Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Earlier this week, Englands Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill received its second reading in Parliament. But while the focus of the debate has been on students alleged habit of no-platforming speakers they disagree with, my concern as an academic is that the platform itself is rotten.

Recently, I made a series of whistleblowing disclosures about some colleagues who were carrying out experiments with animals. The colleagues retaliated by submitting a complaint about me, and the organisations response was to reject my disclosures and open a disciplinary case against me.

The case against me was rejected by an independent investigator, but the report was altered after submission, with a clear intent to dismiss me. Those alterations were ultimately cancelled when I got wind of them, but my professional role was then unilaterally changed to a different field without my knowledge.

So I submitted an employment tribunal claim for detriment on account of whistleblowing. But the organisation not only rejected my claim but also and this is where freedom of speech comes in applied for a restricted reporting order on the tribunal proceedings.

The only variety of gagging order that is more restrictive than the one I am under is the one forbidding the divulgement of its own existence. Neither I nor anyone else can say anything about the tribunal proceedings. That is why I have to write this piece anonymously.

The restricted reporting order was granted in part because of alleged risk of harm to individuals from animal rights activists. Yet the nature of the case is such that such a contention would have been ridiculous even 10 years ago, when animal rights terrorism was still fresh in the memory.

Candidly, the tribunal also believes that I am unlikely to prove that the detrimental acts resulted from whistleblowing. But why should I not even be allowed to air the acts in public? The detriments I have suffered are, after all, very serious. They include breaches of union-agreed internal procedures, Acas rules, contractual agreements and other legal obligations. I wasnt even allowed to see the allegations that initiated the disciplinary hearing against me, never mind dispute the facts. And I only found out that my job role was changed when I saw my position re-advertised on a job site immediately after the gag order was put in place.

By that time, the pandemic had hit and I was on furlough. I was not consulted about that decision, either and nor was I told that because I was not on a public grant, I wouldnt get an extension of my funding to take account of the Covid-related disruption.

Regardless of the cause, these were substantial, career-destroying breaches of natural justice. There are many more instances I could list, too, but, taken alongside other information, they might allow you and other taxpayers to discover who squandered their money in ways I am not allowed to describe.

Restricted reporting orders are, of course, a matter for tribunal law. However, I believe that it is appropriate for the government to legislate to promote for a culture of transparency. Such a culture would make organisations much less willing to behave badly and to fight so hard to cover their tracks in the aftermath of doing so. Without transparency, institutional autonomy is always likely to be abused by those with power and inside knowledge especially when there are no shareholders or ministers to answer to (not directly, at least).

While the ability to express an opinion of ones organisation is implicit in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, the government should take the opportunity to make this explicit. The law should specifically state that the definition of academic freedom in English law includes the freedom of staff and students to express their opinions in relation to the higher education provider an amendment the Australian government has also recently proposed. There is a sound reason to protect privacy and well-being of researchers, as unexpected adverse effects do happen in animal experiments. But allowing reputation-obsessed institutions discretion to decide who among their staff can say what about them does not seem likely to cultivate a system that encourages ownership of mistakes. Secrecy and cover-up breed more abuses; if I had spoken out after the disciplinary fiasco, for instance, the later contract and furlough fiascos wouldnt have happened. But I did not realise then how compromised the system is.

Like many others, I am concerned that legislation may not be the best approach to addressing free speech on campus. However, if we must have the bill, the amendment I suggest would do much to improve the situation.

If this opportunity is ignored, I would ask who the bill is supposed to be for. As an academic, I am less concerned about free speech for visiting provocateurs than freedom for staff from bullying, corruption and bad faith.

The author is obliged to remain anonymous.

Read the original post:
Academic freedom must include the right to criticise employers - Times Higher Education (THE)

On July 7 a draft media bill was proposed in Poland by lawmakers from the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) that would ban non-European companies from holding more than 49% stock in Polish media. Many critics have claimed that this most recent restrictive media bill is directly targeting the critical, left-leaning, U.S.-owned broadcaster TVN24. The bill is being proposed amid the increasingly systematic effort by the PiS to concentrate media in the hands of state-controlled private corporations and to restrict the free speech of independent left-leaning outlets that are critical of the governments actions. With a recent rise in efforts to repolonize and deconcentrate the Polish media, the state of human rights and democracy in Poland are increasingly being brought under fire by both local and foreign dissenters.

As the ruling party of Poland, PiS has been steadily making alarming changes to the Polish media and judiciary landscape since it gained power in 2015. After restructuring the judiciary to muzzle oppositional judges in 2017, according to Deutsche Welle, Law and Justice (PiS) leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski announced that his next goal would be to deconcentrate and repolonize media ownership, a strategy that aims to fragment foreign media ownership and concentrate the media services in the hands of the oppressively conservative Polish government. In order to do so, PiS has bought up regional media outlets through the use of private companies staffed with state officials, has launched coordinated antimonopoly investigations to block unfavoured mergers and licensing changes, and has placed pressure on dissenting broadcasters by imposing advertising taxes and other forms of weaponized economic reform.

This proposed bill is considered to be a part of the most recent series of economic restrictions on left-leaning or critical media outlets, and many local and foreign bodies are concerned of the extent to which media freedoms might be rolled back as a result of this decision. U.S. Ambassador to Poland Georgette Mosbacher said of this proposal that, Forced fragmentation of the media will limit freedom of speech because only State-owned and small outlets will survive Forcing media companies to sell shares will force investors to look elsewhere. Thats not a good investment climate its censorship.

Speaking in opposition to dissenters, according to the International Press Institute, This drive for so-called repolonisation of media has been framed by the government as an issue of national sovereignty The bill is aimed at clarifying regulations and enabling [The National Broadcasting Council] to effectively counteract foreign companies controlling radio and television broadcasters. One of the MPs who pushed for the bill, MP Marek Suski, justified the proposal, saying that, if this law is successfully passed and some of these shares can be bought by Polish businessmen, we will have some influence on what is happening on [TVN24].

However, it is exactly government influence in these outlets that is the problem. According to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Restrictive measures and attempts to discredit and prevent scrutiny imposed by several State actors and other public figures against independent media contributes to further erode trust in the media It poses a serious threat to democracy and to our common security. Trust in the media has to be maintained as, according to LawAspect, Press freedom plays a crucial role in the protection of basic human rights Through press freedom, the individuals in the society will be in a position of protecting their own rights and also the rights of those close to them. This will in turn improve the maintenance of human rights in general for the whole society. As tensions between the Polish government and left-leaning activist groups, like those fighting for LGBT Rights or the right to abortion, continue to rise, media freedom becomes more and more important. Activist media is already being censored: activists have been attacked for disseminating information about human rights issues, according to Amnesty International, and the recent move to restrict national media is further contributing to the censorship of information about civil rights movements in Poland.

The proposal of the bill restricting foreign ownership of media in Poland cannot be seen as just an issue of national sovereignty, and repolonization and deconcentration cannot be seen as anything more than an attempt at censorship. The EU has been building up strategies to bring Poland and its ideological neighbours, Hungary and Slovenia, in check, according to the Center for European Policy Analysis. Media freedom is an essential foundation of democracy and the protection of human rights, so whether it be through tying law and order rules to economic and military support or promoting and furthering the efforts of activist movements, focus needs to be turned to Poland and its quickly-changing media and human rights landscape before it continues to erode democracy at the state level.

See the article here:
Proposed Polish Bill Further Restricts Media Freedoms in a Climate of Civil Rights Activism - The Organization for World Peace

From the nationwide spate of legislation targeting critical race theory to the recent controversy at Cal State East Bay, where crude and unscholarly claims about the intelligence of racial groups were included in an economics curriculum, concerns about what professors may write, teach in class or say in public are on the rise. In response, educators often claim, with justification, that their work and thoughts must be protected by academic freedom.

For some, the term has degenerated into calls for academic license, the alleged right of individual faculty members to teach whatever and however they wish or to say whatever comes to mind, regardless of scholarly validity. For others, academic freedom comes across as a claim of privilege by a professorial elite, who wish to be insulated from public accountability.

The ease with which some professors, administrators, trustees and even politicians piously invoke these words even as they misrepresent their meaning demands a more coherent definition.

Like freedom of speech, academic freedom is not readily defined by ironclad rules. Instead, it emerges from the application of guiding principles, developed and modified over time.

Ever since the American Association of University Professors first elaborated the principle in 1915 and then, with the Association of American Colleges (now the Association of American Colleges and Universities), in 1940 codified it, academic freedom has been understood to comprise three interconnected freedoms: freedom to conduct research and to publish the results, freedom to decide how and what to teach, and freedom from institutional discipline for public statements made by faculty members as citizens, including on topics removed from their academic expertise.

Academic freedom grants considerable scope to the consciences of individual teachers and researchers, but it functions ultimately as the collective freedom of the scholarly community to govern itself in service of the common good in a democratic society. In the classroom, this means, first of all, that instructors must avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.

Their role is to educate, not indoctrinate. But what defines that distinction?

In a 2007 report, the American Association of University Professors argued that indoctrination occurs when instructors assert propositions in ways that prevent students from expressing disagreement. Vigorously to assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in argumentation and discussion an engagement that lies at the core of academic freedom.

Some instructors may prefer to present subjects as dispassionately and evenhandedly as possible. Others may choose to expound preferred, even contentious, theories. Freedom in the classroom applies to controversial opinions and detached agnosticism, as long as they are not presented as unchallengeable dogma.

Academic freedom does not permit instructors to punish or personally disparage a student in class or elsewhere for that students background or views. Moreover, instructors have a professional obligation to consider carefully where different students may draw the line between intellectual provocation and personal insult.

Still, students have no right not to have their beliefs challenged or to always be given trigger warnings for material that some might find objectionable. As the 2007 university professors association report put it, Ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended.

Academic freedom should not be confused with free speech. Controversial, offensive or disproven ideas acceptable on social media or even in an op-ed may not be valid in a scholarly environment. However, when they express themselves as citizens, college and university faculty members should have the same free speech rights as anyone else, including where, as happened last year at an Iowa community college, outsiders threaten campus safety if the professor is not dismissed for views expressed on social media. Academic freedom ensures that, even in a private institution, instructors will be free of censorship or institutional discipline for their public remarks, however offensive some may find these.

In short, when objections are raised, neither the popularity of a professors personal opinions nor that professors conformity to external political criteria should matter. Academic freedom allows only proven fitness to teach and conduct research, as judged by qualified academic peers, to be considered. It guarantees to both faculty members and students the right to engage in intellectual inquiry and debate without fear of retaliation.

Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at Cal State East Bay, served from 2012 to 2021 as chair of the American Association of University Professors Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. He is the author of The Future of Academic Freedom and the forthcoming Understanding Academic Freedom, both published by Johns Hopkins University Press.

Originally posted here:
Professors enjoy academic freedom, but it doesnt allow them to teach or say whatever they want in class - San Francisco Chronicle

CANDACE Owens has thrown her support behind the "Freedom Phone", a new smartphone designed to fight back against Big Tech by promoting free speech.

The conservative firebrand endorsed the phone in a tweet on Wednesday night, writing: "[I'm] So excited that I partnered with a SOLUTION against Apple and Google."

5

5

Owens also tweeted a clip from an Instagram live she'd done, talking her followers through the phone and how she came to endorse it.

She said she was furious that conservative social media app Parler was banned from the app store in the wake of the January 6 riots, in addition to former President Trump being banished from most social platforms.

The political commentator added that while many among the right bemoan big tech, insisting something needs to be done, "nobody actually does anything."

Billing her and her husband, Parler's new CEO George Farmer, as "Do people; not complain people", she said they both reached out to various people, insisting a smartphone needs to be made that's not controlled by either Google or Apple.

"A bunch of people contacted us saying they're making a phone," Owens said, adding they were sent a number of different concept handsets.

"Some were terrible. Some were worse than terrible," she said before Owens was finally sent the Freedom Phone.

"I'm so excited," she added. "You need to get this phone.

"I've been on social media for four years ... I've never done a sponsored post."

Owens continued: "If it doesn't help save the nation, I don't pitch it."

In her post, she included a personal discount code for prospective buyers to use in order to get 10 percent of the new handset.

The Freedom Phone has been billed as an "uncensorable" device that protects a user's privacy and political voice from Big Tech.

It was created by the self-proclaimed Bitcoin millionaire Erik Finman.

The 22-year-old founder told the John Solomon Reports podcast that with the Freedom Phone he was "basically creating something that is 'unbannable,' that is 'uncensorable,' that isn't reliant on, you know, the Apple or Google app stores or left-wing infrastructure."

The phone has its own app store, displaying all the regular apps your find on an iPhone or an Android device, in addition to the ones, such as Parler, that have previously been banned.

"We feature apps that promote free speech and promote patriotism. And you know, we put a huge focus on privacy features, as well," Finman said.

The Freedom Phone runs on Android but has been completely gutted of Google. Finman claims the device also has extra security features in place to protect user's data from Big Tech.

"[W]e built it on top of Android, so that way you can have all the apps you have, but we Hillary-Clinton-acid-washed all the Google stuff out and really went top to bottom," he said.

"It was a dirty job, but we got rid of all that junk out... because we wanted you to be able to stillrun ontraditional apps, like if you have a banking app, or if you have an ADT security or whatever, and all that, plus have the banned ones, as well."

In a video posted to Twitter announcing the phone, Finman said his decision to enter the cellphone market was to fight back against Big Tech censorship.

"I've made it to Silicon Valley and I have already achieved a lot in my life, but now I'm leaving Big Tech to fight for free speech because the big tech overlords are violating your privacy, censoring your speech and I think that's so wrong," he said.

"That's why I created The Freedom Phone and its uncensorable app store.

"Everyone is complaining about Big Tech censorship, but nobody is doing anything about it."

The Freedom Phone is currently on sale on its official website for $499.99.

According to the website, the handsets will be shipped in August and users will be able to start using it by simply inserting their old SIM cards into their new phones.

The device works with Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and all the other domestic and international carriers.

Customers can use the discount code "CANDACE" for 10 percent off.

It comes less than a week after Trump announced a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google, over alleged censorship.

"I stand before you this morning to announce a very important... development for our freedom and freedom of speech," Trump said in a press conference last week.

"In conjunction with the America First Policy Institute, I'm filing, as the lead class-action representative, a major class-action lawsuit against the big tech giants, including Facebook, Google and Twitter, as well as their CEOs.

"There is no better evidence that big tech is out of control than the fact that they banned the sitting president of the United States earlier this year," Trump added. "If they can do it to me they can do it to anyone."

5

5

5

Originally posted here:
Candace Owens backs the Freedom Phone thats designed to promote free speech in fight against Big Tech... - The US Sun

In April, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in acase that could have changed the school law landscape. The issuebefore the court was whether the Mahanoy Area School District inPennsylvania had violated the First Amendment rights of a studentwhen it suspended her from the cheerleading team for vulgaritiesshe posted on Snapchat after she did not make the varsity squad.Would the court affirm the Third Circuit and provide even greaterprotection to a students' First Amendment right to speak orwould it give more power to the school to regulate a student'sspeech when not on campus?

The headlines blared last week that the court ruled in favor ofthe student, which it did. But savvy school administrators shouldknow that school authorities dodged a bullet here, and they shouldbe grateful that the court rejected the reasoning of the ThirdCircuit in this case.

B.L. had labored in the obscurity of the JV squad for herfreshman year, and she was hopeful that she would move up to thevarsity cheerleading squad with the new season. When she heard thenews that she did not make the varsity squad, she wasdisappointedso much so that she and a friend shared herdisappointment with the world by posting two pictures on Snapchat,including one with middle fingers raised with the caption,"Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything."When one of her teammates forwarded that Snapchat post to thecheerleading coach, B.L was suspended from cheerleading for thatentire season, notwithstanding an apology for her post.

Her parents sued, claiming that her posts were speech protectedby the First Amendment, and the district court agreed. The schooldistrict appealed, and the Third Circuit affirmed. But in so doing,a divided Third Circuit announced a broad new rule, to the effectthat school officials have no authority to discipline students foroff-campus speech, including the posts in question.

By contrast, other appellate courts, including the SecondCircuit, have ruled that school officials do have such authority todiscipline students for off-campus speech.InMahanoy,the United States Supreme Courtresolved the conflict, holding that school officials do haveauthority to discipline students for their off-campus speech inappropriate cases. However, the court limited that authority tocompelling situations, and it ruled that the discipline of B.L. forher vulgarity exceeded that authority and violated her FirstAmendment rights, as explained below.

For more than fifty years, we have been guided by thecourt's seminal decision,Tinker v. Des MoinesIndependent School District(U.S. 1969). For those of uswho practice in the First Amendment arena or are children of thesixties, we will recall the court held that school officials hadviolated the First Amendment rights of Mary Beth Tinker, herbrother and a friend by suspending them from school for wearingblack armbands to protest the war in Vietnam (in violation ofanad hocrule against wearing such armbandshurriedly adopted in anticipation of their protest). In so ruling,Justice Fortas famously said on behalf of the court, "It canhardly be argued that either students or teachers shed theirconstitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at theschoolhouse gate." Those rights, however, are subject tolimits, and the court went on inTinkerto layout the framework that still applies today: "conduct by thestudent, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether itstems from time, place, or type of behavior materiallydisrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion ofthe rights of others is, of course, not immunized by theconstitutional guarantee of freedom of speech."

In theMahanoy Area School District case,the district court rejected the school district's claim thatschool officials can regulate off-campus vulgarityunderBethel School District v. Fraser (U.S.1986), and it applied theTinkertest. Findingthat her vulgar post did not cause substantial interference withthe educational process, the court ruled in favor of B.L.

The Third Circuit, however, went a step further by holding thatthe authority of school officials to regulate student speechunderTinkerdoes not extend to off-campusspeech: "We hold today thatTinkerdoes notapply to off-campus speech that is, speech that is outsideschool-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is notreasonably interpreted as bearing the school'simprimatur." That decision, however, was not unanimous. JudgeAmbro dissented from the holding on the basis of judicialrestraint, explaining that the court should not announce a broadnew rule when it was not necessary, given that the vulgar postscaused no disruption at all. He was correct.

This broad new rule was deeply concerning, and we applaud theUnited States Supreme Court's rejection of it. To be sure, thecourt affirmed the significant protection students have under theFirst Amendment, and it laid out three factors militating in favorof protecting off-campus speech: (1) school officials do notnormally standin loco parentiswith the respectto off-campus speech, noting that "off-campus speech willnormally fall within the zone of parental, rather thanschool-related, responsibility;" (2) assertion of schoolauthority in such cases could result in 24/7 oversight of studentspeech that impinges on their First Amendment rights, and (3)"the school itself has an interest in protecting astudent's unpopular expression, especially when the expressiontakes place off campus," an important lesson that schoolsshould convey.

Significantly, however, and in light of the realities that mostmodern day discourse takes place through internet communications,the court also recognized that some off-campus speech is harmfuland should be regulated: "The school's regulatoryinterests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances. . .. . These include serious or severe bullying or harassmenttargeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers orother students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, thewriting of papers, the use of computers, or participation in otheronline school activities; and breaches of school security devices,including material maintained within school computers." (NoteP.A. 19-166, effective 7/1/21, raises the bar on what is"bullying" and conforms to the court's carve-out fromprotected speech by defining "bullying" as an act that isdirect or indirect and severe, persistent or pervasive, which (A)causes physical or emotional harm to an individual, (B) places anindividual in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm, or (C)infringes on the rights or opportunities of an individual atschool.") Of course, what is "severe" will likelyprovide the next cottage industry of school litigation. As JusticeAlito noted in his concurring opinion, "Bullying and severeharassment are serious (and age-old) problems, but these conceptsare not easy to define with the precision required for a regulationof speech."

But for now, the court has appropriately clarifiedtheTinkertest as it applies to off-campusspeech, outlining the few circumstances that would authorize schoolregulation of such speech. Mere "disruption" has neverbeen the standard; from its inception,theTinkerrule has limited the rights of schoolofficials to regulate student speech to situations when theyreasonably forecast that student speech will"materially[disrupt] classworkor[involve]substantialdisorder."(Emphasis added).

TheMahanoy Area School Districtcase strikesan appropriate balance between the competing concerns for studentfree speech rights on the one hand, and for a safe and healthfulschool environment for all students on the other. Importantly, thedecision serves as a reminder to school officials that they mayregulate student speech only in compelling circumstances.

Originally published by the Connecticut Law Tribune

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

View post:
SCOTUS Gets It Right In 'Mahanoy' With Measured Response To Student Speech - Government, Public Sector - United States - Mondaq News Alerts

Conservatives from the U.S. and U.K. have long reacted with alarm at the culture wars being waged on both sides of the Atlantic, but the situation is growing considerably more dire. Many now see two great nations with robust liberal traditions surrendering to a secular woke orthodoxy that threatens to demolish the pillars of free speech and freedom of religion on which the two nations stand.

But we suggest that there is something seriously wrong with this viewpoint: the idea that woke ideology is secular. On the contrary, while many commentators have noted the quasi-religious fervor of social justice warriors, complete with foundational sacred texts, go-to advocates (or rather, high priests), taboos and heresy trials, we propose that the time has come to treat woke ideology as being a belief system that places paramount ethical value on identity markersrace, sexual orientation and gender identity. It operates as a religion, not least in the legal sense.

If their belief system is successfully enshrined at the societal leveland the winds certainly appear to favor themit will mean the woke would have to compete on an equal basis with all other faiths, rather than claiming that their beliefs are incontrovertible facts which everyone must honor.

Religion is notoriously difficult to define. It need not involve belief in a deity; Buddha,for example, was not a god, just an extraordinary man, according to his followers. But the woke belief that gender identity, not biology, defines the real person, certainly has the look of a metaphysical soul.

>>>Dont Be Fooled: Gender Identity Policies Dont Follow the Science

In the United States, courts first recognized secular-progressivism as a religion in World War II conscientious objector cases. During the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court found that instead of belief in a Supreme Being, a conscientious objector to armed conflict need only demonstrate a belief that is sincere and meaningful [and] occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by [traditional religion] to satisfy the relevant statute.

Today, wokeism occupies a place in the life of its followers parallel to that of the most devout Christian, Jew or Muslim. But wokeism seeks to dominate the lives of all citizens in a manner that Christianity, Judaism or Islam never could because the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution forbids it.

Yet, zealous adherents of wokeism seek to establish their ideology as state-sponsored orthodoxy via protected categories in state and federal non-discrimination laws which include gender self-identification. We agree with former U.S. Attorney General William Barr that it is time to examine whether wokeism in public institutions is unconstitutional, because it operates as a state-sponsored religion.

This is happening on both sides of the Atlantic. The high priests of wokeism have weaponized laws to punish teachers, professors and doctors who would not utter support for the idea of human sex change, something that is biologically, and, some would say, metaphysically, impossible. Those who dare to question tenets of wokeism like a transwoman is a woman or who fail to use preferred pronouns are treated as modern-day heretics who deserve to be canceled on social media, fired from their jobs and even investigated by the police.

This is what I (Bernard) found out the hard way. When the woke came to my secondary school, I gave that fateful sermon to students telling them that while its OK to try and persuade each other, no one should be told they must accept an ideologyeither wokeism or Christianity. I told them to Love the person, even where you profoundly dislike the ideas. I suggested they may (but need not) accept traditional beliefs about marriage and the reality of sex differences. I told them that if the idea of gender identity is, as it appears, incoherent, it can only be partly true.

This led to me being fired for gross misconduct, as well as being reported to the police as a terrorism threat, and to child welfare servicesas a potential abuser.

In the U.K. there is no constitutional protection that prevents the government from establishing an official religion. This makes the danger from wokeism greater in some senses.

>>>Equality Act Would Cancel Religious Freedom

But there is cause for hope. U.K. law makes no distinction between religion and philosophical beliefs which impact behavior. The recent judgment in the case of researcher Maya Forstater found her beliefs in biological sex are protected in law. The corollary is that gender identity beliefs have equal, but not greater status than religious ones.

When opinion can become dogma from which no whisper of dissent is permitted, free societies are in danger. We can already begin to see self-censorship among the young who encounter wokeism at earlier and earlier ages. With both public and private schools adopting the tenets of woke gender ideology in curriculum and policies parents, teachers and pupils have few places to turn.

The answer is neither to bend the knee nor to seek escape. Now is the time to shore up the foundations of freedom of speech and religion while we can, before wokeism smashes them and the pluralistic societies which rest upon them into bits. We believe the law of both lands still provide the resources our pluralistic societies need.

See the original post:
Is Gender Wokeism the New Religion of the West? - Heritage.org

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has long been dead. It was struck down as unconstitutional six years ago by the Supreme Court, which found that it arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech. And yet, this draconian piece of dead law has had an astonishing afterlife in police stations across the country, leading to the persecution of several citizens for menacing or offensive online posts. According to a plea filed by an NGO in the Supreme Court, as many as 745 cases are active before district courts in 11 states, with the accused being prosecuted for offences under the invalid law.

Early this month, the Supreme Court bench hearing the plea was moved to seek a response from the Centre on what it called a shocking state of affairs. The Centre has written to state governments, asking them to pass on the memo to the police force and withdraw all cases that may have been filed under Section 66A. Introduced by the UPA government in 2008, the amendment to the IT Act gave the government power to arrest and imprison an individual for allegedly offensive and menacing online posts, and was passed without discussion in Parliament. The courts 2015 decision in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India was a landmark judicial pushback against state encroachment on freedom of speech and expression. Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total, it said.

The gap between the courts judgment and the pile of Section 66A cases is, perhaps, explained by a political climate in which free speech, dissent and legitimate criticism are seen as exercises in bad faith, and existing laws are wielded as weapons to arrest journalists and citizens for a tweet or a slogan or a Facebook post. Even a large body of progressive judgments by constitutional courts has not prevented the blatant misuse of the law of sedition or come in the way of courts reluctance to grant bail to accused. In the face of a political class that does not shrink from arrogating more powers to regulate speech, the police marches to the tune of vendetta, and even judicial wisdom is ignored. The Centres note to the states is welcome but regular monitoring is the only way to ensure that the law is implemented in letter and spirit.

See the rest here:
Ghost of Section 66A - The Indian Express

Donald Trumps lawsuit against major social media companies pits freedom of speech squarely against the First Amendment. There can be no doubt that these social media giants are denying the former president his freedom of speech, while also denying his viewers and listeners the opportunity to hear and read what he has to say. But these media companies are claiming that the First Amendment protects their right to deny free speech to those with whom they disagree. Specifically, they assert a First Amendment right to censor Trump and others.

The danger of this new censorship not by government but by private companies that effectively control the marketplace of ideas is precisely that it may well be protected by the very amendment designed to keep the marketplace of ideas open to diverse views. Hence the paradox and the uphill battle that Trump may face in persuading the courts that his non-constitutional free speech right to communicate with his millions of followers should trump the constitutional right of social media companies to censor.

In general, the courts have sided with the private companies and have defended their right to censor speech with which they disagree. For example, in 1974, the Supreme Court unanimously held as unconstitutional a Florida statute requiring newspapers to give candidates the right to respond to negative editorials about them. It ruled that the First Amendment prohibits government from requiring the media to publish anything they choose not to publish.

Under this view of the First Amendment, the government is precluded from interfering with media decisions, even if those decisions curtail the free speech of others. The decision of the Miami Herald to refuse to publish a response to its editorial effectively curtailed the free speech of the candidate and those who were denied the opportunity to read what he had to say in the pages of that newspaper. But the decision of the Supreme Court to not interfere with that editorial decision enhanced the right of the Herald to publish only what it chose to have its readers exposed to on its pages.

Some including me would argue that the Herald was wrong in how to exercise its First Amendment right by refusing to publish the response. But a constitutional right, like that which is contained in the First Amendment, necessarily includes the right to be wrong.

The Miami Herald precedent and those that followed it came long before a small number of social media behemoths assumed so much control over the marketplace of ideas. At least one justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasTrump's Big Tech lawsuit: Freedom of speech vs. the First Amendment Supreme Court ruling opens door to more campaign finance challenges Supreme Court declines to take up challenge to eminent domain MORE has indicated a willingness to consider whether these media giants should be treated as common carriers that are subject to some governmental regulations. But media companies are different than buses. The product they sell is public speech and press, which are expressly protected from government regulation by the First Amendment.

The conflict between free speech and the First Amendment arises when these private companies use the First Amendment as both a shield and a sword selectively to censor free speech. The conflict becomes most acute when a small number of private companies are powerful enough to essentially shut down the marketplace of ideas which the First Amendment was designed to keep open to certain views.

The argument for allowing some regulation of these companies is strengthened by the fact that they already are subject to regulations that benefit them, namely Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that exempts them from certain liabilities to which other media are subject. They welcome this positive governmental regulation while understandably opposing negative regulation. But being exempted from some government regulation does not, by itself, turn a private institution into a state actor. Major League Baseball has been granted a legislative exemption from antitrust laws, yet it continues to be treated as private for other purposes.

Congress can, of course, ameliorate the problem it caused when it granted tech platforms such broad, unconstitutional exemption from defamation and other liabilities. It could and should limit the exemptions only to media platforms that do not censor lawful speech that they deem offensive. But the Big Tech companies are lobbying hard against any such limitation, and it's unlikely to be enacted.

The powerful combination of monopoly (or, in this case, du- or tres-opoly) power, combined with its special exemption, have led many Americans to want to do something to change what they regard as an untenable status quo, which they see as incompatible with the spirit if not the letter of the First Amendment. Hence, this lawsuit.

The hard question is whether the proposed remedy giving the government power over private media companies is more dangerous than the disease of too much censorship power in the hands of too few unaccountable media oligarchs. The Supreme Court may have to address that important question if the Trump case reaches it, as well it may.

Alan DershowitzAlan Morton DershowitzGiuliani's suspension from the law is unconstitutional Sunday shows preview: Moderates, Biden reach deal on infrastructure; Chauvin sentenced to 22.5 years in prison We should recognize the progress we've made on discrimination MORE, professor emeritus for Harvard Law School, served on the legal team representing President TrumpDonald TrumpTrump Jr. calls on Manchin, Tester to oppose Biden's ATF nominee Photos of the Week: Trump, fireworks and Kermit the Frog On The Money: Biden fires head of Social Security Administration | IRS scandals haunt Biden push for more funding MORE for the first Senate impeachment trial. Dershowitz is the author of numerous books, including The Case Against the New Censorship, and his podcast, The Dershow, is available on Spotify and YouTube. Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

Read more here:
Trump's Big Tech lawsuit: Freedom of speech vs. the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

I was saddened to read your editorial on free speech and the right to gender-critical views. At what point do gender-critical views swerve into hate-speech? The arguments perpetuated by those espousing these views are often intensely personal, verge on anti-trans and look to deny others their sense of self. In a liberal society, we should of course treasure free speech, but be brave enough to acknowledge the negative impact it can have on marginalised groups and minorities, challenge fear and misinform, and adapt accordingly.James WandBermondsey, London

Thank you for your commitment to freedom of expression, so vital for press and other media reporting of every issue of public interest (Whatever your view on sex and gender, freedom of speech is key, Editorial). It cant have escaped your notice that your statement comes at a time when Hong Kongs independent media is under sustained attack. Preserving the space for discussion of facts, views and opposing views in line with international human rights law is something to be protected by all who wish to continue to live in a democracy.Susan Kemp Edinburgh

As someone who remembers the 1970s, I agreed with William Keegans relaxed attitude to todays wage/price inflation panic (Dont hit the brakes the recovery is barely out of first gear, Business). What no one mentions is house price inflation, which was not an issue in the 1970s but which today may run at 10% a year and is the major distorter of the economy.

I wonder if Keegan, as a Keynesian, agrees with Galbraiths acerbic attitude to the effect, or otherwise, of changes to the bank rate (which attract so much interest but are usually reactive rather than proactive). The great economist said that central bankers wore conservative tailoring, hung out with the affluent (he might have said effluent in todays world) but that their effect on inflation or recession was practically zilch.David RedshawGravesend, Kent

Nick Cohen reminds us that the majority of over-65s in England and Wales voted Conservative in 2019 (Our politics of nostalgia is a sure sign of present-day decay, Comment). But if 61% of us did, then 39% of us didnt, and that includes pretty well all my relatives and close friends of that generation.

Cohen is quite right to criticise the assault on the National Trust for telling the truth about slavery and colonialism. He is also right to deplore the pension triple lock. Its an embarrassment, and he forgot to mention the untaxed winter fuel payment, though I suspect most of us send that the way of whichever charity might most irritate the prime minister. We care, too, about Brexit-related job losses, if only for the selfish reason that we need people to be paying taxes. Finally, we dont have children at school, but we do have many friends and relatives of school age about whose education and future we care deeply.

Yes, were a minority but, at almost two-fifths, a sizeable one. It would be nice if now and again our existence was acknowledged.John FilbyAshover, Derbyshire

In A brush with art history, (Letters), David Prothero recounts his struggle with Laura Cummings guess the painting, and asks if hes alone. Im a retired psychologist who failed art O-level. Im managing to identify a number at first sight and, with a little research, most of the rest. I recommend Workers Educational Association art history classes. The puzzle is now the first thing I turn to each Sunday. Thank you Laura!Kevin SullivanHereford

In his excellent article (From Grenfell Tower to the Metropolitan police, shirking responsibility has become endemic, Comment), Kenan Malik overlooked one feature that has allowed the evasion of responsibility that he describes. He mentions that, when asked by the inquiry if he took responsibility for the failures on his watch, Robert Black, the former boss of the organisation that managed Grenfell Tower, answered Pass. No proper inquiry should have allowed such an inadequate response to go unchallenged. Similarly, on 10 June, Matt Hancock, then secretary of state for health, said to the Commons health select committee that there had never had a national shortage of PPE. It would be harder to evade responsibility if there were more rigorous challenge from the bodies set up to scrutinise and enforce accountability on the part of public figures and institutions.Gavin BrownManuel, Linlithgow, West Lothian

Nobody should be surprised by the news that private hostel providers are failing to meet the care needs of their vulnerable residents (Hostels from hell, Special report).

This is because this provision for homeless people is overseen by housing associations, a sector increasingly organised since the 1980s on a business model. The solution is to restore responsibility to local authorities where standards, affordability and the quality of care can be assured.Dr Charlie CooperNottingham

Your article, We dont need to be cured or fixed: writers speak out on autism, was a manifestation of the privilege that those with high-functioning autism (myself included) enjoy. My autism, by random luck, does not prevent me from taking part in the world of language but there are many autistic people who are utterly unable to communicate, and thus cannot give chatty interviews. Why was there no mention of these voiceless?

To take another example, in the UK, autism is reason enough to deprive someone of their liberty; there are thousands of people whose autism has deprived them of their legal capacity, and who are otherwise detained for their own protection. Do these people not need a cure or treatment, or are they simply to be left to rot?

Like those interviewed, I regard my autism as an asset, but constructing a myth of autistic people as a model minority, based on a self-selecting group of high-functioning individuals, is to erase and marginalise the countless people rendered profoundly vulnerable, incapacitated, imprisoned or dead on account of their autism or consequences stemming from it.Elijah GranetSan Diego, California

Read the original post:
Letters: is it free speech or hate speech? - The Guardian

Free speech on American college campuses has been in a free fall for years. From high schools through law schools, free speech has gone from being considered a right that defines our society to being dismissed as a threat. According to polling, the result is arguably one of the most anti-free-speech generations in our history. The danger is more acute because it has reached law schools where future judges and lawyers may replicate the same intolerance in our legal system.

A recent controversy at Duke Law School highlights this danger. Law & Contemporary Problems is a faculty-run journal that recently decided to do a balanced symposium on Sex and the Law including transgender issues and asked Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex (who has criticized transgender positions) to participate.

Protests erupted over allowing such intellectual diversity.

The new set of student editors demanded that Stock be removed from the symposium. The faculty board issued a statement explaining the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, particularly on a journal that serves as a forum for debates on contemporary issues. Students resigned rather than associate with a journal offering both sides of such issues.

Some legal columnists echoed calls to ban those with opposing views. The legal site Above The Law (ATL) published an article denouncing the faculty for supporting free speech. ATL editor Joe Patrice ran a factually inaccurate tirade against Duke for using academic freedom as a shield for professors to opine and behave in ways that marginalize others.

The ATL criticism of Duke was illustrative of the new anti-free-speech movement that is now taking hold in law schools and legal publications. Academic freedom and free speech are denounced as tools to marginalize others. Patrice sums up why both the student editors and the Duke faculty must be condemned: A vigorous and open exchange of ideas is valuable only to the extent it improves the academic mission of improving the human condition. Is Trans skepticism within that field? It shouldnt be, but here we are. In other words, you are entitled to free speech so long as you cannot be accused of marginalizing others.

While calling for professors like Stock to be barred from the publication for marginalizing others, ATL editors and other writers often stigmatize and denounce whole groups as requiring containment and condemnation. Elie Mystal, who writes for ATL and isThe Nations justice correspondent,for example, lashed out at white society and how he strives to maintain a whiteness-free life.On MSNBC, Mystal declared, without any contradiction from the host, that You dont communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.

In such campaigns, there is little time or patience with trivialities like free speech.

Mystal was celebrated for his declaration: I have no intention of waiting around for them to try to kill me before I demand protection from their free speech.

Dangerous thoughts are ill-defined beyond being rejected by these writers. Under this approach, free speech becomes like pornography under the famous test of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. ButI know it when I see it.

Of course, free speech demands bright lines so that professors are not chilled in what they write or say. However, that is precisely the point. Whether Patrice and others can block the publication of Stock is immaterial. The fact is that most students and faculty do not want to be the subject of such a public campaign. Academics are notoriously risk-averse. They need conferences and publications to advance their careers.

The threat is to lose everything that academics need to be active intellectuals. This is the one-year anniversary of the move to force a criminology professor named Mike Adams off the faculty of the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he haddined with six men at a six-seat table and felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina before adding: Massa Cooper, let my people go. It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

Law schools have seen repeated disruptions of conservative speakers with the support or acquiescence of faculty. CUNY law school Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that law students preventing a conservative law professor from speaking was itself free speech. She also insisted that a law student threatening to set a mans Israel Defense Forces sweatshirt on fire was simply expressing her opinion.Recently Bilek actually canceled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a slaveholder as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students.

Last year, the acting Northwestern law school dean declared publicly: I am James Speta and I am a racist. He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced: I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.Such public declarations can fuel demands for more mandatory demonstrations by others or intolerance for those who dissent. At Rutgers this year, the student government ordered all groups to hold critical race theory and diversity programs as a condition for receiving funds. At the University of North Carolina, student Sagar Sharma, who is a student of color, faced a recall election as the first-year class co-president for simply stating that he did not consider an argument between two fellow students to be racist.

Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the weaponization of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.

Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that China is "right about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

For now, the Duke symposium will include the offending article but the resignations and condemnations show why this small degree of diversity in viewpoint is increasingly rare on our campuses.

This is a single (and close) victory for free speech, but make no mistake about it: We are losing the war.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

See original here:
The rise of a generation of censors: Law schools the latest battlement over free speech | TheHill - The Hill