Tag: free speech

The Folly of Criminalizing “Hate”

Many people were shocked when over 1,000 protesters were arrested in the UK and jailed for various offenses including “violent disorder” and stirring up racial hatred. Most shocking were the cases of those arrested for posting social media comments on the riots, despite not being present at the scene and there being no evidence that anybody who joined in the riots had read any of their comments.

In societies which uphold the value of individual liberty, the only purpose of the criminal law should be to restrain and punish those who commit acts of aggression against other people or their property. The criminal law should not be used to prevent people from “hating” others or to force them to “love” each other. In announcing yet another raft of laws “to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes,” New York Governor Kathy Hochul said that “During these challenging times, we will continue to show up for each other. We are making it clear: love will always have the last word in New York.” To that end, she introduced “legislation to significantly expand eligibility for hate crime prosecution.”

Attempts to promote love between different racial or religious groups in society, for example, by charging people with stirring up “hate” when they protest against immigration, misunderstands the role of the criminal law. Threats to public order entail violating the person or property of others—as happens in a violent riot—not merely the exhibition of “hate” towards others. Yet increasingly, public order offenses are linked to hate speech or hate crimes.

Laws prohibiting hate speech and hate crimes typically define “hate” as hostility based on race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Often, hostility is understood simply as words that offend others. For example, in the UK, the Communications Act 2003 prohibits sending “a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” The Online Safety Act 2023 targets illegal content online including both “inciting violence” and the publication of “racially or religiously aggravated public order offenses.” Conduct online includes writing posts or publishing blogs or articles on websites.

Given that inciting violence is already a crime—“conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection”—there seems to be no discernible purpose in adding the concept of “hate” to such crimes. To give an example, writing “burn down the store” on social media might be seen as inciting violence, but writing “burn down the Muslim store” in the same circumstances would be categorized as a hate crime. Arson (actually burning down the store) is a crime, but based on the racial or religious identity of the store owner arson is deemed to be a “worse” crime—a hate crime—even though the harm in both cases and the loss suffered by store owners who are victims of arson does not vary based purely on their race or religion.

Keep reading

UN Secretary-General António Guterres Complains About “Misinformation” and “Hate Speech,” Calls for “Effective Governance”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has managed to work fearmongering over the perceived proliferation of misinformation, hate speech, and deepfakes into his message issued on the occasion of the upcoming International Day of Democracy.

Not only that but as far as the UN is concerned, this year’s Day of Democracy is focused on – of all things – (at this point in time, upcoming at some later point in time) artificial intelligence (AI).

Though the press release might look like a “politically correct word salad,” it does show a purpose – and that’s pressing for global AI regulation.

The way is, perpetuating the fear that AI, such as it is today, is truly a possible threat to “democracy, peace, and stability.”

According to the UN website, Guterres took this opportunity to frame the problem of erosion of free speech, civil liberties, rule of law, and diminishing trust (ostensibly in legacy media and institutions) as the consequence of that “proliferation of harm.”

The Guterres statement starts off reasonably enough: on International Day of Democracy, these now-under-threat values are the ones that need to be promoted.

But then he descends into explaining why that is by parroting what has been heard a myriad times thus far from many governments and global political and business elites.

For example, what makes free speech so fragile these days? Censorship? Government censorship? And by the same token, is that what’s burdening civil rights in general?

Guterres appears to believe – no. It’s all somehow revolving around “AI” and specifically how to control it – as “a tool for good governance.”

The UN, born after the devastation of the Second World War as a forum to make sure that never repeats, has been losing in influence over the past decade in particular.

Keep reading

University of California Rolls Out New Free Speech Policies To Curtail Pro-Palestine Protests on Campus

The term ‘Orwellian’ is rapidly losing its gravitas with how often we make recourse to it in trying to explain global society’s piecemeal tumble into neofascism (same as the old fascism), but a recent batch of policy changes at the University of California, Los Angeles, rolling out this fall in retaliation for students and faculty’s pro-Palestine, anti-genocide protests last spring, truly deserves the epithet.

Reeling in the wake of frequent anti-genocide protests, rallies, and marches last year, the occupation of Royce Quad by a pro-Palestine student encampment in April, and three major graduate student strikes since 2019 (this one, which was at UC Santa Cruz but threatened credibly to spread to UCLA, this one, and the most recent one), UCLA administration is scrambling to enact new campus-wide policies aimed at preventing student movements, activism, protests, and other forms of free expression and free association from taking place on campus, which is public land owned by the State of California.

The most desperate change takes the form of sweeping updates to the (also Orwellian-sounding) Time, Place, and Manner Policies, reported on today by the student paper, the Daily Bruin. Under the new regulations, campus administration redefines “​​publicly accessible spaces” (on a publicly-owned campus on public land with no gates or physical barriers to entry from the street) to include just two locations: a thin strip of walkway known as Bruinwalk, colloquially known by some as “the gauntlet” of leafletters, solicitors, canvassers, and undergraduate clubs seeking to boost their membership; and the area outside Murphy Hall, the main administrative building on campus. According to Daily Bruin, “Separate rules exist for events that receive administration approval 10 days in advance,” such as marches, rallies, and using a megaphone. Other heinous acts that students are no longer allowed to commit include ordering food delivery between midnight and 6a.m., walking outside during the same timeframe, and refusing to identify oneself to campus staff.

Next, a new, ironically stupid “Workplace Violence Prevention Plan” that is to be imposed on all campus employees this fall could have been in the works since before the pro-Palestine spring uprising, but the timing of its release is at best pure bureaucratic tone deafness and at worst another mechanism designed to clamp down on freedom of speech and association on campus. This is especially true because in the legal code to which it refers, ‘violence’ is defined broadly to include threats that result in ‘psychological trauma’. No matter what the boomers say, mental trauma is a genuine form of harm, so there is no issue there. The problem here, as with many of the University of California’s reactionary new policies, lies in the potential for – the likelihood of – selective enforcement. Furthermore, the concept of psychological harm was weaponized by Zionist counterprotesters last spring, led by their on-campus posterboy, who actively antagonized peaceful anti-genocide protesters and then was quoted in this Times of Israel article saying the encampment made him feel ‘not safe’.

Keep reading

Tony Blair Calls for Global Agreement on Social Media Speech Restrictions

Fresh off the crackdown on so-called “keyboard warriors” over social media posts connected to the recent anti-mass migration riots, leading leftist politicians in Britain are beginning to demand for new speech restrictions on the internet.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose neo-liberal Labour Party government enacted some of the strictest speech laws in modern British history, has joined the chorus of commentators demanding a new crackdown on social media.

Speaking to LBC Radio this week, Blair said: “The world is going to have to come together and agree on some rules around social media platforms.

“It’s not just how people can provoke hostility and hatred but I think… the impact on young people particularly when they’ve got access to mobile phones very young and they are reading a whole lot of stuff and receiving a whole lot of stuff that I think is really messing with their minds in a big way.

“I’m not sure what the answer is but I’m sure we need to find one.”

Keep reading

Bill Gates Laments First Amendment Strength on “Misinformation,” Advocates For Digital ID

Microsoft Founder Bill Gates has voiced concerns about the intersection between technology and speech, particularly criticizing the limitations he perceives the First Amendment’s free speech protections impose on combating online “misinformation.”

Gates erroneously cited the example that shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is an exception to free speech protections, a misrepresentation that has been clarified legally over time to be more nuanced in its application.

The technology magnate is grappling with what he believes to be the threats of misinformation and the technological phenomena of deepfakes.

In his discussions, particularly highlighted in an upcoming Netflix series and through dialogue with Stanford experts, Gates advocates for digital IDs to verify online identities to help curb this “misinformation.”

The Gates Foundation has donated money to digital ID projects in the past, using parts of Africa as a testing ground.

Gates’ proposed approach ostensibly aims to curb the spread of fake content and ensure that only verified individuals can publish information which means that online content can be matched to real-life identities.

However, this raises significant concerns about privacy and the potential for excessive surveillance and control over digital spaces, something Gates has never been too keen to defend.

“The US is a tough one because we have the notion of the First Amendment and what are the exceptions like yelling ‘fire’ in a theater,” Gates explained, as reported by CNET.

Gates’ commentary on the First Amendment, using the flawed “fire in a theater” analogy suggests a readiness to dilute foundational free speech principles to implement digital solutions.

Keep reading

Bill Gates’ “Unsolvable Problem” Is Free Speech

Bill Gates recently said that the biggest “unsolvable” problem facing young people is free speech. Of course, he complains that it’s “misinformation” online, but we all know by now that nomenclature is used to rail against speech the ruling class doesn’t like.

Misinformation is the buzzword the ruling class uses to lament that the slaves use free speech, and won’t stay in line parroting their official narrative. It is becoming more common, according to NBC News. Apparently,  technological advances like artificial general intelligence chatbots make it easier to generate and spread falsehoods quickly and the rulers really don’t like that information is going against their control scheme.

In fact, hilariously, “AI-generated misinformation” was named as the top global risk of the next two years in a World Economic Forum survey in January. Fifty-five percent of Americans said the U.S. government and tech companies should act to restrict false information online, in a 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center. That means there are still a lot of people who believe a master should control the speech of his slaves so he can stay in power for longer.

Bill Gates claims he hates free speech because his daughter was bullied online. “Hearing my daughter talk about how she’d been harassed online, and how her friends experienced that quite a bit, brought that into focus in a way that I hadn’t thought about before,” said Gates.

Bill Gates Helps Create A Vaccine That Will Help Prevent Polio Caused By Vaccines

Last year, Phoebe Gates spoke out against free speech saying that “the misconceptions and conspiracy theories” about her family and her own relationships were reasons to not allow the slave class to speak freely, in an interview with The Information.

Keep reading

Lockheed Martin Develops System to Identify and Counter Online “Disinformation,” Prototyped by DARPA

Various military units around the world (notably in the UK during the pandemic) have been getting involved in what are ultimately, due to the goal (censorship) and participants (military) destined to become controversial, if not unlawful efforts.

But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of desire to learn from others’ mistakes. The temptation to bring the defense system into the political “war on disinformation” arena seems to be too strong to resist.

Right now in the US, Lockheed Martin is close to completing a prototype that will analyze media to “detect and defeat disinformation.”

And by media, those commissioning the tool – called the Semantic Forensics (SemaFor) program – mean everything: news, the internet, and even entertainment media. Text, audio, images, and video that are part of what’s considered “large-scale automated disinformation attacks” are supposed to be detected and labeled as false by the tool.

The development process is almost over, and the prototype is used by the US Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Keep reading

Why the Telegram Prosecution May Move the Overton Window on Free Speech

Earlier this month, French authorities arrested Pavel Durov, the founder of Telegram, a chat app widely used around the world by nearly 1 billion people, including by political dissidents and terrorist groups. Some of the criminal charges, which are peculiar to French law, stem from allegations of clearly illegal and harmful material spread on the platform. But other charges, which relate to the mere use of encrypted technology, have set off wider concerns about a crackdown on free speech. To some extent, this has been led by the right, with Elon Musk pushing #freepavel on his X platform. But these worries have also been shared by journalists and civil-liberties groups worried about the encroachment of law enforcement on the way that people around the world communicate.,

To get a clearer sense of what is going on, I spoke with Daphne Keller, the director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center. Keller, who was previously an associate general counsel for Google on free-expression issues, has written that the charges are more likely to be focused on how illegal material is handled by big tech but could represent a broader threat to how we people communicate online.

Keep reading

The Struggle for and Promise of Free Speech

Censorship – the regulation, suppression, and criminalization of disfavored speech – has mounted a comeback. Government officials, social media content moderators and moguls, journalists, and professors have aligned to thwart dissemination of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, hate speech, and harmful or offensive remarks. They applaud themselves as brave activists blazing a new path to the achievement of a truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive democracy.

Yet they are throwbacks, as Jonathan Turley shows in “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” A distinguished George Washington University Law School professor, Turley is also an eminent columnist, television analyst, and litigator. His book provides a bracing “history of the struggle for free speech in America” and an incisive account of “the promise of free speech” in the United States and wherever basic rights and fundamental freedoms are protected. Through his winning combination of historical reconstruction, legal analysis, and philosophical exposition, Turley reveals that the arguments for regulating speech that the contemporary censorship industrial complex touts as original have a long and disreputable lineage.

In the West, which developed exemplary principles of free speech, that lineage of censorship stretches back to democratic Athens, which put Socrates to death for teaching the young to ask hard questions about virtue and justice, human nature, and the cosmos. It encompasses the early modern Star Chamber which in 16th– and 17th-century England prosecuted the crime of seditious libel – speaking ill of public officials, the laws, or the government – and the great 18th century English jurist William Blackstone who insisted on seditious libel’s criminality. And despite America’s founding promise and constitutional imperatives, government silencing of criticism of government extends throughout the nation’s history. Those who today undertake to expand the authorities’ power to determine what is and what is not fit for the public to think, say, and hear give fashionable expression to the authoritarian impulses, aims, and actions that not only have beset the West, but which also have marked most political societies throughout most of history.

American constitutional government sought to break authoritarianism’s grip. The Declaration of Independence stated that government’s primary task was to secure unalienable rights, starting with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the original Constitution, the sovereign people protected speech by declining to delegate to Congress the power to regulate it. The First Amendment, ratified two years after the Constitution went into effect, explicitly denied Congress the power to abridge free speech. This reinforced the fundamental freedom – as stated in “Cato’s Letters,” widely read in 18th-century America – to “think what you would and speak what you thought.”

Free speech, Turley emphasizes, has two major justifications. The first is functional: Free speech undergirds the liberal education and robust public discussion that produce the informed citizenry on which a rights-protecting democracy depends. The second justification, grounded in natural rights teachings, affirms that speaking freely is inseparable from our humanity.

While both justifications are crucial to constitutional government in America, Turley stresses that the tendency to rely exclusively on the functional argument alone has proved calamitous. Protecting free speech solely because it is good for democracy invites the curtailment of this utterance or that publication on the grounds that it undermines democracy.

Free speech fortifies the other four First Amendment freedoms. Religious freedom includes the right to profess one’s faith, as well as the right not to profess other faiths or any faith at all. A free press keeps citizens knowledgeable about the news and circulates opinions and ideas. The freedoms of assembly and petition enable citizens to communicate among themselves and express their concerns to the government.

Keep reading

Switzerland: The End of Free Speech

Most people in the world view Switzerland as a safe, sensible, fair and free nation. The reality is that behind its pristine veneer, it is as corrupt – if not more – than any other nation, and is becoming increasingly repressive at an alarming rate.

As many of you know, I am Swiss (from my mother’s side) and live in my home country. This has given me a certain vantage point to report on globalism, with Switzerland having been selected to host these dark institutions on our soil back in the 19th century.

Today, I wanted to draw your attention to more local news and the bleak state of free speech here.

While all eyes are on the U.K. at the moment due to their Orwellian crack down on freedom of expression — to the point of jailing people for memes and stickers — and on France as we await more information on Pavel Durov’s arrest, free speech is under unprecedented attack in Switzerland as well.

A friend of mine, who goes by the pseudonym “Barbouille” on X, has just been fined the hefty amount of CHF 4’800, approx $ 5’700 — for a tweet.

His crime? Calling out the indoctrination of children being taught what LGBTQI… stands for in a classroom, under a video posted by another account on March 24, 2023.

Keep reading