Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

After two police teams descended on Twitter's offices in Delhi and Gurgaon, the Congress on Monday alleged that the "cowardly raid" on the microblogging site's offices by the Delhi Police "exposes lameduck attempts" to hide a "fraudulent toolkit" by BJP leaders.

The Delhi Police's Special Cell on Monday served a notice to Twitter India in connection with a probe into a complaint about an alleged 'COVID toolkit' and asked it to share information based on which it had classified a related tweet by BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra as "manipulated media", officials said.

Reacting to the development, Congress spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said on Twitter, "Cowardly raid on @Twitter unleashed by Delhi Police exposes lameduck attempts to hide the fraudulent toolkit by BJP leaders."

Such attempts to "murder" freedom of speech lay bare the BJPs guilt, he said and tagged his video statement on the issue.

In the video statement, Surjewala alleged that the "subjugation of free speech, attempts to stifle every voice that is a dissenting against this government and the state-sponsored fraudulent means to propagate and instill fear continue unabated in Modi government".

"May I ask why the guilty people are sitting in BJP headquarters and in seat of power but you are raiding Twitter's Office in Delhi and Gurgaon ...the reason is simple that the BJP is running scared of its lies and getting caught and being branded as manipulated and fraudulent by social media platforms," he said.

The BJP has accused the Congress of creating a 'toolkit' that seeks to tarnish the image of the country and Prime Minister Narendra Modi over the handling of the COVID pandemic. However, the Congress has denied the allegation and claimed that the BJP is propagating a fake 'toolkit' to defame it.

Last week, Twitter labelled as "manipulated media" a tweet by Patra on the alleged 'toolkit'. Twitter says it "may label Tweets that include media (videos, audio, and images) that have been deceptively altered or fabricated".

Here is the original post:
'Attempt to 'murder' freedom of speech': Cong on Twitter India office searches - Hindustan Times

The mere mention of the word Vagina would have had my late mother hurdle over the coffee table like Sally Gunnell to reach for the television off switch.

The Spence household of my boyhood was a somewhat prim institution, unlike Abertay University.

There such language is freely expressed but the openness currently finds them embroiled in a dispute whereby a mature law student faces investigation for saying women have vaginas.

Given my sheltered upbringing, I admit to being initially torn between a Dick Emery Ooh you are awful response, and a sense of dj vu at this ludicrously terrifying tale.

Schoolboy humour and badinage is seldom far from the mind of many blokes, and I am sadly one of them, despite valiant attempts to pose as modern man.

However, when the sensible hat goes on and serious reflection begins, the madness of what is happening in this case quickly drives any vestige of humour from the mind.

Lisa Keogh a 29 year old law student and mother of two, who has previously worked in the real world as a mechanic has been accused of transphobia during online student lectures.

Her remarks, unremarkable to many I suspect, but not the younger classmates who complained, included her view that women were born with female genitals and that the difference in physical strength of men versus women is a fact.

Abertay insist that freedom of speech within the law is permitted and encouraged, yet Keogh faces a formal investigation into her conduct with allegations that her comments are offensive and discriminatory.

Their misconduct policy includes discriminating against gender reassignment, with expulsion the highest sanction for breach.

Joanna Cherry MP and QC has called the action farcical, and asked Abertay how it is protecting students rights to freedom of speech under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Of course, Cherry herself has been assailed by the trans lobby in unedifying and vicious attacks.

There is a uniquely chilling aspect of this case given that it involves law students.

Taken to its logical limits, could the eventual effect of being unable to express a view on gender potentially stop lawyers from even presenting a defence, for fear of falling foul of the law?

Could even writing about the subject and reporting on it be regarded as offensive?

Stasi-like antics in suppressing free speech shouldnt be left to an MP or a young mother to call out.

Universities are places where minds must be open to embracing different opinions, able to argue with analytical and forensic skill, and to dissect opposing points of view with rigour and fact..

If we dont step up to the plate on the issue of freedom of speech, our work lives, careers, and reputations are all at risk of being damaged or destroyed by the dogmatic, the vexatious, and the downright illiberal.

I recently quit my voluntary and unpaid role as Rector of University of Dundee a year early. Covid had played havoc with my earnings as a freelance journalist and I needed to devote my increasingly limited spare time to earning my living.

However, during my period in the post, I sensed the potential for the sort of turmoil in which Abertay is now ensnared.

Students at universities vote for a rector with a public profile who has access to the media and can communicate their issues, but some can get upset when that individual voices opinions that they dislike or disagree with.

I jalouse that some staff in academic institutions are currently operating in silent panic mode, while the unchecked Stalinist mentality of a small, but disproportionately loud sect of the professionally aggrieved and opinionated, hunt for perceived transgressions and offence.

Those who are triggered by opinions they dislike or arguments disputing their constricted world view, and upset at the challenges presented by open debate, are a harbinger of dangerous times ahead.

Its time to put the adults back in charge.

When grown-ups vacate the room and let unripened minds run riot, the dangers to reputations and careers are starkly exposed.

Allegations of hurt and hate are hurled in a scattergun approach by those lacking the sense or concern to see the dangers

Freedom of speech can of course be upsetting and not just to those with a delicate constitution.

However, there is a difference between statements that simply jar and anger and those that are injurious to reputation.

Between the Wild West of social media and now the university debating chamber, allegations of hurt and hate are hurled in a scattergun approach by those lacking the sense or concern to see the dangers posed to the individuals they indict with such callous and casual contempt.

The furious desire of intolerant minds to suppress and silence those they disagree with is a nakedly aggressive form of censorship.

Those in management or teaching positions who acquiesce with or think that they can tame this monster will find its appetite is insatiable, and they too will be devoured in time.

Those folk incapable of accepting robust debate and exchange of alternative views, regard each inch of latitude yielded to them as a permit to destroy those whose views their restrictive minds cant tolerate.

The silent majority now face a very blunt choice.

We can march onwards to assured destruction of any remaining free thought and expression, or we can reject the beat of those banging their increasingly dictatorial drums.

Go here to see the original:
JIM SPENCE: Abertay University vagina row is no joke the free speech Stasi are threatening to silence us all - The Courier

The Duke of Sussex has called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution bonkers, drawing criticism on social media.

Prince Harry, who has moved to California with his wife Meghan Markle and their son Archie, was speaking on Dax Shepards Armchair Expert podcast.

The Duke discussed his new life in Los Angeles, moving away from royal duties and plans for his familys future.

The freshest exclusives and sharpest analysis, curated for your inbox

But his comments on the First Amendment led some Americans to say he is no longer welcome in their country, in angry social media posts.

The First Amendment was adopted on 15 December 1791, as one of the 10 amendments to the US Constitution that make up theBill of Rights.

It states that Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, nor can it prohibit the free practice of religion.

The amendment also protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government.

Free speech means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the Government.

Free press means the right of individuals to express themselves through publication and dissemination of information, ideas and opinions without interference, constraint or prosecution by the Government.

Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, but today it is invoked far more broadly.

The Duke brought up the First Amendment in reference to the press, telling Shepard he has experienced a media feeding frenzy while living in Beverly Hills.

Ive got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers, he said.

I dont want to start going down the First Amendment route because thats a huge subject and one which I dont understand because Ive only been here a short time.

But, you can find a loophole in anything.

You can capitalise or exploit whats not said rather than uphold what is said.

One Twitter user told Harry to get the hell out of America after hearing the interview, while another commented: If he has a problem with the constitution then he can go back to Britain.

Continue reading here:
What is the First Amendment? US right to free speech explained, after Prince Harry says its bonkers - iNews

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The purpose of the Bill is to forceuniversities and students unions to comply with enhanced freespeech duties or face sanctions from the Office for Students and/orlegal claims from individuals.

Opposition to, and support for, the Bill have broken alongpredictable political lines. In this blog, I want to focus on thepracticalities of what the Bill would require universities to doand what action they need to take in order to be compliant with thenew law. Love the new Bill or loathe it, the law is going to changeand universities need to act.

I've highlighted in bold below the action steps universitiesmust take and the most key changes of which they need to beaware.

These are set out in sections A1 to A3 and are the mostimportant parts of the Bill. The OfS and the new Director of FreeSpeech and Academic Freedom will be empowered to ensure compliancewith these duties, and individuals will be able to bring civilclaims in relation to breaches of the A1 duty (though, note not A2or A3).

To summarise:

1) The A1 duty is very similar to the existings43 duty (see here this will stay on the statute books, but won'tapply to English higher education providers). It requires theinstitution's governing body to take steps that are"reasonably practicable" to ensure freedom of speechwithin the law for its staff, members, students and visitingspeakers. This includes ensuring that the use of premises isn'tdenied to anyone because of their ideas, beliefs or view. So far,so s43.

What's new is the additional requirement to have"particular regard to the importance of freedom ofspeech" when taking the "reasonably practicable"steps. It's not really clear what either of thosethings mean in practice or whether the additional wording actuallyadds or modifies the duty in any meaningful way. The main case onthe s43 duty involved a cancelled event where the security costsbecame too high perhaps the new emphasis will mean thatcosts have to take more of a back seat to free speech whenconsidering what step are appropriate? We'll need case law toflesh that out.

Also new is the addition of a specific objective tosecure academic freedom for academic staffalongside their general right to free speech. That includesensuring that they are not put at risk of losing their jobs,privileges or promotion prospects.

Combined with the new right to claim for losses in courtarising from breaches of this duty, universities will need to bemuch more careful when dismissing or disciplining academics. Theywill also need to be careful when recruiting for academic posts, asthere will be an addition new duty on universities to ensurethat their application was not adversely affected by any exerciseof their academic freedom.

Interestingly, the Government has chosen a rather narrowdefinition of academic freedom. It only covers question and testingreceived wisdom, and putting forward new ideas and controversial orunpopular opinions which are: (1) within the law; and (2) withinthe academic's field of expertise. It does not include othertraditional aspects of academic freedom, such as discussing how theinstitution is governed or how it affiliates itself (e.g.affiliation with Stonewall is controversial among some academics).Limb (2) is also new and seems to derive (imprecisely) frominternational case law. This seems to be the most controversialaspect of the definition and may be refined or removed during thelegislative process.

2) The A2 duty concerns the code of practicewhich a university must publish with a view to facilitating the A1duty. This will be familiar to universities as they are alreadyrequired to produce such a code as part of the s43 duty.However, there have been additions so universities willneed to review and update their policies immediately upon the newlaw coming into effect. In particular, the policies must now alsoset out the institution's values relating to freedom of speechand an explanation of how those values uphold freedom ofspeech.

Further, the university must also at least once ayear, bring the A1 duty and its code of practice to theattention of all students.

3) The A3 duty is entirely new. It is an active duty topromote the importance of freedom of speech and academicfreedom. At present, there are no further details as towhat is required here, but the Government have previously mentioneda statutory code of conduct which may set out details. This maycome later and/or be left to the OfS and the new Director toconsulate upon and draft.

Unfortunately, a lack of guidance here will leave universitiesin some doubt as to what they must do, particularly if acontroversy arises. For example, if one of their academics facesprotests or an open letter, will they face censure or sanctionsfrom the OfS if they do not release a statement in support ofacademic freedom? If they don't, it seems likely they will befacing a complaint under the new scheme (more on that below) and itwill be up to the OfS and Director to scrutinise their conduct orinaction.

The first two of the above duties also apply to student unionsin a similar form. Both may now be facing legal action forbreach of the A1 (or equivalent) duty. This is new. Underthe old regime, the only real remedy was a judicial review againsta university's decision in a s43 context. This is a complex andexpensive process for individuals who ultimately would have verylittle prospect of achieving any compensation whatsoever.That has now changed. Not only will universities be facingthe prospect of paying out compensation, they will potentially alsobe under threat of significant costs risks if theylose.

There are going to be some important and significant changes tothe underlying regulatory framework which govern universities. Hereis a breakdown of the three most important changes:

All sanctions generally available to the OfS, includingfines, will also apply here. The OfS can impose fines of up to500,000 or two per cent of 'qualifying income',whichever is higher.

As is clear from even that brief summary, the Bill will addfurther complexity to university governance and will introducesignificant new compliance requirements.

In particular, when disciplining and dismissing academics,universities will need to take much greater care and balance thenew legal protections alongside, and perhaps against, existing lawsuch as the Equality Act 2010. The interaction of these new ruleswith the specific situation of some academics (appointed underUniversity statutes and not always employees) will needparticularly careful consideration.

It also seems likely that organisations such as the Free SpeechUnion will use the new law to increase pressure on universities bysupporting their student and academic members in threatening andpursuing claims where academic freedom and free speech issues areconcerned.

Universities will need to consider carefully what the new lawrequires of them, and how best to mitigate the new regulatory andlitigation risks to which they will likely be exposed.

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

The rest is here:
The New Campus Free Speech Bill What Universities Need To Know And Need To Do - Consumer Protection - UK - Mondaq News Alerts

Its jarring enough that the Governments new law to protect free speech does nothing to protect free speech. Whats most alarming is that it actively works to undermine it.

No.10s war on woke, to give it the tiresome title used by the right-wing press, follows an established pattern. It takes universal values like free speech and then weaponises them for use by one side of the culture war. The progressive side of the cultural battlefield is silenced and the conservative side is legally safeguarded.

When the National Trust published a report into the links between colonialism and slavery at its properties, for instance, ministers flew into an extraordinary rage. Culture secretary Oliver Dowden demanded heritage bodies refrain from making statements which were not consistent with the governments position on contested historical subjects and issued a not-so-subtle threat to withdraw funding if they failed to comply. This is especially important as we enter a challenging Comprehensive Spending Review, he wrote in a letter, in which all government spending will rightly be scrutinised.

A guide to today's talking points, straight to your inbox

In universities, the Government takes the opposite approach. It aims to safeguard the rights of academics and visiting speakers against protests from students.

Section A1(10) of the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, introduced in Parliament earlier this month and which will soon be debated by MPs, defines free speech as the freedom to express ideas, beliefs and views without suffering adverse consequences. For academics, those adverse consequences include anything that damages the likelihood of their securing promotion or different jobs.

Its worth keeping that definition in mind when you read the press release the Department for Education put out to promote the bill. As an example of the chilling effect of censorship on universities, it cited an open letter from academics critiquing a research project by Professor Nigel Biggar, in which he said that British people should have pride as well as shame in their history.

Under any normal assessment of liberal values, the open letter would itself be an instance of free speech. It did not call for Biggars research to be halted or censored. In fact, it went out of its way to affirm that he had every right to hold and to express whatever views he chooses.

But far from treating the letter as an example of free speech, the Government treated it as a threat to it because it came from progressive voices. And in doing so, it accidentally sabotaged its own legal definition.

After all, government ministers are highly influential. University authorities want to stay on the right side of them and avoid their bad side. So they are likely to support the promotion of academics the Government likes over those it does not. The Department for Educations criticism of the academics therefore potentially damaged the likelihood of them securing promotion or different jobs.

The press release is a fascinating artefact in the deterioration of governmental competence. It might be the first instance of a government breaching its own legal definition in a document intended to promote the legislation which would enforce it.

The same lopsided power dynamic applies to students who protest against a speaker coming to the university. Under any normal liberal view, both the protesters and the speaker have a right to free speech. But the government legislation protects only the speaker. It provides them with new legal remedies against universities or student unions who cancel their talks and hands the universities regulator the power to issue fines.

The bill contains no specific safeguards at all for the students demonstrating. However, other government legislation works actively to silence them. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is also going through Parliament, allows police to impose tough new conditions including dispersal, size limitation and volume control on protests whose noise levels may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation.

Its easy to write this off as a torrid little battle in the culture war, with minimal impact in the world outside universities. But there is something profound and ugly lurking within it.

Freedom of speech is one of the most demanding qualities of a liberal society. It asks everyone to sacrifice something so that we can all gain something. We lose the right to silence those we disagree with and gain the right to speak, regardless of whether people like what we have to say. Its a delicate balance, which goes against our hair-trigger emotional instincts, but rewards us with much richer first-order benefits.

By using the rhetoric of free speech to silence progressive young people, the Government is teaching them something altogether different. It is mangling free speech from a universal value into the weapon of the enemy. It is treating it as a mechanism which conservatives use to rig the game in their favour.

If it truly cared about free speech, No.10 would defend the rights of those who disagreed with it as much as those who did not. But that is not the game it is playing. It is cynically misusing basic liberal values in its pursuit of a culture war. And by doing so, it risks turning off a new generation from the principles that maintain a free society.

Read the original post:
The Government is in a mess with its free speech bill it has already sabotaged its own legal definition - iNews

Amid great controversy, this week the Government published its long-awaited Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is to force universities and students unions to comply with enhanced free speech duties or face sanctions from the Office for Students and/or legal claims from individuals.

Opposition to, and support for, the Bill have broken along predictable political lines. In this blog, I want to focus on the practicalities of what the Bill would require universities to do and what action they need to take in order to be compliant with the new law. Love the new Bill or loathe it, the law is going to change and universities need to act.

Ive highlighted in bold below the action steps universities must take and the most key changes of which they need to be aware.

Core duties for universities

These are set out in sections A1 to A3 and are the most important parts of the Bill. The OfS and the new Director of Free Speech and Academic Freedom will be empowered to ensure compliance with these duties, and individuals will be able to bring civil claims in relation to breaches of the A1 duty (though, note not A2 or A3).

To summarise:

1) The A1 duty is very similar to the existing s43 duty (see here this will stay on the statute books, but wont apply to English higher education providers). It requires the institutions governing body to take steps that are reasonably practicable to ensure freedom of speech within the law for its staff, members, students and visiting speakers. This includes ensuring that the use of premises isnt denied to anyone because of their ideas, beliefs or view. So far, so s43.

Whats new is the additional requirement to have particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech when taking the reasonably practicable steps. Its not really clear what either of those things mean in practice or whether the additional wording actually adds or modifies the duty in any meaningful way. The main case on the s43 duty involved a cancelled event where the security costs became too high perhaps the new emphasis will mean that costs have to take more of a back seat to free speech when considering what step are appropriate? Well need case law to flesh that out.

Also new is the addition of a specific objective to secure academic freedom for academic staff alongside their general right to free speech. That includes ensuring that they are not put at risk of losing their jobs, privileges or promotion prospects.

Combined with the new right to claim for losses in court arising from breaches of this duty, universities will need to be much more careful when dismissing or disciplining academics. They will also need to be careful when recruiting for academic posts, as there will be an addition new duty on universities to ensure that their application was not adversely affected by any exercise of their academic freedom.

Interestingly, the Government has chosen a rather narrow definition of academic freedom. It only covers question and testing received wisdom, and putting forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions which are: (1) within the law; and (2) within the academics field of expertise. It does not include other traditional aspects of academic freedom, such as discussing how the institution is governed or how it affiliates itself (e.g. affiliation with Stonewall is controversial among some academics). Limb (2) is also new and seems to derive (imprecisely) from international case law. This seems to be the most controversial aspect of the definition and may be refined or removed during the legislative process.

2) The A2 duty concerns the code of practice which a university must publish with a view to facilitating the A1 duty. This will be familiar to universities as they are already required to produce such a code as part of the s43 duty. However, there have been additions so universities will need to review and update their policies immediately upon the new law coming into effect. In particular, the policies must now also set out the institutions values relating to freedom of speech and an explanation of how those values uphold freedom of speech.

Further, the university must also at least once a year, bring the A1 duty and its code of practice to the attention of all students.

3) The A3 duty is entirely new. It is an active duty to promote the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom. At present, there are no further details as to what is required here, but the Government have previously mentioned a statutory code of conduct which may set out details. This may come later and/or be left to the OfS and the new Director to consulate upon and draft.

Unfortunately, a lack of guidance here will leave universities in some doubt as to what they must do, particularly if a controversy arises. For example, if one of their academics faces protests or an open letter, will they face censure or sanctions from the OfS if they do not release a statement in support of academic freedom? If they dont, it seems likely they will be facing a complaint under the new scheme (more on that below) and it will be up to the OfS and Director to scrutinise their conduct or inaction.

The first two of the above duties also apply to student unions in a similar form. Both may now be facing legal action for breach of the A1 (or equivalent) duty. This is new. Under the old regime, the only real remedy was a judicial review against a universitys decision in a s43 context. This is a complex and expensive process for individuals who ultimately would have very little prospect of achieving any compensation whatsoever. That has now changed. Not only will universities be facing the prospect of paying out compensation, they will potentially also be under threat of significant costs risks if they lose.

Important regulatory changes

There are going to be some important and significant changes to the underlying regulatory framework which govern universities. Here is a breakdown of the three most important changes:

All sanctions generally available to the OfS, including fines, will also apply here. The OfS can impose fines of up to 500,000 or two per cent of qualifying income, whichever is higher.

Conclusion

As is clear from even that brief summary, the Bill will add further complexity to university governance and will introduce significant new compliance requirements.

In particular, when disciplining and dismissing academics, universities will need to take much greater care and balance the new legal protections alongside, and perhaps against, existing law such as the Equality Act 2010. The interaction of these new rules with the specific situation of some academics (appointed under University statutes and not always employees) will need particularly careful consideration.

It also seems likely that organisations such as the Free Speech Union will use the new law to increase pressure on universities by supporting their student and academic members in threatening and pursuing claims where academic freedom and free speech issues are concerned.

Universities will need to consider carefully what the new law requires of them, and how best to mitigate the new regulatory and litigation risks to which they will likely be exposed.

Read the original here:
The new Campus Free Speech Bill - what universities need to know and need to do - Lexology

As a 25-year affiliate professor of surgery, as well as a former member of a liberal arts colleges Board of Trustees, higher education has been a long-term concern of mine. The critical task of preparing the next generation of Americans to become leaders is one of the utmost importance. Now, as the ranking member of the House Education Committee Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee, I am honored to lead on initiatives that improve American colleges and universities.

It is the overwhelming consensus that the cost of college tuition is far too high. At the end of the 4th quarter in 2020, federal student loan borrowers owed $1.57 trillion. This tremendous burden is second only to outstanding mortgage debt. More troubling, the rising cost of tuition in America has far outpaced the rise in the price of other consumer goods in the past 30 years. There are several reasons for this.

Salaries for compliance officers, diversity coaches, and all kind of other administrative staff which I more appropriately term administrative bloat have soared in recent decades. Between 1993 and 2007, these costs jumped by 61.2 percent compared to an increase of only 39.3 percent in academic instructional costs. Although most students may not use many of the unnecessary amenities offered at colleges and universities, they still foot the bill for it. Cutting these costs would save students money. There are also many new majors that offer little, if any, chance of future employment. While classes in those disciplines may be beneficial for a broad education, they do not need to be majors. Higher education has lost their way on how to spend students' monies responsibly. This reckless spending spree needs to cease.

Congress must also pass legislation allowing for short-term Pell grants. Such initiatives would enable students eligible for a federal Pell grant to choose a shorter-term program that aligns with workforce needs. Not everyone has the need, time or desire to complete a degree program, so we ought to create programs that allow one to gain the skills they need to enter, reenter or advance in the workforce. Such purposeful action would dramatically cut the time and expense of postsecondary education for individuals who choose this route and provide them with employable skills.

Competency Based Education (CBE) is another model Congress should consider supporting to cut costs of higher learning. Rather than wasting time and money in classes that duplicate knowledge students already possess, CBE allows students to progress through courses at their own pace by demonstrating mastery of course content. This has the potential to make college cheaper, faster and more personalized.

Finally, the attack on free speech on college campuses has never been greater. Of all places, college campuses should be the No. 1 safe harbor for the free and respectful exchange of ideas and beliefs. Institutions of higher learning are the arenas where competing ideas should be tested and debated. Unfortunately it has now become commonplace for some left-leaning college administrators, faculties and students to "cancel" anyone who does not share their Marxist ideologies and beliefs. Throughout the 20th century, communists rightly demanded free speech rights on college campuses. While in direct opposition to their beliefs, conservatives actually defended those rights. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for modern campus leftist radicals who feverishly attempt to shut down anyone who refutes their progressive political religion.

In an effort to secure freedom of speech on college campuses, I introduced the Campus Free Speech Restoration Act last Congress, with plans to reintroduce in the 117th Congress. Among other things, this legislation would prohibit public institutions that participate in the federal student aid programs from violating students free speech rights.

These initiatives would be a step in the right direction for higher education in America. Cutting the cost of education and creating a more intellectually inclusive learning environment should be initiatives that everyone can get behind. It is my hope we can make some progress on these vital issues during this term.

Murphy represents the3rdDistrict of North Carolina and is the ranking member of the Education and Labor's Higher Education and Workforce Investment Subcommittee.

Read the rest here:
Cutting costs and cultivating free speech will put higher education on the right path | TheHill - The Hill

The education secretary has been accused of misrepresenting some studies when discussing the Bill (Alamy)

6 min read15 May

Several academics and university officials have questioned the evidence underpinning Gavin Williamsons new Bill aimed at ensuring free speech at UK universities.

It comes after the government introduced the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill to the Commons earlier this week, which would see universities fined by the Office for Students (OfS) if they fail to uphold freedom of speech on campus.

While some have welcomed the new legislation, others have accused the education secretary of polarising the debate by selectively citing existing research in the Bills favour.

I think [the Bill] is excessive and over the top, but its inevitably more nuanced than that, Jonathan Grant, a professor of public policy at Kings College London, told PoliticsHome.

His 2019 report on the topic was among those cited in the White Paper and supporting documents for the Bill, alongside research from Policy Exchange and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

But Grant argues that his work, and the work of other academics, has been misrepresented by Williamson and the wider government in relation to this new legislation.

There's a conflation of issues in the debate, the White Paper that was published in February, and again in the Bill. And that's the conflation between so-called cancel culture and issues around the chilling effect.

Earlier this year, Grant was forced to write to The Telegraph asking for a correction after the education secretary said he was shocked by the contents of the King's study, claiming that it found a quarter of students believed violence was an acceptable response to some forms of speech.

However, the report found that this figure was comparable with the general public, where 20% held the same view.

As I joke to my student daughter that White Paper would have failed a master's dissertation on public policy, whilst the language in [the Bill] probably wouldn't have been a failure but it wouldn't have been a great mark.

Because our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare,less than 1%, but we do find concerns around the chilling effects.

The representation of other studies cited by the government have also been called into question.

Writing for The Guardian in February, Alison Scott-Baumann, professor of society and belief at Soas University of London, said the White Paper for the Bill was more about appealing to voters and capitalising on the moral panic about universities than actually helping them to protect free speech.

She pointed out that the Joint Committee on Human Rights report mentioned by the government actually concluded that there is no major crisis of free speech on campus

And, she highlighted research by the OfS which found that, out of 62,094 requests by students for external speaker events in English universities in 2017-18, only 53 were rejected by the student union or the university authorities.

Our study does not say that. The issues of where freedom of speech is curtailed are very rare.

-Jonathan Grant,professor of public policy at Kings College London

The necessity of the legislation has also been questioned across the higher education sector. Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), said she felt the Bill was using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students.

"There are serious threats to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus, but they come from the government and university managers, not staff and students," she said.

Grady continued: The truth is that widespread precarious employment strips academics of the ability to speak and research freely, and curtails chances for career development, she said.

Free speech and academic freedom are threatened more widely on campus by government interference in the form of the Prevent duty, and attempts to impose the IHRA definition and examples of antisemitism on universities.

Patrick ODonnell, president of the York University Student Union (YUSU) said his and many other universities have a strong record of encouraging debate, with a wide spread of political and campaigning societies on campus.

No student has ever contacted me to express specific concern about a free speech issue on campus, he told PoliticsHome.

Frankly, students across the country are more concerned about the woeful lack of government financial support and its disappointing to see these issues absent from the Queens Speech.

The government should work with students unions to broaden and deepen engagement with controversial views not cause students to risk assess the life out of campus.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

-Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge

But Dr Arif Ahmed, a reader at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, said the legislation was extremely welcome as it shows that the government is taking this seriously.

He agreed, however, that the issue of cancelled events at university had been conflated in much of the dialogue around the issue.

No platforming is extremely rare, it almost never happens. And it is a very small part of this problem, it's a vanishingly small part of this problem, he said.

So, the risk of any kind of action from no platforming I think would be negligible, if indeed it's correct that is rare already.

Legislation by itself is not going to be enough, and if were to change the culture of anything a top down approach is never going to be a complete solution.

Ahmed added that he hoped imposing a positive duty on institutions to ensure students and staff know they can speak out will make a real change to higher education.

Commenting on the introduction of the Bill, the education secretary said: It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.

"Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they dont meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

See the rest here:
Academics And Officials Have Questioned The Evidence Behind Gavin Williamson's Excessive University Free Speech Bill - PoliticsHome

Student letters

The following letters were submitted by Blaine Middle School students in Megan Schutts eighth grade social studies class. The students were assigned to write about freedom of speech, with the understanding that letters would be published in a local newspaper. This is the final week of publishing student letters.

The Editor:

I find it funny that the people who use their right to free speech so proudly are the same people who believe others should be punished for using theirs. Take the case of Colin Kaepernick for example, where former President Donald Trump took a disliking to his peaceful protests during the national anthem.

For those unaware, on August 26, 2016, Kaepernick sat during the national anthem in protest of police brutality. I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color, he said to NFL Media. Many people thought this was or should be against the First Amendment, which is false.

Kaepernicks protests were clearly not against any laws. He did not incite violence, nor did he cause harm. He simply stated an opinion through a small action; sitting down.

As I stated before, Trump was one of the people who disagreed with Kaepernicks actions. I think its a great lack of respect and appreciation for our country and I really said they should try another country, see if they like it better. See how well theyll be doing. See if they are going to be making $20 million being a second-string quarterback, he said, according to sportingnews.com writer Tadd Haislop.

Why would Trump of all people believe he should move out of the country, or be fired? On plenty of occasions, hes spoken his mind no matter whom he would offend, and showed pride in our country having the First Amendment. Shouldnt he fight for others to use their own freedom of speech?

If youre someone who often talks about your own viewpoint on political issues as you please, consider letting others do the same.

Camryn Garcia

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

The Editor:

Schools should lower requirements on dress codes.

I understand the importance of preparing students for future jobs that may require uniforms, but shaming them for what they choose to wear is not acceptable. Dress codes target young girls, and its unacceptable. It is a girls First Amendment right to wear what she wants, as well as feel comfortable and safe.

School should be a safe place for young girls, yet girls are being told that their bodies are the reason boys around them are misbehaving. Telling a girl what to wear in relation to social constructs is a violation of her rights; the social constructs being the expectation of modesty and purity in girls.

An anonymous girl that attends a high school in the United States recently posted a paragraph titled Is Her Mid-section Showing? on a wall at her school, and it read, Women of all ages deserve to feel comfortable in their own skin and no one should have the right to tell her that by wearing those kinds of clothes, she is a distraction to the people around her. Doesnt it make more sense to teach boys to keep their eyes to themselves rather than tell the girls to hide their bodies? ... Im a 15-year-old girl. If you are sexualizing me, you are the problem. That is one of the best ways Ive heard a person explain it.

If you think that girls and women are not mistreated when it comes to clothes, keep in mind that there are millions of girls that feel unsafe in their environments. By ignoring these girls, you are making the issue worse. Men and boys, please take the time to understand and fix this. It is a girls first amendment right to feel comfortable, while wearing what she wants.

Brianna McGee

Blaine Middle School

Blaine

Read more from the original source:
Letters to the Editor: May 20-26, 2021 - Blaine Northern Light

Kate Brumback| Associated Press

ATLANTA Georgias sweeping new overhaul of election laws threatens the fundamental right to vote, freedom of speech and the separation of powers, according to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.

The lawsuit against the secretary of state and the members of the State Election Board was filed in federal court in Atlanta by county election board members, individual voters, election volunteers, nonprofit organizations and a journalist. It joins a half dozen other legal challenges, asking a judge to declare parts of the new election law unconstitutional and to prohibit the state from enforcing them.

Liberty requires at least three essential things an unfettered right to vote, freedom of speech, and the meaningful separation of powers, the lawsuit says. This lawsuit is necessary to preserve individual constitutional rights, and constitutional government, against the attacks that (the law) makes on these three pillars of liberty.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger accused the Coalition for Good Governance, an election integrity advocacy group that is one of the plaintiffs, of spreading disinformation about the new law.

"We look forward to defeating another frivolous lawsuit, Raffensperger said in an emailed statement.

More: Georgia Gov. Kemp, voting chief Raffensperger defend election overhaul law

More: What does Georgia's new voting law SB 202 do?

One of the most significant changes in the new law is that it removes the secretary of state as chair of the State Election Board, replacing that elected official with a chair selected by the General Assembly. It also allows the state board to remove county election superintendents a combined election and registration board in most counties without providing much notice or giving them a meaningful chance to defend against their removal, and then allows the state board to appoint a single person in their place, the lawsuit says. While election boards are subject to requirements of Georgia's open meetings law, replacing them with a single person would mean that decisions would be made by that one person without the transparency of a public meeting, the lawsuit says.

In counties where the election and registration boards are separate, the election board is the superintendent. While the law provides for a replacement to be appointed for a removed superintendent, it does not provide for the appointment of a replacement for the board of registrars, which could leave a county without anyone to do that important work, the lawsuit says.

Another part of the law that has gotten a lot of attention and that has been challenged in other lawsuits because of assertions that it makes it more difficult to vote is a change in the identification verification requirement for absentee ballots. Instead of signing their ballot envelopes to be verified by election workers, voters must provide their name, date of birth, address and drivers license or state ID card number.

Rather than enhancing security as the laws sponsors and Raffensperger have asserted, this change creates the potential for fraud, vote dilution and identity theft, the lawsuit says. The personal identification information required by the new law can be easily stolen, opening the possibility for ballots to be requested and cast using voters' names and information without their knowledge, the lawsuit says.

The new law makes it a felony to intentionally observe an elector while casting a ballot in a manner that would allow such person to see for whom or what the elector is voting." But the large touchscreen voting machines Georgia uses make it hard for anyone in a polling place to avoid seeing a voter's selections, leaving voters and observers open to a felony charge that could discourage their participation, the lawsuit says.

The new law says monitors and observers cannot communicate any information that they see while monitoring the processing and scanning of absentee ballots to anyone other than an election official. It also makes it a misdemeanor for those monitors and observers to tally, tabulate, estimate votes. Those provisions mean that observers, including news reporters, would run the risk of criminal charges for reporting on absentee ballot processing, tabulation problems or progress, the lawsuit says.

The law also makes it a misdemeanor to photograph or record the face of a touchscreen voting machine while it is being used to vote or while a voters selections are displayed. News media frequently shoot photos and video of people voting and this provision would criminalize constitutionally protected speech, the lawsuit says.

Under the new law, the window to request an absentee ballot shrinks from 180 days before election day to 78 days before an election and closes 11 days before election day. That means voters who have an unforeseen emergency within 11 days of an election will be disenfranchised, and it also means that absentee voting will be impossible in some runoff elections, the lawsuit says.

The provisions that allow the State Election Board to replace local election officials are egregious and dangerous to every concept of free and fair elections, said Marilyn Marks, executive director of the Coalition for Good Governance. And parts of the law that criminalize practices of citizen and press oversight of elections are abhorrent to modern democratic societies, she said.

Read the rest here:
Federal lawsuit targets Georgia voting law, citing threat to voting, speech rights - Online Athens