Category Archives: Free Speech

File Southern Methodist Universitys Dallas Hall, where the 9/11 memorial traditionally appears. (Photo: Hillsman S. Jackson, File)

Is a 9/11 memorial placed prominently on campus triggering and harmful, or an appropriate and respectful remembrance?

Thats been hotly debated at Southern Methodist University this summer. The university just reversed its decision to relegate a traditional 9/11 memorial and all other student displays to an out-of-the-way spot on campus.

According to Campus Reform, earlier this summer, the campus organization SMU Young Americans For Freedom filed their annual request for the public display of their 9/11 memorial, a part of the national 9/11 Never Forget Project.

In response, SMU officials requested the display appear not, as usual, on Dallas Hall Lawn, but instead at a park the university noted is larger but students argued is located in a less inconspicuous spot.

Critics accused the university of muting free speech.

According the Washington Post, the universitys new policy on student displays stated that, SMU respects the right of all members of the community to avoid messages that are triggering, harmful, or harassing. That wording has now been removed from the SMU website.

Some outlets seized on the situation with critical headlines like 9/11 memorial flags may be too much for some students.

It was disappointing to us when we first discovered the new policy because of SMUs decent track record in protecting free speech, said Grant Wolf, a senior at SMU and president of the SMU Young Americans for Freedom.

According the SMU student newspaper, the Daily Campus, These annual displays have been met with little resistance until several years ago, when a number of students spoke out against Mustangs for Lifes Memorial of Innocents cross display. In that incident, a campus pro-life group displayed more than 2,000 crosses also on the Dallas Hall Lawn, incidentally to memorialize the abortions performed daily in the U.S., sparking vandalism, threats and intense debate.

SMU Young Americans For Freedom published an open letter to the university president about the 9/11 memorial, signed by leaders of clubs from across the political spectrum.

The next day, SMU officials came out with a statement that reversed the sensitive language of the new policy but did not reverse its intentions. Meant to ease the chaos that ensued over freedom of speech, the letter walked the new policy back: That language regarding messages that are triggering or harmful was added earlier in July and had not gone through the appropriate approval process.

A week later, the university president came out with another letter that changes the policy and allows the organization to keep the original display.

I thank the students from across campus who came together in the spirit of mutual respect and civil discourse to achieve this outcome, SMU President R. Gerald Turner said in the statement.

We were very pleased, as a result of our discussions, that they agreed about the importance of free speech and understood our concerns, that they agreed to reinstate free expression on Dallas Hall Lawn, Wolf said. Our organization is on the front lines nationally trying to stand for free speech, so we saw this was an important opportunity for freedom of speech for all students.

Kalina Newman is a Boston University student and a USA TODAY digital producer.

Originally posted here:
SMU reverses decision to move 9/11 memorial after free speech controversy - USA TODAY

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate peoples free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the U.S. as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union this week sued Maine Gov. Paul LePage and sent warning letters to Utahs congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump.

Trumps frequent and often unorthodox use of Twitter and allegations he blocks people with dissenting views has raised questions about what elected officials can and cannot do on their official social media pages.

Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings.

People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and theyre hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback, said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. That includes people who disagree with public officials.

Most of the officials targeted so far all Republicans say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan called the Aug. 1 lawsuit against him frivolous and said his office has a clear policy and will remove all hateful and violent content and coordinated spam attacks.

The ACLU accused Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin of blocking more than 600 people on Facebook and Twitter. His office said he blocks people who post obscene and abusive language or images, or repeated off-topic comments and spam.

Spokesmen for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Mia Love, who were singled out by the ACLU, said people are rarely blocked and only after they have violated rules posted on their Facebook pages to prevent profanity, vulgarity, personal insults or obscene comments.

We are under no obligation to allow Senator Hatchs Facebook page to be used as a platform for offensive content or misinformation, spokesman Matt Whitlock said.

Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, which sued Trump last month, said theres no coordinated national effort to target Republicans. The goal is to establish that all elected officials no matter the party must stop blocking people on social media.

If its mainly used to speak to and hear from constituents, thats a public forum and you cant pick and choose who you hear from, Fallow said.

Rob Anderson, chairman of Utahs Republican Party, scoffed at the notion that politicians are violating free-speech rights by weeding out people who post abusive content.

You own your Facebook page and if you want to block somebody or hide somebody, thats up to you, Anderson said. Why else is there a tab that says hide or block?

Court decisions about how elected officials can and cannot use their accounts are still lacking in this new legal battleground, but rules for public forums side with free-speech advocates, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School.

For instance, lower court rulings say the government cant deny credentials to journalists because their reporting is critical, he said.

These are government officials communicating about government business. They cant pick or choose based on who they like or who likes them, Chemerinsky said.

But public officials may be able to legally defend the way they police their social media pages if they prove their decisions are applied evenly.

Its got to content-neutral, Chemerinsky said.

Trumps use of social media and the Supreme Courts decision in June striking down a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from social media is driving the increased attention to the issue, said Amanda Shanor, a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

More and more of our political discussion is happening online, Shanor said. Its more important that we know what these rules are.

Original post:
Free-Speech Debate Swirls As Officials Block On Social Media - 89.3 WFPL

Sen. Joe DonnellyJoe DonnellyGOP rep jumps into Indiana Senate race OPINION | Wendy Davis: Collins and Murkowski inspire the next generation of women in politics Anti-abortion Democrats fading from the scene MORE (D-Ind.)recently introducedthe Restoring Integrity to Americas Elections Act. Despite the innocuous name, this is yet another attempt to weaponize government against free speech, free association and political dissent.

The legislation wouldoverhaulthe Federal Election Commission (FEC) by lowering the number of FEC commissioners from six to five, supposedly putting an end to gridlock. The bill would also reduce partisanship by limiting commissioners to serving one term and granting the president power to nominate an FEC chair to serve for 10 years. This chair would have the authority to act independently of other commissioners, centralizing power in a single unelected political appointee.

Donnellys legislation will openly weaponize the FEC, as it allows one side of the aisle to impose its will when there is legitimate disagreement over complex legal matters. The House version of the bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) already hasmore than 10 bipartisan co-sponsors. Perhaps Renaccisnow-floundering campaignfor Ohio governor drove him to support such an un-conservative idea to pander to liberal voters.

For decades, the independent, six-member FEC has remained bipartisan by design, precisely because it has the power to restrict speech about politicsthe very heart of our freedoms of speech and association.

Under the proposed Donnelly-Renacci legislation, Democrats and Republicans would receive two commissioners each, allowing the president to pick the tiebreaker for the next decade. Consolidating partisan control for 10 years at a time does not sound like an improvement.

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a proponent of all-powerful FEC Chair, exemplifies why it cannot work: These roles are innately partisan. Weintraub ignores Democrat malfeasance while actively lobbying her agency colleagues to probe the reported attempts of Russia to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In asensationalist June memo, Weintraub claimed Russias alleged activities in our 2016 presidential election may represent an unprecedented threat to the very foundations of our American political community. Yet she disregards such concerns when a Democrat is involved.

The same commissioner has sought toregulate the internet,fine Fox News Channelfor includingmorecandidates in a 2015 Republican primary debate, and routinelyassails her fellow commissioners.

Weintraub complains about partisan dysfunction at the FEC,lamentingdivisions on ideological grounds. But she fails to understand her perceived dysfunctionher colleagues not agreeing with heris the natural outcome of a checks-and-balances system. There are reasonable differences in interpretation of complex election law and its application to particular facts. Dysfunction proves the FEC is not controlled by a single side of the aisle. Giving Weintraubor a Republican equivalentthe power to persecute speakers and criminalize speech is just plain crazy.

Recent attempts to reform the FEC only prolong Americas unfortunately long history of misplaced anti-speech activism. Surreptitiously-named liberal groups like the Center for Public Integrityroutinely lamentmoney in politics. They fearmonger with threatening terminology, from unlimited cash donors to shell game and aggressive trafficking. Left-wing activists like these revert to visceral depictions of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers as an us vs. them ploynot unlike the failed Occupy Wall Street movement.

Any attack on free speech is ultimately an attack on every Americans constitutional right to free expression, no matter how much money is involved. Big money in politics only exposes us to more ideas, while we, the citizens, retain the right to vote in secret at the ballot box. The dissemination of more ideas translates to more information, leaving us with more power to make informed choices about candidates or political issuesour own decision.

Only those who believe Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions think a few more TV ads is a bad idea. The American people should reject the Donnelly-Renacci mistake.

DanBackeris founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the rest here:
FEC 'reform' a smokescreen to weaponize government against free speech - The Hill (blog)

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate people's free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the U.S. as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union this week sued Maine Gov. Paul LePage and sent warning letters to Utah's congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump.

Trump's frequent and often unorthodox use of Twitter and allegations he blocks people with dissenting views has raised questions about what elected officials can and cannot do on their official social media pages.

Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings.

"People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and they're hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback," said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. "That includes people who disagree with public officials."

Most of the officials targeted so far all Republicans say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan called the Aug. 1 lawsuit against him "frivolous" and said his office has a clear policy and will "remove all hateful and violent content" and "coordinated spam attacks."

The ACLU accused Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin of blocking more than 600 people on Facebook and Twitter. His office said he blocks people who post "obscene and abusive language or images, or repeated off-topic comments and spam."

Spokesmen for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Mia Love, who were singled out by the ACLU, said people are rarely blocked and only after they have violated rules posted on their Facebook pages to prevent profanity, vulgarity, personal insults or obscene comments.

"We are under no obligation to allow Senator Hatch's Facebook page to be used as a platform for offensive content or misinformation," spokesman Matt Whitlock said.

Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sued Trump last month, said there's no coordinated national effort to target Republicans. The goal is to establish that all elected officials no matter the party must stop blocking people on social media.

"If it's mainly used to speak to and hear from constituents, that's a public forum and you can't pick and choose who you hear from," Fallow said.

Rob Anderson, chairman of Utah's Republican Party, scoffed at the notion that politicians are violating free-speech rights by weeding out people who post abusive content.

"You own your Facebook page and if you want to block somebody or hide somebody, that's up to you," Anderson said. "Why else is there a tab that says hide or block?"

Court decisions about how elected officials can and cannot use their accounts are still lacking in this new legal battleground, but rules for public forums side with free-speech advocates, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School.

For instance, lower court rulings say the government can't deny credentials to journalists because their reporting is critical, he said.

"These are government officials communicating about government business. They can't pick or choose based on who they like or who likes them," Chemerinsky said.

But public officials may be able to legally defend the way they police their social media pages if they prove their decisions are applied evenly.

"It's got to content-neutral," Chemerinsky said.

Trump's use of social media and the Supreme Court's decision in June striking down a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from social media is driving the increased attention to the issue, said Amanda Shanor, a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

"More and more of our political discussion is happening online," Shanor said. "It's more important that we know what these rules are."

See more here:
Free-speech debate swirls as officials block on social media - ABC News

From work memorandums to wedding cakes, our values and consistency are tested in some strange places.

Not too long ago, most people agreed on certain values when it came to free speech: I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it. To be sure, that value created costs, but it seemed worthwhile to most. That consensus is now gone, at least in the corporate context. How this change affects culture more generally remains to be seen, but we may get an answer sooner than many expect.

So in terms of the First Amendment, Google can set and promote whatever values it wants. It can criticize harmful gender stereotypes or wax eloquent about affirming the right of Googlers to express themselves or boldly proclaim that free society depends on free expression. Whether this is consistent, correct, coherent, or commendable doesnt matter as a purely legal matter. No one can force Google to change its mind or its message. As Apples CEO Tim Cook noted, a company is not some faceless, shapeless thing that exists apart from society. A company like ours has a culture, it has values, and it has a voice. The First Amendment agrees.

The same holds for artistic businesses. Among those, there is a strong push for businesses to promote certain values and to avoid certain values.

For example, everyone seems fine with cake designers not being compelled to design pro-Trump cakes. Indeed, the mom of a 9-year-old Trump supporter could not find a single cake designer to create a Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Caitlyn Jenner apologizes for wearing Make America Great Again hat Conway, ABC host tangle over Trump's involvement in son's statement MORE cake, and no one cried foul. Or consider Sophie Theallets independent fashion brand that refused to create dresses for Melania Trump. That seemed fine, too. After all, as Theallet noted, we value our artistic freedom and shouldnt have to participate in dressing or associating in any way with projects we dont want to support.

But when a Colorado cake designer named Jack Phillips decided that he and his cake shop could not create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage in 2012, the hammer came down hard culturally and legally. The state sued him for violating its anti-discrimination law and wants to compel him to design that cake.

#BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear same-sex wedding cake case https://t.co/YTQgtn6ci4 pic.twitter.com/KxsaRznV1V

For Phillips, the issue is one of corporate values and culture. While Phillips is happy to serve and does serve people of all sexual orientations, he cannot promote messages and values with which he disagrees, just like those other designers and businesses insist they cant do. In other words, Phillips doesnt discriminate based on status; he makes distinctions based on content. He sells brownies to all. He just doesnt celebrate every message requested of him, no matter who requests it.

That principle has now led Phillips to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear his case this upcoming term. And this moment will offer great insight into the current state of our free speech culture, both corporately and generally. Businesses and elite institutions often file briefs supporting one side or the other at the Supreme Court. Which side will these corporations support in Phillips case?

One would think, based on their free speech rhetoric and prior positions, that companies like Google would support Phillips. After all, in 2007, Google and Microsoft defended their First Amendment right to not show paid advertisements for websites criticizing North Carolina politician Roy Cooper in their search results. And in 2016, Apple defended its First Amendment right to not create computer code helping the federal government unlock a criminals iPhone. Businesses should stay true to their core values, or at least thats what we would assume. And the government surely should not compel these businesses to betray those values.

"The Google diversity memo should start the conversation not end it" https://t.co/fZokKygXhG pic.twitter.com/xgLlCDIDsI

Companies have even gone so far as to argue that their First Amendment rights trump anti-discrimination laws. Right now, Comcast is defending against an anti-discrimination lawsuit by asserting its First Amendment right to reject programs that African Americanowned media companies created. And in 2012, ABC defended its First Amendment right to exclude African Americans from The Bachelorette when it was sued for violating an anti-discrimination law. As ABC argued in that suit, Even laws which advance important and worthwhile social policy objectives, like anti-discrimination laws, may not, consistent with the First Amendment, be used to regulate the content of protected speech.

Since these companies so staunchly defend their own right to promote values of their choosing and have taken more extreme positions than Phillips, supporting this cake designer in his First Amendment quest should be easy. I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it, right?

In this respect, that anti-Trump fashion designer provided the best reason for businesses to support their own expressive freedom and for them to support Phillips, too: Integrity is our only true currency. Lets just see if she, Google, other corporations get the memo.

Jonathan Scruggs is senior counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the rest here:
Google memos and pro-Trump cakes: When free speech values collide - The Hill (blog)

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Freedom of Speech Is Not Enough Wall Street Journal (subscription) North Carolina last week became the latest state to enact a law protecting free speech on college campuses. The Restore Campus Free Speech Act requires schools to discipline students and faculty who substantially disrupt or interfere with the ... and more »

Original post:
Freedom of Speech Is Not Enough - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free speech is once again under attack in America. This time, the victims are not terribly sympathetic.

Under the banner of "unite the right", various white nationalist/neo-nazi groups will gather on Saturday in Charlottesville, Va. There they will protest against the planned removal of a statue of Confederate general in chief, Robert E. Lee, from Charlottesville's Emancipation Park.

They face two free speech obstructionists. The first offender is the room-sharing company, Airbnb, which has cancelled bookings made by event participants. Airbnb told the Washington Examiner that the "Airbnb Community Commitment" requires users to "accept people regardless of their race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age." Airbnb claims that the white nationalists are in breach of the commitment.

Of course, as a private corporation, Airbnb has the absolute right to restrict use of its residences on the basis of political opinion. And to be sure, I have some sympathy for Airbnb's desire to preclude morons like the "Nazi Uber" guy below from their offerings.

Still, I also believe Airbnb is adopting double standards here.

When I asked a spokesman whether Airbnb also prevented far-left Antifa protesters from using Airbnb residences, he avoided the question. Similarly, when I asked Laura Murphy, a former ACLU legislative director who helped develop Airbnb's "Community Commitment," for comment, she did not respond. This leads me to the conclusion that Airbnb is making subjective determinations about what forms of extreme politics are acceptable and what are not.

Nevertheless, the protesters have a far stronger case against the Charlottesville city government. Mayor Mark Signer claims that "Given the sheer numbers [of protesters] projected ... this event is incompatible with the dense and urban location of emancipation park which is right next to our Downtown Mall." He says "unite the right" must therefore hold its protest in a different city park.

The Supreme Court has ruled that government authorities can only restrict the time and place of events if doing so is "narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interests," is "content-neutral" in restrictions applied, and leaves "open ample alternative channels of communication." I don't believe the city can justify its relocation on that basis.

Most obviously, "unite the right" want to protest at emancipation park because that's where the statue whose removal they are protesting is located. Moving the protest would not be a "narrowly tailored" ban or commensurate with an available "ample alternative."

In addition, with this group expected to be heavily outnumbered by counter-protesters. The city cannot claim a significant governmental interest justification for relocating them. Were they to do so, they would be preferencing the speech of the counter-protesters. That would be a self-evident breach of their "content-neutral" responsibility.

Moreover, it's not as if relocation is the city's best option. Why can't it simply contain the "unite the right" protesters in the park and keep the counter-protesters away from them?

I do not support the beliefs of "unite the right," but their rights must be respected. After all, if the union victory which they so lament stands for anything, it stands for the right of citizens to peacefully assemble to petition for their cause.

Read this article:
Charlottesville and Airbnb are wrong to attack white supremacist free speech - Washington Examiner

The Googleplex in Menlo Park, California, on Nov. 4.

Josh Edelson/AFP/Getty Images

James Damore, the Google employee fired for circulating an internal memo decrying the companys gender diversity efforts, is well on his way to becoming a right-wing martyr. Julian Assange has offered him a job with WikiLeaks. The right-wing social media platform Gab has offered him a job as well. As of this writing, WeSearchr, the alt-right crowdfunding tool, has raised more than $8,000 for him. A National Review piece equates the hapless engineer with Martin Luther, saying hes nailed 95 theses to the door of the Church of PC. Some people are tweeting the hashtag #JeSuisJamesDamore.

Michelle Goldberg is a columnist for Slate and the author, most recently, of The Goddess Pose.

I groaned when I read that Damore had lost his job, as much as he probably deserved it, because this reaction was inevitable. There are few things the right loves more than basking in its own sense of victimization, especially when it can claim the mantle of free speech while doing so. Indeed, one of Steve Bannons great political innovations lay in realizing that the rage of atomized men who live online could be harnessed for political ends. As Bannons biographer, Joshua Green, writes in his best-selling Devils Bargain: He envisioned a great fusion between the masses of alienated gamers, so powerful in the online world, and the right-wing outsiders drawn to Breitbart by its radical politics and fuck-you attitude. Damores firing is the sort of thing that cements this squalid alliance. Its a gift to the troll armies.

Thats true even though Damores firing doesnt mean what the right says it does. As conservatives see it, Damore lost his job for a thought crime. He opposed Googles politically correct monoculture and articulated, in a nonconfrontational way, what a lot of people probably believe: that at least some occupational gender differences are biologically based. Im simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we dont see equal representation of women in tech and leadership, Damore wrote, adding, Many of these differences are small and theres significant overlap between men and women, so you cant say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

That sounds, if not right, then at least not unreasonable. One could describe the tone of this memo as cooperative, writes Michael Brendan Dougherty in the National Review. The author doesnt make any claims that he is victimized. He doesnt accuse anyone in particular of being unqualified. But the response it received wasnt argument, it was anathematization. This isnt quite true; Damore laments that the shaming of conservative views creates a psychologically unsafe environment, an ironic complaint from a critic of political correctness. But Dougherty is correct that Damore repeatedly nods to the value of diversity. He presents himself as an open-minded sort who is just trying to be helpful, though he seems to think that rational conversation begins with everyone accepting his premises. Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems, Damore writes.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the weeks biggest political news.

He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat.

To his supporters, it appears as if Damore was fired for refusing to take the position that all gender differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination. Silicon Valley has a very peculiar definition of diversity that requires proportional representation from every gender and race, all of whom must think exactly alike, writes Elaine Ou in Bloomberg View. But this is a red herring. Damore wasnt fired for harboring stereotyped views about women. He was fired for putting those views into a memo and disseminating it throughout the company in a way that calls his colleagues competence into question. Damore describes women as having more [o]penness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Noting that women suffer, on average, more neuroticism than men, he suggests, This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Damore has every right to believe this. He should have a right to express these beliefs outside work; there are countless online communities where men are welcome to discuss womens inherent shortcomings at length. Whether Damore has a right to express his views about women internally, and then expect women to be willing to work with him, is another question.

This incident put Google in a difficult position. Fire Damore, and it seems to affirm his complaints about the companys intolerance for conservative ideas. Keep him, and deal with the internal effects on morale, cohesion, and recruitment. As Yonatan Zunger, who until recently had a senior role at Google, wrote in an open letter to Damore, Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldnt assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them.

Getting rid of Damore thus might have been the right thing for Google. But the fact that he will now be a reactionary culture hero is bad for the rest of us. He is a familiar typeone who postures as a brave truth-teller passing around sexism like samizdat. These men draw power from being censored. We flatter them when we treat them as dangers rather than fools.

Continued here:
Of Course James Damore Is Now a Free Speech Martyr - Slate Magazine

The American Civil Liberties Union considers the proposed Israeli Anti-Boycott Act, which is working its way through Congress, a serious threat to free speech. We agree.

The act targets an international effort to boycott businesses in Israel and occupied Palestinian territories to pressure Israel to comply with international law and to stop the further construction of settlements on occupied Palestinian lands.

The bill would threaten large fines and prison time for businesses and individuals who dont buy from Israeli companies operating in occupied Palestinian territories, and who make statements, including social media posts, saying that they are doing so in order to boycott.

The bill would make it a felony to support the international boycott. Those found in violation would be subject to a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison, according to the ACLUs analysis.

The global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, began after Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005 called for a boycott to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Among the movements goals: ending the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Golan Heights; equality under Israeli law for Arab citizens; and stopping the expansion of almost exclusively Jewish settlements in Israeli-occupied territories, which the United Nations says is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Detractors say that BDS unfairly targets Israel, with the Anti-Defamation League going so far as to say it is the most prominent effort to undermine Israels existence. Supporters, however, say its a nonviolent movement inspired in part by similar actions taken against the apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s.

In Massachusetts, U.S. Rep. Richard Neal, D-Springfield, is one of 237 members of the House to co-sponsor the bill.

Neal explained his sponsorship recently by saying, I am opposed to international efforts that attempt to isolate, boycott and delegitimize the State of Israel. If peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, it will only come about through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians I take the views of the ACLU seriously, but remain deeply concerned about a movement that demonizes our close ally and rejects a two-state solution.

While we support Israels right to exist and our countrys historic alliance with Israel against its enemies, we should not let that trump the right of our citizens to express their political views through boycott without fear of retribution from a government that disagrees with their political stance. Today Israel, tomorrow what?

The ACLU is right to dig in on this. Its the edge of the proverbial slippery slope.

If members of Congress want to lend their support to Israel, then let them lend their voices, but not try to stifle the voices of their fellow citizens.

Other countries including France and Britain have enacted similar anti-boycott measures, but that doesnt make it right or mean we should follow suit. For more than 200 years America has seen itself as the champion of personal freedom and democracy, and we shouldnt now abandon that leadership role in the world.

As the ACLU has argued, individuals, not the government, should have the right to decide whether to support boycotts against practices they oppose.

The civil liberties organization has pointed to the 1982 Supreme Court case National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., in which the court ruled that nonviolent advocacy of politically motivated boycotts is protected as free speech.

Meanwhile, a somewhat similar bill is moving through the state Legislature and would prevent those who have contracts with the state from refusing, failing or ceasing to do business with anybody based on their race, color, creed, religion, sex, national origin, gender identity or sexual orientation. But some of the bills backers have explicitly stated that the goal is to target the anti-Israel boycott as a movement.

Joseph Levine, a philosophy professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a member of Western Mass. Jewish Voice for Peace, testified against the state bill recently for the same reason he thinks the federal proposal is bad policy.

As a Jewish American growing up in the generation right after the Holocaust, I am well aware of the frightening consequences that attend social toleration for racism in all its forms, particularly anti-Semitism, Levine said in his testimony. But I strongly oppose this act because I believe it actually fosters, rather than combats, discrimination.

I think the bill is horrible. It is a clear violation of peoples right to express their opinion It represents a frightening kind of authoritarianism that would be absolutely horrible and a terrible precedent if it passed.

The anti-boycott act is a rare bipartisan effort in 2017, with 31 Republican and 14 Democrat co-sponsors, and a similar House bill has 117 Republican and 63 Democrat co-sponsors.

Normally, we would applaud such bipartisanship, that would see the likes of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, joining the likes of Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio to cosponsor the bill. But as the ACLU presses its arguments, some are having second thoughts.

Gillibrands office said she had a different understanding of the bill than the ACLU, but she expressed a desire to change it.

We were relieved to hear that after the ACLU raised the alarm some federal legislators were reviewing their support of the bill and hope that Congressman Neal will do the same.

Go here to see the original:
Editorial: Anti-boycott bill threatens free speech - The Recorder - The Recorder

When I talk about free speech, I often ask the audience two questions. First, did you know that the Supreme Court has been steadily expanding free-speech rights? Second, do you feel freer to speak now than you did five years ago? The answers are always the same some variation of no and heck, no.

The first assertion is undoubtedly true. Federal courts have consistently protected free speech from government interference and have been relentless in shutting down viewpoint discrimination. When government officials target speech because of a speakers views, they lose time and again.

At the same time, millions of Americans are extraordinarily reluctant to express even the most mainstream of (particularly) social conservative views. Theyre convinced that if they do that, theyll be publicly humiliated, investigated, and perhaps even lose their jobs. Theyre convinced that outspoken liberals enjoy greater opportunity in key sectors of the economy, and if conservatives want to thrive, they best keep their opinions to themselves.

Two recent incidents highlight this concern. The first comes courtesy of actress Lena Dunham, the paradigm of the celebrity social-justice warrior. Early last Thursday morning, she tweeted at American Airlines that shed heard two of its employees engaged in transphobic talk. Specifically, she said she heard two flight attendants talk about how they thought transgenderism was gross, and theyd never accept a trans kid. She did not see them harassing anyone. She was simply eavesdropping on a conversation.

How did American Airlines respond? By launching an investigation into the offending employees (they couldnt substantiate Dunhams claims). Is that now the standard? Will American Airlines investigate employees without any allegation that theyve actually mistreated a single customer merely on the grounds that their employees private conversation offended a leftist?

The second incident comes courtesy of Google, one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. An anonymous employee penned a multi-page memo addressing why there are fewer women than men in key fields in the tech industry. In the memo, he noted that Google values gender and racial diversity but has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. This means that Google responds to gender imbalances with extreme and authoritarian measures. At the extreme, it views all gender disparities as due to oppression. Its authoritarian response is to discriminate to correct this oppression.

The writer than explores at length cultural and biological differences between men and women and then proposes some measures to increase female representation in the field without resorting to discrimination.

And how did his colleagues respond? How did Google respond? Employees demanded that he be fired. Google then penned a response that contained this ominous paragraph:

Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.

That was a thinly veiled warning. Speak your mind, but know that HR is looking over your shoulder. And late Monday, Google lowered the boom. It fired software engineer James Damore for perpetuating gender stereotypes. He wrote a memo describing how Google was intolerant of dissenting voices. Google proved his point.

Its important to note that Google and American Airlines are both private corporations. They have enormous latitude to advance their own corporate viewpoints and to regulate the speech of their employees. There is no First Amendment violation here. Theres nothing illegal about fellow employees or corporate employers attempting to squelch the speech of employees who quite literally dissent from the company line.

But just because something is legal does not mean its right, and the result is a crisis in the culture of free speech in the United States. As the politicization of everything proceeds apace, the company line has increasingly moved well beyond promoting its own products to promoting a particular kind of politics. Major corporations and virtually every university in the nation are now political entities just as much as theyre commercial entities, and they wear their progressivism on their sleeves.

The primary victims of this new culture of groupthink are social conservatives and other dissenters from identity politics. In field after field and company after company, conservatives understand that the price of their employment is silence. Double standards abound, and companies intentionally try to keep work environments safe from disagreement. Radical sexual and racial politics are given free rein. Disagree and lose your job.

It takes a person of rare constitution and moral courage to speak up. And thats precisely how the far Left likes it. After all, what value is there in disagreement? Theyve figured out that elusive path to racial, gender, and sexual justice, and disagreement only distracts. It does worse than distract. It wounds.

But take heart, conservatives. Its not all bleak. After all, the government is highly unlikely to persecute you for your speech. And if you want to succeed in cutting-edge businesses or enjoy equal opportunityin the academy, you do have one good option. You can shut your mouth.

READ MORE: The Anti-Diversity Screed That Wasnt Google Receives 95 Theses of Diversity and Inclusion Justifying Exclusion through Diversity

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

View post:
Lena Dunham & Google Demonstrate Eroding Free Speech Culture ... - National Review