Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Mr Shawcross, the former chairman of the charity commission, also cited a Christian preacher who critiqued the Koran stabbed at Speakers Corner and the closure earlier this year of the Shia film, Lady of Heaven, about the daughter of Muhammed after protests from Muslims.

He said: The charge of blasphemy really does seem to be in danger of limiting free expression. The recent horrific attack on Salman Rushdie is something that is another example of the fact that we haven't come to grips with it.

Here in the UK, we've had a teacher go into hiding, a shopkeeper in Glasgow murdered, a Christian preacher knifed at Speaker's Corner, and a Shia film pulled from the cinemas at the demands of protesters mostly Muslim protesters.

Hosting a conversation with former minister Michael Gove and Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terror laws, he asked: What needs to be done about free expression in terms of our concerns about extremism and terrorism because some of these attackes were indeed terroristic?

How do we deal with the charge of blasphemy? And how do we stop it having a veto on free expression that it has?

Mr Shawcross warned that Britain was not pushing back strongly enough against those who exploited blasphemy to stifle free speech.

Mr Gove, who ran education, justice, environment, the Cabinet office and levelling up department as a minister, said attempts to restrict freedom of speech by invoking blasphemy for talking about the tender feelings of believers should not be indulged in a society like ours.

Although many people might have found the Lady of Heaven film genuinely offensive, he said you dont police artistic expression in that way.

He said people might regard Salman Rushdie as ungallant or rude to have written Satanic Verses that caused offence but he added: "Free speech means nothing if it doesn't give you the freedom to offend."

Mr Shawcross challenged him over whether the Government should take a more robust approach like Emmanuel Macron who gave a state funeral to the teacher beheaded for showing his class Muhammed cartoons.

He said: When a teacher in Batley showed his class, similar cartoons he was not killed, but Islamist protesters came to the school and terrorised him and the school. He has gone into hiding, his life irreparably changed. What can we do about this? Was Macron right to make such an example?

Mr Gove replied: Emmanuel Macron has been incredibly robust in calling out Islam. Anyone who has seen what he's said or knows the very clear distinctions that he's drawn, I think that's absolutely right to do.

Read the original here:
Batley row 'shows how extremists are using blasphemy to attack free speech' - The Telegraph

Title IX, the federal law enacted to combat discrimination based on gender just recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Enacted in 1972 Title IX of the Education Amendments protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Perhaps best known for its application to ensure that females receive equal footing with male counterparts when it comes to athletics in public schools, Title IX also addresses discrimination when it comes to recruitment, admissions, counseling. financial assistance, sex-based harassment and assault, treatment of pregnant and parenting students, treatment of LGBTQI+ students, discipline, single-sex education, and employment.

And in addition to some 17,600 local school districts and over 5,000 postsecondary institutions nationwide that receive federal financial assistance, Title IX also applies to other local and state educational organizations such as charter schools, for-profit schools, libraries, museums, vocational rehabilitation agencies and education agencies.

While there are no doubt some admirable intentions and results of the 50-year-old legislation, Title IX has also been a lightning rod for controversy as many institutions have used the act as a premise to enforce their own established rules governing speech and actions, which have pitted them squarely against other enumerated rightsspecifically the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Recently, the Biden Administrations Department of Education set forth a Fact Sheet to accompany its proposed amendments to Title IX that would appear to give cover to those institutions already curtailing speech. The Fact Sheet begins by stating:

The Departments proposed amendments will restore vital protections for students in our nations schools which were eroded by controversial regulations implemented during the previous Administration.

It goes on to state:

Through the proposed regulations, the Department reaffirms its core commitment to fundamental fairness for all parties; protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom; and respect for the autonomy and protections that complainants need and deserve when they come forward with a claim of sex discrimination.

This would be the fact sheets only reference to Freedom of Speech, and more importantly there is no hint to just how that right would be protected in light of the following from the Dept. of Education:

The proposed regulations would cover all forms of sex-based harassment, including unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a persons ability to participate in or benefit from a schools education program or activity.

And with that little phrasecreating a hostile environmentThe Department of Education opens the door for weaponizing Title IX to further curtail freedom of thought and speech in an educational environment.

Most of the Education Departments expanding focus appears to center on how transgenderism and transgenders themselves are going to be addressed at publicly funded institutions. In that regard, schools have curtailed speech that they consider complicit in creating a hostile environment for transgenders by using institutional policies or falling back on the provisions of Title IX.At least two California universities have already laid the groundwork for curtailing expression with written policy. At the University of the Pacific in Stockton, the Title IX coordinator (yes, each institution accepting federal funds is required to employ one) released auniversity policy that stated:

Misgendering is the intentional or unintentional use of pronouns or identifiers that are different from those used by an individual. Unintentional misgendering is usually resolved with a simple apology if someone clarifies their pronouns for you. Intentional misgendering is inconsistent with the type of community we hold ourselves out to be. We all get to determine our own gender identity and expression, but we dont get to choose or negate someone elses.

The statement went on to identify deadnaminga relatively new term in the transgender vernacularwhich is defined as using a transitioning or transitioned individuals previous name as a form of harassment and bullying.

In 2020, the University of California system set forth policy that also defines deadnaming and further allows students and alumni to alter names on official UC documents such as diplomas without a legal name change. This was codified in California state law with the signing of Assembly Bill 245 in 2021.

While the new Title IX guidelines set forth by the Biden administrations Dept. of Education do not specifically require institutions to prohibit misgendering or stifle speech regarding gender ideology, there are those that fear that these new regulations will do just that, or at the very least give the typical progressive school campus cover to do so.

But what happens when speech code police on college campuses run afoul of the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment governing freedom of speechspecifically when it comes to misgendering or refusing to employ preferred pronouns? To date, students, faculty, and staff have been subjected to censorship and other sanctions for violating campus speech codes in this regard. However, when challenged in court these punishments dont necessarily carry the day.

In 2018 at Shawnee State University, a public institution in Ohio, a professor was sanctioned for refusing to employ a students preferred pronouns. Citing his First Amendment right to free speech and free exercise of religion, the professor sued. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals backed his claims, and the university was forced to settle with the professor.

Closer to home, the 3rd District California State Court of Appeals ruled last year that parts of SB 219 governing nursing homes and skilled nursing facilities violation of which could result in fines and/or imprisonmentwere unconstitutional. Specifically, the justices took issue with the clause that reads:

Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a residents preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

The unanimous opinion reads in part:

The penalty for referring to patients in a manner inconsistent with their identities restricts more speech than is necessary to achieve the governments compelling interest in eliminating discrimination.

We recognize that misgendering may be disrespectful, discourteous, and insulting, and used as an inartful way to express an ideological disagreement with another persons expressed gender identity, but the First Amendment does not protect only speech that inoffensively and artfully articulates a persons point of view.

The Courts opinion seems unambiguous here and certainly begs the question, if this applies to long term care and skilled nursing facilities, how could it not apply to other institutions such as those governed by Title IX?

The expanding language of Title IX, and more importantly the expanding use of the act to limit if not stifle speech appears to be on a collision course with the First Amendment. This will all no doubt need to be sorted out in a court near you-or perhaps a court some three thousand miles away in Washington. That particular court as of late seemingly holds the tenets of our constitution in high, if not supreme regard.

Here is the original post:
Expansion of Title IX Tramples First Amendment - California Globe

By Andy Brack | The mind-numbingly endless debate about abortion in South Carolina has gotten even weirder.

Radical Republicans in the legislature the very people who havent stopped talking about abortion for two decades and inject it into the legislative debate at the drop of a hat now want us to stop talking about it completely. And if we dont? We could be complicit in breaking the law.

Of course, the state Senate and then the House would have to pass a version of a bill to ban abortion that includes unconstitutional prohibitions on providing information about abortions.

The bill, S. 1373 by Sens. Richard Cash, Rex Rice and Danny Verdin, all Upstate Republicans, would make it a felony to knowingly and intentionally provide abortion information to a pregnant woman or anyone seeking information for a pregnant woman by telephone, internet or any form of communication. The proposal, now in Verdins Senate committee, also would make it a felony to host an internet website that provides abortion information.

In other words, the bill seeks to prohibit doctors from providing information to patients about how someone in South Carolina could get an abortion outside of South Carolina. But it would also prohibit anybody from sending an email or providing information on a website. And that would include any newspapers or media outlets that published stories in print or online about abortions and where people are getting them.

These guys want, in no uncertain terms, to chill our rights to free speech and my constitutional right to publish what I believe is newsworthy.

And theyre unabashed in admitting it, as one of the three said in a genial Thursday conversation.

The bill is drafted and in there for debate, said Rice, a Greenville Republicane. I would love to say you cant say anything about abortion and you cant tell anybody to go to North Carolina to get one.

But Rice also admitted the current bill likely wouldnt be passed with speech muzzles as written.

Id like to pass it that way, but do I believe it will pass that way? Probably not. But he repeated, I would like you not providing information about going to North Carolina to get one [an abortion].

When asked about the need to criminalize the news process and peoples ability to share information, Rice said, I think that is something we need to discuss in committee. Obviously that is an extreme position that myself as a cosponsor of the bill would like to address. We dont want that information provided.

Throughout a wide-ranging conversation, Rice was polite and seemed to listen carefully. He emphasized the bills proposals would be scrutinized in committee, which would take into consideration concerns about free speech and the free press.

The three of us that helped draft that bill, none of us are attorneys, Rice admitted. I think theres some stuff that obviously the [Senate] attorneys will say you cant do that, and were going to have to listen to those concerns.

But that hasnt stopped these zealots from poking the bear of free speech and free press. Its pretty amazing that in an America worried by government takeover of guns, health care or any number of issues, these very same leaders want to use the government to take away our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

They should be ashamed. How did we get to a place in America where people are using the legislative process as a hammer to talk about what they dont want us to talk about?

Now, however, the poked bear is awake. And these folks will have a hell of a battle on their hands to tell editors what they can and cant write.

And theyll also have to live with unintended consequences. Right now, for example, its completely legal to write a story about how someone in South Carolina can get an abortion somewhere else. Someone will. And Ill publish it.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.

Excerpt from:
BRACK: S.C. Senate is poking free speech bear on abortion Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report

Audio articles on Wilson County News made possible by C Street Gift Shop in downtown Floresville

Freedom of Speech is being defended by two U.S. attorneys general and the Joe Biden censorship squad is being sued for social media collusion. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, bold warriors of justice are on the frontlines.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt has been tweeting information at twitter.com/AGEricSchmitt/status/1522298313311096833.

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us. William O. Douglas

Applause for the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana for initiating the recent lawsuit. But, where are the other state leaders of justice?

According to the National Association of Attorneys General, all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have an attorney general who serves as the chief legal officer in their jurisdiction, counsels its government agencies and legislatures, and is a representative of the public interest. Click the following link to find the attorney general in your state. http://www.naag.org/news-resources/research-data/who-are-americas-attorneys-general/.

Whats the lawsuit about?

According to The World Tribune, the lawsuit alleges Joe Biden, former press secretary Jen Psaki, Anthony Fauci, former Disinformation Governance Board executive director Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and others)pressured and colluded with social media giants Meta, Twitter, and YouTube to censor free speech in the name of combating so-called disinformation and misinformation, which led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information on several topics, including COVID-19. Visit http://www.worldtribune.com/lawsuit-alleging-biden-collusion-with-social-media-to-censor-conservatives-allowed-to-proceed/.

Also in the lawsuit, Biden and mainstream media giants are on the hotseat for allegedly trying to squash the Hunter Biden laptop story.

In reference to the lawsuit, The New York Post reported, The suit specifically accuses the government of suppression in the case of The Posts Hunter Biden laptop story, the theory that COVID-19 stemmed from a Wuhan lab, the effectiveness of wearing masks to stop the spread of COVID-19 and the security of mail-in voting during the pandemic. Visit nypost.com/2022/05/05/biden-sued-for-colluding-with-big-tech-to-suppress-free-speech-on-hunter-laptop/.

Biden, top-ranking government officials and five social media autocrats must provide documents within 30 days. Twitter, Meta (aka Facebook), YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn were served third-party subpoenas. Visit ago.mo.gov/home/news/2022/07/19/missouri-louisiana-serve-discovery-requests-subpoenas-on-top-biden-administration-officials-and-social-media-giants.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

Will attorney generals, judges, and courts encounter more censorship about the alleged censorship from the censorship caravan?

The D.C. spin machine must be twirling and whirling like rubbish in a tornado. The fiends of fib are working overtime while the puppet masters circle the wagons. And of course, mainstream media puppets are ignoring the elephant in the room. What elephant? What censoring of speech? What lawsuit?

What can citizens do? Contact TX Attorney General Ken Paxton at http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/ and send a link to my op-ed article. Write a Letter to the Editor of your local newspaper. Tweet and retweet info on the ensuing lawsuit.

Wise up. Stand up. Speak Up. And choose to fight for our freedoms.

Well, I wont back down. No, I wont back down. You can stand me up to the gates of hell, but I wont back down, sang Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers.

Melissa Martin, Ph.D., a freelance syndicated columnist, is published in various national and international print and digital newspapers. She is a semi-retired therapist and educator.

NOTE: Items posted to the WCN Blog Pages are the opinions of the writer, and do not necessarily the opinion of the Wilson County News, its management, or staff.

Read the original:
Will AG Ken Paxton join the fight for freedom of speech? - Wilson County News

Making it safe to be gay. Providing support for victims of domestic violence. Being free to express yourself and your beliefs. Providing access to education for every child. Ensuring injustices dont go unheard in the courts. The right to protest. Protection and security for all human life. Helping families seeking asylum. Supporting people with disabilities whose dignity has been violated. These are just some examples of the things that the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act protects.

But on June 22, Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State for Justice announced plans to replace the UKs Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights.

He said at the timethat the new bill would curb abuses of the system and reinject a healthy dose of common sense [into it] by strengthen[ing] traditional UK rights such as freedom of speech under attack, from expanding privacy law to stifling political correctness and recognis[ing] the importance of jury trials in the UK.

Human rights organisations and lawyers alike, however,have argued that rather than further safeguarding human rights, this new bill will actually diminish them.

The Law Society, an independent body which represents solicitors in England and Wales, said this bill represents a lurch backwards for the British justice system, while Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UKs Chief Executive, has describedthe bill as a giant leap backwards for the rights of ordinary people. Liberty, the UKs largest civil liberties organisation, has even gone so far as to dub it the "Rights Removal Bill.

Heres what you need to know, and how you can help take action to ensure our human rights in the UK are protected and not abused.

Remember a few weeks ago when a plane full of refugees and asylum-seekers narrowly escaped deportation to Rwanda?

The 11th hour decision to keep the plane grounded on June 14 was made because of a last-minute ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

In a nutshell, the UK Supreme Court was overruled by the European court.

You might be thinking? I thought Brexit meant wed opted out of all that? The ECtHR (despite having the word European in its name) is not a European Union institution and so Brexit did not affect the UKs relationship with it. Were still part of Europe after all.

The Conservative Party has long wanted to reform the Human Rights Act. Their plans to scrap it were in their 2010and 2015party manifestos. But the issue was catapulted into the foreground by the ruling in June because of the governments attempt to remove asylum-seekers to Rwanda for processing and claiming asylum.

Why? Because getting rid of the Human Rights Act is a one-way ticket to get the ECtHR off the UK governments back. In short, it would mean the UK government would have the final say on human rights issues, not the ECtHR.

Dominic Raab has describedthe change as affirming the supremacy of the Supreme Court, [and] being explicit that the UK courts are under no obligation to follow the Strasbourg case law.

This would prevent, for example, a similar intervention from the ECtHR if the government were to attempt to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda again.

Why the change?

The UK government says they want British courts to have supremacy over the ECtHR in order to, for example, deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda.

Who will be most affected?

Refugees, asylum seekers and migrantsbecause the new Bill of Rights will allow them to be deported more easily.

What are human rights organisations saying about this?

Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officers at Liberty, has said: Refugees and migrants, already disadvantaged, will find it harder to defend their basic rights and challenge deportation.

He added that this bill will mean that the European Court of Human Rights cant act in emergencies to protect us from situations that put us at risk of serious and irreparable harm.

Why the change?

Currently, the Human Rights Act empowers ordinary people to challenge abuses of their rights in British courts.

But the government wants to introduce a permission stage that will require people to prove theyve suffered significant disadvantage before they even get to court.

They say this is to ensure that spurious and trivial cases that dont merit court time or public resources do not undermine public confidence in human rights.

Who will be most affected?

People with learning disabilities and their families are often dependent on a range of public bodies to uphold their human rightsand the new changes introduced could weaken their protections.

This change would also make it much harder for children to access justice, according to the Children Rights Alliance for England, as they are more reliant on their parents or carers to help them make such decisions. In particular, this change would negatively impact societys most vulnerable children such as children in care, child witnesses, children in custody, and refugee children.

What are human rights organisations saying about this?

Writer, lawyer and activist, Talina Hrzeler arguesthat theres no such thing as trivial human rights and that this change opens the floodgates to more disastrous violations.

Liberty says that requiring people to prove their case before theyve even got to court is incredibly difficult when youre up against the power of the State and will ultimately meanthat justice may only be available to people who can afford it.

Even the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) argues that introducing additional criteria for bringing a human rights claim will make it harder for ordinary people to access justice and hold the state to account.

Mary Woodhall, a self advocate and member of Learning Disability England, has said that this change is making some people with learning disabilities feel isolated, scared and left out.

Why the change?

Dominc Raab claimsthat democratic debate in this country has been "whittled away by wokery" and space needs to be created for more rambunctious debate.

Who will be most impacted?

The most interesting part of this change is who wont be impacted: the UK government. Thats right, there are clauses in the new bill that would specificallyexempt the governmentitself from having to comply with its new free speech rules, so if the government were to pose a threat to free speech, people wouldn't be protected.

This means, for example, that people challenging deportation are not protectedby these freedom of speech protections.

What are human rights organisations saying?

Prof Phillipson, a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and an authority in free speech law,writes: The notion that this clause is aimed at combating wokery doesnt make sense to me and suggests that its more rhetoric aimed at pleasing their supporters and [...] the right-wing press.

Free speech supporters have also condemned the UK governments humble-brag that the Bill of Rights will boost freedom of expression. In fact, they say it will actually undermine it and have accused the government of peddling a false narrative.

Whats more, anti-censorship campaigners have pointed outthe hypocrisy of ministers talking about placing more weight on the importance of free speech while they have literally just passed a bill that curbs the right to protestwith the intent to create a hostile environment for peaceful demonstrations.

Why the change?

The UK government believes that the Human Rights Act has been abused by convicted foreign nationals and says the changes will make it harder for foreign criminals to frustrate the deportation process.

What impact would the change have?

In the UK, if a foreign national (someone who is not a British citizen) is convicted of a crime that results in prison time of more than a year, they are automatically deported at the end of their sentence. Over a 10-year period, almost 50,000 foreign national offenders were deported from the UK.

However, convicted foreign nationals are able to invoke the right to a family life, currently protected under the Human Rights Act. This might be because they have been here since they were children or they have a family in this country. Their argument is that if they are deported its a breach of their human rights.

The Bill of Rights will narrow the scope of those appeals, making them almost impossible. Cases will only be accepted in the rarest of occasions, for example, when someones life is actually in danger.

What are human rights organisations saying?

Andy Hull, chief executive of human rights charity EachOther, said that the bill puts new and higher hurdles in the way of ordinary people who turn to the law to uphold their rights. In particular, it will make it much more difficult for the loved ones of someone who committed a crime but has served [their] time to invoke rights to fair trial or to family life to prevent [their] removal from the country.

Anothercriticismof this particular change is that it does not properly recognise nuance. The amendments in the bill take no account of the circumstances of the offence, nor of whether the individual continues to pose a risk to the public.

Ultimately, this new bill will affect us all but some more than others. Some have argued that the government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act because it sees certain people as less deserving of rights than others. Often, these people are the people who are already marginalised and need human rights protections the most.

If youre based in the UK, join Global Citizens in taking urgent action to stop the governments plan to replace the Human Rights Act by emailing your MP now to make sure our human rights are protected and not abused.

Visit link:
The UK Government Wants to Scrap the Human Rights Act. Here's What to Know. - Global Citizen

When Washington Post reporter David Weigel retweeted a joke in early June, he probably didnt expect to be suspended without pay for a month, or for it to lead to a newsroom blowup culminating in another reporters firing and a very public black eye for the Post.

Comedian Dave Chappelle probably didnt expect to have his show at First Avenue in Minneapolis canceled last week either but given reactions to his jokes about transgender issues, he probably wasnt surprised it happened somewhere. Chappelle cant really be fired, of course, and he performed at a nearby venue the same week.

Cancel culture never does stop exactly where our individual senses of moral judgment all of which differ, of course might suggest.

Some view these cancellations as success stories: They see the widespread chilling of bad speech as a desirable outcome, ridding our public square of everything from hate to poor taste. But cancel culture never does stop exactly where our individual senses of moral judgment all of which differ, of course might suggest. Just ask Felicia Sonmez, the reporter who called out Weigels tweet. Surely, she didnt anticipate that her own job would become collateral damage in what she saw as a righteous attempt to get her colleague punished. Who would?

Surveys show that most Americans are concerned about the implications of our nations crash dive toward a puritanical social environment in which employers, colleges, and cultural institutions of all kinds are quick to punish, deplatform, suspend, and/or fire people, rightly identifying cancel culture as a growing threat to our freedom. Yet, the idea of free speech is often mischaracterized in the style of Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse as a tool of oppression that privileges the powerful.

Marcuse criticized the liberal idea that speech should be tolerated on a neutral basis. [T]olerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, he wrote, believing people could reliably identify bad speech and should attempt to root it out. In that vein, he advocated for a tactical, selective, tolerance which privileges some speech over other speech, conveniently using his own subjective moral framework as the barometer by which speech is judged worth tolerating. Liberating tolerance, he wrote, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.

His philosophy is becoming mainstream. Op-eds from major news outlets regularly describe appeals to free speech as dog whistles designed to empower fringe political groups or as weapons used to undermine virtuous social movements. Universities construct vague policies that conflate protected speech with violence or harassment. Companies encourage workplace orthodoxy by taking public stances on contentious issues. Too many institutions, implicitly or explicitly, have onboarded the message that we can reliably identify bad speech and must make every effort to shut it down.

Powerful institutions and Marxist social theory, which advocates challenging the powerful, make a paradoxical pairing. Surely the leaders of these institutions, many of which are very distinctly profit-seeking capitalist ventures, must know this. So why has it gone mainstream?

In the absence of a culture that champions a principled defense of free speech, institutions not legally obligated to uphold free speech are, in the short term, incentivized to implement and enforce policy in whatever direction the social wind blows, strategically capitulating to the loudest voices.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should cancel people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power.

In this, institutions can count on backup from those who play down the effects of their decisions at least when those decisions impact someone they dont like. Cancel culture is overblown. You yourself said that Chappelle was able to perform the same week at a different venue! This conveniently overlooks the fact that when it comes to comedy, Chappelle is the powerful. Hes already wealthy, massively popular, and can book and fill a show in less than a day. Its similar for many of the famous figures in entertainment and culture whose cancellations make the news, yet who seem mostly to make out all right.

But that misses the real message that these cancellations send: If this can happen even to a Washington Post reporter, or to a famous comedian powerful and influential people, compared to most Americans imagine what will happen if you, a nobody, crosses the line we set. The message isnt aimed at Dave Chappelle or even Dave Weigel: Its real target is the average American, and their hostility toward cancel culture shown by poll after poll indicates that that message is coming through loud and clear.

Normalizing the idea that institutions should cancel people for unpopular speech hands those institutions an expanded breadth of discretionary power. Left free to selectively enforce policies in the manner those in charge find most palatable or convenient, the powerful are further empowered to crack down on anything they dont like, from bad jokes and unorthodox opinions to critiques of bad governance and exposure of corruption. This might be a good deal for those running the institutions; its a bad deal for everyone else.

Amidst the Weigel controversy, FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff tweeted, A lot of people have asked me today the distinction between free speech law & #freespeech culture. Free-speech culture means, for example, being hesitant to suspend a journalist for RTing a joke. It doesnt mean they cant, but rather a thumb on the scale for that they shouldnt.

Bad speech is better handled through criticism, not cancellation.

A free speech culture is not one dominated by fear and shame, in which those who transgress unspoken rules are rapidly sanctioned, leading to the self-silencing of countless others. It is one in which people and institutions, by-and-large, choose to refrain from trying to silence those with whom they disagree or find offensive, recognizing that bad speech is better handled through criticism, not cancellation.

Its a culture characterized by a widespread recognition of the importance of free speech for all, even those with whom we disagree, if for no other reason than because we understand that cancel culture doesnt stop where our own opinions and tastes begin.

And its not a zero-sum game.

The expression of one perspective does not necessitate the repression of another. A video in FIREs new national ad campaign, Faces of Free Speech, featuring former NFL player and U.S. Army Green Beret Nate Boyer, powerfully illustrates this point. In the ad, Boyer describes a conversation he had with Colin Kaepernick after penning an open letter expressing his complicated feelings about the football players decision to kneel during the national anthem. During their discussion, Kaepernick asked Boyer to kneel with him. I told him, I cant do that, said Boyer, but I would stand next to him.

Boyers decision to stand didnt undermine Kaepernicks decision to kneel, or vice versa. In a free speech culture, we can have our speech and hear others too. Thats why FIRE has spent two decades defending the rights of students and faculty from across the political spectrum, from advocates of animal rights and of universal healthcare, to critics of the Chinese government and of land acknowledgements, and is now expanding its mission to defend free speech principles off campus as well.

You dont have to always like how people choose to express their freedoms, said Boyer, but we were both willing to just have a conversation. Thats what freedom of speech is.

More here:
Cancel culture empowers the powerful at everyone elses expense - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

CHAPEL HILL, N.C., July 28, 2022 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student government president issued an order this month cutting off executive branch funding to any individual, business, or organization that advocates for pro-life causes.

Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called on the UNC Chapel Hill student government to rescind the order and commit to distributing funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

This is blatant viewpoint discrimination and a clear violation of fundamental First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney Zach Greenberg, who wrote todays letter to the university. A student government should represent the entire student body, not abuse its power by seeking to censor classmates with opposing views.

On July 6, the UNC Chapel Hill Student Government executive branch issued an order prohibiting contracts or funding to any individual, business, or organization which actively advocates to further limit by law access to reproductive healthcare. It is unclear exactly what types of funding requests are subject to the executive branchs unconstitutional and discriminatory prohibition. The student senate also handles funding requests and, to date, has not taken the same viewpoint discriminatory stance.

UNC Chapel Hills chapter of Students for Life, one of the countrys largest pro-life advocacy organizations, responded with a statement expressing dismay and urging Student Body President Taliajah Vann to rescind the order and live up to her campaign promise that she would help every member of the student body.

As a public institution, UNC Chapel Hill is bound by the First Amendment, which precludes the school from discriminating against student groups based on viewpoint. The student government is therefore constitutionally required to distribute funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner. Additionally, UNC Chapel Hill makes strong commitments to free speech, earning FIREs highest, green light rating. FIREs letter to Vann asks her administration to immediately rescind the unconstitutional order and commit to viewpoint neutrality.

UNC Chapel Hills student government cannot declare itself the arbiter of which opinions are acceptable, said Greenberg. We call on these student leaders to uphold their constituents free speech rights by doling out funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner.

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 thought the 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

Here is the original post:
Repressive executive order from UNC Chapel Hill student government cuts off funding for pro-life individuals, causes - Foundation for Individual...

1) Do people understand what defines free speech?

2) Why dont Americans want to sit on juries?

Yes, the second question is based on circumstantial evidence, an assumption that some members of the pool in Texas were merely saying whatever it would take to avoid becoming involved in a process that is likely to last for a few weeks.

But both matters are troubling.

First of all, the jury that was chosen Monday will be charged with determining how much Jones must pay the family of Jesse Lewis, who was killed in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, because Jones called the massacre staged and completely fake with actors, among other things.

A Texas judge already ruled that Jones committed defamation by making the claims on his YouTube channel. Resisting serving on a jury by citing personal belief in free speech only reinforces that too many people dont really know what it means.

I believe people have to be accountable for what they say, but I think we are entitled to freedom of speech, juror No. 9 said while being questioned Monday in the Travis County Courtroom.

Freedom of speech is not an umbrella that shields any utterance. In addition to defamation, the categories not protected under the First Amendment include obscenities, genuine threats, child pornography, perjury and blackmail, among others.

Theres also an undeniable irony in clinging to the right to expression while avoiding opining on a jury.

Which brings us to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.

You dont need to be in the Austin courtroom right now to recognize the resistance to serving on a jury. Anyone who has been or ever will be summoned should consider this: It is patriotic to serve on a jury.

It represents the accuseds final hope for justice. In a nation saturation with Law and Order television shows, spin-offs and copycats since 1990, this is the part where jurors play a supporting role in ensuring order.

Once a jury is selected in Texas, the exercise will need to be repeated two more times in the cases Jones lost against other Sandy Hook families.

Attorney Wesley Ball, who represents Jesse Lewis family, eliminated some jurors by questioning whether they would be opposed to awards as high as $100 million.

Jones didnt show up, but his attorney, Andino Reynal, offered the observation that There is nothing I want more than for the 12 people who sit on this case to look back 20 years from now and say, This is a verdict I can be proud of.

Its asking a lot to expect a juror to be proud of a verdict. But anyone should be proud to serve on a jury.

Read more here:
Editorial: Alex Jones' lessons on the First and Sixth Amendments - CT Insider

STATEHOUSE REPORT | ISSUE 21.30 | JULY 29, 2022

NEWS

By Samantha Connors | Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade June 24, state abortion laws, particularly in red, Southern states, changed rapidly. In South Carolina, for example, the ruling triggered a 6-week fetal heartbeat abortion ban and now, some lawmakers want a total ban.

The laws are designed to be very difficult for people to understand, said a North Carolina staffer at the two-state Carolina Abortion Fund (CAF) who wanted to be on record simply as Justine.

Right now, abortion is still legal in South Carolina, though procedures can only be performed when no fetal cardiac activity is detected, which typically begins around six weeks of pregnancy.

Six weeks is when most people dont even realize theyre pregnant, said Columbias Vicki Ringer, director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Theyre late by two weeks, and for many women, depending on birth control methods, they may not have periods at all.

Many factors can cause menstrual periods to stop or become irregular birth control methods, high levels of exercise, taking certain medications all of which make it difficult to suspect pregnancy at six weeks.

The law says that every woman who wants an abortion has to have an ultrasound, even though it is not medically required for an abortion at an early stage of pregnacy, said Ringer. At six weeks, you can generally hear fetal cardiac activity through the use of a trans-vaginal ultrasound, but at six weeks, there is no heart. There are no chambers. What youre looking at is an embryo that has no measurable weight you cant even say that it weighs an ounce.

But according to current South Carolina law, an abortion would be prohibited at this point. Because of this accelerated time limit and short time frame today, womens reproductive health professionals generally recommend women seek care as soon as they suspect pregnancy, sources say.

In the past, we had people taking a little more time to raise the money that theyve needed to pay for an abortion. You know $500 is just not something most people have as disposable cash, said Ringer. Nowadays, we tell people dont wait until youve raised the money. We have abortion funds. We have amazing donors who have stepped up so that they can help these women get care earlier.

South Carolinians seeking abortion care are advised to contact Planned Parenthood South Atlantic or womens health clinics as soon as they suspect pregnancy. The health care provider will determine if the woman is eligible for an abortion in South Carolina. If not, they can help make an appointment in North Carolina, where laws permit abortion up to 20 weeks, arrange travel logistics and help with cost.

After making an appointment, women can also contact Carolina Abortion Fund, which serves North Carolina and South Carolina. The organization aids women seeking abortion care by helping with the finanical cost of the procedure and travel.

We have an active transportation network, said Justine. Well give people money for Uber; give people gas money. Well do everything we can to try and help them.

But for many women, traveling for a procedure is still unfeasible. North Carolina law requires a 72-hour waiting period between meeting with a health care provider and receiving care. This law is intended to deter women from abortion as providers are required to present patients with state-directed materials discouraging abortion.

As a result, South Carolinians traveling to North Carolina for health care must spend at least three days there. Aside from the cost of the procedure and travel, women must also take time off of work and find child care if they already have children.

South Carolina has a similar statute, requiring 24 hours between the presentation of materials about abortion and an abortion appointment.

A North Charleston resident this week spoke to Statehouse Report about her experience seeking an abortion in South Carolina seven years ago. Even then under the protection of the Roe precedent, South Carolina law still required providers to show state-directed materials.

When I went for my appointment, they brought me into a room with all these other girls that are getting one and had us watch these videos about the life process, she said. It was a legal thing. They were legally required to try to talk you out of it basically.

She said the experience felt incredibly patronizing.

Everybody in that room has thought about every single option that they possibly could probably 8 million times before they ended up there. And you dont have any privacy during it. You dont have a choice.

Theres not another medical procedure in the world that makes you do that.

What happens now for South Carolina women who are past the 6-week mark and who are unable to travel? Legally, there are no more options in South Carolina to terminate a pregnancy. But some women are turning to Plan C.

Plan C is a term for medication abortion, also known as the abortion pill, which is the preferred abortion method. About 60% of abortions are performed with medication, according to Ringer. But using or possessing the two abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol is illegal in South Carolina past six weeks.

When a medication abortion is provided, the patient typically takes the first pill at a health care center and then takes a second pill at home. Telehealth visits for abortion care are illegal in North and South Carolina, though the FDA considers receiving abortion medication via telehealth completely safe, said Ringer.

Women who are traveling to North Carolina for abortions are eligible to receive a medication abortion under North Carolina Law, but traveling back into South Carolina with the medication does put patients at the risk of being criminally prosecuted.

You could be charged with a crime and go to jail for just possessing [those two drugs], said Ringer. If you had them and you tried to sell them to others, that would be a crime. Youd have harsher criminal penalties for possessing those pills than you would if you had pounds and pounds of hard drugs that you were distributing.

Though it is illegal, many women feel they are in a dire situation and are choosing to order these pills online. Because of medical advancements, the days of coat hanger abortions are gone, many abortion advocates say, and illegally obtaining abortion medication is a much safer option for an unlawful abortion. Abortion medication is considered safer than Tylenol and Ibuprofen.

A platform called PlanC.org provides information on obtaining abortion medication in the U.S. and through online, international pharmacies. There are risks to ordering these pills online: They are not FDA approved and obtaining them is considered illegal in South Carolina. PlanC.org orders and tests pills from the recommended sites but cannot guarantee reliability in the future according to PlanC.org.

Opting to have a self-managed abortion (or an at-home abortion with no medical professional) has risks if medical complications arise or an incomplete abortion occurs, said Justine.

This was the case for the North Charleston woman who shared her story above. After receiving a medication abortion, a blockage occured in her uterus, causing extreme bleeding as her body tried to rid itself of the fetal tissue but could not. This required extra medical attention and a surgical procedure.

I was scared. I didnt know what to do, she said. I cant even imagine if that happened to me today because I had that option at the time to, no matter how scared I was, to still go back to the doctor. Today, if the language of the legislature says it is illegal to perform an abortion after six weeks, the second procedure I had, is that legal?

Though it is rare, this scenario is one of many playing out in health care centers and hospitals across the state. Complications with abortions and wanted pregnancies are leaving doctors confused and unable to act in the patients best interest at the risk of losing their license, getting sued or even being criminally prosecuted.

With Senate bill S.1373 currently in committee in the state Senate seeking to ban all abortions without exceptions for rape, incest or medical emergencies, the situation for women may become even more difficult.

I think that being forced to carry a pregnancy you do not want to carry is cruel, unusual punishment, said Justine.

Ringer added, The most extreme legislators dont believe there should be exceptions for rape or incest. They have limited the exemptions for womens health. A woman must be near death before she can get an abortion and there are situations where there can never be a viable pregnancy.

[In some situations] women are being force to, instead of having an abortion, they must go through labor and delivery of a dead fetus. It is terrible. Its cruel at the basic level, but women are suffering because doctors hands are tied.

Samantha Connors is an editor at the Charleston City Paper, a sister publication of Statehouse Report. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com

NEWS BRIEFS

Staff reports | The Mega Millions lottery jackpot is $1 billion today. If you win during this evenings drawing, you could take home a fat check of more than $600 million. (What would you do with all of that money, anyway?)

South Carolinians reportedly went into overdrive this week ahead of the drawing for the Mega Millions lottery. This is the fourth billion-dollar lottery prize in U.S. history. You have a one in 302.6 million chance of winning the jackpot.

In other headlines:

S.C. fetal heartbeat abortion ban remians in place. A state circuit judge on Tuesday denied a request by reproductive health supporters to temporarily block a six-week abortion ban request and asked that the case head to the state Supreme Court. In what is expected to become a protracted legal battle, the ruling allows the state to continue to enforce the abortion ban. A lawsuit challenging the ban argues that it violates the state constitutions rights to privacy and equal protection.

S.C. has 16,570 new Covid cases, 9 deaths. South Carolina had an increase of more than 2,800 new cases of Covid-19 than last week, state officials reported today. Over the last week, nine people died from the virus. In related news, South Carolina now has 14 cases of monkeypox.

S.C. challenges Bidens proposed gun reform bill. South Carolina joined a 17-state coalition opposing President Joe Bidens proposed gun laws. The coalition states that the bill threatens the privacy of gun owners due to a national firearms registry.

Cunningham calls on McMaster for debates. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Joe Cunningham of Charleston has called on GOP Gov. Henry McMaster for five debates. The debates would be held in the states largest media areas, including Charleston, Columbia, Greenville and Florence/Myrtle Beach, and a statewide lieutenant governor debate.

Evette files to run for lieutenant governor. McMaster and Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette made history Wednesday as South Carolinas first joint gubernatorial ticket to file for reelection. The pair have worked together since McMasters reelection in 2018, when a new law allowed for running mates. Meanwhile, Cunningham is expected to announce his running mate in Greenville Monday.

Ellis receives endorsement from top state education association. Democratic candidate for S.C. Superintendent Lisa Ellis officially received an endorsement from the South Carolina Education Association.

Boroughs sworn in as states top federal prosecutor. Adair Ford Boroughs, a Columbia attorney and former Democratic congressional candidate, was sworn in Tuesday as the states United States attorney.

Two Charleston judges being considered for S.C. Supreme Court. S.C. Circuit Court Judges Maite D. Murphy of North Charleston and Stephanie Pendarvis McDonald of Charleston are being considered for seat four in the South Carolina Supreme Court. Hearings are scheduled for Nov. 14.

S.C. guide to African American landmarks released. Spartanburg publishing company Hub City Press recently released The Green Book of South Carolina, a guide to African American landmarks in the state. The book is organized by region and features more than 200 museums, monuments, historic markers, schools, churches and public lands and includes suggested day trips for each region.

LOWCOUNTRY, by Robert Ariail

Cartoonist Robert Ariail often interprets things a little differently, but always has an interesting take on whats going on in South Carolina. Love the cartoon? Hate it? What do you think: feedback@statehousereport.com.

COMMENTARY

By Andy Brack | The mind-numbingly endless debate about abortion in South Carolina has gotten even weirder.

Radical Republicans in the legislature the very people who havent stopped talking about abortion for two decades and inject it into the legislative debate at the drop of a hat now want us to stop talking about it completely. And if we dont? We could be complicit in breaking the law.

Of course, the state Senate and then the House would have to pass a version of a bill to ban abortion that includes unconstitutional prohibitions on providing information about abortions.

The bill, S. 1373 by Sens. Richard Cash, Rex Rice and Danny Verdin, all Upstate Republicans, would make it a felony to knowingly and intentionally provide abortion information to a pregnant woman or anyone seeking information for a pregnant woman by telephone, internet or any form of communication. The proposal, now in Verdins Senate committee, also would make it a felony to host an internet website that provides abortion information.

In other words, the bill seeks to prohibit doctors from providing information to patients about how someone in South Carolina could get an abortion outside of South Carolina. But it would also prohibit anybody from sending an email or providing information on a website. And that would include any newspapers or media outlets that published stories in print or online about abortions and where people are getting them.

These guys want, in no uncertain terms, to chill our rights to free speech and my constitutional right to publish what I believe is newsworthy.

And theyre unabashed in admitting it, as one of the three said in a genial Thursday conversation.

The bill is drafted and in there for debate, said Rice, a Greenville Republicane. I would love to say you cant say anything about abortion and you cant tell anybody to go to North Carolina to get one.

But Rice also admitted the current bill likely wouldnt be passed with speech muzzles as written.

Id like to pass it that way, but do I believe it will pass that way? Probably not. But he repeated, I would like you not providing information about going to North Carolina to get one [an abortion].

When asked about the need to criminalize the news process and peoples ability to share information, Rice said, I think that is something we need to discuss in committee. Obviously that is an extreme position that myself as a cosponsor of the bill would like to address. We dont want that information provided.

Throughout a wide-ranging conversation, Rice was polite and seemed to listen carefully. He emphasized the bills proposals would be scrutinized in committee, which would take into consideration concerns about free speech and the free press.

The three of us that helped draft that bill, none of us are attorneys, Rice admitted. I think theres some stuff that obviously the [Senate] attorneys will say you cant do that, and were going to have to listen to those concerns.

But that hasnt stopped these zealots from poking the bear of free speech and free press. Its pretty amazing that in an America worried by government takeover of guns, health care or any number of issues, these very same leaders want to use the government to take away our constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

They should be ashamed. How did we get to a place in America where people are using the legislative process as a hammer to talk about what they dont want us to talk about?

Now, however, the poked bear is awake. And these folks will have a hell of a battle on their hands to tell editors what they can and cant write.

And theyll also have to live with unintended consequences. Right now, for example, its completely legal to write a story about how someone in South Carolina can get an abortion somewhere else. Someone will. And Ill publish it.

Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report and the Charleston City Paper. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.

SPOTLIGHT

The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This weeks spotlighted underwriter is The South Carolina Education Association(The SCEA), the professional association for educators in South Carolina. Educators from pre-K to 12th grade comprise The SCEA. The SCEA is the leading advocate for educational change in South Carolina. Educators in South Carolina look to The SCEA for assistance in every aspect of their professional life. From career planning as a student to retirement assessment as a career teacher, The SCEA offers assistance, guidance, and inspiration for educators.

FEEDBACK

To the editor:

I thoroughly enjoyed your story on the old picture. It took me down memory lane to a time when things were so simple but so influential to our development.

Your story reminded me that our lives are shaped by our ancestors in ways we dont often think about. Thanks for the reminder.

Ken Jackson, Florence, S.C.,

To the editor:

I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Saturday about your grandparents in Macon, Georgia. I have great-grandparents who were born near Macon and my father was born there. Your writing about your grandmothers cooking the biscuits made with lard and the delectable pies she made brought to mind fond memories of my maternal grandmothers cooking in York County, South Carolina. She and my grandfather were small farmers there until the 1970s when they passed.

This article touched my heart and was a refreshing departure from all of the disturbing news so prevalent today. I do appreciate, however, the thoughtful, fair-minded, unbiased articles you usually write.

Nancy Wilson

Send us your comments

Have a comment? Send your letters or comments to: feedback@statehousereport.com. Make sure to provide your contact details (name, hometown and phone number for verification. Letters are limited to 150 words.

MYSTERY PHOTO

Heres an interesting photograph taken by a reader somewhere in South Carolina. Where is this statuary and what can you tell us about it? Send your name and hometown along with your guess to feedback@statehousereport.com.

Last weeks mystery, 10:16 a.m., shows a clock in the S.C. House of Representatives. It was taken by photographer Travis Bell.

Congratulations to several readers who identified it: Susan James, Elizabeth Jones and Jay Altman, all of Columbia; David Lupo of Mount Pleasant; Allan Peel of San Antonio, Texas; and George Graf of Palmyra, Va.

>> Send us a mystery picture. If you have a photo that you believe will stump readers, send it along (but make sure to tell us what it is because it may stump us too!) Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com and mark it as a photo submission. Thanks.

350 FACTS

Statehouse Report, founded in 2001 as a weekly legislative forecast that informs readers about what is going to happen in South Carolina politics and policy, is provided to you at no charge every Friday.

Were proud to offer Statehouse Report for free. For more than a dozen years, weve been the go-to place for insightful independent policy and political news and views in the Palmetto State. And we love it as much as you do.

But now, we can use your help. If youve been thinking of contributing to Statehouse Report over the years, now would be a great time to contribute as we deal with the crisis. In advance, thank you.

Now you can get a copy of editor and publisher Andy Bracks We Can Do Better, South Carolina! ($14.99) as a paperback or as a Kindle book ($7.99). . The book of essays offers incisive commentaries by editor and publisher Andy Brack on the American South, the common good, vexing problems for the Palmetto State and interesting South Carolina leaders.

See the original post:
NEW for 7/29: How abortion now works in S.C., and more Statehouse Report - Statehouse Report

All Pakistani citizens are given the right to freedom of speech and expression, while there are some limitations, such as those related to the dignity of religion, rule of law, and national security. Many groups of individuals, including minorities, media, and human rights advocates, have been victimised by these limitations.

The persecuted Ahmadi community in Pakistan continues to be the target of blasphemy trials, keeping them in constant. At least 10 Ahmadi houses of worship have been vandalised this year. The reports of forced conversion of young Christian and Hindu girls are common. A parliamentary committee rejected the coerced conversion bill that the Ministry of Human Rights had proposed in October last year.

Given the situation, a thorough understanding of freedom of press must be redrafted and disseminated to the general public to prevent people from interpreting it as a license to disregard other peoples beliefs, views, and ideas.

Independent national and international observers have observed a gradual decline in peoples opportunity to exercise their constitutional right of free speech and access to knowledge over the past few months as well as a gradual narrowing of the nations space for civil and political discourse. Interestingly, a portion of this negative trend was linked to restrictions on information imposed by the state. Even though internet has given public access to platforms to express their opinions, rising polarisation in the community and the recent political instability has curbed this freedom.

Since 2018, Pakistans press and online regulatory institutions have maintained unreasonable legislative and regulatory limitations on speech and online content. The lack of laws on journalists safety has exposed them to physical, legal, and digital threats. They frequently experience online harassment for their critical and free expression.

Criminal legislation, organized efforts to harass and manipulate users, proliferating misinformation, and the random blocking and deletion of not just material but also whole social media applications have threatened peoples digital speech. The accusations against journalists were reported to the authorities in Sindh and Balochistan allegedly for promoting anti-national views.

Article 19 of the Pakistan constitution guarantees citizens the freedom of speech. The constitutional clause imposes a duty on the State to make sure that everyone can legitimately practice this right.

Article 19 of the Pakistan constitution guarantees citizens the freedom of speech. The constitutional clause imposes a duty on the State to make sure that everyone can legitimately practice this right. However, Pakistan has a dismal track record when it comes to preserving its citizens right to free speech. Public expression and press freedom in Pakistan have historically been severely restricted during protracted dictatorships. These restrictions on news and thought took on a regulatory function during democratic regimes. Criminal laws prevent people, particularly journalists and human rights advocates, from expressing their thoughts openly because they are afraid of being persecuted. The accessibility of the internet has provided people a chance to express their opinions, but more frequently, the state has begun to exercise control on internet. News networks are suspended for political reasons. The media industrys financial strains have resulted in layoffs and employment severance for media workers.

The history also reveals the oppressive laws against journalism that was in place during General Ziaul Haqs military dictatorship, as well as the three-staged resistance that the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists and the All Pakistan Newspaper Employees Confederation provided in opposition to them. Numerous working journalists participated in this rebel force by offering to be arrested voluntarily and suffering in jail. However,the bold reporters had to submit to the regime.

The military, which is Pakistans most important institution, frequently rejects accusations that it meddles in politics or the media. But according to a journalistic rights group, the Pakistan military has used force, brutality, and even terror to force journalists to practiceself-censorship. It has been using both direct and indirect means of censoring free speech. The risk of criticising the Pakistani military has increased, and a strengthened cyber-crimes statute targets journalists for trivial violations. The criticism of the nations strong security and political organisations has resulted in several journalists becoming the focus of violent attacks, while others have been interrogated, abducted, intimidated, driven off-air, or lost their jobs. The media has often been a target of militant organisations.

It is crucial that the state institutions effectively collaborate with the media persons to introduce new legislation to guarantee protection to journalists.

Read more:
Why Does The State Panic Over Free Speech? - The Friday Times