Tag: free

  • Free higher education in Syria and inequalities

    Free higher education in Syria and inequalities

    by Oudai Tazan

    HE and inequality

    The debate over whether higher education (HE) serves as a vehicle for social mobility that nurtures meritocracy or as a mechanism for social reproduction that reinforces and exacerbates inequalities in society has persisted for some time. The first perspective regards HE as a meritocratic, achievement-based system of stratification that selects and allocates individuals to societal roles based solely on their merit (in line with Émile Durkheim’s theories). Conversely, the second viewpoint sees education as a means that perpetuates social stratification and the cultural hegemony of the elite (reflecting Bourdieu’s perspective). This phenomenon occurs because students’ socio-economic backgrounds significantly influence their access to, decisions regarding, and success within HE.

    To mitigate the impact of socioeconomic background on individuals’ educational opportunities, a movement of research and activism spans from South America to Africa and the Far East, advocating for free HE. To investigate this claim, I examined the situation in Syria, which has consistently asserted that it possesses a meritocratic HE system aimed at fostering societal equality through the provision of free public HE for all since the 1970s. I analysed the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) database for 15 academic years, from 2001 to 2015. This dataset encompassed information on student access and graduation rates, categorised by type of education (public, private, higher institutes, and technical institutes), education level (undergraduate and postgraduate), gender (male and female), city, faculty, and specialisations. This analysis revealed various forms of inequality, specifically class-based inequalities, city-based inequalities, and gender-based inequalities.

    Class-based inequalities

    Although every citizen in Syria who finishes school can access free public HE, many students from high socio-economic backgrounds choose private HE to obtain better education or to pursue specific courses unavailable in the free public tracks. An analysis of the data reveals that the graduation rate in private institutions is almost double that of public institutions. One of the reasons behind this discrepancy in graduation rates between free public HE and private HE is the lack of funding for free public HE. Public university students suffer from a high student-teacher ratio (in some cases, 140 students per teacher) and poor infrastructure compared to the low student-teacher ratio (around 20 students per teacher) and better infrastructure in private universities. Furthermore, inadequate funding for free public universities has led qualified lecturers to prefer teaching at private institutions. This has widened the inequality between public and private HE institutions, as students with the financial capacity to access private HE learn from the most qualified teachers in Syria and receive the best knowledge available.

    City-based inequalities

    Although Syria has 14 cities, during the analysis period (2008–2013), it had only 5 free public universities located in 5 different cities. These universities have small branches or centres in all Syrian cities, offering limited course options. This design of the HE system has neglected some cities in Syria, leaving them without a proper educational framework. Having only one large university in select cities advantages students who reside in those areas, as they do not endure the added financial and mental pressures that students from other cities face to access education, such as paying for accommodation, living away from home, and travelling to see their families. Consequently, many students from cities without a university may encounter additional barriers to accessing HE, negatively affecting their academic, professional, and personal opportunities and choices. This could explain why cities like Damascus, Homs, and Latakia (where universities are located) are consistently overrepresented in HE, while students from Hama, al-Hasakeh, and al-Rakka (which lack universities) are consistently underrepresented.

    In addition to the inequality of access to HE, city-based inequalities also encompass disparities in accessing the various specialisations and faculties offered by HE. This is further exacerbated by the sector’s design as not all faculties or specialisations are available at every university or branch. For instance, undergraduate media studies are solely taught in Damascus. Although Damascus constitutes only 8.75% of the Syrian population, students from Damascus account for 23.9% of the total number of media students. This representation is nearly three times their percentage of the overall population. This significant overrepresentation of students in certain courses occurs at the expense of those from other cities who are unable to access these courses and faculties because they are not available in their localities. This trend of unequal access to specialisations applies to numerous disciplines (eg Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, Arts, IT, Mechanical Engineering, and Architecture). In each of these specialisations, students in the cities where the courses are taught have a distinct advantage over students from other cities in terms of access.

    Gender-based inequalities

    Officials in the Syrian HE sector have consistently celebrated the progress they have made, asserting that free HE has eliminated gender-based inequality by achieving near parity in enrolment rates. Although noticeable progress has indeed occurred, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny as it obscures other gender inequalities affecting certain groups within the population.

    An analysis of the database reveals that, while there is no overarching gender gap in the sector, apart from in undergraduate public universities, disparities exist across all other educational tracks. Moreover, the higher the level of education (Master’s, PhD, etc), the more pronounced the gap becomes. The analysis further indicates that gender-based inequalities extend beyond females’ access to specific tracks and impact female academic representation within the sector. A 14-year average shows that female teachers constitute less than 25% of the total teaching staff in the sector. However, in lower-paid and less prestigious roles, such as technical and administrative positions, females occupy more jobs than their male counterparts (57%).

    Conclusion

    Simply offering free HE does not address the broader socio-economic inequalities that limit people’s opportunities in HE. Assuming that free HE will foster equality in society presumes that everyone has an equal capacity to access education. This paper demonstrates that HE, if not paired with an inclusive sectoral design, increased funding, and a comprehensive strategy to alleviate socioeconomic inequalities, will persist as a site of social reproduction that creates and exacerbates disparities within societies, even if provided at no cost.

    Dr Oudai Tozan recently finished his PhD at the University of Cambridge, researching the potential role of exiled Syrian academics and researchers in rebuilding the higher education sector of Syria. This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education: Tozan, O. (2024) ‘Peeling the multiple layers of inequalities in free higher education policies’ (online 12 July 2024).  

    https://www.syria-education.com/

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/oudai-tozan/

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    Immigration arrests at schools loom after Trump changes longstanding policy

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    The Trump administration has cleared the way for immigration arrests at or near schools, ending a decades-old approach.

    Republican and Democratic administrations alike have treated schools and child care centers, along with churches and hospitals, as “sensitive” or “protected” locations where immigration enforcement should only take place when there is an immediate danger to the public.

    But U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials announced on January 21 that they had rescinded the latest version of the policy, which was issued in 2021 by the Biden administration. The news was first reported early on January 21 by Fox News.

    A copy of the Homeland Security memo was not immediately available for review.

    But in a statement, a Homeland Security spokesperson said that Acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive on Monday that rescinded the sensitive locations policy. The spokesperson said the action would help federal authorities enforce immigration law and catch criminals who entered the country illegally. Immigration agents will be asked to use “common sense” in enforcing the law.

    “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the statement read.

    Since Trump’s reelection, observers anticipated the end of treating certain locations as “sensitive” with respect to immigration enforcement. News reports surfaced in mid-December that the incoming Trump administration was planning to get rid of the policy. Since then, schools have been bracing for the possibility of immigration agents showing up at their doors.

    Even before this policy existed, large-scale immigration raids weren’t conducted at schools. But Trump’s policy change paves the way for immigration agents to detain parents during dropoff or pickup, as has happened occasionally in the past.

    Immigrant rights advocates worry that could lead to more absenteeism among children with immigrant parents, who may now fear being stopped by immigration agents while driving or walking their kids to school. That happened during the first Trump administration. Advocates also worry about the potential for routine interactions with school police to reveal a student or family’s immigration status, and lead to their deportation.

    Some school districts have issued explicit instructions to educators and parents about how school staff should handle an immigration agent’s presence on campus. Some districts have also said they will not permit a federal agent on school premises without a judicial warrant, and that staff will be instructed to call the school system’s lawyer if these agents do show up.

    Some of the nation’s largest districts, including Los Angeles and Chicago, have re-upped or expanded existing policies meant to protect immigrant students and families. New York City is scheduled to vote on a resolution this week that would reaffirm a policy preventing school safety agents from collaborating with federal immigration authorities in most cases.

    Others, including several Texas school districts near the U.S.-Mexico border, are taking a “wait and see” approach to avoid causing confusion or fear among families. At the same time, immigrant rights advocates say it’s helpful to inform families of their rights and show them how to make a plan in case a parent is detained.

    The end of treating schools as sensitive locations is just one of many executive actions on immigration that the new Trump administration has taken since taking office on January 20.

    Trump also signed an executive order that seeks to end the automatic right to citizenship for any child born in the U.S. On January 21, 18 states announced they were suing to block the policy change.

    This story has been updated to include confirmation and comments from the Department of Homeland Security about the policy change.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    Related:
    Trump has won a second term–here’s what that means for schools
    Trump picks Linda McMahon to lead, and possibly dismantle, Education Department
    For more news on education policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    The left should reclaim free speech mantle (opinion)

    If progressive or even not-so-progressive Jewish students invited comedian Sacha Baron Cohen to their university to perform his riotous parody “In My Country There Is Problem,” with its call-and-pogrom chorus “throw the Jew down the well / so my country can be free,” would Cohen be allowed on campus? If the song were indeed sung, and a few humorless, unthinking listeners were distressed by the lyrics, or at least claimed to be, would the Jewish students face discrimination and harassment charges under the university’s disciplinary code?

    Today, probably. Would they be found responsible for discrimination and harassment based on national origin? Again, probably. And what if a student band wished to parody the parody with a song titled something like, “Throw Chris Rufo Down the Well So My University Can Be Free”? Could the song be sung against the backdrop of students’ sensitivities and the reciprocated rage of today’s young conservative white men?

    In her recently published opinion essay for Inside Higher Ed, Joan W. Scott skewered the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and its vice president for campus advocacy, Alex Morey, for condemning the American Association of University Professors. Scott’s criticism of Morey’s criticism goes like this: Morey lambasted AAUP president Todd Wolfson’s expression of “disappointment” over Donald Trump’s re-election, arguing that Wolfson’s explicit partisanship betrays the AAUP’s purported commitment to academic freedom. Scott countered that FIRE is a libertarian wolf donning academic freedom drag. FIRE, explains Scott, is “dedicated to the absolutist principle of individual free speech,” a principle that is “not,” Scott italicizes, synonymous with academic freedom. In turn, Scott elaborates on academic freedom as “individual and collective rights of faculty as they pursue the mission of higher education in a democracy.”

    We agree with Scott that FIRE—with its many right-wing funding sources as Scott lists them—is unlikely to have our backs if and when the federal government comes to shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs and cultural studies departments on campus (i.e., queer and Black studies). We respect, too, that Scott knows more about the history and purpose of academic freedom than we do.

    And yet, we worry that the line she draws between free speech and academic freedom—the former ideological and libertarian, the latter true and good—cedes too much. Indeed, her distinction hands “free speech” over to the conservative groups championing their anti-educational causes under its banner, and her dismissal of free speech defenses as apologia for racism lets stand, unnuanced, the left-originating but now right-appropriated proposition that combative, controversial speech is necessarily harmful in an egalitarian university environment. It is the quick conversion of (at times highly provocative) political speech into hate speech that allows “from the river to the sea” to be branded as categorically harassing antisemitism—a conversion that would so quickly ban Jews from sending up antisemitism (“throw the Jew down the well”), ban musicians from joking about drowning Rufo or prohibit, for that matter, marginalized groups from reappropriating slurs to divest them of their injurious force.

    In short, we think there is still good reason—several good reasons—for the academic left to defend speech, both as elemental to academic freedom and as a democratic value unto itself.

    We and nearly every colleague we know have stories of students hastily claiming talk—talk of sex, Israel, Palestine and criticism of affirmative action—as intimidating, harassing or discriminating. It seems to us that a robust defense of academic freedom must include healthy skepticism, but not outright cynicism, of the proposition that words injure. Skepticism, not cynicism, because words may hurt people, further subordinate marginalized groups and erode democratic ideals. David Beaver’s and Jason Stanley’s recently published The Politics of Language draws on critical race and feminist theory to show how some speech acts—affective, nondeliberative and/or racist dog whistles—function to polarize and degrade.

    But we also know, especially in the wake of spurious discrimination claims against campus activists and academics protesting Israel’s military campaigns, that conservative stakeholders are weaponizing the idea of words as weapons, alleging atmospheres of harassment to chill political speech—a project, we must concede, that the left paved the way for.

    Indeed, around 2013, as trigger warnings gained traction on college campuses, the right repackaged “free speech” as the inalienable freedom of anyone to speak on any topic without consequence, especially if that consequence is the loss of a platform. Instead of drawing on the left’s history of free speech advocacy, scholars of “identity knowledges” centered attention on the moral wrongness of offensive speech and the intolerability of feeling unsafe. This shift left progressives defending feelings rather than ideas, collapsing political discord with dehumanization—or, as Sarah Schulman argues, conflict with abuse. Now, with free speech reduced to melodrama, even the Christian right claims to protect its constituents against “harm”—whether from critical race theory or drag shows—rendering the issue a conceit of the culture wars.

    In his much-ridiculed op-ed for The New York Times published last year, linguist John McWhorter lamented that he and his students were unable to listen to John Cage’s silent “4:33” during class, as the silence would have been interrupted by the sound of student protests. The irony that McWhorter chided the protesters for impeding his students from appreciating Cage’s invitation to listen to “the surrounding noise” of the environs was not lost on McWhorter’s critics.

    What was not commented on, though, was McWhorter’s contention that if a group of students had been shouting “DEI has got to die” with the same fervor with which they were shouting for Palestine’s self-determination, then the protests “would have lasted roughly five minutes before masses of students shouted them down and drove them off the campus. Chants like that would have been condemned as a grave rupture of civilized exchange, heralded as threatening resegregation and branded as a form of violence.”

    Whether correct or not, McWhorter’s speculation is not baseless. We want to insist, though, that there are left, not just libertarian, grounds to defend, for example, a student protest against DEI initiatives. They include: respecting and celebrating the university as a space of open dialogue and debate; the possibility that you might learn something from someone with whom you disagree; the opportunity to lampoon, parody or otherwise countermand whatever worse-than-foolish statement the opposition is making; the opportunity, as John Stuart Mill taught us, to strengthen your own ideas and arguments alongside and against the ideas of others; and finally, avoiding the inevitable backlash of “the cancel,” whereby censored conservatives rebrand themselves as truth-telling victims of the “woke.”

    Granted, some of these grounds for defending speech tilt more liberal or libertarian than pure left, whatever that means, but we nonetheless maintain that it is self-defeating for us to carry the banner for “academic freedom” while consigning “free speech” to the province of white grievance. This is especially true for those of us teaching queer and critical sexuality studies, where classrooms and related spaces of activism and dialogue are increasingly circumscribed, the harm principle ever more unprincipled. Consider the case of Aneil Rallin, who in 2022 was accused by Soka University of America of teaching “triggering” sexual materials to his students in a course called Writing the Body, and whose case—while taken up by FIRE—was met with little alarm from the academic left.

    It also applies to those of us who still recognize satire, irony and social commentary in an age of breathtaking literalism. In 2011, the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” (1985) was temporarily banned from Canadian radio for its use of the f-slur, even though the term was intended as a commentary on working-class homophobia. The drive to censor and demonize without regard for social context has arguably gotten stronger in the years since.

    From the recent historical record, it seems to us that the enforcement of bureaucratic speech restrictions often damages campus culture and democratic norms more than the speech acts themselves. Indeed, the better question than is X speech act harmful is, to crib from Wendy Brown, when—if ever and at what costs—are speech restrictions the remedy for injury?

    Debating DEI programs, myths of meritocracy and so on is the stuff of academic freedom. A speech act like “DEI must die” is provocative, abrasive and worth publicly disparaging, but it is not the same as hate speech. Song parodies will not save us from the dark years ahead for public education, academic freedom and egalitarian pedagogies of all kinds. But our battle preparations demand standing up for, not surrendering, free speech.

    Joseph J. Fischel is an associate professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at Yale University.

    Kyler Chittick is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Alberta.

    Source link

  • Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    Coming soon: ‘Executive Watch’ — Tracking the Trump Administration’s free speech record — First Amendment News 456

    To lift a line from the songwriter extraordinaire of our era, “the times they are a- changin’.” Indeed, they are — and this is certainly true in our own corner of the world, the world of free speech. 

    For better and worse, Donald Trump and his agents are rearranging the structure of free expression in America. Only a few weeks into his presidency, things are proceeding at a breakneck speed, with a flurry of executive orders flying out the windows of the White House. Even early on, there is a sense that what will follow may well mark one of those pinpoints in our history when that “experiment” of which Holmes spoke is tested. Whatever else happens, it is important that there is some record of these times and what happened in them. To that end, we will soon launch a new segment within FAN called “Executive Watch” to track it all: the President’s orders, the executive agencies’ actions, the activities of the President’s affiliates, and Mr. Trump’s personal undertakings.

    Enter Professor Timothy Zick, the William and Mary Law School Robert & Elizabeth Scott Research Professor and John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship. 

    Prof. Timothy Zick

    Zick is the author of five books on the subject: “Speech out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places,” “The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties,” “The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Free Speech and its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights,” “The First Amendment in the Trump Era,” and “Managed Dissent: The Law of Public Protest.” He is also the co-author of a First Amendment casebook, “The First Amendment: Cases and Theory.”

    For all of the above reasons and others, Professor Zick is well suited to undertake the “Executive Watch” bi-monthly feature of First Amendment News. 

    Even at this early stage, this project comes a time when news stories like the following 21 surface with increasing frequency:



    WATCH VIDEO: Trump Calls For Changes To First Amendment, Demands “Mandatory One-Year In Jail” For U.S. Flag Burning.

    By chronicling such information and then analyzing it, the hope is that our readers will have a more informed sense of the state of free speech at a time when so much is in flux. There is the hope that “Executive Watch” will prompt further discussion of that vital freedom that is at the core of constitutional government in America.

    FBI agents file First Amendment class action

    While FBI agents may be at-will employees who can, generally speaking, be fired for “any reason or no reason,” they can’t be fired for an unconstitutional reason, or as punishment for the exercise of their constitutional rights (e.g. he can’t fire all the African-American agents, or all the agents registered as Democrats).

    The Complaint, filed in DC District Court, is posted here. Plaintiffs are “employees of the FBI who worked on Jan. 6 and/or Mar-a-Lago cases, and who have been informed that they are likely to be terminated in the very near future for such activity.” They “intend to represent a class of at least 6,000 current and former FBI agents and employees who participated in some manner in the investigation and prosecution of crimes and abuses of power by Donald Trump, or by those acting at his behest.”

    Knight Institute on need for fact-checking platform

    [Recently] Meta announced changes . . . to its content moderation policies, including that it’s replacing third-party fact checking with a Community Notes model that allows users to publicly flag content they believe to be incorrect or misleading. 

    The following can be attributed to Katherine Glenn Bass, the Knight Institute’s research director:

    Katy Glenn Bass Research Director Knight Institute

    Katy Glenn Bass

    “Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement today is a stark reminder that many of the biggest platforms we use to communicate about issues of public importance are owned by billionaires who are not accountable to us. Apart from the obvious effort to signal political allegiance, the impact of the announced changes will not be clear for some time. But if we have any hope of measuring or understanding what is happening on these platforms, we need strong protections for the independent researchers and journalists who study them, and better mechanisms for ensuring they can access platform data.”

    In 2019, more than 200 researchers signed an open letter in support of the Knight Institute’s efforts to persuade Facebook to amend its terms of service to establish a “safe harbor” for public-interest journalism and research on the platform. Read more about that effort here.

    Shibley on Harvard’s anti-Semitism settlement

    Robert Shibley

    Robert Shibley

    Just one day after President Trump took office, Harvard agreed to settle two lawsuits brought against it by Jewish students that alleged the university ignored “severe and pervasive anti-Semitism on campus” and created “an unbearable educational environment” in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza.

    While the settlement language itself does not appear to be public, a press release filed on the official docket of The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law v. President and Fellows of Harvard College included some details. Most notably, Harvard agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of anti-Semitism. FIRE’s worry, shared by many others — including the definition’s primary author — is that, when added to policies used to punish discriminatory harassment on American campuses, the definition is too likely to be used to punish speech that is critical of Israel or its government but that is not motivated in animus against Jews or Israelis.

    FIRE has repeatedly proposed steps to address anti-Semitic discrimination on campus that would safeguard students from harassment while protecting freedom of speech, most recently in our inauguration-day letter to President Trump. Getting this right is important; any proposal that chills or censors protected speech on campus won’t pass constitutional muster at public universities, won’t square with free speech promises at private universities (like Harvard), and won’t effectively address anti-Semitism.

    Nevertheless, attempts to codify the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into laws or regulations are nothing new. FIRE posted a roundup of the widespread civil libertarian opposition to its codification last year, when Congress considered adopting it as federal law. Among those opponents is the definition’s primary author, Kenneth Stern, who spoke at length with FIRE’s Nico Perrino on our So to Speak podcast about why it’s not the right tool for the job of regulating speech. As Stern wrote back in 2016 for The New York Times: “The definition was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus. . . . And Jewish students are protected under the law as it now stands.” (Perhaps “as it is now written” would have been more precise; whether colleges follow the law is a different issue.)

    As Stern predicted in that piece:

    If this bill becomes law it is easy to imagine calls for university administrators to stop pro-Palestinian speech. Even if lawsuits alleging Title VI violations fail, students and faculty members will be scared into silence, and administrators will err on the side of suppressing or censuring speech.

    Stern’s prediction is about to receive ground testing at Harvard, and likely at other universities that may follow its lead.

    Forthcoming book: New edition of Neier’s ‘Defending My Enemy’

    A new edition of the most important free speech book of the past half-century, with a new essay by the author on the ensuing fifty years of First Amendment controversies.

    Cover of the book "Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America" by Aryeh Neier

    When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois — a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors — Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor — came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1977 book Defending My Enemy.

    Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past half-century. Touching on hot-button First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the “Unite the Right” march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, right-wing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the long-standing Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims.

    Including an afterword by longtime free speech champion Nadine Strossen, Defending My Enemy offers razor-sharp analysis from the man Muck Rack describes as having “a glittering civil liberties résumé.”

    Praise for Defending My Enemy

    “Aryeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy is as relevant today as it was when it was first published. The book is a powerful reminder of why free speech matters—not just for the voices we agree with, but for the voices we abhor. Neier’s story of defending Nazis’ rights to speak in Skokie underscores a timeless truth: If we want to preserve freedom for ourselves, we must be willing to defend it for others, no matter how deeply we disagree. At a time when censorship is on the rise globally, Defending My Enemy stands as a bold and principled call to action. Every advocate of free expression needs to read this book—and more importantly, live its lessons.” — Greg Lukianoff

    Forthcoming scholarly article: ‘Output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection’

    Stanford Law Review logo

    Machine learning algorithms increasingly mediate our public discourse – from search engines to social media platforms to artificial intelligence companies. And as their influence on online speech swells, so do questions of whether and how the First Amendment may apply to their output. A growing chorus of scholars has expressed doubt over whether the output of machine learning algorithms is truly speech within the meaning of the First Amendment, but none have suggested a workable way to cleanly draw the line between speech and non-speech.

    This Article proposes a way to successfully draw that line based on a principle that we call “speech certainty” – the basic idea that speech is only speech if the speaker knows what he said when he said it. This idea is rooted in the text, history, and purpose of the First Amendment, and built into modern speech doctrines of editorial discretion and expressive conduct. If this bedrock principle has been overlooked, it is because, until now, all speech has been imbued with speech certainty. Articulating its existence was never necessary. But machine learning has changed that. Unlike traditional code, a close look at how machine learning algorithms work reveals that the programmers who create them can never be certain of their output. Because that output lacks speech certainty, it’s not the programmer’s speech.

    Accordingly, this Article contends that the output of machine learning algorithms isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection. With the Supreme Court signaling its intent to address unresolved questions of online speech, we are poised to enter a new era of First Amendment jurisprudence in the coming years. As we do, scholars, practicing attorneys, and judges can no longer ignore how the algorithms underlying online speech actually work – and how they have changed with the advent of machine learning. 

    Without recognizing this paradigm shift in algorithmic speech, we risk sleepwalking into a radical departure from centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence. By failing to distinguish between traditional and machine learning algorithms, current consensus about algorithmic speech suggests that the Constitution should, for the first time in its history, protect speech that a speaker does not know he has said. Speech certainty provides a novel and principled approach to conceptualizing machine learning algorithms under existing First Amendment jurisprudence. 

    Related

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 455: “Eight free expression cases pending on SCOTUS docket”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Trump’s threat to deport anti-Israel protesters is an attack on free speech

    Trump’s threat to deport anti-Israel protesters is an attack on free speech

    This article originally appeared in MSNBC on Jan. 31, 2025.

    The campus controversies inflamed by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israel and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza have reached a worrying conclusion. Now, with President Donald Trump’s promise to deport those he deems “pro-jihadist” protesters, we’re facing questions not just about which ideas and speech should be allowed on campus, but whether foreign students should be deported for expressing disfavored views.

    On Wednesday, Trump signed an executive order on antisemitism that directs leaders of agencies, including the secretary of homeland security, to familiarize universities with grounds for inadmissibility for foreign nationals “so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds.” Those reports will then lead “to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.”

    This development should worry all Americans, regardless of their position on the Israel-Hamas war.

    The order implies that universities should be monitoring and reporting students for scrutiny by immigration officials, including for speech that is protected by the First Amendment. It follows last week’s executive order threatening denial of entry to foreign nationals, or even deportation of those currently in the country, who “espouse hateful ideology.”

    Free Speech Dispatch

    Page

    The Free Speech Dispatch is a new regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression.


    Read More

    Student visa holders in the U.S. already risk deportation by engaging in criminal activity, and did so long before the enactment of this order. Students who commit crimes — including vandalism, threats or violence — must face consequences, including potential revocation of visas when appropriate.

    The First Amendment does not protect violence, for visitors and citizens alike, and an executive order narrowly confined to targeting illegal acts would not implicate First Amendment rights.

    But a fact sheet released by the White House alongside the executive order goes well beyond criminal grounds for removal of foreign nationals to instead threaten viewpoint-motivated deportations. “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” Trump said. “I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

    If that’s what the Trump White House expects agencies to read into its formal orders, this development should worry all Americans, regardless of their position on the Israel-Hamas war.

    Advocates of ideological deportation today should not be surprised to see it used against ideas they support in the future.

    Our nation’s campuses are intended to be places of learning and debate that facilitate a wide range of views, even ones that some consider hateful or offensive.

    This openness, albeit unpleasant or controversial at times, is a defining strength of American higher education. It’s one of the features attractive to students traveling from abroad who may hope to take part in the speech protections Americans have worked so hard to preserve. These are protections that they may very well be denied in their home countries.


    We won’t protect freedom on campus by making it inaccessible to the international students who study there. But, given the warning accompanying the order, international students will now be rightfully afraid that their words — not just their conduct — are under a microscope.

    There are already signs that critics of campus demonstrations expect the administration will expel protesters from the country. In the lead-up to the signing of this latest order, pro-Israel advocates claimed to be in contact with officials in the incoming Trump administration concerning lists of student protesters they hope to see deported. One group, Betar, told the New York Post it’s “using a combination of facial recognition software and ‘relationship database technology’” to identify protest attendees who are foreign nationals.

    Freedom of speech was never meant to be easy.

    At the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), where I work, we have seen firsthand the many speech-related controversies that have plagued higher education over the decades. In every case, adhering to viewpoint-neutral principles, rather than censorship, has been the proper solution. 

    If we open the door to expelling foreign students who peacefully express ideas out of step with the current administration about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should expect it to swing wider to encompass other viewpoints too. Today it may be alleged “Hamas sympathizers” facing threats of deportation for their political expression. Who could it be in four years? In eight?

    Advocates of ideological deportation today should not be surprised to see it used against ideas they support in the future.

    Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech

    News

    Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.


    Read More

    In Bridges v. Wixon, the Supreme Court’s 1945 decision rejecting the deportation of Australian immigrant Harry Bridges over alleged Communist Party connections, Justice William Douglas wrote, “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

    Later decisions from the court complicate the question. The federal government retains significant authority over those who may enter and stay in the country. But the court’s reasoning in Wixon should provide lasting guidance.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Frank Murphy stated that he “cannot agree that the framers of the Constitution meant to make such an empty mockery of human freedom” by allowing the government to deport an alien over speech for which it could not imprison him.

    Freedom of speech was never meant to be easy. But it allows us the space we need to work through thorny social and political challenges, even when it’s fraught with friction and discomfort. The United States should preserve this freedom on our campuses — spaces for free learning that set us apart from more authoritarian nations around the world — not make an “empty mockery” of it.

    Source link

  • Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Analysis: Early flurry of executive orders a mixed bag for free speech

    Since taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders, including several implicating the First Amendment and freedom of expression. Below, we highlight some of these orders and evaluate the potential ramifications for free speech.

    Executive order on protecting freedom of speech is a good start — but more must be done

    One of the first executive orders the president signed was titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” This order aims to “secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech” and “ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Specifically, the order notes the government has “trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”

    FIRE welcomes this order’s call to end federal government censorship, including that which is hidden from public view. Leaks, court documents, and other disclosures have revealed instances of federal officials pressuring social media companies to limit controversial but constitutionally protected speech on vigorously disputed topics like the origins of Covid-19, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and election integrity.

    We have written repeatedly about the dangers of such government coercion, commonly referred to as “jawboning,” highlighting how this sneaky form of government censorship threatens freedom of expression.

    A pledge by the executive branch to respect the free speech of all Americans is a good first step. But any executive order can be modified or reversed on the say-so of one person — the president. It will take actual legislation — such as FIRE’s model transparency bill — to create mechanisms that statutorily require disclosure and bring to light governmental efforts to strong-arm private social media companies into censoring protected speech. 

    In the meantime, FIRE will monitor the administration’s actions, just as we did during the Biden administration, and hold federal agencies to the standards set forth in the executive order.

    Executive orders targeting DEI programs appear to avoid First Amendment pitfalls — but FIRE will be watching their implementation

    President Trump also signed two executive orders with the aim of dismantling diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs. The first, signed on Jan. 20 and titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” calls for “termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

    DEI/DEIA programs and initiatives take many forms. FIRE has no position on the values DEI programs may seek to advance. But our experience defending student and faculty rights on campus demonstrates that DEI administrators and offices have regularly been involved in threats to academic freedom and speech policing, functioning as a way to enforce preferred orthodoxy or ideology. And some DEI initiatives — such as mandatory DEI statements in faculty hiring or student admissions — flatly threaten free expression and academic freedom and should be prohibited. We have previously introduced model legislation designed to eliminate such use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring and student admission decisions.

    FIRE has also seen legislation in which overbroad attempts to curtail DEI mandates threaten the very same speech rights of faculty and students they aim to protect. Overbroad restrictions can improperly limit classroom discussions — as we saw in West Virginia’s recent executive order prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that promotes or encourages certain DEI-related views, while at the same time permitting criticism of those views. This allows institutions to continue ideological litmus tests as long as such tests oppose DEI — which just recreates the same problem.

    Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    The president’s executive order appears to avoid these issues by targeting only the government’s own speech and initiatives, which it can constitutionally control. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget must provide a list of “Federal grantees who received Federal funding to provide or advance DEI, DEIA, or ‘environmental justice’ programs, services, or activities since January 20, 2021.” This is different from prohibiting any federal grantees from promoting DEI, which would threaten speech. Instead, the order specifically targets federal grants made specifically for the purpose of advancing DEI, and the federal government is free to shut off that funding if it no longer wishes to advance those ideals or views.

    A second DEI-related order, signed on January 21, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” aims to eliminate “affirmative action” and “illegal discrimination and illegal preferences” in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (FIRE takes no position on affirmative action.)

    FIRE releases statement on the use of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ criteria in faculty hiring and evaluation

    News

    FIRE’s statement provides guidance to universities to ensure they respect faculty members’ expressive freedom when seeking to advance DEI.


    Read More

    The order helpfully includes two provisions that make clear it does not reach into the college classroom or infringe upon academic freedom:

    (b) This order does not prevent State or local governments, Federal contractors, or Federally-funded State and local educational agencies or institutions of higher education from engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

    (c) This order does not prohibit persons teaching at a Federally funded institution of higher education as part of a larger course of academic instruction from advocating for, endorsing, or promoting the unlawful employment or contracting practices prohibited by this order.

    While these orders avoid constitutional pitfalls on their face, implementation should proceed carefully. Overzealous enforcement could threaten free speech by, for example, indirectly chilling a professor from sharing their positive views of affirmative action policies or leading to investigation of a government grantee for a social media post expressing personal support for DEI initiatives.

    Executive order on “gender ideology” invites possible abuse

    This executive order focuses on “[defending] women’s rights and [protecting] freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” The order requires federal government agencies to:

    remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.

    This aspect of the order is limited to the federal government’s own speech. However, there is a risk, similar to that presented by imprecise anti-DEI legislation, that the breadth of such an order could lead to direct or indirect censorship of private actors. The government has the power to control its speech when it is the speaker, such as in a training given to its employees. But its power is much more limited when the speaker is a private citizen.

    Of particular concern is this clause: “Federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. Each agency shall assess grant conditions and grantee preferences and ensure grant funds do not promote gender ideology.”

    While the government can choose to change its own messaging on gender issues, it cannot deny funds to grantees for exercising their own First Amendment rights. Further, the imprecise language could encourage government actors to withhold otherwise available grants from those with opinions that do not align with the views expressed in this executive order — chilling constitutionally protected speech. Grantees who would otherwise espouse views agreeing with “gender ideology” may refrain for fear of losing their government grant, even if they do not use the grant itself to promote “gender ideology.”

    Executive order intended to “protect” Americans from noncitizens who “espouse hateful ideology” is at odds with our culture of free speech

    This executive order makes it federal policy to “protect [American] citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.” In addition to requiring agencies to ensure their policies for screening aliens align with the executive order, it requires the secretary of state to:

    Recommend any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people, including, but not limited to, our Citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment, who preach or call for sectarian violence, the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands, or who provide aid, advocacy, or support for foreign terrorists.

    The federal government has the authority to refuse entry to or deport people who genuinely present a national security threat. But the broad language of this order implies it may also be used to target people already in the U.S. for engaging in speech that is otherwise constitutionally protected. FIRE has previously expressed concern about denials of entry in cases where students and speakers were seemingly barred based on their speech. The ambiguous language of the order, including references to a “replacement of the culture,” suggests an intent to review and potentially punish foreign nationals for speech that would typically be protected.

    To be clear, speech that calls for violence is generally protected by the First Amendment. As we have previously written, calls for genocide or chanting “From the river to the sea,” though listeners may be offended or deeply upset, are generally constitutionally protected. Denying visas or deporting anyone who engages in such speech will create a chilling effect, deterring foreign nationals from participating in lawful protests and demonstrations.

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea.

    While the driving force behind this executive order is the current Israel-Hamas conflict, there is no reason other than political whim that efforts to punish foreign nationals for their speech would stay confined to one side of that issue, or to the Israeli-Palestinian issue at all. If those targeted for “espousing hateful ideology” are today likely to be those supporting Hamas, a new government could aim such efforts at supporters of Israel’s military efforts in the coming years. Those from other nations experiencing ethnic or religious conflict, from Ukraine to Myanmar to Burkina Faso, could also face adverse immigration decisions for expressing their views.

    Why (most) calls for genocide are protected speech

    News

    Creating a “genocide” exception to free speech only opens the door to more speech restrictions and selective enforcement.


    Read More

    Because this executive order is directed at foreign nationals, the legal First Amendment issues (as distinct from the cultural free speech questions) are complicated. The Supreme Court noted in Bridges v. Wixon that the freedom of speech is accorded to resident aliens, but other precedent upholds immigration consequences based on viewpoint, and immigration officials have targeted foreign nationals for deportation for otherwise-protected speech.

    In the 1904 case United States Ex. Rel. John Turner v. Williams, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of “anarchists.” In the 1954 case Galvan v. Press, the Court upheld a law that allowed the deportation of non-citizens for belonging to the Communist Party. (Interestingly, statutory prohibitions on the naturalization of anarchists and members of the Communist Party still exist.)

    But just because the government may have the power to deport people for expressing their views, as it does in at least some circumstances, that does not make such deportations a good idea. Establishing a system that allows for the routine deportation of foreign nationals based solely on their otherwise protected speech would erode our national commitment to freedom of expression as a uniquely American cultural value.

    FIRE’s Senior Scholar, Global Expression Sarah McLaughlin published a piece at MSNBC exploring President Trump’s Executive Order on anti-Semistism.

    Source link

  • Politics determines whether Americans believe their free speech rights will be protected.

    Politics determines whether Americans believe their free speech rights will be protected.

    A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression finds that conservative and very conservative Americans have more confidence that President Trump will protect their First Amendment rights than Gov. Gavin Newsom or the Supreme Court. Liberal and very liberal Americans are skeptical that any of them will protect their first amendment rights, though they are most confident in Newsom.

    The fifth installment of FIRE’s National Free Speech Index further reveals that there is a partisan disagreement about the security of free speech in America and whether or not it is headed in the right direction. When it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, conservatives are more likely to think that things in America are heading in the right direction and are likely to think that the right to freedom of speech is secure in America today, compared to liberals.

    This was not the case three months ago. 

    Overall, when it comes to whether people are able to freely express their views, 41% of Americans think things in America are heading in the right direction, up 5% from October when 36% of Americans felt this way. Yet, compared to last year, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the direction freedom of speech is headed in America in this month’s survey. In July of last year, 31% of very liberal and 45% of liberal Americans reported that freedom of speech in America is headed in the right direction while just 16% of conservative and 20% of very conservative Americans reported the same. Then, in October, 46% of very liberal and 49% of liberal Americans reported the same while just 18% of conservative and 30% of conservative Americans did. 

    This month however, more conservative (52%) and very conservative (49%) Americans reported thinking things in America are heading in the right direction when it comes to freedom of speech compared to moderate (42%), liberal (34%) or very liberal (31%) Americans. After October last year, a drastic shift in ideological perspective on the state of free speech occurred between liberals and conservatives. While liberal and very liberal Americans were more likely to think that things in America were heading in the right direction in October, in January, conservative and very conservative Americans are now the ones most likely to report the same.

    In addition, last year, very liberal and liberal Americans reported much more confidence than conservative and very conservative Americans in the security of free speech in America. In July, 41% of very liberal and 30% of liberal Americans reported that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very” secure while 49% of conservative and 61% of very conservative Americans reported the same. 

    In October, the partisan divide grew larger, with 32% of very liberal and 27% of liberal Americans reporting that the right of freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure” while 55% of conservative and 60% of very conservative Americans reported the same. 

    The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election. 

    Yet, this month, liberals and conservatives have swapped their perspectives on the security of free speech in America, with 46% of very liberal and 36% of liberal Americans reporting “not at all” or “not very secure” and 29% of conservative and 41% of very conservative Americans reporting the same, showcasing conservatives’ growing trust that their free speech rights are secure.

    Moderates, on the other hand, have remained consistent in their views over the last six months, with approximately 40% of moderates reporting that the freedom of speech in America was “not at all” or “not very secure”.

    This quarter’s survey makes evident the ideological trends among Americans and their perspectives on the security and condition of their free speech rights. The large partisan divide between the liberals and conservatives and the swap in their political viewpoints on free speech this month may be startling but a clear indication of how Americans are reacting to the outcome of the presidential election. 

    Source link

  • POLL: Conservatives more optimistic, liberals more concerned about free speech in 2025

    POLL: Conservatives more optimistic, liberals more concerned about free speech in 2025

    • FIRE’s poll found confidence in the future of free speech is still low (41%), but jumped 10 points compared to a July poll.
    • Conservatives went from the most pessimistic subgroup to the most optimistic following Donald Trump’s election, while liberals’ optimism fell.

    PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 30, 2025 —A new poll finds that confidence in the future of free speech in America and belief in Donald Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment both saw an uptick, at least among conservatives. (Liberals are not so sure.)

    The newest edition of the National Speech Index — a quarterly barometer of free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — found that Americans are still mostly pessimistic about the state of free expression in America, with only 41% saying the country is headed in the right direction. 

    But those numbers represent an all-time high since FIRE began asking the question last year, and a 10-point jump from the 31% who said the country was headed in the right direction in July.

    The increase in confidence is driven in large part by a substantial surge in free speech optimism from self-described conservatives. The October edition of the National Speech Index found that less than a third (30%) of very conservative Americans and less than a fifth (18%) of conservative Americans said that people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, while now roughly half of very conservative (49%) and conservative (52%) Americans now say it is headed in the right direction.

    “Unsurprisingly, the sudden shift suggests that for many Americans’ their feelings about the future of free speech depend in large part on whether they trust whomever occupies the White House,” said FIRE Research Fellow and Manager of Polling and Analytics Nathan Honeycutt. “Of course, we at FIRE have long recognized that no party has a monopoly on censorship.”

    Liberals, on the other hand, saw a drop in free speech optimism. In October, 46% of very liberal Americans and 49% of liberal Americans said people’s ability to freely express their views was headed in the right direction, compared to about a third now (34% and 32% respectively). That fall wasn’t large enough to outweigh the large jump from conservatives.

    When asked about Trump’s commitment to the First Amendment, opinions were mixed. While 39% said they had “quite a lot” or “full” confidence he would protect their First Amendment rights, 41% said they had “very little” or “no confidence at all.” But that’s still a seven-point increase from when FIRE asked the same question about then-candidate Trump in October, when 32% said they had “quite a lot” or “full confidence” in Trump’s protection of the First Amendment.

    For comparison, FIRE also asked about the Supreme Court and a high-profile elected official on the other side of the political aisle, California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Opinions on Newsom were split neatly into thirds: 34% said they had high confidence, 34% said they had some confidence, and 32% expressed low confidence. Meanwhile, only 23% of Americans said they had high confidence in the Supreme Court to protect their First Amendment rights, compared to 44% who said they had low confidence.

    “Though declining levels of trust in institutions is concerning, skepticism that politicians or the courts will protect your free speech is always a healthy instinct,” said Honeycutt. “The best defense against censorship isn’t a particular public official. It’s the American people themselves cultivating a free speech culture, defending others’ right to disagree, and holding leaders accountable.”

    As censorship attempts tend to target controversial and unpopular opinions, FIRE asked respondents to judge several political statements on how offensive they found them. The results showed that wide swathes of Americans identified statements on both sides of certain divisive topics as offensive. While 45% of respondents found it “very” or “extremely” offensive to say “Black Lives Matter is a hate group,” for example, 51% said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” was an offensive statement as well.

    Read more about the National Speech Index

    In another example, 40% of Americans believe that “transgender people have a mental disorder” — a sentiment banned on Facebook and Instagram until earlier this month — is an extremely or very offensive statement. But 59% also said the idea that “children should be able to transition without parental consent” was offensive. 

    “The problem with policing offensive speech is that there will always be disagreement on what is and isn’t offensive,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Many people who want to ban offensive speech imagine they could never end up on the receiving end, but often what people find offensive changes rapidly.”

    The National Speech Index is a quarterly poll designed by FIRE and conducted by the Dartmouth Polarization Research Lab to capture Americans’ views on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, and to track how Americans’ views change over time. The January 2025 National Speech Index sampled 1,000 Americans and was conducted between January 3 and January 9, 2025. The survey’s margin of error of +/- 3%.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    The Polarization Research Lab (PRL) is a nonpartisan collaboration between faculty at Dartmouth College, Stanford University and the University of Pennsylvania. Its mission is to monitor and understand the causes and consequences of partisan animosity, support for democratic norm violations, and support for partisan violence in the American Public. With open and transparent data, it provides an objective assessment of the health of American democracy.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Eight free expression cases pending on SCOTUS docket — First Amendment News 455

    Eight free expression cases pending on SCOTUS docket — First Amendment News 455

    Thus far this term, the Supreme Court has rendered judgments in three free speech cases. In two of them, it vacated and remanded the matters for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024) (per curiam, First Amendment retaliation claims). In the other case, TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland, the Court rejected the First Amendment claim. 

    At this point, the following eight cases remain on the docket and involve everything from student speech to campaign financing to abortion clinic buffer zones and an occupational licensing case, among other things.

    The Eight Cases

    1. The university bias-response teams case

    Issue: Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.

    Counsel for Petitioner: J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy, former Director of the Free Speech Clinic at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.

    2. The conversations between counselors and their clients case

    Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

    Counsel for Petitioner: John J. Bursch of the Alliance Defending Freedom.

    3. The public middle school that censored a T-shirt case

    Issue: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies. 

    Counsel for Petitioner: John J. Bursch of Alliance Defending Freedom.

    4. The campaign limits on coordinated party expenditures case

    Issue: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Noel J. Francisco of Jones Day, former Solicitor General.

    5. The occupational-licensing law case

    Issue: Whether, in an as-applied First Amendment challenge to an occupational-licensing law, the standard for determining whether the law regulates speech or regulates conduct is this Court’s traditional conduct-versus-speech dichotomy.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Samuel B. Gedge of the Institute for Justice.

    6. The sidewalk abortion counseling case

    Issue: Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy, also a former Solicitor General.

    7. Another sidewalk abortion counseling case

    Issue: Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Walter M. Weber, senior counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.

    8. The fee to speak to government officials about political issues case

    Issue: Whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.

    Counsel for Petitioner: Kyle D. Hawkins of Lehotsky Keller Cohn, who served as a law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito.

    Revenge against political enemies: Executive tactic?

    In his first week in office, President Trump made clear that his promises to exact revenge on his perceived enemies were not empty campaign pledges — and that his retribution is intended not just to impose punishment for the past but also to intimidate anyone who might cross him in the future.

    By removing security protections from former officials facing credible death threats, he signaled that he was willing to impose potentially profound consequences on anyone he sees as having been insufficiently loyal. That included his former secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, who helped lead the pandemic response.

    Mr. Trump’s decision to try to scale back civil service protections was aimed at culling federal employees he believes slowed or blocked his first-term agenda and replacing them with loyalists.

    [ . . . ]

    [These and other measures taken] together . . . send a clear signal that Mr. Trump feels unconstrained about punishing the disloyal, that he is potentially willing to go further against his enemies than he had pledged on the campaign trail and that there will be a price for any opposition to come.

    Trump video clip


    WATCH VIDEO: Trump speech: ‘Bring back free speech to America’

    Related

    Controlling academic freedom: Another Executive tactic?

    Will Creeley

    FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley

    “There’s kind of a multifront threat right now as to whether or not you can express views that are unpopular with the folks in the White House and executive agencies and continue to enjoy the protections of the First Amendment on academic freedom,” said Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which fights both left- and right-wing infringements on free speech.

    [ . . . ]

    Creeley, at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, predicts that many state legislatures, local officials and university trustees are going to enlist, either out of enthusiasm or expediency, in the crusade to bring the academic left to heel. “I think you’ll see professors investigated and terminated. I think you’re going to see students punished, and I think you’re going to see a pre-emptive action on those fronts,” he said.

    Just look at what’s happened at Harvard this week. On Tuesday it announced that, as part of a lawsuit settlement, it would adopt a definition of antisemitism that includes some harsh criticisms of Israel and Zionism, such as holding Israel to a “double standard” and likening its policies to Nazism. Though Harvard claims that it still adheres to the First Amendment, under this definition a student or professor who accuses Israel of genocidal action in Gaza — as the Israeli American Holocaust scholar Omer Bartov has — might be subject to disciplinary action.

    Trump suit against Pulitzer board — Ballard Spahr for the defense

    Charles Tobin lawyer at Ballard Spahr

    Charles Tobin for the defense

    On Monday, the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes — which Mr. Trump sued in Florida in 2022 for defamation — said that the case should be put on hold because, as Mr. Trump has argued in two other cases, a state court should not be permitted to exert control over a sitting president.

    “Defendants agree,” wrote the law firm representing the board, Ballard Spahr. “To avoid such constitutional conflicts, the court should stay this case until plaintiff’s term in office has concluded.”

    Mr. Trump’s lawsuit accuses the Pulitzer board of defaming him, in essence, by continuing to honor The New York Times and The Washington Post for their coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A state judge in Florida last year cleared the case to proceed toward trial.

    The Pulitzer board’s filing on Monday leaned heavily on statements the president’s legal team had made in other cases. One involved a suit filed in 2017 by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice” reality show, who accused the president of unwanted sexual advances. Mr. Trump’s team argued that her suit should be thrown out or delayed because dealing with it — including by producing records during discovery or being forced to appear in court — would “disrupt and impair” Mr. Trump’s ability to do his job. (The suit was settled in 2021, after he was out of office.)

    Mr. Trump’s lawyers repeated that argument last week in a different case in Delaware, in which he and his social media company are defendants.

    Excerpt from Trump v. Members of the Pulitzer Prize Board

    [Motion to temporarily stay civil action]

    It is well-established that “a trial court has broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to stay a case pending before it.” Shake Consulting, LLC v. Suncruz Casinos, LLC, 781So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming trial court’s entry of stay). For three reasons, the Court should exercise that discretion and stay this action until Plaintiff’s term in office has concluded.

    First, as Plaintiff himself has argued, and continues to argue, allowing a lawsuit to proceed in state court while a party to that action is the sitting President would invite irresolvable constitutional conflicts arising from the Supremacy Clause.

    Second, the grounds for staying this action are particularly strong because the prize-winning articles concern — and discovery will thus need to probe — Plaintiff’s official actions during his first term.

    Third, entering a stay will not prejudice Plaintiff, whereas denying a stay would pose constitutional issues both by stopping him from seeking to stay future civil litigation that may arise in state court during his presidency and by raising due process concerns for the Defendants.

    Attorneys for the Defendants 

    Nunes loses defamation case

    Nunes and his family’s farm can’t sufficiently show damages, so the court doesn’t have to reach any of the other elements of defamation.

    Related

    Protected expression: Elon Musk’s controversial salute


    WATCH VIDEO: Elon Musk appears to give fascist salute during Trump inauguration celebration.

    New scholarly article: Calo on holding social media accountable

    Professor Ryan Calo University of Washington School of Law

    Prof. Ryan Calo

    Plaintiffs are beginning to test the boundaries of tort law once again to fit social media. Seattle and other public-school districts recently sued TikTok, YouTube, and other platforms on the age-old theory of nuisance, arguing that these companies endanger public health by fostering a toxic online environment. When two boys died in a high-speed accident trying to trigger Snapchat’s “Speed Filter,” the Ninth Circuit allowed a cause of action to proceed against the company for negligent design. Snap could be held responsible for the “predictable consequences” of its irresponsible feature, the court reasoned, even though the “Speed Filter” always accompanied user-generated content. Washington election officials successfully sued Facebook, over its Section 230 objection, for failing to keep records on political ads in the state. The emphasis, again, was on Facebook’s own conduct around the ads, rather than the content of the ads themselves.

    There is an admittedly fine line between attributing third party content to the platform, which federal law forbids, and holding the platform accountable for foreseeable harms to people and communities, which tort law encourages. What did TikTok do wrong in Anderson? They did not film or upload a dangerous challenge video, and they cannot be held liable for hosting, distributing, or even recommending it. But has TikTok invested enough time and resources in protecting children on the platform, especially considering what the company knows about the toxic content that appears there?

    Should families like Nylah’s be able to rely upon TikTok’s own community guidelines, which pledge to “[r]estrict content that is not suitable for youth”? Such questions sound less in derivative liability as non- and misfeasance. Section 230 was meant to be a shield, not a shibboleth. Courts should be trying to thread this needle, rather than pretending Section 230 does not exist. Obviously wrong interpretations of Section 230, like the Third Circuit’s in Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., only set the law back.

    Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and free speech

    This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs.

    We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

    Freedom Forum’s new ad campaign

    Barbara Yolles, Ludwig CEO of LUDWIG+

    Barbara Yolles Ludwig, CEO of LUDWIG+

    LUDWIG+, a woman-owned brand actualization and business acceleration agency, is pleased to announce that they have been named as the creative agency for Freedom Forum’s new advertising campaign. Freedom Forum is the nation’s foremost nonpartisan advocate for First Amendment freedoms. As part of this collaboration, LUDWIG+ helped conceptualize and launch “Brought to You By the First Amendment,” a multichannel advertising campaign designed to drive awareness for the everyday freedoms made possible by the First Amendment.

    Today, Freedom Forum launched a dynamic and engaging digital experience with The Onion to further magnify the reach of this campaign. Combining The Onion’s satirical voice with Freedom Forum’s mission to foster First Amendment freedoms for all, this collaboration features onsite and social content strategically created and curated by LUDWIG+. The activation includes several articles published by The Onion that highlight First Amendment freedoms, as well as multiple digital infographics, videos and ad banners that showcase how freedom of speech is central to a thriving and diverse society.

    [ . . . ]

    “It’s an incredible honor to partner with Freedom Forum in championing our First Amendment freedoms and bringing the ‘Brought To You By the First Amendment’ campaign to life,” said Barbara Yolles Ludwig, Founder and CEO of LUDWIG+. “The First Amendment shapes our everyday lives — from the clothes we wear, the music we love, the books we cherish and the beliefs we hold. We look forward to bringing awareness to this paramount mission and the continued success of this campaign.”

    New Book: The Chicago canon on free inquiry

    A collection of texts that provide the foundation for the University of Chicago’s longstanding tradition of free expression, principles that are at the center of current debates within higher education and society more broadly.

    Cover of "The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression" by Tony Banout

    Free inquiry and expression are hotly contested, both on campus and in social and political life. Since its founding in the late nineteenth century, the University of Chicago has been at the forefront of conversations around free speech and academic freedom in higher education. The University’s approach to free expression grew from a sterling reputation as a research university as well as a commitment to American pragmatism and democratic progress, all of which depended on what its first president referred to as the “complete freedom of speech on all subjects.” In 2015, more than 100 years later, then University provost and president J.D. Isaacs and Robert Zimmer echoed this commitment, releasing a statement by a faculty committee led by law professor Geoffrey R. Stone that has come to be known as the Chicago Principles, now adopted or endorsed by one hundred U.S. colleges and universities. These principles are just a part of the long-standing dialogue at the University of Chicago around freedom of expression — its meaning and limits. The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression brings together exemplary documents — some published for the first time here — that explain and situate this ongoing conversation with an introductory essay that brings the tradition to light.

    Throughout waves of historical and societal challenges, this first principle of free expression has required rearticulation and new interpretations. The documents gathered here include, among others, William Rainey Harper’s “Freedom of Speech” (1900), the Kalven Committee’s report on the University’s role in political and social action (1967), and Geoffrey R. Stone’s “Free Speech on Campus: A Challenge of Our Times” (2016). Together, the writings of the canon reveal how the Chicago tradition is neither static nor stagnant, but a vibrant experiment; a lively struggle to understand, practice, and advance free inquiry and expression.

    At a time of nationwide campus speech debates, engaging with these texts and the questions they raise is essential to sustaining an environment of broad intellectual and ideological diversity. This book offers a blueprint for the future of higher education’s vital work and points to the civic value of free expression.

    ‘So to Speak’ Podcast: Interview with the editors of ‘The Chicago Canon’

    The University of Chicago is known for its commitment to free speech and academic freedom. Why are these values important to the university? Where do they originate? And how do they help administrators navigate conflicts and controversies?

    Tony Banout and Tom Ginsburg direct the University of Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, which received a $100 million gift last year. They are also editors of “The Chicago Canon on Free Inquiry and Expression,” a new book that collects foundational texts that inform the university’s free speech tradition.


    WATCH VIDEO: “So to Speak” podcast on the Chicago Canon.

    More in the news

     

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 454: “Trump’s stated promise: ‘Stop all government censorship’ and his free speech Executive Order”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.



    Source link

  • MackinVIA Earns Prestigious Platinum Modern Library AwardFrom LibraryWorks For Its 10th Consecutive Yea

    MackinVIA Earns Prestigious Platinum Modern Library AwardFrom LibraryWorks For Its 10th Consecutive Yea

    Burnsville, MN – January 16, 2025 – Mackin, a leader in providing print and digital
    educational resources for PK-12, is proud to announce that its free digital content management platform, MackinVIA, has earned the Platinum Award in LibraryWorks’ 10th annual Modern Library Awards (MLAs). This prestigious accolade marks MackinVIA’s 10th consecutive win, solidifying its position as a top choice for digital content management in schools worldwide.

    The MLAs, which celebrate the best products and services in the library industry, are awarded based on an unbiased voting process involving over 80,000 librarians from public, K-12, academic, and special libraries. Judges evaluated submissions on a range of criteria, including functionality, value, and customer service. MackinVIA received an outstanding score of 9.25, a testament to its continued excellence and innovation.

    “We’re honored to receive the Platinum Award for the 10th year in a row,” said Troy Mikell, Director of Marketing and Communications at Mackin. “Since launching MackinVIA over a decade ago, we’ve continually focused on creating a powerful, user-friendly platform for educators and students. Our relentless drive for improvement and exceptional customer service has fueled MackinVIA’s success, and it’s thrilling to see that effort recognized once again.”

    MackinVIA is accessible by more than 9 million students worldwide, providing access to over 4 million eBooks, audiobooks, read-alongs, databases, and video resources. Its digital platform offers a dynamic and comprehensive solution for PK-12 schools looking to streamline content management and improve student engagement.

    Jenny Newman, Publisher and MLA Program Manager, noted, “MackinVIA’s consistent excellence in functionality and service is what has kept them at the forefront of the industry for over 40 years. Their innovative approach continues to break barriers and set new standards.”

    About Mackin
    For over 40 years, Mackin has provided PK-12 grade libraries and classrooms with access to nearly 4 million printed and digital titles. The 24-time, multi-award-winning, digital content management system, MackinVIA, along with divisions Mackin Classroom, MackinMaker, Mackin Learning, and the brand-new, whole school resource management system, MackinVision, help to create a truly unique and robust educational resource company that schools and educators have relied on, year after year. For more information, visit www.mackin.com or call 800-245-9540.

    About LibraryWorks
    LibraryWorks helps library administrators make informed decisions regarding technology, automation, collection management, staffing, and other key areas that support efficient library operations. Their resources empower libraries to implement best practices, monitor trends, evaluate products and services, and more.

    About the Modern Library Awards (MLAs)
    The MLAs recognize outstanding products and services that enhance library operations and improve the user experience. Entries are judged by library professionals based on their relevance, functionality, and impact on the library sector.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link