Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

In response to the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict, student demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians have drawn scrutiny across the country and in Texas.

In late March, Gov. Greg Abbott ordered public universities to revise their free speech policies and singled out some pro-Palestine student groups, saying they should be subject to discipline. The order told officials for Texas university systems to report back free speech policy changes within 90 days.

Still, students and organizations have continued to announce pro-Palestine demonstrations, including at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Texas at Dallas. On Wednesday, multiple people were arrested on the UT-Austin campus during one such demonstration.

Gov. Greg Abbott cheered the arrests and called for the students to be expelled. Some UT students, professors and free speech advocates criticized the university and law enforcement response, calling it "disproportionate" and an "attack on students".

Free speech experts and advocates say students can generally peacefully protest, regardless of their viewpoint. However, colleges and authorities may still enforce some restrictions and criminal laws to maintain peace and order.

The right to protest is protected by the U.S. and Texas constitutions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. Freedom of speech and assembly means people can engage in symbolic actions and can arrange peaceful marches and protests on certain public lands.

But these rights are not without limitations. Government entities and colleges can enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions or regulations as long as they are applied neutrally and dont discriminate against particular groups or viewpoints. Some colleges have tried to limit protests to smaller, designated free speech zones, but the law has often backed up students peacefully protesting outdoors in open, public areas of campus, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

In 2019, Texas lawmakers passed a free speech law that established all common outdoor areas at public universities as traditional public forums, allowing anyone not just students and university members to exercise free speech there, as long as their activities are lawful and dont disrupt the normal functions of the campus.

Protections for free speech are broad and can include controversial viewpoints, but they do not extend to the following:

These are narrow categories of unprotected speech that require an analysis of the facts in each specific case, said Will Creeley, the legal director for FIRE. But he noted that violence is never protected, no matter who is committing the violence or however righteous one might think the violence is. It's always a bad idea. It undermines the effectiveness of protests and it is against the law.

Colleges may also have an obligation to intervene when speech violates federal anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or perceived religious or ethnic identity, but it takes a great deal to meet that requirement, Creeley said.

The bar for punishing discriminatory harassment requires that the harassment in question be so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive, that it effectively denies the victim access to an educational opportunity or benefit, he said.

Many private colleges also promise their students the right to free speech. FIRE keeps a database of free speech policies at 486 schools.

Individuals themselves dont usually need a permit to exercise their First Amendment rights, but some entities like cities may require one for unusually large protests or parades, in which case reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions may apply. Texas law allows universities to set reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions for common outdoor areas, as long as they allow "members of the university community to assemble or distribute written material without a permit or other permission from the institution."

Courts have historically indicated permitting deadlines cant be unreasonable and burden First Amendment rights, limiting permit request deadlines to a certain number of days before an event, according to the ACLU. Entities may charge fees but only to cover the administrative costs of processing an application and issuing a permit. Permit requirements and fees must be neutral without discriminating against certain viewpoints.

Students may face violations of both criminal law or a university's student conduct code.

On many of the campuses, what's happening is the protesters are being arrested for violation of state or local statutes or ordinances and not really for violations of campus speech codes, said Tom Leatherbury, director of the First Amendment Clinic at the SMU Dedman School of Law. So you also have state universities relying on police to enforce generally applicable criminal laws to protesters, even though the protesters activities may be otherwise protected.

Possible violations in Texas may be deemed disorderly conduct or could include:

Many of these possible violations are considered misdemeanors under Texas law, ranging in punishment from a fine of $500 or less for class C misdemeanors to up to a year in jail and/or a fine of $4,000 for class A misdemeanors.

In some cases, authorities or plaintiffs have pursued action against protest organizers not directly involved in unlawful conduct when such conduct has developed in a protest, Leatherbury said.

Stay alert, and be aware of situations developing around you, and make sure that you don't do anything that can be construed as violent or threatening, Leatherbury said.

The U.S. Supreme Court previously stated that negligence is not sufficient basis for imposing liability on political expression and association, but it recently declined to take up a case in which an appeals court with jurisdiction over Texas decided otherwise. Other lower courts have sided with protestors.

Students and people who are not U.S. citizens may face a greater risk in protesting. The Patriot Act, a federal law passed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, allows for surveillance and investigation related to a persons First Amendment activities, and immigrants who are not citizens or permanent residents may face harsher penalties if their actions are deemed domestic terrorism, according to the ACLU. Here are some resources for immigrants who may want to protest.

Employees should also be aware that they may be subject to workplace rules, including in regards to unexcused absences, and at-will employment policies that allow employers to fire employees easily.

Police have at times ordered people gathered for a protest to disperse. The ACLU says shutting down a protest through a dispersal order should be a last resort only exercised by police if there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, traffic interference or an immediate threat to public safety.

A dispersal order must provide protestors a reasonable opportunity to comply, including a clear and detailed notice with enough time and an unobstructed path to leave.

But people who dont follow orders to disperse by authorities may face arrest, even if they are otherwise protesting peacefully, Creeley said.

You don't have a First Amendment right to violate lawful orders. If you engage in civil disobedience, part of the power of your message comes from your willingness to accept the consequences of breaking the law, he said.

Police may detain people or briefly stop people for questioning if they have reasonable suspicion to investigate for criminal activity. If they believe they have sufficient evidence or probable cause, they may make an arrest and take someone into custody.

The ACLU recommends people stopped by police while protesting stay calm, keep their hands visible and say they are not disturbing anyone elses activities and that you are protected by the First Amendment. However, the ACLU suggests protestors avoid arguing because anything said can be used against you.

People being questioned by police have the right to remain silent, but may have to say they are exercising that right and give their name, according to the ACLU.

People can ask the police if they can leave. If they say yes, calmly walk away. Someone detained or under arrest can tell the police they would like to see a lawyer immediately. Police may search a person if they believe the person is concealing a weapon. People should not resist or touch the officer conducting the search, however, the ACLU recommends that people let police know that they do not consent to other searches.

The ACLU recommends that people do not protest or resist on the scene if they think their rights are being violated. Note that resisting arrest, evading arrest or detention and hindering someone elses arrest are all crimes.

For people who think they are wrongly arrested or detained, the ACLU recommends writing down any identifying information like officers names, badge numbers and patrol car numbers. After the event, people can submit a written complaint to the police or write a complaint to the ACLU.

Members of the public are allowed to record video openly and freely in public spaces, which may help serve as evidence if you are arrested or detained. Police may not confiscate or demand to view your video or photographs without a warrant, per the ACLU, but they may order people to stop activities interfering with law enforcement operations.

Some states require that all parties give consent for a conversation to be recorded when privacy can be expected, but Texas does not.

If you have questions or experiences related to student protests that you would like to share, feel free to email The Texas Tribune at community@texastribune.org.

Maria Probert Hermosillo contributed to this story.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin Sept. 5-7. Get your TribFest tickets before May 1 and save big!

Original post:
Here's what the law says about protesting on Texas college campuses - The Texas Tribune

Months ago, I had a miserable eureka moment. I was an aspiring writer whod quietly exiled myself from most of my writing circles due to the bullying pressure to support extremist left-wing politics or risk a whispering campaign. Even staying mute was treated as suspect.

Studies have consistently shown a notable sex difference in attitudes towards free speech and the freedom to offend

The most subtle defence of freedom of speech for those you disagreed with could generate accusations of enabling hate. Having spent my twenties either studying or working in support staff roles in universities a world I also self-exiled from due to the suffocating hive-mindery I reflected on what the worst sectors for such #bekind bullying and pressure to conform were; where you most likely risked ostracism if you dissented: academia, publishing, the arts, the charity sector, education, clinical psychology. I had a depressing suspicion what a common denominator might be and sadly it proved right. These are all sectors dominated by women.

Studies have consistently shown a notable sex difference in attitudes towards free speech and the freedom to offend, such as in this study by American social scientist Cory Clark. This particular survey was conducted by the US-based Knight Foundation and specifically pertained to university campuses. As this study by Kings College London shows though, there are very similar sex disparities more broadly, with women on average showing more sympathy for the importance of sensitive language over free speech that may offend.

Before I go any further here, there are three important things to highlight. The first is that these sex disparities, while notable, are not overwhelming. Stats may indicate that a minority of women favour freedom of speech over prioritising inclusivity and sensitivity and vice versa for men but they are large minorities (the aforementioned female-dominated sectors have plenty of males wholl support authoritarian speech policy for the sake of progressivism). There is more of a spectrum than a dichotomy here. The second thing is that caring about inclusivity and sensitive language is, in case it needs said, a very positive trait. In many circumstances it can and should be prioritised (when working with children, for instance, and trying to encourage their development and discourage bullying). The fact that women are again, on average more egalitarian, more considerate of peoples feelings and more diplomatic (or agreeable, as its often said) can be strengths, as is the masculine tendency towards clear hierarchy, meritocracy and prioritising tasks over relationships. All virtues taken to the extreme become detrimental or harmful and problems only arise when the pendulum swings too far. In harmony, these traits can (and have) accomplished tremendous things. The third point is that the two values freedom of speech and inclusivity (or kindness) need not be antagonists. In Clarks study, the men and women who prioritised free speech over promoting inclusivity are highly unlikely to be against the latter. They simply identified that the freedom to offend has to come first to preserve liberal democracy and the pursuit of truth in a university environment .

But university environments, as is patently evident to all but the most insulated and echo chamber-bound, are not committing enough to this principle. Nor are other places where freedom to offend must take precedence over subjective feelings, such the arts and the press. Take the pompously named Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which [advises] policymakers and business leaders about how to combat disinformation. The GDIs definition of what constitutes disinformation is extremely dubious. The head of the organisation, Claire Metford has stated:

A lot of disinformation is not just whether something is true or false it escapes from the limits of fact-checking. Something can be factually accurate but still extremely harmful

The tell-tale misguided safetyism behind the GDIs ethos moved me to look up the organisations website, which very helpfully shows a breakdown of employee demographics. Again, certain unfortunate correlations stand:

The second pie chart is relevant as it shows another important factor propagating well-intentioned censorship: age. As The KCL study shows, there are other demographic factors in the free speech versus be kind divide; attitudes also differ between Pro-Brexit and Pro-remain voters, Conservative party and Labour Party supporters and age groups. It is being increasingly observed that coercive progressivism, to steal journalist Stephen Daisleys phrase, is particularly attractive to Gen-Z and millennial age women for reasons largely to do with misplaced ideas of kindness and defending the vulnerable modern culture has weaned them on.

This is a phenomenon where the chicken arguably came before the egg. It is not the fault of millennial/Gen-Z women that they (we) came of age or were brought up from birth in a time of wildly confusing sexual politics and social media, which as has been well-observed, is a particularly seductive and destructive tool for young women, and enables social dynamics that encourage psychological bullying and character assassination; the style of bullying women are most susceptible to (although, again, by no means exclusively). If elite workplaces (such as academia and publishing) are not only permitting but rewarding progressive hivemindery, it makes sense they are following the incentives.

The impact that the feminisation of cultural institutions is having on attitudes to free speech and rise in paranoia about often ill-defined hate speech remains a cautiously sidelined subject in moderate-lefty circles. It has been boldly brought to light by some young female commentators such as Freya India and Louise Perry (Perry has also interviewed Cory Clark in depth on her podcast) but overall, it remains a something of an elephant in the room outwith highly conservative circles or the Manosphere (believe me, theyre talking about it). Its understandable why its being avoided. I know from experience shining light on any rift or heated debates within feminism will bring certain men flocking in glee, rubbing their hands because Lolz, the feminazis are eating their own. Nonetheless, uncomfortable realities should not be avoided because idiots might hijack and twist it into support for their own regressive agenda. When difficult and complex problems leave a void, it is only more likely to get filled by very loud and dangerous voices, rather than nuanced, constructive ones.

There is a very strong feminist case for women taking this issue by the tusks. Its been enthusiastically (and correctly) observed that women have been disproportionately persecuted for pushing back against coercive progressivism in cultural institutions. The reticence at acknowledging our sex has spearheaded much of the persecution and, more pertinently, understanding why, must be overcome. There is no shortage of freethinking, intellectually resilient and pro-freedom of speech women who are either suppressing themselves or self-excluding from cultural institutions that in a healthy climate, they would be flourishing in and leading for the better. The most competent and clever women can and have at times been hounded out of academia, the arts and journalism by overgrown mean girls leading smear campaigns. Not to mention, they are being leap-frogged by comparatively mediocre people who parrot the right views, to the detriment of all of us. If tackling this poison in modern cultural institutions means some deeply uncomfortable reckonings about certain aspects of female social behaviour, then it is worth it.

Visit link:
The awkward truth about sex and free speech | Nina Welsch - The Critic

Get the Facts: How far does the First Amendment go?

Updated: 4:30 PM CDT Apr 23, 2024

The First Amendment, arguably the most crucial amendment in the Bill of Rights, sets protections for free speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, but the extent of these protections is often misunderstood."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," the amendment reads.This essentially guarantees that the government can't dictate what citizens believe or control what they say, empowering every American to voice their opinions. The freedom of religion, often referred to as the "separation of church and state," prevents the government from establishing a state religion, similar to the Church of England.While Judeo-Christian language is deeply woven into American history and even its currency, the Supreme Court ensures that laws are constitutional and do not favor or discriminate against any particular religion. Freedom of speech and press are closely linked. Generally, the government can't penalize citizens for what they say or write, even if it's offensive, such as hate speech or non-verbal protests like flag burning.The founders, having just broken free from a monarchy, ensured that citizens have the right to expose a corrupt or tyrannical government. Criticizing government leaders, protesting, or filing a lawsuit to push for changes are all protected under the freedoms to assemble and petition.However, not all speech is protected. "True threats" and "fighting words" are not protected by the Constitution. The press also can't print harmful information knowing it's false due to libel laws. The government can't dictate what you say, but it can restrict where and when you say it.A common misunderstanding is that the First Amendment protects individuals from consequences in private spaces or workplaces. However, private entities can still enforce rules against certain speech or actions they disagree with. The freedoms outlined in the First Amendment primarily provide protection from the government, not from private consequences.

The First Amendment, arguably the most crucial amendment in the Bill of Rights, sets protections for free speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition, but the extent of these protections is often misunderstood.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," the amendment reads.

This essentially guarantees that the government can't dictate what citizens believe or control what they say, empowering every American to voice their opinions. The freedom of religion, often referred to as the "separation of church and state," prevents the government from establishing a state religion, similar to the Church of England.

While Judeo-Christian language is deeply woven into American history and even its currency, the Supreme Court ensures that laws are constitutional and do not favor or discriminate against any particular religion. Freedom of speech and press are closely linked. Generally, the government can't penalize citizens for what they say or write, even if it's offensive, such as hate speech or non-verbal protests like flag burning.

The founders, having just broken free from a monarchy, ensured that citizens have the right to expose a corrupt or tyrannical government. Criticizing government leaders, protesting, or filing a lawsuit to push for changes are all protected under the freedoms to assemble and petition.

However, not all speech is protected. "True threats" and "fighting words" are not protected by the Constitution. The press also can't print harmful information knowing it's false due to libel laws. The government can't dictate what you say, but it can restrict where and when you say it.

A common misunderstanding is that the First Amendment protects individuals from consequences in private spaces or workplaces. However, private entities can still enforce rules against certain speech or actions they disagree with. The freedoms outlined in the First Amendment primarily provide protection from the government, not from private consequences.

See the original post here:
Get the Facts: How far does the First Amendment go? - WDSU New Orleans

ADF attorneys favorably settle lawsuit on behalf of Dr. David Phillips, unlawfully fired after speaking about harms of racially divisive ideology

Thursday, Apr 25, 2024

RALEIGH, N.C. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have favorably settled a lawsuit on behalf of a professor fired by North Carolina education officials after he spoke out about the harms of the racially divisive ideology the school was embracing.

As dictated by the settlement agreement, the North Carolina Governors School has paid Dr. David Phillips approximately four years of his annual stipend and adopted a policy to respect faculty free speech in its elective seminarslike the ones Phillips gave shortly before he was fired. The policy affirms the Governors Schools desire to offer elective seminars that present a wide range of viewpoints. And it states that the school accords faculty members the freedom and responsibility to craft academic and intellectual experiences that reflect their unique viewpoints and expertise.

Teachers shouldnt be fired for fostering intellectual diversity on campus. A good education includes providing students with a wide range of differing viewpoints to explore, said ADF Senior Counsel Hal Frampton. Dr. Phillips was beloved, respected, and well-regarded by both students and faculty as an advocate for students who felt that their voices werent being heard and their perspectives werent welcomed at the Governors School. Were pleased to favorably settle this case on his behalf. Now, the Governors Schools policy rightly respects teachers freedom of speech, which greatly benefits all students and families.

Phillips was a well-respected English professor who spent eight summers teaching at the Governors School, a residential summer program for the states most talented high school seniors. For years, Phillips spoke out against the schools increasing adoption of critical theory, an ideology that views everyone and everything through the lens of characteristics like race, sex, and religion, labeling people as perpetual oppressors or victims based on group membership alone. After Phillips delivered three optional seminars in June 2021 critiquing critical theory and the increasing bias and lack of viewpoint diversity in higher education, North Carolina public school officials fired him mid-session without any explanation.

Following these lectures, a group of students and staff members reacted with open hostility, referencing race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion in their comments and questions. Despite the hostility, Phillips stayed long after the conclusion of each lecture to answer questions, even offering to meet with students later for further discussion. The day after Phillips third optional seminar, the Governors School fired him without warning or explanation. When he asked why, he was told no explanation would be given, and that there was no appeal or other recourse. Phillips had always received glowing performance reviews without a single negative comment up until the point of the lectures.

In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case, Phillips v. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Thursday. Anthony Biller of Envisage Law, one of more than 4,500 attorneys in the ADF Attorney Network, served as co-counsel for Phillips.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

# # #

See the rest here:
NC school adopts free speech policy after firing professor who opposed critical theory - ADF Media

A University of Lethbridge professor spoke on the topic of existing arguments for and against limiting freedom of expression at the Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs session on Thursday at the Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization.

Guest speaker, associate professor of philosophy Susan Dieleman, posed the question, why place limits on freedom of expression?

She followed up by stating she would remain neutral in discussing further on the posed question.

I'll be looking at the background arguments, the arguments that are used to defend freedom of expression and not place limits on freedom of expression.

And then arguments that suggest, well, in some cases, maybe we should actually limit free speech. There might be good reasons for doing that. So that's my plan for the talk to look at the arguments on either side, said Dieleman.

Dieleman noted the Supreme Court of Canada identified three points to the argument of freedom of expression.

Supreme courts as well have identified these three arguments. And they are picking out three specific arguments for why we think freedom of expression or free speech is important, she said.

She described the three points with one of them being epistemic arguments, There is an epistemic argument having to do with knowledge

There are political arguments in support a free speech or freedom of expression as well, generally having to do with how we protect our democratic institutions and decision-making procedures.

Dieleman talked about political arguments with freedom of expression along with the moral arguments made.

There is a political argument that can be offered for freedom of speech. And there's also a moral argument that's captured in that last part of the passage, individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing, where the idea is that we protect free speech, because that is how individual people's right or ability to pursue their own conception of what it means to be a good life to live a good life is protected, she said.

She also talked about the consequentialist argument.

It's referring to the good consequences of protecting free speech. It suggests that we should do something like protect free speech because there are good consequences that follow if we do. So, for the epistemic argument. We've got a consequentialist argument that says there are good epistemic consequences that follow if we protect free speech.

Dieleman said on the flip side there are arguments against freedom of speech within the Charter.

In the Charter, there is a suggestion that well, you can place limits on these rights,if there's good reason to do so. And that it can be justified

And so these arguments are suggesting, well, there might be good reasons to, in some cases, for some reasons, limit free speech or place limits on certain kinds of speech.

In closing she talked about the questions posed to break down the other sides arguments.

In opposition to those arguments will look a little bit different. So, if you're looking at a consequentialist argument that says there should not be limits on free speech, what the opposing argument would do is ask, well, are those epistemic benefits or political benefits those good consequences achieved? When there are no restrictions on speech? Maybe it will be the case, according to these arguments that limits on speech of certain kinds of speech, actually do a better job of helping us achieve those consequences, said Dieleman.

Steffanie Costigan, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Lethbridge Herald

Follow this link:
Professor tackles subject of limiting freedom to express - Yahoo News Canada

RUSTON, La., April 24, 2024 Louisiana Tech University is the latest school to receive a green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Green light ratings are reserved for institutions with no written policies that seriously threaten student free speech rights. Tech is one oftwo schools in Louisiana, and one of 65 nationwide, that earn this rating.

Louisiana Tech, with its commitment to sharing knowledge, expanding ideas, and pursuing discovery, must also provide an environment that upholds free expression in its broadest sense, said Tech President Jim Henderson. A culture of inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas. We appreciate FIREs partnership in evaluating our policies to ensure we can meet this ideal we have for our community at large.

In the summer of 2023, Louisiana Tech had an overallred light rating because of a dozen policies that restricted freedom of speech. FIRE sent the school a memorandum analyzing its policies, and Techs general counsel and FIREs Policy Reform team collaborated to revise the necessary policies. That following winter, the school advanced to a yellow light rating by removing from its student handbook a red light sexual misconduct provision that put protected speech at risk.

But Louisiana Tech administrators did not stop there. In the first quarter of 2024, they worked with FIRE to revise 11 other policies governing computer use, disrespect for authority, harassment, and more.

The universitys updated policies on room decorations and posting, for example, signal its commitment to viewpoint neutrality. The new policy for room decorations only bans materials that create a fire hazard or otherwise violate university policy, with no restrictions on the content of decorations.

Similarly, a new campus posting policy guarantees that student organizations will not be denied permission to display signs in university buildings based on the viewpoint of their materials. Signage will only be removed if it violates the law or other university policies. This ensures no clubs will be censored or discouraged from sharing their views. As an additional avenue for expression, the policy establishes a bulletin board where students may post without prior approval.

The ability to post without administrative approval in at least one area on campus is absolutely critical to a healthy campus climate for free expression, said FIRE Senior Program Officer Mary Griffin, who worked with the Tech administration to secure these policy changes. At a time when other institutions are sharply limiting student expression by censoring unpopular views, Techs policy revisions signal to its community that its campus is a place to engage in robust dialogue on the issues of the day.

Tech is part of the University of Louisiana system, which has long sought to implement speech-protective policies at its nine schools. FIRE has been working with the system for nearly two years, helping to revise 32 speech-chilling policies across its constituent institutions.

More than 14,000 students now attend green light schools in Louisiana. Hopefully, Louisiana Techs achievement will inspire other schools in the state to follow suit. Louisiana should try to emulate its southeastern neighbors likeNorth Carolina,Mississippi, andVirginia, which boast a combined 26 green light schools.

FIRE is eager to help schools in Louisiana and around the country earn green light ratings. We regularly work with colleges and universities, free of charge, to revise their policies to ensure they meet First Amendment standards. Contact FIREs campus Policy Reform team today at speechcodes@thefire.org.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

Louisiana Tech University, established in 1894 in Ruston, Louisiana, is renowned for its commitment to academic excellence and hands-on learning. With diverse undergraduate and graduate programs, modern facilities, cutting-edge research centers, and vibrant student life, the university provides an unparalleled educational experience. Emphasizing faculty expertise, mentorship, and active community engagement, Louisiana Tech prepares students for successful careers and meaningful contributions to society.

CONTACT:

Jack Whitten, Media Relations Specialist, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Cami Geisman, Executive Vice President for External Affairs, Louisiana Tech University: 225-202-0870; cgeisman@latech.edu

Go here to read the rest:
Louisiana Tech earns top rating for free speech - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

Live updates: Follow the latest on Israel-Gaza

After participating in a pro-Palestine protest at Columbia University in New York, Lebanese-American student Yasmine was detained by police the first mass arrest on a US campus that has since ignited a student anti-war movement.

"What got me to protest was the disappointment with everything that was happening in the last six months [in Gaza] and feeling extremely helpless," Yasmine, who asked to be identified only by her first name, told The National.

With only two months left until graduation, Yasmine was suspended and is unsure whether she will be able to complete her degree in time.

She has to appear in court on May 8 for a 'violation' charge.

More than 100 students at Columbia were arrested last week for refusing to dismantle a protest encampment on the universitys main campus.

Part of a larger group advocating Palestinian rights, the students set up the camp on the central lawn of the school's upper Manhattan campus as a form of peaceful protest against what they describe as Israel's unjust actions against Palestinians.

The students have declared their intention to stay until the university agrees to divest from companies linked to Israel, ensure financial transparency and grant amnesty for faculty members connected to protests.

We don't actually know what Colombia invests in and that's part of our tuition, Yasmine said.

She added that the images of Palestinian suffering amid the siege of Gaza, as well as in the occupied West Bank, had left many students feeling powerless and the encampment was a response to the administration ignoring their demands.

We are heart-broken by what's happening in Palestine every day, she said.

The essential goal is to divest funding from Israeli apartheid and to shed light on what's happening in Palestine.

A student is arrested during a pro-Palestine demonstration at the University of Texas at Austin. Getty Images

Especially coming from, like, in America, which is Israel's number-one supporter, and gives it a carte blanche to do whatever it wants and break as many international laws as it wants.

A resident fellow at Yale Law School, who asked to remain anonymous, told The National divesting from weapons manufacturers is actually a low bar that's what makes these protests so potentially explosive.

In November, Columbia suspended the groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, which had organised the protest, for the rest of the autumn term, citing repeated breaches of school policies.

They are still barred this term, said Yasmine.

Even though at every protest, there had been counter-protesters with students who stand with Israel, and who faced no backlash for also being there.

It's a bit of a double standard in terms of how the institution has actually dealt with this.

The protest at Columbia coincided with university president Nemat Shafik's appearance before Congress, during which she was grilled on Columbia's approach to fighting on-campus anti-Semitism.

During the Republican-led House committee hearing, Ms Shafik promised to address unauthorised protests more rigorously.

The protest, which began peacefully, escalated when participants refused to comply with university officials' orders to vacate the premises.

The next day, Ms Shafik enlisted the New York Police Department to remove the encampment, leading to more than 100 arrests and numerous student suspensions.

The incident has raised concerns in the Columbia community over the suppression of free debate, which is fundamental to the US educational ethos.

According to Mohamad Bazzi, director of the Kevorkian Centre for Near Eastern Studies at New York University, Columbia and Barnard College have been the most extreme examples where dozens of protesting students are facing disciplinary action.

Students have lost their housing; they've been denied access to student housing. They might not be allowed to finish the term, he told The National.

He added that the pillars of freedom of speech and liberty to protest are definitely under assault at these institutions.

America's campuses and universities, especially for pro-Palestine speech thats been the dividing line that we've seen in the past few months.

When asked if the protests were making life unsafe for Jewish students on campuses, Yasmine strongly disagreed.

Most of the people who were with me in my jail cell were Jewish. The people on the encampment are from so many different backgrounds, like Arab, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Black, South-East Asian it's very diverse.

Helga Tawil-Srouri, associate fellow at NYU who has been at the school's encampment since it was set up on Monday morning, told The National administrators are not holding up their promises of academic freedom, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

They're also being obviously very, very duplicitous and hypocritical about who can have such freedoms and who can't, and it kind of portrays very deep, fundamental kinds of problems about how university administrations deal with their own people, she said.

The students are really quite amazing in their own way. I think they're very politically aware, very politically astute. They're very uncompromising, if I can say that, and they're willing to take a stand.

Mr Bazzi noted that high-ranking staff within US universities are increasingly apprehensive over a potential backlash from Congress.

Only a few months before Ms Shafik appeared at the hearing, two university presidents who had also come under the congressional microscope over on-campus anti-Semitism resigned.

The resident fellow at Yale Law School said that when it comes to Israel, there are sensitivities that are highly problematic.

Not only the establishment leaders in universities and key positions tend to not be representative of the broader public opinion, much less than a university student bodies opinion, he said.

But also, you have the entire donor class that is uniquely invested in the idea of Israel and the continuation of Israel's role of dominance, oppression in the region.

What makes these protests really interesting is because they hold the potential to move the needle on some on this issue that is very, very intractable.

He said it has become obvious that the injustices experienced by Palestinians are irreconcilable with the stated values of western society.

Despite the challenges, Yasmine has no regrets.

It's created such a huge movement across campuses around the US, she said.

I feel it's kind of brought some inspiration and hope for a lot of people. And that's 100 per cent worth it for me.

Updated: April 25, 2024, 8:24 AM

Read the original post:
Freedom of speech 'under assault' at Palestine protests in US universities - The National

While a provision that could ban the social media platform TikTok in the United Statespassed into law Wednesday, some Wyoming state lawmakers are still leery of it.

The provision will give TikToks Beijing-based parent company 270 days to sell the platform. Failing that, the ban would blockthepopular social media appin the United States.

President Joe Biden signed the ultimatum Wednesday.

Rep. Mike Yin, D-Jackson, who serves on theWyoming Legislatures Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology and Digital Innovation, told Cowboy State Daily he believes Congress is overlookingthepotential threats fromother platforms,not just TikToks Chinese ownership.

We need to take a broader look at all social media, said Yin. Simply picking one company, I think, does what former President Trump said it would dohelp Mr. Mark Zuckerberg.

Yin declined to elaborate.

Trump railed against the ban this week, claiming Biden is helping Facebook founder Zuckerbergs Meta platformsto profit and gainpolitical influence.

Trump and Yin are not alone in this theory. The Washington Post concluded the same in a Wednesday analysis, while Business Insider pointed to Meta-owned Instagrams Reels, as well as Alphabet-owned YouTubes Shorts as competitors who stand to benefit.

Facebooks actions factor into the massive evidence pool in Missouri v. Biden, in which a handful of plaintiffs are accusing the federal government of using social media to further a censorship conspiracy and influence the 2020 election.

Rep. Daniel Singh, R-Cheyenne, told Cowboy State Daily he understands the arguments against U.S. TikTok use, but he fears the ultimatum hinders freedom of speech,and he does not expect the provision to survive a court challenge.

That is troubling to me, said Singh when the president signed the provision,adding he would behesitant to restrict what Americans have access to.

Singh is also a member of the tech committee.

While Congress, including Wyomings three federal delegates, has advanced the TikTok ban largely to keep Americans data out of the hands of the Chinese Communist Party, some politicians have floated concerns about TikToks harmful mental healthimpacts onAmerican youth.

The app feeds short videos rapidly intoaviewers phone or device.

Just because TikTok was an innovator in social media doesnt mean American social media platforms arent any less addictive or damaging to the developing mind,Singhsaid. So,weve got to be cautious of that.

Committee Co-Chair Rep. Cyrus Western, R-Big Horn, agreed with the ultimatum and said its about kicking Chinese political influence out of the United States.

The Chinesecompanybehind TikTokhasdirect access to tens of millions of teenagers in America, said Western. They can mold their thoughts or opinions. Theres no question theyre wielding that power.

Western said TikTok has a reprehensible impact on minors mental health.

He countered First Amendment arguments against the ultimatum, saying there are still plenty of social media platforms on which Americans can express themselves.

The First Amendment is alive and well, said Western.

Sen. Dan Furphy, R-Laramie, agreed with Western and pointed to the amount of time state lawmakers spent this winter on a failed effort to block foreign ownership of Wyoming farmlands.

Wyomings lone U.S. Houserepresentative and two U.S.senatorshave matched up withWesterns perspective in the past.

With user data on millions of Americans and over 210 million downloads in the United States, TikTok is a clear and present danger to our national security, Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyoming, said in a March press release. Due to the structure of laws governing business under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), this user data is not only available to parent company ByteDance, but also to the Chinese government.

Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis, both Wyoming Republicans, voiced similar statements at the time, with Lummis saying the company should cut ties with the CCP, and Barrasso saying the CCP has been using TikTok to spy on Americans.

Committee Co-Chair Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D-Laramie, said he favors the ultimatum more than he would an outright ban, but he hopes people in Congress have decent data to back their actions.

He added that state legislators typically dont have access to the same level of intelligence as people working at the federal level, so its hard to make judgment calls from here.

We can grandstand as state legislators and as governors and as people that dont actually have access to the intelligence that underlies those allegations. But its just that. Its just grandstanding, he said. I would certainly not cast a vote really either way on this, based on the information I have; I am just hopeful that this legislation is based on sound intelligence.

Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.

Go here to see the original:
Is TikTok Protected Speech Or Threat To Americans? Wyoming Legislators Split - Cowboy State Daily

Many legal protections are grouped under two related but distinct categories: civil liberties and civil rights. The former, which includes the right to freedom of speech, protects individuals from oppression. The latter prevents wrongful discrimination against groups based on race, religion, national origin, or other attributes.

On many issues, devotees of civil rights and civil liberties coalesce. Sometimes, however, they diverge.

Consider hate speech. Civil rights activists tend to argue (and have argued since at least the 1980s) that certain types of speech are so hurtful and offensive to racial minorities that they should be prohibited. In contrast, civil libertarians tend to maintain that virtually all speech, even the most deplorable, ought to be protected.

The result? Bitter disputes over speech codes on college campuses and beyond.

As an African American with strong, decades-long commitments to civil rights and civil liberties, I have been concerned to see racial justice activists in the African American community distance themselves from the most ardent champions of freedom of speech in recent years.

I have been concerned to see a notable paucity of African American students attending campus events focused on threats to civil liberties. And, in the broader world of civil liberties advocacy, I have watched with dismay as leading civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the National Coalition Against Censorship have struggled to attract the support of young African Americans, at least in part because those organizations are seen as defending the rights of racists.

This alienation between supporters of civil rights and civil liberties is harmful and avoidable. Reconciliation is essential and urgently needed.

Racial justice activists must realize that a speech-protective culture a culture that defends even ugly expression benefits minority communities that depend upon protest to make their presence and preferences seen and heard.

Especially at this moment, as state governments threaten to remove Black thinkers and artists from school curricula, the sentinels of racial justice must defend artistic, academic, and political liberties for all.

Many of the most important judicial rulings that extended civil liberties in the post-World War II era arose directly from protests seeking racial justice.

In the 1950s, when the state of Alabama sought to obtain the membership lists of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, lawyers persuaded the Supreme Court to protect NAACP members right to free association without fear of exposure and retaliation.

In the 1960s, when white supremacists arbitrarily denied Black civil rights activists the permission to hold rallies, lawyers persuaded the Supreme Court to protect the right to protest, requiring officials to issue clear, objective, uniform regulations, applicable to all on an equal basis.

Student-led activism also contributed to much of this liberty-protective jurisprudence.

In 1960, when Alabama State College expelled Black students participating in a sit-in at a racially segregated lunch room, a federal court of appeals determined that the punishment, administered without benefit of notice or a hearing, violated the students right to due process.

Later, in 1967, a federal district court ruled in favor of Black students at South Carolina State College, protecting their right to protest without prior approval from the college administration.

Indeed, there is a long history of the intrepid champions of racial justice being among the fiercest defenders of freedom of expression.

In 1952, for example, the Baltimore Afro-American newspaper criticized the prosecution of a white supremacist who had been convicted under a state law that criminalized racist group vilification. In an editorial, the newspaper wrote that the battle against bigotry can be fought most effectively in an atmosphere in which freedom of speech is not restricted or confined.

We seek for those with whom we disagree, the editorial continues, the same rights and privileges we demand for ourselves.

Thurgood Marshall, Pauli Murray, and Eleanor Holmes Norton all stalwart fighters for racial justice echoed that same sentiment, defending the rights of racists to speak freely because they could see the bigger picture.

The most aggressive censorship efforts in American history have attended the imposition and maintenance of racial hierarchy. In the 19th century, many states enacted laws that criminalized teaching literacy to Blacks an egregious effort to erase the African American mind.

As new attempts at suppression rear their head today, we must remember that tragic experience and subsequent iterations of ideological and intellectual tyranny. Racial justice activists ought to use those acts of censorship as rallying points to resist all undue encroachments upon freedom of speech, listening, teaching, and learning because free expression helps, rather than hurts, the fight for racial justice.

Randall L. Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor at Harvard Law School. His column runs bi-weekly on Thursdays.

See the original post:
Free Speech Aids Racial Justice. Activists Must Defend It. | Opinion - Harvard Crimson

In my columnlast week, I detailed how GOP lawmakers in several Western states have jettisoned their usual concerns about free speech and have passed laws that require cellphone users to disable government-mandated filters before having open access to apps. It's a foolhardy endeavor done in the name of protecting The Children from obscenity, but at least these measures are narrow in scope (and mostly about posturing).

Meanwhile, progressives are hatching attacks on "disinformation" that threaten the foundations of the Constitution. Republicans share some responsibility, as they've backed variousproposals targeting Big Tech out of pique about the censorship of conservative views. These ideas included limits on liability protections for posted content and plans to treat social media sites as public utilities.

Conservatives have already shown a willingness to insert government into speech considerations, so they are left flat-footed asleftistshatch plots to rejigger open debate. Whenever the Right plays footsie with big government, the Left then ups the anteand conservatives end up wondering what happened. What is happening now is an effort to use legitimate concerns about internet distortions to squelch what we read and say.

Traditionally, Americans of all political stripes have accepted thatexcept for a few strictly limited circumstancespeople can say whatever they choose. The nation's libel laws impose civil penalties on those who have engaged in defamatory speech, but those laws are narrowly tailored so the threat of lawsuits doesn't halt legitimate speech. This emanates from the First Amendment, which said Congress shall make "no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Such protections were applied to all governments, of course. Thecourtswrestle with gray areas (commercial and corporate speech, pornography, political advertising), but our nation thankfully has tilted heavily in the direction of upholding the broadest speech rights. This legal framework has been bolstered by a broad consensus among the citizenry that speech rights are sacrosanct. There always have been those people who want to police speech, but they have largely been outliers.

The internet and the information free for all that's followed have challenged that consensus. When I first got into the journalism business, Americans had limited access to information. We could read the daily newspaper, which didn't cover many issues and where editors served as gatekeepers. We could watch the network news at 6 p. or subscribe to magazines. There was no internet or cable news. Talk radio was in its infancy. Now anyone can post anything online and traditional news sources are struggling.

In the old days, I was routinely frustrated by the strict gatekeeping, as it was hard to find viewpoints that diverged from the accepted mainstream point of view. Now, we all have information overload, and it's hard to know what to believe. These days, Americans can't even agree on a basic set of facts before developing an opinion. Russian and Chinese bot farms churn out obviousdisinformation. Outright falsehoods spread like wildfire and become accepted truths among large groups of Americans.

Concerns about internetconspiraciesare not unwarranted, but efforts to address those problemsespecially ones that rely on governmentpose dangers to our rights as Americans. It's one thing to target a concerted online disinformation campaign from the Chinese Communist Party, but quite another to clamp down on "misinformation"ideas and facts that one might find to be inaccurate or based on shoddy and biased reasoning.

In a 2021 Harvard Gazette article, Harvard Law School professor Martha Minowarguedthat the Federal Communications Commission should "withhold licenses, remove them, terminate them, for companies that are misleading people." In other words, federal bureaucrats would be tasked with determining what amounts to "misleading people" and then yank the licenses of broadcast news outlets that failed to conform to that standard.

Think about how that would play out. Many public health officials have railed against COVID-19 misinformation, and yet we later learned that the officials' solutions turned out to be wrong and that critics raised important points. That's how life works in a free society. Different people make different claims and then evidence unfolds, albeit in a messy and imprecise manner. How often have we found that official sources get things terribly wrong?

After detailing an example of spreading online misinformation, a New York Timesarticle from 2020 argued that "increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. They think our formulations are simplisticand especially inadequate for our era."

It's unclear how this new regimen will play out, but it's a good guess it will mean creepy government control over our discourse. Be prepared, as such "questioning" will onlyincreaseas a political movement at home with canceling verboten speech offers specific solutions. Conservatives may rue the day they ever toyed with speech limitations.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

View post:
Progressives Are Ditching Free Speech To Fight 'Disinformation' - Reason