Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

ROD LIDDLE: I am honoured to be speaking to you, Peter, on this anniversary of 50 years of causing havoc with the British establishment. Youre one of very few political heroes of mine. I know very few people in the country who are as committed to what they believe in as you. Now a film is being made about your life, isnt it? Its going to be on Netflix and its called Hating Peter Tatchell, which a lot of people have done over the years. How did that come about?

PETER TATCHELL: The film maker, Chris Amos, approached me several years ago and said, No one has ever made a film about you and about your 50-plus years of campaigning, I want to do it. So, I thought, well why not?

RL: Im just hoping that somewhere along the way you make some money out of this, Pete, because you havent done much for yourself in the last 50 years. Are you going to get any dosh out of this?

PT: The film was made on a shoestring so I dont think anybody is going to be getting much money out of it.

RL: Lets go back to the beginning. Youre Australian, born in Melbourne and came here as an act of cowardice, I might point out, Mr Tatchell, to avoid the draft in 1971-ish.

PT: Not entirely. Well, first of all, I left Australia because I had a moral and political objection to Australias involvement in the Vietnam war. I regard that as an unjust war so I wasnt prepared to serve.

RL: A catastrophic war, yes.

PT: Probably I should have stayed and gone to prison but yes, youre right, I cowardly left the country and came to Britain.

RL: My guess is that your political journey has always been rooted in that time of revolution, upheaval and awareness, which sprang out across Europe particularly in 68, is that roughly right?

PT: Well, my first political awareness was much earlier in 1963, when I was aged 11, I heard about the bombing of a black church in Birmingham, Alabama, where four young girls about my own age were murdered. So that motivated me to support and be inspired by the Black Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King. But my first real actual protest was in 1967 when I was aged 15 and still at high school. Ronald Ryan, an escaped convict, was due to be hanged for the alleged shooting dead of a prison warder during an escape and, having read the autopsy report on the dead warders body, which was published in the local newspaper, I worked out that it would have been almost impossible for Ryan to have fired the fatal shot. The bullet would have had to do almost a U-turn in mid-air. So that got me involved in the campaign to try to stop his execution.

RL: And that was at 15, Peter, that you read an autopsy report this is remarkable!

PT: In my mind there was at least a reasonable doubt about his guilt, but sadly he was hanged anyway, and it provoked a real crisis for me. I became a lifelong sceptic of authority. I thought to myself if the government, the police and the judges are prepared to hang this man, where there is at least some doubt about his guilt, I cant trust them any more. I have to question everything. So that led me to question Australias ill-treatment of the indigenous Aboriginal people, it led me to question Australias involvement in the Vietnam war, and it led me to question the persecution of gay people when I realised I was gay in 1969, aged 17.

RL: One of the wonderful things about you if I can I think the phrase is blow smoke up your ass youve always stuck to your principles about freedom of speech, and looking at each issue separately and never taking the easy line on it.

PT: My mother, a pretty hard-line Christian evangelical, always taught me to stand up for what I believe to be right and to not go along with the crowd. Now she meant that I think in a mostly religious sense, but I took it in a much broader sense.

RL: You were defeated as the Labour candidate for Bermondsey in 1983, and it stuck in my mind for these last 40-odd years that you were unjustly subjected to an appallingly homophobic campaign, which was won in the end by Simon Hughes, who turned out to be gay!

PT: The irony, the irony! But it was a very, very tough election. I mean some commentators have since said that it was probably the dirtiest and certainly well, probably the dirtiest, the most violent and most homophobic election in Britain in the second half of the 20th century. I mean, I had over 150 physical violent assaults when I was out canvassing, with people punching me in the face, spitting on me. I had a bullet through the front door, one arson attempt, it was a very, very scary time.

RL: That is incredible, I didnt know the full detail of all that. What did it teach you, that imbroglio with Simon Hughes and with the residents of Bermondsey?

PT: One thing it taught me was the power of the tabloid press. When I began the campaign I was way ahead, according to opinion polls, on 47 per cent of the vote. In the course of that election campaign, the constant barrage of misrepresentation, smears and so on, just whittled that support away. It made me very conscious of the importance of having a fair, accurate, responsible media. Thats absolutely essential for a democracy. The other thing it taught me of course was just how deeply homophobia was embedded in our society.

***

RL: Not once but twice you did a citizens arrest on Robert Mugabe. What was your objection to Big Bob?

PT: Where to start! Well, those arrest attempts were in response to appeals from human rights defenders inside Zimbabwe for me to do something to help highlight his human rights abuses. There was a whole gamut of things but the arrest attempts were predicated on the charge of torture.

RL: Didnt you also try to arrest Mugabe in Brussels as well? And werent you beaten up then as well?

PT: In the lobby of the Hilton Hotel, but then, yes, I was really badly beaten up by Mugabes bodyguards.

RL: Isnt that something which has had a lasting effect?

PT: It is, yes. I was ultimately briefly knocked unconscious and it has left me with some brain and eye damage which was compounded again in 2007 when I was attacked by neo-Nazis in Moscow.

RL: Yes, again, this was campaigning against Putins what you would see as a homophobic regime presumably?

PT: Yes I went to Russia on the invitation of Russian LGBT+ activists who were trying to hold a pride parade in Moscow. Thats perfectly lawful under Russias constitution and law but it had been banned. So we tried to march anyway, and a lot of people were seized by the police and arrested. Others like me got away, but we were eventually caught by neo-Nazis and very badly beaten.

RL: Back to Mugabe werent you quite pleased in 1981 when he won the election and became the leader of Zimbabwe?

PT: I was.

RL: And you didnt worry about what sort of man he was? I spoke to Ian Smith on the day Mugabe was elected and Smith said He is a tyrant who will abuse peoples human rights and turn Zimbabwe into a basket case. The right is sometimes right

PT: Well, that may be the case in this instance. Quite clearly it was untenable for black people to be denied the right to vote and for a system of quasi-apartheid to exist in Zimbabwe, so to have black majority rule was the right thing and initially, of course, Mugabe did lots of good positive things for the poor and the landless.

RL: But he was a totalitarian Marxist, Pete.

PT: Well, you can have Marxists who are democratic.

RL: Name me one?

PT: Well, there arent many.

RL: Not many indeed!

PT: What about Tom Wintringham, probably the greatest British Marxist of the 20th century, who was years and years ahead on the Nazi threat and the need to mobilise the British people in what he called a peoples war against the Third Reich? Many of his ideas were subsequently adopted by the Churchill government.

RL: But there is Marxism as an academic discipline and a means of thinking about things and there is Marxism when it gets its hands on the levers of power. I would have guessed that given the examples of Marxism in power in the last 70 years, you would be a bit averse to that mode of thinking now?

PT: Left-wing ideals in principle are fine and I uphold them, but so often in practice they are turned into a new form of tyranny and that is not what they should be about.

RL: What has happened to the far left? And what are its problems?

PT: The far left isnt all bad, but there are some people there who are supporting very bad tyrants and very bad policies. So, for example, it shocks me that most of the left in general has been silent and inactive against the Assad regime in Syria. I think thats quite shameful. Syria is the equivalent of Spain in the 1930s; its a litmus test of where you stand. A lot of people on the left rightly condemn Saudi Arabia and its war crimes

RL: And Israel, Peter.

PT: And Israel, yes.

RL: More than Saudi Arabia, more than Syria, more than any other country they condemn Israel, and youve condemned Israel.

PT: What Im criticising is the double standards. They condemn Saudi war crimes in Yemen but not Russian and Iranian war crimes in Syria thats double standards.

RL: Then theres identity politics. We become compartmentalised into these various silos of victimhood, dont we?

PT: I think the right is wrong to criticise identity politics. It is legitimate for people to campaign around specific instances of discrimination, whether it be racism or misogyny, but its also important to remember our common humanity, the things that unite us.

RL: Thats the point, isnt it? Surely you must see that there is a culture war going on which does divide people? And it may well be that that culture war is one of the reasons that the Labour party failed at the 2019 election, because an awful lot of people rejected that obsessive identitarian approach to politics. Do you reject it as well, or are you really at heart an identitarian?

PT: I wouldnt describe myself as identitarian, but I do think identity politics has been necessary in order to address issues that were being ignored by mainstream politics. It is only when women organised to demand specific rights and freedoms that eventually politicians and parliament began the process of change.

RL: But were there, arent we? Much as we may be there with gay equality, Pete. For example, I saw that the NUS recently said that gay people were not a victimised minority but were actually privileged and possessed many of the privileges that oppress other minority groups. The whole thing seems to be eating itself.

PT: I think we have to be very careful about the way sections of the left tend to demand absolute purity. None of us is perfect.

RL: But the trouble is, Pete, your whole career, your whole life of campaigning has held freedom of speech in enormous esteem, but there is an awful lot of the left which believes debate is otiose and that freedom of speech is an overrated commodity.

PT: It isnt just a left failing, but you are right I mean freedom of speech is one of the most important and precious of all human rights. Causing offence sometimes is involved in genuine freedom of speech. I stand by that however, there are certain red lines. I think if someone makes false, damaging allegations like saying someone is a rapist or a paedophile, then

RL: Or a racist.

PT: Or a racist, if it is untrue and unfounded, thats not freedom of speech. If someone engages in threats, menaces and harassment, thats not freedom of speech. And particularly if someone engages in incitement to violence, thats not freedom of speech. I think that generally the best way to deal with bad ideas is with good ideas. So for example, when there were calls to ban Germaine Greer, I said dont ban her, find a speaker to speak against her, protest outside the meeting, show why shes wrong.

RL: But Peter, debate and freedom of speech are bourgeois and they are a reflection of white privilege and not everybody has access to that freedom of speech etc, etc

PT: Well, that is true but there are also many on the right who take the same

RL: Come on, Im not sticking up for the right here, Im a socialist for fucks sake.

PT: Well, there is a trend towards placing limits on freedom of speech, but I think it is somewhat exaggerated. Most students in surveys say that they value freedom of speech, including the freedom of speech of people with whom they disagree.

RL: This is where we differ, I suppose. I think that censoriousness is spreading. But perhaps you have a tendency towards utopianism? About five or six years ago you said that Muslims and gays should join together as being similarly oppressed. I remember thinking: What effing planet are you on, Pete? Isnt that kind of unrealisable?

PT: Well, I know its realisable because Ive seen it in the campaign work that I do. My challenge to the Muslim community is to recognise the common experience of prejudice, discrimination and hate crime that they face in common with LGBT+ people. Of course its different, but its still a common thread of prejudice.

RL: Can I break in there? Fair enough and a fair point, but what I really meant was: when are you going to go on a gay pride march in Ramallah?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea.

RL: Are you a masochist?

PT: I did actually discuss the idea with some Palestinian activists and they said it was too dangerous for them and I shouldnt go there.

RL: Yes, but what do you learn from that? You are attacking Israel at the moment, which is a democracy, which allows Arabs to vote in its democracy; the only country where Arabs are allowed to vote and where you can have a gay pride march through Tel Aviv.

PT: Yes, undoubtedly there are still serious problems with the Palestinian territories, particularly Hamas-controlled Gaza youd better not be gay there. Ive helped gay people flee Gaza and seen the abuses and torture inflicted on them by Hamas police and security agents

***

RL: Lastly, I know youve spoken out on the Qatari World Cup previously are there any plans afoot for campaigning against that over the next year?

PT: There are but they have to remain confidential! Certainly Im working a lot behind the scenes with Qataris, not just LGBT Qataris but also human rights defenders, womens rights activists, labour union campaigners and so on, to keep Qatar and its human rights abuses up on the agenda. It is scandalous that Fifa ever agreed to allow Qatar to have the World Cup in the first place.

RL: Its not really scandalous, its corrupt.

PT: Yes, well there are very serious allegations that Qatar was corruptly awarded the World Cup based on bribes.

RL: Yes, no question at all. And I think these enormous events in future will tend to be held in totalitarian countries because these are the countries that can ride roughshod over all objections to those events and which are able to exploit their workforces so that they are done quite cheaply.

PT: Just before I forget, did you hear about the case of the pastor who was arrested in Boris Johnsons constituency?

RL: No, sorry, what was that?

PT: His name was Pastor John Sherwood, I think. He was arrested for preaching in a shopping centre that homosexuality was sinful and he said himself that he was a sinner, but the police said there had been complaints and arrested him quite roughly and I think totally disgracefully breaching his right to free speech. Ive offered to testify in his defence even though obviously I disagree with his views on homosexuality.

RL: He was presumably just quoting from Revelation or something.

PT: Yes, he wasnt being inflammatory or threatening, he wasnt being hateful, he was simply expressing a point of view. I found it disagreeable but I dont think he should be the subject of arrest and prosecution.

RL: He sounds a bit like my mother-in-law, who hands out leaflets that say much the same thing and when she meets a gay or transgender person says God doesnt hate you, he just hates what you do. Peter, it was lovely to talk to you, as always thank you so much.

PT: Likewise. Tell her shed better watch out under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: annoying people is a potential offence!

RL: Its a potential offence, yes, thats right! That says it all really.

Hating Peter Tatchell is available on Netflix

Continued here:
Culture wars, identity politics and free speech: Rod Liddle and Peter Tatchell in conversation - Spectator.co.uk

The Role of the Freedom of Speech view essay example

I belive the most important freedom in the first amendment is the freedom of speech. It allows us to express our opinion and speak freely is much needed to bring about change in the world. I believe free speech has always been important because we...

The Right to Freedom of Speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) is an inalienable right of every citizen of the country; however the right is not absolute and subject to certain limitation. This right is enjoyed exclusively by the citizens i.e., natural persons...

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of press. In my opinion, these rights have been abused in such a manner that the freedom of press has been pushed beyond the boundaries of truth....

Freedom of speech must have limits and censorship because I feel for ones thoughts to be taken into consideration it should be brought across in a passionate yet respectful manner. My definition of freedom of speech is being able to speak your mind and express...

Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want as long as it is not false and causes chaos. Freedom of speech came about in 1791 with freedom of religion, press and the right to assemble. The Americans got this from earlier events...

The United States of America is known for the freedom it offers its citizens, however, these freedoms are becoming majorly restricted. Among these freedoms is the freedom to express yourself, either through speech or press. The Bill of Rights is the document that gives the...

On September 17th, 1787 after four long months of conflict and painstaking work 39 men signed the US Constitution, which from that point forward would be the supreme law of the land. The Constitution became the ultimate doctrine and the foundation of Americas future. No...

Did you know that 95% of North Korean citizens do not have access to Wi-Fi? You are probably wondering why are these people tortured this way? Well, the regime doesnt allow them access to the internet in order to preserve the negative information of the...

In this day and age, due to more freedom of speech being available in many parts of the world, many different schools of thought exist. These schools of thought range from the very extreme to what would be considered to be relatively normal in the...

With all of the racial issues going on around the world, there has been an abundance of issues regarding freedom of speech. The first amendment of the Constitution declares that all citizens of the United States has the freedom of speech, excluding threats, child pornography...

In the United States Constitution the First Amendment provides citizens with the right to free speech. This is a key factor in how America was brought up and for the people who live in the U.S today. It is an important right for them to...

The first amendment provides an adequate tent to shelter products made under the auspices of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as it often times protects students views on moral values. Anything opposing such moral values will be left exposed, unprotected by the tent....

Freedom of Speech on Campus In recent years, in attempt to reduce hate crimes and to protect the minorities, many colleges have adopted codes and policies prohibiting offensive speech based on race, gender, religion and sexual orientation. While college administrators may find speech regulations as...

The Past and Individuality George Orwells novel 1984 warns of a totalitarian state in the future. The totalitarian state, Oceania, under the control of the Party and its leader Big Brother, poses a society where the government is always right and where the people have...

In the article Fighting Words 101, Jeff Chu questions wither legislators are the right people to step into action legislating against academic freedom of speech within college campuses. Chu explains the idea of bills created by professor Bob Hagedorn and David Horowitz which are to...

When people decide to have children, they never expect to be the few parents who children are born with differences from their own. These differences can be a disability, sexuality identity, or even their ability. What happens when these parents end up having children with...

I do not agree with what you have to say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it, a quote giving perspective of many on free speech. This quote gives an example of a different view some may have on this topic,...

In the City of Chicago, shootings seem to be at an all time high. The rising controversy of the shootings of unarmed African Americans exists not only in the City of Chicago, but many major cities and urban areas. Widely public instances include the fatal...

If Liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Free Speech has been a major topic for years, controversies on different aspects of the 1st amendment have plague America for centuries. The limits of...

Read more here:
Argumentative Essays on Importance of Freedom of Speech ...

When the first Amendment was put into place freedom of speech was born, we were all given the right to express any opinion without censorship or restraint. Being able to let

words roll off of your tongue without having to second guess your thoughts could possibly be one of the greatest perks of living in America. Although we are free to say what we want, we are not allowed to express any opinion that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national orientation, or disability (hate speech). Does freedom of speech apply online if we are given limitations? Is there a way to compromise? Has the line of protecting users with censorship and still allowing individuals to express themselves freely become smudged?

Social media has become a one stop shop for many; keeping up with current events, celebrity gossip, a journal, a tool to grow business and most importantly a sanctuary where the first amendment could be utilized as a shield protecting them from the consequences of their words. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have made a more conscious effort to regulate the content posted on their platform. According to an CBS News article, this summer Facebook released a list of guidelines that go into how something qualifies as a Trending Topic causing a few eyebrows to be raised due to the notion that their tactics are biased toward controversial stories and posts. Later Facebook also received backlash for banning a Vietnam war image due their regulations on pornography, later having to backtrack their decision stating: Because of its status as an iconic image of historical importance, the value of permitting sharing outweighs the value of protecting the community by removal, so we have decided to reinstate the image on Facebook where we are aware it has been removed (The Verge). Facebook has the potential to become one of the worlds biggest source for news and their strong stance of censorship could affect what users have access to. Last month Facebook wanted to ban Donald Trump from their network due to violation but Marc Zuckerberg stepped in with the fear that these actions would be distributive during the election although it was clear that some of his content could be considered hate speech. Does being an electoral candidate hold you to different standards on social media? Is it up to social media applications to control what ideas are censored? How do administrators create polices that do not impose on others rights while still maintaining an overall positive user experience?

Of course it is important for platforms to monitor for child pornography, harassment, online bullying, and overall hate speech but how do they create a perfect balance. It is important for users to be able to utilize social media as a safe haven and not feel as if they will be demonized for expressing their views as long as it does not make another feel threatened. Easier said than done? In order for this to be done properly social media sites must find a reasonable compromise, giving users a platform to safely express their views without fear of punishment.

Twitter might have found the recipe. In October users came across a muted words feature on Twitter (The Next Web) This option allowed users to create a list of unwanted words and phrases that they did not want to see on their timeline still leaving them available for others to see. Sources expressed that this feature was released prematurely and would be released in the future with an update. After doing my research it has not be fully explained how this will work but it seems that this addition to Twitter could be what all social media needs to keep the peace.

Gabrielle Byrd

Emerging Media Graduate Student

Loyola University

See original here:
Does Freedom of Speech Exist - Emerging Media - Loyola ...

The tumultuous events of the past year have highlighted the First Amendments vital role as a pillar of American democracy. They have also underscored the need for vigilance in defending it.

Journalists coverage of these events the pandemic, the nationwide protests denouncing police killings of Black Americans and supporting racial justice, and the bitterly contested presidential election and its aftermath has put renewed focus on the protection of freedom of the press.

Attacks by law enforcement on protesters and journalists have brought to prominence two other First Amendment protections: freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Freedom of speech is also at the center of ongoing debates over controversial speakers on college campuses and the role of social media companies in limiting or blocking hate speech and disinformation on their platforms.

Now, the initial amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being tested on multiple fronts:

Because of these and other factors, understanding the First Amendments role in protecting key freedoms is now especially important.

Expression by speakers across the ideological spectrum is facing actual or threatened suppression by not only government officials, but also other powerful societal forces, from tech giants to social media mobs, Nadine Strossen, an expert on constitutional law and a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. No matter who we are, no matter what we believe, we all have a stake in ensuring meaningful free speech for everyone.

This starts with knowing the rights and freedoms that the amendment protects. A 2019 survey by the Freedom Forum Institute found that only 1% of Americans could name all five: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. More than a quarter (29%) could not name a single one.

Asked about the First Amendments language at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year, even Amy Coney Barrett nominated to fill the seat long held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg was unable to cite the right to petition the government.

It extends to knowing what the amendment covers and what it does not.

The First Amendment is frequently invoked in discussions of online speech. While it states that Congress shall make no law that infringes on the protections it cites, it says nothing about private companies, such as Facebook or Twitter, curating content on their platforms and restricting speech that they deem harmful.

As a result, support for it should never be taken for granted.

The future of the First Amendment seems uncertain. So does the underlying reality of public opinion in this area and its trajectory moving forward. That was the conclusion of High School Student Views of the First Amendment, a 2019 report commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation that summarized the findings of seven national surveys of U.S. high school students from 2004 to 2018. A Knight survey of college students, published in 2020, found that students today are less inclined than their recent predecessors to view First Amendment freedoms as secure in society.

Why? Heres one reason: Court decisions that are often the most important for example, whether displaying a swastika is a form of free speech or whether speakers should be permitted to share offensive views on college campuses may be challenging for many to understand.

This makes it imperative that the First Amendment be taught in schools as the bedrock of the countrys commitment to individual rights and responsibilities and a core part of civics education.

As Strossen told me, The only secure protection for free speech is a public that understands its importance and therefore defends it.

TheNews Literacy Project, a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy.

The rest is here:
Opinion: The past year has underscored the need for vigilance in defending the First Amendment - Poynter

A colleague recently asked me if I approved of Big Tech censoring political and cultural voices on their platforms. My colleague believes as do I in natural rights, minimal government and that owners of private property can use it as they see fit. We both condemned the Big Tech censorship. Then he asked if the government could regulate these platforms. I offered that it could not.

These questions arose from the reported efforts by Facebook to bar from its platforms those who wish to offer scientific, political or cultural arguments against mass vaccinations. Many of these arguments are sound and fascinating. Nearly all are provocative. They are the essence of free speech. Should those who offer them be silenced on a platform used by billions of folks?

Here is the backstory.

The freedoms of thought, speech and publishing are natural rights. Just as one can naturally think as one wishes, one can say what one thinks and publish what one says. Speaking and publishing are also constitutional rights since the First Amendment expressly protects them from government infringement. A natural right comes from our humanity not from the government and is knowable and usable by the exercise of reason.

Speech is second nature to us, and in America for the most part speech is free. In this context, the word free doesnt mean without cost. It means without a government permission slip or reprisal.

The history of free speech in America is a tortuous one. In 1798, John Adams used the Alien and Sedition Acts to punish speech critical of himself and the Congress. Abraham Lincoln arrested newspaper reporters and editors in northern states critical of his war leadership. Woodrow Wilson arrested those who urged draft resistance during his war.

In all of these interferences with speech, the government has done the interfering. Indeed, the reach of the First Amendment is limited to government. Even though it states, Congress shall make no law, today, that language applies to all legislative bodies and executive officials local, state and federal. Congress cannot outlaw speech; neither can a state legislature or a city council. The president cannot interfere with speech; neither can a governor or local officials.

What about private persons operating private venues? Can executives at Facebook ban speech with which they disagree? The short answer is: Yes, they can.

Facebook operates a business that consists of making a digital bulletin board available for all. The bulletin board is private property. It is not owned by the government. The owner of private property who invites others onto his property for the benefit of both can establish ground rules for the use of that property. You can kick me out of your garden party because you dont like the color of my shirt. You can also do so if you dont like the tenor of my words. And you can fire me as your lawyer if you hate my political views. The government cannot do any of these things.

If Big Tech platforms want to migrate from communication to indoctrination, they are free to do so under basic property rights and First Amendment law. While I understand and share the anger and frustration of those whose views have been censored, this is not a problem for government to solve because it is private property and the government can neither silence nor compel speech on private property.

The very threats to insinuate government controls between writers and their venues are themselves unconstitutional, as they constitute chilling.

Chilling consists of any intentional government behavior official or rogue that gives a speaker or writer pause or second thoughts out of fear of what the government might do as a consequence of the exercise of freedom of speech. Thus, an FBI agent coming nose to nose with you as you are publicly criticizing the FBI would constitute chilling, as would the threat to do so, as is the threat by persons in government to regulate the Big Tech bulletin boards.

The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the business of evaluating the content of speech. I am not talking about noise in the streets at 3 a.m. I am talking about public officials having the power to dictate what private people and venues may say and publish.

Such government behavior would undermine the fabric and core of the United States. It would truly be a remedy worse than the disease because the government would favor the speech of its patrons and punish the speech of its adversaries the very acts the First Amendment was written to prevent.

None of this is to say that Big Tech executives are faultless. It is hateful for them to define our identities. And that is what they do when they silence critics of vaccines or even when they silence a former president. Everyone has the natural right to be the author of his or her own identity and destiny. And we have the natural right to become informed by gathering whatever data and opinions we choose to gather. We are not infants who thrive on a filtered stream of news and opinion, tailored to please those who do the filtering.

What can we do about this? We can use the tools of the free market and the First Amendment. We can loudly leave the censoring venues and not patronize their advertisers. We can build and support other venues. We can preach the values of an informed public and the virtues of personal liberty. We can foster widespread opinions that censorship is repellant and censors should be shunned.

But we can never use the government to compel or evaluate speech. That will destroy what freedoms we have.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:
Big Tech and freedom of speech | News, Sports, Jobs - The Sentinel - Lewistown Sentinel

Ohio State Reps. Jeff LaRe and Shane Wilkin introduced House Bill 22, which is aimed to modify the state's law in order to expand the definition of obstruction of justice.

Under the new legislation, "failure to follow lawful order from a law enforcement officer or diverting a law enforcement officer's attention," would be added to ORC 2921.32.

If the bill is passed, it would make it a punishable crime for individuals to interfere with the duties of a law enforcement officer after a lawful order is given.

Opponents of the bill currently being considered in the Ohio House are warning that its goal of expanding the definition of obstruction of justice will undermine police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself.

Sponsors of House Bill 22 say its needed to better protect the public and law enforcement in light of last summers protests following the police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans.

Rep. Tavia Galonski of Akron says she already has concerns about police efforts to protect and serve.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Undermining police reform efforts and even freedom of speech itself

House Bill 22 would hamper the efforts of individuals who see injustice and believe it should be pointed out, she said.

The proposed changes under House Bill 22 include adding taunting as a form of obstruction of justice, which is also big concern for her.

Rep. Tavia Galonski

Concerns about the language in the proposed changes

"One persons taunt is another persons attempt to save a life, she said.

Galonski also points to the fact that only three out of 30 people testifying at committee hearings so far have spoken in favor of the bill.

See the rest here:
House Bill 22 Raises Concerns for Police Reform Efforts and Freedom of Speech - WKSU News

In the upcoming week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral argument in three First Amendment cases. While government regulation of speech lies at the heart of these cases, their facts which range from a cheerleaders use of profanity on social media to state regulations for charitable contributions could not be more different.

On Monday, April 26, SCOTUS will hear the consolidated cases ofAmericans for Prosperity v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra.

California law requires charities within the state to submit a list of the names and addresses of their major donors. Under this policy, non-profits must report anyone who donated $5,000 or more or who contributed more than 2-percent of the organizations total contributions to the state; California then keeps that information confidential.

Conservative watchdog groups filed lawsuits arguing that the policy violates the First Amendment, specifically in that it deprives donors of their privacy in association. According to the plaintiff petitioners, California has no need to compel this sensitive donor information to serve any law-enforcement goal, and the state virtually never uses any of the information for law-enforcement purposes.

The Ninth Circuit applied exacting scrutiny and sided with California; petitioners now ask SCOTUS to reverse, arguing that the case is a politically-charged matter of the highest stakes. From Americans for Prosperitys brief:

This is not the time or the climate to weaken First Amendment rights to anonymity. Social and political discord have reached a nationwide fever. Perceived ideological opponents are hunted, vilified, and targeted in ways that were unthinkable before thedawn of the Internet. As partisan pendulums swing back and forth in governmental offices, and as online campaigns rage against perceived ideological foes, donors to causes spanning the spectrum predictably fear that exposure of their identities will trigger harassment and retaliation far surpassing anything reasonable people would choose to bear. Vindicating freedom of association in this context will therefore mean the difference between preserving a robust culture and practice of private association and charitable giving, versus opening the door to chilling governmental intrusion.

On Wednesday, April 28, the Court will again consider the First Amendment in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case about a high-school students Snapchat story.

B.L. had been shopping with friends on a Saturday afternoon in 2017 when she posted a Snapchat story showing her frustration with a recent decision by her cheerleading team. The post included a selfie in which B.L. and her friend extended their middle fingers. The caption read, Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything. A second post said, Love how me and [another student] get told we need a year of jv before we make varsity but thats [sic] doesnt matter to anyone else?

When B.L.s school officials saw the post, B.L. was cut from the junior varsity cheerleading team on the grounds that she had violated team and school rules. The schools official policy requires athletes to have respect for [their] school, coaches . . . [and] other cheerleaders, avoid foul language and inappropriate gestures, and refrain from sharing negative information regarding cheerleading, cheerleaders, or coaches . . . on the internet.

B.L.s parents ultimately brought a federal lawsuit after they exhausted their appeals at the school-district level. At both the district and circuit court levels, they won. The case, though, presents complex questions regarding off-campus speech. While under prevailing law students do notshed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, schools may legally impose some limits on student speech, both on and off campus.

The case presents the Court with an opportunity to hand down a framework to be used by all circuits; currently, the approach used by theThird Circuit in B.L.s appeal is at odds with approaches used by the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits in other cases.

[image via Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
The Supreme Court Justices Are Set to Hear Two Very Different Free Speech Cases What You Should Know - Law & Crime

Further Education News

The FE News Channel gives you the latest education news and updates on emerging education strategies and the#FutureofEducation and the #FutureofWork.

Providing trustworthy and positive Further Education news and views since 2003, we are a digital news channel with a mixture of written word articles, podcasts and videos. Our specialisation is providing you with a mixture of the latest education news, our stance is always positive, sector building and sharing different perspectives and views from thought leaders, to provide you with a think tank of new ideas and solutions to bring the education sector together and come up with new innovative solutions and ideas.

FE News publish exclusive peer to peer thought leadership articles from our feature writers, as well as user generated content across our network of over 3000 Newsrooms, offering multiple sources of the latest education news across the Education and Employability sectors.

FE News also broadcast live events, podcasts with leading experts and thought leaders, webinars, video interviews and Further Education news bulletins so you receive the latest developments inSkills Newsand across the Apprenticeship, Further Education and Employability sectors.

Every week FE News has over 200 articles and new pieces of content per week. We are a news channel providing the latest Further Education News, giving insight from multiple sources on the latest education policy developments, latest strategies, through to our thought leaders who provide blue sky thinking strategy, best practice and innovation to help look into the future developments for education and the future of work.

In May 2020, FE News had over 120,000 unique visitors according to Google Analytics and over 200 new pieces of news content every week, from thought leadership articles, to the latest education news via written word, podcasts, video to press releases from across the sector.

We thought it would be helpful to explain how we tier our latest education news content and how you can get involved and understand how you can read the latest daily Further Education news and how we structure our FE Week of content:

Our main features are exclusive and are thought leadership articles and blue sky thinking with experts writing peer to peer news articles about the future of education and the future of work. The focus is solution led thought leadership, sharing best practice, innovation and emerging strategy. These are often articles about the future of education and the future of work, they often then create future education news articles. We limit our main features to a maximum of 20 per week, as they are often about new concepts and new thought processes. Our main features are also exclusive articles responding to the latest education news, maybe an insight from an expert into a policy announcement or response to an education think tank report or a white paper.

FE Voices was originally set up as a section on FE News to give a voice back to the sector. As we now have over 3,000 newsrooms and contributors, FE Voices are usually thought leadership articles, they dont necessarily have to be exclusive, but usually are, they are slightly shorter than Main Features. FE Voices can include more mixed media with the Further Education News articles, such as embedded podcasts and videos. Our sector response articles asking for different comments and opinions to education policy announcements or responding to a report of white paper are usually held in the FE Voices section. If we have a live podcast in an evening or a radio show such as SkillsWorldLive radio show, the next morning we place the FE podcast recording in the FE Voices section.

In sector news we have a blend of content from Press Releases, education resources, reports, education research, white papers from a range of contributors. We have a lot of positive education news articles from colleges, awarding organisations and Apprenticeship Training Providers, press releases from DfE to Think Tanks giving the overview of a report, through to helpful resources to help you with delivering education strategies to your learners and students.

We have a range of education podcasts on FE News, from hour long full production FE podcasts such as SkillsWorldLive in conjunction with the Federation of Awarding Bodies, to weekly podcasts from experts and thought leaders, providing advice and guidance to leaders. FE News also record podcasts at conferences and events, giving you one on one podcasts with education and skills experts on the latest strategies and developments.

We have over 150 education podcasts on FE News, ranging from EdTech podcasts with experts discussing Education 4.0 and how technology is complimenting and transforming education, to podcasts with experts discussing education research, the future of work, how to develop skills systems for jobs of the future to interviews with the Apprenticeship and Skills Minister.

We record our own exclusive FE News podcasts, work in conjunction with sector partners such as FAB to create weekly podcasts and daily education podcasts, through to working with sector leaders creating exclusive education news podcasts.

FE News have over 700 FE Video interviews and have been recording education video interviews with experts for over 12 years. These are usually vox pop video interviews with experts across education and work, discussing blue sky thinking ideas and views about the future of education and work.

FE News has a free events calendar to check out the latest conferences, webinars and events to keep up to date with the latest education news and strategies.

The FE Newsroom is home to your content if you are a FE News contributor. It also help the audience develop relationship with either you as an individual or your organisation as they can click through and box set consume all of your previous thought leadership articles, latest education news press releases, videos and education podcasts.

Do you want to contribute, share your ideas or vision or share a press release?

If you want to write a thought leadership article, share your ideas and vision for the future of education or the future of work, write a press release sharing the latest education news or contribute to a podcast, first of all you need to set up a FE Newsroom login (which is free): once the team have approved your newsroom (all content, newsrooms are all approved by a member of the FE News team- no robots are used in this process!), you can then start adding content (again all articles, videos and podcasts are all approved by the FE News editorial team before they go live on FE News). As all newsrooms and content are approved by the FE News team, there will be a slight delay on the team being able to review and approve content.

RSS Feed Selection Page

Read the original here:
The Russell Group's statement of principles on universities protecting freedom of speech - FE News

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia is suing political artist and activist Fahmi Reza for his recent satirical artwork that has allegedly insulted the institution. Fahmi himself has stood firm on his stance that satire is a form of expression that he has a right to exercise.

BFM speaks to Thulsi Manogaran, an activist with a civil society coalition working on freedom of expression, on the position of satire when it comes to freedom of speech. Lawyer Khaizan Sharizad Razak then tells the station about the legalities in pursuing action against satire. Finally, Ernest Ng, comic book writer of CovidBallz, explains why satire is important.

Producers: Loo Juosie, Adeline Choong and Alia ZefriPresenters: Sharmilla Ganesan and Lee Chwi Lynn

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.

More:
Should satire be protected as free speech? - Aliran

James Acaster. Photo-Illustration: by Vulture; Photo.by YouTube

Earlier this year, someone tweeted a clip with the caption james acaster calling out transphobic comedians for two minutes straight. The joke, which is from the opening of Acasters most recent, critically acclaimed special, Cold Lasagne Hate Myself 1999, went megaviral. In it, Acaster mocks comedians, like Ricky Gervais, who, when anyone criticizes them, dont listen to the feedback and instead pat themselves on the back for having such challenging material. The rest of the special is less focused on the state of comedy, but it continues in this vein by exploring what is actually challenging in stand-up, like talking about difficult subjects and taking responsibility when you do so.

On Vultures Good One podcast, Acaster talks about how he writes material, figuring out how to talk about mental health onstage, his complicated relationship with his audience, and being on the The Great British Bake Off. You can read an excerpt from the transcript or listen to the full episode below. Tune in to Good One every Thursday on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Overcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

It seems like the special is questioning what material is actually challenging and what comedians use their free speech for. This is explicitly the case with the joke about Ricky Gervais types.At the time when I was writing it, I felt that a lot of people felt the same way I did. I thought I was doing an observational bit and just pointing out the inherent ridiculousness of comics who say, Oh, Im too challenging, and Im challenging the status quo by saying this. The status quo is what you just said its small-mindedness and bigotry and stereotyping of minorities and marginalized groups. That has been the status quo for centuries. And what you are doing is you are talking like people have talked your entire life. When you were a baby, people had this point of view, and the point of view that youre challenging is the progressive one that is actually challenging you. And you dont like being challenged. Youre doing this routine.

These people also say, Im just trying to start a conversation. Im just having a debate. Its like, yeah, and this person is responding to you and youre trying to shut it down by saying, Im just trying to have a conversation. Youre not responding to them. So, you dont know how conversations work. You dont know how debates work. All you want to do is say a very old-fashioned point of view that and no one can challenge it. Everything that youre saying about wanting to challenge people, wanting to have a conversation, free speech being important, is bullshit, because all of your actions are the opposite of it. So, therefore, this is ripe for comedy, because what you are doing is ridiculous. Its funny to do a routine about this.

I would find that sometimes I would get people who disagree with me being very vocal about that. I had to kick a man out because he was shouting hate speech at the top of his voice which is different from freedom of speech, by the way. Free speech and hate speech are different things. So, yeah, originally it was like, Well, this is just a routine that Im sure most people can relate to. And even if they cant relate to it, its just pointing out how ludicrous something is. And so hopefully that will get them onboard to laugh at that. And that was it.

I would be surprised if I had successfully changed anyones mind in a way, because I feel its pretty nave to think that, especially these days. People just get more and more uncomfortable with change. But the main thing was for it to be for people who feel the same way I do, and to just do that routine, because theres so many routines which are the opposite of it. You just want to put a routine out there going, Actually, I disagree with that, and enough of that comedy, please.

In the show, you give a disclaimer that what youre talking about is in the past and that youve already dealt with it. There are certain comedians who have a different approach Let me talk it out onstage but you intentionally didnt want to give an audience your raw experience of that. Can you talk about that and the instinct some comedians have to use the stage for therapy?Its not that I dont think its the right thing to do; it wasnt the right thing to do for me. I want there to be a healthy boundary between me and the audience. Doing a show like this, where Im talking about my real life and my struggles with mental health in the past, people can feel like they are now entitled to step over those boundaries and speculate as to whether your mental health actually is okay now. I dont want to encourage that in any way. And I definitely dont want to open up to them about stuff that I havent opened up to people in my life about. If Im talking to an audience about it, then Ive also talked to my family about it. Ive talked to my friends about it. Ive talked to a therapist. Ive dealt with it with myself.

Beyond having appropriate boundaries, there will be people in the audience who are going through stuff themselves, and I dont want to go up in front of them before Ive got a good handle on things. I dont want to encourage what can sometimes be quite a romantic phase when youre inside the worst part of things. Sometimes when you are struggling, you can have a tendency to romanticize it and see yourself as some sort of, like, Hemingway. I dont want to be onstage being like, Im a mess, and doesnt that make me such a great, mysterious artist? And then the people in the audience might think, Thats me too. I will continue to go down that path and not get help.

You cant sort it out onstage. You can probably develop inappropriate relationships with audience members who come up to you after shows, want to talk to you about it, and then the codependency stuff happens and all this mess could arise from that. So as long as youre not trying to fix yourself and its more cathartic, its probably fine.

Though people have been talking about their struggles with mental health in the States for a while now, I get a sense that its still fairly new in Britain. Especially the part where you talk about calling the Samaritans, after your experience on The Great British Bake Off. How did you approach it?Id already been doing a lot of the routines that touched on mental health, though I didnt deliberately set out to do a mental-health show. Those things happened to me, and it was all I wanted to talk about onstage. The more that I did it onstage, the more that it got treated like a mental-health show. People would either come up to me after to say, Thanks for talking about that, or people would heckle during the show. After I said what I say about having suicidal thoughts, I had people heckling me Man up! or saying I was a crybaby. Things like that would happen and you go, Oh, this is a bigger deal than I thought it would be. When that happened, you kind of get a bit like, Okay, there is some responsibility here.

I had a work-in-progress show, and during a routine about my agent dropping me and a lot of that is about being gaslit by my agents I was still filling out the routine and it was getting nothing. When that bit got nothing, it just felt like I was oversharing with the audience; I was telling them a really personal thing that felt heavy and depressing for them to hear. There was a man in the front row of a very small group of 50 people in a very small room. He was right on the front, virtually in my lap. And he just sat in the silence, until he said, Its hard, isnt it? And I thought he was saying, Stand-up comedy is hard and youre doing it badly. I got slightly defensive, but then he was like, Ive been through some similar stuff recently. I was like, Oh, Im sorry about that. And then he started crying. I gave him a hug, because I thought thats what I should do. So, its just me and a man onstage hugging, and the rest of the audience is just sitting there.

Afterwards I was like, I have to make sure that doesnt happen again. I have to make sure that that man or whoever in the audience doesnt feel like that, and that I havent just pushed them to the point where they relive their own trauma and start crying. That was the big thing of going, Okay, how are you doing this routine? Make sure its funny, because if its funny, its relatable to that guy. If I make the jokes relatable and Im not laughing at myself and going, Haha, I was feeling bad, and instead its the situation and how weve let it get to this point. Its the ludicrousness of how its got to this point where no ones helped me, and its more of a reflection of the society we live in, and therefore, everyones in on the joke in the moment; no ones been laughed at. And those people hopefully wont cry and feel like, Now all Im reminded of is a bad time in my life.

I stumbled into that Samaritans bit. Luckily, the first time I did it, I realized the joke is that I have been on Bake Off and I went to talk to Samaritans while covering up the fact of being on Bake Off. The joke in that situation is I had to lie and say I was a baker, which is what really happened. In the special, I kind of undersell saying I called them. I do it as a faraway thing, and I move quite quickly onto the next thing. And I put that line in there as well: If youve done it before, you know that the first time you do it, its like this So then youre not assuming that the majority of the audience dont call. Because normally in a lot of comedy, the punch is down, and it assumes everyone in the audience is like the comic, and the comic is normal and doesnt have anything wrong with them or weird about them: We can laugh at minorities or other vulnerable people or whoever, because thats not us. But the fact of the matter is those people are in the room, and youre currently making them feel like theyre weird and theyre sacks of shit. And actually going like, Those of you who have done this, you know that this Suddenly the people who havent done it, youre not making them feel like outsiders, because they already think theyre in the majority because thats what the society tells them. But it will make them go, Oh, those people are here. So, actually, its probably quite rude to laugh in their face.

You learn to try to flip the assumption of whats normal and that everyone in the audience is the normal person, because actually, none of them are. Theyve all got something that theyve been made to feel ashamed of. And its much more interesting to try and go, That thing that youve been made to feel ashamed of? Thats mad that they did that to you, and actually, youre not weird. The ludicrous thing is the system thats made you feel like that. We can laugh at that, but were not laughing at you because youre actually all right, and you dont need to go away from this gig feeling even worse than before and feeling like youre more on your own than you were before.

Read the original post:
James Acaster Never Wants to Make an Audience Member Cry Again - Vulture