The FIRE website discusses a “hate speech” policy being considered by a Wisconsin school district. It’s outrageous even among current attempts to stifle speech. Here’s the draft policy for the Baraboo school district, so you don’t have to take FIRE’s word for it.
It starts with the favorite lie of censorship advocates: “Hate speech is not protected speech.” It invents an exception to the First Amendment out of whole cloth.
(more…)
On September 17, 2024, Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote wore pink armbands with an “XX” on them to a game as a protest against the Bow, New Hampshire school district’s transgender policies. They did not interfere with the game, annoy the players, or do anything else. However, the school officials didn’t like the protest, so they called it “harassment” and issued an order banning the two from subsequent games. This was a classic violation of First Amendment rights, and the two took the town to court. United States District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe has overturned the ban, though for the present they may not wear the armbands at the games.
(more…)
Legislation all over the USA is attacking freedom to communicate over the Internet. Some states have enacted age-verification requirements that endanger anonymous speech and limit minors’ access to information they may urgently need. Others are enacting bans on “deceptive” information, leaving open the questions of just what will be deemed deceptive and how people can defend themselves against such claims. An example of the latter is California’s AB 2655, recently signed into law. FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition have issued statements against it, while left-wing media sites have often been sympathetic. I posted earlier about how AP gave Harris’s call for “oversight” and “regulation” of websites as merely wanting “increased accountability.”
(more…)
Freedom of speech has a cultural dimension as well as a legal one. Legally, it means that the government must not punish people for their expression, except when it violates the rights of others (e.g., clear threats). Cultural respect for free speech is also important. Where it exists, people have room to express their opinions, even when most people disapprove of them. If it goes away, legal protections for free speech are likely to follow.
Cultural freedom of speech doesn’t mean an obligation to grant a platform or to refrain from criticism. The best way to describe it is going after ideas rather than people when possible. Saying that an idea is horrible is one thing. Saying that the person who said it horrible is a stronger charge and can do more damage. This doesn’t mean we should never condemn people for what they say, but it should be reserved for the most serious cases.
(more…)
In an article attempting to show that Kamala Harris didn’t call for shutting down X, an AP “Fact Focus” article inadvertently shows that she is an advocate of censorship. (As is Trump, but that’s for a different article.) It shows that a particular claim — that an old video by Harris “has threatened to censor both X and Musk” — is inaccurate, but it uses this to cast a shade over the fact that Harris has called for censorship of social media. The article goes on to quote that call verbatim:
The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.