Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

Chinas market economy with socialist characteristics rose from the ashes of Mao Zedongs failed experiments with central planning. Under that repressive regime, private enterprise was outlawed and individuals become wards of the state.

When Deng Xiaoping became Chinas paramount leader, he abandoned Maos class struggle as the centerpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and embarked on economic liberalization. There was hope that greater freedom in trading goods and services would also lead to a freer market in ideas.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

That hope was dashed when troops cracked down on protesters in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Dengs famous Southern Tour in 1992 resumed economic reformand China has become the worlds largest trading nationbut protectionism in the market for ideas remains intact.

Under President Xi Jinping, who advocates globalization but has cracked down on the free flow of information, China has become less free.

Donald Trump welcomes Chinese President Xi Jinping to the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 6, 2017. James Dorn writes that Xi appears not to grasp that for a free market to work there must be a free exchange of ideas. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

In the just released World Press Freedom Index , published by Paris-based Reporters sans Frontires (RSF), China is ranked 176 out of 180 countries, just a few notches above North Koreaand President Xi is referred to as the planets leading censor and press freedom predator. In preparation for the 19th CCP Congress later this year, there has been an uptick in the war on free speech.

Without notice, in January the Beijing Municipal Cyberspace Administration shut down the internet of the Unirule Institute of Economics, one of Chinas leading free-market think tanks, co-founded by Mao Yushi, a strong critic of the one-party state and the lack of a free market in ideas. Without access to the global flow of ideas, Unirules work has been all but cut off.

Other internet sites have been shut down and Chinas cyber bullies have gone after virtual private networks (VPNs) that allow users to circumvent the Great Firewall.

Beginning on June 1, new rules governing the news content permitted on various internet platforms will be implemented, and editors will be subject to stronger oversight by the state and the Party. Cyber security law is intended to ensure that the CCPs overriding objective of stability and order is realized. Yet that goal conflicts with the creation of a dynamic civil society and with innovation and globalization.

Xi Jinping, in his belief that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom, fails to understand a basic tenet of liberalismnamely, that individual freedom is the source of an emergent order.

That idea was known in China long before it was stated by Adam Smith in 1776. In the 6th century BC, Lao Tzu explained that when the ruler leaves people alone (the principle of noninterference or wu wei ), people are spontaneously transformed and increase their wealth. They do so through voluntary market exchanges under a just rule of law.

China has allowed greater economic freedom, which has enabled millions of individuals to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, but the CCPs monopoly on power has prevented a corresponding expansion in freedom of the presseven though Article 35 of the PRC Constitution states that Citizens enjoy freedom of speech.

Top-down control of ideas must eventually clash with bottom-up economic reform. China cannot become a global financial center, like Hong Kong, without the free flow of information.

Insulating the political elite from the competition of ideas is not a recipe for long-run prosperity and peace. As Liu Junning, an independent scholar in Beijing, has noted, Whether China will be a constructive partner or an emerging threat will depend on the fate of liberalism in China.

The Western liberal ideas that President Xi and the CCP reject place the individual before the state and see the state as the protector of individual rights, including free speech. A just rule of law is designed to limit the power of government and enhance individual freedom. By expanding marketsboth in goods and ideassuch an institutional arrangement increases the range of choices open to people, which is the true measure of development.

If China is to become a beacon for globalization and free trade, as President Xi advocated at the Davos World Economic Forum, there will have to be movement toward a free market in ideas. China cant continue to be near the bottom in terms of freedom of the press and speech without losing ground in the information age.

James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal, senior fellow, and director of Catos annual monetary conference.

Link:
Why Is China's Xi Cracking Down on Free Speech? - Newsweek

Two hundred and forty-one years since Americas birth and 226 years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights protecting our freedom of speech, Americans seem to be confused about what free speech actually means. We need a refresher course in what is not free speech, and what it is that speech is free from.

As a free society, we must protect speech in the public square. Thats why the Westboro Church lunatics are accompanied by a sizable police force when they protest military funerals. It is our job as a society to permit speech, even and especially speech we find repugnant, and to protect the speaker from violent reactions to that speech. Additionally, speakers must not face repercussions from the government for what they say. If Donald Trump doesnt like it when Saturday Night Live makes fun of him, he can tweet about it. He cant send a police force to arrest Alec Baldwin.

This does not, however, mean that speech comes without consequences. If Westboro Church leader Fred Phelps applied for a job at your company, you would be fully within your rights to turn him down because he is a vile, hateful person whom you do not wish to employ. This general distinction has been difficult for people to grasp in the wake of several recent high-profile incidents.

Last week, Tomi Lahren settled a lawsuit with her previous employer, the conservative network The Blaze. Lahren was fired after an appearance on The View in which she told the audience that she was pro-choice. She had previously proclaimed herself pro-life; her position on abortion is one that matters to both her audience and her (now former) employer. Speaking to Joy Behar and other View co-hosts, she explained:

Im pro-choice, and heres why: I am a constitutional yknow, someone that loves the Constitution....I cant sit here and be a hypocrite and say Im for limited government, but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies.

Of course, her viewers at The Blaze also consider themselves constitutionals (if that were a real word), believe in limited government, and yet are pro-life. She called her own audience hypocrites and then she was fired for it.

Milo Yiannopoulos lost his book deal and resigned from Breitbart when he was criticized for comments he made on a podcast about his sexual relationship, as a teen, with an older man, saying that he did not consider himself a victim at the time. Yes, bad things will happen to your career if you say, as Milo did, that some of the most important...life-affirming, important shaping relationships very often [are] between younger boys and older men. Upon learning of the comments, which some listeners interpreted as a defense of pedophilia, the Conservative Political Action Conference disinvited Milo as a speaker. This was not a violation of free-speech rights, because a private group is perfectly entitled to invite only people whose views it endorses.

This is entirely different from what happened at UC Berkeley, which said it would be unable to physically protect Ann Coulter if she accepted the invitation from the College Republicans to speak there. As with the Fred Phelps example, physically protecting the speaker is vital to protecting free speech, which is why the College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the school after Coulters lecture was derailed by the threat of violence. Disinviting someone from speaking at your private organization after he says something you consider outside the bounds of normal discourse does not violate your right to free speech.

A few weeks ago, Salons Matthew Rozsa rebuking the Right for imposing social penalties on its members for expressing controversial opinions. Citing the Lahren and Yiannopoulos incidents, Rozsa called conservatives special snowflakes and quoted Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center, as saying:

The First Amendment protects insightful ideas, but also stupid, insensitive, hateful, and deeply offensive speech. Theres no cherry-picking the right to speak.

Rozsa is conflating social penalties, for which the First Amendment offers zero protection, with freedom of speech. Hes not alone in his confusion.

Colin Kaepernick took a knee on the field during the National Anthem at his National Football League football games last year. Some people hailed him as a hero; others turned off their televisions when he was on. Much was written about whether Kaepernick had a constitutional right to sit out the Anthem. The answer is that of course he did. But the NFL wants to be Americas organization, playing Americas favorite sport patriotism is woven right in. Kaepernick wore T-shirts emblazoned with depictions of Fidel Castro: It wasnt the right image for his employer. For the upcoming football season, Kaepernick remains unsigned.

Writing in USA Today recently, Christine Brennan argued that an unsigned Colin Kaepernick was bad for the NFL. Maybe so. She asked why there are successful NFL players who have a history of violence while no one wants to hire Kaepernick. Her point here is valid: The NFL should be rooting out players with a history of assault. But Brennan went further: To fail to acknowledge and even celebrate that what Kaepernick did was his right as a U.S. citizen is to ignore one of the reasons the United States is the great and free nation that it is. Yes, Kaepernick has a right to say and do what he pleases. The police are not going to come to his door, and no one is going to force him to his feet for the National Anthem. This is indeed part of what makes America a great and free nation.

But Colin Kaepernick is not good enough as a football player to be the type of distraction that he was. Other football players became distractions in a similar way. Terrell Owens put on a show everywhere he went, and teams grew tired of it. No one owes Kaepernick a job. Thats not a violation of freedom of speech; thats business. Kaepernick has signaled he plans to stand for the National Anthem this year should he get signed to a team. Smart.

Business wont always lean against talent. Stephen Colbert aimed what some saw as a homophobic slur at President Trump last week and he still has his job. Its not freedom of speech that is protecting him; CBS is entirely within its rights to fire him for misrepresenting the network or being out of synch with its brand. The fact that his bosses havent fired him or publicly reprimanded him in any way shows that they approve of or at least are not bothered by his comments.

The lesson is this: Say what you want if your boss is on board, but dont blame the First Amendment if your boss is not.

READ MORE: Progressives Eat One of Their Own in the Latest Campus Controversy Free Speech Is Killing Free Speech The Road to Yales Free-Speech Crisis

Karol Markowicz is a columnist at the New York Post.

Originally posted here:
What Free Speech Isn't - National Review

AP

BY: Cameron Cawthorne May 9, 2017 12:16 pm

The Fund for American Studies (TFAS)on May 1 released a new national surveyshowingover 90 percent of millennials support freedom of speech and religion freedom.

The surveyfound that 93 percent of millennials support religious freedom and 92 percent support free speech.

"The media keeps showing us images of violent protests on college campuses, young Americans being angry and disruptive, but the truth is that millennials support religious and social freedoms more than non-millennials," TFAS President Roger Ream said."There's a vast, silent majority of millennials who embrace these freedoms and those are the young men and women we are seeing in our programs."

The Support for Freedom Index wasanational study and thefirst of its kind conducted for TFAS by WPA intelligence to measure how Americans define freedom and whether they support "more" or "less" government interference in their daily lives, according to TFAS.

Millennials (ages 18-34) represent the best indication of how the next generation views freedom and the implication for future public policy. They predominantly believe that "more government" is necessary to protect freedoms. But they also believe the government should be safeguarding freedom more so than guaranteeing security:

Almost 6 out of 10 millennials would choose liberty (60%) over security (40%) as opposed to individuals age 55-64 who are evenly split in their support for security (49%) and liberty (51%)

54% of millennials support "more government" over "less government" (40%) as opposed to non-millennials who support "less government" (51%) over "more government" (45%)

The study also explored the difference between political parties by looking at their attitudes toward liberty and security.

Republicans support security (57%) over liberty (43%) Democrats support liberty (64%) over security (36%) Independents support security (60%) over liberty (40%)

"When you take a comparative look at conservative and Republican ideologies toward freedom, you would expect a lot of overlap. One of the surprising findings of this survey is that Republicans favor an active government approach which prioritizes security over individual liberties," Ream said.

"This may explain some of the resonance for President Trump's message in the GOP primaries, resonance that many, at the time, didn't fully grasp," he continued. "Conservatives were more supportive of a passive government which prioritizes liberty over security concerns."

The study also determined that there was a disconnect between "a general support for freedom and support for freedom on specific economic issues." Certainitems emphasize the complexity of the free market in unexpected demographics, especially the conservatives and Republicans, according the survey.

A majority of Republicans (61%) and Conservatives (57%) believe that the government should regulate oil companies to keep gas prices at reasonable levels

A majority of Republicans (74%) and Conservatives (71%) believe that the government should prevent drug companies from increasing the prices of life-saving drugs

A majority of Republicans (71%) and Conservatives (70%) support tariffs on goods that Americans buy from overseas

"This is due in part to a failure on the part of traditional education to teach economics and the media to explain economics to the average American," Ream said. "The Fund for American Studies was formed to bridge that gap, and provide an educational foundation which teaches economics and emphasizes the importance of all aspects of freedom."

View original post here:
Survey: 9 Out of 10 Millennials Support Free Speech, Religious Freedom - Washington Free Beacon

Not surprisingly, last weeks multiple posts about the racists who attend games at Bostons Fenway Park brought out the commenters who view these sorts of things as assaults on free speech.

Theyre probably racist too, a study released last week from the University of Kansas says.

When people make appeals to democratic principles like freedom of speech they dont always represent a genuine interest in that principle, Mark H. White, a graduate student in psychology, and co-author of the study said in a news release. We think of principles as ideas we use to guide behavior in our everyday lives. Our data show something different that we tend to make up our mind on something based on our attitudes in this case, racial attitudes and then decide that the principle is relevant or irrelevant. People do whatever best fits their pre-existing attitudes.

In other words, if youre racist, you do what you can to justify your racism without acknowledging your racism.

We look at people who defend anothers racist speech for example, defending someone who got fired for going into a racist rant at work with a free speech argument, said co-author Christian Crandall, professor of psychology at KU. What do we know about people making this argument? The correlation between using the free speech defense and peoples own racial prejudice is pretty high. Its racists defending racists.

You might think that, Maybe people who defend this racist speech are just big fans of free speech, that theyre principled supporters of freedom, Crandall said. Well, no. We give them a news article with the same speech aimed at police and prejudice scores are completely uncorrelated with defending speech aimed at police and also uncorrelated with snarky speech aimed at customers at a coffee shop, but with no racial content.

In their experiments, the pair tested several scenarios with their subjects and found that how they felt about the principle of free speech depended less on an embrace of the Constitution, and more about how they felt about the subject of the speech.

It isnt so much that these controversies make prejudiced people feel bad about themselves; instead, it seems to be driven partially by prejudiced people feeling like they are not free to live how they want to live and say what they want to say they feel as if their freedom is under attack, he said.

The freedom to be a racist, for example.

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts. He was senior editor of news in the 90s, ran MPRs political unit, created the MPR News regional website, invented the popular Select A Candidate, started the two most popular blogs in the history of MPR and every day laments that his Minnesota Fantasy Legislature project never caught on.

NewsCut is a blog featuring observations about the news. It provides a forum for an online discussion and debate about events that might not typically make the front page. NewsCut posts are not news stories but reflections , observations, and debate.

Read the original here:
When 'free speech' is a cover for racism | NewsCut | Minnesota ... - Minnesota Public Radio News (blog)

By John Lyon / Arkansas News Bureau

LITTLE ROCK Recent actions by an Arkansas judge known for being outspoken on political issues have raised complex questions: Where should the line be drawn between a judges right of free speech and the need for an impartial judiciary, and who should draw that line?

The controversy

In an April 10 blog post, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen spoke out against the death penalty, saying, Premeditated and deliberate killing of defenseless persons including defenseless persons who have been convicted of murder is not morally justifiable.

On April 14, Good Friday, Griffen issued a temporary restraining order that barred the state from using a certain drug in executions. Later the same say, he appeared at an anti-death penalty protest in front of the Governors Mansion, where he lay strapped on a cot.

Attorney General Leslie Rutledge complained to the state Supreme Court, which vacated Griffens order and barred him from hearing any cases involving the death penalty. The state proceeded to carry out four executions last month.

The court also referred the matter to the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, which enforces the statess rules of judicial conduct.

One of those rules is: A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

The commission could impose sanctions or recommend that the Supreme Court remove Griffen from the bench. Some state legislators have said they believe Griffens actions may have been serious enough to merit impeachment, and last week the House adopted rules for bringing forth articles of impeachment against a sitting elected official.

If the House were to issue articles of impeachment against Griffen, the Senate would hold a trial.

(Griffen) should never again be allowed to hold office of any sort in Arkansas. We as the General Assembly can remove the stain that Griffen has left on our judicial integrity, Sen. Trent Garner, R-El Dorado, said in a news release last week.

Griffen has said in a filing with the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission that his participation in the protest was constitutionally protected and was not directly related to the case in which he issued the temporary restraining order. That case involved a claim by a medical supply company that the state used deception to obtain a drug from the company for use in executions.

Griffen, who also is pastor of New Millennium Church in Little Rock, said the complaint filed against him with the commission is a naked attempt to intimidate me for exercising my rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of religious expression, and right to peaceful assembly that are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The judge has filed a complaint with the commission against the Supreme Court and a complaint with the Committee on Professional Conduct against Rutledge. He says he was barred from hearing death-penalty cases without being given a chance to respond, in violation of his due-process rights.

Griffens outspoken past

Griffen has been investigated by the commission before for his public statements. In 2008, the panel looked into comments Griffen made criticizing then-President George W. Bush and the Iraq War, but ultimately the panel dropped the case after Griffen filed a lawsuit against it.

In 2002, the commission admonished Griffen for commenting on racial issues at the University of Arkansas. An admonishment is the mildest sanction the commission can give.

Some say Griffens recent statements against the death penalty, which also have included blog posts, are more objectionable than his past political comments, which did not directly relate to cases before him.

Now we have a situation where he blogs and makes a very clear statement and basically says you cant be a Christian and be for the death penalty, and a matter of days later he takes up a death penalty case, said Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville. Theres a profound appearance of impropriety there.

Ballinger said Griffen was removed from that high-profile case because his alleged bias was widely publicized, but he asked, What about the number of other individuals who come before his court and dont get in the media?

Griffen said in an April 19 blog post, People have strong views about capital punishment. I know that. I have strong views about capital punishment also. But none of our views about capital punishment, whatever they may be and however strongly we may hold them, affect the facts in the (temporary restraining order) motion I reviewed and decided on Good Friday.

Separation of powers

Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, has expressed concern about the Legislature investigating judges when the judicial branch has its own mechanism for doing so.

We used to teach our kids there are three distinct, separate branches of government, said Elliott, a former schoolteacher. I think we really need to get back to thinking about that letting, in this case, the judiciary deal with the issue if there is something with which to be dealt.

Ballinger, a lawyer, said he hopes the Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission will take action that makes it unnecessary for the Legislature to act, but he said it is within the powers granted to the Legislature by the Arkansas Constitution to impeach an elected official for gross misconduct in office, regardless of what branch of government the official is in.

The constitution contemplates a separation of powers between the branches of government, but it also contemplates a system of checks and balances between those branches, he said.

Increased publicity

Ballinger, a death penalty supporter, said he is aware that impeachment proceedings would draw more attention to Griffen and his anti-death penalty views. That may be exactly what the judge is hoping for, he said.

An unfortunate side effect of moving forward with his impeachment is hes going to get all the headlines he wants, Ballinger said.

See the original post:
Arkansas judge's case hinges on limits of free speech - Arkansas News

Four high school students who were disciplined over their interaction with racist Instagram images have filed a federal lawsuit, accusing the school of violating their right to freedom of speech for punishing them with suspensions and shame parades.

The students, who are juniors at Albany High School in Albany, California, were suspended from school inMarch after they were caught interacting withracist Instagram images of their classmates.According to the Mercury News, the images were of the schools girls basketball team nearly all of whom are people of color with nooses drawn on their necks or comparisons made to photos of apes. Another student, who was not named in the court documents and is facing expulsion, posted them on his private Instagram account. In total, more than a dozen students were disciplined for the Instagram posts according to a local news station. Now, four of them are suing the school district for allegedly violating their First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights.

The complaint says that the students simply liked the images or commented on them. The lawsuit doesnt go into much detail on what the comments were, describing them as a sarcastic remark and responsive to comments previously made on two images. The complaint statesthat the Instagram activity happened through their personal accounts, which are not related to the school, and took placehappened off-campus.

When administrators found out about the images in March, theypromptly suspended the students who interacted with them. One plaintiff, who also posted a picture to his Snapchat account, according to the complaint, was later recommended for expulsion, and has not returned to the school. Although theother three students were allowed to come back, the lawsuit claims the three students were forced to march through the school while other students yelled at them as an atonement measure. They then were coerced to attend a restorative justice session that ended in violence, according to the complaint.

Much of the argument in the lawsuithinges on whether thestudents can be disciplined by their school for actions that took place off-campus. Generally, this is difficult to prove unlessthe school can prove that a students off-campus actions caused a substantial disruption to learning environment. But this could be more difficult to prove, especially sincetheInstagram account was private and wasnt discovered by the administration until months after the images were posted.

Parents of some of the students who were targeted by the images, however, disagree. Quoted in various media reports, parents said that the suspended students bullied the students whose photos were posted on Instagram, and that freedom of speech should not extend to what they called hate crimes. There is a California law allowing public schools to discipline students for cyberbullying, even when it takes place off-campus. For the law to be enforced, the school district would still have to prove that interacting with a photo not posting the photo itself fits its definition of cyberbullying.

The students are asking for damages, the ability to make up the work missed when they were suspended and that the suspensions are removed from their permanent records.

Original post:
A Freedom Of Speech Argument Over Instagram Likes - Vocativ

In astatement released by the Trump 2020 campaign this afternoon, Donald Trump argued that media outlets ongoing refusal to accept his First 100 Days self-congratulatory adinfringes on his First Amendment free speech rights. In reality, privately-owned media companies are under no legal obligation to accept political advertisements.Moreover, the First Amendments free speech provisions apply only to government censorship of speech.

In the press release, Trumps 2020 campaignstated:

Setting a chilling precedent against free speech rights, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. has just learned that now, all of the mainstream media television networks have decided to block the paid placement of a campaign ad that celebrates the achievements of President Trump in his first 100 days in office. The ad was first released on Monday, May 1. Since then, one by one, the mainstream TV networks have blocked the ad from running, including CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Lara Trump, the wife of Eric Trump and daughter-in-law of President Trump, who serves as a consultant to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. said: Apparently, the mainstream media are champions of the First Amendment only when it serves their own political views. Faced with an ad that doesnt fit their biased narrative, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC have now all chosen to block our ad. This is an unprecedented act of censorship in America that should concern every freedom-loving citizen.

On Thursday night, Lara Trump, defended the ad on Fox News Channels Hannity, stating, Its a great ad and it highlights all the wonderful things that have happenedIts really disappointingthis is supposed to be a free society. We have freedom of speech. The fact that this ad is not being shown on CNN, on NBC, on CBS, on news networks who have a duty to report to the public the factsis really, really ridiculous to me. Its really sad.

The statement contains a few glaring errors.

For starters, accepting paid political advertising is not the same thing as a duty to report to the public the facts. In fact,researching, checking and reporting on facts is the reason the advertisement was rejected by every major network.

Moreover, Trump doesnt seem to have an understanding of broadcast regulations and what qualifies as censorship. The Washington Post touched on this noting:

In this case, the free-speech argument is not a winning one. TV stations even over-the-air broadcasters, which are subject to tighter regulation by the Federal Communications Commission than their cable counterparts do not have to allow the president to buy airtime for his ad.

Hereis the relevant FCCrule:

No station licensee is required to permit the use of its facilities by any legally qualified candidate for public office, but if any licensee shall permit any such candidate to use its facilities, it shall afford equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to use such facilities. Such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast by any such candidate.

Remember: Were talking about candidates for president in 2020. Trump doesnt have opponents yet not any serious ones, anyway, and certainly none buying ad time.

If, for example, Martin OMalley were already in the race and if ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates had been airing his commercials, those stations would have no choice but to show Trumps, too. And they would haveno power of censorship.

But the networks, which are not licensed by the FCC, do not have to show Trumps ad, and their affiliates can turn down Trump, so long as they have not said yes to any other 2020 presidential candidate.

Basing their refusal to air the ad in law and logic, every major media network has thus far refused to accept Trumps newest political ad for the 2020 elections.

CNN was the first network to reject Trumps ad. In a public statement accompanying the refusal, they explained,CNN requested that the advertiser remove the false graphic that says the mainstream media is fake news,. The mainstream media is not fake news, and therefore the ad is false. Per our policy, it will be accepted only if that graphic is deleted. Those are the facts.

After CNNs statement,Trump campaign executive director Michael Glassner released a statement condemning the action saying, It is absolutely shameful to see the media blocking the positive message that President Trump is trying to share with the country.

This is censorship pure and simple, Glassner added. By rejecting our ad, CNN has proven that it supports censorship is biased and fears an opposing point of view. President Trumps loyal supporters know the truth: The mainstream media mislead, misguide, deceive, and distract. CNN epitomizes the meaning of fake news and has proven it by rejecting our paid campaign ad.

Subsequent to CNNsrefusal earlier this week, three other networks rejected Trumps ad.

Consistent with our policies, we have agreed to accept the ad if the inaccurate graphic which refers to journalists as fake news is corrected, said NBC commenting on their public refusal toaccept the campaigns political advertisement.

ABC and CBS have not yet madeany public statements.

At the heart of the matter other than thelegal fact that no network is currently required to accept Trumps ad and that refusing to air a political candidates ad does notconstitute an abridgment of free speech lies the ad itself.

The crux of every networks refusal to accept the Trump campaigns advertisement is Trumps ongoing mischaracterization of what constitutes fake news. While the phrasefake newsrefers to the spreading of false information and hoaxes with the intention to mislead its audience, Trump uses the term to refer to perceived bias and/or critical coverage of his campaign and administration in mainstream media reporting.

Thelatter is not fake news, and labeling it as such is inappropriate.

In Trumps campaign ad, photos ofNBCs Andrea Mitchell, CNNs Wolf Blitzer, MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, ABCs George Stephanopoulos, and CBSs Scott Pelley have the phrase fake news superimposed over their faces in bold red capitalized letters.

The arrogance and ignoranceinherent in the Trump 2020 campaign and Trump administration responses to the ad refusal demonstrate yet againeverything Trump does is not normal.

As SlatesWill Oremus succinctly put it, Trump is now calling CNN fake news on the grounds that CNN declined to air pro-Trump propaganda calling CNN fake news. Say what you will about his politics, you have to hand it to the president: Hes making tautologies great again.

Like Loading...

See original here:
Network Ad Refusal: Trump Has No Clue How Free Speech Works - Peacock Panache

Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.

With these words in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927), Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis offered a stirring testament to the value and importance of the freedom of speech, a fundamental right enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

What does free speech mean, anyway? According to constitutional scholars Geoffrey Stone and Eugene Volokh, the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances. This is an extraordinary idea, sweeping in its defense of expression in a wide variety of forms and contexts; it is, as legendary First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams recently noted, a story of American exceptionalism. To be sure, it is not a story without struggle or controversy. But in America today, there is a widespread, bipartisan consensus that leads the world in protecting and celebrating the freedom of speech.

But why do we do it? Why is speech worthy of this special treatment? As Justice Brandeis suggests in the passage above, and as constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky explains, the freedom of speech is both a means and an end. It enables self-governance by ensuring open debate and the opportunity to criticize public officials. And it assists in the discovery of truth by creating a marketplace of ideas in which the truth is most likely to succeed. But speech is also important on its own terms, as an essential component of autonomy. In speaking, you defineyourselfand fulfillthe needs of the human spirit, as Justice Thurgood Marshall put it. Ultimately, we protect the freedom of speech because we dont trust the government to determine which speech is good and right, and which is not.

In the last decade, however, a rapidly changing nation has given new voice andurgency to simmering critiques of this free speech consensus.

One major argument is the corporate critique, powerfully articulated by Justice John Paul Stevens in his lengthy dissent to the Courts 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The Courts opinion is a rejection of the common sense of the American people, he thundered, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

In other words, the unique structure and privileges of a corporationlimited liability, perpetual life, concentration of financial resources and moregive it an unusual ability to corrupt and distort the political process. The marketplace of ideas may be threatened by a large and unrepresentative actor. So for critics, distinguishing between corporations and non-corporations in the regulation of political speech is permissible, even wise. After all, corporations are not distinct members of the political community, and the governments interest in preventing corruption is enormous. Indeed, one organization, Free Speech for People, is entirely devoted to overturning Citizens United and limiting the rights of corporations through two proposed constitutional amendments.

Another argument is the equality critique, resurgent as protests against Ann Coulter, Richard Spencer, and other provocative speakers on university campuses have endured blowback from traditional free speech advocates. What is under severe attack, in the name of an absolute notion of free speech, are the rights, both legal and cultural, of minorities to participate in public discourse, argued Ulrich Baer, vice provost at New York University, in a recent New York Times op-ed. (The First Amendment does not apply to private organizations, including private universities, but it does apply to public universities, and First Amendment values remain at issue elsewhere.)

In this vision, speech inflicts psychic harm and silences debate when it invalidate[s] the humanity of others or questions their right to speak at all. As Stone and Volokh acknowledge, the Court already makes exceptions for certain types of unprotected low-value speechdefamation, true threats, fighting words and moreso, critics argue, why not carve out another exception for, say, hate speech? One legal scholar, Charles Lawrence, has argued that in certain contexts, racist speech is the equivalent of fighting words and can be regulated. Perhaps even the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment could justify regulation as anti-discrimination.

Finally, there is the privacy critique, finding greater interest in the age of the internet and new media. In a talk at the National Constitution Center in 2015, legal scholar and former journalist Amy Gajda raised a chief concern: Information is being published today in ways that courts are going to have to decide, is that information newsworthy, so newsworthy that it deserves to be published, despite the fact that it invades someone's privacy?

For critics, quasi-journalists un-beholden to ethics codes and angry exes armed with revenge porn are among the threats to individual privacy and dignity. Just because a piece of information is true, they say, doesnt mean it deserves First Amendment protection. Tort law already recognizes that someone who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another can be sued if the matter is highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate concern to the public. Indeed, this invasion-of-privacy argument was the key to Hulk Hogans successful lawsuit against Gawker, which led to the websites closure. So why not enact greater protections? Why not draw more lines against irresponsible or malicious behavior?

For these visions to emerge triumphant, critics will have to convince a nation that is more protective of speech than any other. Despite some evidence that attitudes are changing, such changes remain an uphill battle.

Nicandro Iannacci is a web content strategist at the National Constitution Center.

Recent Stories on Constitution Daily

Video: Defining truth in modern politics

Cities get limited right to sue for race bias in housing

A broader threat to Trump on sanctuary cities

Filed Under: Civil Rights, Elections & Voting, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Privacy

Read the original:
Is the American free speech consensus under attack? - Constitution Daily (blog)

Kenyon faculty strengthened protections for free speech in the classroom during the 2017-2018 school year with a document called Faculty Resolution of Freedom of Expression for Faculty and Students, dated March 23.

This resolution, which the faculty unanimously endorsed at a recent faculty meeting, states that the freedom to express different opinions and ask questions, even ones that most members of the College may consider mistaken, dangerous, or even despicable, is vital to academic discourse. It also asserts that students should learn from and challenge those viewpoints instead of having the College provide a shield.

Assistant Professor of English Rosemary ONeill is one of the faculty members who drafted the document, along with Professor of Mathematics and Faculty Chair Carol Schumacher, Robert A. Oden, Jr. Professor of Biology Joan Slonczewski, Harry M. Clor Associate Professor of Political Science David Leibowitz and Assistant Professor of History Anton Matytsin.

I feel like Kenyon students dont fully understand free speech or the implications of free speech, ONeill said. We, as professors, assume that students understand how the First Amendment works and the principles behind having free expression, but professors told me that students dont fully understand.

This resolution was inspired by similar documents from the University of Chicago and Denison University. The College also had an attorney from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that advocates for free speech on campuses, review Kenyons policy on free speech.

FIRE gave Kenyon a red-light rating, meaning that at least one of the schools policies both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.

FIRE gave this rating, which 58.6 percent of schools nationwide also received, based on a statement in the student handbook which states that any behavior which offends the sensibilities of others (whether students, faculty members, or visitors) will result in disciplinary action. Kenyon students are required at all times to show due respect and courtesy; and vulgar behavior, obscene language, or disorderly conduct are not tolerated. This statement was adopted in 1964 and revised in 1972; both Decatur and ONeill believe that it should be updated.

The resolution has been brought to Campus Senate, who will take it into consideration as they work to modernize the Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, according to Decatur.

Hopefully this can be a guideline for conversations that can happen next year about places where our policies might be inconsistent, Decatur said.

The resolution has not been formally released.

Read more from the original source:
Faculty endorses free speech resolution - Kenyon Collegian

Deutsche Welle announced the award Wednesday, saying the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) had maintained high standards in its reporting, despite facing allegations of "fake news"by the US president himself.

"The White House Correspondents'Association is a guarantor for the control of those in power," DW Director General Peter Limbourg said. "We have complete trust in the democracy in the United States of America. This entails that we are reliant on a strong media."

DW Director General Peter Limbourg

Limbourg added that attacks on journalists' credibility by US President Donald Trump posed a new challenge for the media in a country which holds democratic principles in high regard.

Read more: More respect in the media for people who think differently

WHCA President Jeff Mason said hewas deeply humbled and honored to receive the prize, saying hisassociation "fights every day for the rights of reporters to cover leaders who make policies that affect the entire world."

"Press freedom in the United States is not a given, despite the protection provided by the constitution. We must remain vigilant to ensure that those freedoms persist, regardless of who holds power in Washington."

Read more:White House Correspondents' Dinner stresses press freedoms in Trump era

Deutsche Welle, Germany's international broadcaster, launched the Freedom of Speech Award two years ago, to honor individuals or initiatives thatpromote freedom of expression and human rights in an exceptional way.

Imprisoned Saudi blogger Raif Badawi received the award in 2015. Last year, the prizewent to Sedat Ergin, then editor-in-chief of the Turkish daily "Hurriyet," one of the few papers critical of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Read more: Ensaf Haidar's appeal to the Saudi government

The award ceremony will take place at Deutsche Welle's Global Media Forumin Bonn on June 19. The international conference convenes some 2,000 politicians, journalists and representatives of civic platforms from 100 countries to discuss initiatives supporting democratic change and strengthening the role of the media.

He was beaten up by unknown attackers in the middle of a St. Petersburg street. On April 19, 2017, 73-year-old Nikolai Andruschtschenko succumbed to his injuries. The journalist wrote about human rights abuses and criminality. In his last documentation, he reported that President Vladimir Putin came to power through links with criminals and the KGB, the Soviet Union's main security agency.

On March 23, 2017, a hired assassin executed Miroslava Breach in front of her house with eight shots to the head. The journalist reported on corruption and crime in the Mexican drug cartels. Her murderer left a message: "for the traitor." Breach is already the third journalist to have been killed in March in Mexico.

Reporter Shifa Gardi died on February 25, 2017 when a mine exploded on the battle front in north Iraq. The Iranian-born Gardi worked for the Kurdish news agency in Erbil, Rudaw, and reported on the fighting between Iraqi troops and so-called Islamic State (IS) militants. IS terrorists around Mosul continue to kidnap, expel, or murder journalists.

"Mukto-Mona," "Freethinkers," was the name of the Islam-critical blog from Avijit Roy. He called himself a "secular humanist," consequently evoking the wrath of Islamist extremists in Bangladesh. Roy was living in the US when in February 2015 he traveled to Dhaka's book trade fair. There, fanatics chopped him to pieces with machetes. Bloggers continue to be murdered by extremists in Bangladesh.

Ten years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes of the whip: that was the Saudi internet activist's sentence. Raif Badawi has been in prison since 2012 for "insulting Islam." In January 2015 he was publically whipped for the first time. After a worldwide campaign for his release, the regime suspended his sentence. His wife Ensaf Haidar and children received asylum in Canada.

Since 2008, Salijon Abdurakhmanov has been sitting in prison, sentenced for alleged drug possession on the basis of fake evidence. According to Reporters without Borders, the regime pushes drug connections onto its critics in order to muzzle them. Abdurakhmanov's "crime": writing for independent online media and other outlets about corruption, human rights and environmental destruction.

German-Turkish journalist Deniz Yucel has been sitting in a Turkish prison since February 2017. The charges against the "Welt" correspondent: terror propaganda and hate speech. Authorities have not presented proof. Despite massive protest in Germany, Turkish President Erdogan announced he would never release Yucel. More than 140 media members have been imprisoned since the coup in July 2016.

In China, regime-critical journalists, bloggers and activists are under great pressure. These include former DW colleague Gao Yu, who was arrested in 2014 before being sentenced in April 2015 to seven years in prison for the alleged betrayal of state secrets. After international pressure, she was allowed to leave prison and since then, has been serving the rest of her sentence under house arrest.

He publishes a social-political internet magazine, in which he castigates corruption and human rights abuses. Mehman Huseynov is one of Azerbaijan's most popular video bloggers. His campaign, "Hunt for corrupt bureaucrats, blames the country's high-ranking leadership cadre for corruption. He was threatened multiple times and in March 2017 was sentenced to two years imprisonment for defamation.

He was considered to be southern Europe's single political prisoner. Tomislav Kezarovski was inconvenient because he cited internal police reports and investigated the unresolved death of another journalist. In October 2013 in a questionable trial, he was sentenced to four-and-a-half year's imprisonment and upon appeal, to two year's house arrest. He is now writing a book about his time in jail.

Author: Sabrina Pabst

Follow this link:
White House Correspondents win DW Freedom of Speech Award ... - Deutsche Welle