Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

I graduated from Fordham College at Rose Hill in 1983 with a bachelors degree in philosophy and political science.After graduating from Pace Law School in 1986, I was admitted to the Bar in New Jersey in 1986 and New York in 1987.

In 2004, I was elected to the Civil Court, Bronx County, and assigned to serve in the Criminal Court.I sat in both Brooklyn and the Bronx.Currently, I work as a mediator for a private company called First Court, where I work to resolve personal injury matters.

I provide you, the reader, with this description of my background in an effort to establish my qualifications to make the statements that follow.

I have reviewed with great interest the case of Austin Tong, Gabelli School of Business at Lincoln Center 21, who was disciplined by Dean Keith Eldredge for posting a series of photos on social media: one commemorating a murdered police officer and another of himself, holding a rifle. Members of the Fordham community complained that Tongs posts made them feel unsafe.

I have also read the article published by Gabriela Rivera in The Fordham Observer on July 29, 2020, regarding her views on the Tong matter.

It is my considered opinion that Tong is well within his rights to post a photo of a deceased police officer and to post another photo of himself holding a legally owned rifle on private property. To view these actions as a violation of any code of conduct is ludicrous, and to sanction Tong for the exercise of his rights is nothing short of criminal.

In her article, Rivera states that (t)he Constitution, while we believe it is always intact and applicable to every point in our life, loses its power in non-public spaces like Fordham.

Yet, while Fordham is ostensibly a private institution, it does accept federal funding, in exchange for which it voluntarily subjects itself to federal rules and regulations, such as Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Education Amendment of 1972, which protects students from discrimination in housing, athletics, and access to facilities on the basis of such things as gender, sexual orientation, sex or pregnancy outside marriage, or having an abortion.

Very few schools can claim exemption from federal law almost all that do are religious institutions, and only if they can show they are controlled by religious organizations with whose beliefs Title IX requirements conflict, according to The Atlantic.

In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. The principal of a public school tried to stop students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which stated that both students and teachers did not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Justice Abe Fortas went on to add that the law protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creaturesBoards of Education not excepted they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

This landmark case remains the law of the land to this day. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continues to bring cases against schools that violate the free speech rights of their students.

Thus, despite being a private institution, Fordhams right to punish Tong for the free exercise of his constitutional rights off campus is not absolute.

The ACLU even states that, You have the right to speak your mind on social media, and your school cannot punish you for content you post off campus and outside of school hours that does not relate to school.

Thus, despite being a private institution, Fordhams right to punish Tong for the free exercise of his constitutional rights off campus is not absolute.

Further, there can be no doubt that Tong was punished for the content of his speech. This is the fundamental reason our founding fathers incorporated the First Amendment into the United States Constitution to allow for divergent opinions. Tong has the same right to speak out that any other citizen has, no matter the content of his speech.

That being said, free speech is never absolute. In the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court decision Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes gave his famous warning: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Yet Tong has not falsely shouted anything that would cause a panic. He merely celebrated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a right he did not possess in China, by exercising his First Amendment right to express his opinion.

Frankly, Riveras position is a clear and present danger, which is another quoted warning from the Schenck case. Her view would censor Tong and any other person who wishes to express a view contrary to that held by the majority. Most insidious, her concern that she wouldnt feel safe knowing someone I see in the hall has the means to commit violence (b)y posing with the gun and spouting praise for the right to be armed has no basis in law or fact.

All legal gun owners have the means to commit violence this is the very purpose for which these persons own guns!

Rivera has also failed to differentiate between a legal gun owner and a criminal. A legal gun owner is exercising their right to bear arms, a right which is subject to regulation from both federal and local authorities.

More likely than not, a legal gun owner has training in the use of a firearm and has learned discretion in the safe handling of a weapon. A criminal has no such training or discretion. Who is more likely to bring a gun on campus and threaten students a criminal, or a legal gun owner? Common sense tells you its the criminal.

How Rivera, and no doubt other Fordham students, have become opponents of our Constitutional rights is beyond the space I have available here to discuss. But suffice it to say, there can be little doubt that the decision of Dean Keith Eldredge should be reversed quickly and Tong returned to his place among his fellow students whether they agree with him or not.

Original post:
Austin Tong Has Done Nothing Wrong - The Observer - Fordham Observer

Marja Broussard, president of the Lafayette chapter of the NAACP, calls Mayor-President Josh Guillory racist, calls for him to step down. Lafayette Daily Advertiser

After days of pressure from Black community leaders, LafayetteMayor-President Josh Guillory apologized Monday for his initial response to the police killing of a Black manwalking away from officers.

As nearly two dozen protesters staged a sit-in outside a locked City Hall hoping to deliver a letter complaining about the mayor and asking for his resignation, Guillory met with a group of ministers and elected Black leaders.

That Monday meeting delayed a scheduled news conference by nearly two hours, and resulted in Guillory speaking for the first time since 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin was shot and killed by officers Friday about the pain of Pellerin's family and in the African American community.

Mayor President Josh Guillory holds joint press conference with Chief of Police Scott Morgan, Sheriff Mark Garber, Fire Chief Robert Benoit, and Parish Councilman Abraham Rubin. Saturday, Aug. 22, 2020.(Photo: SCOTT CLAUSE/USA TODAY Network)

I did offer an apology for things that could have been handleddifferently perhaps, we dont know. Well have facts that will come out that will give clarification, but I recognize the pain that members of their congregations are going through, Guillory said.

The mayor's comments Monday contrasted sharply withhis defense days earlier of the police killing of Pellerin, described by Guillory as "threatening" and carrying a knife before officers fired at least 11 bullets at him outside a gas station entrance. When Guillory issued that statement in defense of the shooting, he did not mention the family but praised officers.

Lafayette Mayor-President Josh Guillory: Black man killed by officers was 'threatening'

We can recognize this pain," Guillory said Monday after his meeting with Black leaders. "We can grieve for the family and still support law enforcement, and we are.

The Lafayette police killing of Pellerin promptedtwo nights of protests across the city, and Monday's protest outside City Hall.

Story continues below the gallery.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Police were responding to a routine disturbance call Friday when they attempted to arrest Pellerin at a gas station on North Evangeline Thruway. He walked away from them, and they followed him on foot for almost half a mile to another gas station. Officers even tasered Pellerin, who continued to walk away.

As a group of roughly six Lafayette police officers came up behind him, Pellerin reached for the station's door and officer's fired a blast of bullets. Officers said he had a knife.

"The officers opened fire when it became apparent the armed individual was attempting to enter a convenience store, threatening the lives of the customers and workers inside," Guillory said in a written statement issued almost 24 hours after the killing occured.

More: Lafayette police fire 11 rounds, kill Black man after tasing him in disturbance call

"Our thoughts and prayers are with our community tonight, and with the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe," he said then.

Guillory's tone after his Monday with Black ministers was more conciliatory.

Immediately when I heard about this situation I began praying. Praying for his soul and for his family, Guillory said. But I recognize that I could have recognized that earlier. Its a fair point.

He recognized the Pellerin family's loss.

Lafayette police shooting: Second second night of protests, demonstrations across city

As a member of this community, I stand before you grieving the fact that we have a family in pain. We have an individual that was a son, that had a family, had friends. And we dont take that lightly,he said.

On Sunday during the second night of protests in Lafayette, Black community leaders called for Guillory to resign. They said he did not act in the interest of the African American community and ignored the pain caused by Pellerin's death.

Marja Broussard, the local NAACP president, said community members must make it known to others outside the area that Lafayette continues to struggle with racial inequality, in part because of Guillory.

More: Peaceful vigil for Lafayette police shooting victim becomes clash between marchers, police

"They need to know this is not a wonderful city when a mayor-president as him is a racist mayor-president," she told protesters Sunday. "Yes Marja Broussard said it. Josh guillory is a white racist. We know that."

Guillory met Monday with members of the Senior Pastoral Alliance, a local congregation of Black religious leaders, about his initial comments and response to protests over Pellerins death.

Were here to get information because we want structure and accountability so well be able to report to our congregations and the people of our community exactly whats going on in our city, said Pastor Ricky Carter of Good Hope Baptist Church on Willow Street.

Story continues below the video.

Jamal Taylor, a Lafayette activist, questions Mayor-President Josh Guillory's response to a police shooting that killed a Black man, Trayford Pellerin Lafayette Daily Advertiser

Guillory said he recognizes the rights of marchers and protesters who want to speak out against Pellerin's killing, protests that continued into the third day Monday.

We do have a majority of individuals that are protesting who are local and peaceful. Its our understanding that many of the individuals that are possibly agitating are not from here, he said, although neither Guillory or other local officials have offered evidence of protesters causing problems from outside the area.

He said he respects free speech, but will protect the city.

I have a duty to protect life and property and I will do so, he said.

Guillory acknowledged calls for his resignation, and said, Im not resigning.

Guillorys spokesman Jamie Angelle said he was not concerned about a push to obtain a recall petition for the mayor-president, which would require more than 31,000 signatures from Lafayette Parish voters.

Fire Chief Robert Benoit, who did publicly offer condolences for the Pellerin family over the weekend,warned people planning to protest the police shootingto exercise caution as the weather worsens. Tropical Storm Marco is expected to bring bad weather to the area Tuesday, and Tropical Storm Laura is expected to intensify into a hurricane before making landfall Thursday, perhaps in south Louisiana.

We have a lot of protesting going on. We dont want to stop you from moving around, but this storm is dangerous, Benoit said. This storm will take you out, so thats something to consider while youre doing your freedom of speech to protest.

Read or Share this story: https://www.theadvertiser.com/story/news/local/2020/08/24/trayford-pellerin-lafayette-police-shooting-mayor-guillory-apologizes/5625210002/

See original here:
Lafayette police shooting: Mayor says 'I recognize the pain' the killing of Black man caused - Daily Advertiser

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Photo: Arnold LeFevre, Times Union Historic Images

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Reverend John Koletas preaches on Troy, New York street corner at 4th and Broadway. July 26, 1990 (Arnold LeFevre/Times Union Archive)

Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Visit link:
Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Beaumont Enterprise

3News Legal Analyst Stephanie Haney breaks down what the states can and can't do when it comes to restricting display of the Confederate flag

CLEVELAND Legal Analysis:Right now, people are calling for government officials and private organizations to ban the display of the Confederate flag because of its tie to slavery, but those two groups aren't created equal when it comes to who can make that happen.

People are asking these groups to prohibit the display and sale of the symbol in what we think of as public places, like county fairs.

Here in Ohio, there was even a bill proposed in the House of Representatives to do it. That bill didn't pass, but if it had, the results would have been questionable, because display of the Confederate flag is considered a form a speech.

Our freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The start of that sentence is the important part, because the First Amendment protects our speech from Congress, also known as "the government" or "the state."

Legally speaking, our county fairs can do whatever they want when it comes to banning the Confederate flag, because theyre not run by the government.

The First Amendment only stops the government from restricting our speech, except for in certain cases.

Exceptions that are not protected include when someone says something thats meant to provoke someone to break the law (also referred to as speech that is intended and likely to lead to "imminent lawless action"), speech used to intimidate, or legitimately threaten someone else.

You may be surprised to know that both hate speech, and speech that promotes the idea of violence are protected from being restricted by the state.

The government can limit where and when speech is expressed, but it has to be across the board (or "content neutral"), because restricting only a specific point of view is unconstitutional.

The closing speech in the 1995 film, "The American President," sums it up well, delivered by the character of President Andrew Shepherd, played by Michael Douglas.

"You want free speech?" he asks of the crowd in the press briefing room and the fictional Americans watching at home.

"Lets see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, whos standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Then the character brings up another controversial topic when it comes to free speech and flags.

"You want to claim this land as the land of the free?"he asks.

"Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

To sum it up, if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldnt need the first amendment.

Stephanie Haney is licensed to practice law in both Ohio and California.

The information in this article is provided for general informational purposes only. None of the information in this article is offered, nor should it be construed, as legal advice on any matter.

Read more from the original source:
Watch | Can states ban the display of the Confederate flag? in 'Legally Speaking' - WKYC.com

It has not been a particularly good couple of weeks for the US Army's esports teamand yes, in case you weren't aware, the US Army has it's own esports team. The Army recently launched its own Twitch channel for livestreaming games, but it ran into grief when viewers began ignoring the gameplay and asking about war crimes committed by the Army instead.

Channel moderators aggressively deleted the questions as they arrived, and those who persisted found themselves banned from the channel. But as the Washington Post reported, that could open the door to even more trouble for the Army, because such bans could violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]

Judge Mark Kearney ruled earlier this year that being muted in a game does not violate your constitutional rights. "The First Amendment and its constitutional free speech guarantees restrict government actors, not private entities," he wrote. "Defendants, who are not alleged to be state actors, are not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees."

But because the Army is an agency of the US government, Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, said that it is forbidden from suppressing speech it finds uncomfortable or objectionable.

"The government cant try to engineer the conversation of the public by saying only people who agree with us can respond," Fallow told the site. "The First Amendment means the government cant kick someone out or preclude them based on their viewpoint."

It might seem like a stretch, but the position isn't without precedent: A judge ruled in a 2018 case, also filed by the Knight First Amendment Institute, that Donald Trump, the president of the United States, cannot block users on Twitter for essentially the same reason.

"We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump accountthe 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President's tweetsare properly analyzed under the 'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment," Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote, as reported by CNN. The ruling was upheld a year later.

The Army defended its actions by saying that the banned users were violating Twitch terms of service against harassment and abuse. A rep also said that the Army Esports Team "does not regulate the viewpoints of participants on its social media forums," but added that the Army may "regulate the time, place and manner of discussions on its recruiting social media sites. Army Esports social media sites are nonpolitical forums for sharing information about joining the Army."

I'm really not sure how to wrap my head around the suggestion that the Army's Twitch channel is "non-political," but it's at least refreshing to see it referred to openly as a recruiting channel. But the Army may also be hedging its bets: When its Twitch channel first came to light, the "About" page described it as a place to "share the Army's passion for gaming, showcase competitions, and connect with our viewers."

It's been edited since then, however, and now say that it's dedicated to "our member's passion for gaming," a distinction that may make it easier (legally, at least) for the Army to regulate what goes on in its channel.

The Army's Twitch channel hasn't been live since the questions about war crimes first started rolling in, as the esports team is now reviewing "internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies." The Army also acknowledged problems with a giveaway offer that actually led to a recruiting page, saying that it is now looking into giveaway options "that will provide more external clarity."

Follow this link:
The US Army's Twitch bans may violate the First Amendment - PC Gamer

Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot. (PTI File)

Sacked deputy chief minister of Rajasthan Sachin Pilot has submitted in the Rajasthan High Court that expressions of "dissatisfaction and disillusionment" against the party leadership cannot make a MLA amenable for disqualification.

In the amendments carried out in his original petition, Pilot emphasised on freedom of speech and expression, and the right to dissent.

This petition will be heard in the afternoon on Friday. The Speaker has assured the Rajasthan High Court that the proceedings against Pilot and others shall remain in abeyance till 5pm on Friday in the wake of the prosper hearing.

The petition, filed jointly by Pilot along with 18 other MLAs, has challenged the validity of clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India.

This provision and the interpretations given to it by a body of judgments by the Supreme Court have held that indulging in any anti-party activity tantamount to voluntarily giving up the membership of the party.

The petition has maintained that this provision cannot be so widely construed that the very same fundamental freedom of speech and expression of a member of the House is jeopardised.

Pilot and others said: "Mere expression of dissatisfaction or even disillusionment against the party leadership cannot be treated to be conduct falling within the clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India."

The plea added that even if expression of views and opinions, howsoever strongly worded, are treated to be a part of clause 2(1)(a), the said clause would not stand the scrutiny and will have to be declared ultra vires the basic structure of the Constitution of India in general and that of right of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) in particular.

It said that since the basis of the disqualification notices by the Speaker was expressions of dissent by some MLAs, it is necessary that the high court examines the validity of the impugned provision under the 10th Schedule.

The amended petition, apart from annulment of the disqualification notices, has also sought for declaring clause 2(1)(a) of the 10th Schedule ultra vires since it impinges upon the fundamental right of free speech.

See the article here:
'Disillusionment With Leadership is About Free Speech, Can't Disqualify for it': Sachin Pilot's Amended H... - News18

A sinister new cult of dogmatic intolerance casts its shadow across our land, silencing debate, imposing conformity, whipping up hysteria, and crushing dissent.

In the wholly un-British climate of intimidation, opinions are ruthlessly censored and careers destroyed.

On a terrifying scale, the ingredients of alien despotism are now creeping into our public life.

There is an echo of the Soviet eastern bloc in the demand for absolute submission to the ruling orthodoxy, while the vicious mood of 1950s McCarthyism is mirrored in endless character assassinations and witch-hunts.

Similarly, the kind of determination to root out heresy that once drove the Spanish Inquisition can now be found in corporate Britain, from workplaces to Whitehall.

All this is the very antithesis of a free society, which should value openness, compromise and pluralism.

That great patriot George Orwell famously wrote, If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Tragically, instead of being guided by those wise words, the cultural commissars seem to be inspired by Orwells most famous novel, 1984, which painted a dark picture of Britain under totalitarian rule, complete with thought crimes, hate sessions, group think and hectoring propaganda.

Orwell meant his book to be a warning, but the new ideologues see it as a blueprint.

The vanguard of this revolution hails from the authoritarian Left, which uses the bogus language of compassion to justify its oppression.

In their doctrinal obsessions and frenzied divisiveness, these bullies are utterly divorced from the mainstream British public, yet they are able to wield excessive power through their stranglehold on the internet and civic institutions.

In their brutish hands, social media is both an instrument of fear and an arena for show trials.

Nothing illustrates the nastiness of the online lynch mob more graphically thanthe transformation of the best-selling author JK Rowling from cherished icon into enemy of the people.

Her thought crime is her willingness to challenge the fashionable transgender ideology, which she sees as a threat both to womens rights and childhood innocence.

For her courage, she has been subjected to horrendous misogynistic abuse.

Staff at her publishing house have tried to boycott her work.

Authors have left the literary agency that represents her.

A sculptural tribute to her in Edinburgh, comprising the imprints of her hands, was daubed with blood-red paint.

Ms Rowling is such a global figure that she can withstand a battering from the advocates of the cancel culture, as it has become known because its impulse is to cancel out dissenters.

Others have been less lucky.

The Scottish childrens author Gillian Philip says she was fired from her post by her publishers after she tweeted: I stand with JK Rowling.

As Ms Philip commented, her professionalism counted for nothing in the face of an abusive mob of anonymous Twitter trolls. The same hardline trans lobby also recently hounded out Baroness Nicholson from her position as the patron of the Booker Literary prize for showing insufficientobeisance to the new creed, a fate thatalso happened to tax expert Maya Forstater who was dismissed from her job at an anti-poverty think tank after she tweeted that men cannot change into women.

Left-wingers used to campaign to protect jobs.

Now they campaign to get people removed from them, simply for having unacceptable opinions.

Typical is the case of Nick Buckley, who set up a highly successful charity for vulnerable young people in Manchester. But in the eyes of the new zealots he committed the sin of criticising the aims of the radical Black Lives Matter protest group.

We will do everything in our power to have you removed from your position, said one activist.The warning was prophetic, as Buckley was kicked out of the charity he established.

Disturbingly, this is just part of a wider trend.

At Cambridge University, which has regularly made empty noises about its commitment to academic freedom, the philosopher Jordan Peterson had his offer of a visiting fellowship withdrawn after protests from the Students Union about the politically incorrect nature of his work.

In the same cowardly vein, Cambridge sacked sociologist Noah Carl over the unsubstantiated claims that he might use his position as a researcher to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred. So pathetically supine was the university that it even apologised to its students for appointing him in the first place, an appointment that supposedly caused hurt, betrayal, anger and disbelief.

That is so characteristic of our enfeebled establishment.

Instead of standing up for essential liberties, officialdom now cowers before the mob and colludes with the agitators.

In another outrageous case, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist Professor Sir Tim Hunt was forced out of his posts at University College London, the Royal Society and the European Research Council after he was accused of making a joke about female colleagues at an event in Seoulin 2015, even though he strongly deniedthe charge.

Sir Tim was crucified by ideological fanatics, said his fellow scientist Sir Andre Geim of the University of Manchester.

No one is safe from this destructive form of socialist puritanism.

Last year, disabled Asda worker Brian Leach was sacked for sharing an online clip of a Billy Connolly routine that mocked religion, though Leach was later reinstated after a public outcry. In yet another indicator of the authorities submission to the new doctrine, the police are estimated to have investigated no fewer than 120,000 non-crime hate incidents over the past five years, an incredible rate of 66 a day.

The Free Speech Union, recently founded by the energetic journalist Toby Young to uphold Britains tattered traditions, says that it now receives half a dozen requests for help every day.

The fact that such an organisation is required represents a severe indictment of the growing institutional disdain for freedom of expression.

The autocratic impulse has always existed on the Left, as shown by this passage written in 1999 by the broadcaster Andrew Marr, a key member of the metropolitan elite: I firmly believe that repression can be a great, civilising instrument for good. Stamp hard on certain natural beliefs for long enough and you can almost kill them off.

That outlook has become even stronger over the subsequent two decades.

In progressive circles, free speech is seen, not as a pillar of democracy, but as a vehicle for spreading dangerously reactionary arguments. In the warped mentality of the witch-hunters, the problem with the cancel culture is that it is insufficiently expansive or effective.

This narrow attitude was perfectly captured last week by the singer Billy Bragg, who wrote that whenever he hears Orwells defence of liberty, he wants to cringe because the words are a defence of licence, allowing those in power to abuse and marginalise others.

When he was asked on social media if he supported the dismissal of people simply for an opinion, he declared, If their opinion amounts to delegitimising the rights of a minority, I believe that employers have the right to act in such circumstances.

In effect, Bragg appears to believe in the thought police and ideological purity tests, a shameful stance from a man who once pretended to be democrat.

But his outlook is a common one.

One of the performers on the deeply unfunny BBC satire The Mash Report even stated that free speech is basically a way adult people can say racist stuff without consequences.

Left-wingers love to trumpet the joys of diversity, yet they loathe diversity of thought.

All their apparatus of repression, such as safe spaces and wails about micro-aggressions, are geared towards the enforcement of their code.

Even when people are not directly threatened with losing their livelihoods, they become scared to express their views on any controversial topic.

The atmosphere of self-censorship is thereby strengthened. The absurdity of this approach is that free speech is the ally, not the enemy, of progress, enlightenment and human rights.

Without such a liberty, discussion and protest are impossible, while power becomes entrenched, as the Soviet Union proved.

An irrefutable case for free speech was made in 2009, when the BBC invited the BNP leader Nick Griffin to participate in an edition of the flagship show Question Time.

The BNP was riding high at that moment, having won almost one million votes in the European elections and secured two seats in the European Parliament.

There was tremendous outrage at the BBCs invitation, yet Griffins disastrous appearance turned out to be the worst thing that ever happened to the BNP.

Sweating, nervous and incoherent, he was exposed as a fantasising conspiracy theorist with some very unpleasant views, in the words of his fellow panelist, the distinguished Labour politician Jack Straw.

Even BNP activists were dismayed.

Maybe some coaching should have been done, said one.

Question Time triggered a chain of events that soon led to the collapse of the BNP, amid debts and plummeting popularity.

The cancel culture would have worked in Griffins favour.

As it was, he choked on the oxygen of publicity.

That is the lesson we have to learn today. Fortunately there are the glimmers of a fightback against the authoritarians. JK Rowling has stood firm.

Comedy star Ricky Gervais has stood up for free speech, denouncing its opponents as weird.

Only last week, a letter was sent to Harpers Magazine by 153 mainly liberal philosophers, writers and intellectuals among them giants su Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood and Noam Chomsky who denounced the intolerant climate of public discourse.

The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away, they wrote.

That is absolutely correct and has long been the British way.

For the sake of our future, the extremists must not be allowed to prevail.

Continue reading here:
Freedom of speech is under threat like never before and we must fight back, LEO McKINSTRY - Express

Text Size:A- A+

New Delhi:A group of former civil servants, including prominent former IAS officers such as Aruna Roy and Wajahat Habibullah, have penned an open letter expressing concern over the growing assault on the Rule of Law in India and on its citizens rights to free speech and dissent.

In a letter titled Assault on the Rule of Law and Article 19 of the Constitution of India, 99 civil servants lamented the erosion of the rule of law in the country and urged all Indians to unite in defence of the rule of law and Article 19 the Right to Freedom of Speech, which they said are basic elements of any democracy.

The collective known as the Constitutional Conduct Group, is known for voicing concerns regarding socio-political developments in the country and includes several prominent ex-IAS, IPS and IFS officers.

Prominent IAS officers who are part of the group include Aruna Roy, P.S.S. Thomas, Vijaya Latha Reddy, Meena Gupta and Wajahat Habibullah.

Some of the well-known Indian Foreign Services officers in the group include Shivshankar Menon, Madhu Bhaduri, Deb Mukharji and Shiv Shankar Mukherjee. A.S. Dulat, Amitabh Mathur, Aloke B. Lal are some of the Indian Police Services officers who are signatories to the letter.

Also read: Indian citizens and media have been terrorised enough with sedition. SC must end it now

The letter talked about the blatant use of the sedition law and how the rule of law militates against the actualization of the freedom of speech.

It cited the arrest of 11 activists, including Kafeel Khan, Safoora Zargar, Akhil Gogoi, Sharjeel Imam, and the murder of Karnataka-based journalist Gauri Lankesh to highlight the corrosion of Article 19 under the government.

The letter added that the government cannot use the current pandemic as an excuse to curb media freedom across the country.

According to the letter, the law of sedition, which it terms a colonial relic, has seen a sharp increase in use. The letter alleges that any criticism of the government is considered anti-national and invites punitive wrath.

The former civil servants also blamed the government for attempting to clamp down on the media and note Indias fall in the Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders.

India ranked 142nd out of 180 countries covered in 2020. In 2019, it was ranked 140.

The letter alleged that the government has used the pandemic as a means to silence the media, giving examples of 55 journalists who were singled out for writing about mishandling of the crisis, and the criminal case against Siddharth Varadarajan, the founding editor of TheWire, for writing against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.

Also read: After SC, how Tripura High Court added muscle to freedom of speech & expression

The signatories of the letter also argued that the gulf between the rhetoric and reality in the rule of law is widening.

They mention the government-imposed curfew in Kashmir and the use of the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against people who participated in the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.

The letter further alleged that the police establishment has become a proxy at the hands of the political party in power.

According to the letter, the arrest of activists such as Sudha Bharadwaj, Shoma Sen, Gautam Navlakha and Anand Teltumbde under the UAPA is choking their freedom of expression.

Commenting on the Northeast Delhi riots, the letter noted, The investigations into the riots in north-east Delhi have betrayed an institutional bias against the minority community.

This was in reference to Dr M.A. Anwar, the proprietor of Hind Hospital, being mentioned in a chargesheet by the Delhi Police.

Dr Anwar had reportedly provided crucial medical services to the victims of the Delhi riots.

ThePrint is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on politics, governance and more, subscribe to ThePrint on Telegram.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

More:
Assault on rights to free speech, dissent: 99 ex-IAS, IPS, IFS officers say in open letter - ThePrint

Since October last year, Lebanons police and security forces have investigated or detained more than 100 civil rights activists in what Human Rights Watch (HRW) has termed a spate of free speech prosecutions. The spike in cases has coincided with the rise of a nationwide protest movement that has expressed popular anger at decades of political and economic mismanagement.

In eight months of protests, the people of Lebanon have spoken out increasingly and openly on social media and at street demonstrations against members of the establishment who are considered widely to be the cause of the countrys multiple crises. Activists and rights groups, however, have raised concerns that the rising number of investigations into comments made and actions taken by protesters is a sign that Lebanons vague defamation laws are being used to intimidate and silence critics. Freedom of expression, they say, is definitely under threat.

The problem is the interpretation of the law, explains Ayman Mhanna, the Executive Director of media freedom watchdog the Samir Kassir Foundation. The same articles can be interpreted in a very liberal and open way and also in a very restrictive and oppressive way. This, unfortunately, is the current situation.

Words such as defamation, libel and slander, he notes, or charges of inciting sectarian strife or endangering civil peace, have elastic interpretations that can change depending on the judge.

Lebanon: Judge who ordered media ban on US envoy resigns

According to Gino Raidy a prominent activist with over 100,000 followers on Twitter and Instagram, politicians are exploiting the vagueness of Lebanons defamation laws to target high-profile activists in order to deter would-be critics from speaking out. Politicians choose the people with the most reach to target repeatedly. People like me, Dima Sadek, Charbel Khoury; people with a large following on social media. They keep calling in the people who are really visible.

The high-profile activist has been investigated three times since the start of protests on 17 October. Each lawsuit, Raidy points out, has been instigated by a prominent politician, including one by Prime Minister Hassan Diab at the height of the coronavirus lockdown. However, none of the cases has led to Raidys arrest, nor has the activist ended up in court.

Instead, he says, the investigations are often intended to intimidate, waste time and attract media attention. In the most recent investigation, he waited six hours for the claimants lawyer to turn up and provide a statement before he was released. Its just bureaucratic shenanigans. In the last one the claimants lawyer was six hours late, on purpose. He made us wait for him so that it looked like I had been arrested, when I hadnt. When he eventually arrived, he gave a statement and I was, of course, released.

Lebanon: Interior Minister admits killing 2 during civil war

However, says Raidy, being investigated can be a scary and traumatic experience for young protesters, especially because activists are often not told why they are being summoned, nor are they always allowed to have a lawyer present during questioning. Other cases documented by HRW show that some activists were pressured to sign a commitment to refrain from criticising a particular political party or individual. These are tactics, he claims, which investigators use to exert pressure on and intimidate critics.

Another activist, Taymour Jreissati, agrees and describes the spike in investigations as scare tactics. Simply summoning critics for questioning on nonsense allegations is a form of intimidation in itself and a threat to freedom of expression. The 33-year-old was summoned for investigation after he and a group of activists confronted former Minister of the Environment Fadi Jreissati publicly outside a restaurant in Beirut.

Jreissati the activist told me that the entire encounter was caught on camera and that the pair spoke cordially because he is related to the former minister through his father. Nevertheless, he was still summoned for questioning over the incident.

[Politicians] basically bank on the idea that if they get us in for questioning and waste our time, we will back down. They think that the next time we see them in public we will not confront them because we are afraid of being called in for questioning again.

Lebanon: Activist detained, accused of ties with Israel

Taymour Jreissati claims that the allegations against him were baseless and taking him in for questioning was a tactic designed to pressure him into silence. Asked why lawsuits against protesters and activists, such as the case against Jreissati, get filed and investigated but rarely go to court, a spokesperson for the Embassy of Lebanon in London said that, The Government is determined to uphold freedom of expression and right to protest, while at the same time maintaining law and order.

The spokesperson provided no further details on the increasing prevalence of similar cases but cited the preamble and Article 13 of Lebanons Constitution, which guarantees, within the scope of the law, freedom of speech and expression.

Nevertheless, Mhanna believes that the law needs to be updated. He told me that a draft law submitted to parliament 10 years ago has been completely transformed into a repressive text by parliamentary committees without ever being presented for a general vote.

Politicians have increasingly relied on freedom of expression investigations as one of the last tools available to silence critics, he adds. However, with mounting public pressure over the rapidly worsening economic crisis and the apparent deadlock in talks with the International Monetary Fund, he has little hope of any meaningful reform on the horizon.

Lebanon: Security forces arrest 11 over riots, vandalism

See original here:
Freedom of expression is under threat in Lebanon - Middle East Monitor

I

n the last few weeks a spate of American stores have made headlines after putting up signs telling customers who wear masks they will be denied entry. On Thursday, Vice reported on a Kentucky convenience store that put up a sign reading: NO Face Masks allowed in store. Lower your mask or go somewhere else. Stop listening to [Kentucky governor Andy] Beshear, hes a dumbass.

Another sign was posted by a Californian construction store earlier this month encouraging hugs but not masks. In Illinois, a gas station employee who put up a similar sign has since defended herself, arguing that mask-wearing made it hard to differentiate between adults and children when selling booze and cigarettes.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump finally caved and wore a face mask yesterday something he didnt want to give the press the pleasure of seeing. But while it is gratifying to see the emperor finally forced to wear clothes, youve got to wonder to what extent the virus will spread thanks to the actions of citizens insisting on protecting their freedom over the right of others not to get sick.

Anti-lockdown protesters have argued that it is anti-American for the government to curtail peoples freedoms in order to reduce deaths as a result of Covid-19. Meanwhile, store owners tell customers what they can and cannot wear before entering, and customers cough in the faces of workers in the name of freedom.

I work for Costco and I am asking this customer to put on a mask because that is company policy, says a Costco employee in one video. And Im not doing it because I woke up in a free country, replies the man filming him.

A warped freedom obsession is killing us, said the writer Anand Giridharadas, in reference to those coughing in the faces of others in the name of freedom. It is, of course, a minority of people willfully misinterpreting what freedom means freedom to choose, until the choice is one that they do not like; meanwhile, most Americans dont want to return to business as usual during this pandemic.

In Franklin D Roosevelts famous 1941 Four Freedoms speech, he detailed that, yes, Americans are owed a right to freedom of speech and expression and to worship whom they please but he also mentioned the freedom from fear. This was in the context of the US joining forces with Britain in the second world war; Roosevelt was telling Americans that this was a fight for freedom. As America finds itself at war with a deadly pandemic, thats a message worth considering.

Originally posted here:
No masks allowed: stores turn customers away in US culture war - The Guardian