Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Four years ago, just prior to the November election, I wrote an article titled Hillary Should Have a Catholic Problem. I started by citing numerous articles in the national press that proclaimed Donald Trump was having difficulty winning over Catholics a key voting bloc in any candidates run for the presidency. In fact, according to Pew Research Center polls, Trump ended up taking 52% of the Catholic vote in 2016 to Hillary Clintons 45%.

At this writing, we are still awaiting the final steps in the process of confirming the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but some voter data is already available. According to a poll of more than 110,000 voters conducted for the Associated Press, American Catholics were more evenly split this year between support for President Donald Trump (50%) and Democratic challenger Joe Biden (49%) who, unlike Clinton, is Catholic.

Both during the campaign and since the election, the press has made much of Bidens Catholicism, describing in glowing terms how he will be bringing his faith to bear on the issues were told Catholics care about most: the environment, racism and fairer wealth redistribution.

Conspicuously absent from these puff pieces, however, are hard-hitting questions about how Biden reconciles his Catholicism with his positions vis-a-vis abortion and related issues. But its a fair guess that if those positions were to hew closer to Catholic teaching, Biden would not only not receive the kid-glove treatment in the media; he likely never would have been the Democratic nominee. As it is, Bidens own words and actions suggest that his positions are contrary to Catholic teaching and, more broadly, American concepts of freedom of speech and religion.

For example, this past July, Biden stated that if he were elected president, he would strip away the protection that the Little Sisters of the Poor have fought up to the United States Supreme Court twice to obtain: the dispensation eventually granted by the Trump administration permitting them to refrain from providing or paying for contraceptives for their employees. Additionally, Bidens campaign website contained his promise to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law; to eliminate state laws restricting or regulating abortion; and to repeal the Hyde Amendment, thus requiring taxpayer funding of abortion.

Since the election, Biden, in his capacity as putative president-elect, has begun to name the members of his Cabinet. On Dec. 6, Biden announced that former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is his nominee for secretary of health and human services.

It is hard to see this choice as unifying or healing in the eyes of pro-life Catholics. Not only is Becerra not a medical professional (as many had hoped Bidens HHS choice would be) but he was also the defendant in the 2018 National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra U.S. Supreme Court case. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Californias FACT Act, the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, which Becerra vigorously defended. The statute in question required pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to post specific notices mandated by the state that included the location and availability of abortion services elsewhere. The Supreme Court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment right of free speech.

Becerras role in the Reproductive FACT Act litigation was not his first foray into abortion politics: He sued the Trump administration in 2017 for the contraception exemption it had granted the Little Sisters of the Poor. During his two decades in Congress, he voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

Becerra, like Biden, is Catholic.

Becerra is clearly comfortable using the power of government to compel speech and behavior even when it conflicts with deeply held beliefs. What else, besides contraception and abortion, might this compulsion be applied to? The Affordable Care Act delegates significant rulemaking authority to the Department of Health and Human Services. Will Bidens HHS seek to place transgender surgeries and physician-assisted suicide under the umbrella of health care? If so, what will the rules be for Catholic or any other medical professionals and hospitals that object to these procedures on religious or moral grounds? While the Trump administration has been strongly supportive of conscience protection for health care workers, the Biden camp has signaled its antipathy toward those arguments. Given Bidens own statements and his Cabinet choices it is reasonable to anticipate that an HHS run by Becerra in a Biden administration will be one that quickly announces that Catholic individuals and organizations must provide and/or pay for contraception and must provide whatever the government decides is health care.

A recent article in the Jesuit magazine America quotes former President Barack Obamas faith adviser Michael Wear, who characterized Bidens political strategy as having been vindicated by his performance among Catholic voters in swing states.

If one looks only at the election results, perhaps. More long term? I think that remains to be seen.

Laura Hollis column is syndicated by Creators.

See the article here:
Hollis: Will Joe Biden have a 'Catholic problem'? - The Winchester Star

Washington, D.C. Congressman Fred Keller (R-Pa.) has joined his colleagues from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform in demanding that Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) hold an emergency hearing about online censorship in light of the news that Hunter Biden's business dealings are under federal investigation.

House Oversight Republicans claim that a New York Post article regarding Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings was censored by Facebook and Twitter. The committee further expressed concerns of political bias among large tech companies and the silencing of conservative voices and values. Chairwoman Maloney refused to hold a hearing about the issue.

Last week, Hunter Biden confirmed that his taxes are indeed under federal investigation. In response, the Oversight Republicans sent a second letter to Chairwoman Maloney demanding an emergency hearing about censorship.

On the second letter, Congressman Fred Keller made the following statement:

Despite Big Techs censorship of Americans free speech in the Hunter Biden cover-up, we now know he is under federal investigation. This level of unchecked censorship is unacceptable and has no place in the United States. I urge Chairwoman Maloney to hold an emergency hearing to hold Big Tech accountable for its clear violations of Americans free speech.

The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Madam Chairwoman:

On October 15, 2020, we requested you hold an emergency hearing on Big Techs repeated efforts to interfere in the 2020 election. At that timejust days before the November 3, 2020 presidential electionFacebook and Twitter censored a news article about Joe Bidens son, Hunter Biden, regarding his Ukrainian business dealings while his father was Vice President.These Big Tech companies both limited and/or denied distribution of the New York Posts report, and Twitter locked the New York Posts account.

Last week, both Hunter Biden and the Biden-Harris Transition Team acknowledged Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for his tax affairs. Reporting indicates this investigation is related to his overseas business dealings. In light of Hunter Bidens admission that he is under investigation, especially after Big Techs unjustifiable censorship of the New York Posts report, we are renewing our hearing request. Big Techs silencing of viewpoints and censorship of news undermines our electoral process, our institutions, and our U.S. Constitution.

As we explained in our October 15 letter, shortly after the New York Post posted its story on Facebook the company reduc[ed] its distribution in an apparent attempt to limit access to the story. Just as concerning, Facebook reportedly refused to answer basic questions about its decision. Twitter also censored the article and warned users that it is potentially spammy or unsafe, and locked the New York Posts Twitter account.

As Hunter Biden admitted last week, he is under federal investigation regarding his taxes, potentially related in part to the very matters the New York Post reported, yet for which it was censored. Indeed, additional reporting from NBC News refers to a 2017 email to Hunter Biden regarding his income from Burisma and need to amend Bidens 2014 tax returns to reflect the unreported income. An NBC spokesperson did not dispute the authenticity of the email, which came from a laptop dropped off at a computer hardware store in Delawarethe same laptop and same computer hardware store discussed in the New York Posts October 14 article censored by Big Tech for being potentially spammy or unsafe. Big Techs effort to selectively limit speech based on political affiliation is a disturbing patten[sic] of censorship in our nationa nation that holds out the First Amendments right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press as two of our most paramount freedoms.

As Big Tech platforms continue to limit speech based on political ideology, we must immediately hold a hearing to learn who are responsible for making these decisions and what policies enable Big Tech to selectively limit and/or censor speech on social media. We reiterate our request the Committee hold an emergency hearing on this important matter as soon as possible.

See the original post here:
Republican members of Oversight and Reform Commission demand emergency hearing about online censorship - NorthcentralPa.com

Brandi Chambless

American corporations, in general, once the most revolutionary business models, were historically spawned from centralized structures that carried heavy-handed decisions mandated downward from the top.

Now that corporations are witnessing some relinquishment of the authority of influence to middle administration or derived from customer feedback, the consideration is generally pointed toward a tangible product or service and its potential impact on the bottom line.

There is an underlying current from experts that corporations who did not evolve into this new model voluntarily disadvantage themselves by choosing the limiting growth factor of clinging to power as a means of maintaining control.

Today, there is a relevant example of another type of product being mass manufactured in America and throughout the entire global ecosystem. It is the product of ideology influence, the ability to produce ideas that impact the thoughts and value systems of society.

The manufacturing site is a perfect location: the American media machine. The great American media debacle is being commandeered by a centralized corporation in a decentralizing world.

The media giant, Facebook, is said to be more powerful than government, as an estimated 44.3 million cable network users will have cut the cord by the end of 2020. This is understandably so, with online impressions touting a mere $3 per impression compared to traditional media averaging $28 per impression.

The advantage of the centralized Facebook manufacturing epicenter: Real time news that is free to the user as the advertisers are paying for it. The recent disadvantage: the scramble to stop what Zuckerberg and crew consider a false narrative, though censorship has potentially driven out even faithful users to seek asylum elsewhere.

Because of the centralized control of not only social media powers, but also traditional media, some 70 million Americans on either side of the worldview are seeking truth on issues from Russiagate to Pizzagate to Votergate.

The bi-partisan desire for reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has been championed by those in the legislative branch of government in an effort with personal protections and freedom in mind. Because of this phenomenon, along with recent election rhetoric censorship for both conservative and liberal thinkers depending on region, decentralized media factories are progenating as quickly as the garage bands of the 1960s. In the current political climate of America, Facebook users are leaving the once familiar platform for alternatives such as MeWe, while Twitter users are leaving their tweets behind to microblog in Parler.

Parler CEO John Matze calls a decentralized model one that gives choices to the influencers and users, rather than keeping all the power at the top of the organization. Still privately held, Matze asks users of all persuasions to join the free speech platform devoid of ideology indoctrination, though to his chagrin the site has unexpectedly morphed into either a post-election refugee camp for conservatives to rally the troops, or a future terrorist self-registry of sycophants, depending upon the particular user worldview.

The disadvantage to a media corporation for hoarding power at the top has diluted the its once almighty voice, resulting in rendering power to that of what they might call the common housewife, who after recent mistrust of the mainstream media now expresses her own freedom of speech into the ready ears of a willing listener.

The possible advantage to the traditional media for holding the line with its centralized center will be found in whether a privately-owned company like Parler can continue to fund the decentralized business model. A mainstay tenet of decentralized media younglings will be all power to the people to boycott individual ideology craftsmen with whom their message does not clearly resonate.

At this time it is too early to predict whether decentralized media corporations like Parler will have enough staying power to go public or to be bought out by someone who has an expressed agenda of offering users an American platform with its sole product, free speech.

Further, the decentralization of the American media machine is nothing other than a magnifying glass over the evidence of the great American divide in ideology, the by-product of what has historically been fair and equitable reporting that allows the hearer to make up his or her own mind. Scientists and archaeologists alike, have long been predicting this trouble to America, knowing not whether to call it a name like Civil War or just plain division.

Fueling the scientific discussion in a world where everyone is making their own predictions, is everything from street rioting to phenomenons in the sky such as the 2017 solar eclipse. It was the first to cross the entire American mainland since 1776, making an exit right over Fort Sumter in Charleston where the first shots of the Civil War were fired.

With regard to extrapolating lines of the media-driven fracture of American ideology, scientists have raised an eyebrow as they await a similar natural, yet symbolic, phenomenon scheduled to occur seven years removed in 2024. This time, the phenomenon will complete the second half of a giant X across America, intersecting at the heart of the country, in a most unpretentious place of Carbondale, IL. In spite of being nothing to brag about, Carbondale, also known as Little Egypt, is a sitting time bomb on the New Madrid Fault Line.

So, as the unraveling of mainstream media ensues with the possibility of a new American Civil War at stake, the man that has been the hopeful Deliverer to at least half of the country is steadily continuing to tweet his thoughts at will, as his supporters are making their exit to Parler.

Of course, it is no coincidence that the new American Civil War has already begun virtually. After all, it is still 2020 and this is how we do it now.

Link:
The Soapbox: The unraveling of the American media corporation - The Cross Timbers Gazette

It feels like a self-fulfilling irony that anyone writing a book about cancel culture will themselves be cancelled before the printers start rolling. It is thus no surprise that Julie Burchill, a fearless writer whose profession is provocation, has run into trouble ahead of the release of Welcome to the Woke Trials: How #Identity Killed Progressive Politics.

The book had been scheduled for release in April 2021 as the latest diatribe against our censorious age. Cynics rightly note that complaining about cancellation is good business for many authors. But although the silencing can be overstated, the Burchill case shows that many in this country want to make blasphemy unacceptable, at least for one religion.

Burchill had stumbled across a tweet by Ash Sarkar, a journalist from the far-Left platform Novara Media. Sarkar was complaining about a Spectator article from eight years ago in which Rod Liddle joked that he could not become a teacher because he could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids.

Its astonishing that both he and his editor thought guffawing about hypothetically being a paedophile made for a good article, Sarkar said, presumably hoping that editors would stop joking about such things.

Having stumbled across this Twitter drama, Burchill ill-advisedly waded in by accusing Sarkar of inconsistency because of her Muslim faith. According to some interpretations, one of Muhammads wives, Aisha, was just 9 years old when the marriage was consummated. Burchill put the case delicately: I dont WORSHIP a paedophile. If Aisha was 9, YOU do.

There is considerable dispute over the exact nature of Muhammads relationship with Aisha and her age, as you might expect. The history of religion is largely the history of people arguing over the interpretation of texts.

While I doubt that Burchill is a scholar on such matters, the response to her comments was unjustified. Sarkar accused Burchill of Islamophobia and even outright racism, joined by the likes of Owen Jones from the Guardian. Before the dust could settle, Burchills publisher Little, Brown announced it would no longer be releasing her book.

While there is no legal definition of hate speech in the UK, we believe that Julies comments on Islam are not defensible from a moral or intellectual standpoint, that they crossed a line with regard to race and religion, and that her book has now become inextricably linked with those views, the company explained. Naturally, this was preceded by the usual guff about believing passionately in freedom of speech and a willingness to publish controversial authors.

Some passion. One can only hope that Little, Browns romance novels are more hot-blooded. But such moral cowardice is understandable as political pressure from both left and right makes people increasingly wary of criticising Islam.

Among those menacing free speech are Islamist extremists who threaten violence against those perceived to have insulted Islam. Examples are legion, but lately they include the French teacher Samuel Paty, who was beheaded after discussing cartoons of Muhammad with his class during a debate on free speech.

At the same time progressives are increasingly prone to treat any slight against Islam as an attempt to stoke prejudice and discrimination. The effect of this, intended or otherwise, is to discourage people from criticising Islam for fear of being branded a bigot.

This contrasts with British history, during much of which progressives sought to make criticising socially conservative religions legally and morally acceptable. The inconsistency in the case of Islam is because of its association with ethnic minorities, some of whom face harassment or worse because of negative attitudes about Muslims.

British hate speech laws have to tread a fine line between stopping such abuse while enabling criticism of the religion. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 contained a specific clause protecting discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents.

Such laws would protect Monty Pythons Life of Brian, were it made today, as well as productions such as The Book of Mormon. It also enabled the media to destroy Tim Farrons leadership of the Liberal Democrats by asking him difficult questions about his evangelical Christian attitude to homosexuality.

There is no good reason why Islam should be exempt from such satire or scrutiny, however insolent or offensive it may be. Nor should Muslims expect their beliefs or their Prophet to be above criticism. In a free society, their faith, like any other spiritual or political set of beliefs, should be open to mockery, derision or even outright abuse. The assumption that any slight against Islam must be motivated by racial prejudice has warped public debate in Britain for too long already. The Burchill affair shows why such kneejerk reactions are so pernicious.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Read this article:
The Julie Burchill Affair: why mocking Islam is not hate speech - TheArticle

We have all seen, and the spate of attacks in France and Austria tells us, that the threat of terrorism hasn't gone away.

French teacher Samuel Paty's head was cut off by an 18-year-old Chechen teenager. He had shown his classroom students, when they were discussing freedom of speech, cartoons that were put out by Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine.

French President Emmanuel Macron issued a statement paying tribute to Mr Paty and defending the right in France to publish such cartoons. He made a very strong speech, covering many different aspects.

That speech then got a very strong counter-reaction from Muslims around the world, and some described the actions of France as Islamophobic. Jihadists have jumped on it. They've called on followers to attack French interests, and to attack anyone who insults Islam and the way they define as insulting Islam.

As a result, there were follow-up attacks. There were attacks in Nice, Lyon and in Vienna, Austria. It shows that when jihadists make such calls, there are people who will follow, and a few others, and more terror.

We all have said, we all know, jihadists don't represent Islam. You have people like that in every religion who will resort to violence. It is not a problem with any particular religion, but you will always have people like this. The question is how we deal with them.

What has happened in France has restarted the debate on what freedom of expression means, how much you can say, and what is the boundary between free expression and your obligation not to offend someone's religion.

In France, secularism, the French call it laicite, means that the government will not intervene in religious matters or stop publications that attack religions.

Freedom of speech is quite absolute to the extent that it even includes the right to blaspheme, which means you can publish anything that is offensive to any religion.

This didn't happen overnight. If you go back some centuries... to the Middle Ages, the Church was extremely powerful. If a clergyman was walking on the streets and if you didn't kneel and pay homage, you could be whipped, you could be arrested.

But over the centuries, with the Renaissance, with the assertion of nationhood... the balance shifted. Along the way, but not before there were several religious wars between the Protestants and Catholics, and between the kings and the churches, and of course the French Revolution... the principles of separation of state and religion, and the secularity of the state, developed.

Post-World War, that became a stronger principle. At the same time, France, along with some other countries, faced greater immigration post-World War II.

There are two principles worth noting about the French experience. One, the French state, the establishment, assumed that new immigrants will accept the French way of looking at freedom of speech and that they will also accept the French approach to secularity, meaning you could say what you like about any religion and the state will not intervene. They expected that all the new immigrants will accept that.

The government and the state did not engage in any active efforts to integrate the new immigrants, to see how their values can be integrated with the French approach, nor did they look at whether the French approach needed to be reconsidered and recalibrated in the light of the changing population. The French simply assumed that everyone will accept their traditional values.

And laicite meant that the state couldn't actually intervene, or seriously interact with different religions. They left the religions to themselves and they couldn't help bring people together, mould a common viewpoint, while protecting freedom of religion. Something like MHA (Ministry of Home Affairs) interacting with RRG (Religious Rehabilitation Group) to promote... unity, to promote a better understanding of religion, would not be acceptable in France, because that means the state is getting involved. But it's very difficult without the state getting involved. The state doesn't tell people what to believe in - that must be for religious leaders - but the state has resources that can be brought in to help, to assist.

What is the result when the state takes a hands-off approach and if we took a hands-off approach? You have publications like Charlie Hebdo, which publish repulsive, highly offensive cartoons and articles on religion, in the name of free speech. And the French expect all religions to accept this.

The French are shaped by their own tradition, their own history. For them, this is new, they don't realise it.

But looking at it as an outsider, some will say that if you insult my religion, I am not going to stand by and say this is your right to free speech. I'm not going to accept that free speech means that you can give offence to my religion.

So France will have to find a way to bridge this gulf between its principles of laicite and freedom, and the expectations and beliefs of its people who don't accept that their religion should be offensively caricatured.

Every now and then, we get debates in Singapore - why is the Government not allowing free speech, why is the Government so protective or so defensive when it comes to race and religion? This is why we are defensive when it comes to race and religion. Because if we take a hands-off approach, then people will say since the Government won't do something, I will do something, and people are going to be upset with one another.

National harmony will be affected and the majority of people will be affected. Some groups will be saying yes, free speech, it's okay, I don't get offended, you can say what you like about the Prophet, the Pope or God. But many other people would feel offended. So that is why we take a different approach.

We take a secular approach, so when the Government looks at policies, we are secular. We don't favour any particular religion and we guarantee freedom of religion. We are secular, France is secular; we guarantee freedom of religion, France guarantees freedom of religion. But how we achieve it is different. France says that it prefers to achieve it by taking a hands-off approach; we are interventionist, we intervene.

Because we take the position, that the right to speak freely goes with the duty to act responsibly, the two must go together.

And, as a secular government, we are neutral in the treatment of all religions. We also do not allow any religion to be attacked or insulted by anybody else, whether majority or minority. Same rules.

We guarantee freedom of religion, the right of every person to practise his or her religious beliefs, and we protect everyone, majority or minority, from any threats, hate speech or violence.

That is the assurance one gets in Singapore. It is also what we need to do to make sure that we preserve racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

Therefore, the Charlie Hebdo types of cartoons will not be allowed in Singapore, whether they are about Catholicism or Protestants or Islam or Hindus. Free speech for us stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion. There is a fence, and that fence protects religious sensitivities.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, if they were here, they would have been told to stop. If they didn't stop, ISD (Internal Security Department) would visit them, and they would have been arrested.

We believe that we can build a multi-religious, multiracial society based on trust, and only by taking a firm stance against hate speech, and dealing with all communities equally and fairly.

We have laws designed to ensure racial and religious harmony in Singapore. We update them regularly to make sure that they are relevant and effective as times change.

Many of you might know that we amended the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA) last year. One key amendment is that the minister can issue restraining orders to take effect immediately, removing the requirement for a 14-day notice period, because when it was introduced several decades ago, you had to give 14 days' notice. But today, if you give 14 days' notice, it goes around the world several times before 14 minutes are up. With social media and the Internet, a 14-day notice period doesn't work any more.

We've been noticing foreign groups intervening, using religion, not just in Singapore, but in many other countries. We didn't want to wait until that happened here, so we made amendments to the MRHA to say that foreign actors should not be exploiting our religious groups, imposing their values here.

Let Singapore Muslims, Singapore Christians, Singapore Hindus decide for themselves.

You can adapt the religiousbeliefs, but foreigners shouldn't intervene actively in the way wedo it.

Religious groups are now required to report all donations they receive from overseas, and we have rules. It doesn't prevent foreign leadership of our organisations, but we have rules restricting the number of foreigners who can be in committees in charge of religious institutions.

The Government can also issue a restraining order against religious groups to prohibit donations, or change the leadership, if we assess that foreigners are heavily influencing those groups.

In contrast to France, we maintain secularity, we guarantee freedom of religion by putting a limit to free speech. We'll say it cannot be used to attack religion, and actively intervene to put in policies which promote religious harmony.

I'm sharing this because France has been in the news, the French approach has been in the news, and in Singapore, the constant debate is about freedom of speech and the limits. So, we understand why 40 to 50 years ago, our first generation of leaders decided on these principles which are still valid.

Visit link:
Free speech stops at the boundary of giving offence to religion: Shanmugam - The Straits Times

Last April, the Scottish Justice Secretary, Humza Yousaf, announced that the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill was going to be discussed at the Parliament for a future approval.

The draft law seeks to modernise, consolidate and extend existing hate crime law ensuring it is fit for the 21st century and simplify and clarify the law by bringing together the various existing hate crime laws into a single piece of legislation, the government said.

The current legislation already considers stirring up hatred against someone on the grounds of race an offence. If passed by Parliament, the Bill would extend that to include age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and trans identity.

Originally, the draft law said people could be prosecuted for stirring up hatred even if they did not intend to. Unlike similar legislation for England and Wales, the Scottish draft law does not contain specific free speech clauses.

Last August, 24 actors and writers, including actor Rowan Atkinson, wrote an open letter, stating that the unintended consequences of this well meaning Bill risk stifling freedom of expression, and the ability to articulate or criticise religious and other beliefs.

Among others who publicly criticised the draft law was well-known British comedian John Cleese, who said the Scottish Governments hate crime measure would have a disastrous effect on free speech.

Due to the backlash received, the Bill was revised in September to ensure that only people who intended to stir up hatred will be prosecuted.

However, opposition parties, organisations and individuals, continued to show their concern about the impact of the draft law on freedom of expression, arguing that the definition of stirring up hatred was too vague and open to interpretation.

Since then, the measure has prompted 2,000 submissions from religious groups, lawyers, artists, journalists and the Scottish Police Federation.

During the latest meeting of Holyrood's justice committee this Tuesday, the government pledged to remove a section concerning offences committed during a public performance or play, and to insert further protections for freedom of religious expression.

Mere expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule and insult are not on their own criminal behaviour. I'm committed to work with parliament to ensure hate crime law is effective, while protecting freedom of expression, Yousaf told MSPs.

Nevertheless, opposition parties pointed out that the government has miles more to shift before the Bill becomes law, and called for a major overhaul of the proposals.

The Holyrood's justice committee meeting marks the end of the Stage One evidence sessions, with a report expected by December 18.

Members of the Scottish Parliament will then vote on whether the draft law should proceed to stages two and three for further scrutiny, amendments and ultimately approval or refusal for the proposed legislation becoming law.

Kieran Turner, charitys public policy officer of the Evangelical Alliance of the UK (EAUK) in Scotland, participated in the justice committee on the Hate Crime Bill virtual meeting. He spoke about the concerns around religious freedom and the unintended consequences of the draft law.

The proposal was incompatible with key principles of human rights and could see people prosecuted for offences that they did not know they committed. Our major concern has always been that people would unintentionally get caught by this, he said.

While the proposed amendments brought forward by the government have been welcomed by the EAUK, Turner told the committee that they are not a magic bullet.

Turner also highlighted the need for clarity in what the Bill is trying to catch and what it is not trying to catch, as well as the potential threat posed by the bills proposals around inflammatory materials and the lack of a dwelling place defence.

According to Ciarn Kelly, Deputy Director of The Christian Institute, there may not even be a prosecution never mind a conviction, but it risks creating a chilling effect on free speech, something that the stirring up hatred offences would exacerbate.

Would it be abusive and hateful to quote the Bibles teaching on marriage, gender or sexual ethics? Some groups would say yes. There is a real risk of malicious reports from activists who wish to stop Christians expressing their beliefs, he added.

Published in: Evangelical Focus - europe - Scotland pledges to review the hate crime law to ensure freedom of speech

Read the original post:
Scotland pledges to review the hate crime law to ensure freedom of speech - Evangelical Focus

The sun is setting on the Enlightenment in the United Kingdom. Before its too late, we must take steps to protect our most fundamental of rights: the freedom to express ourselves.A hodgepodge of poorly designed laws and questionable court judgments have empowered the easily offended to censor speech.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to life in a free and democratic society. This includes the freedom to express ideas that others find loathsome and hateful. It allows us both to express our innermost thoughts, and to explore controversial and important topics in public debate. The UKs protection of freedom of expression, revolving around Article 10 of the European Convention, is woefully inadequate.

We can see the rapid slide in rights in the maltreatment of vlogger Count Dankula, the polices pursuit of conservative commentator Darren Grimes, and Bethan Tichbornes public order conviction for telling David Cameron that he had "blood on his hands" during an anti-cuts protest. Shockingly, over 400 people were arrested in London alone over the last five years for communicating in an offensive nature, sending an offensive message and/or sending false information

This would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. It is now becoming the norm.

British law infringes on freedom of expression. There is mounting evidence that longstanding legislative provisions including the Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003, Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006, and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 are increasingly being applied in an overly broad fashion which was not contemplated by their drafters.

The imprecise drafting of existing law means that as social attitudes shift to narrow the confines of acceptable debate, broader categories of speech will be criminalised as offensive, distressing or hateful. This is placing power over public discourse in the hands of the easily offended.

Worse, new threats to freedom of expression lurk just over the horizon. These include the cowardly suggestion by the Law Commission that controversial speech which provokes terrorism, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, should be banned in order to prevent terrorism. It also includes the bizarre Online Harms proposal by the Government in Westminster which would put a quango in charge of policing legal but harmful political speech on the internet.

Meanwhile, the SNPs Hate Crime Bill is proposing broad new categories of speech crime in Scotland, including new offences where the drafting of private correspondence containing offensive thoughts between consenting adults, even before the correspondence was sent, would be an act to which criminal liability attaches. The law enters everyday life like never before, policing what you can say even in your own home. We are truly entering the realm of thoughtcrimes.

In my new report for the Adam Smith Institute, Sense and Sensitivity: Restoring free speech in the United Kingdom, I argue that Parliament should take a stand against state censorship and implement a UK-wide Free Speech Act, modelled on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This should protect all non-threatening political speech from state interference. The only exceptions being that of criminal threatening, harassment, malicious defamation, perverting the course of justice, or direct incitement already in law and unprotected anywhere in the world.

In addition the government should buttress free speech in existing law by removing all references to abusive or insulting words and behaviour from Parts I and III of the Public Order Act 1986. And they should replace Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 with a provision that limits the scope of the existing rule on electronic communication to threats only and bringing a new rule that addresses meaningful stalking and cyberstalking threats which cause or intend to cause substantial emotional distress.

Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having. The British people no longer have freedom of speech. The time is ripe for Parliament to step in to restore this most essential and ancient of our liberties.

Preston J. Byrne is a technology lawyer and Legal Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute. He is admitted in England and the United States.

Read the rest here:
Britain needs to take a lesson from the US in protecting free speech - Telegraph.co.uk

To the University audience when someone doesnt agree with your political or world view, they are not automatically racist. They are not automatically sexist. They are not automatically ableist, homophobic, transphobic or and I cant believe I actually have to type this a fascist. Insinuating the opposite is hurtful, intolerant and actively detracting from the Universitys desired culture of intellectual growth.

I am not defending racism, sexism, homophobia or any of the other aforementioned prejudices they are diseases that are woven by history into society and Im proud to be at a university that contributes to striking down injustices working toward obliterating them completely. However, I am not proud of the Universitys culture of intolerance by always labeling differing opinions as prejudice. I am not referring to hateful opinions. I am referring to common and sensible ones religious freedoms, the Second Amendment, capitalism and the free market.

We, as a student body, have grown into a dangerous tendency to ostracize and silence the other side by making immediate claims of intolerance when we hear something we dont agree with. The question we must ask ourselves is if we are actively and purposefully avoiding discussion, who is really intolerant?

My roommate and Cavalier Daily Opinion Columnist, Devan Coombes, is a conservative. She is not, in fact, homophobic, transphobic, racist or bigoted in any way. I was shocked at Opinion Columnist Bryce Wyles article that stated point blank, Coombes claims to defend freedom of speech, only as long as it keeps other peoples mouths shut in this case, queer people who want to get married. Wyles argument couldnt be further from the truth. Ive talked to Coombes about my potential future wedding to another girl. Not once has she tried to keep my mouth shut. Instead, she actively supports me and who I am. Should anyone have the nerve to attack my sexuality, Coombes wouldnt hesitate to fight back on my behalf. Clearly, Coombes does not possess instinctive queerphobia.

It seems Wyles has fallen into the trap of assuming intolerance from someone he disagrees with. It is, unfortunately, easy to fall into this trap mindlessly shutting down our peers that dont agree with us on the grounds of bigotry. As a university, we seem to have shifted the definition of free speech to only benefit the lefts political agenda. As my roommate intelligently pointed out, some argue that protests should be afforded First Amendment protections, but the practice of religion should not. If a sign on the Lawn is welcome to define the Universitys cops as affiliated with the KKK, and its operating cost as genocide, then the FCA should be allowed, as a religious organization, to practice their own definition of marriage both are protected under the First Amendment. The blatant intolerance is authoritarianism and a moderation of academic discussion that only benefits one side.

Tolerance is a two way street. We can scream all we want about the oppression of LGBTQ+ individuals at U.Va., but the fact remains in Charlottesville, I have seen more hate and slander for reasonable conservative beliefs than I ever have about my sexuality. All struggles that come with identifying as non-cisgender and non-heterosexual are valid. However, we must start respecting everyones existence, as long as they are not causing harm whether or not we agree with their political beliefs, their lifestyle or their religion. Respecting someones existence does not entail instantaneously slandering their character when they stray from our world view. This reaches far beyond my roommate it is troubling behavior I see every day on Grounds. Consider this nearly half of the electorate voted for Donald Trump. Do we really believe that half the country is comprised of genuinely hateful people?

At this University, I am beyond grateful that as a lesbian I am celebrated. I am deeply regretful that the celebration comes at the cost of harmful and inaccurate portrayals of my roommates, my peers and my closest friends. If the University ever wants to attain a healthy culture of intellectual growth, we must learn to tolerate each other, and stop these outrageous claims that those with valid political disagreements don't tolerate us.

Kalie Ward is a third-year in the School of Engineering.

The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.

Excerpt from:
WARD: Tolerance is a two-way street - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

Many school districts have policies prohibiting employees from expressing political speech while carrying out their professional duties. For example, in such districts teachers can have a Trump 2020 yard sign in front of their home, but they cannot wear a similar T-shirt to school. But sometimes determining what is, and what is not, political speech can be more tricky.

First, do you think districts should ban employees from expressing political speech while in school? Do you think that is a smart policy? Why?

Second, how should districts define political speech? For example, should they prohibit symbols like the so-called thin blue line flag? What about apparel showing support for the Black Lives Matter movement?

In What Happened When a School District Banned Thin Blue Line Flags, Michael Gold writes:

In late October, administrators in a suburban New York school district told employees that some of their apparel was making students feel uncomfortable, and even threatened.

At issue were masks showing the so-called thin blue line flag, which signals support for the police but which has increasingly been used to display opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement, which rose in opposition to racism in policing.

Wearing the symbol violated a district policy prohibiting employees from expressing political speech, officials said. The logo, a black-and-white version of the American flag with a single blue stripe at its center, could no longer be worn by staff members.

Days later, a group of employees of the district, in Pelham, N.Y., appeared at work wearing shirts bearing the word Vote and the names of Black people who had been killed by the police, prompting accusations of hypocrisy and political bias.

The resulting controversy has divided Pelham, an affluent and mostly white Westchester County town of about 12,000 people just north of New York City.

The article continues:

The tense debate exemplifies the political tinderbox that much of the United States has become, where an emblem on a mask or a patch on a sleeve can ignite a dispute that consumes a community.

At the center of the conflict is a symbol that has come to mean vastly different things to different people, a black, white and blue Rorschach test whose significance continues to shift amid a continuing national reckoning over racism and police violence.

It made a lot of people upset here, obviously, said Ralph DeMasi, a school safety coordinator who was told not to wear the flag. Clearly a directive was given. One side followed it, while another side was allowed to express their views.

Facebook discussions have grown heated. Neighbors staked out clear positions and lined up in the cold to speak at a public meeting. School employees and parents said they had gotten threatening messages as the district attracted national media attention.

People are taking this hard line, said Solange Hansen, a Black and Latina woman who moved to Pelham last year and whose teenage son is a student there. All of a sudden, overnight, you see these blue line flags on peoples lawns. You see them in peoples businesses. And that makes it really hard for the people of color.

On Friday evening, The Pelham Examiner, a local news outlet, published a letter written by a Pelham high school senior, Nadine LeeSang, that expressed support for the districts policy and said that the flag reminded students of color of racist experiences they have had with law enforcement.

Nobody was really talking about how students felt uncomfortable, and it was kind of being dismissed, Ms. LeeSang, 17, who is Black and Asian, said in an interview. Her letter was signed by 15 other people, most of them also students.

The article's writer includes the debate about what the flag means to various people:

Those who support the flag say it has long been used to honor law enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives, and that it is not meant as a political statement.

It signifies a memorial, a connection between officers killed in the line of duty and those who continue with their duties in the present, said Carla Caccavale, a Pelham resident who has four children enrolled in district schools and whose father, a New York City Transit detective, was killed while trying to stop a robbery when Ms. Caccavale was an infant.

Ms. Caccavale has made sweatshirts honoring her fathers memory that include a thin blue line patch. Although she initially made them only for her family and another family, she has begun to sell them to support police-related charities.

When school staff members were told they could no longer wear the flag, her sweatshirts were included in the ban. She said the decision baffled her.

You have to look at the intention of the sweatshirts, she said.

But supporters of the districts ban on the flag said the logo could not be divorced from its current context as a symbol for the pro-police Blue Lives Matter movement that sprang up in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.

The flags critics also say the image has acquired a racist connotation after being carried at demonstrations by hate groups, most notably a Charlottesville, Va., rally in 2017, where white nationalists staged a weekend of protests that turned violent.

Now that you see this flag flown alongside this other flags and racist symbols, its very hard not to say, Well, thats a racist symbol, Annemarie Garcia, who has two teenagers enrolled in Pelham schools, said. Even if thats not what it meant to you originally.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you think schools and districts should prohibit employees from exercising political speech while working? If you were a principal or superintendent, would you want a ban on employee political speech while in school? Why?

How should political speech be defined? And specifically, what do you think about the two examples at the center of the debate in Pelham, N.Y.? In your opinion, is wearing a mask with the thin blue line flag a case of expressing political speech? What about wearing shirts bearing the word Vote and the names of Black people who had been killed by the police? Should either of these examples, or both, be banned as political speech? Why?

Have you ever observed a teacher expressing her or his political beliefs in a school setting? What was your reaction?

The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Courts have ruled that students right to free speech in school is more broadly protected than teachers rights. Why do you think courts have made this distinction? Do you think students should have more rights to express political speech in school than teachers? Why?

About Student Opinion

Find all our Student Opinion questions in this column. Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it. Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning.

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

View post:
Should Teachers Be Allowed to Wear Political Symbols? - The New York Times

The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America, by Ellis Cose Amistad hide caption

The First Amendment and its protection of free speech may be the best-known and, possibly, the most cherished of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But there is also a long-running battle over what the limits of free speech should be. And this election year, with its heated and sometimes hateful rhetoric and challenges to the tech companies to referee it all is certainly placing that battle at the forefront.

That's just one reason editor and columnist Ellis Cose's latest book The Short Life And Curious Death Of Free Speech in America is so timely.

On why he titled the book 'the short life' of freedom of speech

The First Amendment by definition is the First Amendment, you know? It was the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791. So it's been with us almost since we have had a constitution. And the assumption that most people have is that it's just a right that's always been there, that's always been respected and that we've always enjoyed as Americans. But that's not quite true. In 1798, we have the Alien and Sedition Acts, which in effect nullify the First Amendment. It made it illegal to criticize the then-Federalist government. It made it illegal to speak out and to do the things that we think are routine to do now.

On the relative newness of the concept of freedom of speech

It grew directly out of World War I. When the United States government got involved in the war, we immediately passed a couple of new laws. One was the Espionage Act, the other was the Sedition Act, which was an amendment to the Espionage Act. And what they what those laws did, as the original Alien and Sedition Acts did, was to essentially make it illegal to criticize the government.

And so you had any number of individuals and institutions who were jailed because they were critical of the draft. And you had a number of activists, you know, including the group that later became came together as the ACLU, who said: 'Wait a minute. Don't we have freedom of speech in this country? Can't we speak out?' And so, slowly, we began to come up with a modern conception of the First Amendment.

On president's policies threatening freedom of speech

In many respects, I mean, at least Obama and George Bush had respect for the Constitution, and they understood what it meant. But when you go into the current administration, you have an administration that doesn't even believe in truth, that does not believe in constitutional process and does not believe in rights at all, as generally understood. And what we now have [is] an entire government apparatus designed to foster falsehoods, and that endangers the whole idea that our country is based on, which is that we can get to some kind of universal truth from which we can proceed to have a better government and a better society as a result.

On some people on the left and the right not respecting freedom of speech

Well, my take is that we as a people tend to understand the First Amendment in a very specific and personal way. We tend to believe that the First Amendment says that we have a right to free speech as long as you say things that I agree with. That tends to be the way that the First Amendment is viewed on the left; it tends to be the way that it's viewed on the right. So there's a tension there's always has been a tension between the idea of free speech and the practice of it in the real world when people don't like ideas that they don't like and they don't want to hear them. And I think that's just one of the things we need to struggle with as a society.

Read the original here:
'The Short Life And Curious Death Of Free Speech In America' Examines The First Amendment - NPR