Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment, academic freedom and free speech were the menu over lunchtime on Oct. 5, when the UCIs Year of Free Speech Kickoff Event encouraged the UCI community to seek opportunities to engage in thoughtful discussions throughout the year to better understand the concepts and create space for meaningful dialogue.

I have learned that the meaning of free speech and academic freedom is not self-evident to most people, said UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman, who is a scholar on the topic. Its no ones fault that there is a lack of basic understanding, because these values are not intuitive. They must be taught and reflected on, discussed and debated not just by experts, but by the entire university community, since we all have an obligation to create and maintain the norms and values that are central to our mission.

The bulk of the event was a panel moderated byVice Chancellor for Student Affairs Willie Banksand included discussion among Jun Jang, president of the Associated Students of UCI, Tiffany Lopez, dean of the Claire Trevor School of the Arts, and Megan Enciso, director of student affairs at the Sue and Bill Gross School of Nursing. Banks asked them each three questions:

Why is free speech expression important to you?

Jang shared that free speech governs how we can express ourselves, from day-to-day interactions to how we protest and demonstrate.

Students will always be tied to the free speech movement, he said. It began at Berkeley, so UC has always been at the forefront.

Lopez said that, creative expression is the lighthouse of everything we do at Claire Trevor. Artmaking gives us the space to process whats going on.

To support the notion that universities bring free speech into the community, she shared how UCI does that through the hundreds of events produced each year that share multiple perspectives of stories, which teaches more than one way to live in the world.

Enciso remarked that the diversity of thought and opinion that comes with higher education is critical.

As a staffer, I interact with both students and faculty and learned that we must recognize our own privilege or authority in some spaces so that other people can feel like they can speak up. We can open the space to others to feel safe to say what they want to say.

The second question allowed each speaker to address how their individual personal experiences shaped their views on expression and free speech. Lopez shared her experience as a first-generation student and how college and through art, she found a space for vision and voice. Enciso spoke about the many layers of each persons identity and how we present multiple identities to the world, stressing to be aware of the identities we bring to the table so that others can feel welcome to speak up. Jang promoted the UCIs Asian American Studies Department for helping students define their voice, noting that freedom of speech historically hasnt been the same for everyone.

The third question asked the panel what they hope to see from the Year of Free Speech. There was agreement that a foundational understanding of free speech and academic freedom through educational opportunities is essential and that creating spaces for productive dialogue will be critical to accomplishing this.

The event ended with a presentation from Michelle Deutchman, executive director of the UC National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement, who addressed the legal component of free speech, stressing that the human component plus the law and how those work together makes free speech complex and challenging.

Deutchmans presentation engaged with viewers via live polls throughout asking questions such as, what freedoms are protected by the first amendment? and who has ever participated in a protest?

She addressed hate speech, how freedom of speech and academic freedom differ and how protected speech is regulated through various types of forums.

The event culminated with a lively exchange between Deutchman and Gillman addressing some of the questions that were submitted by viewers in advance, such as putting up items in dorm windows, whether malls are public forums, addressing whether professors can dock points if a student does not agree with the professors viewpoint, and incitement to violence or illegal activity.

The sentiment of the kickoff event was summed up by a quote from former UC President Clark Kerr: The university is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas.

If you want to learn more about supporting this or other activities at UCI, please visit the Brilliant Future website athttps://brilliantfuture.uci.edu. Publicly launched on Oct. 4, 2019, the Brilliant Future campaign aims to raise awareness and support for UCI. By engaging 75,000 alumni andgarnering $2 billion in philanthropic investment, UCI seeks to reach new heights of excellence instudent success, health and wellness, research and more.

See the original post:
UCI Year of Free Speech kicks off with virtual event - UCI News

Book Cover of A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In Modern India

On 11 August 2023, the Government of India proposed a new draft of the criminal code of India. Since coming into the public domain, the said draft has sparked heated debate and controversy. According to the government version, the proposed draft would overhaul the criminal codes drafted and enacted by the colonial rule of the British, which, in turn, would be a significant step in the direction of decolonization. However, the critics of the proposed draft have proffered the argument that behind the veneer of decolonisation, the government is not just retaining the laws, but has made it even more egregious.

Though there are many vantage points from which the claim of decolonization could be challenged; however, discussion pertaining to the legal and political life of sedition law in India would bring out the intent of the government more prominently.

Among all the colonial laws in India, sedition law has been perhaps a subject of great controversy since its enactment in 1872. any scholarly works have studied the sedition law, which includes looking at it from a lawyers perspective as well as political philosophy ((I think Anushka Singhs book reference would suffice).; analysing whether it enables free speech or not.

However, Rohan J Alvas A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In Modern India doesnt just add to the existing literature on the intersection of free speech and sedition law, but makes two interesting points, which I shall engage with subsequently.

Rohan J Alvas book is divided into 14 chapters covering the journey of sedition law from colonial to post-colonial India, and capturing its different iterations. The journey is divided into three timelines: the colonial period, the period of Constitution-making, and the post-colonial period ( Constitutional democracy). The book is a well-grounded account of the history of free speech jurisprudence in India while keeping sedition at the heart of the discussion. This book offers a technical aspect of the history of sedition law and offers a compelling case as to why section 124A should go away. The compelling case is made through the two separate yet related arguments. First, that sedition violates Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and does not fulfil the criteria enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Second, that sedition does not sit well with democratic principles.

The author begins the book with a harsh remark on the absurdity of achieving uniformity under the guise of modernising existing criminal justice systems, especially given that the English criminal justice system, which was launched in Britain, could now execute people for minor offences.

Sedition in its etymological sense can be linked to the Latin word sedition, which means riot. However, in India, the term sedition did not necessarily refer to rioting and could instead be applied to simple criticism of the government. Alva points out that the vague term disaffection in the provision had no clear definition, example, or standard punishment; instead, one could receive a life sentence or a three-year sentence. Unlike in England, sedition in India could be used even for mere criticism against the authority. The interpretation of the word disaffection in the cases of Queen-Empress vs Jogendra Chunder Bose And Ors (1891), Emperor v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak( 1908), and Queen-Empress vs Amba Prasad (1897) strengthened the clause. It was interpreted in varied degrees, ranging from hatred, contempt, and ill-will toward the government to defection and it also included disloyalty towards the government

The need to suppress dissent was seen as sine qua non for the Crowns survival in India. Though the sedition was left out of the first draft of the IPC in 1860, however, in the wake of the Wahabai movement, it was added in 1870 as a response to deal with it. The goal, in essence, was to prevent any dissatisfaction.

With the establishment of the Federal Court in the 1930s, a new iteration of what constituted sedition was rendered by the court. In Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor (1939), The Federal Court established a precedent by restricting sedition to incitement of public disorder. However, in Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao(1947), the Privy Council decided that simple instigation of animosity toward the government was sufficient to warrant a trial. The Councils judgement would result in fodder for resurrecting sedition in India, supplemented by restrictions on Fundamental Rights. The author then goes into detail about the debates in the Constituent Assembly about free speech and sedition. Somnath Lihari (a communist and trade unionist from Bengal) recommended a revision to the sedition statute. In the argument over civil liberties, an enraged Lahiri stated Many fundamental rights have been framed from the point of view of a police constable

After a lengthy debate about free speech and sedition in India. It was K.M Munshis opinion that was endorsed by B.R Ambedkar, and therefore on the day India became a republic, sedition was no longer a constraint on free speech under the constitution.

Sedition and post-colonial India

Although it appears that sedition was removed from the restrictions on free speech enshrined under the Constitution, the law was still in use. Parliament had not scrapped the sedition from the IPC. The debate around sedition soon entered the domain of the judiciary. In Ramesh Thapar v. The State of Madras and Brijbhushan v. State of Delhi cases Court gave importance to the freedom of speech.

In response to the ruling of these two judgements, the first amendment was proposed. The amendment added the words Public order and relations with friendly states into article 19(2). However the word reasonable was added as a prefix to protect the freedom of speech and expression from the restrictions.

Alva also discusses that J.L. Nehru was cautious of the fact that his stand should not be interpreted in defence of laws like sedition. Nehru considered sedition as highly objectionable, obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons. He also stated that public order had no relevance.

It was in the year 1958 when the first major constitutional challenge arose against the sedition in the Ram Nadan case. In this case, the court relied on Nehrus speech and held that sedition was not part of public order. Within the span of four years, the judgement was overturned in Kedarnath.

Alva then goes on to talk about the famous case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962). This was the first conviction under the sedition law of independent India. Alva argues that this sedition law was revived under the pretext of public order. In addition to misinterpreting public order and public disorder, the court done the hat of the legislator and interpreted sedition in a way that was neither in accordance with the wishes of Parliament nor consistent with free speech. Additionally, the bench broke with the Romesh Thappar norm of a broader bench. In 1963, the 16th Constitutional Amendment inserted a new restriction to freedom of speech and expression, namely, sovereignty and integrity. It led to the enactment of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or UAPA in 1967.

Alva believes it is incorrect to question the constitutionality of sedition merely in terms of how it is used in the penal law. Since the sedition provision would still be in effect under the UAPA (under section 2(1)(o)(iii)), he claims that the current trial is a path to a pyrrhic victory

Contextualising the underlying themes

Exception Becoming Rule

Carl Schmitt famously says in his work, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, The exception is more interesting than the rule. The rule proves nothing; the exception proves everything. In the exception the power of real life breaks through the crust of a mechanism that has become torpid by repetition.

When we look at the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution, we can see that it enshrines and envisions various rights for citizens and non-citizens. However, simultaneously it places limitations on those rights. Article 19(1) enshrines the right to freedom of speech and expression, which is subject to a number of restrictions outlined in Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution.

In chapter four The Many Lives of the Prince of the book under review, Alva while discussing the journey of sedition law in the Constituent assembly debates makes a similar type of argument. He says that the law attained many lives during its gestation period in the constituent assembly. He argues that, while addressing the issue of the freedom of speech and expression, the deliberation of the Drafting Committee seemed to focus almost exclusively on fine-tuning the kinds of restrictions that should be imposed on speech.

He says Critics were worried that civil rights ( enumerated in the draft article 13) were riddled with so many exceptions that the exceptions have eaten up the rights altogether. He further argues that many in the Assembly did find Dr Ambedkars explanation for the litany of respections on speech a bitter pill to swallow. Quoting K.T Shah, Dr. Ambedkars colleague from the advisory committee that Civil rights being overrun with exception.

So, if we try to understand Schmitts rule and exception concept in the context of freedom of speech under Article 19. It could be said that the exception given under Article 19(2) is the rule as it decides what not to say.

Restriction on free speech in Liberal Democracy

Throughout the book, the author considers the vitality of democracy and the necessity of saving it. He argues that preserving democracy is essential to ensuring that civil liberties and rights are enjoyed by people. The author on various occasions in the book talks about the importance of freedom of speech especially political speech in the democratic sphere. However, my close reading of those lines leads me to believe that the author does not clarify which type of democracy he is referring to. In the ninth Chapter of the book under review Triumph of Democracy, the author gives examples of the US and U.K. and seems to point towards liberal democracy and how these liberal democratic jurisdictions treat political speech. He argues that, both the U.K. and the U.S. have scrapped the law of sedition and has shown his optimism in the liberal democracies. He argues that since, both these liberal democracies have abolished the sedition law, India being a liberal democracy should follow them and scrap the law.

It is also pertinent to mention that a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in S.G Vombatkere V .Union of India (2022) dealing with the petition challenging the constitutionality of sedition law given under section 124-A of IPC, 1860, had directed that all pending trails, appeals and proceedings concerning the charges framed under the said section be kept in abeyance. In this case, the petitioners made a similar kind of argument as given in the preceding paragraph. Petitioners did raise the issue of free speech, however, another reasoning provided by the petitioners was that the many liberal democracies such as the U.K., U.S. and Australia have already abolished the law. So, India being a liberal democracy should follow the same path and repeal the law.

In a way, both petitioners and author consider liberal democracies as a source of optimism. However, it is worth noting that the restrictions on political speech are still prevalent in liberal democracies and while the laws of sedition have been repealed in Western countries, anti-terrorism laws continue to empower the state to penalise citizens for what would earlier be considered as Seditious speech albeit without using the word sedition.

Similarly in the context of India, Anushka Singhs work that the anti-terror legislation contains provisions to restrict free speech which is seditious in nature. For example, the UAPA 1967(as amended in 2004, 2008, 2019) penalises an act that intends to cause disaffection against the Government of India. She further argues that Indian Liberal democracy provides an example in which sedition and terrorism are both embedded in languages with anti-national connotations. So, which means even if sedition goes away, the essence of the sedition as the offence remains. This poses a serious question on how liberal democracies treat political speech and can liberal democracies do without laws such as Sedition, UAPA and Preventive Laws.

Despite my criticism on the issue of liberal democracy, I still strongly believe that this book is one of the major contributions to sedition in India. What distinguishes this book is its technical treatment of sedition in the Indian setting. In contrast to other contributions, this one maintains sedition at the forefront when considering free expression in contemporary India. The authors distinctive writing style is something I appreciate. This book is fascinating to read not just because of its arguments and extensive research, but also because of its prose and the authors excellent choice of chapter headings and chapterization.

Saqib Rasool is a LLM student at Azim Premji University

See more here:
Book review: A Constitution To Keep: Sedition And Free Speech In ... - Maktoob media

Editors Note: Some of the names in this story have been changed to protect the identities of the individuals involved. The Daily Collegian has verified through fact checking these individuals exist.

The Penn State chapter of Turning Point USA and Young Americans for Freedom at Penn State held a Free Speech Rally with Riley Gaines, a former Division I swimmer who speaks out against transgender athletes' inclusion in women's sports.

A counter protest was scheduled at the same time on the HUB-Robeson Center Lawn.

Jack Kentner, one of the main organizers of the event and the president of Young Americans for Freedom at Penn State, said this was a collaborative effort with Turning Point to ensure Gaines would speak on campus.

We learned that Riley Gaines was going to be speaking with TP USA, and they ran into some trouble, Kentner, a fourth-year studying political science and film production, said. So we decided to collab since we share similar grievances to hold a freedom of speech rally at the HUB lawn, a freedom of speech zone.

Kentner said he and his organization tried to promote the event through word of mouth and among their own circles.

According to Kentner, the reasons behind why he believes its important to bring speakers such as Riley Gaines to campus are two-fold.

The first is to highlight the inherent unfairness of trans women being in women's sports because the distinction between women's and men's sports doesn't just stop at sex, Kentner said. We're collaborating to show that freedom of speech is not optional on campus, it furthers intellectual discourse.

Kentner said he hopes that events like this will improve Penn States recent freedom of speech below ranking, which was at 189 or below average in comparison to other universities.

According to Kentner, there needs to be a space where women can break records without competing against transgender women.

I believe that a third division can be made that's more inclusive to trans individuals, that doesn't come at the expense of biological women, Kentner said. I do believe, to any trans advocates out there, that thats a more pragmatic solution.

Luke Gosnell, a protester, said when he arrived at the event, he noticed two students being detained by police. These two students were detained for disorderly conduct, according to police.

Right when I got here, the university was arresting multiple students for seemingly meaningless interactions that happen on this campus all the time, and that is something I am very upset about, Gosnell, a second-year studying political science, said.

Gosnell said he arrived to protest the demonstration set up by the far right people here."

We shouldnt be allowing this sort of hate speech on campus, Gosnell said.

Henry Han, another protester, said he was at the scene to support a group he was formerly in, the United Socialists at Penn State University.

I feel like this is a publicity stunt, Han, a third-year studying computer science, said. From what I heard, the speaker didnt properly confirm the scheduling with Penn State and is now blaming Penn State for kicking her out.

Eamon Foley, one of the event organizers and the president of Turning Point at Penn State, said he takes a little responsibility for the initially scheduled event falling through.

In response, Foley, a third-year studying economics, said he chose to have the event at the HUB-Robeson Center lawn.

He said Turning Point at Penn State also tried to organize the event at the Flex Theater in the HUB but Foley said university policy requires 30 academic days in advance to start the contract process when inviting public speakers.

Initially, Turning Point USA, the student group bringing Ms. Gaines to campus, soughtindoor space, but did not meet the deadline forsubmitting the required reservation documents an expectation upheld for any recognized student organization at Penn State, according to a university statement.

At the event, both Turning Point and Young Americans for Freedom set up their table at the top of the HUB lawn where Riley Gaines was set to speak.

As part of their demonstration they brought a large free speech beach ball where Foley said people could write anything they wanted. There was also a baseball pitching net, where participants could throw a pitch.

What people can do is they can take one of these baseballs, throw it into the net (and) record the throwing speed, Foley said. It's supposed to show the distinction between the athletic advantage between men and women.

Around 4:15 p.m., protesters started to gather on the HUB lawn and about 13 protesters stood near the Turning Point and Young Americans for Freedom table holding a large transgender pride flag.

One of the protesters, Winter Parts, took part in the game and pitched a ball onto the net.

After throwing the pitch, Parts, a graduate student studying astronomy, went to the sign and wrote nonbinary in the middle of it and recorded their time.

Kathy, who wished to remain anonymous, shared her thoughts about how inviting speakers such as Gaines affects campus life, especially for marginalized communities.

I just feel that no certain community should feel as though they are uncomfortable in a space that should be welcome to all people, Kathy said.

Protesters continued to gather until approximately 4:30 p.m., when Turning Point moved in front of the Biobehavioral Health Building.

Once Turning Point and Young Americans relocated, protestors reconvened and chanted trans lives matter and no home for transphobia.

Riley Gaines walked toward the crowd and began her speech while protesters chanted cant swim at Gaines, in reference to her career as an NCAA Division I swimmer.

First and foremost, I think it is important to speak at universities because we need to engage (with) people my age to understand the truth, Gaines said.

Gaines also addressed the protestors chanting, trans lives matter during her speech.

They entirely have the right to protest just as I have the right to stand here and advocate what Im advocating for, Gaines said.

Gaines said she believes the protestors were emotionally driven and there is no science, logic or reason as to what they are advocating for.

Later in the evening, Gaines spoke to a smaller crowd in the Wagner Building and said a year and a half ago, there wouldn't have been any people there to support because they'd be terrified of putting their face to it or whatever that might be.

I think, people, not just female athletes, parents, medical professionals, pastors, even a lot of people are waking up to the injustice of what's happening, Gaines said.

Gaines shared to the crowd this issue was about our privacy and she makes the argument for a woman but a lot of times, people are not willing to accept (it).

But what I'm finding is among our generation, among the general public of our generation, we know this has gone too far, Gaines said. (Im) just trying to encourage and inspire and embolden people to know that they can speak the truth.

MORE NEWS COVERAGE

Penn State Homecoming hosted its Past to Present event in Heritage Hall in the HUB-Robeson

If you're interested in submitting a Letter to the Editor, click here.

Read the original here:
Protestors, supporters gather on HUB lawn for Riley Gaines' Free ... - The Daily Collegian

Freedom of speech is a frustrating thing to embrace.

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, said biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall of Voltaire, paraphrasing his work.

Voltaire may have been a French philosopher, but that do-or-die attitude toward free speech is one that is frequently ascribed to patriots and Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately, when it comes to real-life free speech, people are much more concerned with their rights and can be dismissive of their neighbors freedoms.

Thats how we get book bans and pushes for eliminating a class or a play in our public schools something that is being seen right now from those on the conservative side.

But it is definitely not an exclusively right-wing behavior. If you want to see it play out on the left, look to universities.

A Change.org petition signed by more than 11,000 people asked the University of Pittsburgh be held accountable in protecting LGBTQ individuals. A university should be responsible for keeping its students, staff, faculty and visitors safe from abuse and unfairness.

At issue, however, was a slate of speakers this spring. The petition called the three events a platform of hate and transphobia. Two appearances by Riley Gaines and Cabot Phillips were sponsored by the Pitt chapter of the conservative student group Turning Point USA. The universitys College Republicans and the International Studies Institute coordinated a debate with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles.

The issue of gender identity and expression is loaded and volatile. The speakers in question were going to provoke opposition. But does that mean they shouldnt speak?

The Knowles event Tuesday prompted what the university described as a public safety emergency. There was an incendiary device. A dummy with Knowles face was burned in the street. This is no way to counter an argument.

College students are often adamant about free thinking and open minds. They need to realize an exchange of ideas has to involve everyone having a chance to speak even if you dont agree.

For one thing, minds are never changed by a refusal to communicate. Second, if you dont want to hear a speaker, thats a reason for you not to attend the speech. It doesnt mean you get to prevent other people from hearing it. Thats always the point made with book bans. Dont like it? Dont read it.

But stopping a message should not degenerate to violence.

Penn State had that happen in October when an event with Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes was canceled at the last minute. Things turned ugly quickly.

Penn State has now canceled two April events by controversial speakers self-titled troll Alex Stein and cultural critic James Lindsay. Both were done very differently this time. They werent disrupted by protesters but by scheduling conflicts over venues and dates. And thats how it should be.

The best way to show that a speaker doesnt represent the students as many protesters have said is for the students to decide for themselves. Thats free speech.

View post:
Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? - TribLIVE

Lena Shapiro is a clinical assistant professor of law and the inaugural director of the College of Laws First Amendment Clinic, supported by The Stanton Foundation. Shapiro, an expert in free speech issues, spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the current state of the First Amendment in higher education and popular discourse.

Theres an increasing trend on college campuses of students shouting down speakers they disagree with. How would you characterize the current state of the First Amendment in higher education?

Theres an ongoing battle between those who say they want to advance freedom of speech for everyone versus those who want to drown out voices that they dont agree with. The latter group wants to have it both ways: freedom of speech only for their opinions as well as those whose opinions are the same as theirs.

In other words, freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.

What that does is lower the level of discourse that all people have, which is harmful on a college campus because were supposed to be teaching students how to enhance their debate skills and analytic abilities. And when you say, essentially, I dont want this person here because theyre harmful, I find them offensive or They demean the rights of a number of groups of people you can certainly express those views, but that doesnt mean you can take it a step further, as many want to, and remove that speaker from campus. You cant unilaterally deprive others of that speech. Thats the hecklers veto.

If you are diametrically opposed to what this speaker stands for or has to say, you show up and counter protest. You hold another event, or you sit in the room and challenge the speaker with questions real, substantive questions that you want to debate on.

What you dont want are ad hominem attacks or protests that prevent speech from occurring entirely, which is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.

What is the danger of the hecklers veto?

The danger is you dont actually change anyone elses mind. And having not changed their mind, you dont change their behavior. Youre also not minimizing the injustice that you believe results from that speakers speech and/or actions and the speaker who you think was perpetuating that injustice just goes on about their day.

Many students, like those at Stanford Law School who showed up to protest Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, want to speak out and advocate on behalf of issues that are deeply personal to millions of Americans. But by exercising the hecklers veto, those individuals didnt actually change any opinions on those issues, certainly not Judge Duncans.

Some believe if they yell loud enough, and if they scare off enough speakers, then it will just rid the world of the injustices that go on. But thats just not how the world works, right? If you want to change hearts and minds, you have to convince them.

The First Amendment is unique in that it allows misinformation and outright lies to flourish under the guise of the free exchange of ideas. Should the government continue to protect the speech of liars, even though they can inflict damage on society?

We saw that issue play out in the various defamation lawsuits against Fox News. And Fox News paid a big price for the misinformation they aired regarding Dominion Voting Systems, so the system does have checks in place to protect against misinformation. Generally, the news media is granted a wide berth to report on issues as they see fit.

If you start to set stricter standards and start to go after what you perceive to be a lie or misinformation on, say, a social media site, youre first going to have define what a lie is. But as we can see from todays environment, nobody can agree on anything so being able to properly define what a lie is will be challenging.

This is why we have the First Amendment. When people see things they perceive as lies, they are allowed to respond accordingly. I noticed a difference in news coverage late in the Trump administration when reporters on broadcasts across a number of different news outlets would report something that President Trump said and then explain why it wasnt true. Thats the way to deal with lies, misinformation and half-truths. If you think somebody is perpetuating an untruth, then bring your evidence forward. It makes us a better and a smarter society to do it that way.

So I dont think we can regulate what we deem or what someone else deems a lie, aside from some rare exceptions. Its just not realistic, and, ultimately, it harms the First Amendment protections that we have in the U.S.

I know people get upset and have a visceral reaction about various issues in the news. But I just dont know that such reactions change hearts and minds.

Its probably better to focus more on why a certain issue or story isnt true, as opposed to accusing the other side of stupidity, mendacity or malice. I am an advocate for always having more speech. Its why we have free speech in the first place.

Go here to read the rest:
How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular discourse? - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

The free speech of all Americans is protected by the First Amendment. But anyone who has ever spoken up against the powerful knows that freedom of speech isnt as simple as that.

There is more than one way to silence people, and dragging them into costly lawsuits has long been a tried and true method.

In 2011, Texas passed a robust law known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act that provided protections against what are known as SLAPP suits strategic lawsuits against public participation. Such lawsuits quash speech by making it too risky to speak up for fear of being sued.

The TCPA gives parties in lawsuits the opportunity to get an automatic stay of costly discovery and other legal proceedings while an appellate court reviews the matter.

Unfortunately, the state Senate has embraced an overreaching bill that is supposedly aimed at curing abuses to the TCPA.

While there are genuine concerns that the act has been used to stay proceedings in meritorious suits, it is far from clear that such cases are common enough to warrant a major revision of the act that could gut critical public protections.

The bill in question would diminish the TCPA by removing the automatic stay of proceedings under three conditions: If a motion under the act was denied because it was not filed in a timely way, was frivolous or was denied under existing exemptions to the act.

Those amendments might seem innocuous. But they are open to broad interpretation and could be misinterpreted or misunderstood by a trial court, leading to legal costs that would chill free speech.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, will chair a hearing in the state House Wednesday morning on this bill. Leach has offered us assurances that the bill will not pass the House in its current form and that he will not accept a bill that impedes the TCPAs protections.

The bill debate has ignited a good conversation around this important issue and Im hopeful we can reach a workable compromise building on our success in 2019 on the major TCPA amendments, Leach wrote to us.

That was encouraging, but a substitute bill Leach is proposing does not appear to resolve serious concerns. Leachs proposal attempts to strike a middle ground by creating a 45-day stay on legal action once a trial court rules on a TCPA motion. But that will only add pressure on appellate courts that already struggle to rule quickly on these matters.

Leach said the substitute was laid out to set up discussion at Wednesdays hearing and is unlikely to be the version that passes.

Make no mistake: We will aggressively protect the First Amendment protections ensured by our anti-SLAPP laws, he said.

Time will tell. The trouble is that even a well-intended amendment could lead to a huge setback for speech. This law is under persistent pressure from powerful interests that want to see it rolled back. Each legislative cycle seems to bring another threat to the laws core.

If that continues to happen, all Texans will become less free to say what they think.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

Link:
Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature - The Dallas Morning News

When this correspondent went to University College Dublin, back in the mists of time, freshers used to get two things arriving on campus: a plastic piggy bank emblazoned with the logo of the local bank, and a pep talk on how to think like a third-level student. The message was communicated in three bullet points, which I wrote down and pinned to my bedroom wall: Logic, rhetoric, grammer [sic]. It was only months later I noticed my misspelling.

By all accounts, students today entering college enjoy vastly superior freebies. But has their preparation for higher education improved? A concern increasingly raised by academics in Ireland surrounds the role of free speech, and whether pressure on students to conform to certain ideas is contributing to self-censorship.

Last month, Stanford Law School in the United States announced plans for a mandatory half-day of instruction on free speech and legal norms after students shouted down and disrupted a lecture by a federal judge on the campus. The heckling of Green Party leader Eamon Ryan at an event at Trinity College Dublin last month was hardly of the same order but it highlighted a tension between protesting against speakers and silencing them.

Would Irish students benefit from a mandatory course on free speech? And if so what should it contain?

The first thing to say about free speech on campus is that its a lot more complicated than people assume. Prof Terence Karran, a UK educationalist who has written extensively on academic freedom across Europe, says part of the problem is the absence of an agreed definition on what exactly we are trying to protect.

[Is free speech under threat in Irish universities? A UCD audit raises concern]

Surprisingly, academics have been unable or unwilling to define a concept which is supposedly of singular importance to their teaching and research, but they may have a vested interest in resisting definitional clarity, he says. Ahead of a public lecture at UCD on Thursday, Karran helps to signpost a few general points on the topic that could be used for a campus-wide crash course on free speech.

Karran says the two ideals are different things, even though they are often assumed to be the same. Endorsing the view that academic freedom is a cousin but not a sibling of free speech, he says the former is a professional freedom designed to enable the twin processes of teaching and research to flourish.

By contrast, freedom of speech is a wide generic freedom granted to all, to express their opinions and beliefs. There are no moral or legal justifications for giving academics greater freedoms of speech than are enjoyed by other individuals in the public domain, when they are expressing opinions outside of their subject expertise, Karran states.

If the UK government decided to forbid Chinese students coming to the UK some universities would go bankrupt

When one thinks of controversies surrounding free speech on campus it is generally to do with partisan or provocative visiting speakers. But a more systematic threat to academic freedom comes from commercial forces, particularly universities growing dependence on funding from undemocratic states.

You can see that China is slowly but surely trying to strangle academic freedom in its own country but also in other countries where it has a foothold, says Karran. Some universities in the UK have become so dependent on fees from international students, he adds, if the UK government decided to forbid Chinese students coming to the UK, these universities would go bankrupt.

An EU survey on academic freedom contained in a 2019 report by Karran for the Council of Europe found that one in five academics had practised self-censorship. Lecturers are becoming more wary of attracting complaints over introducing difficult content matter in class or giving frank assessments of coursework.

Students paying high tuition fees now have an expectation that, because they have bought their education, they deserve a good degree, irrespective as to the effort they have expended. This trend has been accompanied by a decline in academic freedom and the casualisation of academic labour, says Karran.

He stresses, however, he sees a role for students in defending academic freedom and making sure it is retained. While academic freedom merits protection in its own right, he says there seems to be causal relationship between universities that uphold the ideal and those that excel in international rankings. Universities that protect academic freedom attract good academics because they know they can undertake cutting-edge research.

[Is free speech under threat in Irish universities? A UCD audit raises concern]

In announcing her plan for mandatory free speech classes, the dean of Stanford Law School, Jenny Martinez, circulated a 10-page memorandum that explores some of the legal and moral issues surrounding deplatforming.

A key argument she makes is that different rules apply to heckling at an organised event, such as an educational meeting, compared with, for example, a public park. The First Amendment of the US constitution does not treat every setting as a public forum where a speech free-for-all is allowed, writes Martinez. To the contrary, First Amendment cases have long recognised that some settings are limited public forums, where restrictions on speech are constitutional so long as they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forums function and all the surrounding circumstances.

In short, people have a right to heckle but it must be balanced against other rights. The moment when a line is crossed is not always clear-cut.

When John Stuart Mill wrote his classic defence of free speech in On Liberty (1859) he couldnt have envisaged public dialogue coming under the spell of artificial intelligence.

A huge percentage of the utterances which we are presented with each day are produced by algorithms, which are not human and do not have rights, American historian Timothy Snyder recently remarked. I think its pretty important that one of the ways we organise our conversations around free speech is to make sure the utterances are connected to a person.

Snyder here pre-empts a discussion about whether AI speech the output of a chatbot, for example, or a machine-produced research paper deserves the same sort of protection as human expression. Whether we will be able to distinguish between the human voice and AI as time progresses is another matter.

[Why free speech is more complicated than Elon Musk makes out]

Coming back to college campuses, AI is having a more immediate impact on the role of the academic. As well as usurping certain teaching functions, technology can be used for surveillance and performance monitoring.

Karran says one of his PhD students is researching the matter. When he comes in, in the morning, he uses his swipe card to open the door, thats recorded on the system somewhere; when he leaves it is again recorded; when he goes to the library thats recorded ... so that will be an issue in the future. They will be able to monitor us very closely, and Im not sure that will be necessarily a good thing when it comes to research.

How we will think about free speech and academic freedom in years hence is an open question. However, Karran believes that a better conceptual understanding of these ideals is a first step towards guaranteeing their future. Academic freedom was quite difficult to achieve, especially in the United States, he says. It would probably be more difficult to re-establish once it has been removed.

Terence Karran, emeritus professor of higher education policy, University of Lincoln, will deliver a public lecture, Academic Freedom in Ireland: De Jure Protection, at 6pm on Thursday, April 27th in Sutherland School of Law, L024. It is supported by the Irish Federation of University Teachers in association with the UCD school of philosophy, and is billed as the inaugural lecture in a planned series of Dublin lectures on academic freedom

Continued here:
Should Irish universities introduce mandatory free speech classes? - The Irish Times

TALLAHASSEE The Florida House on Wednesday passed a measure that would put new requirements on universities related to debates and other campus forums, with supporters saying it would bolster free speech but critics arguing it could have unintended consequences.

The Republican-controlled House voted 82-34 along near-party lines to approve the bill (HB 931), which still needs to pass the Senate before it could go to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The proposal (HB 931) also would prevent state colleges and universities from requiring students and staff to complete political loyalty tests as a condition of admission or employment.

Under the bill, each university would be required to establish an Office of Public Policy Events, which would be responsible for organizing, publicizing and staging at least four debates or forums per year.

Such debates and group forums must include speakers who represent widely held views on opposing sides of the most widely discussed public policy issues of the day and who hold a wide diversity of perspectives from within and outside of the state university community, the bill says.

But several House Democrats criticized the bill for not defining widely held views. Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, argued that leaving the issue open to interpretation could benefit some groups over others.

I think its hard to dictate what is a widely held view. That often can take the shape of who is in political power at that time, who is the biggest donor to a university, whos the biggest donor to the governor. I just am very concerned that we actually are not creating an environment with freedom of speech, because some speech will be preferred over others, Eskamani said.

Supporters of the bill, however, argued that it would help protect campus free speech. Rep. Doug Bankson, R-Apopka, called higher-education institutions a crucible of free thought.

It is our foundational right to have freedom of speech. This great bill protects those things. It makes sure that all voices can be heard. Because truth has its own legs, it can stand on its own when its given the chance to be heard, Bankson said.

Rep. Rita Harris, D-Orlando, contended that not all arguments deserve equal airtime.

Im sorry but Nazism, there is no pro (side), there is no flip-side to the coin, Harris said.

Bill sponsor Spencer Roach, R-North Fort Myers Republican, pushed back on Harris argument.

I would argue that Nazism is not a widely held idea. But let me ask you this if a speaker came onto campus advocating that we should reinstitute slavery; that we should exterminate the Jewish population, I would say this, So what? And I will quote our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, when he said, The best way to expose a fool is to allow him to rent out a hall and put forth his ideas to his fellow citizens, Roach said.

The measure also would require that, if a schools Office of Public Policy Events cant readily find an advocate from within the state university community who is well-versed in a perspective, the office would invite a speaker and provide a per-diem and a reimbursement for travel expenses.

Democrats also questioned why the measure did not include a cap on how much money could be provided to invited speakers.

The part of the bill that seeks to prohibit political loyalty tests defines such tests as compelling, requiring, or soliciting a person to identify commitment to or to make a statement of personal belief in support of things such as a specific partisan, political, or ideological set of beliefs.

Such tests also could not require statements of support for any ideology or movement that promotes the differential treatment of a person or a group of persons based on race or ethnicity, including an initiative or a formulation of diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the Constitution.

Continued here:
Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus ... - WUFT

Free speech legislation that aims to eradicate cancel cultureat English universities could be used to protect those with extreme views, according to a former universities minister.

Lord Willetts predicted that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill which is expected to receive Royal Assent imminently will result in quite a lot of legal cases from across the political spectrum.

Asked at a Westminster Higher Education Forum event on free speech whether the bill was just about protecting Conservative views, Lord Willetts who has been involved in scrutinising the legislation in the House of Lords said he did not think this would be the approach taken by the Office for Students (OfS) or the courts.

He added that he could foresee a situation whereby, for example, the bills protections could be claimed by people with quite extreme Islamic views.

Referencing a controversy surrounding the then universities minister Michelle Donelan in May 2021, who said the bill would allow someone who denies the Holocaust the legal right to speak at a university, Lord Willetts said she had been correct as Holocaust denial is not of itself a criminal offence in the UK.

Ms Donelan was eventually overruled by No10, which said Holocaust denial would not be tolerated, but Lord Willetts said if this is to be the case then theOfS will have to outlinehowit intends to regulate universities using the new legislation in its long-awaited guidelines.

These guidelines have not yet been shared with anybody in Parliament, Lord Willetts said, a situation he described as frustrating.

He added that the document will also have to engage with other challenges such as what might happen if the rights granted by the bill appear to come into conflict with different pieces of legislation that universities are subject to, such as the Equality Act which protects individuals against harassment or the Prevent Duty,which aims to minimise the spread of extremist ideologies.

Appearing at the same event, Bryn Harris, the chief legal counsel for the Free Speech Union, said another potential issue when the bill is implemented will be universities arguing that freedom of speech within the law allows them to impose employment policies that can then restrict what academics say.

He agreed the new legislation may see institutions performing a tightrope walk between compliance with this bill or, if they get it slightly wrong, potentially falling foul of the Equality Act. But this could be dealt with by the OfS guidance, he said.

There needs to be interplay between free speech and HR committees to ensure overall compliance with all legislation, he said, adding that universities are going to have a lot of work to do.

Harry Anderson, policy manager for Universities UK, said the different duties being placed on universities was creating a bit of confusion and uncertainty when universities are having to make these very sensitive, very difficult balancing acts.

Lord Willetts said he remained concerned that the much more intrusive regulatory regime could have a chilling effect and result in a safety-first environment whereby no speakers at all are invited for fear of falling foul of the legislation.

The peers efforts to remove a statutory tort from the bill which hands individuals the right to sue if they feel their free speech has been violated by institutions were overturned when the legislation returned to the House of Commons.

He said there was potential for a nightmare scenario whereby a students union caught up in controversy could receive both a letter from the OfS saying they are being investigated and a lawyers letter saying they are being sued, adding that this felt like overkill.

The fact that changes to the bill agreed by the government now mean the tort can only be used after all other means of addressing the grievance have been exhausted felt like a reasonable compromise, Lord Willetts said.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

See the rest here:
Free speech bill 'could protect extreme views' - Times Higher Education

On Nov. 24, 1964, the Illinois Supreme Court did what no other state high court had ever done it vindicated Lenny Bruces free speech right to perform provocative routines in comedy clubs.

But the freewheeling comedian was not so lucky in New York, where a state court thereafter convicted him of obscenity for his comedic bits. It was just one of such prosecutions, the others being in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The New York conviction stood since Bruce died before he could appeal.

Twenty years ago, however, New York Gov. George Pataki posthumously pardoned the outspoken comedian. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve.

As First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere then put it in his petition seeking the New York pardon: Today, comedy clubs are considered free speech zones, and the monologues that prompted New York to prosecute and convict Lenny Bruce would never be considered obscene.

People are also reading

While that is true insofar as the law of free speech is concerned, today the culture of free speech is increasingly succumbing to censorship. This is why comedy clubs must stand up and boldly reclaim their role as free speech zones and antidotes to cancel culture. Hence, the Bruce story takes on renewed meaning in a nation gone mad with silencing anything that offends anyone in any way.

The comedian was preparing for his performance at The Comedy Zone when a man entered the building shortly after 9pm and brandished a gun. Robinson and those inside the venue were evacuated, after which the suspect discharged his weapon. A spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) released a statement confirming that the suspect had been detained and nobody was injured. On Sunday, Robinson thanked staff at the comedy club and CMPD officers for the way they handled the situation.

To draw again from Corn-Revere: Lenny Bruce was in the vanguard of the transformation of the stand-up comic from jokester to social critic, and his routines covered a wide range of topics including racism,organized religion, homosexuality, and social conventions about the use of language. In the early 1960s, that got him arrested for acts he performed in several comedy clubs.

Bruce was the last of comedians to be criminally prosecuted for word crimes in a comedy club. It was as if the specter of his persecution forever changed the course of American law even without a Supreme Court ruling. After he died on the run, his spirit resurrected: Uninhibited comedy flourished with the likes of George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Joan Rivers and Margaret Cho. In time, both the law and culture of free speech coalesced in ways that gave meaningful breathing room to a robust measure of speech freedom.

Today, however, though the law of free speech is vibrant, the culture is increasingly threatened by the chilling effects of censorship on the left and right. For one thing, some of Bruces comedy could not be performed on college campuses because it would be deemed offensive. Then there is the recent fiasco at Stanford Law School in which boisterous hecklers vetoed a talk to be given by a conservative federal judge invited to speak there. Additionally, conservatives in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis state have heartily endorsed censorship of all kinds.

Countless other troubling examples reveal much the same. In the words of the late historian Nat Hentoff, it all comes down to free speech for me, but not for thee.

Toleration is an anathema to those easily offended by anything that runs counter to their categorical beliefs. So too, being open-minded is not an option for those whose absolute truth is espoused by their preferred cable station. In such a world, mouths are silenced, and minds are closed. It all makes for a society rife with hypocrisy a sacred cow Bruce delighted in slaughtering.

After comedian Dave Chappelles show in Minneapolis was canceled for being offensive, Jamie Masada, owner of comedy club chain the Laugh Factory, told Fox News Digital that the comic stage is their sanctuary. We have to protect the First Amendment. We cant dilute it. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves. Not only should that sanctuary be preserved, but it must also be enriched to exemplify the vital values of free speech zones.

Carlin said Bruce prefigured the free-speech movement and helped push the culture forward into the light of open and honest expression.

More than ever, that light needs to shine brightly, first in and then out of Americas comedy clubs those last safe havens of free speech in a democracy. So let the free speech campaign begin in comedy clubs across the land, those free speech zones where censorship is bum-rushed out the door.

Collins is a retired law professor and co-author, with David Skover, of The Trials of Lenny Bruce. Actor and playwright Ronnie Marmo portrays Lenny Bruce in his hit one-man show Im Not a Comedian ... Im Lenny Bruce.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

View original post here:
Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record