Category Archives: Free Speech

On Wednesday afternoon, a Canadian university, Ryerson, decided to immolate its educational principles. It cancelled a discussion between conservative journalist, Faith Goldy, and Professors Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad.

Let's be clear, the excuse the school offers is fake. What's really going on here is that Ryerson has decided to sacrifice intellectual curiosity at the altar of far-left fascism.

Declaring that it is "prioritizing public safety" over free speech, Ryerson is offering a false choice. For one, Ryerson is in Toronto, a city with more than 5,000 police officers and named the safest city in North America in 2015. Had Ryerson sought to preserve free speech, it could have requested and enacted a security envelope around the event.

A warped sense of political correctness is at blame here. The individual who led the effort to force Ryerson to cancel the event, Christeen Elizabeth, explained that "Transphobia is violence, Islamophobia is violence. Violence is contextual."

Sure.

Regardless, to sabotage the discussion, Elizabeth told the National Post that she "inundated Ryerson with calls and emails protesting the panel. She said she also collaborated with the school's student union, who added to the pressure." The pressure campaign worked as Ryerson yielded to the threats and abuse.

Still, what's most troubling here is the degree to which this situation shows how far the far-left's "no speech" platform now extends. After all, the panelists who were no-platformed are hardly neo-Nazis.

For one, Faith Goldy bears nothing in common with Hitler. She works for an online conservative media outlet, The Rebel, which revels in being controversial and cheeky. But that website is not a malevolent entity. Indeed, this week, Goldy gave a compelling defense of her viewpoints. "I do not bathe in tears of white guilt, that doesn't make me a white supremacist. I oppose state multiculturalism and affirmative action, that doesn't make me a racist. I reject cultural marxism but that doesn't make me a fascist."

Indeed.

Similarly, Professor Jordan Peterson isn't Himmler, he's a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His great crime against social justice? Making intellectual arguments against the subjective appropriation of gender pronouns. But search for any video of Peterson.

And Gad Saad? His topic is consumer choices.

In the end, there's only one takeaway from what's just occurred. Goldy, Peterson, and Saad, are far better people than Christeen Elizabeth, her fascists, and Ryerson's administrators. Professor Peterson proved as much when he offered a very measured response to the cancellation of his event. He told the National Post that "We're drifting into a scenario of increased polarization, and it's not an advisable time to contribute to that, wittingly or unwittingly."

Read more:
The far-left strikes another blow against free speech - Washington Examiner

Some speakers have dropped out of the Boston Free Speech rally planned for Saturday on the Common, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd at the event, which expected to draw counterprotesters and a heavy police presence.

The rally organizers said early Thursday in a Facebook post that the four headliners will be Kyle Chapman, Joe Biggs, US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, and congressional candidate Samson Racioppi.

Advertisement

So its been a little tumultuous running up to the 19th. Weve attracted much love from the Alt Left aka Antifa and their trolly bits, the post said. We apologize for the upheaval of our speaker list.

Of the four speakers, Chapman and Biggs appeared likely to draw the most ire.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Chapman gained notoriety earlier this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an anti-fascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Mayor Walsh said. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Chapman, who became known on the Internet as Based Stickman, then started a group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a New Alt-Right Fight Club ready for street violence.

The Alt Knights are linked to another extremist group, the Proud Boys. According to the SPLC, Chapman says his new militant, highly-masculine group will be the tactical defensive arm of the Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters.

Advertisement

The Proud Boys were founded by Gavin McInnes, who was originally scheduled as a speaker at Saturdays rally but dropped out earlier this week.

Biggs, a former US Army staff sergeant, worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

The conspiracy theory almost went horribly wrong when a man showed up at the pizzeria and fired a miltiary-assault-style rifle. He was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Biggs previously told the Globe that Saturdays rally is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence.

These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He was referring to the rally in Virginia that turned deadly when white supremacists and neo-Nazi demonstrators clashed with counterprotesters, and one white supremacist allegedly plowed his vehicle into Heather Heyer, killing the young woman who was part of the counterprotest.

Tensions have been high in the leadup to the planned rally in Boston, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh telling hate groups that the city does not want you here. City officials have granted the organizers a permit allowing them to rally on the Common from noon to 2 p.m., with restrictions on objects that attendees can bring into the area.

Among the banned items for demonstrators on both sides: bats, sticks, and backpacks. Walsh said police will have a zero-tolerance policy.

Walsh is not the only political leader to condemn bigotry ahead of the rally.

During an ornate State House ceremony on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker was joined by a number of elected officials including Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg in submitting an official resolution decrying white nationalism in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

The officials took turns reading portions of the resolution, including one excerpt read by Baker that said the state strongly denounces the bigoted ideologies promoted by white nationalists.

Meanwhile, the rally organizers continue to insist that the event is open to a range of political views and not a forum for hate groups.

We are STILL offering our platform for left groups to join us and have open slots for speakers if any left groups would like to furnish some, the Facebook posting said. We will, of course, ask that speakers stick generally to the subject of Free Speech. We will not tolerate advocacy for hate against any ethnic/racial groups, as stated on our recent release.

Ayyadurai, a Cambridge Republican who has staked out a populist stance in the early months of the GOP Senate primary in Massachusetts, recently told the Globe via e-mail that he was concerned Saturdays rally could turn violent.

He added that racial strife is manufactured and fueled by the Establishment to distract from the economic problems that they have caused and profit from. ... The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.

Racioppi, the fourth speaker who is also running for Congress, is enrolled at Suffolk University and served as a Cavalry Scout in the US Army for three years, according to his campaign website.

Speech is such an important thing to me, a blog post says on his site. It is the most important value a society can recognize for free people to stay that way.

The site also includes a YouTube video of Racioppi speaking under a headline that says, How drug legalization reduces addiction and overdose deaths.

See the original post here:
Speaker list for 'free speech' rally includes right-wing extremists - The Boston Globe

Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.

I sat down with Kevin Systrom, the CEO of Instagram, in June to interview him for my feature story, Instagrams CEO Wants to Clean Up the Internet, and for Is Instagram Going Too Far to Protect Our Feelings, a special that ran on CBS this week.

It was a long conversation, but here is a 20-minute overview in which Systrom talks about the artificial intelligence Instagram has been developing to filter out toxic comments before you even see them. He also discusses free speech, the possibility of Instagram becoming too bland, and whether the platform can be considered addictive. Our conversation occurred shortly before Instagram introduced the AI to the public.

A transcript of the conversation follows.

Nicholas Thompson, Editor-in-Chief: Morning, Kevin

Kevin Systrom, CEO of Instagram: Morning! How are you?

NT: Doing great. So what I want to do in this story is I want to get into the specifics of the new product launch and the new things youre doing and the stuff thats coming out right now and the machine learning. But I also want to tie it to a broader story about Instagram, and how you decided to prioritize niceness and how it became such a big thing for you and how you reoriented the whole company. So Im gonna ask you some questions about the specific products and then some bigger questions

KS: Im down.

NT: All right so lets start at the beginning. I know that from the very beginning you cared a lot about comments. You cared a lot about niceness and, in fact, you and your co-founder Mike Krieger would go in early on and delete comments yourself. Tell me about that.

KS: Yeah. Not only would we delete comments but we did the unthinkable: We actually removed accounts that were being not so nice to people.

NT: So for example, whom?

KS: Yeah well I dont remember exactly whom, but the back story is my wife is one of the nicest people youll ever meet. And that bleeds over to me and I try to model it. So, when we were starting the app, we watched this video, basically how to start a company. And it was by this guy who started the LOLCats meme and he basically said, To form a community you need to do something, and he called it Prune the trolls. And Nicole would always joke with me, shes like, Hey listen, when your community is getting rough, you gotta prune the trolls. And thats something she still says to me today to remind me of the importance of community, but also how important it is to be nice. So back in the day we would go in and if people were mistreating people, wed just remove their accounts. I think that set an early tone for the community to be nice and be welcoming.

NT: But whats interesting is that this is 2010, and 2010 is a moment where a lot of people are talking about free speech and the internet, and Twitters role in the Iranian revolution. So it was a moment where free speech was actually valued on the internet, probably more than it is now. How did you end up being more in the prune the trolls camp?

KS: Well theres an age-old debate between free speechwhat is the limit of free speech, and is it free speech to just be mean to someone? And I think if you look at the history of the law around free speech, youll find that generally theres a line where you dont want to cross because youre starting to be aggressive or be mean or racist. And you get to a point where you wanna make sure that in a closed community thats trying to grow and thrive, you make sure that you actually optimize for overall free speech. So if I dont feel like I can be myself, if I dont feel like I can express myself because if I do that, I will get attacked, thats not a community we want to create. So we just decided to be on the side of making sure that we optimized for speech that was expressive and felt like you had the freedom to be yourself.

NT: So, one of the foundational decisions at Instagram that helped make it nicer than some of your peers, was the decision to not allow re-sharing, and to not allow something that I put out there to be kind of appropriated by someone else and sent out into the world by someone else. How was that decision made and were there other foundational design and product decisions that were made because of niceness?

KS: We debate the re-share thing a lot. Because obviously people love the idea of re-sharing content that they find. Instagram is full of awesome stuff. In fact, one of the main ways people communicate over Instagram Direct now is actually they share content that they find on Instagram. So thats been a debate over and over again. But really that decision is about keeping your feed focused on the people you know rather than the people you know finding other stuff for you to see. And I think that is more of a testament of our focus on authenticity and on the connections you actually have than about anything else.

NT: So after you went to VidCon, you posted an image on your Instagram feed of you and a bunch of celebrities

KS: Totally, in fact it was a Boomerang.

NT: It was a Boomerang, right! So Im going to read some of the comments on @kevins post.

KS: Sure.

NT: These are the comments: Succ, Succ, Succ me, Succ, Can you make Instagram have auto-scroll feature? That would be awesome and expand Instagram as a app that could grow even more, #memelivesmatter, you succ, you can delete memes but not cancer patients, I love #memelivesmatter, #allmemesmatter, succ, #MLM, #memerevolution, cuck, mem, #stopthememegenocide, #makeinstagramgreatagain, #memelivesmatter, #memelivesmatter, mmm, gang, melon gangIm not quite sure what all this means. Is this typical?

KS: It was typical, but Id encourage you to go to my last post which I posted for Fathers Day

NT: Your last post is all nice!

KS: Its all nice.

NT: Theyre all about how handsome your father is.

KS: Right? Listen, he is taken. My mom is wonderful. But there are a lot of really wonderful comments there.

NT: So why is this post from a year ago full of cuck and #memelivesmatter and the most recent post is full of how handsome Kevin Systroms dad is?

KS: Well thats a good question. I would love to be able to explain it, but the first thing I think is back then there were a bunch of people who I think were unhappy about the way Instagram was managing accounts. And there are groups of people that like to get together and band up and bully people, but its a good example of how someone can get bullied, right. The good news is I run the company and I have a thick skin and I can deal with it. But imagine youre someone whos trying to express yourself about depression or anxiety or body image issues and you get that. Does that make you want to come back and post on the platform? And if youre seeing that, does that make you want to be open about those issues as well? No. So a year ago I think we had much more of a problem, but the focus over that year, over both comment filtering so now you can go in and enter your own words that basically filter out comments that include that word. We have spam filtering that works pretty well, so probably a bunch of those would have been caught up in the spam filter that we have because they were repeated comments. And also just a general awareness of kind comments. We have this awesome campaign that we started called #kindcomments. I dont know if you know the late night show were they reads off mean comments on another social platform; we started kind comments to basically set a standard in the community that it was better and cooler to actually leave kind comments. And now there is this amazing meme that has spread throughout Instagram about leaving kind comments. But you can see the marked difference between the post about Fathers Day and that post a year ago on what technology can do to create a kinder community. And i think were making progress which is the important part.

NT: Tell me about sort of steps one, two, three, four, five. How do you you dont automatically decide to launch the seventeen things youve launched since then? Tell me about the early conversations.

KS: The early conversations were really about what problem are we solving and we looked to the community for stories. We talked to community members. We have a giant community team here at Instagram, which I think is pretty unique for technology companies. Literally, their job is to interface with the community and get feedback and highlight members who are doing amazing things on the platform. So getting that type of feedback from the community about what types of problems they were experiencing in their comments then led us to brainstorm about all the different things we could build. And what we realized was there was this giant wave of machine learning and artificial intelligenceand Facebook had developed this thing that basicallyits called deep text

NT: Which launches in June of 2016, so its right there.

KS: Yup, so they have this technology and we put two and two together and we said: You know what? I think if we get a bunch of people to look at comments and rate them good or badlike you go on pandora and you listen to a song, is it good or is it badget a bunch of people to do that. Thats your training set. And then what you do is you feed it to the machine learning system and you let it go through 80 percent of it and then you hold out the other 20 percent of the comments. And then you say, Okay, machine, go and rate these comments for us based on the training set, and then we see how well it does and we tweak it over time, and now were at a point where basically this machine learning can detect a bad comment or a mean comment with amazing accuracybasically a 1 percent false positive rate. So throughout that process of brainstorming, looking at the technology available and then training this filter over time with real humans who are deciding this stuff, gathering feedback from our community and gathering feedback from our team about how it works, were able to create something were really proud of.

NT: So when you launch it you make a very important decision: Do you want it to be aggressive, in which case itll probably knock out some stuff it shouldnt? Or do you want it to be a little less aggressive, in which case a lot of bad stuff will get through?

KS: Yeah, this is the classic problem. If you go for accuracy, you will misclassify a bunch of stuff that actually was pretty good. So you know if your my friend and I go on your photo and Im just joking around with you and giving you a hard time, Instagram should let that through because were friends and Im just giving you a hard time and thats a funny banter back and forth. Whereas if you dont know me and I come on and I make fun of your photo, that feels very different. Understanding the nuance between those two is super important and the thing we dont want to do is have any instance where we block something that shouldnt be blocked. The reality is its going to happen. So the question is, is that margin of error worth it for all the really bad stuff that gets blocked? And thats a fine balance to figure out. Thats something were working on. We trained the filter basically to have a one-percent false positive rate. So that means one percent of things that get marked as bad are actually good. And that was a top priority for us because were not here to curb free speech, were not here to curb fun conversations between friends, but we want to make sure we are largely attacking the problem of bad comments on Instagram.

NT: And so you go, and every comment that goes in gets sort of run through an algorithm, and the algorithm gives it a score from 0 to 1 on whether its likely a comment that should be filtered or a comment that should not be filtered, right? And then that score is combined with the relationship of the two people?

KS: No, the score actually is influenced based on the relationship of the people

NT: So the original score is influenced by, and Instagram I believeif I have this correcthas something like a karma score for every user, where the number of times theyve been flagged or the number of critiques made of them is added into something on the back end, is that goes into this too?

KS: So without getting into the magic sauceyoure asking like Coca Cola to give up its recipeIm going to tell you that theres a lot of complicated stuff that goes into it. But basically it looks at the words, it looks at our relationship, and it looks at a bunch of other signals including account age, account history, and that kind of stuff. And it combines all those signals and then it spits out a score of 0 to 1 about how bad this comment is likely. And then basically you set a threshold that optimizes for one-percent false-positive rate.

NT: when do you decide its ready to go?

KS: I think at a point where the accuracy gets to a point that internally were happy with it. So one of the things we do here at instagram is we do this thing called dogfoodingand not a lot of people know this term but in the tech industry it means, you know, eat your own dog food. So what we do is we take the products and we always apply them to ourselves before we go out to the community. And there are these amazing groups on Instagramand I would love to take you through them but theyre actually all confidential but its employees giving feedback about how they feel about specific features.

NT: So this is live on the phone to a bunch of Instagram employees right now?

KS: There are always features that are not launched that are live on Instagram employees phones, including things like this.

NT: So theres a critique of a lot of the advances in machine learning that the corpus on which it is based has biases built into it. So DeepText analyzed all Facebook commentsanalyzed some massive corpus of words that people have typed into the internet. When you analyze those, you get certain biases built into them. So for example, I was reading a paper and someone had taken a corpus of text and created a machine learning algorithm to rank restaurants, and to look at the comments people had written under restaurants and then to try and guess the quality of the restaurants. He went through and he ran it, and he was like, Interesting, because all of the Mexican restaurants were ranked badly. So why is that? Well it turns out, as he dug deeper into the algorithm, its because in massive corpus of text the word Mexican is associated with illegalillegal Mexican immigrant because that is used so frequently. And so there are lots of slurs attached to the word Mexican, so the word Mexican has negative connotations in the machine learning-based corpus, which then affects the restaurant rankings of Mexican restaurants.

KS: That sounds awful

NT: So how do you deal with that?

KS: Well the good news is were not in the business of ranking restaurants

NT: But you are ranking sentences based on this huge corpus of text that Facebook has analyzed as part of DeepText

KS: Its a little bit more complicated than that. So all of our training comes from Instagram comments. So we have hundreds of raters and its actually pretty interesting what weve done with this set of raters: basically, human beings that sit there and by the way human beings are not unbiased thats not what im claimingbut you have human beings. Each of those raters is bilingual. So they speak two languages, they have a diverse perpsective, theyre from all over the world. And they rank those comments basically, thumbs up or thumbs down. Basically the instagram corpus, right?

So you feed it a thumbs up, thumbs down based on an individual. And you might say, But wait, isnt a single individual biased in some way? Which is why we make sure every comment is actually seen twice and given a rating twice by at least two people to make sure that there is as minimal amount of bias in the system as possible. And then on top of that, we also gain feedback from not only our team but also the community, and then were able to tweak things on the margin to make sure things like that dont happen. Im not claiming that it wont happenthats of course a riskbut the biggest risk of all is doing nothing because were afraid of these things happening. And I think its more important that we are A) aware of them, and B) monitoring them actively, and C) making sure we have a diverse group of raters that not only speak two languages but are from all over the world and represent different perspectives to make sure we have an unbiased classifier.

NT: So lets take a sentence like These hos aint loyal, which is a phrase that I believe a previous study on Twitter had a lot of trouble with. Your theory is that some people will say, Oh thats a lyric, therefore its okay, some people wont know it will get through, but enough raters looking at enough comments over time will allow lyrics to get through, and These hoes aint loyal, I can post that on your Instagram feed if you post a picture which deserves that comment.

KS: Well I think what I would counter is, if you post that sentence to any person watching this, not a single one of them would say thats a mean spirited comment to any of us, right?

NT: Right.

NT: So I think thats pretty easy to get to. I think if there are more nuance in examples, and I think thats the spirit of your question, which is that there are grey areas. The whole idea of machine learning is that its far better about understanding those nuances than any algorithm has in the past, or any single human being could. And I think what we have to do over time is figure out how to get into that grey area, and judge the performance of this algorithm over time to see if it actually improves things. Because by the way, if it causes trouble and it doesnt work, well scrap it and start over with something new. But the whole idea here is that were trying something. And I think a lot of the fears that youre bringing up are warranted but is exactly why it keeps most companies from even trying in the first place.

NT: And so first youre going to launch this filtering bad comments, and then the second thing youre going to do is the elevation of positive comments. Tell me about how that is going to work and why thats a priority.

KS: The elevation of positive comments is more about modeling in the system. Weve seen a bunch of times in the system where we have this thing called the mimicry effect. So if you raise kind comments, you actually see more kind comments, or you see more people giving kind comments. its not that we ever ran this test but Im sure if you raised a bunch of mean comments you would see more mean comments. Part of this is the piling-on effect, and I think what we can do is by modeling what great conversations are, more people will see Instagram as a place for that, and less for the bad stuff. And its got this interesting psychological effect that people want to fit in and people want to do what theyre seeing, and that means that people are more positive over time.

NT: And are you at all worried that youre going to turn Instagram into the equivalent of an East Coast liberal arts college?

KS: I think those of us who grew up on the East Coast might take offense to that *laughs* Im not sure what you mean exactly.

NT: I mean a place where there are trigger warnings everywhere, where people feel like like they cant have certain opinions, where people feel like they cant say things. Where you put this sheen over all your conversations, as though everything in the world is rosy and the bad stuff, were just going to sweep it under the rug.

KS: Yeah, that would be bad. Thats not something we want. I think in the range of bad, were talking about the lower five percent. Like the really, really, bad stuff. I dont think were trying to play anywhere in the area of grey. Although I realize, theres no black or white and were going to have to play at some level. But the idea here is to take out, I dont know, the bottom five percent of nasty stuff. And I dont think anyone would argue that, that makes Instagram a rosy place, it just doesnt make it a hateful place.

So you feed it a thumbs up, thumbs down based on an individual. And you might say, But wait, isnt a single individual biased in some way? Which is why we make sure every comment is actually seen twice and given a rating twice by at least two people to make sure that there is as minimal amount of bias in the system as possible. And then on top of that, we also gain feedback from not only our team but also the community, and then were able to tweak things on the margin to make sure things like that dont happen. Im not claiming that it wont happenthats of course a riskbut the biggest risk of all is doing nothing because were afraid of these things happening. And I think its more important that we are A) aware of them, and B) monitoring them actively, and C) making sure we have a diverse group of raters that not only speak two languages but are from all over the world and represent different perspectives to make sure we have an unbiased classifier.

NT: So lets take a sentence like These hos aint loyal, which is a phrase that I believe a previous study on Twitter had a lot of trouble with. Your theory is that some people will say, Oh thats a lyric, therefore its okay, some people wont know it will get through, but enough raters looking at enough comments over time will allow lyrics to get through, and These hoes aint loyal, I can post that on your Instagram feed if you post a picture which deserves that comment.

KS: Well I think what I would counter is, if you post that sentence to any person watching this, not a single one of them would say thats a mean spirited comment to any of us, right?

NT: Right.

NT: So I think thats pretty easy to get to. I think if there are more nuance in examples, and I think thats the spirit of your question, which is that there are grey areas. The whole idea of machine learning is that its far better about understanding those nuances than any algorithm has in the past, or any single human being could. And I think what we have to do over time is figure out how to get into that grey area, and judge the performance of this algorithm over time to see if it actually improves things. Because by the way, if it causes trouble and it doesnt work, well scrap it and start over with something new. But the whole idea here is that were trying something. And I think a lot of the fears that youre bringing up are warranted but is exactly why it keeps most companies from even trying in the first place.

NT: And you wouldnt want all of the comments on your,You know, on your VidCon post, its a mix of sort of jokes, and nastiness, and vapidity, and useful product feedback. And youre getting rid of the nasty stuff, but wouldnt it be better, if you raised like the best product feedback and the funny jokes to the top?

KS: Maybe. And maybe thats a problem well decide to solve at some point. But right now were just focused on making sure that people dont feel hate, you know? And I think thats a valid thing to go after, and Im excited to do it.

NT: So the thing that interests me the most is that its like Instagram is a world with 700 million people, and youre writing the constitution for the world. When you get up in the morning and you think about that power, that responsibility, how does it affect you?

KS: Doing nothing felt like the worst option in thew world. So starting to tackle it means that we can improve the world; we can improve the lives of as many young people in the world that live on social media. I dont have kids yet; I will someday, and I hope that kid, boy or girl, grows up in a world where they feel safe online, where I as a parent feel like theyre safe online. And you know the cheesy saying, with great power comes great responsibility. We take on that responsibility. And were going to go after it. But that doesnt mean that not acting is the correct option. There are all sorts of issues that come with acting, youve highlighted a number of them today, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt act. That just means we should be aware of them and we should be monitoring them over time.

NT: One of the critiques is that Instagram, particularly for young people is very addictive. And in fact theres a critique being made my Tristen Harris who was a-classmate of yours, and a classmate of Mikes, and a student in the same class as Mikes. And he says that the design of Instagram deliberately addicts you. For example, when you open it up it just- KS: Sorry Im laughing just because I think the idea that anyone inside here tries to design something that is maliciously addictive is just so far fetched. We try to solve problems for people and if by solving those problems for people they like to use the product, I think weve done our job well. This is not a casino, we are not trying to eke money out of people in a malicious way. The idea of Instagram is that we create something that allows them to connect with their friends, and their family, and their interests, positive experiences, and I think any criticism of building that system is unfounded.

NT: So all of this is aimed at making Instagram better. And it sounds like changes so far have made Instagram better. Is any of it aimed at making people better, or is there any chance that the changes that happen on Instagram will seep into the real world and maybe, just a little bit, the conversations in this country will be more positive than theyve been?

KS: I sure hope we can stem any negativity in the world. Im not sure we would sign up from that day one. Um, but I actually want to challenge the initial premise which is that this is about making Instagram better. I actually think its about making the internet better. I hope someday the technology that we develop and the training sets we develop and the things we learn we can pass on to startups, we can pass on our peers in technology, and we actually together build a kinder, safer, more inclusive community online.

NT: Will you open source the software youve built for this?

KS: Im not sure. Im not sure. I think a lot of it comes back to how good it performs, and the willingness of our partners to adopt it.

NT: But what if this fails? What if actually people actually get kind of turned off by instagram, they say, Instagrams becoming like Disneyland, I dont want to be there. And they share less?

KS: The thing I love about Silicon Valley is weve bear hugged failure. Failure is what we all start with, we go through, and hopefully we dont end on, on our way to success. I mean Instagram wasnt Instagram initially. It was a failed start up before. I turned down a bunch of job offers that would have been really awesome along the way. That was failure. Ive had numerous product ideas at Instagram that were totally failures. And thats okay. We bear hug it because when you fail at least youre trying. And I think thats actually what makes Silicon Valley different from traditional business. Is that our tolerance for failure here is so much higher. And thats why you see bigger risks and also bigger payoffs.

Go here to read the rest:
Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom on Free Speech, Artificial Intelligence, and Internet Addiction. - WIRED

BBC News

Toronto university cancels 'free speech' event after Charlottesville BBC News A Canadian university has cancelled an event on the "stifling of free speech", citing safety concerns following the violent protests in Charlottesville. Featuring controversial speaker Faith Goldy, the event was organised by a visiting Ryerson ... College Responds To Hosting Panel On Free Speech By Canceling ItThe Daily Caller Facing pushback, Ryerson University cancels panel discussion on campus free speechNational Post Facebook threat forces cancellation of free speech event at Ryerson: Jordan PetersonToronto Sun all 5 news articles »

Continue reading here:
Toronto university cancels 'free speech' event after Charlottesville - BBC News

John Medlar, an organizer of Saturdays free speech rally on Boston Common.

No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

Those are on the list of zero tolerance rules that Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued to organizers of a controversial free speech rally scheduled to be held on Boston Common on Saturday.

Advertisement

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which also goes by the name New Free Speech Movement, received a permit, but it has major restrictions.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Walsh explained. We are going to have a zero-tolerance policy. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

That goes for everyone, he stressed.

The group has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

The approved permit, which was reviewed by the Globe, was issued to John Medlar, spokesman for the coalition, at 2:47 p.m. Wednesday. It is for a total five hours, including two from noon to 2 p.m. for the rally. Three hours are reserved for setting up and shutting down.

Police officials met with organizers from the free speech rally and a separate solidarity march and explained the high expectations for Saturday, Evans told reporters. He said members from both groups were cooperative.

Advertisement

We asked like we do to any large-scale events that people dont bring backpacks, Evans said. They are going to be subject to search because we still worry about ... the threat of terrorism. Any large sticks [and] anything that can be used as a weapon are banned.

Medlar confirmed the meeting with police, including Superintendent Kevin Buckley, at police headquarters around 10 a.m. Wednesday. He also had a separate meeting with city permitting director Paul McCaffrey to discuss logistics related to the rally.

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Medlar said he was relieved the permit issue is resolved.

Its one thing to be told its going to happen, said Medlar. Its another thing when you actually have real confirmation.

The police commissioner and other law enforcement officials met separately with organizers of a racial justice solidarity march that is also planned for Saturday, said Tanisha Sullivan, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP.

Sullivan said the NAACP is not holding the march but hosted the meeting at its Roxbury offices to help ensure a clear understanding of the public safety measures that will be in place Saturday.

Monica Cannon, a Roxbury advocate who heads the Violence in Boston Movement, is leading the racial justice solidarity march organized in response to the free speech rally. Cannon also attended the meeting.

The meeting was informative, and the NAACP will continue to monitor the impact of any new developments, Sullivan said. It is very likely that there will be large numbers of people converging on the Boston Common Saturday afternoon. Our hope is that the message of racial justice and equality rings loud, while at the same time everyone makes it home safe.

The free speech rally garnered major attention after the bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va. Virginia authorities said neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists incited the violence. And many across social media feared some of the people involved in Charlottesville might also attend Saturdays rally in Boston.

Organizers of the Boston free speech rally who are mostly young white men in their 20s insist their event is all about the freedom of expression. They said they denounce violence.

But civil rights activists, noting the extreme, white nationalist views of some of the speakers who were initially invited, criticized the coalition for offering a platform to people who spew hate and racial violence.

As the rally day neared, a handful of faith leaders gathered on City Hall Plaza around lunchtime Wednesday to lock hands and pray for healing and peace in Boston and the White House.

The prayers came a day after a vigil at the New England Holocaust Memorial, which was vandalized Monday for the second time this summer.

The mayor used the opportunity to again deliver a message to any group that wants to cause trouble Saturday.

You can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate, bigotry, and racism, Walsh said.

Evans, the police commissioner, said officers will monitor Saturdays events as they do any major gatherings. There will be barricades separating the free speech rally and the social justice march, he said, adding that he is not sure how many people are expected to attend.

Evans also said that although police met with organizers of the free speech rally, he said he has no way to know whether they support white supremacist views.

Obviously they are claiming they are all about free speech, but thats not my role to determine who and what they are, Evans said. I know we have a job to do and that is to keep people safe.

Excerpt from:
'Free speech' rally in Boston gets its permit with stiff restrictions - The Boston Globe

John Medlar, one of the organizers of Saturday's Boston Free Speech Coalition rally on Boston Common.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition evolved quietly online and out of the view of authorities in recent months, shaped in part by outrage over violent protests at political rallies and riots on a California campus, a spokesman for the group said Tuesday.

John Medlar, the 23-year-old spokesman, said he and other young men began communicating on the Internet to express alarm over what they viewed as support for protesters who set fires, damaged property, and started fights following the University of California Berkeleys decision to invite controversial conservative figures to speak.

Advertisement

We were alarmed that people were OK with fringe anarchists burning down a campus and driving [out] speakers, Medlar said.

As the coalition which also goes by the name The New Free Speech Movement prepares to hold a controversial rally on Boston Common on Saturday, a picture of the sponsoring organization has emerged. The group, which until recently planned to include speakers with white nationalist ties at Saturdays event, has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

We are not professional activists, Medlar said. We are just a bunch of volunteers who set out to go do something.

Medlar said he has been in contact with police and the city and is working to ensure a permit for Saturdays event. The city had said the group did not apply for one. But records show an organizer started the process by filling out an online application on the citys special events portal in July. He did not apply for a permit with the Boston Parks and Recreation Department, which issues permits for large-scale events in the citys parks.

Medlar said the organizer was confused by the process, but the group is working with parks and police officials to address the matter. City officials had said that if a permit is issued there would be conditions.

Advertisement

Many Boston-area activists said the group is giving a platform to those who spew racial hate and incite violence.

Ivn Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, said the coalition is naive to think that the issue is about the right to free speech if the expression at their rally dissolves into bigotry and violence.

You have the right to speak. You dont have the right to threaten or intimidate people, he said. You dont have a right to promote racial violence.

The group describes itself on Facebook as a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents that is willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties.

They are mostly young white men in their 20s from places like Newton, Cambridge, and Charlestown who like to think of themselves as free speech absolutionists, members of the group said.

But civil rights specialists say the group is alt-lite, and that Saturdays event is part of a broader effort among some right-wing groups to bring their ideological battles into the streets.

Medlar acknowledged that at least one white nationalist group has been trying to use the rally to insert itself. But he distanced the coalition from that group or any group that espouses violence.

We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence, the groups Facebook posting said.

One of the Virginia rallys speakers and another alt-right member who attended it were also invited to speak at the Boston event months ago. Both are no longer speaking.

The group came on scene in May with a small rally on the Common that drew protests. Police Commissioner William Evans had said the free speech group that held the event was not affiliated with Saturdays rally. But Medlar said he helped to organize the May rally. Police officials said they are trying to determine who was involved in both rallies.

Coalition members did not anticipate the uproar they would cause when they began planning Saturdays event at the Parkman Bandstand in May, Medlar and others said.

Just last week, a rally led by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white racists led to bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va. Immediately after, there was worry on social media that the speakers who police said incite violent and hate would also speak on the Common.

Amid the uproar, Medlar said the Boston rally organizers were unsure how to respond and panicked. They wavered over whether to continue with their rally or cancel it.

In the confusion, he added, one of the groups six organizers notified headliner Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, to not to come to Boston. Invictus attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016. He told the Globe this week that organizers said they were worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Tensions between Invictus and the group soared.

We do not support him due to his willingness to support violence, as well as his Holocaust denial, said one member who would only identify himself as Louis. So he has been disinvited, and he has pulled out.

Six other participants also dropped out as of Tuesday afternoon, Medlar said, and the groups list of speakers remains in flux. Part of the speakers exodus stemmed from uncertainty over whether the event would be held, and the other part has to do with the disinvitation of Invictus. There was a breach of trust between the coalition and speakers, he added.

It was a mistake on our part we believe, Medlar said. It created the impression that we are not fully committed to free speech.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only three people are confirmed to speak, he said.

Hoping to get a handle on the situation, Medlar said the group decided it needed a public face to address reporters questions and work with the city and police.

Postponing the rally now is not an option. If organizers postpone or cancel it, they would be seen as caving to pressure, the coalition said. Plus, members added, people are going to come.

In many ways it has already [become] bigger than us, Medlar added. And we need to get our act together and take control of the reins to make sure we are on course.

See the rest here:
Who is the Boston Free Speech Coalition behind Saturday's rally? - The Boston Globe

Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeleys 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nations top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a Free Speech Year as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold point-counterpoint panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeleys free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view, Christ said in an interview. We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a tent city in Berkeleys iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellors daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeleys free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, she said. That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is more speech rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious, she said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the the surest form of safe space.

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, We want to eliminate all gray areas and make sure theres clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christs focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

I want her to really protect free speech because theres really high political tensions here, Nguyen said of the chancellor. Were at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com

Twitter: @teresawatanabe

Read more:
UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events - Los Angeles Times

Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected Miami Herald My African-American professor merely laughed when I suggested that I was wrong for the job, making it clear he would be there every step of the way. The court readily agreed free speech does not permit content to be regulated by the government, forcing ... and more »

Go here to read the rest:
Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected - Miami Herald

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The quotationincorrectly attributed to the French enlightenment writer Voltairesums up the American ideal of free speech. The basic idea is that, in order for freedom to flourish, people of good will must protect even repulsive speechup to and including pornography, racism, sexism, bigotry, and in some cases, generalized calls to violence. Free speech must be universal, the argument goes. If Nazis are not able to speak, we will all be silenced.

This principle was sorely tested over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Nazis were permitted to march and speak. The result was not more freedom for all. Instead, the march ended, predictably, in horrific violence. One of the people attending the white supremacist march drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protestors, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and seriously wounding many others. Letting Nazis congregate didnt allow others to speak; it silenced at least one person forever. Defending fascists right to speak their minds resulted in the death of someone else. The violence in Charlottesville bleakly suggests that free speech absolutismwithout anti-fascismleads to less free speech for all, not more.

Free speech defenders vigorously reject the suggestion that, as an ideology, free speech absolutism may fail in some situations. The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of defending neo-Nazis right to hold marches and rallies. In line with that tradition, the ACLU of Virginia came to the defense of Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and prevented the city of Charlottesville from moving the site of the rally from Emancipation Park, despite the citys safety concerns. The ACLUs legal position prompted a board member to resign. It also led many on social media to suggest that the ACLU had paved the way for fascist violence.

Constitutional lawyer and Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald responded by reiterating the tenets of free speech absolutism in his usual polemical style. Purporting to oppose fascism by allowing the state to ban views it opposes is like purporting to oppose human rights abuses by mandating the torture of all prisoners, he declared. Fascism believes in suppressing free speech, he argued; therefore suppressing free speech of Nazis is actually cosigning fascism. Courts rely on legal precedents, Greenwald says. If the ACLU had failed to stand up for neo-Nazis protesting in Charlottesville, the next time marginalized people wanted to march, they could be silenced by the state. We defend the rights of those with views we hate in order to strengthen our defense of the rights of those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in society.

This is certainly a logical and coherent argument. But logical and coherent arguments dont always pan out in practice. Does defending the right of people to spout hateful views consistently protect the marginalized? Writer and activist Julia Serano points out in a Medium post that as a young adult, she could not tell people she was trans because of the likelihood that she would be greeted with freely expressed bigotry and hate. Of course, I technically had free speech, but that doesnt count for much if speaking your mind is likely to result in you being bombarded with epithets, losing your job, being ostracized by your community, and possibly other forms of retribution, she writes. Any unmoderated comments thread on the internet provides similar evidence that free speech for all often means silence for a few. Hateful, bigoted speech, if left unchecked, leaves marginalized people feeling vulnerable and endangeredfor good reason. If you let people spew bile, the folks at whom they spew bile will leave. Youll be left with a safe space for hateful speech in which the only speech on offer is hate.

Free speech absolutism also elides the issue of race. Neo-Nazis may be expressing hated views, but they are still white, and law enforcement, the courts, and the state will treat them accordingly. In Ferguson in 2014, mostly black anti-racist protestors were met with an overwhelmingly militarized response; 155 people were arrested. In Charlottesville, by contrast, despite numerous incidents of violence, police arrested only four people.

Defending free speech rights absent a specific commitment to anti-biogtry and anti-racism is meaningless. Mariame Kaba, founder of Project NIA and an anti-prison activist, noted on Ttwitter that these convos about civil liberties are completely divorced from the realities of living Black in the U.S.Civil liberties and individual rights have different meanings for different groups of people. In a context where black people are denied basic rights and freedom as a group, black people have focused on our collective rights over our individual liberties.As a people, weve always known it is impossible for us to exercise our individual rights within a context of more generalized social, economic, and political oppression. A supposedly color-blind approach to free speech just ends up reinforcing the status quo whereby the state default is to arrest non-violent black people and lets violent white people walk free.

Internationally, its clear that free speech absolutism and defending Nazis is not the only option for people who want to create a just and free society. Germany uses anti-hate speech laws to prosecute people who make bigoted and xenophobic statements. These laws are sometimes used against other kinds of speech too; Germany is not a perfect utopian society. But non-Nazi protestors in the US regularly face draconian punishments as well. If the ACLU had decided not to support the right of Nazis to march wherever they wanted, regardless of safety threat, would the US really descend into (more of a) nightmare dystopia? Im skeptical.

Free speech absolutism is a faith. Though people marshal pragmatic arguments on its behalf, the real argument is a moral one. The ACLU and Greenwald are committed to free speech for all because free speech is their most important idealit is the good thing from which equality, freedom, and all other good things flow.

For people who see themselves as anti-racists and anti-fascists first, however, the insistence that free speech will save us all rings somewhat hollow after this weekend. Given limited energy and resources, maybe defending the rights of violent bigots isnt the noble choice in every caseespecially when those bigots predictably use their platform to silence others. Free speech absolutists insist that free speech is the foundation of anti-fascism. But maybe anti-fascism is the basis of true free speechin which case, defending the speech of bigots can, at least in some cases, leave us all less free.

Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Go here to read the rest:
The case against free speech for fascists - Quartz

(Reuters) - The white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that turned violent on Saturday, leaving one counter-protester dead and dozens injured, has raised questions about how authorities should balance the right to free speech and public safety.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech very broadly and it has historically set a high bar for courts weighing restrictions on what people can say, and where.

The following explains the U.S. approach to regulating speech and the options available to authorities looking to avoid a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville.

Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?

Yes. A bedrock principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that the First Amendment allows for hate speech, including that which denigrates people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its vitriolic "God Hates Fags" anti-gay campaign, could not be prevented from picketing at military funerals. In the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court upheld the free speech rights of a Ku Klux Klan member.

"The vast majority of speech that could be deemed hateful is protected by the First Amendment," said Will Creeley, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech watchdog group.

The First Amendment only applies to government actors, however. Corporations and private citizens are free to censor speech taking place on their property.

Other countries take a less absolute position on free speech. Britain and Germany are among nations that have criminalized hate speech in various forms.

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action."

The operative word is "imminent." Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of violence were protected by the First Amendment.

In 1982 the court said civil rights activist Charles Evers did not incite violence when he said blacks who did not participate in a boycott of white-owned businesses would "have their necks broken" by their own people. The statement was not specific enough to incite violence, the court said.

Creeley said that typical speech at white supremacist rallies falls far short of incitement to violence. He also said carrying firearms or other weapons would not be considered incitements to violence.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, said cities will face uphill battles if they try to prohibit rallies on the grounds that they incite violence.

What Brandenburg is about is literal incitement - 'Im encouraging you to kill somebody,' not just saying something that angers someone. Thats different, he said.

Can U.S. authorities regulate when and how speech takes place?

Yes. The government can place restrictions on the time, place and manner of a protest or rally. But such restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored.

"Government has to do everything possible to respect the right to free speech in public places," said John Jeffries, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "When you think public protest might lead to violence the legal answer is not to say 'No.' The right answer is 'Yes, but...'"

Charlottesvilles city government granted the organizers of Saturdays Unite the Right rally a permit to hold a demonstration in a one-acre park in the citys downtown. Citing concerns over safety and crowd size, the city later sought to move the demonstration to a larger park further from downtown.

A federal judge said on Friday the city could not move the protest, saying the rallys organizer presented evidence that the citys decision was based on the content of his speech rather than public safety considerations.

Could things change in the aftermath of the Charlottesville rally?

Because of what happened in Charlottesville, municipal governments and courts will likely weigh public safety concerns more heavily when considering issuing permits to white-nationalist groups, Jeffries said, which could lead to more time, place and manner restrictions on those groups' rallies.

"Anytime something like this happens, it affects how people view situations like this going forward," he said.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh on Monday suggested his office may place restrictions on a planned Aug. 19 rally which was initially scheduled to bring to the city some of the same far-right figures who spoke at Charlottesville.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said at a news conference that the city will take steps to ensure safety, such as keeping opposing protesters separated.

"It is such a shame that we have to be wasting resources on such a group," he said.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; editing by Anthony Lin and Bill Rigby

Visit link:
Factbox: When can free speech be restricted in the United States? - Reuters