Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read more:
Letter to the editor: Major threat to freedom of speech looms for all - Bozeman Daily Chronicle

While the famous First Amendment right appears simple on paper Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech its interpretation is something Americans have been arguing over ever since the rule was ratified. Its a complex, nuanced topic, so its not surprising that many people get confused about what free speech actually protects, especially now that so many conversations are happening on social media.

Most people dont think theyre confused. Theyre pretty sure they know what free speech is, and theyre often wrong, said Ben Wizner, the director of the ACLUs Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, in a recent Ask the Expert podcast discussing freedom of speech.

So naturally, the free speech debate flares up regularly. Tesla TSLA, -8.33% founder Elon Musk a self-described free speech absolutist has made upholding free speech central to his takeover of Twitter TWTR, +2.65%. Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated, he tweeted.

And reactions to the Twitter board accepting Musks bid have ranged from users celebrating what they consider the return of free speech to the platform, to some threatening to delete Twitter if Musk relaxes community standards.

Related: With Elon Musks Twitter bid, theres more at stake than freedom of speech: It gives him a lot more influence over governments

Many are echoing Musks public square or town square argument to demand freedom of speech on social media; that when speech takes place in a public forum, that speech can qualify for protection of speech under the First Amendment. And many of them have accused Twitter, Metas FB, -6.77% Facebook and Instagram, as well as Alphabets GOOGL, -4.71% YouTube, of stifling free speech by cracking down on accounts that incite violence or spread misinformation actions which have included suspending former President Donald Trumps personal accounts.

But the Supreme Court has ruled that social media platforms are not considered public forums theyre companies hosting conversations. And companies are not responsible for protecting freedom of speech; the government is, legal experts including Stanford law professor Nate Persily explain.

Lets review.

The First Amendment text specifies that Congress which the Supreme Court ruled also extends to the states and local governments may not restrict freedom of speech. Speech that takes place in a traditional or designated public forum (like a sidewalk or park on government property) is protected, with some exceptions. Freedom of speech includes the right to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages; for students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war; or to engage in symbolic speech by burning the American flag, to name a few examples.

But there is actually no constitutional right for a person to express themselves however they want in a private facility, such as within a store or on a company-run social media platform.

The First Amendment is protecting speech from government censorship not your right to say whatever you want on Twitter or Instagram if it violates the codes of conduct.

At the most basic level, the First Amendment protects our speech from interference and reprisal from the government. It doesnt protect our speech from interference, reprisal, censorship from Twitter or from Facebook, or in most cases, from your private employer, said Wizner on his podcast.

Related: Elon Musk wants free speech for Twitter, but that may not work with Europe tech rules

Private companies not only have the right to decide who can speak on their platforms, but they themselves have the First Amendment right to make decisions about the character of their platforms, Persily agreed. In fact, if the government tried to ban Facebook or Twitter from being able to decide what content is and isnt allowed on their sites, then that would be violating those companies own First Amendment rights.

Every community standard at every tech platform would be unconstitutional if it were passed by the government. Banning incitement, hate speech, nudity, obscenity, bullying, self-harm, Holocaust denial almost all of that speech is going to be considered protected under the First Amendment, Persily continued. But the platform decides that they dont want their ecosystem, which is under their control, to be filled with certain types of content that they think make the product unusable.

No, because Twitter is not a government. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are also not legally considered town squares.

Many users may consider their go-to social networks as public forums, because they are publicly sharing their opinions online in those spaces. And these sites are often colloquially called digital public squares or digital town squares.

But thats not what the courts have said. The courts have ruled that social networks are private, and hosting speech by others does not make them public forums.

The internet is a public square, Persily explained. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are not; they are ways of organizing information online. So Twitter and YouTube can pull down content that they consider obscene, inciting violence or spreading misinformation. And banning them from moderating that content on their own sites would ban their First Amendment rights.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to incite imminent lawless action; to make or distribute obscene materials (such as child pornography); or to burn draft cards as an anti-war protest, to name a few. Defamation (aka making false statements to damage a persons reputation) or threatening to commit a crime (such as threatening to kill someone) are also not protected.

One thing to keep in mind is that Twitter is used by people all over the world, and different countries have different rules governing free speech. So Musk will be confronted with Europes Digital Services Act, which will require big tech companies such as Twitter, Google and Facebook parent Meta to police their platforms more strictly, or face billions in fines. And the ACLUs Wizner noted that in Germany, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust while in the U.S., that would be considered protected political speech.

If his approach will be just stop moderating it, he will likely find himself in a lot of legal trouble in the EU, Jan Penfrat, senior policy adviser at digital rights group EDRi, told the Associated Press.

Twitter cannot legally be accused of censoring free speech. But Persily noted that discussions around whether Twitter and other social networks should have a more open speech environment, on the other hand, are perfectly reasonable.

If, like many people, including Musk, youre most afraid of how the platforms will use their power to exclude certain voices that you think should be part of the conversation, well then you are on the side of more speech protection, he said. If youre highlighting that one of biggest problems with these platforms is how much misinformation, hate speech, child sexual exploitation, etc., is on them, then you want to have different rules than you would have that would be passed by the government.

The bottom line is that a social media company creating and enforcing content standards on its own platform is not the same as censorship or stifling free speech, he said.

Read the original:
What does free speech actually mean? Twitter isn't censoring speech, despite what Elon Musk and many users think - MarketWatch

Courtesy of The Royal Society | See bottom of story for attribution

Elon Musk is the worlds wealthiest man, the owner of Tesla and most recently the owner of Twitter. The ownership of Twitter was a pursuit in the name of free speech for Musk, but it seems to be another bad take from a privileged point of view.

Free speech is significant because it allows for the masses to have access to honest and authentic information.

I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means, Musk tweeted.

One thing that minority groups have had to face for centuries is being silenced by the majority. Twitter allowed diverse communities to safely interact with each other. The overarching issue with such free reign for everyone on Twitter is that while some people view this freedom as democracy, others could just as easily view it as anarchy. Freedom of speech shouldnt be scapegoated for users on Twitter to spread hate. Without governing hate speech and bigotry by banning harmful accounts, the safe spaces for minority groups to share their experiences becomes even more minute.

If there are no censoring systems in place, there are no repercussions of tweeting bigoted takes online.

Not only has Twitter already been a place of harmful interactions, the ability to spread misinformation is easier within a system that promotes freedom the freedom to say what you want, including harmful and inaccurate information.

With the notion of making Twitter private and promoting free speech, many Twitter users are ecstatic to be able to voice opinions that would have once gotten them canceled or banned from Twitter, but others including myself fear the consequences this may bring.

Millions of Americans have been choking back their thoughts and opinions on this platform for YEARS out of fear of being suspended/canceled. I have a feeling the dam is about to break#BringItOn #BeHeard, country music artist and member of Big and Rich John Rich tweeted.

According to The New York Times, groups such as far-right conservatives have vast amounts of followers that are banned from Twitter. The reinstatement of their accounts has given cause for celebration of the far-right.

It is important to note that all who are banned from Twitter are done so on the grounds of not following the guidelines that one agrees to when signing up for their accounts. Youd think that everyone who argues, Maybe if they wouldnt have resisted arrest, would understand the irony of throwing a fit over having a Twitter account banned for not following guidelines.

Much like in kindergarten, if you are hurting someone elses feelings or telling lies, it is not unreasonable to expect a time-out in the near future. This should be an expectation upheld throughout adulthood as well, especially when making harmful statements to people and their communities on Twitter.

With that being said, I believe that the uncensored Twitter that Elon Musk is pursuing welcomes dangerous groups and beliefs, allowing those that encourage hate to have a voice.

Photo by Duncan Hall / CC BY 3.0

The rest is here:
Elon Musk's recent Twitter buy-out is the demise of free speech for minorities on Twitter - The Observer

The Department of Homeland Security has so far released few details on how the Disinformation Governance Board will function and what powers it will have.

WASHINGTON Attorneys general in 20 states have signed onto a letter asking the Biden administration to shut down a Disinformation Governance Board. The AGs say it's an infringement on free speech and could cause people to "self-censor" if they disagree with the government.

The board, part of the Department of Homeland Security, was announced last week. But DHS has so far released few details on how the board will function and what powers it will have.

"The existence of the Disinformation Governance Board will inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech," wrote Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares. "Americans will hesitate before they voice their constitutionally protected opinions, knowing that the governments censors may be watching, and some will decide it is safer to keep their opinions to themselves."

Miyares threatened legal action if the board is not disbanded.

The states signing on are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. All the attorneys general are Republican.

Disinformation board's work, plans remain a mystery

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas was attacked Wednesday by members of Congress who have already called for the board to be disbanded.

With disinformation campaigns working to shape opinions on everything from the war in Ukraine to the presidential election in the United States, the rocky start for the board may undermine its effectiveness and hurt the efforts to staunch the harm that false narratives can cause.

It is just an episodic failure, said Brian Murphy, a former director of DHS intelligence arm, of the boards launch. And it has set the true disinformation professionals, wherever they live, back.

Testifying before Congress on Wednesday, Mayorkas said the board would examine how DHS currently counters disinformation and make sure the agency does not infringe on freedom of speech, rights of privacy, civil rights and civil liberties. DHS already has an office of civil rights and civil liberties.

It is going to establish what should have been established years ago: standards, definitions, guidelines and policies, he said.

The boards bungled rollout could also hurt existing efforts to identify and stop foreign disinformation campaigns, which have been labeled a national security threat by both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Russia, China and other adversaries have used social media to push messages at U.S. audiences that stoke division and spread conspiracy theories or falsehoods. In recent months, Russia has waged an aggressive disinformation campaign across platforms to claim images and reports of dead bodies and attacks in Ukraine are fake.

The top Republicans on two key congressional panels wrote to the department on Friday demanding more information. Even privately, congressional staffers say they know little about the board or how it's being funded beyond the spare public announcements made by the department's leadership.

Given the complete lack of information about this new initiative and the potential serious consequences of a government entity identifying and responding to disinformation, we have serious concerns about the activities of this new Board, wrote Reps. Mike Turner of Ohio and John Katko of New York, the top Republicans on the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees.

DHS that same day held a call with congressional staffers and the boards new director, Nina Jankowicz, an author and expert on Russian disinformation.

According to one person on the call, Jankowicz said there was a broad vision for what the board would do but did not offer specifics to some questions, including how her organization would work with existing anti-disinformation efforts with DHS. The department also has not provided Congress with detailed written plans beyond a summary it sent to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, the same day the department publicly announced the creation of the board.

The person was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Ninety-five percent of Americans identified misinformation last year as a problem when theyre trying to access important information, according to a poll conducted by The Pearson Institute and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

But the difference between opinion and disinformation is often contested and many argue the government shouldn't be responsible for drawing the line.

The boards creation spurred outrage across social media, with dozens of conservative pundits and Republican politicians dubbing it the Ministry of Truth, a reference to the government agency responsible for creating propaganda in George Orwells novel 1984. The term Ministry of Truth trended on Twitter for hours.

Thousands of posts focused on Jankowicz, including past social media posts that criticized Republicans and questioned the veracity of stories about Hunter Biden, the president's son. Other posts used anti-Semitic language to attack Jankowicz, who is not Jewish, and Mayorkas, who was born to Jewish parents.

While the board was set up in part to combat Russian disinformation, it instead fueled conspiracy theories and more stories in Russian state media. One Kremlin-backed piece carried the headline: Bidens Ministry of Truth is another propaganda tool.

Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah on Wednesday echoed that point to Mayorkas directly on Wednesday, calling the board a terrible idea that communicates to the world that were going to be spreading propaganda in our own country.

Homeland Security initially said the board would have the two-part mission of countering Russian disinformation activities and false narratives smugglers use to induce people in Latin America to try to reach the U.S.-Mexico border.

For anyone whos out there who may be concerned about the increase in migrants to the border, this is the kind of apparatus thats working to address disinformation, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said during a briefing on Monday.

On Monday, the department also announced it would provide quarterly reports to Congress.

Trying to tamp down concerns about thought police, Mayorkas said in a television interview to CNN on Sunday that we in the Department of Homeland Security dont monitor American citizens.

In fact, DHS does. The sprawling department, created in response to the security failures leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has broad authorities to track and collect data on American citizens. It has repeatedly been accused of misusing those powers. In a bulletin earlier this year, DHS said it was using social media to identify potential conspiracy theories that might inspire domestic violence or terrorism. In a statement on Monday, the agency also released examples of how it has responded to misinformation in the past, including during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 when falsehoods spread about drinking water and shelter locations.

And organizations tracking disinformation monitor social media, where its sometimes impossible to determine the nationality or location of individual users. Disinformation researchers often identify popular conspiracy theories and trending falsehoods in the U.S. by monitoring public social media groups, pages and accounts.

DHS wont have the ability to remove posts or accounts that it deems are spreading disinformation. That power still rests with the tech companies themselves, said Katie Harbath, a former public policy director for Facebook who is now the International Republican Institutes technology and democracy director.

The new disinformation board could help the platforms spot some information operations they might be missing, she said.

DHS is going to have to do what they normally do, Harbath said. If theres a post they think should be taken down or fact-checked, they can report that to the platforms, but the platforms are going to make their own call.

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri and Ben Fox contributed to this report.

View original post here:
20 AGs call for end to Disinformation Governance Board, cite threat to free speech - ABC10.com KXTV

Last week a great blow was struck for online freedom. Billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter. Liberals around the world have clutched their pearls as Musk promises to bring the once cherished principle of freedom of speech to the platform.

But his task may not be so easy. Its not just Twitters governance that wants to restrict what can be said on Twitter. Other very powerful forces also want to control what is said online.

At the same time that Musk was putting in his bid for Twitter, the European Union agreed on outlines for its Digital Services Act, which would create a new European bureaucracy able to police what is said online, with a global reach.

After 16 months of negotiation, on April 23 the European Commission, European Parliament and national governments agreed to plans to regulate Twitter and other social networks.

The Digital Services Act (dsa) is now set to become a reality by the end of the year. It will set up a new EU bureaucracy to manage the biggest tech companiesthose with more than 45 million European users. The European Commission will be hiring around 150 people to regulate these companies, as well as spending money on outside advisers.

The act will establish broad responsibilities for big companies to curb disinformation. Penalties for noncompliance are huge: Firms could face fines of up to 6 percent of global revenue. For Twitter, this would be hundreds of millions of dollars. For Facebook, it would be billions.

The response from many advocates for free speech online has been a sigh of relief. Some of what the EU had been proposing would have been horrific for free speech. For example, one idea under discussion would have forced large social networks to prescreen all their posts. Rather than deleting bad posts, the networks would have had to approve all posts before they went live, largely by using some kind of computer program. Not only would this have brought in a level of censorship beyond anything weve seen so far, it would have also been completely unworkable, and so it was dropped.

But the fact that it could have been worse shouldnt blind us to what is happening. The European Union is essentially setting up a new regulatory body that will control what is said online around the world.

There are also quite a lot of good things in the new plan. There are provisions that limit the way big companies harvest data on you, track you, and target you with ads.

The EU cites some excellent reasons for introducing these changes. It is correct that there are major problems with social media. It rightly points to the real harm theyre causing, especially among teens.

But just because the problem is real doesnt mean the EUs solution will be an improvement. None of this eliminates the fact that the EU wants more control over what people say on large social networks.

To the EU, one of the biggest problems with social media is that there is too much free speech. Businesses arent doing enough to curb disinformation.

The EU has no first amendment, and speech that would be protected in the United States is often classed as hate speech and outlawed in European companies. The dsa brings these restrictions online.

Large social media sites will have an obligation to deal with disinformationspeech that is not classed hate speech but that the EU still doesnt like. They wont have to ban it, but theyll have to do somethinge.g. putting on a disinformation warning, shadow banning it, quietly stopping the post from spreading, or putting on a fact check.

The EU will be able to grab even more power in a crisis. If the EUs national authorities vote to declare a crisis, for example due to a pandemic, the EU wants the power to tell social media companies exactly what a user can and cannot post.

The EU is already threatening to ban Twitter if Musk goes for what they call a free speech absolutists direction. Thierry Breton, EU commissioner for the internal market, told the Financial Times that if Twitter does not comply with our law, there are sanctions6 percent of the revenue and, if they continue, banned from operating in Europe.

This law will likely soon restrict what can be posted in the U.S. too. Columbia law professor Anu Bradford writes in her book The Brussels EffectHow the European Union Rules the World: Instead of being guided by Americas First Amendment free-speech protections, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube follow the EUs definition of hate speech worldwide when deciding which content to remove from their platforms.

Having certain posts show up in the U.S. but not in the EU is possible, but a lot of work. Its much simpler just to apply the EUs rules worldwide, which is what happens time and again.

This is why many on the radical left, such as former U.S. presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, are cheering the EU on. When social media companies were in the hands of billionaires that thought like them, the left in the U.S. said, Theyre private businesses; they can do whatever they wantif they want to censor, they can do so. As soon as Twitter gets bought out by someone they dont agree with, they start setting up a Disinformation Governance Board. But in the U.S. theres only so much the government can do to censor; it is limited by the First Amendment. But the EU isnt. If the EU does the enforcing, its much harder for Americans to object.

The radical left is so desperate to keep control over social media it would rather empower the EU to police it than allow political opponents free speech. If the U.S. really fought for free speech online, the EU would have a hard time taking that away from them. But instead, Americas leaders are helping the German-led EU.

This law is still many months from going into effect. But already it is exposing a lot about both the radical left and the EU. In his 2019 article Germany Is Taking Control of the Internet, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote:

The European Union is working to gain control of the Internet. It has already made significant progress in this effort.

Germanys ambitions for the Internet should concern everyone, even those who dont have a computer. The EUs behavior on this issue exposes the dictatorial nature of this German-dominated entity. Really, we are witnessing the manifestation of the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire in the tech world. The biblically prophesied seventh and final resurrection of this empire wants to control the Internet!

We must put this issue in the context of Bible prophecy and history. The German-led EU is behaving the way the Holy Roman Empire has always behaved. Germany is once again seeking to impose its will on the world. This is a difficult message to accept, and many people will disagree with it, but it is the truth!

The Internet is changing before your eyes. It was once a free-for-all. Now the vast majority of traffic is funneled through a handful of gatekeepers who will only allow you to see certain things. And it is the German-led European Union that wants to determine exactly what you can and cant see.

This new power is already making itself felt, and it wants to control what you read and say. This is exactly the kind of power described in the Bibleand one weve been forecasting for decades.

Revelation 17 describes a power that repeatedly rises in Europe. What is rising today is an extension of what has gone before. Verse 8 calls this power the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Theres a power with a similar, censorious character that comes and goes on the European scenethe Holy Roman Empire. Revelation 18 shows this power dominating global trade and commerce. We see this building in the EUs regulatory superpower. Other chapters describe this power regulating religious belief, trying to control what people think and say.

This power rising in Europe is already making itself felt around the world. A crucial part of end-time events is already affecting your life. To learn more about it and where it is leading, read Mr. Flurrys article Germany Is Taking Control of the Internet.

Read the original here:
Free Speech on Twitter? Not If the EU Can Help It - theTrumpet.com

Social media platforms achieved unbridled growth by adopting a laissez faire approach to user-generated content. This approach was underpinned by legislative frameworks around the world which sought to indemnify content hosting internet intermediaries from liability arising out of user-generated content. At the same time, as private companies, social media platforms have the freedom to decide what content they want to host. This freedom is reflected in differential content standards across different platforms and differential application of standards for the same piece of content.

Platforms have carte blanche to decide what content they want to host and distribute. However, since all major social media platforms were based primarily in the United States (US), their content moderation policies drew upon American First Amendment principles (which prohibit government from curtailing free speech, among other freedoms) to restrict only narrowly defined categories of content. Platforms have similarly sought recourse to First Amendment free speech principles to reject calls for an interventionist approach towards misinformation. Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook are all on the record stating their aversion to being the arbiters of truth and that the platforms should be a marketplace of ideas.

Taken at face value, these platforms proclivity towards free speech seems not just reasonable, but laudable. However, it can be argued that, for social media platforms, free speech is a business model instead of a principled imperative. It is evident that a hands-off approach to speech is operationally simpler since content moderation is not just complex but also politically fraught. Moreover, important high-profile content moderation decisions by platforms are often ad hoc and driven by external pressure especially government, media, and public relations instead of coherent speech policies. Further, platforms have been known to take down or block content (including critical political speech) based on government requests while also making exceptions for powerful users linked to the government and its affiliates.

Most importantly, platforms have opportunistically used free speech and the protection against liability for intermediaries to advance their business models. Traditional news media is liable for published content and must thus invest time and resources to vet information before publishing. Platforms compete with traditional news publishers for advertising revenue while enjoying the double advantage of speed (to get content to users) and protection from liability (for unvetted content). Since, advertising revenue is directly proportional to the amount of time users spend, platforms have exploited this twin advantage to boost user engagement without caring about the deleterious impact of a surfeit of misinformation on the information ecosystem and wider democracy.

Social media platforms keep users engaged by constantly keeping their feeds populated with new content from sources and content creators that the user has not proactively followed. This deliberate boost to the organic reach of a subset of content by the platforms is known as amplification. Since quality and value-based amplification is difficult due to the challenge of determining quality and value, platforms rely on amplification based primarily on engagement signals.

This approach absolves platforms of the need to exclude vast swathes of bad content while remaining value agnostic and avoiding charges of editorial control. Since hateful and polarising content gets more engagement (as admitted by platforms themselves), this value-neutral and engagement-driven approach is resulting in amplification of misinformation and other harmful content.

It is this turbocharged distribution through social media platforms, which has made misinformation and propaganda invasive and pervasive. These platforms have further elided the distinction between different sources of information which has removed an important signal of credibility and ideological positioning of the consumed content. Instead, engagement is perceived to be a bigger driver of the importance and by extension credibility of a piece of news.

This equal treatment (appearance and placement of different and unequal sources of information) and making virality instead of quality the primary determinant of a sources credibility and/or a piece of contents importance has eroded the distinction between vetted information, propaganda and misinformation in the minds of the user. The impact is acute in India because platforms have de-facto control over the distribution of the message combined with low-digital literacy among users.

It is a testament to the efficacy of the lobbying efforts of social media platforms that instead of focusing on the amplified distribution of misinformation, the discourse has exclusively framed measures to reduce misinformation as being in tension with freedom of expression, an issue which can arise only in the case of outright removal. Moreover, since platforms are private companies, the issue even in the case of outright removal of content, is not freedom of speech but political neutrality of the platform. The degree of permissiveness for misinformation, hate speech, etc is thus a political and/or commercial choice by the platforms.

It is clear that even if free speech was an article of faith for social media platforms, it has now evolved into a justification for a lucrative business model that privileges user engagement over information quality. Moreover, the platform-fuelled binary between misinformation and free speech is a red herring designed to obfuscate platforms role in the distribution and amplification of misinformation. The first step to addressing the problem of disinformation is to reset the terms of the debate in a manner which helps our democracy instead of private platforms.

Ruchi Gupta is executive director of the Future of India Foundation. This article is based on the Foundations upcoming report, Politics of Disinformation. The views expressed are personal

Read this article:
Free speech and social media: Reset the debate - Hindustan Times

Goldstones most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

On April 12, former Vice President Mike Pence gave a talk at the University of Virginia as part of the Ken & Janice Shengold Advancing Freedom Lecture Series. His appearance was sponsored by Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative students organization founded by William F. Buckley Jr. in 1960. Tickets were free and the lecture was open to all. After the invitation was announced, as is inevitable these days when a controversial speaker is invited to a college campus, fierce protests ensued with demands that Pence not be granted such a prestigious forum.

An editorial in the Cavalier Daily, the universitys student newspaper established in 1890, was particularly scathing. For Pence, it read, gay couples signify a societal collapse, Black lives do not matter, transgender individuals and immigrants do not deserve protection, and the pandemic should not be taken seriously. The editorial went on to accuse Pence of at least tacitly encouraging violence against marginalized groups, with the college administration complicit by its willingness to provide him a platform. The Universitys silence is deafening. Do not mistake this for neutrality, however. To be silent in the face of those like Pence is a choice in this case, a choice to fail to protect the lives of those on Grounds who Pence blatantly threatens through his rhetoric and policies.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The editorial instigated as much of a backlash as had the invitation, and the resulting kerfuffle made national headlines. Liberals decried Pences opportunity to foist hate speech on impressionable students, while conservatives brayed about censorship and cancel culture, as if they, unlike the left, believed in a free exchange of ideas.

The university refused to back down and Pence was allowed to give his talk, in which he exploited the opportunity to denounce woke culture and defend freedom, although he did not address his advocacy of positions that would deny freedom to the groups mentioned in the editorial. The audience was enthusiastic and, since those in attendance were almost exclusively conservative, the questions were a series of thinly disguised talking points that allowed Pence to appear both reasonable and fair-minded.

It might be useful to consider how the event might have played out had the left not largely boycotted the lecture, but instead had grabbed up a bunch of the tickets to create a more diverse audience. For that, one need look back more than a decade, when a similar controversy yielded a far different outcome.

In September 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited by Columbia University to speak at the School of International and Public Affairs annual World Leaders Forum, after which he would take questions from the audience. Unlike Pence, who is supported by roughly half the American population, Ahmadinejad was almost universally reviled, holding views so extreme and with a manner so boorish as to border on caricature.

Protests were vociferous and vitriolic. Jews in particular were incensed Ahmadinejad had insisted Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust was a myth. Dov Hikind, a New York assemblyman from Brooklyn and an orthodox Jew, compared Ahmadinejad to Hitler. Many Christians were equally appalled. James Gennaro, a New York City councilman, grumbled that Columbia is making a mockery of civilized discourse by allowing this madman to participate. Others pointed out that Iran was supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents and secretly building nuclear weapons.

Like the administration at Virginia, Columbia refused to back down. The universitys president, Lee Bollinger, chose to moderate the talk himself. But Bollinger had no intention of being foolhardy everyone at Columbia remembered the student takeover in 1968. He decided to abandon good manners and introduce Ahmadinejad as if he were a prosecutor seeking the maximum penalty for a pedophile.

Bollinger, with Ahmadinejad sitting just feet from him, described his invited guest as a petty and cruel dictator and noted, According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executed in Iran so far this year twenty-one of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at least two children further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors. He ridiculed Ahmadinejads views on the Holocaust as simply ridiculous. Bollinger closed his remarks by saying, I am only a professor who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

To his credit, Ahmadinejad refused to take the bait. He did his best to be charming, or at least disarming. He admitted that the Holocaust had occurred. For a time, it appeared that those who feared giving Ahmadinejad the opportunity to falsify his image had been correct.

But then it was time for questions. Ahmadinejad did his best to duck and dodge past accusations he heard all too often, but then one student asked about the regimes record of executing homosexuals. Ahmadinejad replied, In Iran, we dont have homosexuals, like in your country. ... In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I dont know whos told you that we have this.

The audiences reaction was immediate and unmistakable. They laughed! The more Ahmadinejad tried to justify his answer, the more the audience guffawed. And that laughter did more to expose the absurdity and hypocrisy of both Ahmadinejads defense of Irans human rights record and his countrys faux commitment to fairness and common decency than 100 position papers from the State Department or even graphic footage on cable news.

If those who had objected to Pences human rights record and what they see as his faux commitment to fairness and common decency had chosen to attend his talk en masse and asked the same sort of difficult questions, perhaps he would not have left Charlottesville feeling quite so good about himself.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

View original post here:
OPINION: Freedom of speech comes with the responsibility to use it - The Fulcrum

Image from Evan El-Amin / Shutterstock.com

During the 2016 presidential primaries, then presidential candidates Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio exchanged insults, with Trump calling Rubio Little Marco and Rubio commenting on the size of Trumps hands. Recently, this exchange was the basis for a Federal Circuit decision reversing a refusal to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL as an unconstitutional restriction of speech under the First Amendment.

In 2018, Steve Elster applied to register the mark for use on T-shirts and related apparel. As the Federal Circuit recounts, According to Elsters registration request, the phrase he sought to trademark invokes a memorable exchange between President Trump and Senator Marco Rubio . . . and aims to convey[] that some features of President Trump and his policies are diminutive. The Examining Attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied Mr. Elsters application under Sections 2(a) and 2(c) of the Lanham Act. On appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the TTAB affirmed the refusal of the application, relying solely on Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act.

Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a trademark that: Consists of or comprises a name, portrait or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent. 15 U.S.C. 1052(c). Section 2(c) does not prohibit all uses of an individuals name in a trademark. Rather, it applies only when: (1) the public would reasonably assume that the goods associated with the mark are connected with the particular individual due to the individuals fame or recognition; or (2) the individual is publicly connected with the business in which the mark is, or will be, used.

There was no dispute that President Trump is sufficiently famous to fall within the protection of Section 2(c) not only because of his political office but also because of his prior celebrity. Elster argued that refusing to register the TRUMP TOO SMALL trademark violated his right to free speech under the First Amendment. The TTAB noted that as an administrative tribunal, it does not have the authority to strike down any statute as unconstitutional, but noted that a constitutional challenge may involve many threshold questions . . . to which the [agency] can apply its expertise, and went on to find that the refusal to register TRUMP TOO SMALL was not unconstitutional.

The TTAB first opined that Section 2(c), like all of Section 2 of the Lanham Act, merely sets forth criteria for obtaining a federal trademark registration. It does not control the use of the trademark. Indeed, one can use a trademark in commerce without obtaining a registration and Elster could do so here even if the registration is denied. Second, the TTAB found that Section 2(c) does not restrict any particular type of speech, but applies in an objective, straightforward way to any proposed mark that consists of or comprises the name of a particular living individual, regardless of the viewpoint conveyed by the proposed mark. Accordingly, the TTAB affirmed the Examiners refusal to register TRUMP TOO SMALL.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the TTAB, finding that Section 2(c) is unconstitutional as applied to the TRUMP TOO SMALL trademark, while deferring any decision on whether it is unconstitutional in all cases. The Court noted that trademarks can be protected speech and that denying registration, while not prohibiting use of the trademark, chills speech by stripping the mark of the many advantages associated with federal registration. Accordingly, there must be a substantial government interest to justify restricting speech by denying a registration.

The purpose of the Section 2(c) is to protect state law rights of privacy and publicity that individuals have in their names, appearance, and likeness. The Court quickly found that a right of privacy cannot shield a public official from comment or criticism. The Court also questioned whether a political figure maintains a right of publicity at all. At the very least, the political figures right of publicity would not permit a prohibition on the distribution of posters, buttons, apparel, or other materials that express support for or disagreement with the political figure. In short, [a]s a result of the Presidents status as a public official and because Elsters mark communicates his disagreement with and criticism of the then-Presidents approach to governance, the government has no interest in disadvantaging Elsters speech.

As we reported previously, the Supreme Court has found that portions of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibit the registration of immoral, deceptive, or scandalous trademarks and trademarks which may disparage . . . any persons, living or dead are unconstitutional. While this opinion expands the Supreme Courts reasoning to Section 2(c), whether its reasoning applies to trademarks that do not involve political figures or that do not criticize famous individuals remains to be seen. The Federal Circuit noted that it was only asked to analyze Section 2(c) as applied to Elsters mark. But it did go on to note that Section 2(c) may be impermissibly overbroad because it does not leave the USPTO discretion to permit registration for marks that advance First Amendment interests.

Go here to see the original:
Rights of Privacy and Publicity TOO SMALL to Overcome First Amendment Freedom of Speech - JD Supra

After a speaker this month expressed views that many felt were racist, officials at a small private college have cracked down: From now on, all college sponsored speakers must be approved by the president and other senior administrators.

Saint Vincent College, a Benedictine institution in Latrobe, Pa., announced the new policy this week in a letter from its president, the Rev. Paul Taylor. The goal, according to the announcement, is to make sure that the message to be delivered is not in conflict with the spirit and mission of the college.

The decision comes after David Azerrad, an assistant professor and research fellow at Hillsdale Colleges government school, in Washington, D.C., gave a talk at Saint Vincent titled Black Privilege and Racial Hysteria in Contemporary America. It was part of a program sponsored by the colleges Center for Political and Economic Thought.

Within the first five minutes, Azerrad asserted that Kamala Harris would not be vice president if it were not for her fathers being Jamaican, and that the real color of visible privilege in America today is Black. Hillsdale officials didnt respond to a voicemail seeking comment from Azerrad on Thursday.

Over the past few years, colleges across the country have grappled with what to do when provocative speakers come to campuses often by invitation from faculty members or students. Some officials have disinvited speakers in response to criticism from the campus community.

Other campus leaders have denounced the views of speakers but allowed the events to go ahead citing a commitment to academic freedom and, at public universities, an obligation to comply with the First Amendment. In one recent case, the State University of New York College at Brockport allowed a controversial invited speaker to proceed but moved the event online, citing safety concerns.

But two free-speech experts said Saint Vincent stands out for giving the colleges administration the authority to approve or deny speakers outright. That is extreme, said Alex Morey, director of the individual-rights defense program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, known as FIRE.

Father Taylor sees the new policy as a way to protect the colleges mission.

What this policy does is, it puts first and foremost our mission, first as a liberal-arts university and as a Catholic and Benedictine college, that we respect academic freedom and freedom of speech. But this platform of our college and our mission will not be used for something that is contrary to what we believe, the president said in an interview.

Legally, Saint Vincent is within its right to impose stricter rules for speakers. Many private colleges have their own guidelines for campus visitors and events, and religious colleges like Saint Vincent often go a step further. For example, Brigham Young University, which is affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, requires speakers to use clean language.

Saint Vincent, through its status and other policies, has been long been committed to freedom of speech, Morey said.

But Reverend Taylor denied that the new speaker policy violated anyones free speech or academic freedom. Inside the classroom and on campus, students and faculty members are encouraged to engage in discussions, debates, and arguments about any topic, he said.

Every organization has a mission that they abide by, and every one of them does not allow or want someone or something to use that platform for something that is contrary to what they believe in, he said. Thats where the critical divide is.

Jeremy C. Young, senior manager of the free expression and education team for PEN America, a nonprofit working to defend free expression in the United States, believes Saint Vincents leaders are missing the mark.

Its totally understandable where theyre coming from, Young said, given the content of Azerrads speech. But the solution is not to get rid of free expression for every speaker and every group on campus.

The policys application, Young added, seems too broad. Whats a university sponsored speech? he asked.

Father Taylor said he and his cabinet will now be approving speaking events that are open to the public and outward facing in any way. Officials wont be getting involved when, say, guest lecturers visit classes, he said. The new policy concerns public presentations sponsored by the college.

Campus officials have organized virtual listening sessions for students to share thoughts on the policy, the president said, and will hold a campus forum on Friday.

Originally posted here:
At This College, the President Will Now Approve Speakers - The Chronicle of Higher Education

IntroductionFreedom of speech is part of human rights that allows people to express their views without fearing punishment or censorship (Barak-Erez, & Scharia 2011). This right allows people to voice their opinions, in either written or unwritten format. Freedom of speech is necessary to prompt changes or development in society. However, this right also extends to protecting the view, beliefs, or opinions of the minority groups. All governments have taken measures to limit this right to prevent individuals from uttering offensive views that may promote terrorism, fascism, or racism. The government also limits this freedom to prevent obscenities, words that may prompt anarchy, and child pornography, among others.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20" and get a custom paper on "Freedom Of Speech Argumentative Essay"with 20% discount! Order Now

Benefits of freedom of speechThe concept of freedom of speech is beneficial as it allows individuals to voice their opinions with fearing sanctions, punishments, or condemnation by law. Through this protection, citizens of a country have the power to question or fight injustices and prompt economic, social, or political development.

Importance of freedom of speechThe freedom of speech concept is regarded as an essential right that an individual can have. Because of its importance, almost all countries have preserved it in its constitution. In the United States, this right is protected under the First Amendment. The principal purpose of this right is to foster democracy. The concept of democracy is founded on going with the majority opinion. This right is protected to enable individuals make free choices when voting to form a government. The second importance of this right is that it prevents corruption and dictatorship. As a matter of fact, countries that do not protect this right turn into dictatorships. For instance, North Korea became a dictatorial regime after the Korean War after the government denied its citizens this freedom. The Kim family chose to control all aspects of North Korean lives, controlling religion, recreation, and media (Yoon 2003). The government runs the press, thus controlling all contents and stories reaching the public. No North Korean is permitted to question the government in any aspect. People who go ahead to question the regime and its actions are either executed or sent to hard labor camps.

Drawbacks of freedom of speechWithout limitations, the concept of freedom of speech may be misused by people to cause harm to others (Barak-Erez, & Scharia 2011). For example, this right can be misused by individuals to voice comments that promote terrorism, anarchy, and racism. This freedom should not be used to make comments that suggest that one race is superior to the other or one gender is superior to the other. In instances of war, this concept may be misused by individuals for selfish gains. For instance, a person may use this right to sell his countrys secrets to another country or make comments that harm national unity. To prevent these acts, countries have legislation that restrict the enjoyment of this right. For example, the United Kingdom passed the Racial and Religious Hatred Act and the Terrorism Act in 2006 after the 2005 London bombings to prevent its citizens from making comments that may be seen to promote terrorism, racial, or religious animosity, either directly or indirectly (Barendt 2009).

Changes benefited from freedom of speechIndividuals have benefited from this right while at the same time seeking changes. It has enabled them to voice their concerns about how the government is run. With this right, individuals can now stand against oppression and injustice without fearing the law.

References

Excerpt from:
Freedom Of Speech Argumentative Essay - Free Paper Sample