Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Introduction

The freedom of speech is one of the crucial features of the democratic society. The personal liberty cannot be achieved without the ability to express your thoughts freely. It also means the opportunity to participate in the discussions and debates. George Orwell said, If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

The media is a powerful mean of social progress nowadays. It is said that social medias worldwide audience gives individuals new rights, responsibilities, and risks. Joshua Rozenberg claimed, A tweet is not an email, its a broadcast. The aim of this essay is to present my own opinion on the expressions by Orwell and Rozenberg and to discuss the influence of media on the human rights, responsibilities, and risks.

The social media represents the source and the mean of the information dissemination. It is difficult to imagine what the world would look like if we did not have the media. The dissemination of the true information is one of the pillars of the free society.

Nowadays, the breakthrough in this process has been achieved due to the development and implementation of the new media and information and communications technologies (ICTs) (IMS Conference on ICTs, 2008). I agree with the statement of George Orwell, who said that the liberty means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

It goes without saying that all people are different and, thus, their views on the changes occurring in the surrounding world differ. However, the social progress cannot be achieved without the conflict solving and decision making. The availability of the different opinions contributes to the arriving at the best solution. The freedom of speech implies the opportunity of the unhampered expression of the opposite views.

How can we say about the liberty and personal freedom if we are afraid of protesting and arguing? The truly democratic society is the one, which encourages the independent thinking and the expression of the opposite views.

Katharine Gelber in her article Freedom of Speech and Australian Political Culture considers the opinions of the Australian politicians, representing both the Coalition and Opposition in the beginning of the 1990s. Gelber tries to say that the history of the freedom of speech in Australia consists of the periods of the increasing public debates on the issue of human rights and their protection.

In 1992, the wide discussions contributed to the recognition of the freedom of speech in Australia (Gelber, 2011). Although the representatives of the various political parties have different views on the concept of freedom of speech, all of them indicate to its importance for the society.

Gelber says that the majority of Australians believe that the freedom of speech exists in the Australian society (Gelber, 2011). Undoubtedly, it shows that people feel their liberty in saying what the others do not want to hear.

There is a famous expression by Joshua Rozenberg, A tweet is not an email, its a broadcast. I think that he means that if the conversation includes more than two persons, it is public and it disseminates the information rapidly. In the context of the human rights, it can be said that the tweet or wide discussions are vital for the dissemination of the information and contribute to the freedom of speech.

I agree with the statement that the social medias worldwide audience gives individuals new rights, responsibilities, and risks. In this respect, censorship remains one of the most significant hazards. However paradoxical it looks at the first glance, the United States of America represents the bright example of the country with the freedom of speech, on the one hand, and the cases of censorship, on the other hand.

Patrick Garry in his book An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech analyses the reasons for the existence of censorship in the country proclaiming the freedom of speech as one of the highest values. Garry finds the roots for this problem in the rapid dynamism of the American society.

The author also states that as multiculturalism replaces the older, more traditional social model of Americanized homogeneity, speech and censorship will increasingly form the ethnic and cultural battleground of this change (Garry, 1993, p. 14).

Undoubtedly, the freedom of speech is one of the most discrepant social and political issues. Peoples words depend on their minds and their emotions. However, they are not always the positive ones and sometimes people are driven by hate. The history of mankind already has a lot of examples when the speech provoked the violence. The Nazi Germany is one of such examples.

The emotional speech of Adolph Hitler inspired millions of people to commit the crime against humanity. That is why it should be emphasized that the freedom of speech assumes the responsibility. It is said that our most successful approach to defending our human rights and human dignity is to begin with the principle: Choose Love, Not Hate (Freedom of expression, no date).

Besides, it should be mentioned that the freedom of speech should not contradict the other human rights, including the intellectual property rights, the right to reputation, and others. The government intervention in the dissemination of the information should not go beyond the boundaries of the protection of the confidential information, reputation, public safety and order (Freedom of expression, no date).

The debates provoked by the promulgation of the secret information by WikiLeaks shook the public. Although there were different views on the activity of the website, it is obvious that it made the confidential information public, thus, violating the right to privacy and supporting the freedom of speech.

According to Little, there is a difference between disclosure of information relating to private lives of individuals and that relating to governments (2013, par. 6). The European authorities support the freedom of speech but indicate to the importance of licensing of broadcasting and the verification of the information disseminated by the media (Freedom of expression, 2007).

Connie Bennett and Rob Everett emphasize the importance of tolerance and understanding in the protection of the freedom of speech. At the same time, the authors state, Free and open access to the universe of ideas not only enriches the lives of a countrys citizens; it protects them from the harm caused when ignorance and misinformation go unchallenged by facts (Bennett and Everett, 2011, n.pag.).

The rapid development of the information technologies and the digital communication systems create the risks of inconsistent and false data dissemination as the role of the journalists and editors becomes vanished by the work of computers and Internet. At the same time, the modern technologies may help to overcome the bias in the information disseminated by the media.

There are a number of the social organizations aimed at protecting the freedom of speech and the activity of the journalists all over the world. In particular, Freedom House provides the support to the advocates of the human rights to defend the free media and the right to independent expression (Freedom of expression, no date).

In order to sum up all above mentioned, it should be said that the freedom of speech is one of the main human rights. However, it remains one of the controversial social issues as well. The freedom of expression implies certain responsibilities including the respect to the privacy of other people as well as to the results of their intellectual activity.

The development of the information technologies changes the media and the communication systems. The new tendency creates both the opportunities for the facilitation of the freedom of speech and risks of the dissemination of the false information.

The authors touch upon the problem of the freedom of speech and the government restrictions. In particular, they emphasize the importance of the free libraries providing the opportunity to become familiar with the different opinions presented in the books.

The book uncovers the paradox of the American society: the co-existence of the freedom of speech flourished by the public and the censorship, which restricts it. The author gives his own arguments explaining this phenomenon. In particular, he indicates to the significant changes occurring in the American society.

The article is devoted to the recognition of the freedom of speech in Australia. It also encompasses the results of the survey aimed at investigation of the opinion of the Australians on their constitutional rights including the freedom of expression. The author presents the definitions of the freedom of speech given by the Australian politicians.

The webpage is devoted to the freedom of expression as one of the basic human rights and describes the activity of Freedom House in its protection. The major branches of the organizations support are mentioned on the webpage. Besides, it emphasizes the role of journalists and media in the realization of the freedom of speech.

The information presented in the source is devoted to the role of the information and communication technologies in the spreading of the freedom of speech and the facilitation of the democratic process in the different countries. It represents the report on the results of the IMS Conference. The advances in the technology and their impact on the media are discussed in the source.

The author of the article touches upon the controversy around the freedom of speech. She presents her own opinion on the collision of the human rights, which frequently occurs in the society. She also touches upon the activity of the much-talked-of website WikiLeaks.

Bennett, C. and Everett, R. (2011) Freedom of speech requires understanding and tolerance, The Register Guard, 25 September. Available at: Questia.

Garry, P. (1993) An American paradox: censorship in a nation of free speech. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gelber, K. (2011) Freedom of speech and Australian political Culture, University of Queensland Law Journal, 30(1), pp. 135-144.

Freedom of expression (no date). Web.

Freedom of expression: a right with responsibilities (2007). Web.

IMS Conference on ICTs and networked communications environments: opportunities and threats for press freedom and democratization (2008). Web.

Little, C. (2013) Democracy depends upon free media and an informed public, Miami Herald. Web.

Read the original here:
The Freedom of Speech in Social Media - 1269 Words | Essay ...

Case No. 1: Schenck v. U.S

This was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that the defendant was not protected by the first amendment right to Freedom Of Speech against the draft of World War one. The case established the "Clear and Present Danger" test, which was sporadically used until 1969 when protection of speech was raised.

Case No. 2: Gitlow v. New York

This case was decided on June 8, 1925 and ruled that the fourteenth amendment had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority in the first amendment; specifically freedom of speech to the governments of individual states. It was one of the first cases that defined the power of the first amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard of when free speech should be criminalized.

Case No. 3: New York Times v. Sullivan

This case created the "Actual Malice" standard, which has to be met before a report or press release about public officials or figures. If itisn'tmet the act is considered libel and defamation and it allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaign. It is one key decision supporting freedom of press. After this case, news organizations were free to report the widespread disorder and civil rights infringements.

Case No. 4: Brandenburg v. Ohio

This was a landmarkcourt casebased on the first amendment to the U.S Constitution. The court decided that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to inciteimminentlawless action. It struck down Ohio's syndicalism statute because the statute prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Case No. 5: Tinker v. Des Moines

This was a decision by the Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in public schools, It created the Tinker Test. It is still used in today's public schools to determine if schools punishments are violating students first amendment rights.

Case No. 6: Buckley v. ValeoIn this case, the Supreme Court struck down several provisions in the 1974 amendment to a law that limited campaign expenditures, independent expenditures by individuals and groups and expenditures by a candidate from personal funds. The court upheld the provision which sets limits on individuals campaign contribution.Case No. 7: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

This Supreme Court Case held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established as forums for student expression.The case ruled in favor of Hazelwood School District. The justices believed that the censorship did not violate the student's first amendment rights.

Case No. 8: Texas v. Johnson

This Supreme Court Case invalidated prohibitions on burning the American flag, enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in saying that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Case No. 9: Boy Scouts v. Dale

This case held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of Boy Scouts "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. It reversed a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court and they had to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and and they expelled him.

Case No. 10: Morse v. Frederick

This is the case in which the Court said that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.In 2002, high school principal Deborah Morse suspended Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002 Olympic Torch Relay. Frederick sued Deborah Morse, claiming his rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling, concluding that Frederick's speech rights were violated.

Continue reading here:
Freedom Of Speech Landmark Cases - Government & Politics

So columnist and Democrat Gene Lyons (Globe, Dec. 15) is aghast at several of the positions of Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie. (Hes particularly torqued at his continuing support of former President Donald Trump.)

Im certainly not surprised.

Heck, I even have a few issues with Massies positions on certain topics.

But unlike Lyons, I support his constitutional right to express his opinions on a whole range of various topics. And unlike many of Genes Democratic friends, I am totally against his opinion that he ought to somehow be shut-up.

How did this party become so opposed to freedom of speech when it doesnt fit with their narrative?

Its certainly happened over a very short period of time, it seems to me.

Perry Davis

Carthage

Continue reading here:
Your view: Has the left given up on freedom of speech? - Joplin Globe

If R. Jones and T. Gordon (CW letters 16 December 2012) think that Bill Stefaniaks column should not be published in the Canberra Weekly, then I suggest they both go back to their left-leaning, Labor/Greens-loving media echo chambers.

If R. Jones thinks conservative politicians look only after their own interests at the expense of future generations, he should look at the current federal Liberal government that has overseen Australia being one of the top countries in the world as far as vaccinations go and the lack of Covid deaths.

What has been a national disgrace is the attitude of the majority state Labor premiers and their iron-fisted locking of state borders when there has been little covid transmission. WAs McGovern and Queenslands Palaszczuk have prevented Australian families from visiting their loved ones and at the same time locked out their own citizens from their own homes, whist Victorias Dan Andrews has been drunk on power locking down Victorians for an inordinate amount of time, creating a pandemic of mental health problems that has been swept under the carpet, not to mention his failure of hotel quarantine that resulted in 800 deaths and subsequent lying in what amounted to a kangaroo court to avoid criminal charges.

Do these leaders sound like politicians that are looking after future generations? Those poor young people in Labor-led states have had the best years of their life ripped away from them and they will never get them back.

Here in the ACT, our Labor/greens government continually run a wrecking ball through our green spaces in this once beautiful bush capital, putting up concrete jungle, high rise apartments that do little to cool the environment. Is this what R. Jones thinks is an adequate address to what they call global heating.

Dont get me started on the condition of these Labor-led states/territories health departments either. Maybe that explains their paranoia for locking down to a virus that has a 99 per cent survival rate for those infected.

Is this what R. Jones thinks is looking after future generations? A pathetic health system that is the responsibility of the states and territories.

Email[emailprotected]with To the editor in the subject field; include your full name, phone number, street address (NFP) and suburb. Keep letters to 250 words maximum. Note, letters may be shortened if space restrictions dictate.

Visit link:
To the editor: Freedom of speech Bill - Canberra Weekly

In this article, we discuss what freedom of speech really means, why it matters and how it relates to censorship and cancel culture.

It is pretty widely accepted that free speech is an essential part of a democratic society, and should be upheld to some degree. But the real question lies in how far we take it. While some people believe that freedom of speech should be upheld at all costs, others believe that it can be an excuse for saying harmful things without reprimand.

In order to clarify the arguments surrounding free speech, weve written this article about where it originates from, how it differs around the world, how it benefits society, and what some of its limitations are. This is by no means a formal guide to the laws surrounding free speech, but rather an exploration of different perspectives around free speech.

There are a number of varying definitions of free speech, but at its core, its about the legal right to express or seek out ideas and opinions freely without fear of censorship or legal action. Freedom of speech is a part of freedom of expression, which means that individuals have the right to express themselves in whatever way they wish.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created in 1948 by representatives of 50 states from the United Nations. They were created in response to the Second World War, as a way of trying to prevent such a wide-scale conflict from ever happening again.

Thirty human rights were created, and they were designed to belong to everyone in the world so that no human being would be without rights. Article 18 and 19 are the rights most closely related to freedom of speech. While article 18 states that everyone has the freedom to believe whatever they want, and practice their beliefs (including religion), article 19 states that everyone has the right to express their opinions freely, in whichever way they want.

These human rights then formed the basis for different human rights laws across the world, including article 10 of the human rights act in the UK. This article grants individuals freedom of expression without interference, but also states that there are some conditions that may mean this freedom will be interrogated, such as in the event of a national security risk.

The short answer is no. The longer answer is that the specific law will depend on the country youre in, but generally, there will always be exceptions to the rule. For example, in the UKs article 10, the law states that public authorities can restrict the right to free speech if:

As we previously explained, freedom of speech is a universal human right, but different countries interpret it differently in their laws. We can get an idea about different attitudes to free speech by looking at the citizens of different countries, in studies such as the one done by Pew Research Centre in 2015.

In this study, the researchers surveyed respondents from 38 different countries about their attitudes towards freedom of expression. While the U.S. unsurprisingly came out as the most supportive of free speech, other countries with a high level of support included Mexico, Venezuela, Canada and Australia.

Some examples of countries with low levels of support for freedom of expression included Senegal, Burkina Faso, Jordan, Pakistan, and Ukraine. This research demonstrates that the principle of free speech is not a one size fits all concept, and depends a lot on the constitution and culture of the country in question.

Youve probably heard people refer to their first amendment rights in America, since freedom of speech is often considered a fundamental part of being an American. This law guarantees freedoms related to religion, expression, assembly and petitioning, and allows individuals to assemble and speak freely. The amendment actually states:

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

The study we discussed earlier by Pew Research Centre demonstrated just how much Americans care about their first amendment rights. They found that Americans were some of the most supportive citizens of free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to use the internet without government censorship. In addition, they discovered that Americans were more tolerant of offensive language than other nationalities.

However, it is interesting to consider that the U.S. is ranked at 44 out of 180 countries when ranked in the 2021 World Press Freedom Index.

There are so many reasons why freedom of speech is important. Of course, the biggest reason is that freedom is paramount in a democracy. If we cannot speak freely, it often means that our liberties are being restricted in some way. However, its a little more complicated than that, so we took a look at our open step about freedom of expression by Humanists UK.

One thing thats highlighted in our open step is that all humans make mistakes, and somehow we learn to correct them. The way that we enrich or change our beliefs and opinions is through listening to contradictory arguments. Critical discussion is a fundamental part of the human learning experience, and critical discussions would not exist without people being able to express opposing beliefs.

In this way, disagreements can be extremely productive. Also, Humanists UK point out that causing offence is not always a bad thing. Many ideas from history caused offence at the time, but now they are considered important and revolutionary take Mary Wollstonecraft and Charles Darwin, for example.

In addition, even if false arguments and bad attitudes are pushed down, they dont necessarily go away. Instead, they can evolve into something more sinister, as people may only seek out those with a similar opinion to themselves. This kind of behaviour creates an echo chamber, where you only hear opinions that support your own, and there is no critical discourse. Alternatively, free expression allows for ideas to be challenged, changed, and also better understood.

We already discussed some of the reasons why a government might restrict the right to freedom of expression, so we already know that it has some limitations. Our open step from the University of Bristol explores the slightly different limitations stated in South Africa, which restricts advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion.

However, it is also worth mentioning that freedom of speech and expression has limitations depending on the specific context youre in. For example, even though it is your human right to express yourself freely, doing so at work in a way that insults or negatively affects your boss or colleagues could impact your career. Essentially, its often inappropriate to speak freely if it infringes on someone elses freedoms.

In a similar vein, experts from the University of Oslo and the Scholars at Risk Network explore the challenges and curbs to academic free speech which can occur in academic environments, including those where human rights or legal violations may not be a factor. You can find out more about this in our Dangerous Questions: Why Academic Freedom Matters course.

A lot of the time, we hear about controversial opinions and statements that people have made via the internet. This is why its important to evaluate the role of digital platforms and social media in the debate on freedom of speech.

In our open step on freedom of speech and the internet, experts from the University of Bristol discuss how the internet has been blamed by some for enabling terrorism and extremism. This is because they are accused of providing a platform for people to promote their damaging views, and even plan attacks.

In this way, digital platforms very much have a part to play in the free speech debate, as ultimately they must try to ensure that dangerous activity is not taking place on their platforms. However, as Pier Luigi Parcu explains in our open step on fake news, digital platforms dont like to assume editorial responsibility for the dangerous content that exists on their sites.

There are rare exceptions to this, such as when Twitter banned Donald Trump recently, but a bill was approved soon after that now prevents social media companies from deplatforming politicians this way.

This general lack of assumption of responsibility means that digital platforms dont filter information like other media do, leaving a lot of room for fake news, unsubstantiated opinions, and even dangerous ideas. The problem is that filtering out this information would be an issue of freedom of expression, so it becomes very difficult for digital platforms to find middle ground.

Lately, however, Facebook and Twitter have been trying to screen for fake news, which is explained in more detail in this Forbes article. The writer, Bernard Marr, states Facebook unveiled a raft of measures designed to help keep users safe from misinformation, as well as exploitative practices. It deployed algorithms to look for false or sensationalist claims made in advertising.

One of the reasons its so difficult to police the internet is because its a kind of public forum. As described by professors at the University of Bristol in our open step about free speech and the internet, the internet provides a platform for those otherwise denied a voice.

Rather than just media companies and journalists being the information providers, we are offered perspectives from ordinary citizens. This can be incredibly powerful in certain instances, such as when people are experiencing abuses of power by their government, police, or authorities. The power of storytelling online cannot be underestimated.

However, the internet also encourages the free sharing of information and opinions in more ordinary circumstances take Wikipedia, for example, which is written, edited and checked by anyone who wants to contribute. This is an example of moderation being carried out by ordinary people instead of the state. The same can be said for forums such as Reddit.

One of the most widely discussed critiques of unlimited free speech is that it can condone and amplify hate speech. Hate speech can be defined as speech that is abusive and threatening towards a certain group of people, generally based on prejudices related to race, gender, sexuality, religion, or disability.

Some might ask, since people should be allowed to speak their minds and voice all opinions, why cant they simply express their dislike for certain things? This is an argument often uttered by those in favour of complete freedom of speech, including hate speech. However, people may disagree with this, arguing that a clearer line should be drawn between stating dislike and inciting violence. If nothing is off-limits, where does it end?

In our open step about freedom of expression by Humanists UK, they discuss the difficulty in deciding what counts as offensive and what doesnt. They ask, if we ban all speech that anyone might consider offensive, how much conversation would be left? While it is true that offence is subjective, and depends hugely on your individual perspective, it could be argued that we have a duty to protect people against threats of harm and violence.

Even though a certain statement doesnt offend you, it might still be offensive. In an open step by the European University Institute, Pier Luigi Parcu talks about the issue of hate speech online, saying hate speech has become a common pattern of political propaganda, even in established democracies, targeting minorities, women, migrants, weaker elements of society, or simply the diversity of opinions. The phenomenon has been exacerbated by the relative anonymity that is allowed to the haters by the Internet.

Censorship is often talked about in relation to free speech because people feel that they are being unfairly censored online in violation of their rights. Censorship can be defined as the suppression of information, though it often relates to things like images, books, television, and other media.

It can be argued that some forms of censorship are necessary for example, websites that children regularly access might censor inappropriate images. However, the rules around censorship can be very hazy online, and censorship can even become oppressive in many circumstances. We go into more detail below.

In our open step about censorship from the University of York, experts suggest that internet censorship is a direct threat to our freedom to access information and express ourselves. They state that the key issue is that there is no clear code of conduct on many digital platforms, meaning we rarely even know what they are restricting and blocking, or why.

Take the case of model, Nyome Nicholas-Williams, on Instagram last year. A partially nude, non-explicit image of her that didnt break any Instagram guidelines was repeatedly taken down. However, it is extremely easy to stumble across explicit nude images on Instagram, so we have to ask why was Nyome censored?

The problem is, that platforms like Instagram operate on a case-by-case basis when it comes to nudity, leaving a lot of room for bias, discrimination, and unfair censorship.

On a different note entirely, we all know that censorship of information by the government can be extremely dangerous and damaging. Extreme censorship is often a feature of dictatorship citizens are not given access to news, books, certain information, and instead are fed propaganda. This is a direct violation of their human rights.

A very common societal phenomenon right now is cancel culture. Placing limitations on free speech via social or digital ostracisation is not a direct attack like censorship by the government or social media platforms, but can be an effective way of deplatforming an individual, group or corporation.

Rather than actually stopping someone from expressing their views, cancel culture is a way for people to say that theyre not going to listen. Usually, cancel culture is a response to someone saying or doing something objectionable. It normally involves members of the public withdrawing their support from the cancelled person, but it can also involve trying to negatively impact the persons career prospects.

For the reasons weve already discussed, it can be damaging to cancel people, because this means we are refusing to engage with them and create critical discourse. However, this really depends on the reasons why someone is being cancelled.

The important thing to remember is that asking someone to be accountable for their actions is not regarded as the same as cancel culture. A widely acknowledged view is that criticism of cancel culture should not be an excuse for not taking responsibility for damaging actions, just as the right to free speech should not be an excuse for spreading hatred.

Hopefully, this has provided you with an interesting and informative overview of free speech. If youre interested in learning more about political ideas surrounding democracy, you can try our Introduction to Politics ExpertTrack by the University of Kent.

While freedom of speech is an essential part of the world we live in and a fundamental human right, it can still be useful to think about its limitations. Being able to question society is a positive feature of democracy, and we believe that developing curiosity is an essential part of the human learning experience.

Originally posted here:
Freedom of speech: What does it mean? - FutureLearn

Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you like about whatever you like, whenever you like, right? Wrong.

'Freedom of speech is the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, by any means.'

Freedom ofspeech and the right to freedom of expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may be deeply offensive. But it comes with responsibilities and we believe it can be legitimately restricted.

You might not expect us to say this, but in certain circumstances free speech and freedom of expression can be restricted.

Governments have an obligation to prohibit hate speech and incitement. And restrictions can also be justified if they protect specific public interest or the rights and reputations of others.Any restrictions on freedom ofspeech and freedom of expression must be set out in laws that must in turn be clear and concise so everyone can understand them.People imposing the restrictions (whether they are governments, employers or anyone else) must be able to demonstrate the need for them, and they must be proportionate.

All of this has to be backed up by safeguards to stop the abuse of these restrictions and incorporate a proper appeals process.

Restrictions that do not comply with all these conditions violate freedom of expression.

We consider people put in prison solely for exercising their right to free speech to be prisoners of conscience.

Any restriction should be as specific as possible. It would be wrong to ban an entire website because of a problem with one page.

These terms must be precisely defined in law to prevent them being used as excuses for excessive restrictions.

This is a very subjective area, but any restrictions must not be based on a single tradition or religion and must not discriminate against anyone living in a particular country.

Public officials should tolerate more criticism than private individuals. So defamation laws that stop legitimate criticism of a government or public official, violate the right to free speech.

Protecting abstract concepts, religious beliefs or other beliefs or the sensibilities of people that believe them is not grounds for restricting freedom of speech.

Journalists and bloggers face particular risks because of the work they do. Countries therefore have a responsibility to protect their right to freedom of speech. Restrictions on Newspapers, TV stations, etc can affect everyones right to freedom of expression.

Government should never bring criminal proceedings against anyone who reveals information about human rights abuses.

Free speech is one of our most important rights and one of the most misunderstood.

Use your freedom of speech to speak out for those that are denied theirs. But use it responsibly: it is a powerful thing.

Here is the original post:
What is freedom of speech? | Amnesty International UK

Musical artist

Corynne Elliot (born 17 March 1983 in London, England), better known as Speech Debelle,[1] is a British rapper signed to the Big Dada record label.[2][3] She was the winner of the 2009 Mercury Prize for her debut album Speech Therapy.[4] She released her second album, Freedom of Speech in 2012 and her third album, tantil before i breathe in 2017.

Debelle's single from Speech Therapy, "Spinnin" has been re-worked by Tinchy Stryder and Dionne Bromfield and was used as one of the official anthems of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.[5]

She has also been politically and socially active with a number of charities and movements,[6] and hosted the BBC documentary Hidden Homeless in 2012.[7]

Corynne Elliot was born in 1983 in London, England,[3] and was raised by her mother in a middle-class Jamaican household in London, south of the River Thames.[8] She attended Harris City Academy, and at age 9 began writing poetry.[9] While she wanted to be a singer, she disliked her singing voice when younger, so decided to try rapping at age 13. Within a week other students in her class had learned all her lyrics. At age 16, writing became an emotional outlet for her.[2] Debelle drew inspiration from Michael Jackson and in particular the song "Human Nature", as well as Blackstreet, Mary J. Blige, TLC and reggae music.[3] She left home after arguing with her mother at the age of 19, and for three years Debelle lived in London in either homeless hostels or with friends. While estranged from her mother at the time, she has said she did keep in regular contact. Now reconciled with her mother, Speech cites these years as formative in developing her ambition and material.[9]

Debelle returned to her mother's house at age 23 and began calling record labels.[9] In November 2007 she was signed by Big Dada records, a small imprint of Ninja Tune.[10] She has said the label helped her develop artistically, and gave her complete creative control of her music.[11]Debelle's debut album, Speech Therapy, was released in the United Kingdom on 31 May 2009. The album was led by a white label limited release of "Searching". Thereafter the album had three singles released, "The Key", "Better Days" featuring Micachu, "Go Then, Bye" and finally "Spinning". Recorded mostly in Australia, the album was created by Debelle, Wayne Lotek and Plutonic Lab (who produced "The Key and "Better Days"), and Big Dada founder Will Ashon, the album documented her formative years in London. She has cited her biggest influences on the album as he biggest inspiration for the first album was Tracy Chapman and Meshell Ndegeocello. Unlike many other hip hop albums, the tracks eschew the use of samples and rely instead on live instrumentals.[2]

"The Key" won Best Budget Video for Pop, Dance, Urban at the UK Music Video Awards in 2009.[12]

In 2009, she performed at Glastonbury Festival.[13] Her 2009 Glastonbury appearance was also accompanied with her first live TV performance of "Searching".[14] As the broadcast was made the after Michael Jackson died, after the song she gave her sentiments to a formative figure to her artistry. Later in the year during an interview with The Guardian, when asked what/who she could bring back to life, she answered Michael Jackson.[11]

Debelle's single from the Speech Therapy, "Spinnin" has been re-worked by Tinchy Stryder and Dionne Bromfield and will be used as one of the official anthems of the 2012 Summer Olympics in London.[5] In March 2011 she performed three songs from the album for Canal Street TV in France.[15]

On 21 July 2009 Speech Therapy was announced as one of the twelve shortlisted albums for the year's Mercury Music Award. She became the first woman to win the award in seven years.[16] Speech Therapy was considered an upset to more well-known competitors including The Horrors, Florence and the Machine, Kasabian and Friendly Fires.[16]

After the win, sales of Speech Therapy were comparatively low to other Mercury winners. As of 2012, the album has sold 15,000 copies. The album peaked on the UK Albums Chart at 65.[10][17]

Despite the Mercury Prize win, 10,000 units of Speech Therapy were sold by November 2009 in comparison to the 300,000-album sales of the 2008 winner, Elbow's The Seldom Seen Kid and 2010's winners The xx whose winning album xx went platinum (300,000+) shortly after winning the award.[10][17][18] Debelle reportedly quit the Big Dada record label in November 2009, blaming them for failing to adequately market and distribute the album.[19]

A few months later, she said "as an artist, you get upset with your label, you get upset with your team. I'm entitled to do that. In the same way, they are entitled to get upset with me... If we're all on the same page, it's all good."[20]

Debelle reunited with Big Dada Recordings in 2011 to work on her second album entitled Freedom of Speech.[21]

OHM Monthly cited Speech's work as "biggest thing in UK hip-hop for many a long year".[22] The Times praised the production of the album and named it the 76th best album of the 2000s.

In the US, Pitchfork gave a favourable review and praising her relaxed, conversational delivery.[8] According to Pitchfork, "Some hip-hop fans will likely write her off because the usual American rap signifiers-- samples, seething synths, bombastic beats, and buckets of braggadocio-- play scant part in her artistic agenda."[8]

In a review of the album, The Guardian said "Debelle's songs are vulnerable, open, unafraid. The overall sound...is full of light and air, acoustic guitars and pianos. There is a gracious, almost stately air to the record, yet the songs still sound entirely joyous."[2] Paul Macinnes of The Guardian wrote "There's something intriguing about Speech Debelle, with a voice both husky and sweet, and a back story that's emotive if unclear."[23] Macinnes also nominated Speech Therapy as his favourite album of 2009.[23]

In March 2010 Speech Debelle teamed up with Bonobo to co-write and sing on the song "Sun Will Rise", taken from Ninja Tune's 'XX' Boxset.[24]

In August 2011, Speech gave away a new track, "Blaze Up A Fire", via her SoundCloud page. The track features Roots Manuva and Realism. The track deals with uprising events in countries including Egypt and Libya, but Debelle has stated the song has even more pertinence to the 2011 England riots.[25]

I feel it could give insight into the hearts and minds of some of the people that have taken part in, not only the peaceful marches for Mark Duggan in Tottenham and the Smiley Culture march for justice, but also I believe it speaks of the frustration of many young people who took part in the rioting and the consequent looting over London and areas of the UK. I am not attempting to condone, I'm attempting to be a voice of understanding.

In February 2012, Debelle released her follow-up album, Freedom of Speech, via Big Dada Recordings. It featured the aforementioned "Blaze Up a Fire" as well as lead single "Studio Backpack Rap."

Trebuchet Magazine described Debelle as 'a fiery, if nave, seeker of justice and truth', and said "she has a cracked lusciousness to her voice that strongly recalls Martina Topley-Bird's most meltingly sexy moments on Tricky's Maxinquaye."[26]

MTV gave the album 5/5 stars, and said, "What makes this a truly great hip hop album is that her words, piling up on one another, take on the quality of incantations and that those incantations take on a life of their own."[27] According to AllMusic in a review (4/5 stars), "Speech Debelle is now the most interesting and possibly the most exciting British MC on the scene."[28]

The album has garnered mixed reactions from the BBC, concluding that "anyone who wasn't convinced by her debut is going to find far more to take issue with", and that Debelle "still has some serious thinking to do",[29] and the Independent rating the album 3/5.[30]

In August 2009, Debelle performed at Africa Express in Paris, an event set up by Blur and Gorillaz front-man Damon Albarn.[6]

In 2009, Debelle appeared alongside Gary Barlow, David Arnold and Jimmy Carr for a CARE charity concert in aid of youth education.[31] She was also invited to 10 Downing Street to celebrate "British Talent", in association with the Talent and Enterprise Taskforce.[32]

In 2010, she was a guest speaker at the Progressive London conference alongside Ken Livingstone, Sadiq Khan MP, and other notable academics. The annual conference explores and discusses the application of liberal politics to the benefit of London.[33] She joined with the National Union of Students to Support Ken Livingstone's "save EMA" pledge.[34]

Her liberal stance on ethnic diversity was also lent to the Hope Not Hate campaign.[35] Debelle also teamed up with Saatchi & Saatchi on the User Voice campaign, giving disadvantaged youth a platform in Parliament.[36]

In early 2011 Debelle took part in a photography project set up by Oxfam and photographer Martin Parr, which help spread awareness about climate change.[37]

She began teaming up with Chuka Umunna the MP for Streatham on her community work to speak about the importance of voting.[38] She has also volunteered with Barnardo's to promote youth inclusion through a project to deliver an alternate Christmas Day video message to their elders on YouTube,[39] as well as writing about gender equality for the VSO Godmothers blog.[40] On 4 October 2011 Debelle was part of the Young Voter's Question Time panel during the Conservative Party Conference in Salford.[41]

She hosted a BBC documentary about homeless youth[42] called Hidden Homeless in 2012.[7] She is also a patron of the program HOPE Not Hate.[43]

In 2013 Debelle curated The Strength and Vulnerability Bunker,[44] an exhibition at the Southbank Centre, London, presented by the Koestler Trust who exhibit art works by prisoners, detainees and ex-offenders. In 2015 she co-curated Re:Form, also presented by the same trust. This time her co-curators were Jeremy Deller, Carol Ann Duffy and Hot Chip and the category theme was 'journey'.[45]

Continue reading here:
Speech Debelle - Wikipedia

FREE speech is the only means to the end of a just and generous society, the Archbishop of Canterbury told the House of Lords on Friday. It was a necessary condition to the building of good communities healthy enough to disagree well and challenge when power was misused.

The four-hour debate on freedom of speech was enabled by an Advent tradition that allows the incumbent archbishop to call a debate of his own choosing.

Archbishop Justin Welby identified the fear of reprisal, the distortion of truth, and the dehumanisation of those with whom we disagree as three of the major threats to freedom of speech. He paid tribute to those around the globe and in the UK for whom the issue was genuinely something to die for.

Regulation alone could not be the answer: I welcome the Governments move to tackle online harms; but while we can protect those most at risk, we cannot and should not try to legislate ourselves to good behaviour, he said.

And he cautioned against those who dismissed social media. Its vehemence was often the voice of those previously unheard, and for that reason it is resented by those who have always been heard.

The Archbishop reflected on how to foster those habits of the heart and mind that encourage a society that listens, reflects, and responds with generosity and grace. He asked: Just as importantly, how might we ensure that, in our desire to curb the extremes, we do not silence the prophetic, all those who challenge injustice and speak uncomfortable truths, so that we do not push them to the margins?

The BBC was one of the important means, he suggested. It gets things wrong; but its continual history of being abandoned by tyrants, which goes on to this day, demonstrates the fear that impartial reporting true freedom of speech generates in those who seek to stifle all liberty. The BBC usually speaks frankly but also fittingly.

Faith communities were increasingly seen in many places as proponents of freedom, living out the Reformation truth that free speech opens the way to communities that challenge injustice, he said. I think today of a senior Anglican overseas, whom I speak to very regularly but cannot name for his own security, who constantly speaks for free speech in a place of great insecurity.

The anticipation of being howled down on social media was a constraint of speaking freely. It is fear not of being argued with but of the abusive and threatening hecklers in their thousands and tens of thousands.

The setting up of fake websites, the use of hacking, and the effectiveness of bots all bring the hecklers veto from a point of irritation to a threat to sanity and stability, even to the threat of social chaos. Algorithms reinforce choices. At the same time, we must bear in mind that, in many countries, social media has been the main bulwark of struggles for freedom.

Privacy was as much a choice as it used to be a given. All legislation and social pressure must stand against the commodification of speech. When it became a tradeable commodity, it ceased to be a freedom-building community, he said, suggesting: The struggle in a connected world is to distinguish what is morally reprehensible from that which is criminally punishable.

Efforts must be focused on a culture that is permissive rather than prohibitive, by which I mean encouraging of fitting speech rather than attempting to ban bad. Freedom of speech also requires respect for truth. The spread of misinformation by conspiracy theorists, political agitators, or hostile actors is a serious problem that big tech companies and governments must do more to tackle.

Archbishop Welby identified as a further threat the dehumanisation of those with whom we disagree; the devaluation of others to diminish their arguments. . .

Much of what is problematic with the online world is that it is not conducive to seeking truth, but that it gives equal opportunity to deliberate and dangerous misinformation designed to cloud the truth. . . When people are too scared to express their genuinely held and legally protected beliefs, that is very dangerous for democracy.

He concluded: I believe that Gods purpose for humanity is to have not fearful slaves but loving children. We are called to treat each other as we would ourselves like to be treated, with recognition of our flawedness, space for forgiveness and support of our freedom. In so doing, we are able to create good communities of justice, truth, and generosity.

The Revd Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, a Methodist minister and a member of the communications-and-digital select committee, said that, as far as was humanly possible, civil society and the public and private sectors together should envisage maintaining the possibility of open discussion, even when offensive views are uttered.

Faith communities had not proved to be exemplary in these matters, he acknowledged. From the very beginning of Christianity, heresy was the word used to describe those whose freedom of speech was to be denied: those who held divergent views from the orthodox mainstream. There is ample illustration of the way that Christians have fought bitter battles which have ended in fragmentation and division.

The notions of excommunication, heresy and blasphemy polar opposites of free speech are only too evident in the history of the Christian Church. It seems indeed to be part of our DNA.

The Bishop of Birmingham, the Rt Revd David Urquhart, drew attention to laws around the world that, he said, needed to be challenged and changed, such as blasphemy laws in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and other countries. He spoke of the need to soften and remove the inhibitions on speaking up or speaking out, to allay the fear of exclusion or reprisal, and to give new confidence in conversation.

This is where civil society and faiths can create and convene safe spaces, where difference can be spoken with care, and understanding can be deepened, truth revealed, and progress made towards a common good.

He referred to the pastoral principles developed by the Church of England as a prelude to discussions about the Living in Love and Faith programme about sexuality and identity. It was important, he said, to be aware of elements that turn conversation into disagreement: ignorance, power, fear, prejudice, silence, and hypocrisy we keep these in mind when trying to face up to disagreeing well on hard-won social issues.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth, a former Bishop of Oxford, said that the primacy of truth provided the moral background to the debate. With reference to universities, he said: We have to accept that a view might be legal but still hurtful for someone to hear it. It is fundamental to good debate to recognise that some people are very vulnerable and can, understandably, be hurt.

This this is obviously the case with people who are in the process of changing or have already changed their gender. They are vulnerable, and need to be treated with respect and sensitivity. Nevertheless, there is a real and serious debate here between feminists about the social and political implications of someone being transgender, and it needs to be heard.

The way J. K. Rowling was treated for expressing one side of this debate was quite disgraceful. The way Professor Kathleen Stock was treated at Sussex University is even more shaming, for universities, above all, should be places where the truth is sought by rational discussion. . .

Rowan Atkinson has described cancel culture on social media as a place where a mediaeval mob is roaming the streets looking for someone to burn.

The law was quite right, he said, to forbid any kind of stirring up of hatred because of a persons race, religion, gender, or sexuality. But if an opinion, however disagreeable and however wrong, does not do this, it has to be heard and combated only by rational means.

For example, I have long supported gay rights, and argued that the Church should have accepted permanent, stable, loving relationships and offered a service of blessing. But I accept that a conservative Evangelical can still treat someone who is gay with respect and sensitivity while holding views that are mistaken and hurtful. Their views are hurtful to gay and lesbian people, but it is as wrong to label such people as in principle homophobic, as it is to label others transphobic.

The present Bishop of Oxford, Dr Steven Croft, said that the big tech companies at present largely set their own rules and evaluated their own compliance. Development of ethical guidance for new technologies was not about the invention of new moral codes or principles. It is largely about the sensible translation and application of existing moral standards to the online world, especially in the protection of children, minorities, and the most vulnerable.

Major corporations needed to plough back a greater share of the immense profits realised in advertising into protection of the vulnerable. Algorithms must be subject to scrutiny, especially when they are shown to amplify hatred and to target those already at risk, and there must urgently be robust protection for the young through careful age verification.

Anger, hatred, and vitriol are all around us because the social media companies have discovered that this is where the greatest profits lie. . . Honest argument and exchange of ideas is one thing; but, at present, opaque micro-targeting sold to the highest bidder distorts the societal context of freedom, challenging the very nature of democracy.

Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and a former MP and MSP, observed: During my time in frontline politics, I was spared much of todays vituperation and abusive language. There is a trend today towards ever greater bitterness, anger, slander and malice, which, I fear, risks being normalised on social media.

Anticipating the committee report on draft legislation, he said: I have come to realise that laws do not necessarily change hearts, so we should not kid ourselves that legislation can or will fully solve the many manifest problems associated with online abuse.

Some laws are worthwhile. . . In the sphere of social media, some of the big tech giants need some prodding to ensure that customers comply with user agreements, which include rules on standards and codes of conduct.

From a Christian perspective, however, I would claim that changing hearts requires something more than laws: it requires love. . . I believe that there is a role for churches to play in trying to bring about a much improved public debate on a host of issues.

Lord Sentamu declared: Justice goes beyond the simple administration of laws. Justice is possible only when law, religion, and morals are intermingled.

Baroness Fox of Buckley commended Archbishop Welby for initiating the debate. Many of us who raised concerns about attacks on free speech have sometimes been accused, including recently, of confecting the problem in order to stir up culture wars, or even to cover up our own bigotry.

The subjective label of hate speech could be used to delegitimise a wide range of opinions and discredit political opponents, she suggested. We should note that religious freedom, the bedrock of a secular society, is very much at risk under the auspices of hate speech. Nottingham University recently initially blocked the appointment of a Catholic chaplain for explaining his, well, Catholic views on social media, which were depicted as hate-fuelled. Hate speech, I would say, is often the free speech of those views that we hate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, said that without freedom of speech and open debate, no other question could be adequately settled.

Anyone with an opinion, however crass or simplistic, can express it, and anyone can engage with it. Those with fringe opinions can find like-minded people and caucus to amplify their voices. The powerful and mighty can be challenged and mocked in full public view, he said.

I have tried to state these changes neutrally, for they have both good and bad consequences, but they have changed the way we engage in public discourse, as have the algorithms which funnel us into silos and echo chambers and the fiat of online platforms over the content they do and do not allow.

The Online Safety Bill would tackle abuse while upholding the right to free speech, and usher in an era of accountability for tech companies, he said. The strongest protections would be for children: Our aim is to make the United Kingdom the safest place in the world to be a child online.

He concluded: If there is any institution that knows the difficulties and the importance of championing the orthodox and the unorthodox, it is the Christian Church. And he reminded peers that the present debate was part of an Advent tradition: the season in which we await the arrival of that great disruptor, the child who would go on to rebuke the Pharisees, draw the ire of the Roman Empire, and inspire the devotion of new followers for more than two millennia.

Go here to see the original:
Welby: Freedom of speech must be protected even on social media - Church Times

Freedom of Speech, Covid Scepticism, and Interim Orders: What Will be the Effect of White v GMC [2021] EWHC 3286?

Introduction

In the recent case of Dr Samuel White v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3286, the High Court overturned an interim order of conditions imposed by an Interim Orders Tribunal (IOT) of the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service on the registration of a doctor who was alleged by the GMC to have spread misinformation about Covid 19 and related matters. The basis for the decision was, put briefly, that the panel failed to give consideration to section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and consider whether the GMC was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed of the material that was the subject of the allegations at a substantive fitness to practise hearing.

The Facts and Judgment

The allegations which formed the subject matter of the interim order application by the GMC were as follows:

The IOT imposed an order requiring, among other conditions:

(i) that he must not use social media to put forward or share any views about the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated aspects, and

(ii) that he must seek to remove any social media posts he had been responsible for or had shared relating to his views of the Covid-19 pandemic and its associated aspects. It considered an interim order imposing conditions of practice both necessary to protect the public and also in the wider public interest.

The doctor applied to the Court to terminate the order under section 41A(10) of the Medical Act 1983.

Dove J said that the conditions which were attacked by the doctor were clear and obvious limitations on his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. This was agreed by both parties. The effect of the order was to impose constraints on an interim basis, prior to the issues in respect of compliance with Article 10 having been fully heard and resolved at a final hearing. Specific provision existed within the HRA in relation to the granting of relief in cases engaging freedom of expression and it was not disputed at the hearing that section 12 of that Act was of application to proceedings in the IOT.

The test as outlined by the Supreme Court in PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 was whether the party seeking to restrain a person exercising free speech before trial was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. The IOT did not direct its mind to this test nor was the provision drawn to its attention by the parties during the hearing. Instead, the IOT approached the making of the order in this case on what might be described as a conventional assessment of the balance of risk and proportionality, without appreciating and applying the specific provisions arising if they were proposing to restrict the practitioner's freedom of expression, and that was an error of law.

The Court rejected the GMCs submissions that the questions it did direct itself to, namely those of 'risk' and of 'necessity' were equivalent to the requirements of section 12(3).

The Court also observed, obiter, that any condition proposing to curtail freedom of expression on an interim footing, in order to be proportionate, is likely to need to be specific as to what views or opinions the person subject to the order is precluded from expressing.

Analysis

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on a number of cases where registrants have made comments on social media and other platforms which their regulators consider to be inappropriate, for scientific or other reasons, and where the regulator intends on using an interim order to restrain them from such further publication.

There are, however, a number of matters which remain unclear.

(2) If the person against whom the application for relief is made ("the respondent") is neither present not represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied

(a) that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or

(b) that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified

Sub-section (2)(a) would appear to require a departure from the usual approach adopted by panels when considering applications to proceed in a registrants absence and the principles in Adeogba v General Medical Council [2016] EWCA Civ 162, whereby serving a notice of hearing on a registrants registered address is adequate to discharge its duty of notifying the registrant of a hearing.

Regulators would be advised to take extra steps to ensure it can demonstrate actual knowledge of the hearing by the registrant in cases where section 12 HRA is likely to be engaged.

Read this article:
Freedom of Speech, Covid Scepticism, and Interim Orders: What Will be the Effect of White v GMC [2021] EWHC 3286? - Lexology

Should we rewrite the First and Second Amendments? In a contribution to aBoston Globe series on "editing the Constitution," law professorMary Anne Franks of the University of Miami proposes replacing the first two items inthe Bill of Rights with more qualified versions. You can catch Franks' drift from the subtitle of her book: The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech.

"As legal texts go, neither of the two amendments is a model of clarity or precision," Frankswroteat the Globe. But her rewrites don't improve the situation.The core idea is to make the amendments more consistent with promoting the general welfare, as promised in the Constitution's preamble. But Americans have traditionally and rightly believed strong protections for individual rights themselves promote the general welfare. Franks' versions offer much too little in that regard.

Her edit of the First Amendment would on its face sharply curtail freedom of speech, affirming"the right to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly, and petition of the government for redress of grievance" but making them "subject to responsibility for abuses."All "conflicts of such rights shall be resolved in accordance with the principle of equality and dignity of all person," she says.

Who will determine the nature of these abuses, enforce that responsibility, and resolve the conflicts? What does "the principle of equality and dignity" mean in practice? After complaining of imprecision,Franks doesn't say.Her proposal sounds rife for abuse by a government that won't always be run by people who share her political preferences.

Her Second Amendment is tweaked to get rid of all the icky stuff about guns and militias. Instead, self-defense is rooted in bodily autonomy, which is fair enough. ButFranks would also give thegovernment the right totake "reasonable measures to protect the health and safety of the public as a whole." More than a year into the pandemic, we can safely say there is no real consensus on what that means. And adding abortion to the Second Amendment, as she also does, may be the only possible way to make our most controversial amendment even more contentious.

Nobody would ratify these complex reboots of the first two amendments. Yet liberals are increasingly openly hostile to the limitations the basic structure of the Constitution imposes on their political agenda, as Franks' piece and most of theGlobe's other articles in this section demonstrate anew. Conservatives had better answer.

Read the rest here:
A constitutional edit that makes things worse - The Week Magazine