Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The internet has become a part of everyones lives as compared to the impact it had even a decade ago

Your Amazon reviews have the same impact as your Facebook status update

The amendments to the draft IT Intermediary Guidelines, 2018 initiated a new debate

Editors Note: This article was written before the Personal Data Protection Bill was approved by the Union Cabinet with undisclosed changes to the Draft version of the Bill which this author has based their opinions on. Therefore, some opinions expressed below may no longer be applicable under the revised Bill. You can check all the articles of this series here.

In August 2017 Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre very poignantly noted, while reading out the judgment on the Puttaswamy case that right to privacy of any individual is essentially a natural right, which inheres in every human being till he/she last. It is indeed inseparable and inalienable from human beings.

In other words, it is born with the human being and extinguishes with the human being. The right to privacy is a fundamental right that is distinctly connected with human dignity by securing their inner thoughts and expressions from any form of unwanted intrusion.

Today, the internet has become a part of everyones lives as compared to the impact it had even a decade ago. People from all backgrounds, genders and ages have an online presence. Whether it is for business purposes or personal, most conversations and communications amongst people happen online. From buying groceries to speaking to your mother at the other end of the world, everything can be achieved with a good internet connection, a usable device and an online communication platform.

Along with this increase in communication, comes a boost in public expression. The internet has made it possible for people to express their thoughts, opinions and arguments on everything in the world from avocados to the US elections to the world at large. These expressions spark debates, encourage conversations and lead to discussions amongst like-minded people, helping people feel a sense of community and camaraderie.

It is clear with the widespread use of the internet across all communities, societies and sectors that the pervasiveness of the internet is worldwide, making it a vertical form of business and not horizontal anymore. The internet and social media have become a staple part and act as the foundation of human expression in todays times.

Your Amazon reviews have the same impact as your Facebook status update i.e. they both help you communicate your personal opinions to those who you voluntarily want to convey them to. Therefore, freedom of expression is highly dependent on the freedom to express over social media. Therefore, making the internet a safe and free space is essential to uphold this fundamental right that is allowed for each human being.

The platforms mentioned above have been termed as intermediaries, which is a platform for user-generated content. They use the capabilities of the web to act as platforms where information is shared. Intermediaries are themselves not seen as publishers of content but rather serve as the place where user content is shared. The question that arises with the growth of intermediaries is the accountability that they have on the content that is shared on their platforms.

What responsibilities and protections come with hosting Indian user content and how liable are they for the content shared. The amendments to the draft IT Intermediary Guidelines, 2018 initiated a new debate on the curbing or censoring of this content equalling to the violation of the content creators freedom of speech and expression.

The proposed draft rules have gone beyond the scope of the provisions of the parent act and erodes the safe harbour protection available to intermediaries under section 79 of the IT Act. As noted in the landmark judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the intermediary is called upon to exercise its own judgment under Rule 3 sub-rule (4) and then disable information, when intermediaries by their very definition are only persons who offer a neutral platform through which persons may interact with each other over the internet.

Thus, it then solely depends upon the intermediaries subjective sense, to take down content, which has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression. The requirement for intermediaries to subjectively determine the legality of an expression should be replaced with an objective test. The objective test should be such that it does not create an obligation for the intermediary to go into the adjudication of a legal claim or into the investigation of facts and circumstances.

The rules are procedurally flawed as they ignore elements of principles of natural justice and lacks safeguards. Under the rules, the third party provider of information whose expression is censored is not informed or made aware about the takedown, let alone given an opportunity to be heard before or after the takedown. There is no redressal mechanism for the aggrieved user or third party uploading or providing the content, to appeal the decision of the Government agency in the courts.

Reasoned state action must recognize that their liabilities must necessarily vary with the specific type of service that each provides. The Intermediary Guidelines fail to do so, and are consequently incompatible with Article 14. There needs to be a classification made with respect to the type of intermediaries. A singular watertight formula cannot be applied to all intermediaries. There needs to be a tactical separation between User Generated Content space and Curated Content providers. The guarantee of equal protection of laws requires equality of treatment of persons who are similarly situated, without discrimination inter se. It is a corollary that people differently situated cannot be treated alike.

Once the government recognises different types of intermediaries, a differential regulation needs to be established as well. Intermediaries can be classified into:

Distinct classes of intermediaries should be created and due diligence requirements be assigned as per the functions performed by each of intermediaries.

The guidelines mandate intermediaries to disable access to unlawful content without the requisite procedural safeguards under Rule 3(8). Moreover, the guidelines leave it on intermediaries to remove the content from their platforms proactively, which could amount to censorship. The issue with proactively trying to censor content is that its effects can spill over into censorship and impact the freedom of speech, internet is supposed to enhance and enable.

Additionally, these rules have not been understood context of Section 79 of the IT Act which is an enabling provision. It needs to be clarified that these guidelines do not create new offences but instead provide the intermediaries a safe harbour to avoid taking liability for most offences.

In order to combat this gap in the regulation and the blatant violation of human rights a balanced approach needs to be taken where when intermediary platforms are used for the transmission of allegedly obscene and objectionable contents, the intermediaries/service providers should not be absolved of responsibility. And at the same time when they take down content that does not fit into the category of offensive/obscene/threatening, they should be answerable to the creator of the content and via the due process of law provide evidence and reasoning for their actions.

It is clear that a definite obligation should be cast upon the intermediaries/service providers in view of the irreparable damages caused to the victims through reckless activities that are undertaken in the cyberspace by using the service providers platform and make them accountable for the actions they take based on their assumptions or interpretations. Casting such an obligation seems imperative, seeing as how the aggrieved party has no legal recourse or direct contact with the said platform managers.

[The article is co-authored by Kazim Rizvi and Maanya Vaidyanathan, Policy and Engagement Manager at The Dialogue.]

See the original post here:
Over Regulating Intermediaries: Threat To Free Speech? - Inc42 Media

The recommendations and revised Charter were developed in response to an independent review of freedom of speech in Australian higher education providers, commissioned by the federal government and conducted by former High Court Chief Justice the Hon Robert French AC.

A key recommendation of Mr Frenchs report was that all registered Australian higher education providers should voluntarily adopt a Model Code for the Protection of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Australian Higher Education Providers developed as part of the report.

Dr Spence welcomed the French review and established a University French Review Model Code Implementation Group to prepare recommendations on how to implement the Code most effectively to further strengthen the Universitys already robust framework promoting and protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom on its campuses and facilities.

The Implementation Groups report and recommendations were released to the University community in October. They have since been endorsed by the executive and key governance committees, including the Academic Board last month with just minor amendments, and by the Senate yesterday afternoon.

Dr Spence explained that one of the amendments made by the Academic Board was to include the word courage in the Charter.

This change recognises that as an institution and a community we greatly value courage, civility and respect and seek to promote a climate where people disagree well, Dr Spence said.

The term disagreeing well was also added to the 2008 Charter on recommendation of the Implementation Group.

Original post:
Charter of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to be adopted - News - The University of Sydney

The video sharing platform and sister organization to Google may be cracking down on free speech -- this time under the guise of protecting users from harassment. YouTubes Vice President and Global Head of Trust & Safety Matt Halprin released a blog on Wednesday, Dec. 11, titled An update to our harassment policy.

As of today, YouTubes blog announced a series of policy and product changes that update how we tackle harassment on YouTube from both creators and commenters. Free speech advocates may be rightly concerned with slippery terms such as malicious insults, veiled threats via simulated violence and, of course, hate speech.

Harassment hurts our community by making people less inclined to share their opinions and engage with each other. Haplrin wrote. We heard this time and again from creators, including those who met with us during the development of this policy update. Halprin said that his company met with a wide range of advisors from various political backgrounds, from organizations that study online bullying or advocate on behalf of journalists, to free speech proponents and policy organizations from all sides of the political spectrum. YouTube reiterated this message in a tweet, stating, we consulted with a wide array of creators, experts and organizations to update our harassment policy.

Halprin tried to assure those concerned with free speech that they have nothing to fear in stating, We remain committed to our openness as a platform and to ensuring that spirited debate and a vigorous exchange of ideas continue to thrive here. But Halprin asserted that YouTube will not tolerate harassment.

Weve always removed videos that explicitly threaten someone, reveal confidential personal information, or encourage people to harass someone else, Halprin claimed. But in the future, our policies will go a step further and not only prohibit explicit threats, but also veiled or implied threats.

Such threats were described as including content that simulates violence or language that suggests physical violence might actually occur. No individual should be subject to harassment that suggests violence, wrote Halprin.

When it comes to hate speech, YouTube proclaimed that it will no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on protected attributes such as their race, gender expression, or sexual orientation. This applies to everyone, from private individuals, to YouTube creators, to public officials.

YouTube wrote that sometimes harassment can also take the shape of a pattern of behavior across multiple videos, suggesting that such repeated behavior could run afoul their new harassment policy even if any individual video doesnt cross our policy line.

In response, YouTube will be tightening our policies for the YouTube Partner Program (YPP) to get even tougher on those who engage in harassing behavior and to ensure we reward only trusted creators. Channels that repeatedly brush up against our harassment policy will be suspended from YPP, eliminating their ability to make money on YouTube.

In addition, Halprin wrote, We may also remove content from channels if they repeatedly harass someone. If this behavior continues, well take more severe action including issuing strikes or terminating a channel altogether.

Halprin then pivoted to discuss commenters who leave notes in the comment section beneath videos.

We know that the comment section is an important place for fans to engage with creators and each other, Halprin suggested. At the same time, we heard feedback that comments are often where creators and viewers encounter harassment. This sort of toxic commentary, continued Halprin, not only impacts the person targeted by the harassment, but can also have a chilling effect on the entire conversation.

To those concerned with freedom of speech, YouTube attempted to reassure readers that not just any negative commentary would be censored. Weve continued to fine tune our systems to make sure we catch truly toxic comments, Halprin suggested, not just anything thats negative or critical, and feedback from creators has been positive.

The blog also touted YouTubes recent changes with regard to borderline content and authoritative sources, breaking from its open video platform montra. Halprin noted that the platform is reducing the spread of borderline content [and] raising up authoritative voices when people are looking for breaking news and information and rewarding trusted creators and artists that make YouTube a special place. He also noted that the platform is committed to continue revisiting our policies regularly to ensure that they are preserving the magic of YouTube, while also living up to the expectations of our community.

See the original post:
Is YouTube Cracking Down on Free Speech With New 'Harassment Policy'? - NewsBusters

Students told to drop safe spaces and no-platform policies as minister orders universities to put freedom of speech first

Students are being told to drop safe spaces and no platform-policies as the minister for higher education is ordering universities to protect freedom of speech.

Jo Johnson has written to the chief executive of Universities UK to say there is a legal duty for universities to ensure freedom of speech is being exercised.

Under new plans drawn up by the Government, universities will be required by law to protect free speech across their campuses included inside the student union.

His letter comes just months after findings showed 94 per cent of universities in the UK now have some form of restriction on freedom of expression, up from 80 per cent in 2015.

The worrying craze has seen everything from public speakers blocked to fancy dress outfits banned from appearing on campus.

In recent years a number of high-profile people have been banned from speaking at universities in recent years including Mr Johnsons brother Boris, whose invitation to Kings College London was revoked for a column about Barack Obama.

Germaine Greer was nearly stopped from speaking at a lecture at Cardiff University after students started a petition against her visiting, following comments she made about the transgender community.

Radical feminist Julie Bindel was ironically banned from speaking at a debate about censorship at Manchester Universitys student union for her dangerous views on transgender people.

Journalist Julie Bindle was banned from debating censorship at Manchester Universitys Students Union

This upward trend of censorship has also seen campuses banning everything from newspapers to fancy dress outfits, such as Pocahontas and cowboys and Indians.

And in some universities such as Cardiff Metropolitan, students are trying to ban terms such as gentlemans agreement and mankind in case they cause offence.

Now Mr Johnson is seeking to reclaim some control on campuses, through the new Higher Education and Research Bill.

He told The Times newspaper a consultation will be starting shortly.

The newspaper Mr Johnson wrote to Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of Universities UK, and said: It is important to note that the duty extends to both the premises of the university and premises occupied by the students unions, even when they are not part of the university premises.

It is important to note that the duty extends to both the premises of the university and premises occupied by the students unions, even when they are not part of the university premises.

Excerpt from:
Johnson orders universities to protect freedom of speech - Stock Daily Dish

Freedom of speech must trump safe spaces in universities, minister says Freedom of speech will be enshrined in law at university campuses across the country, including student unions, if Boris Johnsons brother is to have his way.

Higher education minister Jo Johnson, younger brother of the foreign secretary, has written to higher education institutions warning that a commitment to freedom of speech will have to be clearly outlined in their governance structures. Free speech must prevail and counter censoring forces, including those asking for the minister said.

According to the original report in the Times, Johnson told Universities UK chief executive Nicola Dandridge that universities had the legal duty to host speakers of any belief, be they members, students, employees or visiting speakers.

It is important to note that the duty extends to both the premises of the university and premises occupied by the students unions, even when they are not part of the university premises, he said, adding that access should not be denied to any individual or body on any grounds connected with their

The policy is believed to come as a response to a series of boycotts to controversial speakers in universities across the country.

Feminist writer Germaine Greer has been the target of a national ban from students, after expressing sentiments described by her critics as transphobic.

Censorship is believed to have increased at universities in the last few years, with 94 percent of institutions now having official restrictions on what can and . Last year the number of universities with freedom of speech restrictions had also risen to 90 percent from 80 percent in 2015.

Certain colleges are even attempting to ban allegedly offensive words, including Cardiff Metropolitan University where gentlemans agreement and mankind are on a list of no-go words for their sexist overtones.

Johnsons letter is part of his strategy to impose public interest principles on higher education providers, as outlined in the Higher Education and Research Bill.

Not everyone supports the bill, however, including the House of Lords, which believes the document gives students too much power.

Read the rest here:
Freedom of speech must trump safe spaces in universities, minister says - Stock Daily Dish

TheMuttart Foundation, an Edmonton charity, disputes the notion that opposition to Albertas oil and gas industry is bankrolled by foreign money. Using Canada Revenue Agency data, it found Alberta charities received less than three per cent of their revenues from foreign sources.

Human rights group Amnesty International Canada has warned that the war room and public inquiry threaten freedom of expression and association.

Legal advocacy group Ecojustice has also filed a court challenge citing similar concerns.

If there areorganizations that use their free speech to put misinformation into the public square, we will respond, Kenney said.

Thats not attacking freedom of speech. Its responding to the content of the speech. Thats called public discourse.

He said the centre will react withrespect, civility and professionalism.

The centre is to have a research unit,an energyliteracy unitand a rapid response team to challenge misinformation. Its website lists eight staff members, half of whom used to work in the media.

CEO Tom Olsen, a one-time journalist andformerpremier Ed Stelmachs spokesman,ran unsuccessfully as aUnited Conservative Partycandidate in the April provincial election.

He said he anticipates adding staff as the centre ramps up.

We will be effective and mindful of the money that we spend, which is taxpayers money, he said.

One-thirdof the budget comes from existing provincial advertisingmoney, and the rest from a levy on major industrial emitters.

The centreaims toget its message out through advertising, publicity and social media.Olsendescribed it as part new media organization, part think tank, research hub.

He said hes not sure whether the war room will reach out topeople or organizationsprivately to request corrections.

Its website, which went up Tuesday,has severalarticles by centre staff. Theres oneabout an Indigenous businessman proposing to build a pipeline, another about how Canadian natural gas can help lower global greenhouse gas emissions anda story headlined Alberta father irked by charity group that targets fossil fuel industry.

Outside the news conference, about a dozen protesters wearing festive reindeer antlers sang about climate change to the tune of Christmas carols, which included Cool Down the World and We Wish You a Stable Climate.

In Edmonton, Opposition Leader Rachel Notley called the centre a slush fund for Kenneys political goals. She said it has no firewalls or safeguards to ensure that the data, research and work of the centre is not used for the benefit of the UCP or its political allies.

She also questioned whether the centre will stick to its promise to keep debate to the facts and to not target individual Albertans who disagree with the governments stance.

I certainly hope were not using taxpayers dollars to attack Albertans, to attack people who have other concerns and other priorities.

Duncan Kenyon, Alberta regional director of the environmental think tank Pembina Institute, said he laments the governmentsfocus on fighting fossil fuel foes when everyone should be working together on tackling climate change.

We actually more than ever need to come together to figure out how to decarbonize and diversify our energy, he said.

We need to respond to where the world and the markets and the people that are going to buy this product are going.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 11, 2019.

With files from Dean Bennett in Edmonton

Lauren Krugel, The Canadian Press

Original post:
Alberta premier says energy war room will be respectful as it takes on critics - CFJC Today Kamloops

On November 20, a pro-Israel group at York University hosted an event entitled "Reservists on Duty: Hear from former Israeli Defence Force soldiers." Various leftist campus groups vowed to shut the event down. They didn't, thanks to a heavy police presence, but they did disrupt the event while shouting anti-Israel and pro-terrorism slogans; a few lovely individuals chanted to the organizers, "Intifada, Intifada, go back to the ovens." Scuffles between protesters seeking to block entrance to the event and attendees often broke out; contemporary news sources almost universally attribute blame for the violence to the protesters.

Amnesty Canada has now weighed in with an extraordinary letter to York University's president. If you think Amnesty spoke up in favor of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and against violence and disruption by protesters, well, you haven't been paying attention to how groups that used to believe in human rights have evolved into far leftist activist groups with a particular obsession with hating Israel (my bolding):

Amnesty International is writing this Open Letter to request that you convene an independent review into all concerns associated with the "Reservists on Duty: Hear from former Israeli Defence Force soldiers" event, organized by the Herut Zionism Club at York University on November 20, 2019.

As you know, this controversial event was met with protests which descended into violent confrontations outside the venue. It was clearly foreseeable that there would be controversy and protest, given the history of human rights violations committed by Israeli Defence Force soldiers amidst the illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories. That was exacerbated by the fact that members of the Jewish Defense League, a far-right group classified as a terrorist organization in the U.S. and with a record of violence and assaults at protests, were allowed on campus.

Amnesty International has an active and dynamic student group at York University that works on a range of campaigns, including our serious concerns about widespread and longstanding human rights violations associated with Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories. The group brings a positive voice for human rights to York, in keeping with the university's encouragement of student agency and leadership. They actively defend and promote universal human rights protection for all people, including the freedoms of speech, expression and assembly and the obligation to condemn war crimes occurring anywhere in the world.

While Amnesty International at York had no official presence at the protest, a number of our members chose to participate in an individual capacity, as is clearly their right. We are very troubled to learn that some members were physically assaulted during the confrontations that occurred and have been receiving threatening messages on their cell phones. They are now fearful when they are on campus and have taken to limiting their movements, staying in groups, and ensuring that there are safe spaces to study in security.

It is evident that the considerable confusion, tension and fear associated with the November 20th event and its aftermath lingers. That is clear from the number and nature of statements and resolutions that have been issued by various student groups on campus. We have noted from your statement on November 21st that you have taken two steps in response, namely: (1) tasking the Vice President of Equity, People and Culture and your Division of Students to take the lead in developing a strategy for "fostering a more productive dialogue around these issues"; and (2) the launch of an upcoming Freedom of Speech Working Group to "make specific recommendations on how to create a more respectful climate on campus for the discussion of difficult topics."

Given conflicting views about what happened that evening, the worrying ongoing impact on students at York and the important human rights considerations that are at stake, Amnesty International urges York University to go further and convene an independent review of all circumstances associated with the Herut Zionism Club event and its aftermath, with a mandate that includes examination of:

considerations that were taken into account in approving the event, including the fact that the speakers were former members of a military with a clear record of responsibility for war crimes and other serious human rights violations;

decisions made with respect to the presence of members of the Jewish Defense League on campus;

Note: (1) Amnesty does not condemn the disruption and antisemitic remarks made at the event; (2) Amnesty is apparently taking the position that anyone who has ever served in the Israeli armed forces should be treated as a presumptive war criminal [as the spouse of an IDF veteran, you can stick it where the sun don't shine, Amnesty]; (3) Amnesty suggests that hosting a pro-Israel event is inviting violence and disruption, and the university should therefore consider whether it was appropriate to allow such an event to proceed; and (4) Amnesty suggests that a public university should be screening members of the public for their political affiliations before they should be allowed to

Read the original:
Amnesty International Canada Questions Freedom of Speech and Assembly - Reason

Writer, producer and director Deborah Coughlin reflects on why blocking people with opposing views to your own and essentially living in an echo chamber is not going to solve the world's problems

It doesnt matter what newspapers we follow, or who we block, in just two weeks many of us will be sat around the dinner table with people who have wildly different opinions to our own. Well be in free fall from whatever happens in the election this Thursday, passing the sprouts to a Trump-loving Granny, and explaining why vegans dont eat goose-fat potatoes to a Thunberg-dissing Uncle. Theres no hope of an echo chamber at dinner time on Xmas day.

We are in an age where increasingly young people are viewing free speech as dangerous, but theres no way most of us can escape it when it comes to family and friends back home. While some people quite rightly do decide their families beliefs are too toxic for them to be around, many of us just arent going to no platform our Nan and will either grit our teeth, or. argue.

Ive just put together the most diverse book of womens thought leadership in one of the first books of its kind Outspoken: 50 Speeches by Incredible Women. From Boudicca to Michelle Obama. As a feminist writer who has always wanted to unearth the voices of uncelebrated women I wanted to make sure amongst the women we all know, there were women less well-known, and even with the women we know to include speeches we wont be so familiar with.

Getty Images

It includes Oprah, Emma Watson, Kate Tempest, Hilary Clinton, Vivienne Ming, Virginia Woolf, Sojourner Truth and many more, and it was important to me I included women who would disagree with each other. I wrote it because ten years ago the only sound bite I knew that didnt come from the mouth of a man was Thatchers The ladys not for turning. And Im no fan, Ive never voted Conservative in my life. How could this be the only woman whose words I knew off by heart?

So I went on the hunt for other women. Book after book I found on speeches, all with 99 men and a Pankhurst, or 49 men and a Thatcher. Man, after outspoken man, heck it was easier to find the transcripts of genocidal maniacs than a woman. Where were all the outspoken women?

I wanted to know what women had said before me, so that I could stand on the shoulders of giants, be inspired, and not be doomed to repeating the work they had already done in my own feminism. Here are four of the most inspiring gems Im taking with me to Christmas Dinner.

Getty Images

Audre Lorde shows us why its important to muster the courage to say what you think. Death, on the other hand, is the final silence. And that might be coming quickly, now, without regard for whether I had ever spoken what needed to be said, or had only betrayed myself into small silences, while I planned someday to speak, or waited for someone elses words she said in her speech Transformation of Silence at the Lesbian Literature Panel in Chicago 1977, before going on to say that if we swallow the things we care about we will die in silence, and then asking, What are the words you do not yet have? What do you need to say?

Getty Images

If you speak up, you put yourself in the firing line, now more so than ever, particularly if you are a woman of colour. In 2017 Amnesty International found that of all the abuse sent to women MPs, almost half was sent to just one MP, Diane Abbott, a woman who has spent a lifetime speaking up. She told her colleagues in the House of Commons about her experience in a speech that same year. Now they press a button and you read vile abuse which 30 years ago people would have been frightened to even write down.

Getty Images

Ever heard of Margaret Smith? Well, she was the first woman to ever be nominated for the US presidency, and in 1950, as a moderate republican, she gave a Declaration of Conscience speech, that sought to tackle a political time almost as devisive as our own where anyone on the Right was called a fascist and anyone on the Left a communist. Today our country is being psychologically divided. As An American, I condemn a Republican Fascist just as much I condemn a Democratic Communist. They are equally dangerous to you and me and to our country. As an American, I want to see our nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought the enemy instead of ourselves.

Getty Images

And what could a common enemy be? Greta Thunberg, the voice of 2019, has a unifying message which focuses on our collective home, our planet, and being a child does not stop her from speaking out. I am 16 years old. I come from Sweden. And I speak on behalf of future generations. I know many of you dont want to listen to us. You say we are just children. But were only repeating the message of the united climate science.

All these women had to take the bold step of speaking up for what they believe in. Not one of them says its easy, all spoke in front of people they knew would either disagree with or dismiss them, and they have all been targets of abuse, theyve all had people say they shouldnt be allowed to speak.

How can we apply this while we are pulling crackers? Well, we can say what we think. We can listen, disagree and try and persuade respectfully. No name calling! And we can find common goals to work on together. Its important we remember we are all human. Thatcher made it into my book, next to Wales first communist Mayor Annie Powell. Both have something to teach us.

*Follow Deborah on Instagram @deborahcoughlin

*Deborahs book, Outspoken: 50 Speeches by Incredible Women is available now

Read the rest here:
Why we need to stop believing freedom of speech is a dangerous thing - Marie Claire UK

Last month, footage of a confrontation between the College Republicans and a group of minority students at Binghamton University went viral. In the video, which begins in the midst of the argument, the students can be heard arguing about whether or not the Republicans should be tabling on campus. At one point, students on the opposing side began dissembling the table. When things began to seem like they could possibly get out of hand, police stepped in and the 10-minute video ended with the chants of students: Pack it up! Pack it up!

Just days later, on Nov. 18, Binghamton made headlines again when students protested a talk by Dr. Arthur Laffer a famed economist who worked under the Reagan administration held by the College Republicans. This video showed students beginning to interrupt the talk before it could even begin, with Dr. Laffer being escorted out by security just minutes after the peaceful protest began.

The incidents at Binghamton came in the midst of another upstate school struggling with instances of hate speech. On Nov. 19, students studying in the library at Syracuse University began receiving a manifesto on their phones the same manifesto used by the Christchurch massacre in New Zealand, The Washington Post reports. In the weeks prior to this incident, Syracuse had been dealing with an onslaught of hateful incidents: racial slurs posted on bulletin boards and shouted at students of color and swastikas drawn into the snow. The incidents became so frequent that minority students at the University launched a movement, #NotAgainSU, to demand action from administration.

The two situations cannot truly be compared, since one event had to do with protesting and the controversy surrounding that, and the other illustrates blatant racism and terrifying intolerance perpetuated throughout a campus. What happened at Syracuse University highlights the history of such behavior at the school as well, and the perpetuation of this conduct shows the Universitys lack of attention and effective policies preventing it.

Still, these occurrences all of which happened at nearly the same time as the others have rejuvenated the national debate on free speech versus hate speech, and whether or not speech that could be considered as hateful has a place on our college campuses.

Hate speech, as defined by Mass Media Law, is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation and the like. As the law stands now, the government (including public colleges and universities) generally cant bar hate speech unless its direct, personal and either truly threatening or violently provocative.

According to a statement released by the SUNY Board of Trustees and SUNY Chancellor, a task force has been formed with the primary function of brainstorming solutions to the growing problems in response to the recent incidents. There are also plans to convene all SUNY presidents and campus leaders to address the issues and find ways to ensure safety on campuses.

We at The New Paltz Oracle commend SUNY for taking steps towards change, and for making it a priority to listen to students and a goal to develop new policies and trainings on appropriate and efficient responses to intolerance. However, these changes need to be followed up with action that will actually bring about safer parameters for students. A situation like what happened at Syracuse, where students were sent home and classes were temporarily cancelled, should never be able to reach that point. College is meant to be someones home, and they deserve to feel safe and have open access to education in a productive environment that rejects hate, whether that university be public or private.

It is too often that historically underrepresented groups are asked to tolerate hate speech and rhetoric that actively insists on taking away their basic human rights. While the incident at Binghamton contains a lot of nuances, it is becoming a larger issue to continually request members of these communities to make room for hateful speech that targets them. Binghamton University released a statement after the incident on Nov. 20, explaining that they provided the protestors an adjacent room for a counter discussion, however, if there was an overwhelming amount of students at Binghamton University who rejected this speaker, then the on-site protest was rooted in a justified amount of outrage.

If the presence of Dr. Laffer made enough students uncomfortable, perhaps the College Republicans shouldve considered a different economist to speak on the campus that wasnt associated with problematic ideals and people, since Dr. Laffer has ties to the Reagan administration an administration riddled with controversy. To continuously provide a platform to individuals who promote harmful rhetorics is a mistake. The character and associations of a speaker are important criteria to consider when allowing someone to spread ideology on a public campus.

To shut down productive discourse, however, is also a mistake. We at The Oracle believe promoting tolerance is imperative to creating a political culture in which everyone feels safe to speak their mind. If a protest prevents a well-deserved speaker from sharing their thoughts, then that protest is preventing change from occurring. Rage is an essential catalyst for change, but so is active listening, questioning and understanding.

Post Views: 278

See the original post here:
Drawing the Line: When Does Freedom of Speech Go Too Far? - SUNY The New Paltz Oracle

Avalanche of Applications To Use, Defend, Protect RTI but Denial of Information Continues

As many as 375 Right to Information (RTI) applications have been filed in the past four months with public authorities of Aadhaar, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), police stations (where crimes of hate and mob lynching have been registered), mining and the judiciary, to prove, hearteningly, the point that citizens are not going to be cowed down by regressive amendments to the Right to Information Act.

An initiative of the National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI), was to collaborate with other peoples collectives to launch the "Use RTI, Demand Accountability" campaign on 1 August 2019.

States Rakshita Swamy, member of NCPRI, "By coordinating the filing of RTIs at different locations across the country and collectively tracking government responses, the UseRTI campaign will give strength and support to lakhs of RTI applicants in villages, towns and districts across India. The collective filing of applications on a range of issues will counter the rhetoric of this government that all publicly relevant information is already being proactively disclosed and the need for the RTI is diminishing.

Presented below is a capsule of the RTIs filed so far and the information/denials received:

Aadhaar and Welfare:

An RTI application was filed by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, with the department of food and public distribution, asking for a month-wise count of the number of ration cards on which authentication was tried at least once during the month but the beneficiary did not receive her entitlement for the year 2018-19. While the department has started publishing useful reports on beneficiaries who were given their entitlements through a 'manual override' in spite of failure in biometric authentication, but information on how many are denied entitlements because of failed transactions by Aadhaar or non-Aadhaar means 'is not available and maintained'. The government maintains no records, and therefore no responsibility, for the numbers of beneficiaries whose biometric authentication failed and for whom no 'manual override' was initiated, depriving them of their most basic legal entitlement to food security.

NREGA

After two media reports stated that the ministry of rural development (MoRD) was considering proposals from states asking for permission to use machines (instead of human labour and banned under the law), an RTI plea was filed by NREGA Sangharsh Morcha. The ministry has now gone on record to say that no requests to relax the rules on the use of machinery have been received in the ministry from the State governments of Andhra, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.

Also, the government claims that from 2017-18 onwards, 90% of the NREGA wage payments have been made on time, i.e., within 15 days of completion of work. This is despite independent studies and researchers pointing out that this figure is closer to 30%. Another RTI application was filed asking the ministry for the number of transactions in which payments of wages were made to workers beyond the statutory period of 15 days. The ministrys response only directs the applicant towards an existing report which does not inform citizens of the full extent of the delay.

Hate Crimes and Lynching

Data shows that of the spate of close to 250 incidents of hate crimes, between 2009 and 2018, about 90% have taken place since 2014.

In 2018, the Supreme Court issued directives to state governments to curb the 'menace of mob lynching' by implementing preventive and remedial measures such as setting up fast track courts and special task forces, issue directives to police stations in 'sensitive areas' and review incidents and related orders in periodic meetings.

Over 300 RTI applications were filed by young lawyers with the Centre for Equity Studies, with the district collectors, DGPs and chief secretaries of five states, namely, Bihar, Haryana, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh.

The responses received so far reveal that local administration has not responded with adequate seriousness. While some authorities have simply transferred the RTI queries to other departments, others have refused to provide any evidence of concrete steps taken to curb hate crimes such as minutes of meeting or even orders issued by the director general of police. Replies to the RTIs are still being received and we will continue to systematically track each response by district.

Mining

RTIs were filed by Environics Trust to access details on the number of mines, workers employed in mines, illegal mines, show cause notices issued to companies with mining leases for non-compliance of norms, forest land acquired for mining amongst other details. The RTIs exposed this governments utter disregard of the law and its responsibility to regulate and monitor mining activities in the country.

RTI applications revealed that the government does not collect information on even the total number of workers engaged in mines across the country. How will the government regulate the welfare of mine workers and ensure that they work in conditions that are considered safe when they do not even know the number of mine workers in the country?

The government responded to a question on an RTI application that it does not collate information on the number of illegal mines in the country, whereas the same government as of 2016-17 had reported that there are 96,089 illegal mines operating in the country in response to a Parliamentary question. The Justice Shah Committee had also shown the massive scale of illegalities in mining amounting to Rs59,000 crore in its 2015 report. The response also revealed that government has no data on the number and location of closed mines.

Judiciary

There has been reason for the RTI community to celebrate when the Supreme Court declared that the office of the chief justice of India will come under the scope of the RTI and that transparency has no bearing on the independence of an institution.

RTI applications filed by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reform before the judgement came out, seeking information about complaints received against judges, action taken under the in-house mechanism and action taken thereafter by the chief justice of India, were faced with denial citing various provisos including the need to respect the privacy of the people concerned. Hopefully this will change.

States Rakshita, We will continue to file and track responses to these RTIs and appeals through this campaign over the next several months and will periodically publish the status of key RTIs through such press releases. We will also post a tracker and the actual RTIs and responses on a website in the coming month so that citizens and groups can collectively monitor and share the details of their RTIs with us.

Read the rest here:
RTI is Inbuilt within Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, says Bombay HC - Moneylife