigger chance of reaching an audience. People didn't waste that opportunity: Both the volume and the variety of widely available speech exploded. Whole new media ecosystems appeared. Budding musicians did an end run around the record labels, sketch comics did an end run around cable TV, and YouTube DIYers did an end run around licensed plumbers and repairmen. In the political world, the Overton window widened and a flood of oddball ideological tribes poured insome of them rather unappealing, but that's how it goes with unfettered expression.

That in turn provoked a backlash, and for the last several years we've seen a series of efforts to clamp down on all that uncontrolled chatter. There have been heightened calls for censorship from the left, right, and center, sometimes directed at new sorts of speech (bots, code for printing weaponry) but usually aimed at targets that feel familiar (sex-work talk, terrorist propaganda, hate speech, marchers wearing masks), sometimes so familiar that they're moldy (pornography, Russian subversion). Beyond that, there was a broader feeling of brittleness around all that unfamiliar or unpleasant expression; even critics who would never call for censorship sometimes went overboard when attributing ill effects to speech they disliked. Meanwhile, the biggest conduit for all those emerging ecosystems of expressionthe internetseemed to be growing not just more censored but more centralized, more surveilled, more controlled. That was true not just in purely online spaces but in the dissident movements that at times use cyberspace to organize and communicate. Around the world, it became clear that it wasn't just protesters who were imitating and adapting each other's tactics; the regimes that they were protesting watched and learned from each other too.

All of that raises the question: Did we just witness Peak Free Speech? Will the first half of this decade be remembered not just as a time when speech was less fettered than ever before but as a time when it was less fettered than it will ever be again?

Freedom vs. Tolerance

I may have rushed too quickly past the question of what a "culture of free speech" is supposed to be. It's not a term that everyone uses the same way. The people who throw around that phrase often claim, or at least assume, that certain sorts of speech are more conducive to open expression than others. Some of them suggest that speech should be more civil; others think it ought to be more oppositional. Most of them want the speech, or at least the speakers, to be tolerant of other points of view.

But freedom and tolerance simply aren't the same thing. Both are valuable, but they're often going to be in tension with each other.

Civil libertarians need to be clear-eyed about that. Speech has always included gossip, shaming, and other tools for enforcing conformity. In the past those sorts of speech may have been confined to a single village or middle school, but now they have a global reach. Some testy "free speech" debates of the last decade have really just been battles between different collections of culture warriors, each circulating misleading screenshots as they try to shout the other side down. That may look like illiberal intolerance, but it also looks like a lot of lively speech. It's not a sort of speech that I like, but some form of it has always been a part of public life and it isn't likely to go away anytime soon.

The more important issue, at least as far as the future of free speech is concerned, is whether the institutional environment makes it easier or harder for intolerant people to muffle the speech they don't want to hear. And this is where the most significant change happened. From the '70s through the '00s, America's electronic media grew ever more decentralized and participatory. Not so in the '10s, as the social media services that made publishing so quick and easy also brought more of that publishing under consolidated corporate control. The result was the difference between getting kicked off an email list and getting kicked off a social media network: Both may be cases of a private association exercising its right not to give you a platform, but one has a much bigger impact than the other when it comes to whether your voice is heard.

This didn't mean we reverted to the bad old days of just three big TV networks, or even to the 500-channel universe of the late cable era. It was still ludicrously easy by 1990s standards to get a homemade piece of media in front of a substantial audience. But it was also more likely that your homemade media would suddenly be obscured. That might be because you broke a platform's rules; it might be because an algorithm mistook your photo of a nude sculpture for pornography and improperly assumed that you had broken a rule; it might be because you were mass-reported by the sorts of assholes that the rules were supposed to address. (Time and again, a social media company would create a system that was supposed to keep out the bigots and trolls who harass people, only to learn that the bigots and trolls had found a way to turn the system itself into a tool for harassment.) The result was more Brazil than 1984: a control apparatus full of leaks and loose wiring.

Governments encouraged the process, passing mandates that fostered both the proliferation of rules and a sloppy sort of enforcement. Germany, for example, started implementing a law last year that informed platforms that they had just 24 hours to take down "obviously unlawful" hate speech or face a steep fine. Inevitably, this combination of stiff penalties and narrow time windows prompted companies to suppress first and ask questions later, even if that meant excising speech that didn't actually violate the law. (In one infamous example, the nominally anti-racist statute was used to remove some anti-racist satire.) That's bad enough for the Germans, but in a global internet decisions made by the government of Germanyor any other wired nation, from Britain to Chinacan affect what people around the world can see.

Centralized platforms make the task that much easier. As Declan McCullagh wrote in Reason this year, they offer "a single convenient point of control for governments eager to experiment with censorship and surveillance." A culture of freer speech might require a technology of freer speecha more decentralized internet with fewer chokepoints, one built around protocols rather than platforms.

The Global Spring

All that said, there is one big reason to think the pendulum may already be swinging back in speech's direction. This year saw an astonishing level of public protest around the globe, adding up to a revolutionary moment on par with 1968. Unrest has swelled everywhere from France to Hong Kong, from Chile to Indonesia, from Iran to Ecuador, from Haiti to Spain. Such movements have already brought down governments in Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Sudan. In Bolivia, mass protests preceded the ousting of leftist president Evo Morales and then more mass protests greeted the new right-wing regime of Jeanine ez. Here in the U.S., last year saw the biggest strike wave in more than three decades, and we may be on track to top that in 2019.

These movements have been sparked by a wide variety of grievances. Their supporters come from a wide variety of ideologies. They use a wide variety of tactics, not all of them limited to nonviolent speech and assembly. It would probably be hard to find someone who backs every single one of them. But put together, they represent a surge in people's willingness not just to speak out but to take risks to do so. That too represents a sort of culture of free speech, even though many of these regimes have reacted to the unrest with a repression that does not remotely resemble free speech in the legal sense.

Those movements are learning from each other, too: When one of them figures out a way to evade censorship, surveillance, or police assaults, the others take heed. (We live in an era when Hongkongers can be recorded neutralizing tear gas in the summer, videos of the technique immediately circulate on social media, and by October protesters in Chile are doing the same thing.) After a decade of authoritarian governments adjusting themselves to the ways protesters organize themselves on- and offline, the momentum is with the dissidents again as they find ways to adjust their tactics in return.

A decade that began with the rise and fall of the Arab Spring is concluding with a Global Spring. And while that could conceivably end with the most vicious clampdown of all, it's also the best reason to hope that what looked like Peak Free Speech was really just a temporary speech recession.

Here is the original post:
Was This the Decade We Hit Peak Free Speech? - Reason

The new Conservative government should legislate to create a national academic freedom champion, while restrictions on low-quality courses in universities could rebalance funding towards further education in a shift tailored to the Conservatives new electorate, according to a former Tory adviser and senior civil servant.

With the UKs general election having brought to power a Conservative government with a significant Commons majority, sector attention will focus on the partys manifesto commitments, which notably include pledges to strengthen academic freedom and free speech in universities and to tackle the problem oflow-quality courses in England.

A paper published by Policy Exchange,titled The First Hundred Days: how the Government can implement the pledges in its 2019 election manifesto, says that ministers should move quickly to introduce an academic freedom and free speech on campus bill and thus adopt a plan advocated in arecent report on the issue by the thinktank.

Universities are a potential target if the Conservatives seek to bolster their increased support from working-class, largely non-graduate voters in towns across the Midlands and North by waging culture wars against institutions they perceive as hostile to Tory values.

Iain Mansfield, head of education, skills and science at Policy Exchange, formerly special adviser to Jo Johnson in his brief return as universities minister, said key recommendations in the thinktanks free speech report included extending the statutory duty on freedom of speech to include students and student unions as well as HEIs.

The report also recommended that the Office for Students should appoint a national academic freedom champion who would have the power to investigate allegations of academic freedom or free speech violations and then lead on sanctions where appropriate, he said.

Those would be two things which could be done by the new government, he told Times Higher Education.

Mr Mansfield, a former senior civil servant in the Department for Education, said a recent report by the Policy Institute at Kings College London had found that at least a third of Conservative or Leave-supporting students dont feel comfortable sharing their views at university.

ThePolicy Institute research also foundthat only a minority of UK students have heard about incidents where freedom of expression has been restricted in their own university.

Universities are already subject to requirements to protect freedom of expression under existing legislation.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute and a former Tory special adviser, said: Because the Tories did even better in the election than anybody expected, to then use that [campus free speech] as a way of stoking a new culture war, Im not sure who will benefit from that.

Its not clear to me that either the politicians or the universities benefit from pretending theres a bigger free speech problem in our universities than there really is.

And hurried legislation tends to be legislation that doesnt stand the test of time, he warned.

On the manifestos reference to low-quality courses, Mr Mansfield said this should be understood in conjunction with where the Conservatives have won seats.

I think that steers them very much towards a genuine wholesale rebalancing between HE and FE in terms of funding, numbers, esteem and so forth. I think that will have to be part of the solution [in] looking at low-quality courses.

There were a range of mechanisms for establishing which courses arent delivering, such as the teaching excellence framework, dropout rates and data on progression to employment, he said. Mr Mansfield added that he would favour the reintroduction of number caps for at least some institutions or courses.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

Read more:
Tory campus free speech bill would 'stoke new culture war' - Times Higher Education (THE)

Incident at College of Lake County had targeted YAF club

After a College of Lake County adviser hung flyers accusing a conservative club on campus of being a hate group, the Illinois school hosted free speech trainings for faculty and staff.

In November, an employee of the college hung flyers stating hate groups are not welcome here and other materials accusing Young Americans for Freedom of being a hate group.

YAF student Chairman Rob Corn said in a Facebook post: Ive been going to this school for two years, and this isnt anything new. The intolerance of the left on our campus is rampant.

But after the incident, the college hosted free speech training sessions.

A student activities director told Corn that the first question discussed at these sessions was whether or not the YAF chapter was a hate group, to which the schools lawyers affirmed that the chapter was NOT a hate group, and has every right to exist on campus, YAF reported in a news release.

Faculty and advisers were also instructed to help students comply with free speech protocols on campus and assist them to navigate free speech issues, especially speech that may be controversial, according to YAF, which obtained the training documents.

The presentation also directed faculty to help students ensure that their free speech is not subject to regulation under the First Amendment.

Another slide instructed faculty and advisers to avoid treating protected speech as actionable misconduct and that expressions of hateful or offensive views do not constitute unlawful harassment, even if they offend listeners.

In an email to The College Fix, YAF spokesman Spencer Brown called the training another victory for YAFs student activists, and praised the campus YAF chapter for its boldness in confronting the administration.

The campus Lefts attempts to sideline and silence conservatives backfired when Young Americans for Freedom activists at CLC refused to give up, he said in the email. CLC is now taking steps to do what more universities should: train their staff and faculty to understand that the First Amendment must apply equally to all students, regardless of viewpoint.

MORE:As YAF president, Scott Walker vows to open the eyes of the next generation

IMAGE: Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read more:
College hosts free speech training after harassment of conservative group - The College Fix

President Donald Trump is on the cusp of being impeached by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

With a historic vote set today on whether to formally accuse him of abusing his power in dealing with Ukraine to help himself politically and then obstructing Congress by blocking their investigation.

Trump lashed out directly at the vote on Tuesday, calling the proceedings to remove him from office an attempted coup.

Should the House approve either of the articles of impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial with all 100 senators acting as jurors, with a two-thirds supermajority 67 votes required to convict.

Meanwhile, thousands of protesters in favor of impeaching Trump took to the streets Tuesday in cities across the country.

On what many are calling Impeachment Day, we speak with: Rep. Al Green of Texas, who was the first congress member to call for President Trumps impeachment from the floor of the House of Representatives in 2017;

Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter for Slate, host of the Amicus podcast; and Mark Green, co-author of Fake President: Decoding Trumps Gaslighting, Corruption, and General Bullsh*t.

Amy Goodman Congress Democracy Now! Donald Trump Free Speech TV hearings House Of Representatives impeachment Senate Trials United States Washington D.C.

Continued here:
House Votes on Impeachment and Charging Trump with Abuse of Power - Free Speech TV

The truth about the recent right-wing landslide in the United Kingdom that saw a massive Tory majority and the election of Boris Johnson to Prime Minister over Labour's Jeremy Corbyn.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program known for its astute analysis.

Visit The David Pakman Show page for the latest clips.

--

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

FSTV is the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations. Our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

Boris Johnson David Pakman Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party Prime Minister The David Pakman Show United Kingdom

Read the original post:
The Truth About Right-Wing "Landslide" in UK - Free Speech TV

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with Cliff Albright, the Co-founder of Black Voters Matter. He's also a Radio Host, Writer, Consultant, Social Justice Activist.

A federal judge has just signed off on the purging of hundreds of thousands of registered voters in Georgia, the same state where massive voter suppression efforts just a year ago helped propel a Republican Governor into power. Many of the registered voters are being removed from the rolls simply because they have not voted in years. Others have out-of-date addresses. Stacey Abrams, the charismatic gubernatorial candidate who lost narrowly last year is challenging the voter purges.

The news from Georgia comes days after Wisconsin was shedding voters that could impact the Democratic Party and an Associated Press review of Ohios absentee ballots found widespread application denials.

Black Votes Matter Brian Kemp Free Speech TV Georgia Ohio Rising Up with Sonali Sonali Kolhatkar Stacey Abrams Voter Suppression Wisconsin

The rest is here:
There's Voter Suppression Happening in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Ohio - Free Speech TV