Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Even when it doesnt improperly interfere in academic searches and tenure files, some kinds of donor funding routinely threaten academic freedom in a range of ways.

In his 1871 volume, The Conduct of Life, American philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson pithily observed that money often costs too much, and power and pleasure are not cheap.

While Mr. Emerson intended his remarks more broadly, his words apply to universities and the sometimes deleterious effects of donations on academic freedom. These effects were vividly apparent in 2020 and 2021 in the cases of Nikole Hannah-Jones and Valentina Azarova.

Nikole Hannah-Jones is the Pulitzer and MacArthur-winning creator of the New York Timess The 1619 Project. In spring of this year, she was named as the new University of North Carolina (UNC) Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism, but it soon emerged that, unlike previous Knight Chairs, Ms. Hannah-Jones would not be tenured. Ultimately, Ms. Hannah-Jones opted to join Howard University rather than UNC when it emerged that outside pressure interfered with her appointment. UNCs tenure committee had recommended tenure for Ms. Hannah-Jones, but the universitys board of trustees, under pressure from conservative donors in particular, UNC School of Journalism and Media namesake and major donor Walter Hussman did not implement the recommendation.

Here in Canada, similar issues arose when the University of Toronto law schools appointment of Valentina Azarova as director of its international human rights program came to an abrupt halt. This happened just as a major donor shared concerns about the appointment with a U of T assistant vice-president who handles donor relations. The university claims that the law school canceled the hire because of immigration and timeline challenges, but considerable evidence suggested that the underlying reason was donor pushback due to Ms. Azarovas published criticisms of Israel. An independent review endorsed the universitys position, but critics pointed out that the reviewer declined to judge the credibility of university officials claims or their consistency with other evidence. In April of this year, the Canadian Association of University Teachers issued a rare censure of U of T for failing to uphold academic freedom in the case.

Its clear that the UNC board caved to donors in the Ms. Hannah-Jones case. The immigration issues make the Azarova case a little murkier. However, the former dean who abruptly nixed Ms. Azarovas appointment over a Labour Day long weekend did so just after learning about the donors concerns. Further, a U of T administrator gave the concerned donor confidential information about the search process as this was all going down. It is crucial for academic freedom that universities avoid both donor influence on hires and the appearance of donor influence on hires. At a minimum, U of T failed to do the latter.

While breaches of academic freedom, collegial governance and institutional autonomy in cases like these are deeply troubling, I am even more worried by the ways in which donor funds can threaten academic freedom in the normal course of things that is, when there is no appearance of a scandalous breach.

The bankrolling of charitable foundations by petroleum billionaires Charles and (the late) David Koch provides the clearest example of how philanthropy can threaten academic freedom. This plays out in funding for advocacy, journalism and scholarship that is strategically calculated to (as the group UnKoch My Campus puts it) place private interests over the common good.

Free speech is an extremely broad notion, extending to unscholarly and even bad-faith speech, while academic freedom exists to support research and teaching in the pursuit of truth and understanding in the service of society. In the domain of advocacy, the Koch foundations fund a range of different initiatives calculated to conflate academic freedom and free speech, and indeed to heavily prioritize free speech over academic freedom within the context of universities.

Perhaps most concerning among these is the Koch-funded Goldwater Institutes campaign to introduce campus free speech legislation across the U.S. The model bill developed by the Goldwater Institute purports to strengthen free speech on campus, but its approach undercuts academic freedom and institutional autonomy in a range of ways, including dictating university policy and forcing universities to remain neutral on public policy controversies.

By way of illustration of a public policy controversy, the model bills authors offer fossil fuel divestment. They write that university divestment violates institutional neutrality, as does pressure to divest from university sustainability offices. And yes, it is pretty on-the-nose for a putative free speech bill funded by oil billionaires to explicitly rule out fossil fuel divestment. Lets be clear: silencing criticism about fossil fuel investments is a feature, not a bug. Further, the model bill is highly punitive, laying out disciplinary sanctions for students who protest speakers and legal payouts for colleges that dont toe the line. All of this is calculated to have a chilling effect on dissent.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reported in early 2018 that 16 states had either introduced or passed campus free speech legislation or had introduced campus free speech measures without legislation. Of these, half were based on the Goldwater model bill. The AAUP decries campus free speech laws as a false friend of academic freedom and as a political agenda masquerading behind free speech.

Another organization that receives substantial Koch funding is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). FIRE is sometimes hailed as a champion of academic freedom, and often provides supports to scholars whose academic freedom is violated, but thats not their stated purpose. The Mission page on FIREs website mentions freedom of speech/expression eight times and discusses it, along with religious freedom, due process and freedom of conscience, in some detail. But the webpage does not once mention academic freedom. Further, FIRE explicitly frames its purpose in terms of students and professors individual rights, whereas the AAUP arguably, the most important and longest-serving English-language champion of academic freedom focuses on academic freedom in support of the common good. Perhaps unsurprisingly, FIRE has supported several of the state-level campus free speech bills in a range of ways from endorsement to drafting assistance.

When Koch money isnt underwriting the false friendship between free speech and academic freedom through donations to advocacy groups like the Goldwater Institute or FIRE, it is whipping up free speech panic in the media. In particular, the Koch Foundation was one of three major funders for the Atlantics series The Speech Wars. The project ran from March 2018 to October 2019. Over that period, it published an astonishing 118 articles with the support of The Speech Wars funding. One hundred and eighteen! Did you even know that the Atlantic published 118 articles on any topic during that eighteen-month period, much less 118 articles on free speech? The Speech Wars made the Atlantic a leftish bastion of publishing respectability into the main PR firm for the alleged free speech crisis.

Only 20 (or about 17 per cent) of these articles were primarily about free speech on campus, but the others often touched on campus issues. Frankly, whatever the focus of the other articles, 20 articles over 18 months on campus free speech topics in a prestigious large-circulation magazine is a very large megaphone.

Those 20 campus free speech articles offered a broad range of perspectives, many of which defended campuses against the charge of being in the grip of a free speech crisis. It was clear throughout the project that the Koch funding did not oblige authors to take any particular perspective or draw Koch-friendly conclusions. So whats the harm?

The harm of The Speech Wars was in convincing the public that there is a speech war: a free speech crisis sufficiently grave as to warrant 118 articles in a single publication over the course of a year and a half. Why would a general interest magazine spend so much time on the free speech crisis if no such crisis exists? One pretty clear answer is that they were generously paid to do so. The effect however was increased public credulity in the idea of a free speech crisis, that credulity in turn reducing the publics trust in universities.

In the same way, Koch (and similar) funding for research grants, workshops and conferences produces credulity, interest and activity in related scholarly areas by university researchers and administrators. Lets face it. Funding is scarce for many universities and university researchers. Donor support for research is increasingly necessary to survive in the research landscape. Donors have the right to fund topics they are interested in, and university scholars have the right to pursue external funding opportunities to advance their research. As a dean, I am incredibly grateful for the donor support my faculty and its members receive. However, donor support can tug entire disciplines, departments and institutions in scholarly directions that they would not otherwise have pursued. This gives industry and wealthy philanthropists an outsized influence on the kind of scholarship that happens.

External funding for universities and university researchers also gives the donor the imprimatur of scholarly respectability. Since I started writing publicly about academic freedom, I have several times been invited to write or present something for Koch-funded projects. Typically, with these sorts of groups, the Koch funding is buried pretty deep. (The Koch-funded FIRE, for instance, doesnt list its funders on its website or publications. It received about $12 million in donations in 2020.) As a matter of principle, I wont knowingly work with Koch-funded organizations, so Ive gotten into the habit of researching the funding sources of any group that contacts me.

I do this even though every such invitation I have ever received has been very clear that I could argue for any position I like no strings attached. Alas, thats not where the strings are. For many years, a favourite strategy of young Earth creationist organizations was to foster the appearance of an academic controversy over evolutionary theory and the age of the Earth by sponsoring public debates with scientists, many of them held at universities. These donor-funded events didnt prevent scientist participants from saying what they pleased. The aim was simply to have the optics of a genuine debate: two equal parties on the same stage. Further, sponsoring a wide range of dissenting views makes Koch foundations seem innocuous even while they pay big bucks to fuel free speech panic and thereby undercut academic freedom and university autonomy.

In sum, then, even when donors dont improperly interfere in academic searches and tenure files, some kinds of donor funding routinely threaten academic freedom in a range of ways. Things are a bit better in Canada, thanks to public funding, strong faculty unions, good university policies and frankly less attention from the big U.S. funders. But what happens in the U.S. always has ripple effects here. Consider, for instance, the campus free speech interventions by the Ontario, Alberta and Qubec governments.

Ill devote my next column to some proposed solutions to the challenge that I have described here. In the meantime, what is the real cost of donations when it comes to academic freedom? In the marketplace of ideas, if you have to ask, you cant afford it.

See the rest here:
The high price of donations - University Affairs

AUSTIN (KXAN) This week in Central Texas, at least two school board meetings dissolved into chaos as districts work to navigate COVID-19 safety protocols, specifically whether they will enforce mask mandates, regardless of Governor Greg Abbotts executive order.

On Monday night, several people were escorted out of a Leander ISD board meeting, according to people at the meeting and videos obtained by KXAN, despite a warning from leaders in their previously posted agenda, which announced people who were disruptive would be removed.

Thats exactly what ended up happening.

I dont think a general reminder at this point is going to help us altogether, I dont think a plea for respectful interactions is really helping before I end up giving a warning and asking for removal if you are disrupting the meeting, one of the members of the board said as parents continued to yell.

The agenda shows that action items included accepting a board members resignation and options for filling that vacancy.

A day later, the Round Rock Independent School District had to cut a meeting short after it was disrupted several times by angry community members. A number of people were upset at not being allowed in the main chamber for the meeting, which was at one point blocked off by police.

A spokesperson for Round Rock ISD says they let the room fill up as much as possible while abiding by social distancing guidelines. Once the room was full, people were put in an overflow room, where they could watch the meeting on television and come into the main room to talk if they signed up to speak.

Community members were unhappy with that, citing theOpen Meetings Act.

Politics and opinion aside, there appears to be some confusion on what can and cant be done by a school board, and by police, under the Open Meetings Act and within the bounds of freedom of speech. We took community members concerns to University of Texas law professor Steven Collis to break down what the Open Meetings Act means for you.

Collis: Generally speaking, people cant disrupt the meeting. There are reasonable times allotted for when people can make comments, and if theyre preventing the operation of a meeting by say, screaming or yelling or violence or anything like that, then at that point they can be escorted out.

Collis: I dont know the exact specifics of how the overflow room was set up (at Round Rock ISD), but certainly sometimes government officials have to set up overflow rooms. Its the only way possible, not just in the COVID era, but even other times if theres a really hot button issue, and theres just way too many people that cant fit in the main chamber.

Generally the goal is to, and I think this is consistent with the Open Meetings Act requirements, is to ensure that those in the other rooms can see whats happening and can listen in, and then still have the opportunity to come in and present their public comments. As long as theyre given that opportunity, then certainly you can do it in a compliant way.

Collis: Government can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech. And in particular for the functioning of government, you do have to be able to limit comment time and when people can make comments and try to keep them on topic.

Usually, in these types of meetings, two or three minutes has been considered to be a reasonable time, place or manner restriction. I certainly could see a scenario where government limits time so much that it becomes unreasonable, and a judge would rule against them. They also cant allow every person to go for 15 minutes or some of these meetings would go for 24-48 hours.

This is not going to sound incredibly profound, but a simple Google search takes you to some really good resources, Collis said.

One of those resources is the Office of the Attorney Generals handbook on the Open Meetings Act from 2020. You can find that handbook here to read more about the Open Meetings Act.

See the article here:
Tension in Texas: What is, and isnt, allowed at ISD board meetings under state law - KXAN.com

The Texas legislature passed and Governor Greg Abbott recently signed into law H.B. 20, which he described as safeguarding the freedom of speech by protecting social-media and email users from being censored based on the users expressed viewpoints.

No one will really understand politics, economist Thomas Sowell once said, until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problemsof which getting elected and reelected are No. 1 and No. 2. Texas latest attempt to regulate content moderation on online platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, is a great example.

The regulations in the bill are unworkable and the premise is unconstitutional, but voter outrage about online censorship is real enough for politicians to mine it for contributions, attention, and votes. The law gives the state attorney general and Texas residents banned from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube the ability to sue.

Texas bill assumes the platforms are common carriers, despite any official classification of them as such. Traditionally, common carriers are private companies or public utilities, like phone or cable companies, that transport goods with no differentiation and are not allowed to refuse service to anyone willing to pay. But online platforms work very differently from the dumb pipes industries conventionally subjected to common carrier status.

Online platforms curate the user experience as a competitive advantage. Facebook and Alphabet, YouTubes parent company, spend billions of dollars on research and development to improve their products and innovate new services, many of which involve moderating content on their sites. None of these companies could be confused for edge provider equivalents of dumb pipes. If they were all the same passive conduits that merely displayed users posts chronologically, why would any user have a preference among Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, Parler or others?

All the prioritizing, hiding, and removing of content these platforms do is to improve the online experience. Its also part of why Texas no viewpoint discrimination provision makes so little sense. The bill seeks to prevent big platforms from blocking, banning, removing, de-platforming, demonetizing, de-boosting, restricting, denying equal access or visibility to, or otherwise discriminating third-party content based on its authors viewpoint. But the curation of user content is intrinsic to what comprises the companies product; Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others largely distinguish themselves from the other by content moderation in an effort to show users what they most want to see.

The real-world implications of this bill are evident in the amendments offered to it on the legislative floor. Amendments sought to allow platforms to remove holocaust denial, terrorism, and medical misinformation. Those failed, but they foretell the kind of content most users would rather not see and most social media platforms remove, flag, hide, or refuse to promote. An Internet with no content moderation would quickly become filled with spam, pornography, and violence.

Beyond the practical problems, this bill faces serious legal hurdles. The Internet surely qualifies as interstate commerce and states are not allowed to regulate that in a way that creates an undue burden. Asking global companies to act differently toward their users in Texas may very well cross that line. The federal government has already preempted this sort of state regulation of content moderation with the 1996 Telecommunications Decency Act and its now controversial liability shield, Section 230.

The Texas law is being touted by its supporters as a free speech protection for social media users, but just as someone has no right to throw a political fundraiser in a neighbors backyard without the neighbors permission, social media users have no right to speak on the private property of social media platforms. The bill actually violates the First Amendment rights of social media platforms that, no matter how big or public-facing, remain private property, with their right to refuse to carry speech intact. Texas cannot wave away constitutional prohibitions on compelled speech. The recent thwarting of a similar Florida law in court, likely predicts the fate of Texas bill.

The frustration of conservative voters feeling discriminated against online is real, but this law is a cure worse than the disease. Better to let the market innovate new alternatives and leave both platforms and usersFrist amendment rights intact. Even in Texas.

Visit link:
Texas May Still Be the Wild West, But It's Social Media Shouldn't Be - Competitive Enterprise Institute

A poll found that 45 percent of Americans believe the U.S. government is doing a good job of protecting the freedom of speech, while 32 percent of Americans believe the government is doing a poor job, the Associated Press reported.

The poll was conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, which sought to compare current American perspectives on the state of their rights to data from similar polls conducted in 2011 and 2015. The 45 percent of Americans who responded favorably regarding the government's defense of freedom of speech marked a decrease from the 71 percent who gave the same answer in 2011 and the 59 percent in 2015.

Fewer Americans also believe the freedom of religion is being adequately protected, with about half of respondents saying the government was doing a good job of defending the right compared to three-quarters of respondents who approved in 2011, the AP reported. It's a similar story for the right to equal protection under the law, with 27 percent of respondents saying the government was doing a good job of protecting the right compared to 48 percent in 2011.

For more reporting from the Associated Press, see below.

Dee Geddes, 73, a retiree in Chamberlain, South Dakota, said she was frustrated at the government's apparent lack of ability to safeguard the amount of private information available, especially online.

"It bothers me when I can go on the internet and find pretty much anything about anybody. It makes me feel sort of naked," said Geddes, who identifies as a Republican. "It does bother me how much the government knows about us, but that goes back to the fact that there's so much out there period. It's discouraging."

The poll also finds that 54 percent of Americans say it's "sometimes necessary for the government to sacrifice some rights and freedoms to fight terrorism," compared with 64 percent a decade ago. Now, 44 percent say that's never necessary at all.

A majority of Democrats say it's sometimes necessary, which is largely consistent with previous AP-NORC polls. But Republicans are now closely divided, with 46 percent saying it's sometimes necessary and 53 percent saying it's never necessary. In 2011, 69 percent of Republicans said it was sometimes necessary, and 62 percent said the same in 2015.

Brandon Wilson, 23, a business and animation student at College of DePage in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, who described himself as a conservative, said he understood that steps taken after September 11 may have initially seemed to constrain Americans' rights, but that he ultimately felt the actions had been for the greater good.

"I think it's a good idea," Wilson said of measures such as increased airline passenger screening. "The government is helping the general public and, overall, trying to make people's lives better."

On the whole, though, Americans have grown more wary of government surveillance in the name of national security, the poll shows.

The poll asked about a variety of rights and liberties, including many of those outlined explicitly in the Constitution's Bill of Rights, as well as several protected by laws and court rulings.

It finds 44 percent now say the government is doing a good job protecting the freedom of the press, compared with 26 percent who think the government is doing a poor job. In both 2011 and 2015, about 6 in 10 said the government was doing a good job.

Americans are about equally divided on how the government is doing at protecting the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. About one-third say it's doing a good job and about one-third say it's doing a poor job. In 2011 and 2015, views were slightly more positive than negative, though less than half of Americans said the country was doing a good job.

Tony Gay, 60, a retiree who lives in Cincinnati, said that he generally supported the government's moves to protect civil liberties. He said his 10 years of Army service helped reinforce his opinion that sacrifice is sometimes necessary to safeguard freedoms.

"You can't have your freedom 24/7 if there's no one there to protect it," Gay said. "So when they put restrictions on travel, I'm all for that, because it's to make sure that I'm safe, and make sure that the person next to me is safe."

Forty-three percent of Americans think the U.S. government is doing a good job protecting the right to vote, while 37 percent say it's doing a poor job. By comparison, 70 percent said it was doing a good job in 2015 and 84 percent said the same in 2011.

Americans also are now divided on whether the government is doing a good or poor job protecting the right to bear arms, 35 percent to 36 percent, but in 2011, more said it was doing a good job than a poor one, 57 percent to 27 percent.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the government is doing a good job of protecting several rights and freedoms, including the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and the right to keep and bear arms.

But Democrats are somewhat more likely than Republicans to say the government is doing a poor job enforcing equal protection under the law, 54 percent to 46 percent. Views among Democrats and Republicans are largely similar on how well the government is protecting the right to vote, and the views among both have become notably less positive than in the earlier polls.

Even if he's relatively comfortable with the government's protection of basic civil liberties, Gay said he feels periodic review of the policies, and those making them, should be necessary.

"It's like when you're in politics, you have free rein," Gay said. "It gives me mixed feelings about who is watching over us."

Visit link:
45 Percent of Americans Think Government is Good at Defending Freedom of Speech: Poll - Newsweek

This week, President Jioji Konrote, praised our eight-year-old Constitution, sayingit was one of the most progressive in the world.

Speaking on Constitution Day, he added that it enshrined political and civil rights such as, among others, the right to vote and freedom of speech.

Such a public proclamation was encouraging.

It should be.

But having a written Constitution with provisions that protect, promote and supporthuman rights is one thing.

Enjoying them in real life is another issue altogether.

On Tuesday, the Constitution Day holiday was supposed to, apart from allowing usto have a much-needed rest, remind us of the importance of this document in oureveryday lives.

The history of constitutions shows they were not enacted for politicians, politicalleaders and rulers.

Neither were they created to protect those in government.

Instead, their development was by citizens who were concerned about the powertheir leaders had and how this power had been used arbitrarily against them.

These same concerns continue to disturb us, all around the world, and in Fiji inparticular.

Having a written constitution is not everything in a democracy.

There are otherthings that need to be considered and present before it can work.

Our constitution is important.

Yes, because it is like a rule book that tells us how thegame of democracy is played.

It not only gives those who lead us the authority to make decisions on our behalf, butit also shows how those who exercise power over us may be held accountable.

It sets out governments powers and demarcates where governments power ends byguaranteeing individuals rights and freedoms which ensure the protection andpromotion of human liberty, equality and dignity.

A truly democratic constitution is one that is agreed to by the people and notimposed.

This is because, when citizens participate in developing their ownconstitution and give it their consent, it becomes homemade, just like the guavajam or babakau that mums make for the familys enjoyment.

This means citizens will own it and will protect it.

They will never remove it becausethey know it belongs to them.

Furthermore, a peoples constitution is legitimate because it represents theaspirations of its people and contains all the rules that dictate how they want to beruled.

That is why a country whose constitution is forced on the people and notunanimously accepted tends to be opposed and may face regular disruptions.

Because of the constitution, citizens that may not agree with rulers still accept theirlegitimacy and obey laws because they trust that the democratic system andprocesses that the constitution allows will choose another government using theirconsent in another election.

Recently, we have had several cases where opposition political figures werequestioned by police, not for making a hate speech, but for simply expressing anopinion.

We have also had cases where journalists were attacked, not for making a libellousaccusation, but for simply asking a question.

These incidents have happened not only while we have one of the most progressiveconstitutions in place.

They were been allowed to happen because some people didnot tolerate different views expressed by others.

They failed to grasp the concepts of plurality, dialogue and inclusiveness that ademocratic society demands.

This indicates that our commitment to freedom of speech and expression has beenendangered, and we may be at a point where the values behind these freedoms arebeing challenged.

Lets be real.

People can be held liable for types of speech that use erroneousstatements to harm others reputations or rhetoric that instigates disorder.

This is because the government has the authority to deter expressions that connoteand encourage violence and danger.

It has a duty to prohibit hateful speech.

But in doing so, authorities must ensure that the ideals of free speech, assembly andexpression are not unnecessarily and conveniently suppressed.

They should not overstep the line and abuse their authority by silencing peacefuland lawabiding dissents and punish citizens for freely expressing themselves.

Generally, all over the world, participatory rights and freedoms pertaining toexpression, protest, speech and assembly et cetera have been curtailed by curfewsand strict safety protocols put in place to combat COVID-19 in the world.

As a result, we may come across laws that have been introduced without properconsultation or bulldozed through the corridors of Parliament without undergoingthe necessary legislative oversight.

We may find new policies that stop us from effectively holding authoritiesaccountable or from making a peaceful protest.

Freedom of speech and expression, as well as a host of other rights, are protected inour 2013 Constitution, under Chapter two, the Bill of Rights.

On paper this seems admirable.

We know we have the right to share informationand say what we think, as long as this is done responsibly.

We know we can demand services from our government.

We know we have the rightto agree or disagree with those in power or others for that matter, and to expressopinions peacefully.

However, whether we are able to exercising these fundamental rights without fear orfavour, which is a critical aspect of living in an open and fair society, is something wemust ask ourselves.

If we cannot genuinely access and enjoy these interconnected rights or are beingrestrained, despite assurances through our constitution then something doesntseem right.

This is exactly why the United States Country Reports on Human Rights Practicescontinues to highlight matters in Fiji every year.

In its 2020 report, for instance, it noted that laws on media prohibited irresponsible reporting and provided for government censorship.

As a result, journalists practised selfcensorship on sensitive political or communaltopics.

The report also raised concerns that the opposition and other critics of thegovernment had accused the government of using state power to silence critics.

People are discouraged from speaking their minds out, even though the countrysconstitution approves of the value of free speech.

The human rights movement, Amnesty International, says that when governmentstolerate unfavourable views or critical voices this is often a good indication of howthey will treat human rights generally.

Amnesty International supports people who speak out peacefully for themselves andfor others whether a journalist reporting on violence by security forces, a tradeunionist exposing poor working conditions or an indigenous leader defending their land rights.

For us Fijians, we must not stop at simply having a constitution.

We must not just declare we have one of the best in the world.

We must live it and it must show!

We must go a step further and demand that its provisions allows for checks and balances and limits the power of those who lead us.

We must demand that human rights are institutionalised, internalised and mainstreamed so that we built a human rights culture that our children and their childrens children can embrace and enjoy.

It is up to us to preserve, protect and defend human rights.

It is more than just having a constitution.

Before I leave you, please remember all the COVID-19 safety and hygiene protocols wear your mask when you leave home, wash your hands regularly with soap or analcoholbased hand sanitiser and practise social-distancing rules.

Until we meet on this same page same time next week stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!

See the article here:
Behind the News: More than just a constitution - Fiji Times

On 12 May 2021, Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill wasintroduced to Parliament, to tackle what the government refers toas the 'growing chilling effect on campuses' whereby itfeels students and academics are being silenced and censored.

The Bill has been strongly opposed by opposition parties butwill in all likelihood be passed considering the government'sconsiderable majority. Therefore higher education providers shouldbe using the time before the Bill becomes law to consider how theywill manage its implications. Critics of the Bill have commentedthat providers may find they are facing more uncertainty, ratherthan less, about how freedom of speech should be dealt with oncampus.

So what exactly is this Bill trying to address? There havecertainly been high profile cases of speakers being'no-platformed' by university students' unions, such asformer Home Secretary Amber Rudd. Recent debates around'de-colonising' curriculums have led to comparisons withcensorship. However, the Office for Students has releasedstatistics showing that in the Year 2017/18, of 59,574 events heldat higher education institutions, only 53 events were rejected,indicating that 'no-platforming' is in fact a relativelyminor problem.

Furthermore, there already is legislation protecting freedom ofspeech. The Education Act 1986 places a duty on universities,polytechnics and colleges to take such steps as are reasonablypracticable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law issecured for members, students, employees and visiting speakers. TheEuropean Convention on Human Rights also protects free speech.

This raises the question, given the incidents that thegovernment are aiming to address seem to be relatively rare andlegal protections already exist, will the additional protections tobe introduced by the Bill be proportionate?

The Bill is bringing in a number of changes. The implications ofsome will be clear, but for others, higher education providers maybe left scratching their heads about how to respond. For example,the Bill now requires higher education providers to have'particular regard to the importance of free speech' whencarrying out the duty of ensuring that freedom of speech issecured.

How a higher education provider could change what they are doingin practical terms to demonstrate this 'particular regard'is not entirely clear. Should it now take precedence over otherduties? On the other hand, the Bill will now impose a duty onstudents' unions to protect free speech, which will close a gapin the law.

As part of the duty to protect free speech, Higher EducationProviders must also secure the 'academic freedom' of theiracademic staff. This is defined as staff's 'freedom withinthe law and within their field of expertise (a) to questionand test received wisdom, and (b) to put forward new ideas andcontroversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves atrisk of being adversely affected'. The definition restricts amember of staff's freedom of speech to their field ofexpertise. The Education Act duty to protect free speech will stillapply to an academic who is expressing a view outside their fieldof expertise, but the distinction drawn in the Bill may cause someconfusion and seems out of place when the intention is tostrengthen protection for academic staff.

Freedom of speech is defined by the Bill as including freedom toexpress ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverseconsequences. The extent of what constitutes an 'adverseconsequence' is not defined. If interpreted as a low bar, thiscould include criticism. For example, if students choose to walkout of a lecturer's class, would that be an adverseconsequence, and if so, how would that interact with thestudent's right to freedom of speech? There is uncertainty overthe extent of a higher education providers duties to protectfreedom of speech, which is a particular issue as the Bill alsointroduces the ability for a person to bring a civil claim againsta higher education provider in respect of a breach of the duty.

The Bill also requires both higher education providers andstudents' unions to ensure use of their premises are not deniedto someone because of their ideas, beliefs or views, and that theterms on which premises are provided are not based on such ideas,beliefs or views. If a particularly controversial speaker isattending a students' union, could the students' unionintroduce terms to ensure the event is held safely? Even ifsensible, would these terms be a breach as they are based on thefact that the speaker held a particular view?

A more concrete change to be introduced by the Bill is theenhanced role of the Office for Students (OfS), overseen by a new'Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom'. TheOfS will be promoting the importance of free speech and running ascheme to determine free speech complaints in the higher educationsector.

Conditions for registration with the OfS will include that aprovider's governing documents and management arrangementsenable it to comply with the duties in the Bill relating to freespeech. Compliance will also be an ongoing registrationrequirement. In addition, the OfS will be tasked with monitoringwhether students' unions are complying, and registered highereducation providers are required to keep the OfS informed about itsstudents' unions.

The new complaints scheme will be for members of staff, studentsor visiting speakers who have been adversely affected by a highereducation provider's or students' union's breach of itsduties in relation to free speech. Before a compliant can be madehowever, any internal procedures must first be exhausted. If theOfS considers a complaint to be justified, it may make arecommendation to the higher education provider or students'union to take action, including paying a fine, or refrain fromtaking certain action. Interestingly, the question of whether afree speech complaint is justified will in many situations requirean assessment of the law by the OfS to determine if the speech inquestion was within the law. The government has insisted that theBill will not protect any unlawful or 'hate' speech, butthe OfS will be able to make such legal judgments, which wouldusually be reserved for the courts.

As the Bill makes its way through parliament, some of theambiguity may be ironed out, but until then, it would not beunreasonable if Higher Education Providers felt unsure of how bestto prepare for the changes it will bring in.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

More:
The Freedom Of Speech Bill: What It Means For The UK Higher Education Sector - Consumer Protection - UK - Mondaq News Alerts

Hong Kongs new museum of visual culture, M+, has decided to exclude a number of my artistic photographs from its opening exhibition. The problem? One photo in my Study of Perspective (1995) series shows me giving the middle finger to Beijings Tiananmen. Others show me doing the same to a number of other politically or culturally hallowed structures around the world; in Hong Kong, though, the national security law that Chinas central government passed last year has ruined the local political environment almost overnight, and has left the Chinese governments promise of one country, two systems as mere waste paper.

Influenced by the national security law, M+s decision to exclude my work deviates from art collector and Swiss former ambassador to China Uli Siggs original intention when he decided to donate his collection (including twenty-four works by me) to the citys spanking new museum.It seems hard to believe that my work, which originated in Tiananmen Square 26 years ago, has again become a flashpoint at a major historical turning point, and is a piquant footnote to the story of Chinas political censorship of culture and art. In 1989, just six years before I raised that middle finger, government tanks and armed soldiers had invaded the square to drive out peacefully protesting students. A single contemptuous gesture by me was never a match for an armed assault, of course; but it does breathe life into a durable item of faiththat the value of art in politics cannot just be erased.

The fate of the M+ Museum that we are witnessing today brings to mind how certain other Western museumsthe Centre Pompidou in Paris and the Victoria & Albert Museum and Tate Modern in Londonrecently have rushed to cozy up to China, bowing and scraping before the great rising authoritarian power, bubbling with flattery at every turn.

Study of Perspective (1995-). Photo courtesy Ai Weiwei Studio.

In spring 2021, I received a surprising notice from another kind of Western institution, Credit Suisse. The bank informed me that it was terminating my account in Switzerland. They did this, they wrote, in accordance with a new policy of closing all accounts with people who have had criminal records. They believed (or pretended to believe?) that I had been convicted of a crime in China. Just a bit of homework could have shown them that I was never formally charged, let alone convicted of a crime. When the Beijing regime detained me and smeared my name, it was only applying its normal techniques of persecuting political opponents.

So why was Credit Suisse using my crime as its reason to terminate my bank account? Not long ago the institution announced that it was accelerating its recruitment of employees in China. It wanted to triple their numbers in five years. At the same time, it would be seeking to take majority control of its joint ventures in the securities market and to apply for a license that would allow it to expand its business in both personal and investment banking.

Credit Suisse was already well aware of a magical strategy in China; hire princelingsoffspring of top Communistsin order to pave the way to success in business. In 2018, the bank was obliged to pay $77 million to settle a charge by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that employment of friends and family of senior Chinese officials in its joint ventures violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

In China and elsewhere, political connections are the fuel of the economic colonialism that occupies the core of todays surging globalization. In Chinas state capitalism, high officials enjoy unchecked power and wield it in an environment totally empty of democratic supervision. As a consequence, behind the strong organizational structure of the Communist Party of China, there has arisen an immensely complex web of private interests of the highest-ranking Party families and their minions in the bureaucracies. No item of business with a foreign country can possibly go forward without involvement with this web. Shared corruption is the name of the game, and the pattern is so common as to be accepted as commonplace.

In globalization, countries or regions find themselves in relationships where each side is pursuing its own political and economic goals; at the same time, the two sides often look for people within the other side to be its agents. The Communist Party of China, in pursuit of its political ambitions and ultimately its dream to be a superpower, has been doing precisely this in the West for some time now. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson recently declared the arrival of a happy world in which we are inside you and you are inside us.

The Chinese regimes goal, in this happy world to come, is to establish that its way of doing things is normal and legitimate. Its leaders are well aware that spread of its culture will enhance the allure of its political system. What Western museums and other art institutions want is to attract Chinese financial backing. At a personal level, movers and shakers in the Western art world are also looking for political and economic advantages inside China. Every museum in China, whether run by Chinese or Westerners, wants a special relationship with that one government, that one Party, whose favor is essential for success. This marks the final triumph of cultural globalization. We think of war as invasive and bloody, but cultural invasion and war, fought with invisible gunpowder and producing odorless gore, is in fact just as cruel and unscrupulous.

Study of Perspective (1995-). Photo courtesy Ai Weiwei Studio.

As for Credit Suisse, it turns out to be no stranger to foul commerce, indeed it might be called an old hand at it. In 1996, Holocaust survivors and families of its victims filed a class-action lawsuit against Credit Suisse and the United Bank of Switzerland, accusing the banks of intentionally hiding assets that originally had belonged to Holocaust victims. Last year the Simon Wiesenthal Center announced the discovery in Argentina of a list of 12,000 Nazi persons or organizations that had used Credit Suisse accounts to hold purloined funds. Credit Suisses clientele also included IG Farben, the company that produced the Zyklon-B gas that killed 1.1 million Jews.

Switzerland has long enjoyed privileges on the world stage that derive from its reputation for neutrality. In practice, however, its banks have used neutrality as a label under which to nestle as they quietly side with the powerful and reap indecent benefits. It is no secret in China that high-level officials maintain covert bank accounts with Credit Suisse. That fact alone should dispel any doubts about its neutral position.

On June 24, 2021, the management of Credit Suisse called to inform us of their decision to close our bank account as soon as possible, explicitly stating a recent interview I did with the Swiss daily 20-Minuten as the reason. This interview, in which I criticized the Swiss people for voting in ever more anti-immigrant policies, has had repercussions across the social spectrum in Switzerland. Ex-colonel and FDP member Roger E. Schrer summarized the response in a follow-up interview with the paper: He must not defame Switzerland so much, as the country showed him so much hospitality, he said. Here he finds all the freedom that was denied him in China.

According to the news article, Schrer believes my testimony constitutes a criminal offense, and wants to file a criminal complaint against me for violating Switzerlands Rassismusstrafnorm, an anti-racism law, unless I apologize.

The bank account at issue here is that of my Fart Foundation, which I started 2016 as a way to promote free speech. The foundation has recently supported the creation and distribution of a number of documentary films on China. One looked at the outbreak of Covid-19 in Wuhan, and another on how the people of Hong Kong rose in unison to resist an extradition law imposed by Beijing. That I have won a bit part in the China Dream of certain giant multinational corporations and their associated cultural predators makes me feel well honored!

Ai Weiwei is a Chinese conceptual artist, sculptor, and curator. This article has been translated by Perry Link.

Continued here:
As They Hasten to Cozy Up to China, M+ Museum and Credit Suisse Have Let Freedom of Speech Fall By the Wayside - artnet News

Freedom of speech and expression in India has become as nebulous a concept as the right to practise, profess and propagate any religion of your choice. This has become obvious with two recent controversies involving Union Minister Narayan Rane who was arrested for declaring that chief minister Uddhav Thackeray should have been hit with slippers for allegedly forgetting the year India achieved Independence and Javed Akhtar, who reportedly compared the RSS with the Taliban.

Voltaire on free speech

Voltaire was the pen name of Franois-Marie Arouet, who died in 1778. He famously, or perhaps infamously, declared: I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Now, if we contrast this statement with the judgment of Justice Sarjoo Prasad of the Patna high court, who held in 1949 that if a person were to go on inciting murder or other cognizable offences either through the press or by word of mouth, he would be free to do so with impunity. He would claim the privilege of free speech, makes us do a double-think on what Voltaire said.

This passage from Justice Prasads judgment was the result of a woman called Shaila Bala Devi who managed a press called the Bharati Press at Purulia in Bihar in 1949. Her press had published a leaflet called Sangram in high-flown Bengali which espoused bloody revolution as advocated through the mouth of the mother goddess Kali Mata.

In July-August 1950, a powerful Punjabi leader known as Master Tara Singh advocated a separate Punjabi-speaking state, which was the seed in later decades to blossom into the Khalistani secessionist movement. But when Singh was prosecuted for sedition (section 124-A) and promoting enmity between groups, (section 153-A), the Punjab high court held both sections were unconstitutional because they were too broad.

Frankly speaking

Now, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the founder of the Jana Sangh in 1952 which has now blossomed into the BJP, openly flayed the then Pakistani government for the anti-Hindu policies of its citizens. In a speech in Parliament in August 1950, Mookerjee, who was also for some time the vice chancellor of Calcutta University, declared the Nehru governments appeasement of Pakistan must cease. And that either economic sanctions must be imposed or military action must be taken against Pakistan.

In December 1950, Mookerjee spoke at an RSS function where he said the Partition of India had brought misery and humiliation to millions. While addressing Parliament that same month, Mukherjee said: We are supposed to be at war with Pakistan in Kashmir, and that Indias policy towards Pakistan should be based on complete reciprocity. And further that if the situation worsens, India will have to depend on her arms and ammunition or military strength. In March 1951, Mookerjee said in the Lok Sabha that Pakistan wanted war and that if they still wanted it, let them have the taste of that (war).

In October 1951, at his presidential address at the founding of the All India Bharatiya Jana Sangh, he said: We already know that the Partition of Bharat was a tragic folly. It has served no purpose and has not helped to solve any problem, economic, political or communal. We believe in the goal of a reunited Bharat . Mookerjee was arguably one of the architects of Akhand Bharat which again, is acceptable to patriotic Indians and some Bangladeshi citizens.

Amendment in 1951

As a result of such speeches and Justice Prasads vitriolic observations, the Nehru government introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha on May 12, 1951, to amend some fundamental rights including the right to free speech by introducing three broad heads under Article 19 (2). This was because the right to free speech has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence. Nehru was obviously referring to Justice Sarjoo Prasad.

The Supreme Court had reversed Justice Sarjoo Prasads vitriolic judgment but the Nehru government had already reduced free speech to a chimera. When the right to free speech was introduced by the founding fathers, only the three heads of defamation, contempt of court, and obscenity curtailed free speech. Apparently, the previous generation had more freedom to speak their mind than we do today.

So, in June 1951, three vague and insensate restrictions of friendly relations with foreign states, public order and incitement to an offence were included under Article 19 (2) to curtail free speech. Today, these three heads further restrict free speech and press freedom to assist our imagination that we have unbridled free speech. This amendment was passed with 228 members voting in favour of it and only 19 opposing it. Today, when we have a bellicose China illegally occupying parts of Kashmir ceded to it by a weak Pakistan which can be easily overrun by our armed forces, the restriction of friendly relations with foreign states ought to be removed by the Modi government.

Palatable truths only?

There is also no doubt that Mookerjee loved his country despite being an atheist; the Godi media cannot accuse Javed Akhtar of being anti-national. We have the right to read the opinions of both Mookerjee and Akhtar. Mookerjee championed the reunification of India with Pakistan just as the controversial Justice Markandey Katju who got at least two contempt notices from the very Supreme Court where he once presided as a judge, also advocates reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh through his Indian Reunification Association, founded in 2017.

It was again Mookerjee, a president of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, seen as a patriot and great Parliamentarian, who famously declared that while the US Constitution created the right to free speech, the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution restricted it. Two of our founding fathers were reported to have said freedom of speech implied the right to speak only palatable truths but not unpalatable truths.

Today, when the Supreme Court has clearly said it cannot create a separate avenue for journalists to approach them under Article 32 to quash FIRs registered against them, journalists are reminded of the adage that in India, their freedom is that of the common citizen. Like Narayan Rane, or Javed Akhtar, or perhaps Param Bir Singh, whose complaint against his boss, former home minister, Anil Deshmukh, has landed him in more trouble than he can handle, we in India must remember free speech is a chimera.

The writer holds a PhD in law and is a senior journalist-cum-advocate of the Bombay high court

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Read more:
We have the right to read the opinions of both Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Javed Akhtar, writes Olav - Free Press Journal

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA - South Korean legislation intended to combat what authorities view as fake news could undermine press freedom in one of Asias strongest democracies, analysts say.

The proposed revision to the Press Arbitration Act, backed by South Koreas ruling Democratic Party, would significantly expand the ability of courts to punish accredited reporters and media outlets deemed to have intentionally published false information.

If passed, the legislation would amount to a rare example of a liberal democracy responding to the growing challenge of disinformation by targeting traditional media, such as newspapers and television broadcasters.

"At a time when authoritarian governments are increasingly adopting so-called 'fake news' laws to stifle criticism, it is disappointing to see a democratic country like South Korea follow this negative trend," said Scott Griffen, deputy director of the International Press Institute, a Vienna-based free speech monitoring group.

UN concerned

Under the proposal, claimants would be able to sue for up to five times the estimated damage caused by a deliberate dissemination of false news.

That appears to be "utterly disproportionate," according to Irene Khan, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression.

In a letter to South Koreas government, Khan offered a detailed and forceful critique of the proposed legislation, saying it would provide excessive discretion to the authorities that may lead to arbitrary implementation.

The bills "very vague language," she added, "may limit a wide range of expression that is essential to a democratic society, including news reporting, criticism of the government, political leaders and other public figures, and the expression of unpopular and minority opinions."

Restoring public trust?

Supporters say the new rules will help improve the South Korean publics low confidence in domestic media.

According to the latest annual study by the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, just 32% of South Koreans trust the media. That is among the lowest of the 46 countries surveyed.

Even so, several opinion polls show only a narrow majority of South Koreans appearing to support the legislation.

"The revision of the [Press]Arbitration Act is the first step toward the media restoring its public credibility," said Representative Kim Seung-won, a member of South Koreas Democratic Party.

In an interview with VOA, Kim also said the bill will provide more redress for those hurt by inaccurate reports.There are more than 4,000 instances each year in which fake news is judged to have caused damage, he said. So, it is necessary to relieve those damages, correct misinformation, compel follow-up reports, and strengthen the medias editorial process.

Messy media environment

South Korea boasts a free but often divisive and boisterous press. Many of the countrys biggest newspapers have links to chaebols powerful, family-run conglomerates and traditionally take a conservative stance on political and economic issues. Other smaller papers are explicitly liberal.

As in other countries, social media has fractured the South Korean media landscape and deepened political divisions.

Polarization intensified after the 2017 impeachment of conservative President Park Geun-hye the daughter of South Koreas former military strongman, Park Chung-hee. She was subsequently sentenced to prison on corruption charges.

After the Park scandal, many older conservatives, who respected the countrys former military rulers, became disillusioned with traditional media. They instead migrated to YouTube, which offered alternative information sources.

Some of those far-right YouTube channels peddle far-fetched and unproven assertions, including claims that last years legislative election was rigged by shadowy communist forces.

During the pandemic, many conservative leaders have used YouTube to call for mass anti-government protests that violate South Koreas strict COVID-19 social distancing guidelines.

Other social media have problems, too, including cyberbullying and vicious personal attacks that came to the fore in 2019 after two female Korean pop stars took their own lives.

However, the law under discussion wouldnt apply to private individuals on social media, only to officially accredited outlets and reporters.

Elevating clickbait Many journalists complain the bill does not address another major issue: South Koreas massively influential online portals, such as Naver and Daum, which curate and host news stories from various outlets on their own websites.

Studies have found that most South Koreans rely on such portals as their main source of news. In turn, media outlets rely on the portals as their main source of clicks. That creates pressure for journalists to create content that will be snatched up by the portals algorithms.

If people are so worried about fake news, then they should do something about the editing and transmission rights of news portal sites that dominate South Koreas news market, as well as YouTubers. But no one talks about that, said a South Korean reporter at a daily newspaper. The reporter spoke with VOA on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

Ruling party lawmakers say they are open to portal reform. But critics say they have been reluctant to take action against the portals, some of which are linked to or run by major South Korean business interests.

South Korean journalists oppose

A wide range of South Korean newspapers, reporters, and journalism associations have criticized the proposal. Many say the new rules would discourage reporting that exposes powerful people and organizations.

If this act passes, the natural outcome will be more self-censorship by journalists, said Lee Jin-dong, who heads his own investigative news outlet, Newsverse. And their companies may pressure them to avoid lawsuits.

A young broadcast reporter at one of South Koreas top television news stations said he understands more media regulation is needed, but believes it should be done in a way that doesnt threaten the idea of journalism itself.

If this bill passes, I feel I will be unable to raise questions about presidential candidates or possible government ministers or conglomerates, said the reporter, who also requested anonymity.

Backlash forces delay

Even some ruling party politicians have spoken against the bill.

There are some problematic provisions within this law, Lee Sang-min, a Democratic Party lawmaker, told VOA. The intention is good, but we have to find a better balance between freedom of speech and legal regulation.

The backlash by South Korean civic groups may be having an effect. Though the legislation was expected to pass late last month, the Democratic Party agreed to delay it while an eight-member discussion body discusses possible changes.

In the end, the party can do whatever it wants, due to its parliamentary supermajority. Many journalists are watching closely.

The press has a lot of problems, its true, said a reporter who covers legal issues. The reporter, like others contacted by VOA, spoke only on condition of anonymity, added, But the solution is not the current media arbitration law. This will only worsen social conflict.

Read more:
South Korea Fights 'Fake News,' But Critics Claim It's Gagging the Press - VOA Asia

In July, White House press secretary Jen Psaki complained that Facebook wasnt doing enough to shut down discussions of inaccurate vaccine information. The company needs to move more quickly to remove harmful violative posts, she declared.

The official spokesperson for the Biden administration stated that 12 people were responsible for nearly two-thirds of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms.

If youre wondering how many government employees spend their time reading and logging social media posts, heres the answer: none of them. The finding came from a group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

Who are those guys?

The Center for Countering Digital Hate, headquartered in London, describes itself as a not-for-profit NGO [non-governmental organization] that seeks to disrupt the architecture of online hate and misinformation, which includes denial of scientific consensus.

In an introduction to the CCDHs report titled The Disinformation Dozen, CEO Imran Ahmed wrote, Facebook, Google and Twitter have put policies into place to prevent the spread of vaccine misinformation; yet to date, all have failed to satisfactorily enforce those policies.

The report states, Despite repeatedly violating Facebook, Instagram and Twitters terms of service agreements, nine of the Disinformation Dozen remain on all three platforms, while just three have been comprehensively removed from just one platform.

This complaint was echoed by the White House press secretary, who publicly harangued Facebook in particular.

People in London are not obligated to understand the First Amendment, but people speaking on behalf of the U.S. government should recognize the problem with seeking to shut down the speech of Americans discussing matters of public interest, even if those speakers are misinformed.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate may be misinformed itself. Digital spaces have been colonised and their unique dynamics exploited by fringe movements that instrumentalise hate and misinformation, the groups report asserts, using the British spellings. These movements are opportunistic, agile and confident in exerting influence and persuading people.

Persuading people is protected activity under the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is especially vital in relation to issues of immense consequence and public interest, such as COVID-19 and the policies put in place to mitigate public harm. People have very different views of whats necessary and appropriate, and thats just the CDC director every five days.

Is it the Israeli data, in particular, that changed your mind? Josh Wingrove of Bloomberg News asked CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky at a White House briefing on Wednesday. The topic was the Biden administrations new plan to recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters for all adults. Just five days earlier, Wingrove pointed out, she had made a point of saying, repeatedly, that booster shots werent needed for the time.

Heres what Walensky said that prompted the question: Reports from our international colleagues, including Israel, suggest increased risk of severe disease amongst those vaccinated early. Given this body of evidence, we are concerned that the current strong protection against severe infection, hospitalization, and death could decrease in the months ahead.

Five days earlier, that statement would likely have been flagged as misinformation. In fact, Twitter suspended journalist and author Alex Berenson for a week after he wrote posts about the data from Israel.

There are only a few large social media platforms, and if they can be pressured by the government into shutting down speech that officials dont like, for whatever reason, Americans will be deprived of information exactly as if the government was censoring speech directly.

History suggests that this wont last. There was a time when a handful of news editors and producers could shut down coverage of a salacious story about a U.S. president, simply by refusing to allow reports in their pages or on their air. That collegial brotherhood was broken up in the late 1990s when Matt Drudge, who was not a member of the club, published the details of a report that a television network had declined to broadcast.

The story of what President Bill Clinton did with White House intern Monica Lewinsky became public online in The Drudge Report and, as we know, was painstakingly verified as truthful. The mechanism that had controlled the flow of information was shattered.

The three-network era was ended by new technology and new players, and the Facebook-Twitter-YouTube axis will one day be a relic of the past, too. It may happen sooner rather than later, as the tech companies find new ways to irritate absolutely everyone and Congress closes in with proposed anti-trust legislation.

On Wednesday, Facebook Vice President of Content Policy Monika Bickert put out a statement denying the claim that 12 people were responsible for most of the online vaccine misinformation on Facebook. She criticized the CCDH report for analyzing only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content, a sample that is in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts on the topic of vaccines, but she said the company has now removed the groups, pages and accounts linked to the 12 individuals, as well as limiting others.

So the CCDH got what it wanted. In the words of its report, the CCDHs solutions seek to increase the economic, political and social costs of supporting or profiting from anything it declares to be hate and misinformation.

However, Americans dont have to allow a group in London to define the boundaries of allowable speech. Somewhere in the National Archives theres a document that says that.

Write Susan Shelley: Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

Read more:
Who gets to decide whats allowable speech? - Long Beach Press Telegram