Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Politicians need to focus on issues that have an impact on Iowans lives, not enforcing the pledge of allegiance.

Yet again, Iowa Republicans are introducing harmful and unnecessary bills in the Legislature.

In an effort to uphold blind patriotism, Sen. Adrian Dickey introduced a bill that would require teachers to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Teachers would also be barred from talking about the pledge in an unpatriotic manner. The only exception is if the teacher has a disability that prevents them from standing and reciting the pledge.

This bill infringes on the freedom of speech of teachers and enforces the harmful censorship that has been used to erase marginalized identities.

Besides the freedom of speech and censorship concerns, teachers respecting the pledge doesnt even seem to be a problem in Iowas public schools.

Without any legislation in place, we started every morning with the Pledge of Allegiance when I was in elementary school. Most students stood and mindlessly recited the words. However, some students did not due to religious beliefs. Nevertheless, it was a daily practice that my teachers never commented on, and students paid very little attention to.

This is not the first time in recent Iowa history that Republicans introduced a bill about the Pledge of Allegiance. At the end of last years legislative session, a bill was passed that required schools to present the flag and require the school to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day.

Ultimately, students cannot be forced to recite the pledge because of their right to free expression. This was established in 1943 with the Supreme Court ruling case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Because it is established that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge, why would teachers be any different? In fact, this bill takes these free speech infringements a step further by censoring the language used surrounding the pledge.

Instead of improving the public school system in Iowa, this seems to be another attempt to uphold conservative ideas of patriotism, which often means erasing minority voices.

Through this proposal, teachers would not be allowed to say any unpatriotic commentary on the United States, or language that has any political influence on students. Along with possible infringement on free speech, this bill is further complicated by how we view patriotism.

Republicans have made attempts left and right to censor teachers. However, it all seems rooted in the same silencing of minorities. Bills were put into place last year to bar teachers from teaching the 1619 Project in schools because of concerns it is not historically accurate and misrepresents the values of America. Iowa schools are also facing increasing attention and possible bans of several books being taught, mostly ones highlighting minority experiences, such as The Hate u Give, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian.

The abundance of censorship and backlash when it comes to language or teaching that involves minority experiences suggests this legislature is not about protecting students its about continuing to erase and censor certain identities.

Censoring the language teachers use about the pledge is a step in the same direction, attempting to control unpatriotic language in the classroom. But what do we define as unpatriotic, and who is creating these definitions?

It seems Republicans focus is less about unifying the country and more about making sure certain ways of thinking about America are controlled. This is being done through book bans, attempting to erase the 1619 Project, or controlling speech surrounding the pledge. Conservative powers are infringing on what information can be shared or spoken.

Classrooms can be powerful places to grow through education. Instead of investing in bettering the education system, Republican senators are focused on censoring language and upholding their definition of patriotism.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Read the original post:
Opinion | Iowa Republicans need to focus on real issues rather than patriotism - UI The Daily Iowan

After months of mounting pressure from numerous Jewish organizations and leaders, the University of Southern California has announced measures to help combat the alarming antisemitism that has created a hostile environment for many Jewish and pro-Israel students on its campus.

USCs announcement comes on the heels of an uproar over the universitys failure to adequately respond to virulently antisemitic and threatening tweets from a USC graduate student, which included, I want to kill every mother fking Zionist, Zionists are going to fking pay and yel3an el yahood [curse the Jews]. This was just the most recent example of the anti-Zionist motivated harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students. In 2020, a pro-Israel Jewish student government vice president felt compelled to resign her position following a relentless social media campaign to oust her from office, which included such comments as impeach her Zionist a and it warms my heart to see all the Zionists from USC getting relentlessly cyberbullied [smiling emoji].

The Jewish community deserves kudos for getting President Carol Folt and the USC Board of Trustees to commit to addressing the problem, including through the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Jewish Life and ensuring Jewish representation in DEI efforts. These are hopeful first steps. However, to make significant and lasting change, there is more to be done. Most importantly, the university must acknowledge and address the underlying nature of the problem: the unacceptable double standard when it comes to the universitys response to the harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students.

This double standard was summed up nicely by Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, when he posed the question many in the Jewish community have been wondering: If [similar social media] comments were made about Black students, what would the schools response be? Almost no one doubts USCs response would be fast and furious, and not necessitate months of mounting pressure.

By now, this double standard is well known on campuses across the country. The anti-Zionist motivated verbal harassment of Jewish and pro-Israel students is generally treated as free speech and ignored or downplayed by school administrators, while similarly harassing speech directed at other minority groups is addressed promptly and vigorously, with the harassers duly disciplined.

What is less well known is that this egregiously unfair double standard finds its source in campus harassment policies.

What is less well known is that this egregiously unfair double standard finds its source in campus harassment policies.

Take USC, for example. Its Policy on Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation opens with, University of Southern California believes all members of the university community should pursue their work, education, and engagement in University programs and activities in a safe environment, free from discrimination and harassment. So far, so goodjust what every USC parent wants and expects to hear.

But if parents were to read just a tad further, many would become rightly alarmed. For while the university professes that all students should be free from harmful behaviors that threaten their safety or deny them opportunities to fully participate in their college experience, the schools policy only affords protection to victims of discrimination and harassment based on protected characteristics.

What this means is students who dont fit into certain identity groups cannot rely on any of the policys protections, even if they fall victim to behavior that exceeds the policys threshold for hostile environment harassment.

Granted, the list of protected identity groups is quite long, and many students will easily find their niche. But for Jewish students experiencing anti-Zionist motivated harassment, its not so simple. And not just at USC.

While all school harassment policies include religion as a prohibited characteristic, and most, such as USCs, also include ethnic origin or ethnicity, Jewish students who fall victim to harassment motivated by their support for Israel are often not covered by these policies, since many administrators do not consider support for Israel an expression of a Jewish students religious beliefs or ethnicity. And despite recent efforts by Jewish students and communal organizations to get schools to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which includes examples identifying anti-Zionist rhetoric as antisemitic, most administrators are hesitant to do so, fearing growing pushback from anti-Zionist students and faculty.

To make matters worse, the unequal treatment of pro-Israel students is compounded when it comes to freedom of speech and academic freedom.

Although most universities proudly advertise their firm commitment to protecting their students freedom of expression, these same schools carve out an exception for the verbal harassment of protected groups, which is not considered free speech and will be subject to punishment. USC, too, makes a free-speech exception for protected-class verbal harassment, but it is one of the few schools to offer a reasonable justification for it, suggesting that harassing conduct is itself a suppression of expression: [W]hen harassment is committed against students it threatens their academic freedom.

Well, of course it does! The Supreme Courts definition of harassment, which USC and almost all schools incorporate into their harassment policiescalling it verbal, physical, written, electronic, or other conduct [that] is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive that it unreasonably interferes with, limits, or denies that individuals ability to participate in or benefit from the Universitys educational program or activitymakes it crystal clear that such conduct does indeed deprive its victims of freedom of expression. So, kudos to USC for pointing out the obvious, that a students right to express him or herself should be vigorously protected unless that expression tramples on another students freedom of expression.

Except thats not how it works at USC or on most other campuses for students who arent members of a protected identity group. Their right to be protected from verbal harassment does not outweigh their harassers right to free speech. This is a double whammy for pro-Israel students: not only are their harassers afforded free speech protection that is, in effect, license to continue verbally harassing them, but their own freedom of speech and academic freedom are diminished by the harassment.

This is a double whammy for pro-Israel students: not only are their harassers afforded free speech protection that is, in effect, license to continue verbally harassing them, but their own freedom of speech and academic freedom are diminished by the harassment.

Which brings us back to USC and its newly announced efforts to address campus antisemitism.

In order for these efforts to succeed, they must include an acknowledgment of the elephant in the room, namely, the gaping inequality between protected and unprotected students in USCs harassment policy and its profound impact on student safety and freedom of expression. They must also commit to expanding the schools policy or establishing a new one that will apply the same stringent standard of protection from harassment prescribed by federal and state law to all students at the University, not just some.

Once USC can guarantee that all students are equally protected from the harassing behavior that threatens their safety, squashes their self-expression and prevents them from fully participating in campus life, they will have gone a long way to creating a welcoming and healthy campus climate not just for Jewish and pro-Israel students, but for all students.

Tammi Rossman-Benjaminis thedirector of AMCHA Initiative, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism at colleges and universities in the United States. She was a faculty member at the University of California for 20 years.

Read more here:
Campus Double Standards and the Need to Protect Jewish and Zionist Students - Jewish Journal

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhode was charged this week with seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Under U.S. Code 18 section 2384 the crime includes a conspiracy by two or more people to use force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States. Seditious conspiracy also includes using force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

There could hardly be a more accurate description of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. More than 700 of the estimated 2,500 people who entered the Capitol illegally that day have been criminally charged, most with misdemeanor offenses.

This seditious conspiracy charge is significant in part because Rhodes did not enter the Capitol that day.

However, he and 10 other defendants have been indicted in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia with Seditious Conspiracy, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding and six additional counts.

In other words, Rhodes and his collaborators are accused of being part of a plan to escalate so-called stop the steal rallies into a violent obstruction of the Congressional duty to count electoral votes.

Considering the ongoing attempt to portray the election as fraudulent, public social media posts encouraging violence, organized military tactics caught on video, and mountains of other evidence, many have been wondering why these types of charges had not yet been filed.

One reason for the delay is the crime of seditious conspiracy is a difficult charge to prove because it implicates the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, the fact these charges have been filed indicates the Department of Justice must believe they have an airtight case.

Rhodes, a militia leader who earned a law degree from Yale, made it clear he is very well aware of the difficulty of proving a conspiracy.

I dont do illegal activities. I always stay on this side of the line, he said in a recent online interview. I know where the lines are, and it drives them crazy.

One of those lines, the clear and present danger test, was drawn by Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919 in Schenck v. United States.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic, wrote Holmes.

Rhodes and other supporters of the former president go several steps beyond that simple example of speech that creates a danger of violence.

Rather than a customer falsely shouting fire, the former president more closely resembles an evicted theater operator falsely claiming the eviction was illegal and encouraging his clients to take over the theater and kill the judge who evicted him.

Remember chants of kill Mike Pence.

Updates to the clear and present danger test do not seem to bode well for the Rhodes, other rioters, or the former president.

In 1957 the Supreme Court ruled in Yates v. United States that, indoctrination of a group in preparation for future violent action, as well as exhortation to immediate action… is not constitutionally protected.

Indoctrination seems to be an uncannily accurate description of the actions of Rhodes, the former president and other supporters in stop the steal rallies, social media posts, digital messages, broadcast appearances and the January 6 rally that escalated into an attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Numerous studies, court cases, audits and other examinations of election in the United States have revealed a rate of error of about 1 in one million.

Nevertheless, a significant minority of our population believe the conspiracy theories and wild allegations rather than the findings of our judicial system and a vast majority of government officials.

However, in 1969 the Court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action is not protected.

While proving inciting imminent lawless action is difficult at best, Attorney General Merrick Garland recently pointed out that the investigation has been built on hundreds of smaller cases that would lead to more significant charges.

Charging Rhodes and 10 others with seditious conspiracy marks an important milestone on the path toward holding all those who were involved in this seditious conspiracy accountable.

Garland stated in his January 5 report on that the Department of Justice is following the physical evidence, the digital evidence, the money trail, and tips from more than 300,000 American citizens.

The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.

They may lead to an evicted tenant.

Original post:
Guest Column: Freedom of speech and the crowded theater - Daily Ardmoreite

It has become an axiom in recent years that the Left has a problem with free speech. The practice of deplatforming, whereby an individual is denied a platform to express their beliefs, has metastasised into an all-encompassing cancel culture. No one, no matter how powerful, influential or well-connected, is safe from the censorious mobs on social media. If you speak out against left-wing dogma, you risk losing your platform, maybe even your career. Thank god for the Right, the champions of free speech. But are they, really?

The above assumption is held by an increasing number of otherwise sane people today. Yes, certain elements of the Left have moved a long way from the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s. True, university campuses particularly in the States have witnessed some pretty deranged outbreaks of mass hysteria, particularly amongst our blue-haired brothers and sisters. Some young people are probably too easily offended and no, speech, by default, is not violence. That said, out of all the people that claim to have been cancelled, how many actually have?

I cant think of very many. Its probably about time to let Louis C.K. back on Netflix, but who thinks R. Kelly or Harvey Weinstein deserve a second chance? What I can think of is a whole host of very public figures who like nothing better than to moan on their massive platforms about how theyve been censored by the woke Left. Andrew Neil tried to blame woke-warriors for the lack of advertising on his unwatched TV channel, GB News, whilst actor Laurence Fox regularly gets booked on major TV shows to, quite unironically, tell us all about how hes been cancelled.

As someone very much on the left, I have bemoaned the censorious tendencies of some of our comrades as much as anyone. However, there is simply no room on this bandwagon for hypocrites. This being the case, Im afraid a lot of my conservative friends are going to be making the trip on foot. If you think the Right is a bastion of free speech, Ive got an ice wall to sell you.

Whilst sections of the Left have been making a noisy but generally inconsequential nuisance of themselves outside the Oxford Union, conservatives in Britain and America have been legislating away our rights to free speech. The new crime bill gives the police the ability to arbitrarily deem a protest too loud and shut it down. If a protest disrupts the activities of an organisation or, get this, has an impact on persons in the vicinity, then the riot police can rock up and roll in. These are the kinds of reasons that authoritarian regimes give for arresting protestors.

Fresh from cancelling a B-list celebrity, it was the Left that tried to fight this bill. The same cannot be said of the free speech warriors on the right. They were also conspicuously silent when the Republican governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, signed a law guaranteeing legal protections for people that kill protestors with their vehicle. Being called mean names on Twitter definitely sucks, but I personally think that being hit with a car for expressing your opinion is worse. What can I say? Im old school like that.

Lets take another example, and try to remember whether any of our favourite free speech warriors, be it Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, or a single Republican representative, has ever called it out. In 27 US states, there are now laws that penalise individuals for supporting the Boycott, Disinvest, and Sanction movement (BDS). This is a movement that calls for a boycott of Israel and the occupied territories. In many of these states, a person cannot get a government job unless they sign a document stipulating that they will not engage in boycott activity. This includes sharing BDS material on social media, even if it pertains to illegal settlements. As such, 250 million Americans live in states where they can be denied a job for holding an opinion shared by the UN.

This is what a real threat to freedom of expression looks like. Criminalised demonstrations; carte blanche to kill protestors; the denial of a government job for holding a mainstream view. In every instance, these anti-speech laws are coming not from the Left, but from the Right. Cancel culture and political correctness can be annoying, and there are sections of the Left with an unhealthy attitude to freedom of expression. However, there simply is no equivalence between calling for Midget Gems to be renamed Mini Gems, and criminalising our fundamental human rights.

Whilst its okay to be worried by both cancel culture and anti-free speech laws, one is inarguably more repressive than the other. If you still think that its cancel culture, then youre more interested in the culture war than you are in fighting for freedom of speech.

View original post here:
It's Not the Left we Should be Scrutinizing but the Right When it Comes to Killing Free Speech - Shout Out UK

Novak Djokovics father has declared his sons successful appeal against deportation from Australia a victory for human rights and free speech.

The tennis player is sceptical of vaccinations, and has not taken up the Covid-19 vaccine despite the overwhelming backing of the scientific community for its importance in fighting the pandemic.

The mens world No1 was detained at a Melbourne airport in the early hours of Thursday, where he was interrogated by the Australian Border Force. The country has strict regulations to prevent visitors who have not been vaccinated from entering.

Djokovic told the authorities he had adhered to requests by Tennis Australia and the Victoria government, who required proof that he had previously tested positive for Covid and that he had the requisite antibodies in his blood. However, his visa was revoked and was only reinstated on appeal after a lengthy hearing, when a judge found Djokovic had not been allowed enough time to prepare his argument when he arrived in Melbourne.

Later on Monday, Djokovic resumed training ahead of the Australian Open, and his family gave a passionate press conference in which they hailed the delivery of justice.

People of the world, thank you for your unconditional support, Djokovics father said. He fought for freedom of thoughts, freedom of speech. Its been very, very difficult for us, as for everyone in the world who is free-thinking. But he is extremely strong, a fantastic young man who aways tries to help, never to harm.

Obviously the fact he comes from small and impoverished country was not something big, powerful people liked. They thought they had God-given powers that this world is their world, and it is impossible that a young man from a small, poor country can be the best in their sport.

Srdan Djokovic said the authorities had taken away his sons human rights. The game that has been played over the past five or six days has been incredibly difficult for him and his family. He was met at the airport and he was not given any rights, they took away all his rights, his rights as a human being.

He refused to sign that [deportation] document because there was no reason for it. He had done nothing to contribute to that situation. They gave him no right to communicate with his lawyers, his family, his friends. He was alone with them for several hours, they even took his phone. Im not even going to mention what else happened.

Djokovic is now preparing for the tournament, which begins next week, although this may not yet be the end of the affair. A possible three-year ban from Australia still hangs over his head, given the potential for a discretionary call from the immigration minister to supersede the home affairs minister, who was included as part of the court case.

Read the original post:
Novak Djokovics visa appeal is a victory for human rights and free speech, father declares - The Independent

WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear another religious rights claim from a conservative Christian, this time to decide whether a former high school football coach had a free-speech right to kneel and lead postgame prayers at the 50-yard line.

The case of Joe Kennedy, a former coach from Bremerton, Wash., has bounced back and forth in the federal courts for six years, including two decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and one earlier appeal to the Supreme Court.

And all the while, the two sides disagreed about whats at issue: Are his prayers a matter of private speech or are they about promoting religion on school grounds?

His case has attracted extra attention in conservative circles, and the justices said Friday they agreed to decide whether Kennedys rights were violated when school officials warned him against leading prayers on the football field.

His lawsuit has always concerned only whether a public-school employee has a constitutional right to engage in brief, quiet prayer by himself, former Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement said on Kennedys behalf. The religious expression of hundreds of thousands of teachers in the 9th Circuit is now on the verge of extinction, and the chilling effects elsewhere around the country are palpable.

The school district officials said they had no objection to Kennedy or other school employees praying privately at school, including in the locker room before or after games. They did object, however, when Kennedy drew a growing audience for his on-field prayers at the end of each game.

Football players and other students rushed to midfield to join him.

They also objected to what one court described as the coachs media blitz, in which he took the dispute to local TV stations.

Kennedy was an assistant coach on a yearly contract, and he was suspended when he refused to follow the districts warning against holding the on-field prayers. He was not rehired for the next year and later filed suit alleging a violation of his 1st Amendment rights to the freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.

The dispute split the 9th Circuit Court. In its latest decision, Judge Milan Smith said, Kennedy spoke as a public employee when he kneeled and prayed on the 50-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents. In the past, judges have said schools may regulate or restrict what public employees say on the job, even while they are free to speak as they wish on their own time.

But 11 judges from the 9th Circuit dissented from this ruling, setting the stage for the appeal to the high court. The justices will hear arguments in the case, Kennedy vs. Bremerton School District, in the spring and issue a ruling by the end of June.

Read the original post:
Supreme Court will hear the case of religious football coach - Los Angeles Times

In early January, The Wire published an expos on Tek Fog, an app allegedly used by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to manage its IT cells. The investigation immediately aroused the attention of the Indian public. For the first time, everyday Indians were given insight into the inner workings of a major-party IT cell, and were forced to confront the possibility that their everyday reality was shaped not by the Indian public but the whims of shadowy political operatives; that their own ruling party would seek to phish their phones with spyware for the purpose of sending party-line propaganda impersonating them to friends and family. Such serious allegations resemble those of an authoritarian dictatorship like the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and their 50 Cents Army (), than the worlds largest democracy.

I have no special insights on the details of Tek Fog, and was not involved in the technical investigation (my involvement was limited to advising the authors regarding potential backlash from Facebook and its associated organisations, which were strongly opposed to publication.) But the investigations findings rang true to me, based on my experience at Facebook in catching inauthentic accounts and state-sponsored IT cells before I became a whistleblower.

Also read: Tek Fog: An App With BJP Footprints for Cyber Troops to Automate Hate, Manipulate Trends

As a new employee barely out of graduate school with no training and minimal expertise, I caught two world governments (Honduras and Azerbaijan) red-handed. Both governments ran IT cells without even hiding their own involvement, to manipulate and deceive their own citizenry. I know what I found was the low-hanging fruit those who had no reason to hide, as no one had bothered to look for them before. Despite their claims of benevolence, Facebook feels no responsibility to protect Indian democracy, any more than Dow Chemical feels responsible for making amends to the people of Bhopal.

I first learned the term IT cell half a year after joining FB, when an Indian policy lead explained to me that their use was common in India especially among the BJP. In January 2020, when I found a pro-Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) IT cell manipulating voters for the then-upcoming Delhi elections, Facebook policy thought they understood what was going on. These guys are trying to imitate the BJP and beat them at their online game, I was informed.

While IT cells are now endemic in Indian politics across parties, I was repeatedly told by FBs own Indian leadership that the BJP were the primary innovators in this area; the company knew that the BJP had access to an organisation in broad strokes similar to The Wires report. As such, I was surprised most not by any of the individual findings, but by the fact that an insider had appeared to come forward.

Also read: Tek Fog: Morphing URLs to Make Real News Fake, Hijacking WhatsApp to Drive BJP Propaganda

Ive spoken at length about my experiences at Facebook in late 2019 and early 2020. In that time period, I found five networks of fake accounts across the Indian political spectrum: two pro-Congress, two pro-BJP, and the aforementioned pro-AAP cell in Delhi. While the company initially agreed to take all five networks down as clear violations of their rules and policies, they only took down four; the last was stalled indefinitely after it was discovered to be run by a sitting BJP member of the Lok Sabha (Facebook has changed their story multiple times while denying my veracity.) Later in 2020, FB India head Ankhi Das resigned after controversial decisions and statements favouring the BJP.

Democracy cannot function if the voices of the people are drowned out by a swarm of fictitious voices. Allowing a small group of shady insiders to overwhelm public spaces with fake personas is anathema to free speech and discourse just as stuffing ballot boxes with fictitious votes is anathema to fair elections. This is a matter of fairness and principle, not partisanship. Many Indians agree. The Parliamentary Committee on Information Technology voted unanimously to seek my testimony (pending approval by the Speaker), and Ive been interviewed by news outlets from NDTV to Republic TV a strong statement of nonpartisan agreement in these polarised times.

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty

While Facebook holds increasing influence over the state of public discourse in India, it has focused on the needs of Indian power players rather than the needs of the Indian people. At Facebook, the leaders deciding individual cases are the same as those charged with buttering up politicians a conflict of interest that would force any Indian judge to recuse herself. Social media has built a world where the influential and powerful enjoy relative impunity, while justice is reserved for the lowly. Such a paradigm reminds us of an infamous quote from Peruvian dictator scar R. Benavides: For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law. In corrupt dictatorships such as the PRC, lawlessness among officials is common a perk enjoyed by friends and families of the dictator. This is the society being built by Facebook in India as well.

Also read: Tek Fog in Action: Targeting Women Journalists, Pushing Communal Narrative on COVID, Delhi Violence

When Mahatma Gandhi began his satyagraha, it was ordinary Indians who joined him in protest to win Indias freedom and democracy. When Indira Gandhi ruled by decree during the Emergency, it was ordinary Indians across parties who came together in protest to restore democracy.

If public protests are the language of the dispossessed, one of the first moves by any autocrat is to restrict freedom of speech and assembly. This stifles protests because in the real world, theres no way for a single person to impersonate a crowd.

In the digital world, however, the opposite is true, so autocrats use a different strategy to push their agenda. Imagine a world where false supporters of the British Raj drowned out the real opponents, and India never gained her independence. A world where India remained under Emergency forever, as false supporters of the government drowned out the real voices. That is the risk of IT cells a world in which autocrats are empowered, the minority able to rule over a majority with far greater ease.

The ongoing IT cell arms race across parties is no more beneficial for the Indian people than the US-Soviet nuclear arms race was for the world. If Indias leaders cannot agree to end this madness, it will be up to the Indian people to stand up and call for sanity to return.

Photo credit: Liza Danz

Sophie Zhang became a whistleblower after spending two years and eight months at Facebook failing to fix the company from within. She personally caught two national governments using Facebook to manipulate their own citizenry, while also revealing concerning decisions made by Facebook regarding inauthenticity in Indian and US politics. Formerly a data scientist, she currently stays home to pet her cats.

View original post here:
Tek Fog: Imagine a World Where False Supporters of the Emergency Drowned Out the Real Opponents - The Wire

Liz Tovar, Executive Officer and Associate Vice President,Division of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Happy New Year, and welcome back to campus! While it is cold outside, we are excited to see everyone back on campus to begin the spring semester. My hope is everyone had a safe and enjoyable winter break.

Today we celebrate the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. as we serve our community and strive to make it a better place. While we still have work to do, I am encouraged by the strides we have gained and can build upon. This week theMartin Luther King Jr. Celebration of Human Rightswill take place across campus, and we encourage everyone to check out these events. DDEI partners with Johnson County and the Division of Student Life in this effort, and we look forward to your participation!

This week is alsoUnity Week 2022. We mark this week to celebrate our institutions people and accomplishments in DEI while also looking forward to growing in the coming year.

Our colleges, units, and departments across campus will tell the stories of how they have grown in DEI since last January. You can see these stories on their social media feeds and our divisions Unity webpage. I encourage you to use#IowaUnity2022to show how you have grown over the past year.

One way we show our continued commitment to unity is in our battle with COVID-19. Our in-person learning is critical to our success, but we need to be safe. Please, be respectful of your neighbors, wear a mask, get tested if you feel symptoms, and self-report. The universitiesCOVID-19 websitewill continue to post updates. We really are all in this together, and we need to take care of one another.

I have spoken many times about how critical it is to respect each other. We dont need to agree with our neighbors. We need to respect different opinions, listen to understand each other, and respect beliefs differing from our own. It is our right through freedom of speech and expression to hold tight to our ideas, but it is also about being civil to each other in challenging conversations.

As we begin this new semester and strive for success, it is essential to focus on mutual respect for and to listen to understand each other. We have come so far in the past year, but we need to be vigilant and continue to work on ourselves to be our best selves.

I am always available to talk. Please reach out to me atelizabeth-tovar@uiowa.eduanytime. Have a great start to the semester, and as always

Go Hawks!

Liz TovarExecutive Officer and Associate Vice PresidentDivision of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

See the article here:
January 2022 Unity Week Note from Liz | Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

One of the four people cleared of charges relating to the tearing down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston has said jury trials and freedom of speech are the cornerstones of our society amid a backlash over the verdict.

The bronze memorial to the 17th century figure was pulled down during a Black Lives Matter protest in Bristol on June 7 2020, before being rolled into the water in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in the US.

Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, and Sage Willoughby, 22, Jake Skuse, 33, were acquitted of criminal damage on Wednesday following an 11-day trial at Bristol Crown Court.

The verdict prompted a debate about the criminal justice system after the defendants, dubbed the Colston Four, opted to stand trial in front of a jury and did not deny involvement in the incident.

Ms Graham told Times Radio: Damaging things in order to be heard and to progress with equality and better society is not a new thing.

I, as a woman, wouldnt have the right to vote had suffragettes not gone and smashed windows and destroyed postboxes in the name of womens right to vote.

So this really isnt a new thing. And obviously, we have gone through the justice system. I know theres a lot of people saying it was not democratic.

And, you know, what is democratic is our freedom of speech and jury trials. And one of our barristers mentioned the fact that those two things are really cornerstones of our democracy.

And what really isnt democratic is the displays of police brutality that we see which caused so much uproar within the BLM movement.

Ms Graham also said she felt it was her time to show solidarity for black people in the UK, and that lockdown gave her a chance to reflect on the issues they have faced.

It comes after Attorney General Suella Braverman said the verdict is causing confusion and she is carefully considering whether to use powers which allow her to seek a review.

Some lawyers said this would be Trumpian politics and described the furore over the acquittals as a complete waste of time and damaging confidence in the justice system.

Opponents urged Ms Braverman not to play political games when she doesnt like the results.

See more here:
Colston case defendant says juries and free speech are 'cornerstones of society' - Isle of Wight County Press

The language is clear and unambiguous: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

In practice, that means that with very few and exact exceptions, no one in government can tell a newspaper what to print. No one not the president or a senator, or an agency bureaucrat or a sitting judge.

Yet that is just what Justice Charles D. Wood of the New York State Supreme Court did in an order issued just before Christmas, as he prohibited The New York Times from publishing documents the paper has obtained regarding Project Veritas, a right-wing activist group.

The order represents an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment and the idea of a free and independent press. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Theres little comfort in the fact that Justice Woods order already has been partially lifted. A New York state appeals court on Tuesday lifted the portion of the order requiring The Times to turn over or destroy the documents in question.

The paper still cannot report anything from the documents, however, until a further hearing is held.

While that may be a sign that sanity will ultimately prevail, its beyond disconcerting that a judge would issue the order in the first place.

The documents are legal memos prepared for Project Veritas years ago describing strategies they can use to make sure their often-deceptive practices including secret cameras and fake identities used to embarrass opponents stay on the right side of the law.

The Times legally obtained the memos through regular reporting through doing its job. It published some of their contents as part of its reporting on an investigation by Justice Department into Project Veritas for the groups possible role in the theft of a diary belonging to President Bidens daughter.

In a prior, unrelated case, Project Veritas is suing The Times for defamation. The group argued, and Justice Wood agreed, that because of the ongoing litigation, the newspapers use of the memos represents a violation of its attorney-client privilege.

Thats hogwash. The reporting done by the newspaper on Project Veritas is clearly in the public interest and within its rights as a news organization. The memos have nothing to do with the litigation between the group and the newspaper, and everything to do with how a prominent, publicity-seeking organization engages with the public.

Saying otherwise would have what one media lawyer called the ultimate chilling effect. Organizations that found themselves the target of critical reporting by a newspaper could sue them, then argue that any subsequent reporting should be subject to a gag order as a result of that suit.

Whats more, Justice Woods order left no room for other courts to make it right. If The Times had been forced to destroy the documents, any future ruling in their favor would be moot.

Thankfully, the appeals court acted first. They shouldnt have had to.

The matter has been resolved for at least 50 years, when a judge refused to allow the Nixon administration to block The Times and Washington Post from publishing details of classified documents detailing the history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam, dubbed the Pentagon Papers.

That ruling, and others, lay out the boundaries. Troop movements in wartime may be a matter of national security and thus within the bounds of a government ban on publishing. But the governments handling of a war and its genuine feelings on how that war is going are of the public interest and subject to First Amendment protections, as are the operations of a group like Project Veritas.

That should be clear, and until Justice Woods ruling, it had been as clear as any legal precedent.

The courts should use this occasion to reaffirm the rights of free speech and an open press, and keep government from crossing a boundary that is at the heart of our democracy.

The Portland (Maine) Press Herald

Visit link:
Other View: Judge's order against The New York Times cannot stand - Effingham Daily News