Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Speech that expresses hatred towards individuals or groups

Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".[1] Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".[2] Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.

There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech, and hate speech legislation.[3] The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or that disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics.[4][5][6] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term.[7] Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, much of what falls under the category of "hate speech" is constitutionally protected.[8][9] In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.

In this section, the term "theories of hate speech" is being used as an umbrella term describing the ways in which different thinkers throughout history have defined hate speech and have provided frameworks for understanding its impact.

One theory on the merits of freedom of speech, and consequently hate speech, is the view that public discourse ought to serve as a marketplace of ideas. This perspective, often attributed to mid-19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, claims that hate speech is an unavoidable part of the wider current of free speech. Within this theory, there exists no partial truth; everything must be debated in order to determine what is true and what is false. This theory privileges the community's progression over individual desires. Mill writes in On Liberty, "They [an individual] have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility".[10] Here, Mill asserts the necessity of hate speech as a stepping stone to truth. Denying others the ability to evaluate statements because one believes those words to be offensive is to make a unilateral decision that is ultimately harmful to the collective good. Although these thinkers believe speech can and should be limited in certain contexts, they firmly contend that all speech, including hate speech, is a part of the growth and development of the community.

Starting in the 1940s and 50s, different civil rights groups responded to the atrocities of World War II by advocating for restrictions on hateful speech targeting groups on the basis of race and religion.[11] These organizations used group libel as a legal framework for describing the violence of hate speech and addressing its harm. In his discussion of the history of criminal libel, scholar Jeremy Waldron states that these laws helped "vindicate public order, not just by preempting violence, but by upholding against attack a shared sense of the basic elements of each person's status, dignity, and reputation as a citizen or member of society in good standing".[12] A key legal victory for civil rights groups came in 1952 when group libel law was affirmed by the supreme court in Beauharnais v. Illinois.[13] However, the group libel approach lost ground due to a rise in support for individual rights within civil rights movements during the 60s.[14] Critiques of group defamation laws are not limited to defenders of individual rights. Some legal theorists, such as Richard Delgado, support legal limits on hate speech, but claim that defamation is too narrow a category to fully counter hate speech. Ultimately, Delgado advocates a legal strategy that would establish a specific section of tort law for responding to racist insults, citing the difficulty of receiving redress under the existing legal system.[15]

Often cited in the 1970s Feminist Sex Wars, a third framework for conceptualizing hate speech claims that speech can restructure social norms in violently subordinating ways. In this model, hate speech does not incite violence, but rather is itself a violent act that changes the power relations between speakers and across group hierarchies. This branch of thought, termed Speech-Act Theory, has been used by Catharine A. MacKinnon to argue that pornography, as speech, is inherently violent to women because it silences them and acts to subordinate them both through its creation and its consumption.[16] This theory has been expanded on by Mary Kate McGowan to include the role of authority in words performing acts. Essentially, truth becomes truth because it is said to be true by a legitimate authority. McGowan provides the example of an umpire's call to illustrate this point. If an umpire calls a play as safe, the play may or may not be safe, but it is designated as so because of the authority of the umpire.[17] This relates to Speech-Act Theory because words are able to do, to produce new meaning and reality. In the case of hate speech, those ostensibly with authority and power are able to tangibly alter the social location or life experience of others when they utter demeaning or derogatory words.

After WWII, Germany criminalized Volksverhetzung ("incitement of popular hatred") to prevent resurgence of Nazism. Hate speech on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity also is banned in Germany.[18] Most other European and WWII combatant countries have done likewise, except for Italy, though a new law is contemplated.[19]

International human rights laws from the United Nations Humans Rights Committee have been protecting freedom of expression, and one of the most fundamental documents is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) drafted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948.[20] In Article 19 of the UDHR, it states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."[20]

Even though there are fundamental laws protecting freedom of expression, there are multiple international laws that expand on the UDHR and pose limitations and restrictions, specifically concerning the safety and protection of individuals.[21]

A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.[25] In the United Kingdom, Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expands on the UDHR, stating that restrictions on freedom of expression would be permitted when it threatens national security, incites racial or religious hatred, causes individual harm on health or morals, or threatens the rights and reputations on individuals.[26] The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[9]

Laws against hate speech can be divided into two types: those intended to preserve public order and those intended to protect human dignity. The laws designed to protect public order require that a higher threshold be violated, so they are not often enforced. For example, a 1992 study found that only one person was prosecuted in Northern Ireland in the preceding 21 years for violating a law against incitement to religious violence. The laws meant to protect human dignity have a much lower threshold for violation, so those in Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and the Netherlands tend to be more frequently enforced.[27]

A few states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Rwanda Hutu factions, actors in the Yugoslav Wars and Ethiopia have been described as spreading official hate speech or incitement to genocide.[28][29][30]

On 31 May 2016, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter, jointly agreed to a European Union code of conduct obligating them to review "[the] majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech" posted on their services within 24 hours.[31]

Prior to this in 2013, Facebook, with pressure from over 100 advocacy groups including the Everyday Sexism Project, agreed to change their hate speech policies after data released regarding content that promoted domestic and sexual violence against women led to the withdrawal of advertising by 15 large companies.[32][33]

Companies that have hate speech policies include Facebook and YouTube. In 2018 a post containing a section of the United States Declaration of Independence that labels Native Americans "merciless Indian savages" was labeled hate speech by Facebook and removed from its site.[34] In 2019, video-sharing platform YouTube demonetized channels, such as U.S. radio host Jesse Lee Peterson, under their hate speech policy.[35]

Several activists and scholars have criticized the practice of limiting hate speech. Civil liberties activist Nadine Strossen says that, while efforts to censor hate speech have the goal of protecting the most vulnerable, they are ineffective and may have the opposite effect: disadvantaged and ethnic minorities being charged with violating laws against hate speech.[36] Kim Holmes, Vice President of the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of hate speech theory, has argued that it "assumes bad faith on the part of people regardless of their stated intentions" and that it "obliterates the ethical responsibility of the individual".[37] Rebecca Ruth Gould, a professor of Islamic and Comparative Literature at the University of Birmingham, argues that laws against hate speech constitute viewpoint discrimination (prohibited by First Amendment jurisprudence in the United States) as the legal system punishes some viewpoints but not others;[38] other scholars such as Gideon Elford argue instead that "insofar as hate speech regulation targets the consequences of speech that are contingently connected with the substance of what is expressed then it is viewpoint discriminatory in only an indirect sense."[39] John Bennett argues that restricting hate speech relies on questionable conceptual and empirical foundations[40] and is reminiscent of efforts by totalitarian regimes to control the thoughts of their citizens.[41]

Michael Conklin argues that there are positive benefits to hate speech that are often overlooked. He contends that allowing hate speech provides a more accurate view of the human condition, provides opportunities to change people's minds, and identifies certain people that may need to be avoided in certain circumstances.[42] According to one psychological research study, a high degree of psychopathy is "a significant predictor" for involvement in online hate activity, while none of the other 7 criteria examined were found to have statistical significance.[43]

Political philosopher Jeffrey W. Howard considers the popular framing of hate speech as "free speech vs. other political values" as a mischaracterization. He refers to this as the "balancing model", and says it seeks to weigh the benefit of free speech against other values such as dignity and equality for historically marginalized groups. Instead, he believes that the crux of debate should be whether or not freedom of expression is inclusive of hate speech.[25] Research indicates that when people support censoring hate speech, they are motivated more by concerns about the effects the speech has on others than they are about its effects on themselves.[44] Women are somewhat more likely than men to support censoring hate speech due to greater perceived harm of hate speech, which some researchers believe may be due to gender differences in empathy towards targets of hate speech.[45]

Here is the original post:
Hate speech - Wikipedia

WASHINGTON Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to make sure that the plight of Russian leader Vladimir Kara-Murza is not forgotten.That the outrageous imprisonment of Vladimir Kara-Murza by the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is not forgotten.We remember three decades ago what hope we had for a new Russia.Russia entered a new age of possibility some three decades ago, after more than 70 years of communist repression, the Soviet order had collapsed, and with it the Iron Curtain that kept freedom away from millions was torn down.As the red flags came down in Moscow, the free world watched with anticipation, hoping that democracy and the rule of law might finally take root in a free Russia.Regrettably, that has not happened.Instead of democracy and freedom, the Russian people got Vladimir Putin, a man who has used his office to murder, imprison, and force into exile anyone who threatens his grip on power -- all the while, enriching himself beyond anyone's wildest imagination while ordinary Russians, especially out in the countryside of Russia, live in squalid conditions.One of his latest victims is Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian patriot and a friend I had the privilege of hosting in my office just four months ago.As a matter of fact, I have hosted him several times.Today, Vladimir Kara-Murza spends his days in a prison cell, where the only thing you can see through the window is a barbed wire fence.What was his crime?He simply spoke the truth about Putin's war on Ukraine.His trial, if it can even be called a trial, was held in secret.No journalists, no diplomats or spectators of any kind were allowed to be there.And for his offense of talking about the Russian war against Ukraine, he now faces up to 15 years in prison.This is not the first time the Russian dictator has tried to silence him. Mr. Kara-Murza has been poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017, and almost died in both cases.Since then, his wife and three children have had to live abroad, though he himself has chosen to spend most of his time in Russia.In a recent interview with National Review, his wife, Evgenia explained why he insists on working in Russia: He believes that he would not have the moral right to call on people to fight if he were not sharing the same risks.Or as Mr. Kara-Murza put it in a recent CNN interview the day of his arrest.He said, The biggest gift we could give the Kremlin would be to just give up and run. That's all they want from us.What a contrast in character to the man currently running the Kremlin.The National Review's story goes on to describe Mr. Kara-Murza's courageous work for democracy through the eyes of his wife of Evgenia, as well as the costs that he and his family have endured along with so many other Russian dissidents.And, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this point to insert the National Review story that I referred to into the record.Mr. Kara-Murzas imprisonment is part of Mr. Putin's larger assault on what remains of political freedom in Russia.In Mr. Kara-Murzas words, Putin's regime has gone, from highly authoritarian to near totalitarian almost overnight.In March, Russian officials passed a new censorship law, forbidding all criticism of Mr. Putin's war in Ukraine.That law has been the basis for more than 16,000 arrests since the war began in February, including that of Mr. Kara-Murza.Another 2,400 Russians have been charged with administrative offenses for speaking out against the war.Meanwhile, Putin's propaganda machine is ramping up.Independent Russian media outlets have all but vanished, having been blocked, shut down, or forced out of the country by the Kremlin.The last embers of freedom in Russia are going cold.Putin's crackdown on domestic freedom began in 2003, when Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested on trumped up charges of tax fraud after he simply criticized the government.A former member of the elite, Mr. Khodorkovsky, had successfully led the Yukos Oil Company through privatization after the Iron Curtain fell.And contrary to the Kremlin's claims, the company consistently paid its taxes.But that didn't stop Vladimir Putin from plundering its assets, throwing Mr. Khodorkovsky in jail, where he stayed for ten years.I would note that just before his arrest, Mr. Khodorkovsky displayed the same courage and patriotism that we now see in Vladimir Kara-Murza.Like Mr. Kara-Murza, he knew very well he could go to jail for speaking out against the government.But Mr. Khodorkovsky did so anyway and refused to flee the country, saying, I would prefer to be a political prisoner rather than a political immigrant.Of course, by then, Mr. Putin had already shown himself willing to violate the international laws of war, having leveled the Chechen capital of Grozny in his own Republic of Russia in 1999.In 2008, he launched a new assault on international law with the invasion of Georgia.In 2014 he started a bloody war in eastern Ukraine, and in 2016, Soviet Russian dictator Putin and his forces attacked the Syrian city of Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians and prolonging the rule of Bashar al-Assad.Meanwhile, Putin ramped up his attacks on domestic freedom as well.In 2015 Boris Nemtsov, leader of the democratic opposition, former deputy prime minister of Russia, was shot to death in broad daylight just yards away from the Kremlin.Three months later, Mr. Kara-Murza was poisoned for the first time.More recently, in 2020, Alexei Navalny, the current leader of the opposition, was himself poisoned and had to seek treatment in Berlin.This is Vladimir Putin's Russia today.When Navalny recovered, he chose to return to Moscow, knowing the risks, and immediately upon landing, he was arrested.This is the deplorable state of Russia and freedom under Vladimir Putin.Time and again, he has shown that he is bent on stamping out the aspirations of his people for freedom and the rule of law.As leader of the free world, America must continue to condemn Putin's lawless acts and stand in solidarity with our Russian friends, who are courageously fighting against all odds for a better future in Russia -- and are suffering as a result.These are modern day heroes: Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and we should not forget them.My friend, the distinguished senior senator from Maryland, Senator Cardin and I, along with Congressman Steve Cohen and Joe Wilson, are the four House and Senate leaders of the Helsinki Commission, which monitors human rights and former Soviet countries.We recently sent a joint letter to President Biden calling on the administration to name and sanction all of those who have been involved in the arrest, detention and persecution of Vladimir Kara-Murza.I issue that call again today, and I invite my colleagues from both parties to stand with Vladimir Kara-Murza and work for his release.Thank you, Mr. President.I yield the floor.

See original here:
Freedom of Speech and Expression | CSCE

The term freedom of speech is the right of a person to express his thoughts freely. It includes freedom of expression to express themselves and pass a piece of vital information either in writing or orally to the people. The reason the freedom of speech is essential is just like drinking water for keeping our body system hydrated, freedom of speech is very important for the growth of our community and societies.

Now, why is freedom of speech important?

In considering the question, why is freedom of speech important, we must understand that freedom of speech has become vital because, without freedom of speech, some people wont be able to communicate effectively and even say a word when things are going wrong. Why freedom of expression suffers in some other countries might be due to their lack of cognizance of why freedom of speech is essential. It is the way of anything we do that drives us, so if a country doesnt know why freedom of speech is vital, that country or land will fight the establishment of liberty. Freedom of speech is essential because it changes the narrative of how people feel when they want to express themselves in public and even to people in their immediate environment.

Continue reading to learn more about the importance of freedom of speech!

Freedom of speech sometimes conflicts with the rights and freedoms of others. But why freedom of speech is fundamental is based on the fact that freedom of speech gives one the feeling of lively hood. According to international law, restrictions on freedom of expression are subject to certain legal conditions.

We are aware that freedom of speech emerged between the early 5th and 6th century. It also recognized that the Roman Republic added freedom of speech and freedom of religion too. Why freedom of speech was essential at that time should tell you that freedom of speech is vital and very important even in these modern days.

Freedom of speech is essential to us and society, although there was the first amendment in 1791, and to date, the ideas of human rights that lead to freedom of speech is a paper in the ancient human right documents.

We cannot overlook the importance of freedom of speech. There are a few core values Im about to review for you now. Freedom of speech is a knowledge that transits through generations. It is a right every citizen of a state needs to have.

Freedom of speech plays a vital role in our lives as individuals. Thats why freedom of speech is fundamental.

The recognition of truthfulness and justice, clarity, the openness of freedom of speech and information, is another significant role why freedom of speech is essential. Clarity of information depends on the extent to which freedom of expression of thought, freedom of speech is open in all the changes and processes taking place in society.

Another role of freedom of speech and why freedom of speech is essential is to ensuring freedom of expression and information, openness, clarity of all ongoing changes and processes. The clarity and transparency in most cases depend on how freely and democratically conducted operations are covered by the press and other media, since freedom of speech, freedom of the media is a distinctive sign of Democracy.

As people are working under Democracy, freedom at all stages is a significant reason why freedom of speech is essential. The most important thing is to have strong laws giving the right to freedom

Another reason the freedom of speech is vital is because of the protection of rights and liberties. The protection is, especially in information activities. It improves the infrastructure of public information, and ensuring its stable operation occupies an essential place in the system of public interests; why freedom of speech is critical can never be overemphasized.

The number one reason why freedom of speech is essential is that it strengthens the measurable impact of information on human life.

The scientific and technological revolution determines this in the field of computer technology, and telecommunications, why the freedom of speech is essential is those new achievements that significantly increase the efficiency of activities related to information,

Secondly, rights and freedoms in the field of human informational activities are the central values of modern civilization.

Although Freedom of speech is Important and very vital, it is unhealthy for us to use the leverage badly hence causing trouble in the community.

Why the freedom of speech is essential is not for us to abuse the privilege but rather use it for the betterment of ourselves.

While freedom of speech is good, they are so many disadvantages to the form of expression. Anything that has an advantage has its disadvantages. Here are some disadvantages of freedom of speech.

One significant disadvantage of freedom of speech is that it can cause substantial damage because people would not want to verify certain information before spreading it to the public. People might tend to want to believe the information because it is coming from the mouth of someone they trust.

Most times, wrong information spreads through men who have attained great height, and when a piece of information is coming from some persons like that, almost everyone will want to believe.

When people get information that instills fear instead of hope, it becomes a disadvantage of freedom of speech because the main aim is to make people live in harmony and not to live in fear. Relative to the case of the coronavirus, if people keep spreading the fear of the virus instead of sharing both the positive and negative results, it will even kill some people before the virus.

Words have powers. It can pierce the emotion of people hence causing emotional damage to people.

Verbal abuse and physical abuse have just almost the same effect. Verbal abuse is an insult to both the leaders and the people of a nation.

Freedom of speech prime exchange of ideas: this is another excellent reason why freedom of speech is essential. People get to share a plan that will help them become better versions of themselves. When an idea is shared, it grows more significant than the norms because peoples mindset differs from another. Sharing thoughts will become easy.

Why freedom of speech is essential is also because it allows thought leaders can share their ideas because they are like the future of the community or even nation at large. Another good reason why freedom of speech is essential is that it exposes unlawful activities.

Without the freedom of speech, a lot of immoral and unlawful activities will be taking place and nobody to question or to air out whats going on in that office, organization, community, of home.

For the sake of freedom of speech before would want to do anything they will carefully watch before doing it and, in most cases, dont even do it because they know that with the freedom of speech, anybody can see them and report to the authority. They are hence tarnishing their image for them. Nobody likes to have their image displayed in a negative light.

Freedom of speech promotes societal growth. The most developed countries in the world are those countries that enable the freedom of speech earlier because amid the peoples information lies superior wisdom that can transform the society for better and then attract global recognition and foreign exchange.

In looking at why freedom of speech is essential, we must understand that the reasons are enormous. We can live happily with friends and family, share ideas to better our lives and community, speak out when something terrible is going on in our office, company, organization, community, and even our community. Freedom of speech is necessary because it is for the benefit of us all.

You May Like These Articles As Well:

Why Is Freedom Of Speech Important In A Democracy?

Debt Ceiling Is A Cliff And Humans Keep On Rising To The Top Of It

Why Does America Hate Communism?

Read more here:
Why Is Freedom Of Speech Important? The Relevance Explained

1. 'Freedom Of Speech, But Not Freedom Of Reach': Musk Reinstates Kathy Griffin And Jordan Peterson Amid New Policy But Not Trump Yet  Forbes
2. Musk says Twitter will promote free speech but limit spread of hateful language  Washington Examiner
3. Elon Musk, Donald Trump and the trouble with free speech  The Spectator
4. New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach: Elon Musk  The Hindu
5. View Full Coverage on Google News

See more here:
'Freedom Of Speech, But Not Freedom Of Reach': Musk Reinstates Kathy Griffin And Jordan Peterson Amid New Policy But Not Trump Yet - Forbes

Hearst Connecticut Media Letter to the Editor graphic

It is election season and now is the time that people begin to express support for their preferred Local, State and Federal candidates. Individuals have traditionally done this by way of lawn signs in front of their homes and candidates soliciting businesses to hold fundraisers. This has been a time honored tradition that has, until recently, been respected and accepted. I say recently because over the course of the last few election cycles, I have noticed a very alarming trend in our local community.

Over the past week, 3 local Ridgefield businesses have been pressured into removing lawn signs in support of candidates. As reported in an October 6th NewsTimes article, one candidates political signs in Danbury have been vandalized in what appears to be targeted attacks where adjacent candidate signs were untouched. In 2019 at least 3 businesses receivedthreatening phone calls after candidates hosted events at their establishments. The common thread in all of these cases is that the signs and businesses being targeted were all supporting Republican candidates.

What we are seeing is going well beyond the occasional lawn sign that has gone missing, or the sandwiching of lawn signs by an opponent which I personally have experienced in my own run for elected office in the past. These are usually attributed to childish mischief which, while annoying, we have come to expect. What this represents is the attempt, by some, to silence the First Amendment free speech rights of their neighbors by threatening their livelihood and showing intolerance to the individual difference of opinion of others. This is not the Compassionate Ridgefield that we are all asked to emulate to our friends, neighbors and children. I hope that we can find more tolerance our differences in the future.

Mike Raduazzo

Chair Ridgefield RTC

Read the rest here:
Freedom of speech is in jeopardy - The Ridgefield Press

Conservatives are accustomed to their viewpoints being described as disinformation, hate, even literal violence.

Its not a new phenomenon. Economic conservatism has been compared to anti-government extremism since at least the days of Barry Goldwater. Social conservatism is likened to ayatollahs, the Taliban, or The Handmaids Tale, whatever is in fashion at the time. All more or less successful forms of conservatism dating back to the 1960s have been described as a form of racist backlash, with Theodor Adornos work going further back than that.

But it is a situation that has gotten worse with the advent of social media and the woke Left. President Joe Biden sounds like Adorno himself, or at least a graduate student who has glanced at the CliffNotes, musing that a substantial wing of the Republican Party is at least semi-fascist.

BEN SASSE AND THE BATTLE OVER WHAT KIND OF CONSERVATIVE LEADS THE GOP

Tyler Sizemore/AP

So the temptation is there when, in a defamation case, Alex Jones is held liable to the tune of nearly $1 billion to think of how the Left could do this to ordinary conservatives next, bankrupting those who are outspoken and shuttering publications or organizations.

This isn't about calculating real damages from Alex Jones, tweeted conservative influencer Charlie Kirk. This is about sending a message: If you upset the Regime, they will destroy you, completely and utterly, forever.

A nontrivial number of progressives in academia, the media, activist circles, and even in government essentially views anyone a millimeter to the right of Ana Navaro as Alex Jones or at least a latent Alex Jones waiting to burst out.

Its nevertheless a bad temptation for conservatives to indulge in, both morally and strategically.

First, as conservatives themselves have often been quick to point out, defamation is not constitutionally protected speech anymore than theft or fraud are lawful acts of commerce and valid functions of the free market.

Jones told lies about the parents of children who were murdered, lies he did not attempt to defend as true. Some people believed those lies and harassed the grieving parents.

We can quibble about whether the dollar figure is appropriate or whether reviled and polarizing figures are at an unfair disadvantage in the legal system or whether Jones is more akin to a toxic version of professional wrestling and Stephen Colbert's old shtick aping Bill O'Reilly than someone making statements that are meant to be taken at face value in the first place.

But conservatives should be the last people to draw any kind of inference from the judgment against Jones to their own arguments about Second Amendment rights, Hunter Biden, COVID-19 protocols and origins, Ukraine, or anything else.

That some do in this case, but not in judgments against Amber Heard or Gawker, suggests not hard-headed realism or a new willingness to fight liberals on their own terms but a wholly counterproductive internalization of the Lefts critiques.

The media gatekeepers have come crashing down under the weight of their own political biases. As recently as the past couple of years, they have attempted to declare questions closed that were in fact open.

For conservatives, who seldom got to function as such gatekeepers, it is a real opportunity. But it is one that will be squandered if the old climate of three networks and a larger number of newspapers singing off the same song sheet is replaced by a retreat to fantasyland.

There are, of course, cases where defending free speech requires standing up for the right to say noxious things and any viewpoint discrimination sets harmful precedents, especially for whoever is in the political out-group. The American Civil Liberties Union and other liberals used to understand this.

But that means defending freedom of speech, not defending the indefensible.

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, Evelyn Beatrice Halls oft-quoted paraphrase of Voltaire, is a rather different sentiment from you know, thats a good point.

And its a distinction that can be grasped without resorting to government disinformation boards, flagging posts for potentially harmful content, or making liberal fact-checkers the final arbiter of the truth.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

There is a growing movement among conservatives to be willing to defend their own interests against an increasingly hostile Left by any means necessary, even shedding abstract principles to exercise political power without fear of liberal rebuke.

But sometimes, owning the libs can turn into a self-own.

See more here:
The Alex Jones trap: How 'owning the libs' can turn into a self-own for conservatives - Washington Examiner

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 7, 2022 The largest survey on student free expression ever conducted adds 45,000 student voices to the national conversation about free speech on college campuses and finds that many are afraid to speak out on their campus. Many others want to silence the voices of those who dont share their viewpoints, creating campus echo chambers.

Sayonara, debate and disagreement; hello, campus kumbaya.

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, in partnership with College Pulse, released the third annual College Free Speech Rankings, ranking the speech climates of 203 of Americas largest and most prestigious campuses in order from top (the University of Chicago) to bottom (Columbia University).

That so many students are self-silencing and silencing each other is an indictment of campus culture, said FIRE Senior Research Fellow Sean Stevens. How can students develop their distinct voices and ideas in college if theyre too afraid to engage with each other?

EXPLORE THE RANKINGS

The top colleges for free speech:

The worst colleges for free speech:

The rankings rely heavily on student responses. Each schools speech code rating also factored into the scoring; Most schools without any policies that imperil free speech rose in the rankings, while those with restrictive speech codes fell.

This year, FIRE also took into account which schools sanctioned faculty for their speech or disinvited guest speakers based on viewpoint since 2019, giving the institutions that did lower marks.

Self-censorship is pervasive across top-ranked and bottom-ranked schools alike; 63% of respondents worried about damaging their reputation because someone misunderstood something they said or did. An equal percentage said that students shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus was acceptable to some degree.

Other findings from the report include:

The study also found that majorities of students believe campus speakers with opinions that stray from liberal orthodoxy should not be allowed to speak on campus. FIRE doesnt take a stance on any of the following issues, but firmly believes that theyre all within the bounds of open campus debate and discussion.

FIRE hopes that prospective college students and their parents will use the rankings to make informed decisions about where to apply.

The situation for freedom of speech and academic freedom has been in trouble on campus since before FIRE was founded in 1999, said FIRE CEO Greg Lukianoff. That situation has gotten far worse in the last few years. Our new and improved rankings are intended to reward universities that protect and defend the freedom of speech, while empowering students and parents who care about free speech not to attend or support universities that dont.

EXPLORE THE RANKINGS

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thoughtthe most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nations campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

CONTACT:

Katie Kortepeter, Media Relations Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Read more:
Just released: The 2022-2023 College Free Speech Rankings - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Iveta Cherneva, human rights author and analyst; finalist for UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of speech in 2020

The recent ruling by a Russian court in Moscow to revoke the license of Russian newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, is a punch in the face of freedom of speech. Globally, not just in Russia.

Novaya Gazeta'seditor-in-chief, Dmitry Muratov, whorecently won the Nobel Peace Prize, claims that the court's decision has no legal basis.

The Russian authorities are accusing the newspaper of being a foreign agent. Foreign asset or spy is a usual angle that governments around the world often take in order to discredit and eliminate media or human rights organizations. In this case, the Russian authorities' argument is that the newspaper has failed to comply with the Russian laws applying to foreign agents, without the paper actually being a foreign agent.

Aggressively going after media and critical voices in a society brings about the proverbial "chilling effect", which silences and scares the exersize of free speech. That's observed not only in Russia.

Russia's "foreign agent" laws have a chilling effect on the exercize of free speech in Russia, but also beyond. They deprive of the truth people globally, especially in light of Novaya Gazeta's reporting of Russia's war on Ukraine which is a topic of global interest.

The Russian court's judgment, in a series of increased government pressure on Russian media, is an illustration of the attack on mediafreedom and independence by Russian President Vladimir Putin. This goes all the way up. Actions by the Russian authorities of this kind make the job of journalists impossible literally. Novaya Gazeta has now been banned from publishing in Russia. That should worry not only Russians but also people all over the world who care about media freedom and freedom of speech, and who care about those who inform and bring the truth.

/Iveta Cherneva

Follow Novinite.com on Twitter and Facebook

Write to us at editors@novinite.com

- Novinite.bg

See the original post:
Russian Court's Ban of Newspaper Novaya Gazeta is a Punch in the Face of Freedom of Speech - Novinite.com

In a recent article in which he expressed support for the right to freedom of expression of Salman Rushdie and other writers, noted Bangladeshi journalist Rifat Munim narrated how there was "total silence" in Bangladeshi newspapers and magazines regarding the August 12, 2022 attack on the author of The Satanic Verses.

Rifat Munim noted that despite how several Bangladeshi writers had been killed in similar attacks or forced to go into exile in fear for their lives, the courts took years to deliver a verdict in the relevant cases. "My country's abysmal track record of protecting writers and publishers from similar attacks in the past has pushed us down a slippery slope, where writers and journalists live in an atmosphere of fear and choose to self-censor rather than speak their minds," he added.

Rifat Munim is an editor, journalist, translator, and essayist based in Dhaka. He was the literary editor of Dhaka Tribute, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper. His article titled "Salman Rushdie: No Criticism Strips The Writer Of The Right To Free Expression" appeared in a special issue of Outlook, a weekly magazine published from New Delhi.

Rifat Munim (image courtesy: AddaStories.org)

Following are excerpts from the article:[1]

"Writing About This Attack While Living In Bangladesh Puts One In A Rather Difficult Position"; "There Is An Ambience Of Total Silence Over The Despicable Attack On Salman Rushdie In The Bangladeshi Media"

"Writing about this attack [on Salman Rushdie] while living in Bangladesh puts one in a rather difficult position. My country's abysmal track record of protecting writers and publishers from similar attacks in the past has pushed us down a slippery slope, where writers and journalists live in an atmosphere of fear and choose to self-censor rather than speak their minds.

"That's precisely why there is an ambience of total silence over the despicable attack on Salman Rushdie in the Bangladeshi media. Only news items were published on the front or back pages immediately after the attack. Rushdie then vanished from print editions altogether, and was sent to the section marked 'international' or 'world' in online editions. Only one English daily carried an op-ed on the subject and that piece, a reprint of a Conversation UK article, is written by a UK-based, non-Bangladeshi literary researcher.

"Taslima Nasrin was forced out of the country in 1994 upon publication of her third novel, Lajja (Shame). She has since lived in exile.

"Prolific writer Humayun Azad was brutally attacked in 2003 by members of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh [JMB] after he published his novel [with a title denoting Pakistan's national anthem], Pak Saar Jamin Saad Bad, which was an allegorical depiction of how Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the main parties in the [right-wing] BNP-led coalition then in power, had collaborated with Pakistan's occupation army in killing Hindus and freedom fighters in 1971. He died the next year. The verdict on the Azad murder case was delivered by a Dhaka court in April this year, 18 long years after the attack.

"Therefore, on the one hand, threats of militant attacks are very much alive and kicking, and on the other, there is fear of legal repercussions. Because, due to the enactment of the Digital Security Act, if anybody feels that their religious feeling is hurt over any article or item published online, no matter how absurd that feeling might be, they can file a case against the writer or the newspaper editor.

"Faced with such a fear-mongering climate, when you sit down to write an article unequivocally condemning the attack on Rushdie and the ideology that birthed the attacker, you ask yourself: in this situation, what's the limit of the thinkable for someone living in Bangladesh, especially when talking about Rushdie vis--vis The Satanic Verses, which appears even more incendiary today than it was 30 years ago?

"No matter how much the space for debate has shrunk, we owe it to every writer who has ever been attacked for their words whether in the U.S. or Russia or China or India or Bangladesh that we continue their fight by giving robust expressions to our own thoughts. More so for Rushdie, who is the meteor in our imagination, having touched so many lives and jolted so many readers into questioning their perceptions."

"When The Awami League... Came To Power In 1996, This Atmosphere Of Openness Was Given A Further Boost And Our Debates Would Also Include Books By Ahmed Sharif And Aroj Ali Matubbor, Both Of Whom Question Islam, Christianity, And Hinduism From Scientific And Humanist Viewpoints"

"In the early 1990s, when I was stepping into my early teens, my hometown Bagerhat scarcely had any reader of a classic English novel in its original format, let alone a contemporary novel as complex as [The Satanic] Verses. A large body of Russian, North American, French and English novels had a considerable readership, but all those books were read in Bengali translations. Yet, the mainstream Bangla dailies conveyed to us news of violent protests over the book and of course, the fatwa [by Ayatollah Khomeini], thus taking the waves of the Rushdie debate to the country's south-western corner. As the book was banned immediately in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, our interest in it naturally grew.

"The leftist circles that I had started hanging out with comprised of youths who spoke for Rushdie's right to exercise critical thinking. Unlike today's Bangladesh, the leftist student parties had considerable sway over students back then. One reason was that the 1990 mass movement, which had brought down General H.M. Ershad's nine-year-long autocratic rule, was jointly engineered by student fronts of all major political parties, barring the religiously oriented ones.

"The spirit of the movement created an atmosphere for critical thinking and ideas to grow and flow among the youth. After Ershad's fall, the BNP [Bangladesh Nationalist Party], the party sympathetic to majoritarian religious narratives, came to power. It banned Taslima's Lajja in 1993 and Azad's feminist essay collection Nari in 1995. Yet, members of its student front in Bagerhat, who had rented a two-room office in my neighborhood, would hang out with activists from their own party as well as those from the leftist parties and the Chhatra League, the student front of the BNP's arch rival, the Bangladesh Awami League.

"Having weaned off fairy tales and children's thrillers, I was reading, on the one hand, detective thrillers and abridged Bengali translations of European classics (published by Sheba Prakashani), and on the other, all those Bengali translations under the rubric of 'Marxism' published by Russia-affiliated Pragati Prakashani. I was always around the BNP office or tea stalls adjacent to it, so that I could share my ideas or perhaps get new perspectives from seniors, many of whom were avid readers and not politically active any more.

"Verses, Lajja and Nari were at the center of many long discussions. There also were talks on Syed Shamsul Haq's Khelaram Khele Ja and Azad's Sob Kichu Bhenge Pore, both of which rather openly deal with issues of sexuality, including graphic description of sexual encounters between men and women. When the Awami League, the party that promoted the spirit of the 1971 Liberation War and non-communalism, came to power in 1996, this atmosphere of openness was given a further boost and our debates would also include books by Ahmed Sharif and Aroj Ali Matubbor, both of whom question Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism from scientific and humanist viewpoints."

"Maybe It Was Due To My Upbringing And The Cultural Climate I Was Exposed To, But I Could Never, And Still Don't, See Any Problem With A Writer Raising Questions About Any Aspect Of A Religion..."

"The most interesting bit about those days was that back then, I could talk about a lot of subjects from science to religion and sex with friends and seniors, irrespective of their ideological leanings. True, I faced vehement opposition in many cases, but that only led to more impassioned arguments. The leftist circles are there, though to a much lesser extent. The friends and seniors with whom I had those debates are also there, but the cultural licence to initiate such debates seems to have expired long ago.

"By the time I laid my hands on The Satanic Verses, toward the late-2010s, I had already read Rushdie's essay collection Imaginary Homelands and his second novel, Midnight's Children. I had not expected the world's most famous English-language author to write such fine literary criticism. His critical perspective in every piece is authentic and his language extremely lucid. His resistance to Western literary and artistic discourses impressed me the most. As for his magnum opus, Midnight's Children, it seemed like an explosion of creativity holding answers to all my questions about language, politics, history and storytelling in fiction.

"It defies modern European traditions, but combines history and myth, post-modernism and magic realism, to create an epic that has significantly broadened the horizons of fiction in general and South Asian fiction in particular. The 'chutnification' [i.e., pickling] of English also happens here, most remarkably. I especially noticed Adam Aziz's shift from a believer to a non-believer, and the way his son Salim Sinai, the protagonist, hears a voice calling to him, which Salim compares for a few fleeting moments to Prophet Muhammad hearing the voice of Allah.

"The taste of Children's 'chutnified' language made it easy to dive into Verses, in which the innovative use of language has been taken several notches higher. In the realm of ideas, what struck me first are questions surrounding atheism and parallels between our time and that of the 7th century, which had featured as seeds in Children and had grown up as enormous trees with airy roots in Verses.

"Maybe it was due to my upbringing and the cultural climate I was exposed to, but I could never, and still don't, see any problem with a writer raising questions about any aspect of a religion, as long as those questions are well-founded and nuanced, and not tainted by prejudices of any kind."

"Fitted In A Post-Modern Narrative, [The Satanic Verses Is] A Formidable Magic Realist Tale About Two Indian Men, Gibreel Farista, An Unsuccessful Indian Film Actor, And Saladin Chamcha"

"Fitted in a post-modern narrative, [The Satanic Verses is] a formidable magic realist tale about two Indian men, Gibreel Farista, an unsuccessful Indian film actor, and Saladin Chamcha. They jump from a hijacked plane and like meteors, land on the shores of England, where they embark upon many adventures (or misadventures). Farista, who hears voices in his head, is prone to dreaming elaborate dreams in which he imagines himself as the archangel Jibreel, and sees visions of 7th century Arab societies that relate directly or indirectly to Islam's Prophet Muhammad.

"These dream sequences, of which there are several the two most notable appearing in chapters titled 'Mahound' and 'Return to Jahilia' are the reason why he is accused of insulting Islam, not only by Muslims but also by some acclaimed writers, including John Le Carre, Roald Dahl, Zoe Heller, and Pankaj Mishra. But is there an authorial intention through which we can work out an illuminating interpretation of these dreams?

"Although Rushdie's unreliable narrator who is poking fun at everything, including his own comments, and is critical of every religion makes it difficult to work out any consistent authorial intent, plenty of clues are given in different chapters, especially in the one titled 'A City Visible But Unseen,' where Farista repeatedly expresses his wish to turn London, a city in transition, into something different.

"The wish derives from his disillusionment with London, of course, but also underlines the painful process of a migrant's transformation, which, among other things, reflects the migrant's experience of being Othered. That's why, in his sane or insane state of mind, subconsciously or unconsciously, he is looking for models of a transitional city in ancient Arabian societies to which his religious roots are attached. But that's just one interpretation."

"I Felt Rushdie's Portrayal Of Islam Lacks Originality And Blandly Echoes Prejudiced Westernised Notions Of Islam; His Materialism, Which I Found To Be Selective, Does Not Give Us The Whole Picture"

"Supported by Rushdie's own comments in his autobiography Joseph Anton I'm of the opinion that in addition to exploring themes of identity and transformation, he consciously presents readers with a materialist interpretation of the advent of Islam in Arabian societies. I'm also of the opinion that these dreams defy their assigned roles in the narrative and assume a character of their own, and this is also part of Rushdie's authorial intent.

"As I read and reread the dreams, I felt Rushdie's portrayal of Islam lacks originality and blandly echoes prejudiced Westernised notions of Islam. His materialism, which I found to be selective, does not give us the whole picture. He explores the perspectives of many characters, from renegade Salman to blasphemous poet Baal, but the only perspective that remains unexplored is that of the Prophet's.

"Nevertheless, Rushdie's portrayal is way more nuanced and clever than Azad's Shubhobroto O Tar Somporkito Shusamachar, in which Azad, much like the director of Innocence of Muslims (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, Egypt), has depicted the Prophet as one whose passion lies in destroying temples.

"So I loved Farista and Chamcha's misadventures in London, but found the dream sequences to be blinkered. I found Azad's Shubhobroto and the short film Innocence to be driven by propaganda fed by Western discourses on Prophet Muhammad, which also find parallels in the Hindutva version of Islam and the Prophet."

"Even If I Dismissed Rushdie's Interpretation Of Islam, Like I Did Of Azad, So What? No Criticism Or Dismissal Can Strip Rushdie Or Azad Of Their Right To Express What They Think About Life, Politics And Religion No Criticism Justifies The Violent Reactions To Verses Or Its Author"

"Now, the question is: so what? Even if I dismissed Rushdie's interpretation of Islam, like I did of Azad, so what? No criticism or dismissal can strip Rushdie or Azad of their right to express what they think about life, politics, and religion. No criticism justifies the violent reactions to Verses or its author.

"In their violent outbursts, a vast majority of Muslims conflate Rushdie, as well as the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the French magazine Charlie Hebdo both of which printed cartoons of Prophet Muhammad with the West.

"What Rushdie did in Verses is a worthy attempt at a creative exercise, whereas what those newspapers did, as observed by Megan Gibson in Time, was a calculated move to boost circulation. One may disagree with both Rushdie and those newspapers. But why react to the book or the cartoons in this childish way? Why show paranoia over the representation of the Prophet? Why always choose violence? And how does it prove Islam to be a religion of peace?

"If one really thinks this is worth fighting, why is it not possible to fight it artistically or journalistically? Why this blind determination to confirm the Western projection that Muslims are a homogenous entity devoid of the power to think?

"Looking at violent outbursts over Rushdie's book, five Muslim scholars and writers (Edward Said, Aga Shahid Ali, Eqbal Ahmad, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod and Akeel Bilgrami) sent the following letter to a 1989 issue of The New York Review of Books:

"'As writers and scholars from the Islamic world, we are appalled by the vilification, book banning and threats of physical violence against Salman Rushdie, the gifted author of Midnight's Children, Shame and The Satanic Verses.

"'This campaign is done in the name of Islam, although none of it does Islam any credit. Certainly, Muslims and others are entitled to protest against The Satanic Verses if they feel the novel offends their religion, and cultural sensibilities. But to carry protest and debate into the realm of bigoted violence is in fact antithetical to Islamic traditions of learning and tolerance.'

"When bigotry is on the rise all over the world and across religions, we must respond by writing more boldly for artistic and journalistic freedom. As for Rushdie and those attacked in Bangladesh, we must do more through writing and activism to keep our secular traditions alive."

[1] Outlookindia.com (India), September 2, 2022. The original English of the article has been lightly edited for clarity and standardization.

See the original post:
Bangladeshi Editor Rifat Munim Supports Salman Rushdie's Freedom Of Speech: 'Why React To The Book Or The Cartoons In This Childish Way? Why Show...

Jen Seyderhelm comments

Evelyn Hall, writing under the male pseudonym ofStephen Tallentyre, wrote in a biography ofVoltaire,

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This quote has become a describing principle of freedom of speech, also evident in the ongoing popularity of genuine talkback radio and incredible popularity of podcasts as a sort of audio Encyclopaedia Britannica.

This month two instances of freedom of speech vs wealth played out in public and on social media.

Firstly, Crikey is an independent, private and digital media company based (unsurprisingly) here in Australia.

In June Crikeys Political EditorBernard Keanewrote anarticleaboutDonald Trumpsinvolvement in the insurrection attempt at the US Capitol.This commentary article was taken down the next day after a legal threat fromLachlan Murdoch, the Executive Chairman of Fox News, whose last name was mentioned in the piece.

Instead of avoiding a David vs Goliath stoush, Crikey instead chose to republish the article and bite back against Murdoch. The company paid advertising costs to print an open letter challenging him. Certain publications turned this down, but the New York Times and my local Canberra Times eventuallyprinted it.

Ill make no further comment except that it reminds me of anEric Clapton incident.

Those of us working in the broadcast or print media know we are governed by codes, practices and regulations likethis. Podcasts affiliated with a radio station or, in the instance ofTeachers Pet, print media, are covered by these rules.

But what aboutindependent podcasts?

What I love and what I teach about podcasts is that they are a safe and private space to explore topics, ideas and beliefs that both make you feel like you arent alone in your experience and to open your mind to others beyond that scope.

When you click on an episode, you arent inundated with carefully curated images or savage twitter backlash.

Its just you and the person/people you are listening to.

Afterwards, of course, you might search for more information aboutBren Brown,Joe RoganorBen Shapiro.If their views stir something in you, perhaps youll subscribe, buy their books or see them live at a location near you.

I must admit Id not heard of Ben Shapiro till this week.

Ben is a US radio announcer, podcaster, author and conservative political commentator. Aged 17 he was the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in America and by 21 had published two of his 11 books. He founded the news website and media company The Daily Wire. His daily political podcast, The Ben Shapiro Show, in 2019 was ranked the second most popular in the US and in 2021 the 9thmost listened to on Apple Podcasts.

I should write his promotional material.

No, seriously, he doesnt need me.

Hes had the most unexpected publicity boost this week from an angle so left field that if hed speculated about it in an episode of his show his fans would have thought he was delusional.

Last Wednesday a group called the Podcast Movement (described as the worlds largest community of podcasters) was in the third day of a podcast expo in Dallas Texas. The Daily Wire had paid for a booth for the first time and, because of their large presence in podcasting, the Podcast Movement had accepted their money and allowed the set up.

Ben Shapiro decided to drop into the Expo and his booth. He meets and greets some fans, gets some pictures taken and mingles in the crowd.

Word gets around about this unexpected visit by this owner/founder to his booth.

The Podcast Movement then issuesan apologyso obsequious that its astonishing that they allowed anyone at all to attend who wasnt vetted to be 100% impartial on everything.

I wonder if Shapiro is considered suing the Podcast Movement for criticising and causing harm?

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending where you sit on Shapiro and his views) Ben has largely seen the humour in the situation and moved on.

Both incidents, and the legal battle between Crikey and Murdoch, leave me dumbfounded.

Thats probably for the best.

Were I to comment freely on the utter waste of money, legal fees and social media space on either of these matters then perhaps I may also be hauled over the coals by media regulators for disagreeing, contributing or inflaming the situation.

Ill just keep those opinions to myself.

About the Author

Jen Seyderhelm is a Breakfast Announcer at Forever Classic 2CA, a Podcast and Voiceover educator, and she is currently counting down the greatest one hit wonders of all time in Australia.

Original post:
Crikey! The exclamation of Free Speech - RadioInfo Australia - Radioinfo