FASCISTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

Poilievre promises to protect freedom of speech on campus, appoint a 'Free Speech Guardian'

Catherine Lévesque - National Post

The idea of withholding federal funds from universities in order to protect free speech on campus is not new.

Conservative leadership hopeful Pierre Poilievre is threatening to remove direct federal research and other grants from Canadian universities if they do not commit to protect academic freedom and free speech from “campus gatekeepers.”

If he forms government, Poilievre promises to appoint a former judge which will act as a “Free Speech Guardian” who will ensure that universities respect the principles enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular section 2(b) which protects “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.”

The former judge will be responsible for ensuring compliance by universities to these principles of academic freedom and free speech, but will also investigate claims of academic censorship.

Examples could include having pro-life or pro-Israel student groups cancel events or lose resources because of their different viewpoints, or having professors such as Jordan Peterson resign his post because of his “unacceptable philosophical positions” from his own account .


The “Free Speech Guardian” would be responsible for enforcing Poilievre’s policy by reporting to the federal government on universities’ breaches and for recommending reductions in direct federal grants to those that do not uphold the principles in the Charter. Federal-provincial transfers would not be affected by the free speech requirements.

Most support professor's use of racist language, in context: poll

U of T talk by anti-Israel activist tests Ontario’s campus free speech policy

There would, however, be limitations to Poilievre’s proposal. Hate speech will continue to be prohibited, as the courts have rules that it can be banned under the Charter.

“The Charter protects free speech, not hate speech, as explained by the Supreme Court of Canada. So does my academic freedom and free speech policy,” said Poilievre in a written statement to the National Post when asked for more specifics.

The idea of withholding federal funds from universities in order to protect free speech on campus is not new. In fact, former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer made this a promise during his own leadership campaign in 2017, and reiterated in his victory speech that “the foundation of our democracy is the ability to have a debate about any subject.”

But education remains a provincial jurisdiction and some provinces have already taken action to do just that.

In 2019, Ontario announced that all colleges and universities had developed, implemented and complied with a free speech policy while ensuring that hate speech and discrimination are not allowed on campus. Alberta also encouraged all publicly funded post-secondary institutions to adopt the Chicago Principles to encourage freedom of speech around that time.

More recently, Quebec adopted a law to enforce new rules around academic freedom across the province, ensuring that “any word” can be spoken in a university classroom as long as it is used in an academic context.

Quebec’s initiative was an indirect response to a University of Ottawa professor’s use of the N-word during a lecture that led to her suspension. The events played out differently in Ontario, where the province’s free speech policy had no effect, and in Quebec, where politicians of all stripes ran to the professor’s defence, invoking her right to use the derogatory word.

Poilievre’s campaign did not respond to followup questions regarding if his free speech policy would let a professor use the N-word in class for academic purposes.

Geneviève Tellier, a professor at the University of Ottawa who co-authored a book to denounce her colleague’s treatment at the time of her suspension, said that Ontario’s free speech policy was already in place when the events happened and did not change anything to the situation.

She seemed skeptical of Poilievre’s suggestion to have a national oversight, adding that it would only add another level of complexity.

“We already have a Free Speech Guardian. It’s the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” said Tellier in an interview. “And we have the judicial system. Do we need something else? In my opinion, it would only add another administrative burden.”

She also added that Poilievre seems to mix up freedom of speech and academic freedom, stressing that universities do not exist to advance different agendas, but to advance knowledge.

That being said, it came as no surprise to the professor of political studies why the leadership candidate would tap into that theme as part of his campaign.

“Because there’s the word freedom. His whole campaign is driven by freedom.”

Free expression is not in opposition to equality — it is essential to attain it, new book argues

 


Dilemmas of Free Expression, edited by University of Waterloo political scientist Emmett Macfarlane, is a new book that explores the contemporary issues surrounding free expression in Canada — issues that consistently make headlines in Canada, and abroad. This excerpt is an edited version of the introduction to the book, which is published by the University of Toronto Press.

Among the panoply of traditional civil rights, freedom of expression stands as the alpha and omega. Rights like the right to protest, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press quickly disintegrate into charred vessels absent the foundation provided by free expression.

Other rights, like the right to vote, similarly hinge on our ability to freely communicate, argue, debate, and advance ideas. And where would equality rights or other values related to the cultivation of a just society be without free expression?

As the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated in one of its earliest judgments under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “the freedom to express oneself openly and fully is of crucial importance in a free and democratic society,” and as such it is “an essential value of Canadian parliamentary democracy.”

The protection of free expression is integral, the Court outlines in another judgment, for seeking and attaining the truth, for participation in social and political decision making, and for “diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing.”

What, then, to make of a contemporary context in which free expression is seemingly under threat on a variety of fronts and in which public discourse around free speech itself appears increasingly polarized along ideological lines?

A gamut of political and social issues related to free expression demonstrate quite clearly that the limits of the right are no more easily identifiable now than they ever were. Some of this is the direct result of new challenges and technologies.

Aside from the plethora of substantive legal and policy issues at stake, one of the animating features of this collection is recognition that the quality of public debate around free expression has generally been poor, and that in the news and social media terrains it has felt very much like a pitched ideological battle.

On the far right, provocateurs seek to win a perverse form of free speech martyrdom when politicians, organizations, or university administrators overreact and censure or investigate controversial or discriminatory messages.

Notorious public figures like Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto professor who garnered media coverage after questioning whether human rights law would require him to use the preferred pronouns of trans people, and Ezra Levant, who was subject to complaints for publishing anti-Muslim cartoons, have developed a degree of fame for having been on the wrong end of attempts at censorship, be it by universities or human rights tribunals.

They have developed a fan base that treats them as champions of free speech, although caution is warranted when it comes to viewing their broader advocacy as genuine. It is not uncommon to see people of their ilk lash out at mere social criticism for their speech, or in some cases even call for, or engage in, attempts at censorship themselves.

There are, it sometimes seems, few principled commentators who speak out against censorship regardless of whether the content of the expression aligns with their ideological world views. I was one of those who spoke out when administrators and faculty at Wilfrid Laurier University famously hauled Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant, before them for questioning after she showed a tutorial group a clip (featuring Jordan Peterson) of TVO’s current affairs program The Agenda discussing the use of non-binary pronouns.

Yet it is also important to acknowledge how disingenuous and hateful some of the expression at the centre of these controversies can be. For example, the debates prompted by the Peterson and Shepherd incidents over the use of preferred pronouns of trans people call into question people’s very identities, and arguably their human dignity.

In some ways, understanding what prompted this debate is perplexing, because it evinces an unwillingness to treat people with basic respect (one honestly wonders when or how someone could be forced to use a particular pronoun to refer to someone rather than simply using their name – the controversy itself has an incredibly manufactured feel to it).

It is also a discourse filled with, to put it diplomatically, misleading statements about the law. Peterson, for example, mischaracterized a federal law (claiming the human rights legislation could send him to prison) that did not even apply to his situation as a university employee, where relevant provincial law, not federal, would apply.

Yet far-right discourse is not the only culprit degrading the quality of debates on free expression. Some self-styled progressives have contributed to the illiberal sentiment that the promotion of free speech is itself a nefarious thing. There are even efforts among some to equate speech with violence (something the Supreme Court has appropriately rejected).

Fundamental to this view is the idea that permitting the free expression of offensive or hateful views is antithetical to equality. Yet there seems to be little recognition that allowing for limits on offensive speech empowers some authority – be it the state, university administrators, or some other person in power – to draw lines of acceptability in a context where there will be widespread disagreement about what counts as hateful.

More fundamentally, the deleterious effects of weakening speech protections are just as likely to be turned against equity-seeking and historically oppressed groups than they are to work in their favour. It results in the sort of culture that spurred Dalhousie University to launch a disciplinary investigation against a student for the crime of speaking out against “white fragility” because other students found it offensive.

By setting free expression in opposition to equality, certain progressives forget that the fight for the latter is contingent on the former: free expression is what enables the calling out of white supremacy and racist policies, and it is of course core to the right to protest. In short, free expression is perhaps the most important tool in the arsenal for those who would fight on equality’s behalf.

Instead, from some progressive circles there is a knee-jerk desire to censor and sanction controversial, hateful, or otherwise offensive opinions and forms of speech. Beyond eroding a principle that equality seekers themselves depend on, this has also directly contributed to the martyrdom and rising profiles of people like Levant, and in so doing creates a broader political culture in which free speech is increasingly seen to be associated with the right wing of the ideological spectrum.

The tactic continuously backfires because its most common impact is to bring more media attention to the speaker and the offensive views that those trying to censor or deplatform wanted to quash in the first instance. More importantly, the belief that expression should be regulated on the basis of content implies that there are decision makers who can be trusted with the authority to decide what views are acceptable.

This is not a problem limited to speech deemed unlawful; it applies as much, if not more often, firmly within the boundaries of lawful speech. In 2017, Andrew Potter, then the director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada, penned an op-ed after a traffic jam on a Montreal highway left hundreds of people stranded in their cars overnight.

In his essay, Potter decried a “mass breakdown in the social order” and wrote that “Quebec is an almost pathologically alienated and low-trust society.” Political elites in Quebec, including Premier Philippe Couillard, condemned the op-ed. Potter soon “resigned.” If the Quebec establishment can exert enough pressure on McGill University that the institution would fire an established academic and writer like Potter over an allegedly offensive op-ed, why would we think individuals facing systemic forms of oppression would not be even more vulnerable to such tactics?

Indeed, we see across North America that it is not just far-right forms of expression resulting in rings and censorship on university campuses.

The public debate over free speech too often seems to boil down to the charge of “you can’t say that” or the defence of “my free speech.” There is no sense on one side that social criticism in the face of unpopular speech is free speech.

There is no sense on the other side that in a free and democratic society one must learn to live with the right of others to express themselves, not only in saying things you disagree with but also in saying things that might make you angry or sad. This is not an argument for free speech absolutism. Indeed, there is no such thing as a free speech absolutist.

Instead, any assessment of the legitimacy of particular restrictions on free expression depend on the purpose, context, and nature of the limit. In a free and democratic society, limits on speech should come with a high justificatory burden. When limits are established, and especially when those limits are not content-neutral, empowering state officials or similar actors to draw lines within the bounds of the law on the permissibility of certain forms of expression is an exercise fraught with difficulty.

This is true even when the purported aim of regulation is to enhance free expression. For example, the Province of Ontario recently mandated, under threat of funding cuts, that every publicly funded university and college develop a “free speech policy” based on the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression.

The move is designed to ensure that post-secondary institutions remain places for open discussion and free enquiry, that ideas and opinions not be censored based on their offensiveness, and that members of the community not be permitted to obstruct or interfere with the freedom of others to express their views.

On the surface, the free speech policy enacts basic rules any sensible university administration would already have in practice in order to protect free expression as a value concomitant with the university’s wider mission. Yet the policy has come under criticism for threatening free expression, particularly as it relates to an implicit desire to quash protests against controversial speakers.

Since peaceful protest itself is a protected form of expression, balancing the interests at stake is exceedingly difficult. When does a protest become so disruptive as to prevent the free expression of ideas by members or invitees of the university community? And why do we think university administrators – or the provincial government, for that matter – are capable of identifying that line?

What is needed are forward-looking appraisals of ways to confront challenging moral issues, policy problems, and controversies that pay heed to the fundamental right to free expression.

USC cancels graduation keynote by filmmaker amid controversy over decision to drop student’s speech



Students carrying signs protest a canceled commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians on the campus of University of Southern California on Thursday, April 18, 2024. USC was citing security concerns, in a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.

A Pro-Palestinian student places a sign on the Tommy Trojan statue on the campus of the University of Southern California during a protest against the 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum canceled commencement speech on Thursday, April 18, 2024. The University of Southern California canceled the commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians, citing security concerns, a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.

Pro-Palestinian students pose for photos in front of the Tommy Trojan statue on the campus of the University of Southern California during a protest of the 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum canceled commencement speech on Thursday, April 18, 2024. The University of Southern California canceled the commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians, citing security concerns, a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization.

Students protest a canceled commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians on the campus of University of Southern California on Thursday, April 18, 2024. The University of Southern California was citing security concerns, in a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization

Students hold up a photo of University of Southern California 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum in protest to her canceled commencement speech on the campus of University of Southern California on Thursday, April 18, 2024. The University of Southern California canceled the commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians, citing security concerns, a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization. 


Students hold up a photo of USC 2024 valedictorian Asna Tabassum in protest to her canceled commencement speech on the campus of University of Southern California, Thursday, April 18, 2024. The University of Southern California canceled the commencement speech by its 2024 valedictorian who has publicly supported Palestinians, citing security concerns, a rare decision that was praised by several pro-Israel groups and lambasted by free speech advocates and the country’s largest Muslim civil rights organization. 

(AP Photos/Damian Dovarganes)

April 19, 2024


LOS ANGELES (AP) — The University of Southern California further shook up its commencement plans Friday, announcing the cancelation of a keynote speech by filmmaker Jon M. Chu just days after making the controversial choice to disallow the student valedictorian from speaking.

The private university in Los Angeles on Monday said it was canceling valedictorian Asna Tabassum’s speech at the May 10 ceremony because of safety concerns. Tabassum, who is Muslim, has expressed support for Palestinians in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, and university officials said the response to her selection as valedictorian had “taken on an alarming tenor.” They did not cite any specific threats.

The university’s decision was met with praise from pro-Israel organizations but condemnation from free speech groups and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Students and faculty marched across campus Thursday in silent protest of the university’s decision.

Now, university officials say they are “redesigning” the entire commencement program.

“Given the highly publicized circumstances surrounding our main-stage commencement program, university leadership has decided it is best to release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony,” the university said in an unsigned statement posted Friday. “We’ve been talking to this exceptional group and hope to confer these honorary degrees at a future commencement or other academic ceremonies.”

Chu was slated to deliver the keynote address at the May 10 ceremony. He is a 2003 graduate of the university who has since directed films like “Crazy Rich Asians” and “Wicked,” an adaptation for the Broadway musical set for release last this year.

More than 65,000 people are expected to gather on campus for commencement, including 19,000 graduates.

“Although this should have been a time of celebration for my family, friends, professors, and classmates, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian voices have subjected me to a campaign of racist hatred because of my uncompromising belief in human rights for all,” Tabassum said in a statement earlier this week.

The Israel-Hamas war has presented a challenge for colleges under pressure to preserve free speech and open debate, and campuses are expected to be further tested as commencement speeches get underway in the coming weeks.

At Columbia University on Thursday, New York police removed a pro-Palestinian protest encampment and arrested more than 100 demonstrators. Most of them were charged with trespassing at the Ivy League-institution.

Several students involved in the protest said they also were suspended from Columbia and nearby Barnard College. The school said it was still identifying students involved in the protest and added more suspensions would be forthcoming.

“Students have a right to free speech but do not have a right to violate university policies and disrupt learning on campus,” said New York Mayor Eric Adams, who said the city was asked by university officials to remove the encampment.

USC Cancels Commencement Speakers Amid Valedictorian Controversy

Karen Breslau, Bloomberg News

A student at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles, California on March 11, 2020. Photographer: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP , Photographer: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP

(Bloomberg) -- The University of Southern California scrapped all outside speakers from its upcoming commencement ceremonies, following backlash over an earlier decision to cancel a speech by the Class of 2024’s valedictorian.

The announcement Friday afternoon came as protests escalated at the school’s campus in Los Angeles after school officials canceled an address by the student, Asna Tabassum, following complaints by a pro-Israel group that she had engaged in antisemitism in social media posts. 

“Given the highly publicized circumstances surrounding our main-stage commencement program, university leadership has decided it is best to release our outside speakers and honorees from attending this year’s ceremony,” the university said in a statement Friday. “It’s important that our full attention be on our remarkable graduates.”

On Monday, USC officials cited safety considerations in canceling Tabassum’s planned address. They denied that the decision was related to concerns over her social media posts criticizing Israel and supporting Palestinians. Tabassum, who is Muslim and of South Asian heritage, accused the university of abandoning her in a statement posted on the website of the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations. 

Read More: USC Bars Pro-Palestinian Valedictorian Speech, Citing Safety

A petition to reinstate Tabassum garnered 38,000 signatures, according to the student newspaper, the Daily Trojan, and hundreds of students attended campus protests over the decision. 

The keynote speaker at the May 10 ceremony in LA was to have been director Jon M. Chu, an alumnus whose film credits include Crazy Rich Asians. On Friday evening, Chu’s photo had been removed from the commencement website, and replaced with video of students in USC’s red and gold academic regalia.

The controversy at USC comes as part of a wave of unrest at US college campuses over the Israel-Hamas war and the limits of free speech. 

More than 100 students were arrested Thursday at Columbia University after school officials called in New York City police to clear a campus demonstration. Columbia’s president testified on Wednesday during a hearing by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about antisemitism on college campuses. 

In December, the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania resigned after testifying before the committee and failing to condemn without reservation antisemitic speech on campus.

Read More: Berkeley Professor Rattled by Antisemitism, Protest at His Home

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.

SEE 

Statement by University of Southern California Student Asna Tabassum, Class of 2024 Valedictorian

Opinion: When ‘free speech’ becomes a bully’s free pass

Opinion Yesterday 

Editor’s Note: Kara Alaimo, PhD, an associate professor of communication at Fairleigh Dickinson University, writes about issues affecting women and social media. Her book “Over the Influence: Why Social Media Is Toxic for Women and Girls — And How We Can Take It Back” will be published by Alcove Press in 2024. The opinions expressed in this commentary are her own. 

Read more opinion on CNN.

An inside look at the Supreme Court's swerve to the right

Duration 12:03  View on Watch

Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that makes it harder to hold people responsible for harassment. The court reversed the conviction of a man for stalking and inflicting “emotional distress” on singer Coles Whalen, finding that online harassment is protected by the First Amendment unless the perpetrator disregards a “substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”


Kara Alaimo - Courtesy Kara Alaimo© Provided by CNN

While the court may claim to be defending free speech by ruling that the threats were protected by the First Amendment, the decision is likely to have the opposite effect — it will censor and silence the victims of harassment.

Getting the balance right between free speech and protecting people from abuse is tricky, in court and beyond.

An example of how important it is to get it right occurred at the University of Chicago, where lecturer Rebecca Journey postponed teaching her course “The Problem of Whiteness” after a male student at the school, Daniel Schmidt, organized an online campaign targeting her.

Schmidt posted Journey’s photo and email address along with the claim that “anti-white hatred is now mainstream academic inquiry.” Afterward, Journey was deluged with hate emails, including one which said, “blow your head clean off.” Journey postponed the class, which Schmidt described on Twitter as a “huge victory.” When it was offered in March, the university had to hold it in an undisclosed location and implement additional security protocols.

So it’s clearly urgent for institutions to strike the right balance in protecting the free speech of critics without allowing them to chill the free speech of those with whom they disagree.

There are stark differences between the Supreme Court’s opining about the government’s ability to criminally prosecute people for harassment and a university, particularly a private one, making decisions when it comes to protecting its scholars or regulating student conduct. One does not directly affect or change the other; rather, both speak to a broader social problem that can’t be brushed away and forgotten by an appeal to the First Amendment: Too often, protecting free speech feels like a one-way street.

Schmidt’s actions here are neither comparable to those perpetrated in the case heard by the court nor should they be prosecutable, but the court’s opinion falls at a moment when universities (even private ones) are increasingly — and understandably — concerned about how the political climate outside their walls can impact policy choices they make.

The Supreme Court may have been trying to protect free speech by instituting a higher standard for someone to be punished for online harassment, but its recent ruling will do the reverse. It sends a symbolic message that protecting freedom of speech requires tolerating lower-level harassment speech, which often intimidates speakers into silencing themselves. So whose speech remains free? In my forthcoming book, I find that when women and girls are victims of online harassment, they often respond by censoring what they post and shuttering their social media accounts.

When that logic gets extended to campus life, what these kinds of so-called free speech policies really do is protect the speech of bullies, while inhibiting the ability of their victims to participate freely in public discourse without fear.

That’s why private institutions need policies that provide more protection than that offered by the court. The University of Chicago’s declaration of free speech principles, often referred to as the Chicago statement, has been used as a model for other schools. (This statement far predates the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, but it seems fair to say that proponents of the statement might see affirmation in how the court came down.)

Free speech is crucial to academic discourse, but something is wrong with a statement of “free speech” that allows courses to be censored due to online harassment of their instructors.

According to The New York Times, the University of Chicago dismissed a complaint made by Journey about Schmidt’s behavior. The university said privacy concerns precluded it from discussing the case but that it has policies against student “harassment, threats or other misconduct.” Schmidt, for his part, said he didn’t encourage anyone to harass Journey. But Journey pointed out that, because the university didn’t punish Schmidt, “there’s no deterrent effect.” She’s exactly right.

If the University of Chicago and other schools allow these kinds of campaigns against instructors, some professors — especially those without tenure — will avoid discussing critical topics such as race out of fear for their personal security and their careers.

The potential consequences of such threats were recently driven home when a professor and two students were stabbed in a class on gender at the University of Waterloo in Canada in an incident that police say was motivated by hate.

In my book, I argue that many of these kinds of real-world acts of violence are happening because the abuse against women that is tolerated online is reshaping our society’s views of appropriate behavior.

The Supreme Court’s newly declared permissiveness toward online harassment is only likely to embolden more of it. This makes it all the more critical for universities to try to play a role in teaching people how to engage in respectful debates.

But behavior like that of Schmidt does the opposite: It bullies people into silence. That’s why schools shouldn’t allow students to wage personal campaigns to intimidate their teachers.

Similarly, on my own course syllabi, I state that students cannot record or quote from class sessions without written permission. This ensures that students feel comfortable expressing their views — or talking through arguments they haven’t fully formed — without fear that they’ll be quoted by their classmates online and come under the same kind of attack as Journey. All universities should ensure that their faculty members are free to institute such policies, or consider blanket policies to this effect.

The Supreme Court and University of Chicago seem to be blind to the way that tolerating harassment often reduces the free expression of the victims of such abuse. But now that the court has weakened protections against harassment, it’s up to private universities to lead the way and institute policies that ensure all of us — not just bullies — feel free to debate our views.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

The War on Free Speech Is Really a War on the Right to Criticize the Government

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead / April 25th, 2023

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.

— Justice William O. Douglas

Absolutely, there is a war on free speech.

To be more accurate, however, the war on free speech is really a war on the right to criticize the government.

Although the right to speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom, every day in this country, those who dare to speak their truth to the powers-that-be find themselves censored, silenced or fired.

Indeed, those who run the government don’t take kindly to individuals who speak truth to power.

In fact, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

This is nothing new, nor is it unique to any particular presidential administration.

For instance, as part of its campaign to eradicate so-called “disinformation,” the Biden Administration likened those who share “false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information” to terrorists. This government salvo against consumers and spreaders of “mis- dis- and mal-information” widens the net to potentially include anyone who is exposed to ideas that run counter to the official government narrative.

In his first few years in office, President Trump declared the media to be “the enemy of the people,” suggested that protesting should be illegal, and that NFL players who kneel in protest during the national anthem “shouldn’t be in the country.”

Then again, Trump was not alone in his presidential disregard for the rights of the citizenry, especially as it pertains to the right of the people to criticize those in power.

President Obama signed into law anti-protest legislation that makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest activities (10 years in prison for protesting anywhere in the vicinity of a Secret Service agent). The Obama Administration also waged a war on whistleblowers, which The Washington Post described as “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration,” and “spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records.”

Part of the Patriot Act signed into law by President George W. Bush made it a crime for an American citizen to engage in peaceful, lawful activity on behalf of any group designated by the government as a terrorist organization. Under this provision, even filing an amicus brief on behalf of an organization the government has labeled as terrorist would constitute breaking the law.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the FBI to censor all news and control communications in and out of the country in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt also signed into law the Smith Act, which made it a crime to advocate by way of speech for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence.

President Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which made it illegal to criticize the government’s war efforts.

President Abraham Lincoln seized telegraph lines, censored mail and newspaper dispatches, and shut down members of the press who criticized his administration.

In 1798, during the presidency of John Adams, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish … any false, scandalous, and malicious” statements against the government, Congress or president of the United States.

Clearly, the government has been undermining our free speech rights for quite a while now.

Good, bad or ugly, it’s all free speech unless as defined by the government it falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, and solicitations to commit crimes.

This idea of “dangerous” speech, on the other hand, is peculiarly authoritarian in nature. What it amounts to is speech that the government fears could challenge its chokehold on power.

The kinds of speech the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation, prosecution and outright elimination include: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, left-wing speech, extremist speech, politically incorrect speech, etc.

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God (not the government) as the Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240-plus years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, John Adams and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself.

One such test is playing out before our very eyes on the national stage led by those who seem to believe that only individuals who agree with the government are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment.

To the contrary, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that the First Amendment was established to protect the minority against the majority.

I’ll take that one step further: the First Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry from the government’s tendency to censor, silence and control what people say and think.

Having lost our tolerance for free speech in its most provocative, irritating and offensive forms, the American people have become easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

Americans of all stripes would do well to remember that those who question the motives of government provide a necessary counterpoint to those who would blindly follow where politicians choose to lead.

We don’t have to agree with every criticism of the government, but we must defend the rights of all individuals to speak freely without fear of punishment or threat of banishment.

Never forget: what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

Tolerance for dissent is vital if we are to survive as a free nation.

While there are all kinds of labels being put on so-called “unacceptable” speech today, the real message being conveyed by those in power is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular, controversial or at odds with what the government determines to be acceptable.

By suppressing free speech, the government is contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Mind you, it won’t be long before anyone who believes in holding the government accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law is labeled an “extremist,” is relegated to an underclass that doesn’t fit in, must be watched all the time, and is rounded up when the government deems it necessary.

It doesn’t matter how much money you make, what politics you subscribe to, or what God you worship: as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are all potential suspects, terrorists and lawbreakers in the eyes of the government.FacebookTwitteRedditEmail

John W. Whitehead, constitutional attorney and author, is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He wrote the book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015). He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Read other articles by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

Half of Canadians believe social media has hurt open debate: Poll
Christopher Nardi 

POSTMEDIA

© Provided by National Post In this photo illustration a notification from Twitter appears on tweet by U.S. President Donald Trump that the social media platform says violated its policy on May 29, 2020 in San Anselmo, California.

OTTAWA – Half of all Canadians believe that social media has hurt open debate in the country, according to a new poll that reveals a stark generational and partisan divide on free speech.

The new Postmedia-Leger poll surveying Canadians on the state of free speech as the country gears up for an expected federal election found a large majority think that social media companies should be forced to monitor and remove content they consider hateful.

If anything, the poll — which surveyed 1,519 Canadians online between July 23 and 25 — shows that respondents hold divided (if not sometimes contradictory) views on the state of free speech in Canada and what should be done to address it.

For example, nearly half of all respondents (45 per cent) say that speech is more restrictive today that it was between five and 10 years ago. But a nearly equal part (38 per cent) believes the opposite, arguing that speech is even freer now than it was within the past decade.

The data also show that many Canadians are concerned about the future of free speech in the country, with 40 per cent saying they suspect it will be harder to speak freely on controversial topics within the next decade

.

“There’s a feeling amongst Canadians that … something’s being restricted a bit. Or that maybe sometimes the discussion can be a little bit one-sided,” says Andrew Enns, executive vice-president at Leger. “And if you put your hand up to offer a position on the other side, you can get into trouble.”

But when asked if any of a list of eight potentially controversial topics — such as abortion, Indigenous issues and reconciliation, racism or COVID-19 lockdown rules — was completely off the table for discussion in Canada, almost all respondents said no.

“None of these stood out as a real, ‘we can’t talk about it.’ People feel like it’s still reasonably tolerated to debate,” Enns said. “Many Canadians have this feeling that something’s not quite right when it comes to the open and free debate of controversial topics. But they’re not exactly sure where that’s happened.”

But free speech is “one of those hallmarks of what makes us kind of proud to be Canadian. And these findings didn’t strike me as a resounding affirmation of that,” Enns added.

Enns was surprised to see that no less than 50 per cent of Canadians believe that social media — meant to be a platform for the exchange of ideas and discussions — has in fact hurt open debate, not encouraged it.

Most Canadians now believe more regulation and policing is necessary when it comes to addressing online hate speech.

The poll shows that 69 per cent of Canadians believe social media companies should be forced to identify and remove hateful content, and 46 per cent of respondents say the federal government should have the power to determine what is hate speech and regulate it. The Liberal government proposed a series of controversial bills in the spring aiming to regulate programming distributed by media streaming services and social platforms online.

But a deeper dive into the poll results shows significant divides both along generational lines as well as the political spectrum.

For example, Canadians aged 35 years and older are both more likely to say that free speech is more restricted now than decade ago (49 per cent) and that social media has hurt open debate (55 per cent).

On the other hand, barely over one third of Canadians under 35 would agree to both those points.

Conservative party supporters are also much more pessimistic about the current state and future of free speech in Canada, according to poll data.

More than half of them believe that it will be harder to speak freely on controversial topics in five to 10 years from now, compared to 33 per cent for Liberal supporters and 30 per cent for New Democrats.

Six out of 10 Conservatives also believe that free speech is more restricted now compared to one decade ago. That’s significantly higher than the polling average of 45 per cent.

According to Enns, there are two major factors behind Conservative supporters’ results: the fact that they are generally slightly older voters, and the party’s aggressive messaging over the spring claiming the Liberals were attacking free speech with their bills regulating online content.

“I think that revved up some of the engines with respect to freedom of speech and the implications of this government’s legislation,” Enns said.

ANOTHER VICTIM OF POLICE BRUTALITY IWW FREE SPEECH FIGHT 1910

http://www.weneverforget.org/tag/james-p-thompson/

Hellraisers Journal: From the Industrial Worker: Spokane IWW Gives Impressive Farewell to Free Speech Fighter F. J. Ferry

18th April 2020 Janet Raye Free Speech Fights

———-

Hellraisers Journal – Monday April 18, 1910
Spokane, Washington – Impressive Funeral Honors Free Speech Martyr F. J. Ferry

From the Industrial Worker of April 16, 1910:

Once again the Grim Reaper Death has visited the ranks of the gallant band of men who valorously defended their principles during the recent Spokane free speech fight, and has claimed as its latest victim Fellow Worker F. J. Ferry, a member of L. U. No. 222.

Fellow Worker S. O. Chinn, the first martyr to Spokane police brutality, who died four weeks ago as a result of the hardships suffered in jail, was a young man not yet in the prime of life. He was a mere youth-the prospect of life stretched before him full of possibilities; he hadn’t begun to live yet. He had just started on “Life’s fitful dream” when he was cut off. He was out of place in this capitalistic world, as is every man of principle, so he had to be sacrificed. Not for him was the boon of life enjoyed by all animated nature; he was an intruder, a revolutionist; he interfered with the smooth working of the well-laid plan of the master class to hold the workers in subjection; his presence in life was a danger to their organized system of exploitation; therefore he, the merest stripling, with every natural right to life, was ruthlessly murdered.

In the mad career of the suicidal capitalist class, not only is the seed of the future society thus wantonly, but the old and storm-twisted oaks of the working class-men who have earned every right to peaceful old age-are also destroyed on the slightest pretext when the interest of the modern juggernaut demands it. Fellow Worker Ferry was an old man 62 years of age. He was a life-long veteran of the cruelest struggle in history-the struggle for existence in a capitalist society. Ever since early boyhood he has been robbed and abused by an insatiate parasite. In common with his fellow-slaves of the working class, he was denied the luxuries and necessaries that make life worth living. He was reduced to the condition of a machine, being given only enough of the product of his labor to simply keep life in his body. After many years of killing slavery as a baker, he became worn out and was cast aside to make room for a younger victim-like an old machine he was “scrapped.”

An old and battle-scarred victim of capitalism-deprived of home and family and all the natural attributes of a worthy old age-he earned his scanty living as best he could with seemingly no other goal in store for him than that of so many workers-an apologetic exit from life-a hurried trip to Potters’ Field.

But he became imbued with the philosophy of the new society; he joined the I. W. W.; he became a rebellious slave. For this he was made a social outcast-even more so than simply as a discarded slave-he became an object of loathing and hatred to his masters-a creature to be eradicated if possible.

Continue reading “Hellraisers Journal: From the Industrial Worker: Spokane IWW Gives Impressive Farewell to Free Speech Fighter F. J. Ferry”→

Hellraisers Journal: Fellow Worker Ferry is Second to Die Due to Brutal Treatment at Spokane’s Franklin School Prison

11th April 2020 Janet Raye Free Speech Fights

———-

Hellraisers Journal – Monday April 11, 1910
Spokane, Washington – FW Ferry Dead Due Brutal Treatment at Franklin School

From The Spokane Press of April 8, 1910:

—–

34 DAYS ON BREAD THE CAUSE
—–

F. FERRY, AN INVALID AFTER JAIL EXPERIENCE,
SUCCUMBS TO PNEUMONIA.
—–

Another death is chargeable to the brutality of the system of Chief of Police John Sullivan and the members of the Spokane police department.

Another agonizing face will await the coming of these men in the Great Beyond, where they will face the responsibility that they so shrewdly shift here below, in the name of the majesty of the law.

The latest victim of police inhumanity to man is an aged man named F. Ferry, a resident of Spokane for years, who died last night at the Spokane general hospital, Third and Washington, following a brief but deadly attack of pneumonia.

—–

Ferry took part in the free speech fight last fall and was among the first arrested and sent to the Franklin school. There, by order of chief Sullivan, he was placed on bread and water for 34 days and left the prison a physical wreck. He has since been an invalid, unable to work, and barely able to crawl around. Wednesday night he took suddenly sick with pneumonia, which found in his worn and emaciated body an easy victim, and all that medical science could do to save him was of no avail.

True, Ferry was an I. W. W. Yet he was an American citizen, a resident of Spokane for many years, whose only offense was that he thought the right of free speech should be accorded his fellow workingmen. He was a quiet, inoffensive man, past 60 years of age, and even in a Russian prison his gray hairs would have been respected and less harsh treatment shown than was manifested by the cowardly police force of Spokane.

Continue reading “Hellraisers Journal: Fellow Worker Ferry is Second to Die Due to Brutal Treatment at Spokane’s Franklin School Prison”→

Hellraisers Journal: From the Industrial Worker: Funeral of S. O. Chinn, Spokane Free Speech Martyr, Largely Attended

8th April 2020 Janet Raye Free Speech Fights

———-

Hellraisers Journal – Friday April 8, 1910
Spokane, Washington – S. O. Chinn Gets Grand I. W. W. Send-Off

From the Industrial Worker of April 2, 1910:

—–

CHINN’S FUNERAL LARGELY ATTENDED
—–
Many Watch Procession on Riverside Avenue
-Strains of the Marseillaise Heard-I. W. W.
Members Who Attend Funeral Wear Red Neckties.
—–

Funeral services for S. O. Chinn, age 27, which were held from the I. W. W. hall proved a magnate as the procession of men, women and children following the hearse and the brass band moved down Riverside Avenue. The last tribute was paid by James Thompson, national organizer of the Industrial Workers at the I. W. W. Hall at 616 Front Avenue, in which he declared that the man had given his life in the interest of the working class.

Three hundred Fellow Workers packed the hall to capacity and after the services followed the hearse and band to Riverside Avenue and Monroe Street, from which point the hearse and pall bearers proceeded to Greenwood cemetery, where Chinn was buried. The casket was draped with the flag of the organization of which Chinn was a member and an officer. Chinn came to Spokane last fall to participate in the free speech fight. His home was originally at Hutchinson, Kansas.

The funeral proceedings attracted a great deal of attention. Before the hearse walked four officers of the I. W. W. with red neckties and red badges of the organization in their buttonholes, while the band before pealed out the martial strains of the “Marseillaise.” Stretching behind for four or five blocks marched the members of the organization, who came out to pay their last respects to the man that had sacrificed his life for the cause of  Free Speech.

 Continue reading
http://www.weneverforget.org/hellraisers-journal-from-the-industrial-worker-funeral-of-s-o-chinn-spokane-free-speech-martyr-largely-attended/#more-14037
“Hellraisers Journal: From the Industrial Worker: Funeral of S. O. Chinn, Spokane Free Speech Martyr, Largely Attended”

Twitter takeover

Waqqas Ahmad Mir

Published April 30, 2022 

The writer is a lawyer in Pakistan.

TWITTER is, in Elon Musk’s words, the ‘de facto public town square’. Should we worry it is now owned by the world’s richest man? This takeover has important implications for how we think about free speech, our discourse and independence of publication platforms from powerful owners.

There is consensus that newspaper owners should not be able to control or stifle editorial independence. Twitter’s model presents a twist: there is no buffer of an editorial board and everyone has their say. With more than 80 million followers, Musk can exert significant influence. A lot of people seem to think Musk owning Twitter means he will likely not be censored. He can promote viewpoints or ridicule at will. This is a credibility issue and if Twitter’s policies are applied in shadowy ways, it will become harder to believe in Musk’s proclaimed ‘pathological’ obsession with the truth.

While Musk should continue to receive scrutiny, his ownership of Twitter need not lead to assumptions about misuse of position. Him picking on certain Twitter employees (including the woman who heads Twitter’s legal department) does little to assuage concerns about bad behaviour, yet hurting a platform’s credibility after buying it would not make business or strategic sense.

He does want to influence Twitter’s content regulation. He has no issues being called a ‘free speech absolutist’; no one has ever been able to give a coherent description of what the term means. And his approach to content issues (if in doubt, let the tweet stay) doesn’t take us very far.

Musk needs to be bold to protect the vulnerable.

Marginalised groups and citizens face severe abuse, harassment and threats on Twitter. Relaxing content control could risk alienating many. Musk recently said by ‘free speech’ he means speech allowed by the law. The law in that reference is the First Amendment, which determines restrictions on state action interfering with speech. A private corporation is free to consider different standards. For a marketplace of ideas to exist, he needs to ensure people want to come to the market. Content regulation is something where Musk may have to continue to defer to experts and inclusive processes.

Encouragingly, Musk has promised he will take on spam bots. This will aid free speech and his aim to authenticate all humans on Twitter will add to the platform’s credibility.

Musk reckons Twitter’s algorithms should be open source, so people can learn and suggest improvements. Different users may be able to rely on different algorithms. This will sound revolutionary to some — and will spark worry in others who may cite issues involving the lay user’s limitations about choices of algorithms, issues around intellectual property protection, implications for the revenue stream, etc. The issue nonetheless is compelling. Consider another position Musk has articulated: if Twitter promotes or demotes your tweet, you should be able to tell.

As opposed to bans, Musk reckons ‘time outs’ backed by transparency might work better. Everyone is allowed back in the room if they behave themselves — yes, even Donald Trump.

If Twitter aims to build more trust between governments and the people, Musk is saying that enhancing the public’s trust through transparency in Twitter itself is necessary.

While advocating free speech, Musk also said Twitter should obey laws of the countries it operates in. Is this a contradiction? Twitter’s value exists in being able to broadcast and amplify speech that challenges — sometimes violates — restrictive free speech laws in many countries where it operates. Following the laws of countries could mean voices of dissidents and human rights defenders are marginalised. This will be music to the ears of almost all governments. No doubt compliance is prudent business but when celebrating speech, Musk needs to be bold to protect the vulnerable.

None of this should obscure the fact that banks do not agree to lend billions for free speech. Twitter will undergo important changes. Musk might take it from an ad-based revenue model to a paid subscription leading to a ‘blue tick’. Then there is the ‘edit’ button he has mentioned — who doesn’t want that? He has spoken of end-to-end encryption on Twitter and enhancing it as a communication medium.

This takeover is a reminder of the power of corporations — indeed, even of one rich man — but there is something more at stake. Ultimately, if we care about free speech, we the people have to prioritise it in our politics and discourse. A corporation or those controlling it cannot always be held accountable like a government. But our collective and diverse voices can and do change how governments, and ultimately even corporations, act. Musk’s burning ambition has started off another conversation — we are all better off for it — but he need not be the one controlling the discourse. That is how politics works and this is an algorithm we figured out long before Twitter.


Twitter @wamwordoflaw
Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2022