Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

On Wednesday, April 12, the UCR branch of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) held a protest, while they were tabling at the Bell Tower from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m., against the restraining of the free speech of students at UCR.

According to the President of YAL and fourth-year applied math and economics major Joseph Gomez, UCR is limiting the free speech of its students. As it stands right now, he explained, it (UCR) has this policy where we have to notify the school if it is reasonable to suspect that more than 25 people are going to be here at a protest which is completely unconstitutional. Gomez later added that protests and demonstrations are limited to being held at the Bell Tower.

To clarify the specific goals of the protest, we asked the participants if this protest was about free speech as a whole on UC campuses, citing the cancellation of former Breitbart Editor Milo Yiannopoulos speech at UC Berkley due to protests as an example. The Director of Data for YAL, fourth-year business administration major with a concentration on finance Roman DYachenko, replied, On a larger scale I think we are. But we are not targeting it specifically right now, but we are here for free speech and events like that are disheartening because people, no matter what their beliefs, should be allowed to speak.

The small group of protesters held signs that called into question UCRs support for free speech. One sign asked those walking by, Think UCR gives you constitutional free speech?

YAL has not yet made contact with the UCR administration about their grievances with these policies. As far as I know we havent had the chance to speak directly to them, Gomez explained. I think that the biggest reason is because they wont hear us out, Gomez continued.

Freedom of speech on university campuses has been an ongoing issue with uneven interpretations of its meaning. However, recently, there has been a surge in student activism. DYachenko argued, It was only recently that people have really gone down the bandwagon of If this offends me, it must be wrong. Lets take it away. Now this (the protest) is kind of the counter to this and only now are we seeing people mobilizing and people arent as afraid to speak out against this.

Fourth-year political science and law and society major Arturo Gomez retorted, I personally dont feel like the university has been restrictive at all with respect to people gathering or people protesting a certain issue or promoting a certain issue. Gomez also later commented on the protests that took place at UC Berkeley, I agree that free speech shouldnt be violated, but if someone does say and make incendiary comments or anything that may target a certain community, they have the right to say it but they are not exempt from critique or mass protest.

In the afternoon, members of YAL brought out a large inflatable beach ball that they call the Freedom Ball. The purpose of the ball, they explained, is to allow students to write anything that they want in order to promote the YALs message of freedom of speech. Some of the comments written on the ball included phrases in Arabic and political statements. They had the Freedom Ball with them until they packed up at 2 p.m.

See the original post here:
YAL protests for more free speech on UC campuses - Highlander Newspaper

Pakistani authorities have won another battle against free speech. The latest blow is just another consequence of harsh measures taken by Pakistans government in the last five years against freedom of speech.

On March 27, the interior ministry announced that Facebook had removed 85% of illegal, blasphemous content found on its website. The estimated number of social media users in the country, according to a 2015 report, is around 17.3 million. Facebook is the top site, and Twitter is spreading fast.

The move was possible because of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, which were inherited from British rule. The laws are aimed at anyone who displays disrespectful behaviour or words against religion. And those found guilty can be put to death.

The laws are known and criticised globally because they have led to many deaths over the past decade.

In January, five Pakistani bloggers disappeared. All were known for their extensive use of social media, public criticism of religion, and statements against censorship in their country.

Among them was the poet and academic Salman Haider. He finally returned home on Jan. 28, as did two other activists.

But none of them have yet disclosed who abducted them. And the others are still missing, adding to the many unexplained disappearances in Pakistan.

Cases of true blasphemy are rare and laws exist to address them. And there is also no evidence that there has been a surge of blasphemous content online.

The public has to accept the verdict of the government without really knowing what is wrong with the way people express their views on social media.

But after the disappearances, the judiciary launched an investigation and asked the Federal Investigation Agency to monitor the question of online blasphemy more carefully.

Confronted by technological changes, authorities or self-proclaimed moral groups stir panic over what they dont understand and then justify extending their control.

The problem in the country is not simply a religious one. Its a structural issue within the ruling elite, the Pakistani brown sahibs, who look down on the common man, as argued by Zafar Bangash, director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought, in 2005.

They control permitted views, deeming some as inferior and wrong, he said, adding:

Almost all colonized people display two characteristics: total subservience to the colonial master, and utter contempt for their own peoples.

The role of Pakistans citizens in their countrys governance has, unfortunately, been fairly minimal. Even in the limited periods when democracy has ostensibly existed in the country, it has been of varieties restricted either by prevalent socio-political conditions that do not provide equality of opportunity to constituents, or by the manipulative politics of dictators and demagogues garbed in the camouflage of electoral popularity.

This mindset fits into the late literature professor and founder of post-colonial studies Edward Saids argument in the follow up to his book Orientalism, titled Culture and Imperialism.

According to Said, post-colonial structures revert to an appreciation and the practice of colonial masters when disappointment with total freedom sets in. And distaste for popular opinion becomes ingrained in the system.

This is the reason why the very idea of freedom of thought, let alone freedom of expression or journalism, has become anathema to the governing structures in Pakistan.

It is true that the abuse of social media and the incompetence of the mainstream media, especially private television, has created an environment that was traumatising for some.

The proliferation of private TV channels and their lack of professionalism, the growth of social media, and the rise of fake news have made some audiences fearful.

The debate about responsible journalism is clearly not going anywhere when people such as Aamir Liaquat Hussain, a religious broadcaster, publicly accuse liberal activists, bloggers, and journalists of blasphemy and treachery.

But there is a difference between regulation and punitive measures. The authorities in Pakistan never had a policy of developing a public information system that responded to peoples questions, educated them, or empowered them to participate in governance.

In a world of information explosion, no iron curtain could work. Pakistan allowed private TV under former president Pervez Musharraf (2001-2008) in early 2000s, not because the ruling class changed its thinking, but because there was no other option left.

State-owned PTV was considered a poor tool to counter Indian channels, which carried their own version of stories involving both countries, such as the coverage of the Kargil war in disputed Kashmir. Bringing in private TV channels was a half-hearted allowance that was never meant for freedom. And herein lies the problem.

Because of the regimes attitude towards media, citizens barely got accustomed to what free press stands for. Which is also why the rise of social media in the country has had such an impact and given rise to new forms of freedom of expression, with few boundaries and dependent on the subjectivity of connected individuals.

It took Pakistan almost 15 years to get from email through direct dial-up connections in 1993 to high-speed internet in 2007. But its now one of the top 20 connected countries in the world.

But the use of this medium as a journalistic enterpriseone without sufficient professional ethicshas brought with it problems, not only for social media users, but for the mainstream media too and, beyond, for freedom of expression within Pakistani society.

As the bloggers disappearances showed, social media activists in Pakistan are among the first ones to suffer. Having only a network of sympathisers for support, they have to go through all the ordeals of censorship and repression on their own, while mainstream journalists can at least rely on wider structures.

The situation in Pakistan is no longer about who did right or wrong, whether social media is to blame or if the government or other powers are intolerant or retrogressive.

The question that haunts the free mind and confronts every intellect in the country is whether it would be possible to restore the semblance of freedom of expression we had six months ago. Or if we need to use scissors on our minds, tighten the locks on our tongues, and hail neo-obscurantism.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. We welcome your comments at ideas.india@qz.com.

Read the original here:
Backed by colonial-era laws, Pakistan has declared war on free speech - Quartz

The LSA Student Government released a statement on April 14 regarding free speech on campus wherein it formally reaffirm[ed] its commitment to the principles of free speech that are meant to guide discourse on any university campus. The statement was written on the heels of the passage of a resolution that asked the university to endorse the Chicago Principles of Free Expression, principles which hold that universities may and should not restrict debate or deliberation because the ideas put forth are thought to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed unless that speech violates the law, is threatening, harassing, or defamatory, or invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.

Nicholas Fadanelli, President of the LSA Student Government, said in an email exchange regarding the inspirations for and passage of the resolution that, while he cannot speak on behalf of the authors of the resolution, the debates prior to its passing consisted of climate on campus both before and after the November US Elections, the statement made by President Schlissel regarding the lack of a commencement speaker, U-Ms history as a bastion of free speech, incidents happening across the nation in regards to individuals attempting to limit the speech of others, as well as the Central Student Government debate regarding your [this authors] CSG resolution.

Amanda Delekta, one of the authors of the resolution, had this to say: LSA Student Government passing a resolution upholding the freedom of speech at the University of Michigan was an integral first step in increasing discourse on campus; an initiative many members of the government have identified since the 2016 Presidential Election. I believe the resolution will be a mechanism to challenge the hegemonic ideology at the University of Michigan and increase the diversity of speakers it hosts.

The resolution passed with 20 votes in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention. You can read it here.

Deion Kathawa studies philosophy and political science at the University of Michigan. He enjoys ice skating and binge watching Netflix (who doesn't, though?) in his spare time. He can be reached via email at kathawad@umich.edu. Deion tweets @DeionKathawa and invites you to friend him on Facebook.

Excerpt from:
LSA Student Government Passes Pro-Free Speech Resolution - The Michigan Review

Gov. Scott Walker proposed in his budget bill a law to both ensure and restrict free speech on UW campuses. It is 500 words of contradictory and sometimes Orwellian language. "Wrongheaded" speakers get special protection and students and faculty are redefined as "members of the university community."

This is a law that is not needed.

It has been removed from the budget by the Joint Finance Committee and will now have to stand alone as a bill requiring a separate debate, which the First Amendment certainly deserves.

The UW Regents and the chancellors have performed well throughout the history of the university in protecting free speech and have fended off elected officials wanting to restrict that speech.

It was in 1894 that Wisconsin's elected state superintendent of education, Oliver E. Wells, an ex-officio member of the UW Board of Regents, charged professor Richard T. Ely with advocating socialism in his teaching. A trial was held and Ely was exonerated. The Regents' president, William Bartlett, said a "teacher who can teach only what is accepted by everybody, will be confined to a very narrow line of tuition."

The Regents used the trial as an opportunity to say more about freedom of speech, and they adopted a statement written by university President Charles Kendall Adams: "(T)he great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."

Controversial faculty their speech and teaching have been a common complaint echoing through the years since Ely. The most recent was in 2011 when the Walker administration asked for the private emails of professor Bill Cronon. The chancellor and Regents were adamant in denying this request and reaffirming academic freedom in what is now known as the Platteville statement.

However, what has prompted the governor's proposal are recent incidents at Middlebury, UC-Berkeley and Texas A&M, where invited speakers were prevented from speaking by violent student protests.

But here too, in defending and protecting very controversial speakers over the decades UW chancellors and Regents have acted admirably.

At the height of the Cold War and against fierce opposition from legislators, Abner Berry, the Negro affairs editor of the Communist Party's Daily Worker, was allowed to speak. State Sen. Gordon Bubolz called for an investigation of the group that invited him. This caused a yearlong look at the rights of student organizations.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy made it through his speech in 1951 that claimed there were communist infiltrators in the State Department, even though the event devolved into chaos after he called students "braying jackasses."

In 1967, the university held fast to the right of Dow Chemical, the maker of napalm, to recruit on campus. This decision was made, of course, without knowing a melee seen around the world would result. But it is important to point out the UW could have denied Dow there was no state or federal law to consider. It was UW's choice.

I came home from the Army in 1968, returned to UW-Whitewater and then transferred to UW-Madison in 1969 as a junior. That semester the campus was occupied by the National Guard and tear gas was so common it was like the weather. The Guard was there to keep the campus open in the face of mass anti-war demonstrations and student demands to shut down the campus.

The UW president and Regents held fast and kept it open.

Gov. Walker would do well to look at a 1951 Legislative Council study of the future of the university that was directed by two future governors, state Sen. Warren Knowles and state Sen. Gaylord Nelson. They considered whether there was a need to curtail the speech of students. They concluded there was not, and their reasoning is as sound now as it was then. It is contained in one eloquent paragraph:

"We are trying to develop self-directing mature citizens capable of making their own evaluation of truth and falsehood. A more dogmatic policy might shield the individual student so much that he would be deprived of this essential educational experience. We believe in freedom of discussion and that continued emphasis on the privileges and benefits of our government and our system of free enterprise will make the youth of Wisconsin better citizens."

We have made it this far without the law the governor wants. The members of the Joint Finance Committee did the university, the Legislature and the First Amendment a service by eliminating the governor's proposed law from the budget bill.

Tom Loftus of Sun Prairie is a former member of the UW Board of Regents and speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly. He wasambassador to Norway from 1993 to 1998.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Read the rest here:
Tom Loftus: UW doesn't need state law to ensure free speech - Madison.com

Campuses should foster free speech Durham Herald Sun According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), only one of the campuses of the University of North Carolina system UNC-Chapel Hill fully protects freedom of speech, earning it a green light on FIRE's rating system ...

Link:
Campuses should foster free speech - Durham Herald Sun

Zerorez, based in St. Louis Park, filed suit shortly before the Summer Olympics hoping to clarify whether the USOC could prohibit it from cheering for Minnesota athletes on social media. The company said it wanted to tweet "Congrats to the 11 Minnesotans competing in 10 different sports at the Rio 2016 Olympics!" but could not for fear of a lawsuit by the USOC.

U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright in Minneapolis dismissed the case April 4, ruling that, because the USOC never sued or even threatened to sue Zerorez, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

"The USOC won this battle, but the war over free speech is not over," said the company's attorney, Aaron Hall of the JUX Law Firm in Minneapolis, in a statement following the ruling. "We believe our Constitutional freedom of speech gives patriotic small businesses the right to express their Olympic spirit on social media."

Federal law gives the USOC authority to license and control trademark terms beyond that granted to other organizations such as the NFL or Major League Baseball. The U.S. Olympic Committee is not government-funded, so it uses licensing deals to fund Team USA.

The USOC's trademark guidelines prohibit any business that isn't an official sponsor of the U.S. team from even mentioning the Summer Olympics or the team on their social media platforms. The guidelines don't apply to individuals or news outlets.

The Zerorez suit said the USOC's written guidelines, threats against other businesses and comments in news reports leading up to the Olympics amounted to an infringement of free-speech rights, even if the USOC never actually sued the company.

"We just felt bullied," Zerorez owner Michael Kaplan said last year when he launched the suit against the USOC.

Zerorez hasn't decided whether to appeal Wright's decision, Hall said.

"We hope the U.S. Olympic Committee will stop threatening the free speech rights of patriotic small businesses," Hall said. "To avoid future legal action, the U.S. Olympic Committee should acknowledge small businesses can reference Olympic events on social media without violating the law, and stop bullying patriotic businesses who express their Olympic spirit online."

The USOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday evening.

The Pioneer Press is a Forum News Service media partner.

See more here:
Court tosses Minnesota company's free speech suit against U.S. ... - Bemidji Pioneer

A Minnesota carpet cleaner that sued the U.S. Olympic Committee over its trademark guidelines concedes it lost that battle, but the war over free speech is not over.

Zerorez, based in St. Louis Park, filed suit shortly before the Summer Olympics hoping to clarify whether the USOC could prohibit it from cheering for Minnesota athletes on social media. The company said it wanted to tweet Congrats to the 11 Minnesotans competing in 10 different sports at the Rio 2016 Olympics! but could not for fear of a lawsuit by the USOC.

U.S. District Judge Wilhelmina Wright in Minneapolis dismissed the case April 4, ruling that, because the USOC never sued or even threatened to sue Zerorez, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The USOC won this battle, but the war over free speech is not over, said the companys attorney, Aaron Hall of the JUX Law Firm in Minneapolis, in a statement following the ruling. We believe our Constitutional freedom of speech gives patriotic small businesses the right to express their Olympic spirit on social media.

Federal law gives the USOC authority to license and control trademark terms beyond that granted to other organizations such as the NFL or Major League Baseball. The U.S. Olympic Committee is not government-funded, so it uses licensing deals to fund Team USA.

The USOCs trademark guidelines prohibit any business that isnt an official sponsor of the U.S. team from even mentioning the Summer Olympics or the team on their social media platforms. The guidelines dont apply to individuals or news outlets.

The Zerorez suit said the USOCs written guidelines, threats against other businesses and comments in news reports leading up to the Olympics amounted to an infringement of free-speech rights, even if the USOC never actually sued the company.

We just felt bullied,Zerorez owner Michael Kaplan said last year when he launched the suit against the USOC.

Zerorez hasnt decided whether to appeal Wrights decision, Hall said.

We hope the U.S. Olympic Committee will stop threatening the free speech rights of patriotic small businesses, Hall said.To avoid future legal action, the U.S. Olympic Committee should acknowledge small businesses can reference Olympic events on social media without violating the law, and stop bullying patriotic businesses who express their Olympic spirit online.

The USOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday evening.

See the article here:
Court tosses MN company's free speech suit against USOC - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Tickling Giants, a documentary about Egyptian satire, was shown in Bowman Hall on Tuesday evening.

The topic of the film centered on the idea of freedom of speech being a constant threat all over the world, with Egypt being no exception. The event was free to all students.

The documentary told the story of Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian physician who viewed life through a sarcastic lens. Unhappy with Egypts political oppression, Youssef created a YouTube channel in 2011 and began uploading political commentary.

Youssef hoped to hit 10,000 views by the end of the week. To his surprise, he had over 35,000 views in less than a day.

From there, he continued to rapidly grow in popularity.

Satire was an unprecedented genre in Egypt Youssefs show was revolutionary. Soon after his YouTube debut, he was offered his own television show.

He became known as the Jon Stewart of Egypt for his sarcastic, opinionated style of broadcast. He was well-known for criticizing Egypts President Mohamed Morsi.

However, following the military coup against Morsi, Egypt became a more dangerous place for its critics. The show was cancelled abruptly in 2014 due to fears of the military regime.

Youssefs focus was on holding authority accountable, regardless of whos in charge.

Following the event, a table of professors spoke with members of the audience about free speech and how the situation in Egypt is relevant to our lives in the United States. The table consisted of Joshua Stacher, associate professor in the Department of Political Science; Suzy Denbeau, assistant professor in the College of Communication and Information; and Idris Kabir Syed, a lecturer in the Department of Pan African Studies.

Freedom of speech is about research. This is about debates. And its not about feelings, Stacher said. Emotion is somewhere else in this picture.

Stacher was insistent that the message of the film is universal, and that threats against free speech are not exclusive to countries like Egypt.

This story that you watch tonight is a lot closer to home than you think it is, Stacher said. And these knocks on your free speech are a lot closer than you think they are.

Denbeau approached the film from a communications perspective.

We see language as really sort of creating the way we perceive the world, Denbeau said. The language that we use the way that we talk about things has major implications for what happens in the material world. So you see it creating these sorts of revolutions, or these different protests, or these very extreme reactions.

Alec Slovenec is the university diversity reporter, contact him ataslovene@kent.edu.

Read more:
Egyptian satire documentary prompts freedom of speech discussion - Kent Wired

Professor Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and professor at New York Law School, delivered a passionate talk about protecting freedom of speech on Thursday night as part of MSUs annual Public Affairs Conference.

Strossen highlighted the importance of protecting free speech for all under the First Amendment, even speech that is offensive or hateful in message. She offered examples from cases on university campuses where students have attempted to silence opinions they deem wrong or too offensive.

It really opened my eyes to what free speech means, Dorothy Vance, sophomore communication studies major, said. She said she now feels empowered to exercise her right to free speech by responding to the preachers who come to campus and shout offensive things at her, rather than ignoring them out of fear.

Im just suppressing my own free speech. Theyre not suppressing mine, Vance said.

Strossen said that college campuses and young people are most likely to advocate on behalf of censorship, knowingly or unknowingly, in pursuit of equality and justice. She denounced the push for censorship on college campuses, saying, learning is the antithesis of comfort.

She said she is encouraged by the resurgence of student activism on campuses but worries that pushing for censorship would do more harm than good. She went on to suggest that minority voices would be the ones most likely silenced by further free-speech restrictions.

With the recent trends in this country and with the past election, I think its important for us to respect the First Amendment and peoples right to free speech, sophomore social work major Hunter Brown said.

Strossen discussed other forms of expression considered offensive, including sexual expression and unprotected free speech, such as speech that threatens, incites real violence or physical harm, or accompanies a crime like assault or vandalism. She spoke for just over an hour and took audience questions following her talk.

Dr. Kevin Pybas, MSU political science professor, was selected to be this years Provost Fellow for Public Affairs and helped create the conference program. He said that Strossen was one of his recommendations, despite her talk being sponsored by the College of Arts and Letters. He said he was pleased by the turnout of young people, particularly students, to the talk.

The conference theme, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Perspectives on Self-Government, was loosely centered on politics, Pybas said. Because free speech is essential to politics, he believed Strossen would be a good choice.

Our country, from its founding, has had a broad commitment to freedom of speech, he said. Theres always groups of people who want to censor speech they disagree with, Pybas said.

Excerpt from:
Professor stresses free speech on campus - Standard Online

A new, non-partisan student group at Harvard University is fighting for free speech rights on campus by intentionally inviting controversial speakers to lecture on campus.

The Harvard College Open Campus Initiative, founded by Harvard sophomore Conor Healy, is a new student group born out of a shared concern among many students for ideological trends threatening freedom of speech.

We were particularly concerned with the shut it down mentality displayed on campuses across America.

In an interview with Campus Reform, Healy, who is Canadian, said that after taking a course on free speech in America with Professor Sanford Ungar, he realized that advocacy for First Amendment principles, particularly on Harvards campus, has innate merit and urgent necessity.

[RELATED: Princeton students speak out against safe spaces]

As a group, we are doing a number of things to combat those who aim to censor, Healy continued. We were particularly concerned with the shut it down mentality displayed on campuses across America; that is, when individuals introduce ideas out of step with modern social justice theory, ideas that are deemed dangerous, the approach of leftist groups on campus is to prevent these conversations from happening.

Our plan is to saturate Harvards campus with underrepresented views, Healy explained. We are planning these so-called dangerous events throughout the next few semesters. In other words, we want to have the conversations we know other students want, but are afraid to ask for.

The group, which already has several dozen members and has raised nearly $10,000 from Harvard alumni, scheduled its first lecture with University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson.

Peterson was recently prevented from speaking at a Canadian campus due to his belief that legally enforced (or otherwise institutionally backed) use of ones preferred gender pronouns is a burden on individual liberty, but while those same views drew flak from Harvard students on social media ahead of his visit to that campus, only about 10 students actually showed up to protest.

[RELATED: Harvard students protest ideological diversity as hate speech]

Healy, who successfully brought Edward Snowden to his high school at the age of 17, has also invited American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray to speak in the fall. Murray has been extensively criticized for his view that economic success is more determined by intelligence than socioeconomic factors, and had a speech at Middlebury shut down earlier this year.

Despite receiving significant criticism for his work, Healy is used to getting a lot of pushback while pursuing what I believe in.

[RELATED: Angry mob turns on liberal prof for defending Charles Murray]

The majority of students, want this! They want this campus to be more open to confronting new and different ideas; they want to stop being chastised when their views arent in line with orthodoxy, or when they seek new information, he concluded. Harvard can set an example for schools across the country that the forces of academic freedom will not cower in the face of violent protestors.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @RepublicanPeter

The rest is here:
Founder calls Harvard free speech club an 'urgent necessity' - Campus Reform