Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The concept of freedom is equivocal at best. There are no definite limits to the extent one can exercise freedom. It is debatable whether one should remain indifferent to someones offensive speech directed at ones ideology, race, or gender just because an individual is exercising its right to free speech, or there should be some redlines holding them back from indulging in excessiveness.

Pakistans founding father Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his Presidential Address delivered to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, defined religious freedom as, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state. The statement guaranteeing freedom had provided a ray of hope for the minorities who were already distressed at the trauma of partition. For the Muslims of India, particularly those who had put their weight behind the pioneering struggle of the Muslim League for an independent homeland, freedom merely meant an absence of the occupation by a Hindu-majority post-partition India. This ill-conceived understanding of freedom generated misconceptions after the independence of Pakistan. Minorities are facing worse treatment in Pakistan and are subjected to cruel discrimination.

Pakistan is drawing near to its 75th Independence Day on August 14 and the time is ripe to reflect and ponder if it has preserved the ideals of freedom for its citizens, notably for its minorities and women. Unfortunately, the more we delve into the annals of the history of Pakistan since its independence, the more we get convinced that though it managed to evade domination of a Hindu-majority India, the continuity to exist myriads of constraints on the freedom of its citizens, particularly on minorities and women.

To understand how the state continues to subjugate minorities and women in an apparent free Pakistan, we must take a clue from the late British social scientist Isaiah Berlins famous article titled, Two Concepts of Liberty where the writer divides freedom into two categories, named as negative freedom and positive freedom. I will limit my discussion to the negative version of freedom presented by Dr Isaiah and try to draw similarities between his concept of negative freedom and freedom available to minorities and women of Pakistan.

Dr Isaiah Berlin defines negative freedom as a kind of freedom that is free from external interference. In short, when an individual is willing to perform an activity of his own accord, he considers himself a master of that area without any fear of being hindered by an external actor. To understand how relevant the concept of negative freedom applies to the freedom of women in Pakistan, we should compare Jinnahs definition of the role of women to their present condition. Jinnah, for instance, in Aligarh in 1944, said: No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. Do such lofty ideals of women working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts exist in contemporary Pakistan? The answer is a plain no.

A glimpse of the state infringing on the freedom of women can be understood through the recent case where the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill, 2021, was opposed by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). The bill had proposed severe punishments for the perpetrators of domestic violence in the country. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan wrote a letter to the National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser where Awan requested Qaiser to review the bill from the male-dominated CII. The letter maintained, Most importantly, it is being highlighted that the bill contravenes the Islamic [injunctions] and way of life as enshrined in [the] responsibility of the state in Article 31 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The case highlights just the tip of the iceberg issues facing women, in this case, a CII body without a single female representative and the state exerting its pressure through various articles of its constitution.

Negative freedom is not about actions but the availability of opportunities even if one is unwilling to avail those. The concept of negative freedom understands the external restrictions imposed by natural forces and does not include them as infringements on ones rights. For instance, it is a universal reality that a woman gives birth to a child. Or, a man is incapable to soar high in the sky like an eagle. But, man-made restrictions deprive citizens of their due freedom. A state where state authorities wield enormous influence by controlling the lives of its subjects cannot be termed as a free nation but a totalitarian one. Freedom House scores Pakistans internet freedom 26 out of 100 and places it in a Not Free category. When the National Assembly (NA) unanimously passed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) 2015, it was strongly criticised by human rights organisations in Pakistan. Numerous other bills and acts stand in contravention to individual rights to freedom. It lends credence to the fact that external interference by the state in restricting opportunities shrinks prospects of true freedom in Pakistan. Nothing better can summarise the prevalent situation than George Orwells term Big Brother is Watching You, in his magnum opus Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

Similarly, positive freedom, in contrast to negative freedom, is a kind of freedom to do something. It means an individual should be able to act according to his will, completely free from internal constraints. Here too, minorities and women lack truly independent posture.

Different existing definitions of freedom are at times contradictory. Freedom of speech and the right to avail equal opportunities are cornerstones of a free and democratic state. Even in the countries viewed as spearheading movements of freedom in the world, like the United States of America, with its long tradition of free speech fundamentalism and its respect for the First Amendment, still finds herself at sea about justifying the concept of freedom of speech. As long as minorities and women are left at the mercy of the state to take decisions on their part through interference, an ideal Pakistan, as envisioned by the Quaid-i-Azam will remain a distant dream.

-Mobeen Jafar Mir is an Assistant Researcher at Islamabad Policy Institute (IPI).

He tweets at @jafar_mobeen.

He can be reached at: [emailprotected]

Read the original here:
Freedom for minorities and women - The News International

Following a Civil Court ruling against PM Prayut Chan-o-cha, Thai media organisations are calling on the government to abide by the courts decision. Last Friday, the court ruled that the PM had overstepped his authority in banning the dissemination of news that could create public fear. In its ruling, the court found that the ban was too vague and therefore an infringement of peoples rights and freedoms.

The court was responding to a petition from 12 online media organisations and human rights lawyers, who accused the PM of threatening the accuracy of media reporting and freedom of speech.

In response to the ruling, 6 media organisations are urging the government to comply with the courts order. According to a Bangkok Post report, the National Press Council of Thailand, the News Broadcasting Council of Thailand, the Thai Journalists Association, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association, the Online News Providers Association, and the National Union of Journalists, Thailand say the government must also consider if other regulations implemented during the Covid-19 crisis might also infringe on free speech.

Deputy PM Wissanu Krea-ngam says the government will comply with the courts ruling but refused to say if the PMs attempt to introduce the ban was a mistake.

SOURCE: Bangkok Post

Download our app on Android or iOS Have your say on our Thailand forums Subscribe to our daily email newsletter Subscribe / Join YouTube for daily shows Like/Follow us on Facebook FOLLOW us on Twitter FOLLOW us on Instagram

Read the original post:
Media organisations call on government to obey court order on free speech - The Thaiger

This op-ed is part of an occasional series published by The Dallas Morning News Opinion section on human rights and human freedom. Find the full series here.

Lets suppose that a subset of American college students say, Blacks or Hispanics reported they were scared to speak in class. There would be a national outcry about inequity and systemic racism, followed by demands for an investigation. Then university officials and politicians would rightfully vow to protect and value all American students, regardless of race or ethnicity.

But if students from another country are afraid to speak up, nobody seems to care.

Witness last Mondays pledge by the Departments of State and Education to increase international student exchanges, which plummeted amid the pandemic and the restrictive policies of the Trump administration. As the departments joint statement correctly noted, students who come here from other nations contribute immensely to innovation, economic development and cross-cultural understanding.

Yet international students have also faced threats to their free speech at American universities, which went unmentioned in the statement and in most news accounts of it. Im glad were going to bring more students from other countries to the United States. But they wont be able to learn as much or teach the rest of us if they have to bite their tongues when they get here.

Thats what has been happening in recent years, especially among students from China. Their government has made it clear that it will monitor them in the United States and punish speech that strays from the party line. So Chinese students have to watch what they say, if they know whats good for them.

In 2019, a 20-year-old University of Minnesota student was arrested upon his return to his hometown in China and sentenced to six months in jail. His crime? Posting 40 tweets while studying in Minnesota that mocked President Xi Jinping. The tweets featured images of Winnie the Pooh, a censored character in China, because of satirical memes comparing him to Xi, as well as pictures of a cartoon villain resembling the president.

His imprisonment drew rebukes from several members of the Senate, including Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb. But the Biden administration has been mostly silent about the students fate and about threats to other Chinese nationals studying in the United States.

Ditto for leaders in higher education, who would be the first to speak out if an American racial minority were blocked from full participation in our classrooms. But I havent heard a single major university president decry the muzzling of international students here. Well happily take their tuition dollars, but we wont defend their free speech.

In a series of interviews early last year with Voice of America, Chinese students reported self-censoring in class during discussions of Tibet, Hong Kong and anything else deemed sensitive by their government. They feared that other Chinese students would report what they said to authorities back home, limiting their job opportunities as well as subjecting them to criminal penalties.

Meanwhile, American professors who teach China-related courses suspected that Chinese intelligence agents were monitoring their classes. Significantly, almost all of the Chinese students and American faculty interviewed by Voice of America asked to remain unnamed. The students feared harassment at home, while the professors worried that China might deny them visas to perform research there.

Threats to Chinese students have likely stepped up since China imposed a new national security law upon Hong Kong last summer. Barring sedition and colluding with foreign forces, the law allows China to pursue violators no matter where they live.

In response, some professors of China-focused courses in America have added warning labels about politically sensitive topics covered in their classes. At Princeton, students in a Chinese politics course placed codes instead of names on their work to protect their identities.

And Harvard Business School said it might excuse Chinese students from class participation requirements when China-related topics arose. There is no way I can say to my students, You can say whatever you want [and] you are totally safe here, HBS professor Meg Rithmire told The Wall Street Journal.

In the era of Black Lives Matter and campaigns to dismantle racism, we should insist that international students enjoy the same rights as anyone else in our classrooms. Whether you can speak your mind at an American university shouldnt depend on the color of your passport, any more than on the color of your skin.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the co-author (with Signe Wilkinson) of Free Speech and Why You Should Give a Damn, which was published in April by City of Light Press. He wrote this column for The Dallas Morning News.

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor and you just might get published.

Read the original post:
International students should have freedom of speech, too - The Dallas Morning News

For over a century, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been one of the staunchest defenders of the First Amendment and has routinely come to the aid of those whose rights have been trampled on by the government.

But over the past few years, the organization has shied away from its unbridled support of free speech, leaving a void in the movement to defend First Amendment protections.

In the wake of the Charlottesville protests in 2017, the ACLU implemented policy changes regarding its approach to First Amendment cases. In 2018, an internal memo from the organization described its new policy, which included a test to assess the impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression before they would even consider taking a First Amendment case.

In 1969, the ACLU defended the seemingly undefendable when they fought for the Ku Klux Klans right to free speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

It now also considers whether defending free speech could have detrimental effects on marginalized communities or could jeopardize the organizations credibility.

This is a far cry from where the ACLU started. Indeed, their legacy has largely revolved around a principled commitment to freedom of speech, and they have actively defended free speech rights for even the most hated groups. Ironically, they make a brilliant case for this position on their own website.

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are indivisible.

Though the modern incarnation of the ACLU is falling short of these ideals, things were much different in the beginning. The ACLUs inception stems from the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917. During that time, the Russian Revolution was inciting fear in the U.S. over communisms spread, and resistance to the draft was also causing government concern.

The Espionage Act outlawed certain forms of speech, including comments deemed disloyal to the United States government.

Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.

Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sent anti-war leaflets to men across the country.

While the faces of the free speech movement may have changed over time, the significance of defending free speech has remained unchanged.

These events inspired the newly formed ACLU to intervene. The organization began defending activists who were being punished for expressing their views and were successful in getting several hundred people released from incarceration for violating the new laws.

This laid the foundation that earned the ACLU the reputation as a relentless supporter of free speech, even when the organization did not agree with what was being said.

In 1969, the ACLU defended the seemingly undefendable when they fought for the Ku Klux Klans right to free speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

When Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg addressed a rally held in Ohio, he made mention of the possibility of revenge against Jewish and Black individuals. This resulted in his conviction for violating the states Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited speech that sought to advocatethe duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.

This conviction earned Brandenburg a 10-year prison sentence.

With the ACLU by his side, he challenged the Ohio law at the Supreme Court, which resulted in a reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that he could be punished only in an instance where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In the late 1970s, when neo-Nazis wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors resided, the ACLU defended the groups First Amendment rights, despite agreeing with most everyone that their beliefs were deplorable.

Former ACLU employees are concerned about the contemporary drift in the organizations activities.

In fact, David Goldberger, the Jewish attorney who defended the free speech rights of Nazis on behalf of the ACLU, fears that Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.

This is an interesting twist to the history of free speech in the United States.

Protecting free speech of all individuals is no less important today than it was in the past. But while modern events, like the Charlottesville protests, have caused progressives to call for limits to speech deemed hateful or hurtful to certain groups, there was a time not so long ago when it was conservatives trying to rein in First Amendment protections.

During the 1950s McCarthy Era, named for Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy, some Republicans and right-leaning groups poured their efforts into curbing the spread of communism in the United States. This resulted in a witch hunt where anyone with ties to Marxism or communism was exposed and reprimanded. There were also laws passed making it illegal to publicly promote these viewsa clear violation of freedom of expression and association.

At several points in history, conservatives have also called for laws banning the burning of the American flag. But in 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment in the controversial case, Texas v. Johnson.

Even with this landmark ruling, there have been other attempts by some conservatives to ban flag burning in the years since.

Guarding the First Amendment means doing so even when it is unpopular. It means standing on principle and recognizing that even heinous speech deserves protection, no matter what your politics may be.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) focuses specifically on protecting free speech on college campuses.

While some progressives might be directing attention and resources elsewhere, many libertarian and conservative organizations are continuing the fight for free speech.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) focuses specifically on protecting free speech on college campuses. Its mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of consciencethe essential qualities of liberty.

FIRE has helped students fight back against a variety of free speech violations by campus administrators. When Wichita State refused to recognize a libertarian student group because of its emphasis on free speech, FIRE came to its defense.

FIRE has also fought back against campuses that have implemented designated free speech zones and has defended students who were reprimanded for handing out pocket constitutions on campus.

The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) has also helped fill the void left by the ACLU. When William Thomas, an owner of several roadside signs in Tennessee, had his signs torn down by government officials who disagreed with its content, IFS came to his aid.

Likewise, the organization helped defend Kells Hetherington, who was fined hundreds of dollars for stating his political affiliation while running for his county school board, which is a crime under Florida law.

But in addition to political speech, commercial speech is also in need of protectors.

The Institute for Justice (IJ) is another public interest law firm that litigates to protect commercial, occupational and political speech. The organization seeks to defend the free flow of informationinformation that is indispensable to our democratic form of government and to our free enterprise economy.

In one of its cases, IJ came to the aid of a retired engineer from North Carolina, who was told he could not offer engineering advice or give his expertise on the topic unless he first obtained a license from the state. Oddly enough, before he retired, he was never required to obtain a license.

In another instance, IJ defended two North Dakota men who had painted a mural on the outside of their bar, Lonesome Dove. The pair did not know that city rules stated that no mural may be placed on the front of the building and no mural shall convey a commercial message. The city demanded they take the mural down or face a $1,000 fine.

To ensure that this constitutional protection remains intact, supporters of free speech need to put politics aside and vigilantly fight for the First Amendment rights of all individuals.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is doing its part, defending speech from government censorship based on its content, expanding legal protections for professional and commercial speech, and preserving the right not to be spoken for.

In one of their cases, Peggy Fontenot, an Indian artist who belongs to a tribe that the State of Oklahoma doesnt recognize, was told she could not market her artwork as American Indian Made because she did not qualify as a real Native American.

In another case, they defended Debbie Pulley when the Georgia Board of Nursing worried that if she honestly explained her decades of experience as a midwife, people might jump to the conclusion that she was a practicing registered nurseso they tried to deny her the right to use the word midwife to describe herself.

They also defended two California men who tried to end their union membership after the U.S. Supreme Courts landmark decision in Janus v. AFSCME allowed them to do so. The union tried to deny them this right, ignoring the First Amendments guarantee that public sector workers have the right to choose whether to financially support a union.

While the faces of the free speech movement may have changed over time, the significance of defending free speech has remained unchanged. In fact, it may be more critical now than ever.

To ensure that this constitutional protection remains intact, supporters of free speech need to put politics aside and vigilantly fight for the First Amendment rights of all individuals.

A version of this article was published at the Pacific Legal Foundation.

View original post here:
The ACLU Is No Longer Free Speech's Champion, but Other Groups Are Filling the Gap - Foundation for Economic Education

Fox News Conservative commentator met Hungarys authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbn, two years after a firm where his father is a director received thousands from the Hungarian Government to help with media and PR,

Tucker Carlson, the right-wing, Trump-supporting, Conservative commentator for Fox News, is broadcasting his show from Hungary all this week, in advance of attending a far-right conference in Budapest.

Carlson met Prime Minister Viktor Orbn during his trip, two years after the Hungarian Government paid $265,000 to Policy Impact Strategic Communications Inc (sometimes known as Policy Impact Communications or Policy Impact) to provide outreach to the U.S. Government and media on behalf of the Embassy of Hungary in support of its ongoing objectives to improve US-Hungarian relations, by coordinating, facilitating, and managing Government affairs, activities and media management.

The deal included co-ordinating an interview with Peter Szijjrt, Hungarys Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, on the Tucker Carlson show.

Carlsons father, former US Ambassador to the Seychelles Richard Carlson, is a Director of the Washington D.C-based lobbying firm. Senior advisor William Cowen also has links to Fox News.

Alongside meeting the Prime Minister, Carlson is in Budapest to attend MCC Feszt, a three-day series of talks and entertainment that celebrates Hungarian talent. Other speakers include Hungarian politicians and US conservative thinkers, as well as a representative from the anti-abortion, anti-LGBTIQ Ordo Iuris organisation in Poland.

This is not the first time Carlson has shown his support toOrbn and his Fidesz Party.

In 2019 the same year the deal was struck between his fathers business and the Hungarian Embassy Carlson delivered a monologue on his Fox News show praising Orbans family protection programme.

The programme seeks to incentivise women to have more ethnic Hungarian children, awarding women a loan on marriage that is written off should she have three children or more with her husband.

In his monologue, Carlson explained that Hungary had lost half a million of its population due to low birth rates and that the neoliberals who run the European Union believed the country could fix that problem by importing a replacement population from the third world.

This is the George Soros solution, Carlson added, referencing the left-wing Jewish billionaire who has been subject to aggressive and anti-Semitic campaigning fromOrbns Government.

The phrase replacement population references a far-right conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement. The theory posits that rising migration from the Global South is replacing the white, Christian population in the West, be that Europe or the US. This replacement is aided by feminists who, the theory claims, are repressing the birth rate via safe, legal abortion, and pro-migration policies from EU members. It is orchestrated by Jewish elites such as Soros.

Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.

Were not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.

In referencing the Great Replacement, Carlson was echoingOrbns own explanations of the family protection programme.

A year earlier,Orbn had given a speech where he accused the European Union of wanting to replace the population with others, saying Hungarian people think differently. We do not need numbers. We need Hungarian children.

In 2019, three months after Carlsons video,Orbn spoke at a demographics summit in Budapest where he explained that if in the future Europe is to be populated by people other than Europeans then we will effectively be consenting to population replacement: to a process in which the European population is replaced.

Carlson was joined in praising the family protection programme by influential UK Conservative commentator Tim Montgomerie, who in 2019 tweeted thatOrbns policy was worthy of close study. In the US, assistant to President Trump and director of the Domestic Policy Council Joe Grogan called the policy inspired.

Other European far-right parties and leaders have also leaned on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory to win support.

In Italy, the leader of Italys far-right Lega Party, Matteo Salvini, has claimed that the country faces a demographic winter and a crisis of empty cribs. An anti-immigration poster produced by Germanys far-right Alternative fr Deutschland Party stated New Germans? We make our own.

Carlson has previously said freedom of speech is a hill Ill happily die on and has complained against online fascists who will try to get you fired and make your life miserable for publicly airing certain views.

The fascists he is referring to are liberals and the wider left.

Theres a contradiction then, in Carlsons support for Hungarys increasingly authoritarian Government that has spent recent years clamping down on free speech in the country including freedom of the press.

The Hungarian media is now overwhelmingly in the hands of the Government or those who have close ties to Fidesz. Independent newspapers and outlets have been shut down, while others, such as Klubradio, have lost their license to operate. Any media that is critical of the Government faces increasing pressure.

Further, a recent law banning LGBTIQ content in media for children has also been condemned by human rights and free speech campaigners. The law has led to books being banned, with a Government minister even ripping up a book live on TV.

With particular resonance to Carlsons defence of freedom of speech, prominent Hungarian sports stars and commentators who have expressed solidarity with the LGBTIQ community have lost their jobs.

All of this raises the question as to who Carlson and his right-wing followers believe freedom of speech is for. It may be the hill he claims he is willing to die on. But as his visit to Budapest shows, its not a hill he will die on for those bravely opposing the Government, or for the LGBTIQ community.

Byline Times is funded by its subscribers. Receive our monthly print edition and help to support fearless, independent journalism.

New to Byline Times? Find out more about us

A new type of newspaper independent, fearless, outside the system. Fund a better media.

Dont miss a story

Our leading investigations include Brexit, Empire & the culture war, Russian interference, Coronavirus, cronyism and far right radicalisation. We also introduce new voices of colour in Our Lives Matter.

Read more here:
Tucker Carlson's Visit to Hungary: Lobbying, Free Speech and Far-Right Conspiracy Byline Times - Byline Times

Ten years after the Arab Spring uprisings and the dissolution of its dictatorship, Tunisias relatively young democracy is facing a reckoning. Popular dissatisfaction and protests against the political elite resulted in the election of President Kais Saied in 2019 and most recently culminated in his emergency suspension of parliament and dismissal of Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and other top ministers. Around the world, many influential countries are treading lightly on the subject of President Saieds power grab, which his opponents in parliament are calling a coup.

Saied was elected in 2019 and was perceived to be a populist and political outsider who would take Tunisia in a different direction than the incumbent political elite. His biggest antagonist has been the Ennahda Party, the leading party in parliament that has faced criticism from the public for its Islamist leanings and its failure to correct economic conditions in the past. Saieds July 25th announcement was preceded by large rallies and riots that expressed anti-Islamist sentiments and anger towards Ennahda. Saied then invoked Article 80 of the Tunisian constitution to use emergency powers as president, freezing parliament for 30 days, firing top ministers, and removing legislators parliamentary immunity, which would enable their arrest. Many Tunisians celebrated, hoping for a more effective state to improve their living conditions, even if it put democracy at risk.

In many ways, little has improved in the lives of Tunisians since the 2011 revolution that unseated the dictator president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, and established free elections. That is, aside from improved protections for freedom of speech, which has allowed citizens to make their grievances against the government known. The economy has been stagnant, unemployment rates have remained high, and reports of corruption have continued. In a country dependent on its tourism industry, the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened existing economic challenges, causing unemployment and inflation to soar.

The democratically elected government has not succeeded in easing this crisis, as the worst surge of the coronavirus thus far hits Tunisia, the economy continues to decline due to mismanagement and political gridlock. The people of Tunisia are growing weary of a democratic system that hasnt fulfilled its promises of security, opportunity, and public services. Voter participation has decreased, while strikes and protests frequently erupt against the government.

One disadvantageous and often inevitable feature of democracy is gridlock between representatives of divergent political views. A system that requires cooperation and agreement even between polarized political parties is bound to be slow-moving and at risk of complete deadlock, a problematic outcome when immediate and decisive action is needed in times of crisis. President Saieds actions to override parliament do not necessarily signal the collapse of Tunisias democracy yet, and could be seen as constitutionally permitted measures to respond to a crisis when the usual form of government has become dysfunctional. International actors should note that even the United States respected democratic system includes executive emergency powers that supersede legislative powers, especially where U.S. military engagements and foreign affairs are concerned.

If Saied demonstrates a commitment to Tunisias democracy and produces a concrete plan to return to it after making his attempt at solving the countrys issues, a regression to Tunisias prior authoritarian system would appear less likely. However, the president hasnt taken these reassuring steps as of yet.

In a statement, President Saied reported that he would issue a decree regulating these exceptional measures that the circumstances have dictated, that will be lifted when those circumstances change. So far, there has been no such decree. The U.S., Europe, and international donors, which all provide assistance that is desperately needed in Tunisia, especially now with the consequences of the pandemic, have the leverage to ensure Tunisia maintains its democracy and institutes economic and political reforms.

Lauded as the single most successful democracy to arise in the Arab world after the Arab Spring movement, Tunisia has been a location of focus for the Western world. Europe and the United States have contributed significant amounts of aid and financial assistance to maintain Tunisias achievement and have shown concern over Saieds potential disruption to democratic systems. If Tunisia destabilizes, Europe will experience a wave of migration from its neighbour, which has historically served as a partner in controlling immigration into Europe from the rest of Africa, and now increasingly produces its own migrants seeking stability in Europe. For the United States, a relationship with democratic Tunisia is a key strategy for combating extremism in Africa and the Middle East.

U.S. President Bidens administration has publicized its commitment to protecting and promoting democracy across the world, yet the U.S. has not taken a tougher line on this issue. In a recent Washington Post opinion article, Biden stated that as the U.S. emerges from the coronavirus pandemic, we will be stronger and more capable when we are flanked by nations that share our values and our vision for the future by other democracies. As of now, the U.S. response to Tunisias political crisis has been mild, as the White House urges all sides to maintain calm and look for solutions that respect democracy and freedom of speech. Many international analysts and figures in Tunisia have questioned why the U.S. is not taking a stronger stance when the Biden administration has been clear about its goal of promoting democracy so recently. Tunisias fragile democracy is an important indicator of how democracy could potentially function in the rest of the Arab world, thus becoming more involved in its current political situation would clearly be in alignment with the United States goals.

Important international actors can uphold their commitments to democracy by strongly asserting their expectations of Saied: that he will immediately, publicly, specify his plans during the period of his emergency measures and delineate the duration of the period. They should also incentivize and support economic and pandemic recovery efforts to be navigated via national dialogue rather than through power consolidated in one mans hands.

A strong autocratic ruler vested with powers unimpeded by the checks and balances of democracy has become an appealing idea to some Tunisians who want to see immediate changes in their economic realities. It is hard to blame them for supporting Saieds power grab when the existing government has proven to be a dysfunctional democracy, but in the longer term, national dialogue and efforts towards cooperation will aid progress while maintaining a governmental system that prioritizes safeguarding citizens rights.

Saied has contributed to the gridlock that has prevented progress, for instance, by blocking nominations to form a constitutional court as planned in 2014, which could adjudicate on disputes over the constitution, such as the debate over the constitutionality of his recent actions. This is only one instance where cooperation would have helped Tunisian democracy function properly, allowing for checks on presidential power and resolutions of disputes between parties. Working to untangle the conflicts that lead to gridlock is a better option for those frustrated with inaction, as an alternative to taking control away from democratically elected representatives.

The international community also can not overlook freedom of speech protections in Tunisia. Free speech has been a key area of progress in Tunisia since democracy was established, and it has allowed Tunisians to advocate for their rights and wellbeing in response to government mismanagement. If people can continue to speak and protest safely, they are empowered to deter their government from the path to authoritarianism. Close monitoring of any freedom of speech violations will be necessary to ensure Tunisians continue to have a hand in the governance of their country.

More here:
With Tunisia's Democracy At Risk, The International Community Must Take Action - The Organization for World Peace

Country

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

Read this article:
Letter: Everyone loves our freedom of speech, but there is confusion - The Union Leader

BISHKEK -- Kyrgyz lawmakers have approved a controversial bill that they say is aimed at stopping the spread of fake news online, but which civil rights defenders and opposition activists fear is an attempt to stifle free speech.

A total of 97 lawmakers voted for the bill on July 28, while five voted against it.

Civil rights organizations and media groups in the Central Asian nation have criticized the legislation saying it contradicts the constitution, Kyrgyzstans international commitments, and violates human rights and freedom of speech.

The bill envisages the creation of a government watchdog that would "react to complaints" regarding the content of online posts within 48 hours. The sites where the content was posted are obliged to follow any instructions received from the watchdog within 24 hours.

Under the bill, Internet providers must register their clients in a unified identification system and provide officials with full information related to users if a court or a state organ requests such data.

The bill also stipulates that owners of websites and social network accounts must have their personal data and electronic email addresses open and accessible to everyone, while anonymous Internet users will be located and cut off.

The legislation, initially called the "draft law on the manipulation of information," was proposed by lawmakers Gulshat Asylbaeva and Ainura Osmonova a year ago.

It sparked mass rallies in Bishkek in June 2020, prompting then-President Sooronbai Jeenbekov to reject it. He returned the bill back to lawmakers for additional discussion.

Disputed parliamentary elections sparked more mass rallies last October, leading to the resignations of the government and Jeenbekov.

Sadyr Japarov easily won a presidential election in January and has initiated many legal changes that he says are needed to create a strong central branch of government to "establish order."

Continued here:
Kyrgyz Lawmakers Approve Controversial Bill That Opponents Say Will Stifle Free Speech - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Juxtaposing Indias legal current legal position, or lack thereof, with respect to freedom of speech in schools with that of the U.S.,AROHA KADYANargues that there is no adequate safeguard for this right for school students in India.

ONJune 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its verdict inthe case ofMahanoy Area School District v. B. L.The case involved a student, B.L., who expressed her resentment with her high school and its cheerleading squad on the social media app Snapchat with an abusive caption, on a weekend and outside school premises. The post was reported to school officials, who then expelled her from the junior cheerleading squad for a year.

The central question, in this case, pertained to whether public school authorities are prohibited from regulating the off-campus speech of a student under the U.S. ConstitutionsFirst Amendment. It was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision of the school authorities to suspend B.L. from the junior team on the pretext of posting content with inappropriate gestures and words was a violation of the First Amendment.

The Court opined that students, upon entering the school campus, do not relinquish their constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. It is unreasonable to assume, the court stated, that parents authorise the school to impede such an essential right by sending their children to public schools.

As per the court, the freedom of speech and expression owed to students off-campus would fail if it cant even function in the face of such minor complaints. Therefore, going by the First Amendment precedents, an off-campus speech of the schools student can be regulated by the school officials, but in a limited manner. It does not completely restrain the supervision of the students speech off-campus, and only limits it to certain situations.

In effect, this was a continuation of theTinkerjurisprudence, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court hadheldin 1969 that state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism and that restrictions on speech should not be censored unless it substantially or materially interferes with the requirements of maintaining adequate discipline in the operation of the school.

The effect of this ruling has ensured that when a students exercise of their speech hampers the operation of a school or conflicts with the rights of other students or individuals in school, it may be justified on the part of school officials to restrict that students speech. This line of reasoning ensures that public schools are authorised to regulate, for example, displaying objectionable or racist symbols or sexual innuendo, but such regulations cease to exist outside the school premises, wherein free speech is safeguarded by the First Amendment.

Also read:Why is it Important to Preserve and Protect our Freedom of Speech, Expression and Right to Protest

India has witnessed myriad cases wherein students freedom of speech suffers suppression and threats from school authorities in order to silence students. This completely ignores that it is vital for students to express their opinions and experiences, especially when they are in public interest or about an important public issue or debate.

It is worth noting that the situation of India with respect to freedom of speech and expression in schools is completely contrary to American case laws. In 2013, it wasreportedthat a student was suspended from school for his brothers criticism of the schools practices on Facebook. The suspended student was allegedly called on the stage in a school assembly where he was admonished, and his face was grabbed by the schools director.

The incident presents many interesting questions, but the most interesting one of them from a legal perspective is the question of balancing the schools power to suspend a student against the freedom of expression of the student and his family.

From this narrow perspective, the case can be contextualised as one person expressing their dissatisfaction with the opinion of another and being punished for expressing that dissatisfaction. The suspension may have little to do with the speech; rather, it serves to set a deterring example for other students and their family members.

From a constitutional perspective, it can be said that such restrictions have an adverse bearing on free speech, ormore precisely, have a chilling effect on free speech.Hadthis occurred in the U.S., it would be quite difficult to see how such a Facebook post would pass the substantial disruption test.

The snowballing effect it has had over time has potentially festered a culture of silence and suffering in schools. The#metoomovementthat was recentlyusheredin Chennai by an alumnus of the school is an indicator of this culture. The alumni in question shared various stories on the social media platform Instagram which exposed the lewd and inappropriate conduct of one of her former teachers. It spurred an entire movement of students publicly sharing and slamming sexually inappropriate behaviour by teachers at school, and had a rather domino-like, cascading effect all around Chennai schools that led to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection of Child Rights summoning the management of six private schools to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

If students were not afraid to call out, question, and criticise their schools and teachers, such widespread sexual abuse in one of Indias biggest cities wouldnt have stayed a secret for so long.

Also read:CCTV in classrooms: Establishing a violence-free school culture

For a judiciary and a Constitution which draw a lot of inspiration from the American First Amendment jurisprudence, there is reticence in the development of the sphere of protection afforded to speech that school children have in India.Bijoe Emmanuelscase(which drew its inspiration from the U.S. Supreme CourtsGobitisjudgment) is one of the rare instances where the Indian Supreme Court has demystified the scope of freedom of expression in school, but even this standard would not find much use in an era of online education and communication.

In both the Indian cases, there is no evidence to depict any general efforts of the school to deter the usage of objectionable language. The schools inclination towards imparting good mannerisms can be a part of the justification to restrict the students freedom to speech and expression, but there must be effort put in to strike a balance between maintaining disciple, and promoting and protecting students rights to expression.

(Aroha Kadyan is an undergraduate law student at the Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal.)

The articlewas originallypublished in The Leaflet.

See the rest here:
Freedom of Expression in Schools: Legal Perspectives in India and the United States - NewsClick

What do Donald Trump winning the presidency in 2016, the Capitol Protests on January 6, and Joe Biden missing his July 4th Covid-19 vaccination target all have in common? According to many of todays left-wing politicians and media pundits, Facebook, and social media in general, are partially to blame for all three. Google Democrats blame Facebook, and youll see what I mean.

On the other end of the spectrum, Republicans blame social media for censoring their ideas due to a perceived anti-conservative bias. Unfortunately, banning former President Trump from all social media didnt help alleviate those concerns. Many Americans no doubt long for simpler days where people logged onto Facebook to find old friends and play FarmVille and Mafia Wars, but I digress.

Both left and right agree on one thing, however. Social media is a significant battleground in shaping Americas political landscape. Seventy-two percent of US citizens of voting age actively use some form of social media, while 69 percent of Americans in the same group use Facebook alone, according to data from Socialbakers. Overall, 82 percent of the population in the United States had a social networking profile, which translates into 223 million US social media users as of 2020.

There is no question that social media companies and their platforms wield incredible power and influence, especially in journalism and the media. Back at the beginning of the pandemic, The New York Post ran an op-ed suggesting that the coronavirus might have leaked from a lab. Facebook stepped in and claimed that this opinion was false information.

Social media is incredibly effective in amplifying individual voices and helping to coordinate collective action. This is why totalitarian governments such as China severely restrict social media and the internet.

Over a year later, Facebook decided that the lab leak hypothesis isnt conspiratorial and will allow stories and opinions on that subject to be shared.

The New York Post also published a story about Hunter Bidens emails before the last election. In response, Twitter and Facebook both limited the storys reach and ultimately locked the NY Post Twitter account for about two weeks before reversing its decision. The New York Post is not some no-name conspiratorial blog. The paper was started in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and has more than 2.2 million Twitter followers and more than 4.4 million Facebook followers.

Later in front of the Senate Judiciary Committees hearing regarding censorship and suppression on social media during the 2020 election, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the censoring of the Hunter Biden story was a mistake.

In both instances, social media companies took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of truth, and in both cases, their decisions proved to be wrong.

Social media is also incredibly effective in amplifying individual voices and helping to coordinate collective action. This is why totalitarian governments such as China severely restrict social media and the internet. Its also why Cuba completely shut off the internet in response to anti-government protests.

But that could never happen here in the United States, right?

Unfortunately, its not beyond the realm of possibility that an American tech company could consider censorship as a good business model, whether for profit or self-preservation. One prime example of this comes from Google and the development of their heavily censored Chinese search engine dubbed Project Dragonfly. After The Intercept broke the story, Google eventually canceled it due to extensive pressure from employees and even Congress.

There are calls for Big Tech and Big Government to work even more closely.

The NSA wants Big Tech to build back doors into the encryption technology used by various tech firms. Others are openly praising Chinas censorship of the internet, stating that the Wests model of free speech is obsolete compared to Chinas.

When governments and private businesses begin to act in concert and move in lockstep, we risk bringing George Orwells 1984 into reality. Theres a name for this, a term weve heard screamed from the rooftops throughout Donald Trumps tenure in politics.

While private companies should be free to enforce their terms of service, it would appear that they are being coerced and pressured to bend to the governments will.

Fascism.

But dont take my word for it, lets hear from Benito Mussolini himself, who stated the following in his Labour Charter of 1927:

The intervention of the state in economic production takes place only when private initiative is lacking or is insufficient or when political interests of the state are involved. Such intervention may assume the form of control, assistance, or direct management. (emphasis added.)

Many people in government today, on both sides of the political aisle, feel that the states political interests are most definitely at stake when talking about social media. President Trump recently sued Big Tech, claiming that his removal from social media platforms amounted to state action.

Meanwhile the White House made the startling admission that they are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformationBiden claims Facebook is outright killing people,and have identified about 12 people that are producing 65% of anti-vaccine information on Facebook.

Let me reiterate that point. The government has identified 12 individuals who they deem problematic and have reported them to a private company for speech they have classified as misinformation.

This comes on the heels of Facebook testing new Anti-Extremism warning prompts, informing users that they may have been exposed to extremist content while also asking users if they are worried about a friend who may be becoming an extremist. Its not a coincidence that these pop-up warnings come after Bidens attorney general testified that White supremacists are the most serious domestic terror threat facing the United States.

As individuals, we have to decouple ourselves from the centralized nature of social media and begin to move back to a decentralized model.

Beyond that, the Biden Administration is considering partnering with private firms to monitor extremist chatter online. The definition of extremism, and who gets to define it, is a question that should concern everyone.

While private companies should be free to enforce their terms of service, it would appear that they are being coerced and pressured to bend to the governments will. There is still a wall, however fragile, between Big Tech and US Intelligence agencies. Free speech as we know it depends on that wall holding.

So what are some answers? First, let me identify what I do not see as solutions.

On the social media front, the answer to this problem should not come from government legislation or regulation but rather from creating both a free market and free speech environment that fosters competition and lowers barriers to entry; however, that wont be enough.

As individuals, we have to decouple ourselves from the centralized nature of social media and begin to move back to a decentralized model, similar to what the internet looked like at its inception.

The internet of the past was primarily individual websites, or blogs, unshackled from the constraints of social media. We are so used to logging into Facebook as a one-stop-shop for our content or searching for an app in Apple or Googles App stores that we forget we still have a web browser on our phone.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

Companies like Substack are also popping up for independent writers and journalists to publish their content and get paid for it (outside of the censoring eye of social networks). And then, there are protocols like LBRY, a blockchain-based file-sharing and payment network that powers decentralized platforms, primarily social networks and video platforms. LBRY's creators also run Odysee, a video-sharing website that uses the network.

While the content on Odysee is moderated to remove videos that promote violence and terrorism, it is a model for what a decentralized internet could look like.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. As we have learned, private companies are under no such obligation. However, they can (and should) play an essential role in creating a culture that reinvigorates the spirit behind the First Amendment.

James Madisons original First Amendment draft, which overall was much more descriptive than the one that ended up in the Bill of Rights, gives a little more insight into what he was thinking on this subject. It reads in part:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

Doesnt that sound like a modern-day Facebook post?

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

Its also worth noting that in both the original and final versions of the First Amendment, there's no qualifier excluding misinformation. The founders understood that unpopular opinion and information was the most important kind of speech in need of protection. So much so that many wrote under pseudonyms for their safety.

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

In the final analysis, American social media companies base their entire business model around monetizing individual self-expression. They can and should serve as champions of free speech, especially when confronted with government pressure.

Read the original post:
Why the Threat to Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger | Adam Johnston - Foundation for Economic Education