Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

By Dr. Marcy Adelman

At a time in their lives when they are most vulnerable, LGBT people and trans and non-binary people in particular, are subject to harassment and abuse by staff in long term care facilities. Without laws and guidelines, there is no way to ensure their safety and protection, which is why the recent ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento had such a broad and fierce reaction.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd District California Court of Appeal came to a unanimous decision that a provision in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long Term Care Facility Residents Bill of Rights (SB219) violated the rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. This ruling is a flat out misreading of the bills provision. This provision states it is unlawful for a long term care facility and its staff members to willingly and repeatedly fail to use a residents preferred name or pronoun after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

Bill SB 219 is very clear on this, that criminality is only applied when a staff person has been informed of the patients correct name and gender and willfully and repeatedly misgenders the resident.There is a world of difference between intentional discrimination and abusive ongoing harassment and an occasional mistake. The ruling was met with a quick and fierce response to restore protection for LGBTQ senior residents of nursing homes, assisted living, and other long term care facilities.

The California Commission on Aging, SAGE, California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform, and Openhouse signed on to a Justice in Aging amicus letter to restore the provision. Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and additional nonprofit organizations also submitted an amicus letter. These letters focused on the Courts error in claiming that this provision of SB219 criminalizes even occasional, isolated, off-hand instances of willful misgendering, the Courts failure to understand other California and federal non-discrimination laws that are important to civil rights protections, and the Courts minimization of the serious harm done to trans people by willful and on-going discrimination.

Research has linked discriminationin particular, intentional, ongoing misgenderingto high rates of suicide and depression in transgender people. The intentional misuse of transgender peoples name and pronouns in housing, health, school, and workforce settings has been well documented. Treating transgender and non-binary people with dignity and respect by using their correct name and pronouns is essentially treating them equally.

Sen. Scott Wiener, author of SB219, responded to the Courts decision by saying, The courts decision is disconnected from the reality facing transgender people. Deliberately misgendering a transgender person isnt just a matter of opinion, and its not simply disrespectful, discourteous, or insulting. Rather, its straight-up harassment. And, it erases an individuals fundamental humanity, particularly one as vulnerable as a trans senior in a nursing home. This misguided decision cannot be allowed to stand.

Sen. Wiener has a long history with this legislation and championing the rights of LGBT people. He authored both the state (2017) and local San Francisco laws (2015) that protect LGBT seniors in long term care facilities from abuse and discrimination. Prior to becoming a state senator, Sen. Wiener was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as the representative from District 8. In 2015, then Supervisor Wiener sponsored and authored many of the recommendations from the LGBT Aging Policy Task Force, including task force member and esteemed elder law attorney Daniel Redmans recommendation to improve legal protections for LGBT older adults in long term care facilities. The LGBT Senior Care Facilities Bill of Rights was unanimously approved by the Board of Supervisors in March of 2015.

The current San Francisco representative from District 8, Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, introduced a resolution calling on the state Supreme Court to reverse the 3rd Court of Appeals ruling on SB 219. It was passed unanimously by the Board of Supervisors on September 14. In his statement to the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Mandelman said,The appellate court treated this provision of the lawwhich prohibits singling out LGBTQ people for unequal treatmentas a regulation of protected speech, rather than conduct. The court was wrong.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a petition of review with the states Supreme Court. In a statement to the San Francisco Bay Times, Daniel Redman wrote,We will never stand for our transgender nursing home residents being subject to abuse or discrimination.California law forbids itand SB219 has been a vital tool in the fight against it.A broad coalition of Californiansunion members, prominent legal experts, LGBT and elder advocates, and many moreurge the state Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts profoundlymistaken ruling and restore SB219 to full strength.

Dr.MarcyAdelman, a psychologist and LGBTQ+ longevity advocate and policy adviser, oversees the Aging in Community column. She serves on the California Commission on Aging, the Board of the Alzheimers Association of Northern California,the CaliforniaMaster Plan on Aging Equity Advisory Committee, and the San Francisco Dignity Fund Oversight and Advisory Committee. She is the Co-Founder of Openhouse, the only San Francisco nonprofit exclusively focused on the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ older adults.

Published on September 23, 2021

Go here to read the rest:
Harassment and Abuse Should Not Be Confused with Freedom of Speech and Religious Freedom - San Francisco Bay Times - San Francisco Bay Times

Legislators, professors, and organization leaders discussed how free speech operates online.

Cecilia Shearon

Iowa state Senator Zach Wahls takes notes during a discussion series on Free Speech and Social Media hosted by the state Board of Regents, the University of Iowa Public Policy Center, and the UI College of Law on Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2021.

Sen. Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, and Sen. Zach Wahls, D-Coralville, joined professors and leaders of organizations in the Old Capitol Senate Chambers for a forum about free speech on social media and the governments role in regulating social media.

The discussion was the first event in a series on policy challenges for Iowa and the U.S. in collaboration with the state Board of Regents. On Oct. 14, the discussion topic will be the future of the Democratic party, and on Nov. 10 it will be the future of the Republican party.

The event, attended by about 30 people, came out of a directive for public universities to develop content and programs relating to free speech. In the last legislative session, the Iowa House passed House File 744, also known as the education free speech bill, 92-1, and the Senate passed it 46-0.

As previously reported by The Daily Iowan, the bill required the Board of Regents and directors of community colleges in Iowa to adopt a policy that includes specific statements regarding freedom of expression and the role of higher education in relation to free speech.

After hearing from Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at lobbyist group NetChoice, Mike Davis, University of Iowa alum and founder of the Internet Accountability Project a conservative lobbying group, and Traci Griffith, associate professor at Simmons University, Wahls said one of the most concerning parts of the conversation about free speech and censorship was the decline in trust of institutions.

We have very strong political disagreements about empirical facts in the United States, he said.

Szabo said he is a conservative, but that sometimes conservatives find themselves in an echo chamber where they believe they are being unfairly targeted by social media companies.

He said conservatives get upset when platforms delete content, especially when its perceived as a viewpoint-based removal. But he said tech companies, as private businesses, have a right to curate their content.

We respect the rights of private businesses to decide whats best for their users and their customers and their advertising, thats the basis for conservative decisions, Szabo said.

Griffith said the public has developed a disdain for experts and only wants to trust people like us.

Davis, a conservative, said he believed censorship online by social media companies is counterproductive.

Get the information out there, good or bad, right or wrong, and let people make their own informed decisions, Davis said.

Wahls said if the situation of free speech on social media improves, it will be because people believe the results of elections, speaking to the storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

Sinclair said she traveled nearly three hours to Iowa City because freedom of speech on social media is one of the most important issues the legislature is facing.

Its difficult to find the intellectual dissonance, when I listened to both of you speak and can wholeheartedly agree with you both, Sinclair said, referring to Davis and Szabo. And finding the balance in where that comes in with the trust that we placed with the media, I think that this is a conversation thats worthy of having and I think that having that in a public square as well as when Senator Wahls and I are having these discussions at the Capitol.

UI President Barbara Wilson said free speech is fundamental to academic enterprise and that the institution encourages students to think about a variety of perspectives to make informed choices.

She said as a person who oversees a lot of young people consuming information on social media, its important to think about being critical media digesters.

I think about that a lot because my field is communication, and we are always talking about teaching media literacy, and so that didnt really come up today, the role of the consumer in all of this, Wilson told the DI in an interview after the event.

Go here to read the rest:
UI series on state and national policy issues begins with conversation on free speech online, features Sens. Sinclair, Wahls. - UI The Daily Iowan

5 min read2 hr

Universities and student unions across the UK will have to pay burdensome legal insurance premiums to protect from 'vexatious' claims as a consequence of the governments new Freedom of Speech Bill, Labours Shadow Minister for Higher Education has warned.

The premiums would form just one addition to a 48.1 million cost the Department for Education has estimated universities and student unions could face as a result of the new legislation over the next decade.

Across ten years, key financial burdens contributing to the price tag include: familiarisation costs, costs of complying with regulation and enforcement, administrative paperwork costs and the cost of updating and introducing new codes of practice for student unions.

Labour MPs have warned this will take vital money away from teaching students and important research.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which is currently in committee stage, will see universities fined by the Office for Students if they fail to upholdlegal responsibilities to free speech on campus.

The new legislation will also enable students, academics and visiting speakers to seek compensation from higher education institutions and student unions they believe have not upheld legal duties to facilitate free speech.

Speakers who believe they have been "deplatformed", if,for example, they are removed from events schedules following protest by students, could therefore seek compensation under the new law.

The proposed law has been described asauthoritarian and chilling by Shadow Higher Education Minister Matt Western.

The bill is going to result in the equivalent of ambulance chasing on our campuses, Western told PoliticsHome.

There will be lots of proposed or mischievous requests to speak or for organisations to come onto campus, who will then be denied, and that will then lead to them perhaps not being invited, and later legal claims.

That's going to have two effects. One is a cost to institutions and student unions. Another, we believe, is that it will have the reverse effect of actually reducing free speech, as student unions and institutions will become seriously risk averse and actually closed down how they do the how they make speaking invitations to individuals and groups.

Some student union presidents, alongside the National Union of Students, have echoed the shadow ministers concerns.

In a submission to the Public Bill Committee scrutinising the new legislation, NUS Vice President Hillary Gyebi-Ababio stated: I think a direct unintended consequence of the Bill could be that student unions would become more risk averse to inviting speakers.

"They just cannot handle the prospect of having to pay lots of money in the case of litigation.

Responding further to the estimated 48.1 million cost of the bill, Western told PoliticsHome: Here we are at a time following the pandemic where student unions and institutions are really facing a difficult time financially, because they haven't had the same income over the last year that they would have had ordinarily.

Some of the larger universities will have income revenue streams that they may enjoy from on campus through or cafes, and the like.

But one thing that came out from the evidence sessions and then through the debate and Freedom of Speech Bill Committee, is not just the likelihood, but the absolute certainty that student unions are going to have to take out insurance to protect themselves from vexatious complaints against them by individuals or organisations.

Bryn Harris, Chief Legal Counsel to the Free Speech Union, has refuted claims that the new Higher Education Freedom of Speech bill in any way risks compromisingfreedom of speech on university campuses.

Harris also believes student unions have nothing to fear from a legal standpoint, so long as the bodies do not engage in any cancellations.

The only danger a student union faces of being sued under this bill realistically will be if they invite a speaker and then cancel them because of their views, Harris told PoliticsHome.

Yes, theres potentially a danger to the student union if they do the wrong thing. But simply inviting a speaking itself isnt going to involve any liability. Realistically, as long as student unions take a liberal approach and let events go ahead, everything will be fine, they arent going to be in danger.

An amendment brought forward by Labour to scrap the power to take student unions to court from the freedom of speech bill was rejected.

Defending the right to sue for compensation during a Public Bill Committee debate this week, Education Minister Michelle Donelan said: The purpose of (this power) is to bolster the enforcement of the new freedom of speech duties on higher education providers and student unions, so that there are clear consequences for those who breach those duties.

(It) will ensure a clear route to individual redress for all who have suffered loss where freedom of speech duties have been breached and will give those duties real teeth.

A Department for Education spokesperson said:The Bill will bring in important and necessary changes to strengthen academic freedomand free speech in universities in England so that all students and staff feel able to express themselves without fear of repercussion.

The figure highlighted in our impact assessment is an estimation representing costs shared across the higher education sector as a whole over a ten-year period.

PoliticsHome Newsletters

PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe

See the article here:
Freedom Of Speech Bill Could Cost Universities And Student Unions 48m - PoliticsHome

WHEN everything else seems turned upside down, one thing at least hasnt changed: in universities, freedom of speech remains as divisive as ever.

Over the past year, the Government has ratcheted up interventions in the sector, culminating in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, introduced in May.

Some proposals within the Bill largely replicate existing legal requirements on universities to uphold free speech within the law. Others are more far-reaching, including the proposal to fine institutions if they are deemed to uphold free speech insufficiently, and the proposal to extend free-speech requirements directly to student unions which would make it much harder for student unions to deny platforms to people with lawful views that the students dont like.

These plans will encourage students who currently feel unable to invite external speakers that they want in case they are perceived to be too controversial. But commentators have raised important questions about how the plans would work in practice, and about unintended consequences.

Legislating on this is a quagmire, as the Universities Minister, Michelle Donelan, discovered when it was suggested that the new law could force universities to host Holocaust-deniers.

The Government knows that the public is worried about universities, and there are votes to be won by taking action. In a 2019 YouGov poll conducted for the Theos think tank, 52 per cent of adults thought that free speech was under threat in universities (only 14 per cent disagreed); 29 per cent thought that Islamic extremism was common there.

As I explain in my recent book on this topic with Alison Scott-Baumann, Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, charities and counter-terrorism, there is a binary narrative about universities: both that free speech is in crisis because they are unfairly restricting it (and that students are snowflakes unwilling to grapple with ideas they disagree with); and that they are giving too much freedom to extremists (particularly Muslim ones).

Neither narrative is accurate. Radicalisation on campus is very rare: only 15 referrals were made by English universities to Prevent, the deradicalisation programme, in 2017-18. That year, out of 62,094 requests for external speakers, only 53 were rejected. And a survey of 61 students unions in 2019-20 found that just six events out of nearly 10,000 were cancelled.

High-profile cases of students denying platforms to those whom they dislike (such as the last-minute cancellation of the former Home Secretary Amber Rudds invitation to speak at the University of Oxford in 2020) are clearly problematic, but dont reflect the huge number of events that go ahead unimpeded. Moreover, according to a 2019 representative survey of more than 2000 students, by the Policy Institute at Kings College London (KCL), the overwhelming majority think it is important for universities to protect free speech, and 70 per cent feel comfortable expressing their views on campus.

This suggests that talk of a crisis of freedom of speech on campus is exaggerated. But that doesnt mean that there are not problems that need to be taken seriously.

WE DO not know how many students choose not to request speakers out of risk-aversion. In the same KCL survey, one quarter of students said that they did not feel able to express their views because they were scared of disagreeing with my peers. This is particularly the case among Right-leaning students; about a third of Conservative supporters and of Leave supporters feel this way. But so do about one fifth of Left-leaning or Remain-supporting students. Feeling restricted in speech is not solely a right-wing experience on campus.

Socially conservative students and particular religious groups may also feel pressure to self-censor. For example, online (self-selecting) polls have indicated that some Jewish students feel uncomfortable debating the Israel-Palestine conflict on campus, and some pro-life students feel unable to discuss their beliefs.

And, as found in a research project on Islam on campus, some Muslim students feel pressure to self-censor and avoid inviting potentially controversial speakers. This risk-aversion is due less to worry about criticism from their peers and more to fear of being falsely perceived as extremists under the Prevent duty, the requirement for universities to identify and report people at risk of radicalisation.

This is important to note, because much public debate about free speech on campus focuses solely on student activism rather than regulatory structures. My research with Alison Scott-Baumann found that another such structure, the regulation of student unions by the Charity Commission, has also led some students-union managers to discourage students from inviting controversial (though lawful) speakers, out of fear of breaching charity law .

To be clear, these challenges to free speech affect only a minority of students, and recognising the strength of open debate on campus is important for avoiding unwarranted moral panic about the sector. None the less, we must take these concerns seriously. University life, like society more widely, is severely diminished when viewpoint diversity is restricted.

WHAT, then, needs to be done? The Governments top-down proposals will keep university eyes on the prize of free speech, but are unlikely to help students with minority views feel more comfortable expressing them on campus. Alison Scott-Baumann and I argue that it is only action by universities themselves, not government pressure, that will lead to change.

An example of meaningful reform is the voluntary code for students unions recently developed by a group of students-union officers and the higher-education think tank Wonkhe; a code that would commit students unions to upholding free speech and political diversity.

University managers need to tackle the structural factors that can discourage free speech. They should encourage their students unions to be bold and host controversial (lawful) speakers if students request them. Managers also need to address the specific issue of Prevent, by recognising that some Muslim students feel alienated by it; and managers need to engage regularly and transparently with them to help to address their concerns.

They also need to be far more proactive in creating opportunities for students, across all disciplines, to engage in rigorous debate about relevant controversial issues in the classroom, with ground rules agreed in advance.

Finally, universities need to be proactive in challenging the flawed binary narrative about them. This means finding better ways to explain to a disillusioned public how universities contribute to democracy by providing space for frank, controversial debate, and for challenging perceived orthodoxies. It is only through rearticulating the value of universities that change will come to the free-speech wars.

Simon Perfect is a researcher at Theos. He is co-author with Alison Scott-Baumann of Freedom of Speech in Universities: Islam, charities and counter-terrorism , published by Routledge at 25; 978-0-36725-782-8.

See more here:
Education: Who gets a platform in universities? - Church Times

The exemption has been condemned as a ridiculous double standard by Labour MPs

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was amended early this week to exclude Oxford and Cambridge JCRs, MCRs and similar college-based student unions from the proposed legislation.

This amendment was criticised by Labour MPs who accused the government of creating a two-tier university system, with Oxford and Cambridge separate to other universities.

Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, told MPs in a debate on the bill that including Oxbridge student common rooms in the legislation would be unnecessary and overly bureaucratic.

She argued that,Colleges do fund their junior and middle common rooms. And to that extent, they can exert a lot of control over their activities, as these groups do not own or occupy their own premises, or run the room booking systems.

Whilst Oxbridge colleges were initially also exempt from the proposed Bill, they were added last week, and will be liable for any breaches. It seems that is assumed that the college would ensure that the student common rooms would abide by the law, without the JCR and MCR themselves running the risk of legal action.

Matt Western, the Labour shadow minister for universities, said: It is ridiculous for ministers to say that students in Warwick or Hull should be subject to unnecessary, burdensome bureaucracy and their student unions put at risk of being sued, but not the students of Oxford or Cambridge due solely to the makeup of the university.

The Bill is designed to combat what Gavin Williamson, the then Education Secretary, described as the chilling effect of censorship on campus.

Cover Image Authors Own

Follow this link:
Oxbridge JCRs and MCRs to be exempt from free speech law - The Tab

Statement by Human Rights Watch on the Proposed Amendments to the Press Arbitration Act

Thank you for the opportunity to present comments at this event, and apologies for our inability to present the statement personally. Human Rights Watch has worked on human rights issues in South Korea for more than 35 years, and we are very concerned about the increasing use of punitive measures against peaceful speech.

The draft amendments to the Press Arbitration Law, which are the latest example of that trend, will seriously impair the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of information and media freedom, and will discourage critical reporting by the media if passed in their current form.

While we welcome the revisions to the bill proposed by the Democratic Party, the fact of the matter is those changes still do not bring it into compliance with international standards. Even as revised, the media can be severely penalized for even a minor factual error if a plaintiff claims to have been injured by the error, and face damages that are disproportionate to any harm caused.

Disproportionate sanctions such as heavy fines can have a significant chilling effect on freedom of expression in South Korea, which is already constrained by criminal defamation laws that should be abolished. This chilling effect is of particular concern when it impacts the press, since an independent and diverse media that disseminates a wide range of information and ideas plays a critical role in supporting the functioning of a democratic society.

While the deletion of the presumption of intent in certain circumstances is presented as a positive step, we note that it has been replaced by language that appears to put the burden on the defendant to show that they acted without intent or gross negligence. If the media is forced to bear the burden of proof, the bill will continue to force journalists to choose between revealing their sources or facing heavy damages.

It is particularly troubling that this bill seeks to impose punitive damages on the media alone. While South Korean law currently allows punitive damages in certain limited types of cases, there is presently no general punitive damages law. This bill could thus allow imposition of punitive damages on a press report, but not on those responsible for wrongful acts on which the press is reporting.

Members of the National Assembly should reject the revised bill and ensure that any new proposal complies with international standards for freedom of speech.

Read this article:
Statement by Human Rights Watch on the Proposed Amendments to the Press Arbitration Act - Human Rights Watch

Mary Trumps attorney says that Donald Trumps lawsuit against his niece and The New York Times is doomed to failure and another effort to stifle freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This is the latest in a long line of frivolous lawsuits by Donald Trump that target truthful speech and important journalism on issues of public concern, said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who is representing Mary Trump. It is doomed to failure like the rest of his baseless efforts to chill freedom of speech and of the press.

On Monday, Trump sued over the Times 2018 expos on the Trump family taxes. In his lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court (read it here), Trump claims that his niece, the Times and its reporters engaged in an insidious plot to obtain confidential and highly-sensitive records which they exploited for their own benefit and utilized as a means of falsely legitimizing their publicized works.

The Times investigation alleged that Trump participated in dubious tax schemes in the 1990s that substantially increased the fortune he inherited from his parents estates. Among other things, the expos alleged that Trump set up a sham corporation to shield gifts from his parents from taxes and also helped his father, Fred Trump, take improper tax deductions. All told, according to the Times, Trump received $413 million from his fathers real estate businesses.

Mary Trump chronicled her participation in the Times series in her book, Too Much and Never Enough, which when published last year triggered a lawsuit by Donald Trumps brother Robert. But a New York judge refused to issue a restraining order to block its publication, concluding that a confidentiality clause in an agreement that she signed in 2001 was too broad.

In his lawsuit, the former president also names New York Times reporters Susanne Craig, David Barstow and Russell Buettner. The suit claims include breach of contract and unjust enrichment by Mary Trump and tortious interference with a contract by the Times and its reporters. The lawsuit claims that the expos caused Trump at least $100 million in damages.

A spokesperson for the Times said, The Timess coverage of Donald Trumps taxes helped inform citizens through meticulous reporting on a subject of overriding public interest. This lawsuit is an attempt to silence independent news organizations and we plan to vigorously defend against it.

Some First Amendment advocates agree with Mary Trumps attorney.

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech and professor at Syracuse University, said in a statement that reporters are protected to gather information, even things they should not have, such as tax records that were leaked to them. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that reporters can rely on leaked materials as long as they did not break to law to get them. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Times broke the law to collect this information. This is another example of an attempt to use tort law to punish reporters for obtaining leaked information.

Continued here:
Mary Trumps Attorney Says Donald Trump Lawsuit Over New York Times Expos Is Doomed To Failure - Deadline

Stop Bill C-36

Help us stop the world's worst censorship law!

Country AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, the Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCuraaoCyprusCzech RepublicCte d'IvoireDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorth KoreaNorth Macedonia, Republic ofNorthern Mariana IslandsNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPalestine, State ofPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaRunionSaint BarthlemySaint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth KoreaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamVirgin Islands, BritishVirgin Islands, U.S.Wallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweland Islands

Secure

Help fund our 2021 Canadian election coverage and view our election plans below!

Justin Trudeau told media that Canadians don't have the freedom to hate during a press conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia this morning.

The prime minister was nearly one hour late for the event, which included appearances by fellow Liberal Party of Canada candidates Andy Fillmore, Bernadette Jordan and Dominic LeBlanc.

A reporter asked Trudeau:

On another topic, we seem to be seeing more hate [and] vandalism along the campaign trail, and now this latest example of your candidate, Marc Serr, who was physically assaulted. I'm wondering if you're sending a message to candidates and volunteers to step up safety or security considerations.

Serr was allegedly assaulted in his campaign office on Monday. A woman has since been charged with assault with a weapon related to the incident.

In response, Trudeau stated:

Absolutely. Um, people need to be safe. People need to feel safe in Canada, and over the past years, unfortunately, we've seen a rise in intolerance and hates of hatred, not just in a political context, but across the country.

That is why we need to continue to be unequivocal about standing up against hatred and discrimination. As we have as a government, as we need to continue to.

There's not a debate around vaccines, there's not a debate around climate change, we know for the safety of Canadians and future generations we need to step up. It is unacceptable there continue to be acts of racism and intolerance in communities across the country, whether it's political or not. We need to do more, which is why we're going to be moving forward on stronger controls over online hate, and harms, while respecting freedom of speech.

But you don't have the freedom to hate, you don't have the freedom to incite to violence, and our government, that is taken many steps on this, will continue to, because no one should feel unsafe, particularly not someone who's coming out to volunteer and support in a political campaign to make this country even better.

Section 318 of our Criminal Code makes it a crime to advocate for genocide; Section 319 makes it a crime to incite hatred, but hatred is a feeling, a human emotion.

And Trudeau's Bill C-36 goes much, much further.

Read more about Bill C-36 here.

Read the original here:
Trudeau on free speech: You don't have the freedom to hate - Rebel News

Disappointment in government brings an otherwise divided country together once again, as Americans lose faith in the state's ability to protect civil liberties. Granted, people are often their own worst enemies, threatening the freedom of those they don't like. But there's a realistic and growing recognition of the danger posed by the powers-that-be, and loss of confidence in their supposed roles as protectors.

"In 2011, 10 years after the terrorist attack, nearly two-thirds were willing to sacrifice rights and freedoms to protect the country from terrorism" finds a recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (AP-NORC) poll. More recently, "just over half were willing to surrender their civil rights and freedoms to combat terrorism."

More remarkably, when asked about specific rights, the percentage of the public saying the government does a good job protecting them has declined sharply in the past decade. In 2011, 84 percent of respondents said the U.S. government did a good job protecting the right to vote; that dropped to 43 percent in 2021. For peaceful assembly, the number dropped from 75 percent to 42 percent. For freedom of speech, it dropped from 71 percent to 45 percent. For freedom of religion, from 75 percent to 51 percent. For the right to trial by an impartial jury, from 67 percent to 44 percent. For the right to keep and bear arms, from 57 percent to 35 percent, and so on. In fact, for none of the rights about which people were polled have the numbers done anything but drop in terms of people's confidence about government protections.

Of course, given that everything is subject to partisan considerations, members of the political tribes don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on how well officials respect our rights.

"Democrats tend to see the government as doing a good job at protecting various rights and freedoms, while Republicans are more inclined to say the government is doing a poor job. However, there are no significant partisan differences regarding the right to vote, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom from punishment without trial, equal protection under the law, or freedom from unreasonable search and seizure," AP-NORC adds. Independents, for their part, either split the difference between Republicans and Democrats (such as on freedom of speech and of the press) or are especially dubious about government protections (such as for freedom from punishment without trial and the right to vote).

Of particular interest after the 9/11 attacks and since the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden about the pervasive surveillance that followed is AP-NORC's separate report about plummeting support for such snooping. It seems that government eavesdropping has little in the way of a fan base.

"Twenty years after 9/11, less than 3 in 10 adults consider warrantless government analysis of internet activities and communications an acceptable means for monitoring threats against the U.S.," the poll finds.

Support for government monitoring of domestic phone calls was never high, but has fallen from 23 percent in 2011 to 14 percent in 2021. Support for monitoring phone calls outside the United States fell from 49 percent to 28 percent. Support for monitoring internet searches fell from 48 percent to 27 percent. And, for reading private emails, the numbers fell from 30 percent to 17 percent over those years. Some 60 percent of Americans do, however, continue to favor surveillance cameras in public places, though that's down by more than 10 percent.

It's as if years of intrusiveness, abusive politicians, and weaponization of the power of the state by officials against their political opponents have eroded the credibility of the U.S. government!

Unfortunately, officialdom's unreliability as a guardian of personal freedom doesn't come out of the bluethere's a constituency for that shakiness. For example, multiple polls in recent years have found that, while people voice support for free speech in the abstract, they're not so happy about protecting speech that upsets them.

"'The government should be able to take action against newspapers and TV stations that publish content that is biased, inflammatory, or false," agreed 57 percent of respondents to a 2019 Campaign for Free Speech poll. Never mind that "biased" and "inflammatory" are often in the eye of the beholder and core elements of expression, and "false" is a charge subject to new information and continued debate.

"College students broadly support free speech, yet increasingly favor restrictions on speech particularly speech that targets minority groups," a 2020 Knight Foundation poll found. Forget that minorities are among those most likely to be on the receiving end of speech curbs allegedly crafted for their safety.

Notably, the American Civil Liberties Union has grown extremely ambivalent about defending liberties at odds with its staff's preferred outcomes on issues ranging from speech to medical coercion.

"To the ACLU's critics, its support of vaccine mandates is another sign that an organization that was often willing to take unpopular stances in the name of liberty has abandoned its roots to fall in line with progressivism," The Atlantic's Russell Berman commented last week.

Much of the public has simply lost patience with checks and balances that, by design, shield liberties by placing limits on the power of their preferred officials.

"While fewer than one in 10 Americans consistently supports an authoritarian option, a third of Americans 'dabble' in authoritarianism," the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group observed last year of popular support for "a strong leader who doesn't have to bother with Congress or elections."

Many people rightly doubt the credibility of government as a protector of civil liberties, but the public is sending very mixed messages about the value it places on freedom and on restrained power. To defend civil liberties only when you approve of their use, and if they don't get in the way of your favorite political leaders, is to not defend civil liberties at all.

But, whether or not they understand the implications, growing numbers of Americans are unimpressed by the protections the U.S. government offers for civil liberties across the board. They want government officials to back off their surveillance efforts, at home and abroad, and they're less willing than in the past to trade their freedom for empty promises.

More here:
Government Is Lousy at Protecting Civil Liberties, Say Americans - Reason

Students of all persuasions are afraid to speak up in the classroom (Pic: Getty Creative)

More than half of college students regularly hold back on expressing their views on campus for fear of the potential consequences.

But, contrary to the stereotype of universities as hotbeds of militant liberalism, it is not just conservatives who are scared to speak out: students across the political spectrum worry about what will happen if they share their views.

As well as losing the respect of professors and classmates and jeopardizing their grades, students also fear being confronted if their political and social views become widely-known.

Issues around free speech in universities have become increasingly heated in recent years, despite the relatively small number of incidents.

Fuelled by high-profile incidents of speakers being disinvited or cancelled, conventional wisdom has it that university campuses are not just overwhelmingly left-wing, but are actively hostile to conservative points of view.

Concerns about students and academics becoming fearful of speaking out have prompted both the creation of organizations set up to defend free speech on campus and proposals in the U.K. to give universities a legal duty to protect freedom of speech.

But anxiety over expressing political views cuts across the spectrum, according to a new survey.

While 55% of conservative-leaning students say they always or often refrain from speaking out on political or social issues in the classroom, this is only slightly more than the 49% of liberal-leaning students who did likewise.

Perhaps most surprisingly, even students who classed themselves as moderate were afraid to express an opinion, with 52% saying they stopped themselves from speaking out.

Rather than suggesting a liberal bias on campus, the findings indicate that many students are uncomfortable with the idea of disagreeing, according to James L. Patterson, associate professor of politics at Ava Maria University in Florida, who has also taught in liberal-leaning institutions.

I find that many students simply have no idea how to disagree constructively, or even if constructive disagreement is possible, he said. Students seem to believe that disagreement is taking sides.

Hence, they can only imagine that the potential consequences will be, at minimum, to alienate some of their fellow students. At worst, they might end up fodder for some kind of social media-driven ostracization.

Students need to be taught to understand that there are different opinions on how to tackle a particular issue, he added.

Conservative students were the most likely to be concerned about their physical safety if they expressed their views openly, but only slightly more so than liberal students. Even among moderates a third said this was a concern.

More important for all three groups was the risk of losing their classmates respect. Conservative students were also more likely to fear losing their professors respect, while liberal and moderate students were more worried about being ridiculed or confronted over their views.

John J. Lupinacci, associated professor of cultural studies and social thought in education at Washington State university, it is up to the professor to make students of all persuasions feel comfortable about speaking out in the classroom.

I think the more educators allow for spaces that welcome a diversity of perspectives and then provide tools for how to consider and value multiple perspectives as part of our education, the more our students will more openly share their questions, ideas, and beliefs, he said.

Students should have the space to learn through making mistakes or talking through their beliefs and assumptions, he added.

While the campaign against campus culture is often led from the right, it is conservative students who are most open-minded about listening to opposing views.

Almost seven in 10 (68%) of conservative students said they would definitely or probably take a class taught by a professor who had different political or social beliefs, compared with six in 10 (59%) of both liberal and moderate students, according to the survey of 1,500 students carried out for student advice and information site Intelligent.com.

Conservative students were also more likely (64% to 60%) than liberal students to be willing to attend an on-campus event with a speaker who had different beliefs.

But the fact these differences are small suggests that while the issue of free speech on campus is a live one, it is does not necessarily cut across the ideological divide in the way it is sometimes portrayed.

See the article here:
Its Not Just Conservative Students Who Are Scared To Speak Out On Campus - Forbes