Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Social media companies that remove posts whose content is legal can be fined up to 1.8 million under a new Polish bill. Users have welcomed its introduction as an antidote to other countries growing censorship demands.

Any social media company that removes content or blocks accounts that do not violate Polish law can be fined under the new legislation, announced in a press conference on Thursday by Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. The bill also creates a special Court for the Protection of Freedom of Speech within one of the district courts.

Individuals whose posts have been censored will have the right to complain to the platform in question, which has 24 hours to respond. The user then has 48 hours to petition the new court to have their content reinstated, and the court then has seven days to consider the petition.

If the court finds in favor of the user and the social media platform does not restore the content or unblock the account, they will be fined up to 1.8 million by the Office of Electronic Communications. The whole process will happen online, according to Ziobro.

The victims of ideological censorship are unfairly quashed by social media platforms just because they express views and refer to values that are unacceptable from the point of view of communitieswith an ever-stronger influence on the functioning of social media, the justice minister said.

The user of social media must feel that his rights are protected. Nor can there be any censorship of speech. Freedom of speech and freedom of debate are the essence of democracy.

The new court will also be tasked with handling blocking requests regarding content that does violate Polish law. Additionally, it will handle a new type of blind lawsuit in which someone who is wronged by an anonymous party on the internet can file a lawsuit to correct the wrong, even without the defendants personal data. All that would be needed for such a suit is the offenders username, the website where the offending post was made, and the date and time of posting.

Secretary of State Sebastian Kaleta said this solution represents a significant improvement over attempts by countries such as France and Germany to handle such problems, noting that their efforts are primarily repressive and focus on the quick removal of content rather than protecting free expression.

A government press release specifically cited the European Commissions Digital Service Act a sprawling EU-wide piece of legislation which also focus[es] on removing prohibited content as one of the motivating factors behind Warsaws rollout of the new protections for online speech.

Poland wants to adopt its own regulations, effectively defending the constitutional right to freedom of expression, so that in the event of a disputethe courts will decide on a possible violation of the law, it said.

Social media users far outside Poland were thrilled by the legislation.

Many especially Americans were impatient to see such laws in their own countries. Must be nice to have such leaders, one user sighed wistfully.

Others considered a move to Poland.

And several users simply tagged US President Donald Trump, who has vowed to veto the National Defense Authorization Act if it does not include a provision to strip social media platforms of their Section 230 legal liability. Section 230 exempts social media platforms from legal responsibility for content posted by their users while still allowing them to moderate that content a loophole its opponents have claimed enables ideologically-motivated censorship.

While both houses of Congress have passed the bill with veto-proof majorities, the president still plans to veto it, according to White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

Unfortunately for Americans looking eastward, Poland is not yet allowing visitors from the US (except from Illinois and New York) due to the novel coronavirus epidemic.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Read the original post:
Poland threatens hefty fines for social media companies that censor legal speech, users everywhere celebrate - RT

Year-ender 2020: As the year comes to an end, here's a look at some of the landmark verdicts that were delivered by the Supreme Court in 2020.

New Delhi | Jagran News Desk: The year 2020 was a roller-coaster for the world in many ways. From the raging coronavirus pandemic to India-China border standoff along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh to death of former President Pranab Mukherjee, several key things happened throughout 2020 that impacted the world in many ways. The year 2020 was also an important one from the perspective of the Indian judiciary as the Supreme Court of the country gave several key verdicts, changing the way the nation used to work. So as the year comes to an end, here's a look at some of the landmark verdicts that were delivered by the Supreme Court in 2020:

'Freedom of speech constitutionally protected'

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court in January this year ruled out that expressing views via the internet is an integral part of the fundamental right to speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution.

While hearing a plea on internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir, the apex court internet stands as the most utilised and accessible medium for the exchange of information in the world and the right of trade and commerce through it is also constitutionally protected.

"We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business)," the court said.

'Land acquisition won't lapse if compensation is deposited'

In another major development, the apex court this year said that disputes over land acquisition and payment of fair compensation to owners cannot be re-opened under the 2013 Act if the legal processes have been completed before January 1, 2014.

The court said that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition and it applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013.

"It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition," it noted.

'Quota policy not meant to deny merit'

In 2020, the Supreme Court also said that "quota policy is not meant to deny merit". A bench headed by Justice UU Lalit ruled against the idea of "a communal reservation" and said that general category in employment is open to all including reserved category candidates.

"But the converse can never be true and will be opposed to the very basic principles which have all the while been accepted by this Court. Any view or process of interpretation which will lead to incongruity as highlighted earlier, must be rejected," the three-judge bench of the apex court said this year.

Women officers in Army to be granted permanent commission

The Supreme Court this year also directed the central government to grant permanent commission to women officers in the Indian Army, saying "there will not be any absolute bar on giving them command postings".

Rejecting government's argument of "physiological limitations", the top court said that women have the equal right to get permanent commission and command postings in the Armed Forces and there is a need to change the "mindset" to end gender bias in security forces.

RTI requests for pleadings

In March this year, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which was headed by Justice Banumathi, said that people cannot file right to information (RTI) requests to obtain pleadings. Restricting the application of the RTI Act, 2005, the apex court said that people "must resort to using the procedure established by the Gujarat High Court rules".

Posted By: Aalok Sensharma

Original post:
Year-ender 2020: From access to internet and free speech to land acquisition, a look at 5 key verdicts by Supreme Court - Jagran English

We Americans treasure our freedom of speech. We defend it staunchly. As the old saying goes, we may not agree with what some people say, but we defend their right to say it.

Unless it is intended to incite violence to harm people otherwise. There, we draw the line.

In August 2019, a federal judge in Missoula, Montana, ruled that the publisher of a neo-Nazi website had stepped across that line. Andrew Anglin, founder and operator of The Daily Stormer website, had orchestrated a campaign intended to harass a Jewish family, Judge Dana Christensen decided in a lawsuit filed by a member of the family, Tanya Gersh, of Whitefish, Montana.

Anglin was ordered to pay a $14 million judgment to end the lawsuit.

Similar judgments have been made in other lawsuits against Anglin, in Ohio and Washington.

Now, Gershs lawyers are back in court, seeking new action against Anglin because he has not paid any of the $14 million judgment. In fact, the attorneys say, Anglin cannot be located. It seems he has gone underground in an attempt to dodge his financial obligations.

It may be that Anglin has left the country.

Anglin and others enamored of Nazism are entitled to their despicable beliefs. They are not entitled to harm others in any way, however.

To this point, it appears Anglin has not run afoul of criminal law. His court trouble has been in civil cases but attempting to dodge judges orders in such situations can be a criminal offense.

He should be hunted down and held accountable for any harm the courts find he has caused.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read more here:
Americans treasure freedom of speech but not to harm others - Minot Daily News

Last resort

And the criminal law as it applies to hate speech should always be the measure of last resort, a public consultation document on the matter has concluded.

A Department of Justice statement has said that all legislative proposals are developed and put forward bearing in mind the provisions of the Constitution and human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.

However, comments sections in various media outlets were deemed to be problematic, a consultation document on new legislation says.

The minister was launching the findings of a public consultation which received 3,526 responses to a five-question online survey, though 8% of responses were repeated, giving a true participation rate of 3,241.

The majority of responses were from Ireland (79%) with a minority from the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada (16% in total).

There were 182 detailed written submissions with 77 submissions from civil society groups, professional or academic organisations or NGOs. The remainder were from individuals.

Community and civil society groups comprised 28% of the written responses.

The minister has announced her intention to bring forward new legislation to combat incitement to hatred and hate crime in Ireland in 2021.

The minister said that many of those who participated in the consultation had been victims themselves, while others were concerned about the very real need to respect the human rights of everyone involved, including the right to freedom of speech, so that the new legislation was proportionate, as well as effective in achieving its aims.

The consultation concludes that in the long term, prevention of such hate crime incidents is much more desirable for all concerned.

Success in this regard will depend almost entirely on non-criminal, education and awareness-based measures.

Measures ranging from education and awareness to codes of conduct and professional standards are essential to any comprehensive approach to tackling hate speech and hate crime, including by effective prevention, the document says.

Launching the findings of the consultation, Minister McEntee said that victims of hate crime are targeted because of something innate such as race, sexuality or disability.

The fear that arises from hate crime can lead to a more divided society, she said.

This consultation is a really useful contribution toward the development of new criminal legislation to deal with hate crime and incitement to hatred.

I intend to bring the Heads of a Bill to Cabinet by Easter 2021, the minister said.

The new law will cover both incitement to hatred and hate crime.

The new hate crime offences will be aggravated versions of existing crimes, for example offences against the person, criminal damage or public order offences, where they are carried out because of prejudice against a protected characteristic.

Creating these new offences will mean that a crime can be investigated as a potential hate crime by garda, and evidence of the hate element can be presented in court.

Where the jury finds that the crime was a hate crime based on the evidence, and convicts the person of a hate crime, the enhanced penalty for the new offence will available to the judge at sentencing.

Where the jury finds that the hate element is not proven, they will still be able to convict the person of the ordinary form of the offence.

Minister McEntee said: As Minister for Justice, I am determined to tackle these crimes and to ensure that those who seek to divide our communities and spread hatred and fear, including online, are dealt with effectively by our criminal justice system. I want perpetrators to know that their crimes will be reported, investigated and prosecuted.

There is no place for hate crime in our society. The legislation will deal with situation where perpetrators seek to incite other people to hatred from behind the protection of a screen or an anonymous account. This is an important factor in order for this legislation to be as effective as possible in tackling all forms of hate speech.

Regarding the fundamental constitutional right of freedom of expression, I want to assure people that this legislation will be proportionate, specific, and clear, with offences capable of being proven beyond reasonable doubt. There will be no confusion as to what constitutes criminal hate speech.

It is my hope we will develop a strong and effective legislative infrastructure to help tackle this serious form of crime which will also be evidence-based, while respecting important rights to freedom of expression and association.

The consultation document says that Irelands historic approach to hate crimehas been defined by a sense of this country as monocultural, where no minority cultures exist.

It is widely held that this traditional view cannot hold in the Ireland of today, whose society is so changed, so colourful and so diverse in comparison with the country of 50f years ago.

The document disputes that Ireland was ever monocultural and says the Travelling community has experienced individual and systemic prejudice.

One of the documents conclusions is that the definition of ethnicity in any new legislation should explicitly include membership of the Travelling community on the same footing as other ethnicities.

Consultation participants cited their experiences of ill-treatment on grounds of physical and mental disability, mental illness, sexual orientation, and socio-economic status, including postcode prejudice.

Free speech should be protected for reasons of legitimate political commentary, artistic expression, and legitimate scientific discussion, and true or factual statements as well as jokes, insults and cartoons, the document says.

However, actions glorifying or encouraging violence, or unlawful discrimination, should be criminal, some participants believe.

Public figures and those with a wide platform for their views must be held to a higher standard, participants said.

The document says that hate crime involves a signalling element that can spread fear, isolation and anger.

Therefore, it can be useful to have specific forms of offences which recognise this harm and provide enhanced penalties.

Judges may consider a hate motive an aggravating factor and may reflect this in a sentence, but this is not reflected in the formal records of the conviction, the document says

It adds that the structure of the 1989 Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Actis not useful in practical terms for prosecution of incitement to hatred.

The document adds that criminal legislation will not solve the problem of hate speech and many milder forms do not reach the threshold for criminal prosecution.

Measures ranging from education and awareness to codes of conduct and behaviour are essential to any comprehensive approach to tackling hate speech and hate crime, including by effective prevention, it says, accepting that some countries restrict offences to characteristics such as race and religion.

All in all, there are many approaches to tackling hate crime internationally, reflecting the complex nature of these incidents and the requirement to protect people from criminal sanction where their behaviour does not warrant the application of the coercive powers of the State, it says.

Read the rest here:
Right to free speech will be respected in any hate crime law - Law Society of Ireland Gazette

Ronnie Kasrils writes that he empathises with those in the Labour Party today, who are being victimised by a double agenda: for their socialism and defending Palestinian rights.

The assault on free speech within Britain's Labour Party speaks like a ghost from my past.

I was banned from public speaking in apartheid South Africa almost 60 years ago.

My crime, aged 23, was advocating votes for all. The apartheid government accused those like me of undermining the safety of whites.When all avenues of peaceful change were blocked, we had no option but to turn to armed struggle. We argued that there was no equivalence between the state violence of the oppressor and the resistance of the oppressed.

International solidarity helped bring about the demise of the apartheid system. We empathise with those in the Labour Party today, who are being victimised by a double agenda: for their socialism and defending Palestinian rights. It is astonishing and deplorable that a witch hunt is underway within those ranks - as elsewhere.

I was invited to address a BDS event in Vienna over a year ago which the city council quickly banned.

A couple of months ago I was involved in a planned event with Palestinian freedom fighter Leila Khaled, at San Francisco State University, which was blocked. Then attempts to have our discussion broadcast via Zoom, Facebook and You Tube was obstructed. The voice opponents of free speech were desperate to gag was Leila Khaled's. The Palestinian narrative being the primary target.

Those who attack human rights, whether in advanced capitalist countries or feudal tyrannies, simultaneously attack Palestinian rights.

They follow violent precedents, and consequences.

Emergence of a terrorist state

Repressing freedom of speech in South Africa, paved the way forthe emergence of aterroriststate.

Ruthless suppression was instrumentalised in Europe's colonies; and by US imperialism on the back of slavery and genocide; and in the colonisation and dismantling of Palestine.

The latter context falls within the project to counter the national liberation upsurge of the 20th Century.

The apartheid regime's use of anti-communism as a blanket device to smash opposition; along with Joe McCarthy's witch hunting; is mirrored in manipulating "anti-Semitism" as a shield toprotectIsrael. It is an umbrella formula to delegitimise the Palestinian causeand BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) campaign.

Upholding Palestinian rights has been reflected in United Nations resolutions; and statements by Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu, Angela Davis,ArundhatiRoy, Noam Chomsky; and back in time, Jewish scholars such as Eric Fromm and Martin Buber.

Apartheid alleged the South African struggle was about sweeping whites into the sea and handing the country to Russia. This echoestheclaim that giving in on human and national rights of the dispossessed Palestinians means the extinction of the Jewish people.

READ |Ronnie Kasrils: Why we are standing with suspended Labour party member Jeremy Corbyn

Those linking freedom of expression and Palestinian solidarity articulate the same goals as we did in South Africa's struggle - the objective is about changing a system, not destroying a people.

Criticising Zionism, an exclusivist ethnic-based political doctrine, is not anti-Semitic. It is the valid criticism of a reactionary political theory.

Zionism, not the Judaic religion; Israel, not the Jewish people, is the focus of criticism.

The anti-communism of apartheid South Africa, and charges of anti-Semitism against Israel's critics, are terms of Machiavellian elasticity stretched by charlatans to stifle opposition. This is the new taboo. The untouchable holy cow shamelessly peddled in Western countries that preach freedom of expression.

False allegations of anti-Semitism

Those who fall prey, who are deceived by the confusion sown, should note the lesson of the boy who cried wolf. When the real monster of anti-Semitism strikes, the most steadfast of opponents, have been on the left of the political spectrum.

False allegations of anti-Semitism weaken the fight against the real demon.This is exactly the pitfall of theInternational Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) treatise conflating criticism of Israel with hate speech. It is biased and fatallyflawed. Adubious, non-internationally represented Eurocentric document, devised by a hand-picked cabal of sophists seeking to be referee and player at the same time. With a veiled attempt at "objectivity" Israel is given umbrella-like cover, impunity for its crimes and a cudgel to beat its opponents.

In 1948 when Menahem Begin visited New York to raise funds for his party - later to become Sharon and Netanyahu's ruling Likud - Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt labelled him a "fascist". After cold-blooded massacres of Palestinians that year, an Israeli cabinet minister, Aharon Cizling, declared "now we too have behaved like Nazis and my whole being is shaken".

In terms of the IHRA's guidelines, they would be labelled anti-Semitic.JeremyCorbyn's "crime" that accusations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party have been exaggerated, are minuscule by comparison.

Manufacturing mountains out of mole hills, characterises the sophistry of medieval inquisitors, hitching Labour to the Blair-ite anti-socialist bandwagon. Unopposed, this witch hunt will escalate, attacking popular protest wherever humanity opposes injustice.

Denialism

We say to the deceit of Labour Party leaders, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, who misappropriate a sacred trade union principle: Yes! "An injury to one is an injury to all" - but in your denialism you ignore the millions of Palestinians facing the bullets and bombs of Israeli aggression.

READ |Opinion: Africa's solidarity a vital pillar in fight for Palestinian statehood

The recent statement of prominent Palestinian and Arab figures with regard to the IHRA's false strictures eloquently attests to how the issue of anti-Semitism should be formulated.

They declare:

"Anti-Semitism must be debunked and combated. Regardless of pretence, no expression of hatred for Jews as Jews should be tolerated anywhere in the world."

The left and human rights movement, including Black Lives Matter and formations such as the African National Congress of South Africa, should join those Palestinian and Arab voices in formulating genuinely international guidelines regarding defence of free speech; and in combatting the scourge of anti-Semitism and all forms of racism.

-Ronnie Kasrils, is a former ANC freedom fighter, and was Intelligence Minister in South Africa. This article is based on an address to a London online Free Speech Rally, 12th December, 2020.

See the article here:
Ronnie Kasrils | Against the witch hunt and in defence of free speech - News24

NewsOpinionColumnistsWhen the Scottish Parliament was first established, it was intended that the committees, constituted on a cross-party basis reflective of the political balance at Holyrood, would perform an important scrutiny role, effectively acting as a second chamber.

Tuesday, 15th December 2020, 4:45 pm

In practice, this has not been how things have worked out. Expectations that MSPs on committees would leave their party-political allegiances at the door and act independently have been dashed, with the consequence that too often the ability to hold ministers to account has been frustrated. This was particularly the case during the period of SNP majority government between 2011 and 2016.

Since the SNP lost their overall majority, we have seen committees become more assertive, and prepared to challenge the government where appropriate.

We see that on a weekly basis in the Salmond Inquiry Committee, on which I presently sit, and we saw it just last week in a report from the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee slamming the catastrophic handling by the Scottish government of ferry procurement.

Unintended consequences

One of the best examples of a committee doing its work effectively also came last week, with the publication by the Justice Committee of its stage one report on the SNPs Hate Crime Bill. Under the stewardship of my Conservative colleague Adam Tomkins MSP, the committee has done an excellent, thorough job of analysing the Bill, identifying the key areas of controversy, and suggesting improvements.

As readers of The Scotsman will be well aware, this is a Bill that provokes strong opinions. Whilst everyone should deplore hate speech, there have been real concerns expressed that the legislation as drafted goes too far in seeking to close down public debate and restrict free speech.

An alliance of lawyers, writers, comedians, human rights advocates, and religious groups have come together to oppose the Bill, and express serious concerns about its impact.

In its report, the Justice Committee recognises the broader context for the Bill, and the debate around freedom of speech, agreeing the right to freedom of speech includes the right to offend, shock or disturb.

It goes on to say: The committee understands that this Bill is not intended to prohibit speech which others may find offensive, and neither is it intended to lead to any self-censorship. The committee is anxious to ensure, however, that these are not unintended consequences of the Bill.

Would Bible be deemed inflammatory?

Much of the committees report analyses in detail the controversial aspects of the Bill, which relate almost exclusively to part two, and the creation of new offences around stirring up hatred. Despite concessions put forward by the Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, witnesses were still concerned that the Bill would impact on freedom of expression, and the right to criticise religions.

At a number of points, the heated public debate on trans issues was quoted as one area where the Bill could have a chilling effect on the ability for that debate to be conducted, and all opinions aired. The recent opinions of the writer JK Rowling were quoted by witnesses as an example of a legitimate point of view that could potentially be criminalised by the Bill as presented.

The language in the Bill is analysed, including whether terms such as insulting and abusive in relation to speech should be included. The committee concluded that the meaning of the word abusive in the Bill had to be clear.

A number of witnesses raised concerns around the so-called dwelling provisions which provided that hate speech could be criminalised even if it took place in a family home. There were also issues around section five of the Bill which criminalised simply the possession of inflammatory material, it being pointed out by the Roman Catholic Church that the Bible itself could be considered inflammatory in some contexts.

There are existing protections built into the Bill to permit freedom of expression, around criticism of religion, and sexual conduct and practices. However, the committee was concerned that these did not go far enough, and recommended wider protections of free speech, to more closely align with the equivalent provisions in England and Wales.

Fresh concessions not enough

On Monday, the Justice Secretary indicated his willingness to make further concessions, including to strengthen the freedom of expression provisions, to make clear that the term abusive was an objective test, and to propose limits on police powers of search and entry. In addition, he agreed to remove section five on possession on inflammatory material from the Bill entirely.

I am sure these further concessions will be welcomed by the committee which, combined with the previous announcements from the Justice Secretary, represent a major shift in his position away from the Bill as originally introduced. However, there are very serious concerns that, even with these adjustments, the Bill still goes too far in terms of restricting freedom of speech.

The Justice Committee has done a tremendous service to Parliament, and to the Scottish public more generally, with its thorough analysis of the Bill and the key issues that arise from it.

It will now be up to the Scottish Government, and MSPs across all parties, to determine whether the Bill can be sufficiently improved as it goes through the parliamentary stages to make it worthy of adding to the statute book.

Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this whole episode has been that a measure around which all of us should unite, the clarification of the law against hate speech in Scotland, has ended up mired in so much political controversy because of overreach on the part of the SNP government.

I hope that they have learned a lesson from this legislation that Scotland as a nation, across all sectors and political opinions, values free speech, and is prepared to defend that right vigorously.

Murdo Fraser is a Conservative MSP for Mid-Scotland and Fife

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

See the article here:
Hate Crime Bill: SNP is being taught a lesson about the value of free speech Murdo Fraser MSP - The Scotsman

A new national survey of 478 higher education institutions in the U.S. found that 9 in 10 restrict free speech in some capacity on campus but nearly half maintain policies that impermissibly restrict online speech.

The study was conducted by FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at American colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

The report, Spotlight on Speech Codes 2021: The State of Free Speech on Our Nations Campuses, analyzed the written policies related to free speech at 478 top American colleges and universities. It found that 88 percent of those surveyed maintain policies that restrict, or could be interpreted to restrict, expression.

These policies have real-world consequences, Laura Beltz, FIREs senior program officer for policy reform and author of the report, said in a statement. Students and professors around the country face punishment for speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment or a schools free speech promises.

FIRE notes that restrictive speech policies extend beyond college campus property. With the advent of Zoom and online classes being conducted remotely, expression is being threatened online, FIRE found, in students own homes and on their own computers.

In New Jersey, a student at Stockton University faced possible suspension, a fine, and a mandatory social justice workshop after using a photo of President Donald Trump as his Zoom background while attending class online. By having a backdrop of the president, the university claimed other students said they felt offended, disrespected, and taunted. The student also posted a Patrick Henry-esque political post on Facebook in July, which prompted the university to charge the student with six policy violations, including harassment and cyberbullying, before FIREs public involvement caused the university to back down.

In June alone, 128 people came to FIRE asking for help when they believed their First Amendment rights were in jeopardy, the organization says.

In Colorado, a University of Colorado-Denver email policy bans students from sending or storing emails with messages that could be considered offensive."

The policy directs students not to use email to send any offensive or otherwise inappropriate matter. Listed examples include offensive comments about a range of topics, including race, gender, political beliefs, and even terrorism.

Im not sure what theyre trying to target by banning offensive comments about terrorism, but in any case, expression doesnt lose constitutional protection just because it has offended someone, Beltz argues.

The policy bans hyperlinks or other references to indecent or patently offensive websites and similar materials, holding students responsible for including a link or reference in an email that someone finds indecent.

While material that meets the stringent legal standard for obscenity is not constitutionally protected, expression cant be limited merely because someone has found it indecent, Beltz adds. Under CU Denvers policy, emailing a link to Cardi Bs WAP video or even a photo of Michelangelos David would be punishable. This absurd result is impermissible at a public university.

In New York, at Fordham University, a policy bans the use of any IT resource, including those off campus, to intimidate, insult, embarrass, or harass others.

Each of the 478 policies analyzed can be found in FIREs Spotlight Database. Schools are ranked according to color, with red indicating that the institution has the most restrictive policies, and green, the least. First Amendment protections analyzed include policies related to protest, online speech, harassment, and civility.

Among them, 21 percent received an overall red light rating for maintaining speech codes that both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.

More than half of red light-ranked schools are located in the District of Columbia and seven states: Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Roughly 12 percent of institutions analyzed, a total of 56, received green light ranking for having no policies in place that compromise student expression, according to the database.

Yellow light-ranked institutions represent the majority, 65 percent, which have policies in place that prohibit, or have an impermissible chilling effect on, constitutionally protected speech.

The rest is here:
Report: 88% of universities restrict expression, nearly half restrict online speech - Washington Examiner

The East London-based education charity WORLDwrite is organising a pioneering live event: The Freedom Babbleon on Saturday 19th December. After a year of restrictions and regulations, the idea is to put freedom back on the map as the precondition for a decent life.

The East London-based education charity WORLDwrite is organising a pioneering live event: The Freedom Babbleon on Saturday 19th December. After a year of restrictions and regulations, the idea is to put freedom back on the map as the precondition for a decent life. On Saturday 19th December, 100 contributors over 8 hours, for 4 minutes a piece will share their take on why freedom is essential for humanity to thrive. An awesome line up from all walks of life, including writers, activists, academics, singers, comedians, and volunteers will share their hot tips, tales, texts and songs to inspire a love of liberty.

The full line-up is available at worldwrite dot org dot uk in News and events.Fears surrounding Covid-19 have led to a plethora of restrictions, in fact not since the McCarthy era has freedom to live our private lives or to express ourselves publicly been so constrained. But do we have to sacrifice our freedoms to stay safe? The charity believes freedom and safety need not be trade-offs if we trust people to exercise their judgement and look after each other.

WORLDwrite Director Ceri Dingle said today: We are delighted that so many high-profile speakers and talented contributors are taking part with such a huge array of subject matter from free speech in comedy and cancel culture, freedom from necessity in the developing world to lessons from the lesser-known Scottish Martyrs. Its not all about Covid and lockdowns but that is the backdrop, as many people recognise our basic freedoms have taken a hammering over the past year. 100 lovers of liberty holding forth, should make quite a day.

The Freedom Babbleon aims to make freedom the talking point, to question anti-human developments and re-ignite public debate.

This ambitious event is a collective effort by a crew of young volunteers. This is a sponsored event too, designed to help the charity re-open its Volunteer Centre in 2021.

The live broadcast of WORLDWrites new audacious event and thinkpiece, The Freedom Babbleon, will take place on Saturday, December 19, 2020 on Zoom and worldwide, from 10am to 6.15pm. Tickets are free (although voluntary donations are encouraged) and anyone can register on the WORLDwrite Eventbrite page at eventbrite dot com and search for Freedom Babbleon

For interviews or further details, please phone Kate Abley on 020 8985 5435.

Notes for EditorsWORLDwrite is a registered charity, no. 1060869. The charity runs the award-winning online Citizen TV channel WORLDbytes which champions quality citizen reporting and provides free film training to young people to make this possible. WORLDwrite is committed to international understanding and global equality. The charitys founding principles include: democracy for all and the more direct the better; freedom of speech and advancing civil liberties; challenging distrust, fear and intervention in everyday life; support for freedom of movement and the advancement of new knowledge, ideas and critical thinking. Its pioneering events and films reflect its educational objectives and ethos.

WORLDwrite-produced documentaries include the award-winning, internationally-screened Every Cook Can Govern: The life, works & impact of C.L.R. James, the multi-award winning film Women: a success story and the acclaimed documentary Sylvia Pankhurst: Everything Is Possible.

More details are available on the charitys website at worldwrite dot org dot uk

View original post here:
The Freedom Babbleon, an Online Event Celebrating Freedom and Free Speech to Take Place This Saturday - PR.com

The pandemic was just beginning to rumble when I agreed to be on the advisory board of the Free Speech Union, run by Toby Young. It had become increasingly clear to anyone with half a brain that freedom of speech including perfectly reasonable as well as horrible exercises of it was badly imperilled.

There was a launch party, with lots of lusty speeches, including one by the Humberside docker visited by the police for his rude tweets about trans people (Were here to check your thinking).

Pandemic aside, this year has turned out to be frenetically preoccupied with freedom of speech, what constitutes it, and who its enemies are. Even our most elite institutions have entered the fray, at the very highest level of engagement.

And finally, some progress seems to have been made. Last week, woke-deranged Cambridge pulled up its socks: a policy requiring staff and students to be respectful of all other views was rejected by the universitys governing body.

Academics rightly saw that criticism and disagreement could be attacked and shut down as disrespect so long as that respect clause stayed in. Arif Ahmed, a reader in philosophy, spearheaded the revolt, comparing the atmosphere at Cambridge to that of the Salem witch hunts of the 17th century.

Respect was duly changed to tolerate. There will be less room for no-platforming, and a good thing, too. This is, after all, the Cambridge where students at Clare College recently bayed for the suspension of a porter who resigned from the city council over a motion pertaining to trans rights, and where countless attempts to bully, censor and sack in the name of social justice have come to define its culture.

The Cambridge policy tweak has come at the end of a year of unprecedented curtailment of free speech. Following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police in May, Black Lives Matter burst on the scene with revolutionary ambitions for dismantling our culture in its entirety. Accusations of racism soon veered wildly off piste, becoming another means of control and suppression used to sack dissenters and terrify institutions.

Mission accomplished.

High-profile, chilling sackings (or forced resignations) included that of James Bennet, the New York Times opinion page editor whose crime was to run a comment piece by Republican senator Tom Cotton that argued the US military should be deployed if police couldnt get the riots under control. Stockwell Day, a former Canadian cabinet minister, lost three jobs in June after saying on a televised debate that Canada is not a [systemically] racist country while also saying our system needs to be improved.

Meanwhile, the world watched as JK Rowling was flayed on Twitter her crime being her stated belief that sex is biological. Last month, the prize-winning feminist columnist Suzanne Moore left the Guardian after a letter signed by 338 staff suggested views such as hers (she wrote in favour of biological women-only spaces) made the paper transphobic.

The Cambridge vote was certainly positive. But it is important, as we fight for this core value of freedom of speech, that we remain vigilant against slipperiness and hastiness. In this regard, Im not so sure about the Cambridge success. Is it really? Tolerate is a murky word. Doesnt freedom include the right to storm out of a lecture?

Nor am I sure I liked vice-chancellor Stephen Toopes slightly snaky statement that all those with lawful views are included in this toleration clause. Didnt he mean lawful speech? Views are private unless expressed. Toope seems to be implying that you can have illegal opinions. This may have been a slip, but it was a telling one.

Such slipperiness is perhaps to be expected at the top in woke Cambridge. But while free-speech warriors are less prone to slipperiness, we must be careful to avoid sloppiness. The row at Eton is an example, where an English master was sacked after recording a virtual lesson that included a misogynistic, antifeminist video (the two do not necessarily go together, but in this case they do).

The video in question was not appropriate for schoolboys under the guise of education, and teachers cant simply say whatever they want. In this case, its author was disciplined for refusing to recant, and thats fair enough. Yes, it iswrong and unfair that when equally pernicious stuff is fed to schoolchildren under the guise of diversity and inclusion, nobody is punished. But we must be careful not to confuse the curtailment of the inappropriate with the curtailment of the free.

Our battle is far from won and we cant afford to cry wolf when the issue is actually a poodle.

You can read Zoe Strimpels column every Sunday at telegraph.co.uk. Click here to read last week's column

Read more:
Cambridge may have won the battle for free speech - but this war is far from over - Telegraph.co.uk

Section 230 shields an ecosystem. Rather than protecting particular platforms or offering separate rules for different sorts of services, it protects all internet intermediaries equally, regardless of their size, purpose, or policies. Under this uniform, predicable arrangement, specific platforms may set their own rules, choosing to cater to mass audiences or niche subcultures and governing their services accordingly. Diversity of opinion marks the whole system but not every platform therein. This liberal, decentralized approach remains the best mechanism for ensuring freedom of speech online.

Section 230 was intended to let athousand platforms bloom, ensuring that, according to the Congressional findings that precede the bills substantive sections:

The Internet and other interactive computer services offer aforum for atrue diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

Crucially, this expectation was made of the internet as awhole, or, the internet and other interactive computer services, when taken together, not specific services. Unfortunately, critics of the policies of particular platforms such as Twitter and Facebook increasingly misread this expectation as relating to individual platforms.

In aFederalist Society Blog post titled Section 230 and the Whole First Amendment, Craig Parshall, General Counsel of the National Religious Broadcasters, claims that Section 230 was intended to incentivize individual tech platforms to open themselves to all speech.

The intent behind Section 230 was to incentivize tech platforms to screen out harmful and offensive content while also providing a forum for atrue diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad of avenues for intellectual activity.

It is time that they be required to live up to their part of the bargain; namely, expressly conditioning their protection under Section 230in return for their use of aFirst Amendment free speech paradigm for their decisions on thirdparty content.

Setting aside the problem of how platforms might be expected to screen offensive and harmful material while simultaneously mirroring the First Amendment, by substituting tech platforms for the internet, Parshall dramatically alters Section 230s expectations.

More recently, Conservative Partnership Institute Policy Director Rachel Bovard makes the switch in an opinion piece for USA Today;

Internet platforms would receive aliability shield so they could voluntarily screen out harmful content accessible to children, and in return they would provide aforum for true diversity of political discourse and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

By narrowing the internet to particular internet platforms,Bovard and Parshall invent aSection 230 that demands diversity within platforms, rather than between them. The expectation that all platforms offer truly diverse forums amounts to an expectation of uniformity in platform policy. If all platforms must serve as a forum for atrue diversity of political discourse, none may serve particular communities. This leveling would perversely render the internet as awhole far less diverse than it is today. Instead of Ravelry offering aplatform for knitters and TheDonald.win offering ahome for unfiltered MAGA fandom, Bovard and Parshall would have both platforms host it all. Taking anarrow view of the internet as ahandful of major platforms, they propose systemic changes that would put the diversity they ignore on the chopping block.

Their unworkable expectation is at odds with aplain reading of the statute and the intentions of Section 230s drafters, Representatives Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chris Cox (R-CA). In arecent letter to the Federal Communications Commission objecting to its efforts to modify the statute via rulemaking, they write:

In our view as the laws authors, this requires that government allow athousand flowers to bloomnot that asingle website has to represent every conceivable point of view. The reason that Section 230 does not require political neutrality, and was never intended to do so, is that it would enforce homogeneity: every website would have the same neutral point of view. This is the opposite of true diversity.

By allowing individual websites to screen offtopic or otherwise objectionable, Section 230 ensures that online communities and service providers can chose whatever rules or standards they think most fitting for their particular corner of the internet.

All platforms have rules intended to foster particular sorts and styles of conversation. Some are enforced by moderators or bots, while others are built in to the platforms architecture. Twitter maintains rules against threats of violence, and the platform will not allow an account to post more than 100 tweets in an hour. Even ostensibly ungoverned platforms maintain rules. 4chan is divided into topic specific image boards for everything from Papercraft &Origami to Adult Cartoons.

Because online real estate is an unlimited resource, for those who find agiven ruleset illfitting, exit is cheap. Section 230s intermediary liability protections keep the cost of exit low by preventing platforms from being held liable for their users speech. While The Atlantic staff writer Kaitlyn Tiffany calls this capacity for exit the internets structural penchant for hate, it prevents any single set of platform rules from creating auniversal prohibition. Unlike legal speech restrictions, unwanted platform restrictions are intended to be avoided through the creation of competing jurisdictions.

This is particularly important for explicitly dissident alternatives to mainstream platforms. Both TheDonald.win and Ovarit were created as offplatform alternatives to banned subreddits. For these burgeoning, essentially moderatorrun forums, the fact that they regularly hostspeech deemed impermissible by Reddit would serve as amagnet for litigation in the absence of Section 230.

Indeed, at atime when traditional media gatekeepers have deemed migration to Parler a threat to democracy, and treat podcast apps as the next front in an unending War on Disinformation, intermediary liability protections are vital speech protections. Advocates of liberal speech governance should refrain from reading expectations of uniformity into Section 230. Undermining protections for diverse approaches to content moderation will serve only to nip alternatives to mainstream platforms in the bud.

More:
Section 230 and the Whole Internet | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute