Category Archives: Free Speech

President Trumps use of Twitter to shape the narrative is notorious. True to form, he was tweeting fast and furious during the impeachment hearings. Negative testimony about the presidents interactions with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly incited his aggressive retorts, prompting speculation about whether his outbursts may be viewed as witness intimidation. Citing the First Amendment, Trump claims he is free to say what he pleases, including name-calling and denigrating witnesses. But is it criminal witness intimidation?

A number of recent cases have examined the use of social media platforms to conduct witness intimidation. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the witness tampering conviction of a woman who posted on Facebook the name of a potential witness in her brothers criminal trial who she warned not to get upon the stand, posting watch out little snitch. The Supreme Court too has had occasion to consider the criminality of Facebook posts suggesting that the defendants soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Even beyond our prolific president, the issue of improper use of digital media to harass or intimidate has seeped into the political realm. Earlier this year, House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was censured for tweets made on the eve of congressional testimony from former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, suggesting that unfavorable information about Cohen would be released if he testified.

Recent impeachment-related tweets from Trump are not the first public statements from the president to be called into question. Critics previously argued that the president was obstructing justice by dangling a pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, during the Mueller investigation. Tweets expressing sympathy for Manafort and referring to him as a brave man in contrast to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who cooperated with authorities and was referred to by Trump as a coward were viewed as a subtle message to Manafort to stay strong and possibly reap the benefits ala a presidential pardon.

Trumps tweets about the Whistleblower who filed the complaint that has instigated the impeachment hearings also have been questioned. A September 26, 2019 tweet likened the Whistleblower to a spy and further stated You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now. This tweet prompted the Whistleblowers attorneys to send a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence expressing concern for their clients anonymity and safety.

Most recently, a tweet from President Trump blasting Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, as she testified has been called witness intimidation. After hearing Trumps statement that everywhere she went turned bad, Yovanovitch herself stated that it was intimidating. Democrats opined that the Presidents tactics would, and were intended to, scare off other potential witnesses.

The Law of Witness Intimidation

Knowingly using intimidation or threats to influence testimony in an official proceeding, such as a proceeding before Congress, is a crime under Section 1512 of the United States Code. Whether a presidential tweet storm might be considered a violation of this statute centers on a few questions: 1) when can a tweet or public statement implicate Section 1512; 2) when are tweets or statements considered a threat under federal law; and 3) what is the requisite criminal intent?

Section 1512 has been applied to social media posts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction under Section 1512 of Delexsia Harris, who took to Facebook two weeks before her brothers trial for murder. Harris posted threatening statements and depictions of guns and bombs pointing at police cars alongside broad references to individuals identified as potential witnesses in the case. (886 F3d 1120) Harris also named one witness directly. Stating that the question of whether a communication is a threat is a factual question to be resolved by a jury, the Court upheld the jurys determination that a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret [Harriss posts] as a threat.

In Trumps case, Democrats argue that his tweet made during Ambassador Yovanovitchs testimony could have had an effect both on Yovanovitch, who was still in the process of providing information to Congress, as well as on other potential witnesses. The Second Circuit has held that the language of Section 1512 does not require the intimidating statement or threat be directly made to the threatened individual. (US v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015)). The statute states that a violation occurs when the defendant engages in wrongful conduct toward another person with the intent to influence any person in an official proceeding. Accordingly, a threat to X which causes Y to withhold information, qualifies as witness intimidation so long as the person making the threat had corrupt intent.

Section 1512 requires proof of specific corrupt intent to intimidate or persuade a witness either not to testify or to alter his or her testimony. Reasonable minds differ on Trumps motivation. The witness intimidation claims made against Representative Gaetz earlier this year suggest that even where the motivation to intimidate or persuade arguably is clearer, it may not rise to the level of criminality.

The night before Trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Gaetz, a staunch defender of Trump, tweeted Hey @MichaelCohen212- Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if shell remain faithful to you when youre in prison. Shes about to learn a lot . Gaetz defended claims that he was threatening Cohen by stating that he was only challenging the veracity and character of a witness. No criminal charges were brought against Gaetz and an investigation into his behavior by the Florida Bar resulted only in a written censure. In this highly-charged political environment, evidence of criminal intent may be difficult to prove.

Interaction with the First Amendment

The First Amendment may add another layer of protection to unbridled tweeters. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider what distinguishes a true threat from speech protected by the First Amendment in Elonis v. United States in 2014. The Court reviewed Eloniss conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Specifically, Elonis made a series of posts on Facebook suggesting that his soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Other posts contained threats against police, the FBI and a kindergarten class. On appeal, Eloniss lawyer argued the conviction should be overturned because Elonis lacked the requisite specific intent to injure, was just venting about his personal problems, and did not mean to threaten anyone.

The question as phrased by the Supreme Court was whether the statute required that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication and, if not, whether the First Amendment required such a showing. Unfortunately, the Courts opinion did not resolve the question directly, but took issue with the Third Circuits application of a reasonable person standard a civil tort concept to determine the defendants criminal intent, stating that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. The conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Third Circuit. Thereafter, the Third Circuit found the error to be harmless and affirmed the conviction because Elonis testified at trial that he knew his posts would be viewed as threats, thereby satisfying the knowledge element of the crime.

Conclusion

Courts and attorneys are going to have to contemplate how the use of Twitter and other social medium platforms increasingly used as a forum for political and commercial speech must be analyzed under criminal statutes. Like any other form of communication, courts correctly have determined that these types of public statements may be viewed as threats subject to criminal charges. Whether the conduct is criminal will depend upon first, whether a reasonable person familiar with the context within which the statement was made would view it as a threat, and second, whether the speaker intended to intimidate. Certainly, the words and the speakers power and ability to make good on the threat will play a part in that analysis.

To read more fromRobert J. Anello, please visitwww.maglaw.com.

View post:
Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump's Tweets Witness Tampering? - Forbes

German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out against free speech this week, suggesting the government can and should regulate what people say to keep society free.

Merkel, speaking at an event for the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce in Berlin, stumbled up the stairs before taking the podium and suggesting the government ban speech she considers extreme and decrying freedom of expression.

We have freedom of expression in our country, Merkel said. For all those who claim that they can no longer express their opinion, I say this to them: If you express a pronounced opinion, you must live with the fact that you will be contradicted. Expressing an opinion does not come at zero cost.

But freedom of expression has its limits, she continued. Those limits begin where hatred is spread. They begin where the dignity of other people is violated. The house will and must oppose extreme speech. Otherwise our society will no longer be the free society that it was.

Of course, determining what speech violates the dignity of other people is not something politicians or anyone else should be deciding, especially in todays culture where liberals claim speech they disagree with is literally violence against them.

As Townhall noted, Germany passed a ban in 2018 that fined websites up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not removing hate speech from their platforms quickly enough. The outlet also suggested Merkels attempts to suppress free speech were an effort to silence criticsof Merkels open-door immigrationpolicies.

Indeed, if one is to talk about violating another persons dignity, then Merkels policies toward immigration would be a prime example. Recall that on New Years Eve in 2015, upwards of 1,000 men sexually assaulted women on the streets in Germany. In the aftermath of the mass assaults, one German mayor blamed the women for being sexually assaulted, and the German government pledged to crackdown on those who criticize Muslim immigrants who were accused of perpetrating the attacks.

The definition of hate speech and limitation thereof is not as clear cut as people may believe. This is why Americas First Amendment doesnt have a hate speech exception. What is considered hate speech today may not have been considered so one hundred years ago, and what is acceptable today may not be acceptable in even 10 years, if current social justice trends are any indication.

Yet Europe continues to enact hate-speech laws that rest on the subjective analysis of those in positions of authority (and the most easily offended among us). For example, one county in the United Kingdom made catcalls and pickup lines illegal by labeling them hate crimes. The definition of hate crime in that county was defined as, Incidents against womenthat are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman and includes behavior targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

These kinds of definitions plague anti-hate speech laws, as they open them up for abuse from those seeking attention and victimhood status.

The rest is here:
Angela Merkel Says 'Freedom Of Expression Has Its Limits,' Must Be Regulated To Keep Society Free - The Daily Wire

The recent interaction between student Michael Moreno and debate coach Ryan Wash caused significant controversy online and on campus after Moreno posted recordings of in-class interactions on YouTube. Since then, WSU faculty and staff have refocused on what it means to provide an environment of academic freedom and free speech while at the same time ensuring that all people on campus feel physically and intellectually safe.

Adrienne Andrews, WSUs Vice President for Diversity and Chief Diversity Officer, hosted a forum discussion for faculty and staff on the morning of Nov. 20. Andrews invited several faculty and staff members to share their ideas and to review the universitys official policies regarding these matters.

The panelists in the discussion included Professor of Economics Dr. Doris Stevenson; Dean of the Library Wendy Holliday; Director of the Womens Center Paige Davies; Professor of Chemistry Dr. Tim Herzog; Professor of Teacher Education Dr. Forrest Crawford and Dane LeBlanc the former chief of WSUPD and the current Director of Safety.

Academic freedom is one of the pillars of the university, Herzog said. It allows us to do things that are controversial and challenging, things that may be upsetting to other people.

Herzog believes that there are challenges with how others may interpret or use academic freedom. He also believes that curriculum should fall within an agreed-upon set of rules. The university has curriculum review processes and committees to ensure and approve curriculum quality.

Faculty cannot just teach any controversial topic they want outside of their disciplinary area, Herzog said.

Dr. Stevenson added to Herzogs sentiment.

You have the freedom to teach anything that falls within the purview of the legitimate pedagogical reason, Stevenson said. How do we balance student rights and teacher rights? You have to fall back on policy.

According to Stevenson, current university policy gives students the right and responsibility to determine whether they should or can complete a course. If a student has a problem with a courses material, they may drop the course. If the course is a requirement for degree completion, the student may ask the course instructor for a reasonable accommodation. It is up to the faculty member to determine what the accommodation will be. The faculty member may deny the request unless the denial is arbitrary, capricious or illegal.

After the panel discussed academic freedom and students options in courses they may have issue with, Crawford addressed the issue of free speech.

The student comes (to class) with the view that they have a wide range of consideration that they can explore, Crawford said. To me, I do not assume that free speech is whenever, wherever, however. Free speech has a particular obligation, a particular guideline, a particular way.

Crawford believes, from a faculty standpoint, that teachers ultimately want students to respond to questions, but in a responsible way. Teachers should provide a structured way for students to share a diversity of opinion.

Andrews concurred with Crawfords idea by suggesting that faculty, with their students consent, should establish rules of debate on the first day of class each semester. Andrews believes students can express dissent more constructively if they establish rules with their peers for expressing opinion.

Holliday continued the discussion on free speech by arguing that spaces for free speech must also be spaces of productive learning. She believes the university must ultimately fulfill its role, not as a public forum, but as a learning space. Holliday will not censor what students and faculty choose to read, but she hopes students and faculty will choose to address inequities.

The conversation then turned to LeBlanc to address issues of campus safety.

If someone wants to protest, we take an unbiased approach, LeBlanc said. Our job is to facilitate safe, free expression.

LeBlanc acknowledges that this sometimes means having to physically separate protestors from counter-protestors.

Davies reviewed and reinforced university policy that is meant to prevent any type of discriminatory harassment.

If a university employee or student is experiencing any type of harassment or feels physical danger, they can seek remedies through the Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity (AAEO) Office, Davies said. There are formal and informal measures to help students, faculty and staff.

An audience member asked about what students can do if they feel disrespected by a professor, but not harassed or unsafe.

In this case, students should report how they feel to the department chair, Herzog said. The department chair or dean can explore that. If the need arises, students can also file complaints with the AAEO Office or the Provosts Office.

See more here:
Balancing free speech and safety on campus - The Signpost

David Gunkel's "Perspective" (November 29, 2019).

Have you heard about TikTok?

TikTok is a video-sharing application developed by the Beijing-based Internet start-up ByteDance. The app has been wildly popular with teenagers all over the world. How popular? 1.2 billion installs as of June 2019, making TikTok the first Chinese app to achieve international scale.

But the app is not without its critics, and it is getting some push-back from U.S. lawmakers. So whats the problem? Like all social media platforms, TikTok collects, stores, and leverages user data. But what makes TikTok different from many of the other apps residing on your smart phone is the fact that ByteDance is a Chinese company incorporated under Chinese law.

What concerns US lawmakers is that the corporation could, under pressure from the Chinese government, either censor politically sensitive content or turn over data from American users to Chinese officials.

ByteDance has countered these concerns, explaining that it stores all U.S. user-data on servers located inside the United States and stipulating that legal jurisdiction for the service is located in Singapore. This means, on paper at least, that U.S. users and their data should be sufficiently insulated. But there are reasons to be cautious.

ByteDance is a Chinese company subject to Chinese law. The Chinese government has previously compelled other tech companies to censor content deemed politically sensitive. And there are already credible reports that TikTok has intentionally buried content concerning the protests in Hong Kong.

So the app may be free, but the speech might not be.

Im David Gunkel, and thats my perspective.

Read the original:
Perspective: Free App, Free Speech? | WNIJ and WNIU - WNIJ and WNIU

from the double-double dept

I'm not sure when or if this has happened before: this week we've got cross-category winners in both the first and second place spots, both in response to the latest example of a SLAPP suit filed by a supposed free speech supporter. Norahc won first place for both insightful and funny by putting a name to this increasingly common hypocritical phenomenon:

Hereafter, this should be referred to as the Nunes Effect.

Meanwhile an anonymous comment took second place for both insightful and funny with a response to someone misusing the notion of "freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences" as though it was meant to include lawsuits:

Interesting theory. Then for the US, I propose a new civil law that allows people to sue others for owning guns. Like, if you are unhappy that someone owns a gun, you can sue them for up to a million dollars. Thankfully this would not infringe on the 2nd Amendment, since they are still free to own guns, just not free from the consequences.

And since that's all the winners right there, we now move straight on to editor's choice for both categories! On the insightful side, we've got a pair of comments about the ongoing privacy wars on multiple fronts. First it's That One Guy responding to the states that argued against the Pennsylvania ruling that compelled password production violates the 5th amendment:

A telling, and worrying, argument

"In a joint amicus brief in support of the Commonwealth, various states provide an interesting history of modern encryption, press the troubling consequences of Appellants position including the altering of the balance of power, rendering law enforcement incapable of accessing large amounts of relevant evidence and warn that adopting Appellants position could result in less privacy, not more, in the form of draconian anti-privacy legislation."

'If you don't let us violate constitutional rights we'll pass unconstitutional laws in order to let us do so' is really not the sort of thing you want multiple states arguing, as that shows a mindset that considers constitutional protections and privacy of the public not limits to be respected and something to uphold respectively, but obstacles to be worked around and/or undermined.

Law enforcement has never had access to all of the evidence they've wanted, and the fact that there are more ways for people to protect their privacy, even if that includes really terrible people, is not grounds to start giving them that which they have never had and never will have, especially when it will come at such a great cost to the general public.

Next, it's Bergman responding to our post about the EU telling the US to ban strong encryption:

Nerding Harder

The US government has over a hundred times greater access to people's communications, personal papers and everything else now than it did when the Fourth Amendment was written. The US government has surveillance capabilities beyond the worst nightmares of our founders.

Our law enforcement has never had a problem finding anyone from petty thieves to traitors, from illegal immigrants to foreign spies. But they're saying now that their incredible wealth of information is insufficient, that we are at risk of them being unable to catch all these bad people if we return to a level of government surveillance that persisted for most of our history, that they had zero problems with then.

The answer is as simple as it is obvious. The tech sector is not the group that needs to nerd harder. They people who need to nerd harder are the government agencies that are apparently slacking off, because with greater capacity to find bad guys they are claiming a reduced ability to actually pursue them.

Giving them more tools when they aren't fully utilizing the ones they already have is silly, they just won't fully utilize those either.

They just need to nerd harder at the NSA, DOJ and ICE.

On the funny side, we start out with allengarvin responding to our post about the court that tossed 82 pounds of marijuana because of the deputy's pretextual traffic stop:

"The rental car was only doing 60 mph in a 70-mph speed zone"

That crime is far worse than carrying 82 lbs of marijuana. If you're not passing someone, GET OUT OF THE DAMN PASSING LANE!!

And finally, we've got an anonymous response to our post about cord-cutting in which we accused cable execs of sticking their heads in the ground:

Pretty sure that is NOT where they are sticking their heads...

That's all for this week, folks!

Read this article:
Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt - Techdirt

Where does the truth lie?

Re: Trumps assault on the truth has endangered our republic, Nov. 24 commentary and Nov. 24 cartoon

Guilty?

Or innocent?

It was a great cartoon by Christopher Weyant at The Globe.

The Denver Post makes obvious, by letter selection, which coverage it will offer.

Did The Post really receive no reader letters at all, pointing out that every witness who discerned a quid pro quo in Donald Trumps Ukrainian policy, inferred it without direct word from the president, save for these words?

I want nothing!

I want nothing!

I want no quid pro quo!

Meanwhile, in lamenting how little trust Americans place in our media, Doug Friednash ironically points to the 13,435 falsehoods attributed to Trump by the partisan fact-checker Washington Post.

I will say that the only presidential whopper I recall that had direct negative impact on my life was uttered multiple times without media challenge:

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Colorado hospital prices increased 76% by The Denver Posts own count since.

Steve Baur, Westminster

Doug Friednash hit the nail on the head regarding Trump and his misrepresentation. More to the point, we have to ask whats become of the Republican Party.

Today, we have the Republican Party in denial of more far-reaching allegations against President Trump. Far from merely lying to Congress about an extramarital affair as in the Clinton era, Trump has stepped over the line by attempting to withhold nearly $400 million of military aid to a foreign country in exchange for that country fabricating dirt on a political rival.

In its effort to protect the president, the Republican Party has inadvertently presented itself as the party of double standards. Comparing the Clinton impeachment charges with those being leveled at Trump, theres no equivalency whatsoever between engaging in an extramarital affair and using a foreign power to tilt a presidential election.

Since the Bill Clinton days, the Republican Party has increasingly resorted to using false narratives, misinformation and outright lies to advance its political agendas. Trump has persisted in stonewalling any attempt by Congress to gain insight into the inner workings of Trumps administration. What has been revealed is a presidency surrounded by characters who, themselves, have been suspected of criminal activity or convicted of the same.

What is it that the Republican Party doesnt get about Donald J. Trump?

Make America Great Again? I dont think so.

Gary E. Goms, Buena Vista

Re: Impeachment testimony convincing enough, Nov. 24 letter to the editor

Mary Smith, former chair of the Denver GOP, thinks Congress and Sen. Cory Gardner should cast aside partisanship and do their sacred duty under the Constitution. Follow the impeachment process, focus on the facts, listen carefully to the actual evidence and consider the sources, and hold the president accountable.

First of all, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the impeachment process must be bipartisan. The only thing bipartisan about this whole thing is when Democratic House members voted not to proceed. As far as listening carefully, its obvious that the former chair didnt, unless it was to that pillar of truth CNN.

Presidents can and do withhold aid to foreign countries all the time. She might want to ask former President Barack Obama why he withheld some of the military aid the Ukrainian people so desperately needed, and while at it, look to the front- runner of the Democratic presidential wannabes for the integrity she is in search of. The man whose son got a high-paying job that he had zero qualifications for, and while that company was under scrutiny, this candidate the vice president of the United States had a prosecutor fired.

Larry E. Fries, Parker

Kudos to former Denver Republican chairwoman Mary Smith for her letter calling for GOP congressional leadership to hold President Trump accountable for undermining one of the most important parts of being an American free and open elections. The reference was to Trumps now-infamous phone call to Ukraine President Zelensky asking him to investigate a political opponent in exchange for a meeting in the White House.

Unfortunately, her message is likely to be ignored, and Trump will be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate if he is impeached by the Democratic House. His acquittal, in conjunction with his puppet Attorney General William Barr; the Republican Senate; a Justice Department ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted; Trumps denial of Vladimir Putins interference in the 2016 election; and favorable 5-4 decisions from the conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court will create a situation involving the two things the founders feared most: a lawless president operating with impunity (a de facto king) and interference from a foreign government, in this case Russia. That scenario will pose a serious danger to our nations cherished values and institutions.

Frank Tapy, Denver

I want to decry President Trumps full pardon of 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. Lorance was convicted for ordering the killing of unarmed men in Afghanistan. In the case of Golsteyn, it prevents his military trial for the alleged murder of a suspected bombmaker.

These pardons demean the reputation of the U.S. military. In history, armies of various countries have been guilty of allowing pillaging, rape and murder. That has not been the case with the U.S.I recall a personal experience in World War II. I was with the first infantry troops into Osaka, Japan, after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the conflict. I encountered a Japanese farmer working in his field. He feared me, doffing his hat and bowing. I got him to understand that I meant him no harm. The Japanese had been told we would be pillagers, rapists and murderers. With the good conduct of our troops, they soon learned that was not the case.

Our military courts usually get things right. The military in discharging its duty has to be humane. The United States reputation for the good conduct of our service personnel also affects how our American POWs are treated. This pardoning by President Trump has damaged our country.

James T. Watson, Highlands Ranch

Re: U.S. and Kurds resume eorts, Nov. 26 news story

Kurds resume efforts two months after Trumps abrupt withdrawal of troops.

Who did this temporary withdrawal serve? Well announced in advance, it invited Syria and Russia to advance their positions. The troops, who fought with the Kurds, had to leave them unprotected, and are now back under less safe conditions. President Trump destroys foreign policy, costs lives and troop morale, all to benefit our adversaries.

Donna Lucero, Lakewood

Re: RTD announces survey results, Nov. 22 news story

While watching and reading the coverage about the operator shortage at RTD, one thing keeps jumping out at me. Why is the board of directors so bent on a service cut? Is that their real agenda?If I ran an organization that had hired 177 operators and lost 201, that would be where my attention would focus. I know there are jobs out there that pay less then RTD, and can yet keep employees, so it must be something else.

Mandating! That is what it is. As long as youre forcing people to work on their days off, in fear of getting fired, most people wont stay. As an employer, you need to be better than the others, to keep a workforce.

When you tell an employee the bus or train route is more important than you and your family, it shows that you dont really care about him or her.

If RTD would fundamentally change its policy on forced overtime, invite some of those 201 operators to reapply, send out the buses and trains that can be consistently filled, I bet the head count would start to recover.

It would take a few months of a reduced schedule, but may avoid a significant cut in the future unless thats what the board actually wants.

Susan Gierga, Aurora

The controversy around quarterback Colin Kaepernick mostly deals with free speech and his right to kneel during the national anthem as a form of protest.

For me, it isnt about free speech. For me, everyone absolutely has free speech and that includes the right to kneel.

Instead of the right to free speech, I would frame the topic around something else namely, the content of that speech. What they say, or, in this case, the symbolism they choose.

When Kaepernick and others choose to kneel, they tell me something important about themselves and something important about their values. They tell me that they dont share my values at all. So much so that Im not interested in supporting them or the organization they represent.

David Jones, Aurora

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Read more from the original source:
Letters: In politics, where does the truth lie? (12/1/19) - The Denver Post

The freedom to speak messages some people dont want to hear is essential to civil rights. In fact, without the protections of the First Amendment, there probably wouldnt have been a civil rights movement.

Fifty-six years ago this spring, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sat in a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama. His crime? Parading without a permit. How was he supposed to get a permit?

Permits came at the discretion of a city commission headed by the infamous segregationist Bull Connor. The law said that, if in Connors judgment, the public welfare, peace, safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience require that [the permit] be refused, he could refuse it. Its not hard to imagine whether it inconvenienced or offended Bull Connors morals or decency to grant King and his allies a permit to march for equality.

Speech permits were only one of the tools used to try to quell the civil rights movement, but their legacy endures even today, as people working to express ideas and promote social change find their efforts obstructed or shut down completely by government officials.

At Kellogg Community College in 2016, Michele Gregoire and a few of her friends were handing out copies of the Constitution and asking passing students if they like freedom and liberty. Police arrested the group, charged them with trespassing, and booked them in jail.

Their crime? Engaging in expression without a permit. The colleges speech policy allowed it to shut down any expression that it disapproved of, and required pre-approval for expressive activities. The meaning of expressive was not clearly defined.

If that makes your head spin, think about, as a student, trying to figure out what you are allowed or not allowed to say, and where you are and arent allowed to say it. Then imagine spending time in jail for passing out a copy of the Constitution, including the First Amendment the only permit, ironically, that anyone should need to engage in expression in a public place.

Many universities dont require a permit to engage in expression they just flat out prohibit it unless it is limited to an ironically named free speech area on campus.

This was the case at Georgia Gwinnett College in suburban Atlanta, where Chike Uzuegbunam was told he could only tell others about his Christian faith on 0.002% of the campus, and only with prior permission. A similar case unfolded at Southern Illinois University, where expression was limited to a speech zone that comprised only 0.001% of the campus.

Often, the speech police do not enforce these restrictions equally. Students at Grand Valley State University in Michigan attempted to hold an informal event celebrating free speech by having students write on a free speech ball in a large open area on campus. They were threatened with arrest if they didnt move to a small zone that excluded 99.7% of the campus. Yet, on that same campus, a large crowd of students was allowed to hold signs and march throughout the campus as they protested the election of Donald Trump. The university only agreed to change its policies after our organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, represented the students in a federal lawsuit challenging the speech zones.

Even worse are policies (speech codes) that allow government officials, like Bull Connor, to determine if the content of someones expression is too offensive, or would, in the words of the law that put King in jail, hurt the public convenience.

For example, Iowa State University maintained such a broad policy prohibiting harassment that it said, First Amendment protected speech activities may actually constitute harassment depending on the circumstances, including whether other students believe the speech is not legitimate, not necessary, or lacks a constructive purpose.

No doubt Bull Connor thought that Kings expression was not legitimate, necessary, or constructive.

No fellow student or government official should have the power to censor speech for those reasons. Thankfully, the point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that some in society, including those in power, may not like. Indeed, as the Supreme Court held years ago: Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

Undoubtedly, some people will use this freedom to spout ideas which are wrong or even reprehensible. But this same freedom preserves the ability of the marketplace of ideas to test those values without the government putting its thumb on the scale, or dissenters in jail.

Over half a century later, as we celebrate Free Speech Week this week, we should learn from the painful lessons of pioneers of freedom like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We should shun the censorship of restrictive permits, zones, codes, and their ilk, and stand together for the freedom to speak ideas new and old, civil or uncivil. We should not fear the expression of ideas we disagree with.

After all, Sunlight is the best of disinfectants (as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it), and truth should never fear the challenge of falsehood.

Caleb Dalton is a legal counsel at the Center for Academic Freedom of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Read more:
Free speech protects the civil rights movements of the past, present, and future - Washington Examiner

Lets talk about Facebook.

Are you sick of hearing people talk about Facebook? Well, too bad. Mark Zuckerberg says if you dont let us talk about Facebook, youre dampening our voice. And,as we all know, sharing our voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time, according to Zuckerberg.At a recent PR wet dream at Georgetown University, the CEO of Facebook gave a speech entitled Standing for Voice and Free Expression as a part of the universitys new Democracy in the Digital Age series of lectures.Despite the events overambitious name, student speech during the event was heavily regulated, and student questions were pre-selected. Because they were submitted before the event, the questions could not have possibly pertained to the topics Zuckerberg covered. This was probably exciting for him, as his speech was an irredeemable hodgepodge of buzzwords and platitudes.

Zuckerberg mentioned voice over 30 times throughout his speech, seemingly as a substitute for freedom of speechlike when he said, some people believe giving more people a voice is driving division rather than bringing us together, or political ads are an important part of voice. But theyre not the same thing. Freedom of speech refers to the right of the people to speak without fear of government restriction. Voice, as defined by Dictionary.com, is the sound or sounds uttered through the mouth of living creatures, especially of human beings in speaking, shouting, singing, etc.

So, not the same.

Yet Zuckerberg uses voice in an effort to apply free speech to his private company. He knows theyre not the same thing, but he also knows that if he equates them enough times in a 35-minute window, people will forget that he is able to regulate the content on Facebook.

Unfortunately for Zuckerberg, the public has not forgotten. On Sept. 24, Facebook announced it would not be fact-checking political ads, a move Zuckerberg defended in his Georgetown speech. As a private institution, Facebook is not technically responsible for regulating the content on their site. However, many people believe they are morally responsible. After all, based on Facebooks estimations, over a third of the worlds population uses the site.

But to allow false political advertisements to circulate on the site misleads the public, and that is not a voice issue at that point. By framing this as a free speech, or voice issue, Zuckerberg believes that he can avoid that moral responsibility by focusing on what he believes to be his moral responsibility to give more people a voice to be heard.Zuckerberg isnt the first person to twist the concept of free speech to fit his agenda. Every third Twitter thread is just some white dude using the n-word and then defending it with a cry of free speech! But as problematic as the views of these Twitter trolls are, Zuckerbergs is worse: As the CEO of a massive social media company, his loose equation of free speech = voice is what enables these people to twist the definition of free speech to fit their agenda.

Discourse will find its place, whether Zuckerberg regulates Facebook or not. Facebook is not, at heart, a political forum sure, there have been political controversies surrounding it, and there are plenty of political posts on the site but the purpose of Facebook is not to be a beacon of political truths. For Zuckerberg to paint Facebook as some kind of special forum for public thought is disingenuous, and hes only doing it so he doesnt have to take a closer look at his company and reevaluate his business model. Were living in an era where public discourse is extremely important, but arbitrarily turning something into a free speech issue debases what free speech actually means.

Oh, and, just like how free speech doesnt let you yell fire in a movie theater, sharing your voice on Facebook shouldnt let you use the n-word in a knitting interest group.

Go here to read the rest:
Staff Editorial: Mark Zuckerberg has never googled the definition of free speech - The Retriever

The coalition's justification for these special privileges for the media is that freedom of the press is essential to a well-functioning democracy. That's true, of course, but it is subject to an important qualification. "Freedom of the press" is actually the freedom to print and publish - for anyone, not just the press.

In a democracy, governments, media companies, and journalists' trade unions don't have, and should never have, the right to decide who is or isn't "a journalist" and who qualifies as "the press", so they can get special rights. To do so would be to create an "official media", so effectively license and censor the media - yet, bizarrely, this is what the coalition seems to want.

Double standards: the media picks and chooses when it does and doesn't support freedom of expression in Australia. Supplied.

In 2012, when the Labor government-appointed Finkelstein inquiry into media regulation recommended a de facto scheme for licensing the press, much of the media welcomed such an initiative.

At the moment, the Right to Know Coalition can too easily be portrayed as wanting to run a protection racket for the established media companies against interloping bloggers sitting in their pyjamas at their dining room table, publishing political commentary on the internet at 2am.

No doubt some supporters of the coalition are acting from the purest of motives. But it's very easy to sense a degree of hypocrisy from at least some of those who are lending their name to the campaign, as in the case of Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Yet it was the Greens who went to the last federal election with a policy to censor commentators whose opinions they disagreed with. Admittedly the coalition can't be held responsible for winning the support of the Greens, but the it would be taken a lot more seriously if it disassociated itself from people who believe in "freedom of the press we agree with".

The campaign of the Right to Know Coalition has also uncovered the double standards of some in the Canberra press gallery.

In 2014 the efforts of the Liberal government to reform section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (which makes insults based on someone's race unlawful) were dismissed by many journalists as merely a part of the "culture wars", and the idea of freedom of speech was portrayed as irrelevant to most Australians.

Now, five years later, those same journalists are proclaiming freedom of the press as a basic principle of democracy.

An unfair cynic would say that this reveals that too many in the media start caring about freedom only when it affects them. And when their complaints can be used as a stick to beat a conservative government.

View post:
Journalists want free speech for them, censorship for the rest of us - The Australian Financial Review

Transformation NOT Reformation. From regenerative farming to revolutionary inclusion, these voices from the Forest Convergence tell it like it is, draw connections between our struggles and unapologetically demand real and direct action. Wherever you are, that is your frontline. Know that you have an army on your side. And we must continue to fight. And build.

Act Out!covers the news corporate media won't touch. Stories from the front lines of our movements to fight andbuild a better world.Act Out!is the brainchild of activist/writer/singerEleanor 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. Watchevery Saturday onFree Speech TVor on-demand right here.

12PM - 1PM ET

10:30PM -11:30PM ET

#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 Eleanor Goldfield Environment Forest Convergence Free Speech TV regenerative farming

Read the original here:
Grassroots From the Treetops Grassroots From the Treetops - Free Speech TV