Tag: 1st amendment

Students Sue Indiana University Over “Bias Incident” Reporting System

Following our recent reporting about the rise of “bias incident” reporting systems on college campuses, threatening free speech, Speech First has filed a lawsuit against Indiana University and several of its officials, challenging the university’s bias incidents policy. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the policy infringes on students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Speech First, a nationwide membership organization dedicated to preserving civil rights and free speech, claims that Indiana University’s “bias incident” policy stifles open discourse and chills protected speech. The policy defines a bias incident as “any conduct, speech, or expression, motivated in whole or in part by bias or prejudice meant to intimidate, demean, mock, degrade, marginalize, or threaten individuals or groups based on that individual or group’s actual or perceived identities.”

According to the complaint, this broad and vague definition allows the university to police a wide range of speech, deterring students from expressing controversial or unpopular opinions. The policy’s enforcement mechanisms include tracking and logging incidents, investigating reports, and potentially referring students for disciplinary action.

Keep reading

No diploma: Colleges withhold degrees from students after pro-Palestinian protests

Graduation is an important moment for many Americans. More than just pomp and circumstance, the ceremonies mark when students are handed the most coveted testimonial in academic life: A diploma.

But for some college students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests, campus activism has cost them their degrees – at least for a while.

“Four years and just a criminal record, nothing else,” said Youssef Hasweh, one of four students at the University of Chicago who have had their degrees withheld pending an investigation into a protest encampment. “A decade of (high school and college) work down the toilet because I decided to express my free speech.”

Students being denied conferment – some of whom have faced arrests, expulsions, suspensions and other disciplinary action – say they’re in limbo and are being made into examples. As they await appeals processes and the results of university investigations, they’re preparing for an uncertain future. In the worst-case scenario, they’ll be saddled with debt and will have no degree to show for it.

But while the stakes are high, they told USA TODAY that none of them regret their part in campus protests over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

“I have these punishments and have to work through this stress, but it’s incomparable to the plight of Palestinians,” said Devron Burks, a Vanderbilt student who was arrested and expelled following the occupation of a campus building. “I don’t regret it, and I don’t think I ever will.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court sides with NRA in free speech case against ex- New York official

The Supreme Court on Thursday backed the National Rifle Association in a First Amendment ruling that will make it harder for state officials to put pressure on advocacy groups.

The decision means the NRA may sue a former New York official, Maria Vullo, who pressed banks as well as insurance companies to stop associating with the NRA after a 2018 mass shooting at a Parkland, Florida, according to CNN.

Keep reading

Biden’s Bold Move to Combat AI Abuse Stirs Surveillance and Censorship Fears

The Biden administration is pushing for sweeping measures to combat the proliferation of nonconsensual sexual AI-generated images, including controversial proposals that could lead to extensive on-device surveillance and control of the types of images generated. In a White House press release, President Joe Biden’s administration outlined demands for the tech industry and financial institutions to curb the creation and distribution of abusive sexual images made with artificial intelligence (AI).

A key focus of these measures is the use of on-device technology to prevent the sharing of nonconsensual sexual images. The administration stated that “mobile operating system developers could enable technical protections to better protect content stored on digital devices and to prevent image sharing without consent.”

This proposal implies that mobile operating systems would need to scan and analyze images directly on users’ devices to determine if they are sexual or non-consensual. The implications of such surveillance raise significant privacy concerns, as it involves monitoring and analyzing private content stored on personal devices.

Additionally, the administration is calling on mobile app stores to “commit to instituting requirements for app developers to prevent the creation of non-consensual images.” This broad mandate would require a wide range of apps, including image editing and drawing apps, to scan and monitor user activities on devices, analyze what art they’re creating and block the creation of certain kinds of content. Once this technology of on-device monitoring becomes normalized, this level of scrutiny could extend beyond the initial intent, potentially leading to censorship of other types of content that the administration finds objectionable.

The administration’s call to action extends to various sectors, including AI developers, payment processors, financial institutions, cloud computing providers, search engines, and mobile app store gatekeepers like Apple and Google. By encouraging cooperation from these entities, the White House hopes to curb the creation, spread, and monetization of nonconsensual AI images.

Keep reading

A Brutal Suppression of Speech

Denial of civil liberties, accompanied by punishment for anybody who exposes those violations, has become commonplace in contemporary America.

Yet, nothing that the nation has experienced — and that the more discerning protest — prepared us for the grotesque spectacle on display in the brutal suppression of free speech on university campuses. 

What we witness is the iron fist of autocracy employed to intimidate, to hurt, to deter those who would question — however peaceably — the right of the powers-that-be to impose their confected version of the truth on the public. Moreover, it is grounded on an arbitrary assumption of power having no basis in law or customary practice.

Two singular features of this situation focus our attention. First, there is the stunning near unanimity of agreement by all segments of society’s elites on the rightness of the ruling narrative — and on the actions they take to enforce it. 

That is to say:

1) casting the issue as the dangerous radicalization of students by nefarious forces;

2) smearing demonstrators as “anti-Semites” — despite the large numbers of Jewish participants;

3) blanking out any reference to the cause and motivations of the protest: Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians; and

4) the need to crack down hard on these seditious students — physically by rioting police, and administratively by summary expulsions and suspensions without a semblance of due process.

These assertions emanate from the mouths of elected officials, police commissioners, media personalities, pundits and — most distressing — university presidents as well as boards of regents and trustees. 

Keep reading

‘Indefensible’: Courts finally scrutinize COVID vaccine mandates as religious infringement

Three years after COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to adults – at which point the CDC already knew they couldn’t stop transmission – courts are finally starting to put their foot down on the most basic legal question: Are mandates at least applied fairly, if not scientifically?

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not only knocked down the University of Colorado medical school’s original and revised 2021 mandates for discriminating against employees seeking religious exemptions, but knocked the trial judge for “abuse of discretion” by reversing the burden of proof to moot the case.

The Anschutz campus, whose dental school recently created a diversity, equity and inclusion award, made an early pivotal decision on COVID vaccine mandates by scrutinizing the content as well as sincerity of beliefs among employees and students seeking exemptions.

“The Administration’s September 1 Policy is not neutral on its face; the September 24 Policy is not neutral in practice; and both substantially burden” the religious exercise of the anonymous 11 female and six male plaintiffs, according to the majority opinion by Judge Allison Eid, who replaced Neil Gorsuch when President Trump appointed him to the Supreme Court.

“It is manifestly unreasonable to think” the Sept. 24 policy “would reach precisely the same results … by accident,” Eid wrote. “The Administration had spent weeks or months drafting and implementing a policy hostile toward and discriminatory against certain religions, only to adopt a new, purportedly neutral policy that reached precisely the same results.”

University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Vinay Prasad celebrated the ruling for recognizing CU Anschutz administrators “set an indefensible policy,” while the plaintiffs’ lawyers at the Thomas More Society thanked the court for recognizing the university’s “value judgments … reeked of religious bigotry” and violated constitutional rights and “basic decency.”

The ruling is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s narrow finding against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “official expressions of hostility to religion” when it punished Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips for declining to make custom wedding cakes for gay couples based on his Christian view of marriage.

In the private sector, a high-profile vaccine mandate lawsuit by an actor fired from the Fox show “911” is heading to trial over whether Disney-owned 20th Television trampled Rockmond Dunbar’s views as a follower of the Church of Universal Wisdom, which The New York Times profiled in 2003 for its utility in circumventing childhood vaccination mandates.

“It appears that Disney vetted exemption applications on a case-by-case basis, investigating whether the religions constituted true religious institutions and whether applicants actually followed the beliefs,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep reading

Julian Assange Granted Right to Appeal Extradition to U.S. Over First Amendment Questions

Julian Assange can file an appeal by Friday to fight his extradition to the United States, according to a new ruling from a British court on Monday. The decision, first reported by the New York Times, comes as Assange sits in a London prison over computer hacking and espionage charges first brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump.

Assange’s right to fight his extradition comes down to fundamental questions about how the 52-year-old WikiLeaks co-founder would be treated in prison if he was actually extradited to the U.S. to face federal charges. One early British court ruling in 2021 noted that the U.S. prison system allows the use of solitary confinement, largely considered torture by other wealthy countries. It was on that basis the court initially denied the extradition to the U.S., though that was reversed by a higher court a year later.

The British court also noted U.S. law allows the death penalty for espionage, another practice seen as barbaric by many people in the rest of the world. Even so, Assange’s efforts to appeal his extradition had been denied until Monday’s ruling. Another issue central to the extradition fight is whether Assange can claim protections under the First Amendment since he’s an Australian citizen.

Keep reading

University of Colorado Vaccine Mandate “Motivated by Religious Animus” and “Unconstitutional”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a ruling that the University of Colorado Anschutz School Medicine’s refusal to allow religious exemptions to its COVID-19 vaccine mandate was “motivated by religious animus” and unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Religious Clauses.

The Court ruled that the University’s vaccine mandates granted “exemptions for some religions, but not others, because of differences in their religious doctrines” and granted “secular exemptions on more favorable terms than religious exemptions.” Both of these things were illegal.

The Court reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that government cannot test the sincerity of employees’ religious beliefs.

The University’s mandates violated “clearly established” constitutional rights, the court held.

The 55-page ruling, issued on 7 May, was a reversal of a previous lower-court decision.

The appeal was filed in March 2022 by the Thomas More Society on behalf of 17 faculty and students who claimed that the university refused to respect their religious objections to taking the vaccine.

Keep reading

The Israel lobby is First Amendment’s “principal enemy,” former senior diplomat warns

Amid pro-Palestinian demonstrations condemning Israel’s genocidal acts in Gaza, the Antisemitism Awareness Act was passed in Congress. For former Ambassador of the United States to Saudi Arabia Chas W. Freeman Jr., the Israel lobby that pushed for the legislation is the “principal enemy” of the First Amendment.

The act passed in Congress by a vote of 320 in favor and 91 against. The bill would mandate that the Department of Education adopt the broad definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an intergovernmental group, to enforce anti-discrimination laws.

This would also strengthen the crackdown efforts on nationwide university protests. The proposal first defines antisemitism and then gives the Education Department the ability to suspend funding if it determines a school does not act against students who violate that definition. Once passed and rolled out, it will give the department new tools to threaten or punish schools that don’t take the department’s definition of antisemitism seriously.

The bill is seen by Freeman as another attempt to suppress denouncement of Israel’s genocidal attacks in Gaza.

“The principal enemies of the First Amendment in recent years have been… the Israel lobby,” he said in a May 4 “Dialogue Works” interview. “Basically, they have tried to prohibit any speech opposed to the state of Israel.”

He also pointed out that the redefinition of “antisemitism” conflates opposition to the mass killing and starvation of civilians with an irrational hatred of Jews. “Anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Zionism and people who object to genocide or the conduct of that by a foreign government cannot be called antisemitic,” he said.

Keep reading

Banning TikTok isn’t the flex proponents think it is

TikTok and its parent company ByteDance this week sued to block a new law banning the social media app, claiming it is unconstitutional because it infringes upon Americans’ right to free speech and prevents access to lawful information.

The law, passed in April, would ban TikTok in the U.S. if ByteDance does not liquidate its American assets within nine to 12 months — citing national security concerns about the app. National security has been at the forefront of U.S. bans on Chinese tech, such as the ban on selling telecom equipment and services from Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese providers.

Another concern about TikTok — data privacy and security — is not entirely unfounded, as about 150 million Americans use it. However, China does not need apps like TikTok to collect that data. U.S. consumer data can be bought on the open market from data brokers, including precise location and financial transaction data. Even the U.S. National Security Agency has leveraged data brokers to collect Americans’ data. Anonymized data is also not the fail-safe measure that it is touted to be, as it can be de-anonymized using data that is not considered personally identifiable, like sex, ZIP code, and birthdate. In some ways, TikTok even collects less private information than Meta. In short, TikTok is no more a unique threat to data privacy and security than are data brokers and other American social media sites.

Banning TikTok or any other Chinese business in the U.S. won’t protect U.S. citizens’ data from exploitation. The sheer profitability of U.S. citizens’ data for businesses — both buyers and sellers – is undergirded by the lack of protections for collecting data or compensating individuals for their data. Solving this problem eventually would require federal-level, comprehensive data privacy and protection regulations. Without such regulation, there is little incentive for social media companies — Chinese or not — to responsibly buy, sell, collect, or otherwise exploit user data. If the U.S. government’s goal is to protect private American citizens’ data to enhance national security, then it must legislate acceptable limits on the exploitation of Americans’ data, perhaps even following a framework like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Some believe that banning TikTok and other Chinese apps in the United States could force China to provide more equitable access to the Chinese market and put pressure on China to change unfair business practices towards foreign firms, like intellectual property theft, opaque subsidization and preferential treatment, raids, and fines. These inequities have long been a major concern and subject of high-level conversations between U.S. and Chinese officials. However, the U.S. bans on Chinese businesses so far appear to have neither compelled Chinese businesses nor the Chinese government to change their behaviors, instead spurring them to reduce reliance on the U.S. market and focus on exploring alternative markets.

Keep reading