Tag: hate

  • Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

    Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, a new survey finds

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

    About one in four teachers say their schools don’t give students zeroes. And nearly all of them hate it.

    The collection of practices known as equitable grading, which includes not giving students zeroes, not taking off points for lateness, and letting students retake tests, has spread in the aftermath of the pandemic. But it wasn’t known how widespread the practices were.

    A new nationally representative survey released Wednesday finds equitable grading practices are fairly common, though nowhere near universal. More than half of K-12 teachers said their school or district used at least one equitable grading practice.

    The most common practice — and the one that drew the most heated opposition in the fall 2024 survey — is not giving students zeroes for missing assignments or failed tests. Just over a quarter of teachers said their school or district has a no-zeroes policy.

    Around 3 in 10 teachers said their school or district allowed students to retake tests without penalty, and a similar share said they did not deduct points when students turned in work late. About 1 in 10 teachers said they were not permitted to factor class participation or homework into students’ final grades.

    Only 6% of teachers said their school used four or more equitable grading practices.

    That was surprising to Adam Tyner, who co-authored the new report for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, in partnership with the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization. He expected more schools would be following a “whole package” of grading reforms supported by advocates like former teacher and education consultant Joe Feldman, who wrote the influential book “Grading for Equity.”

    “It’s not like this has swept the country,” said Tyner, who has studied grading practices. He argues that some policies meant to create equity lead to grade inflation and don’t benefit students.

    The findings come as many schools are rethinking what students should have to do to get a high school diploma, and how much emphasis should be put on grades. At the same time, many schools continue to struggle with student disengagement and historically high rates of absenteeism following the pandemic. As a result, they’re trying to hold students accountable for their work without making it impossible to catch up on missed assignments.

    Though ideas about how to grade students more fairly predate the pandemic, several large districts started rethinking their grading practices following that disruption, as more students struggled to meet strict deadlines or do their homework.

    Proponents of equitable grading say it’s important for students to be able to show what they know over time, and that just a few zeroes averaged into a grade can make it difficult for students to ever catch up. When students don’t see a path to passing a class, it can make them less motivated or stop trying altogether.

    Still, some teachers have pushed back, arguing that no-zeroes policies can hurt student motivation, too.

    That showed up in the recent survey.

    Eight in 10 teachers said giving students partial credit for assignments they didn’t turn in was harmful to student engagement. Opposition to no-zeroes policies came from teachers of various racial backgrounds, experience levels, and who worked with different demographics of students.

    No-zeroes policies can take various forms but often mean that the lowest possible grade is a 50 on a 100-point scale. Some schools use software that will automatically convert lower grades to a 50, one teacher wrote on the survey.

    Schools that enrolled mostly students of color were more likely to have no-zeroes policies, the survey found. And middle schools were more likely than high schools and elementary schools to have no-zeroes policies, no-late-penalty policies, and retake policies.

    Researchers weren’t sure why those policies popped up more in middle schools.

    But Katherine Holden, a former middle school principal in Oregon’s Ashland School District who trains school districts on equitable grading practices, has some guesses.

    High schools may be more worried that changing their grading practices will make it harder for students to get into college, Holden said — a misconception in her eyes. And districts may see middle schoolers as especially likely to benefit from things like clear grading rubrics and multiple chances to show what they know, as they are still developing their organization and time-management skills.

    In the open-ended section of the survey, several teachers expressed concerns that no-zeroes policies were unfair and contributed to low student motivation.

    “Students are now doing below-average work or no work at all and are walking out with a C or B,” one teacher told researchers.

    “Most teachers can’t stand the ‘gifty fifty,’” said another.

    More than half of teachers said letting students turn in work late without any penalty was harmful to student engagement.

    “[The policy] removes the incentive for students to ever turn work in on time, and then it becomes difficult to pass back graded work because of cheating,” one teacher said.

    But teachers were more evenly divided on whether allowing students to retake tests was harmful or not.

    “Allowing retakes without penalty encourages a growth mindset, but it also promotes avoidance and procrastination,” one teacher said.

    Another said teachers end up grading almost every assignment more than once because students have no reason to give their best effort the first time.

    The report’s authors recommend getting rid of blanket policies in favor of letting individual teachers make those calls. Research has shown that other grading reforms, such as grading written assignments anonymously or using grading rubrics, can reduce bias.

    Still, teachers don’t agree on the best approach to grading. In the survey, 58% of teachers said it was more important to have clear schoolwide policies to ensure fair student grading — though the question didn’t indicate what that policy should look like — while the rest preferred using their professional judgment.

    “There are ways to combat bias, there are ways to make grading more fair, and we’re not against any of that,” Tyner said. “What we’re really concerned about is when we’re lowering standards, or lowering expectations. … Accountability is always a balancing act.”

    Nicole Paxton, the principal of Mountain Vista Community School, a K-8 school in Colorado’s Harrison School District 2, has seen that balancing act in action.

    Her district adopted a policy a few years ago that requires teachers to grade students on a 50-100 scale. Students get at least a 50% if they turn in work, but they get a “missing” grade if they don’t do the assignment. Middle and high schoolers are allowed to make up missing or incomplete assignments. But it has to be done within the same quarter, and teachers can deduct up to 10% for late assignments.

    Paxton thinks the policy was the right move for her district. She says she’s seen it motivate kids who are struggling to keep trying, when before they stopped doing their work because they didn’t think they could ever bounce back from a few zeroes.

    “As adults, in the real world, we get to show what we know and learn in our careers,” Paxton said. “And I think that kids are able to do that in our building, too.”

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

    For more news on classroom trends, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right?

    Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right?

    FIRE staff also take your questions on Charlie Kirk’s
    assassination, President Trump’s lawsuit against The New York
    Times, cancel culture, and more.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi’s comments that “hate speech”
    is distinct from “free speech”

    02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people
    for “hate speech”?

    05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas?

    07:19 President Trump’s response to Pam Bondi’s “hate speech”
    remarks

    08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats”
    free speech?

    11:22 What about doxxing?

    15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the
    assassination of Charlie Kirk?

    21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response
    to their commentary on Kirk’s assassination

    28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who
    had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had
    towards Kirk ahead of the assassination?

    30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech
    under the incitement standard

    31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of
    citizens and non-citizens?

    36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in
    the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a
    wide range of behaviors and actions?

    37:40 What is the Trump’s administration’s legal strategy with
    the New York Times lawsuit?

    39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for
    their political commentary?

    46:50 What is Charlie Kirk’s legacy on free speech?

    50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections
    enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members?

    52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free
    speech?

    56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York
    Times?

    59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on
    social media and promote civil discourse?

    Joining us:

    Ronnie London, general counsel

    Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar, global expression

    Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy

    Source link

  • Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right?

    Pam Bondi says hate speech is not free speech — is she right?

    FIRE staff also take your questions on Charlie Kirk’s
    assassination, President Trump’s lawsuit against The New York
    Times, cancel culture, and more. Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:42 Attorney General Pam Bondi’s comments that “hate speech”
    is distinct from “free speech”

    02:23 Is it OK for the Department of Justice to target people
    for “hate speech”?

    05:42 How have “hate speech” laws played out overseas?

    07:19 President Trump’s response to Pam Bondi’s “hate speech”
    remarks

    08:50 Are “fighting words,” “incitement,” and “true threats”
    free speech?

    11:22 What about doxxing?

    15:15 Is it free speech to celebrate or condone the
    assassination of Charlie Kirk?

    21:52 The termination of k-12 and university faculty in response
    to their commentary on Kirk’s assassination

    28:40 Is there a law that might implicate the Discord users who
    had reason to be aware of malicious intentions the shooter had
    towards Kirk ahead of the assassination?

    30:05 The agency of speakers and those hearing their speech
    under the incitement standard

    31:14 What are the differences between the free speech rights of
    citizens and non-citizens?

    36:20 Does a court filing by President Trump as an individual in
    the New York Times lawsuit open him up to being deposed about a
    wide range of behaviors and actions?

    37:40 What is the Trump’s administration’s legal strategy with
    the New York Times lawsuit?

    39:24 What is FIRE doing about private employees being fired for
    their political commentary?

    46:50 What is Charlie Kirk’s legacy on free speech?

    50:04 What is the difference between the academic protections
    enjoyed by tenured and non-tenured faculty members?

    52:05 Does FIRE trust the Supreme Court to protect free
    speech?

    56:12 How can we prevent capitulation from The New York
    Times?

    59:20 How can ordinary people safely express their opinions on
    social media and promote civil discourse?

    Joining us:

    • Ronnie London, general counsel

    • Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar, global expression

    • Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy

    Source link

  • Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong

    Why everything Pam Bondi said about ‘hate speech’ is wrong

    We get it: not everyone is a free speech expert. A huge part of our job at FIRE is educating the public about their First Amendment rights, the scope of free speech law, and the foundational principles that make free expression so important.

    Most people don’t have the time to get in the weeds like we do, so it’s understandable for the average American to sometimes get things wrong about free speech. But when you’re the attorney general of the United States, like Pam Bondi, you really should know better.

    While discussing the assassination of Charlie Kirk and campus antisemitism on The Katie Miller Podcast, Bondi said the Justice Department would investigate and prosecute incidents of “hate speech.” While she’s trying to go into damage control mode and walk back some of her mistakes, it’s important to correct our nation’s chief law enforcement officer on what is and isn’t protected expression. 

    There’s free speech, and then there’s hate speech. And there is no place — especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie — [for that] in our society.

    This is, to put it bluntly, absolutely false — so-called “hate speech” is free speech. 

    The idea that “hate speech” is a separate and unprotected category of expression is one that we, unfortunately, have had to debunk time and time again. The fact is there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, and there can’t be. The Supreme Court has rejected the notion on multiple occasions, and the reasons for this should be obvious to someone in Bondi’s position.


    WATCH VIDEO: Should the First Amendment protect hate speech?

    What constitutes “hate speech” is inherently subjective, so it’s impossible to narrowly define it in a way that passes constitutional muster — let alone in a way that doesn’t empower the government to target speech it disfavors.

    As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote in 1971’s Cohen v. California, “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Or as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in Matal v. Tam almost four decades later, “the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’” In that case, the Court unanimously found that the government couldn’t deny a trademark to an Asian-American band called the Slants because it found the name disparaging. 

    Some consider criticism of Israel or Black Lives Matter to be hate speech. Others believe criticizing LGBTQ+ advocacy or Christian conservatism fits the description. And some, like President Trump, want to push the idea that even critical news coverage of an elected official — namely, him — can be a form of hate speech.

    Apart from the inescapably subjective sentiment that “hate speech is any speech I hate,” the only thing on which proponents of treating hate speech as unprotected agree is the desire to punish it. This apparently includes Pam Bondi:

    We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.

    This is absolutely chilling. It’s why carving out a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment is so dangerous. It grants the government the power not only to decide what constitutes hateful speech, but to punish it. And that dual empowerment inevitably facilitates attacks on the right to dissent, criticize, and hold accountable whoever is in power. Nothing is more antithetical to what America stands for than enabling federal speech police. 

    Early this morning, Bondi published a post on X, attempting to clarify her comments after a wave of negative response. Unfortunately, she only introduced more confusion:

    Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.

    While Bondi is correct that speech satisfying the stringent standard for what constitutes a true threat of violence is not protected by the First Amendment, she seems to effectively equate it with so-called “hate speech.” She goes on:

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), it is a federal crime to transmit “any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another.” Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and 18 U.S.C. § 115 make it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress, or their families.

    Bondi is narrowly correct here. In 2003’s Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court defined true threats as “those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

    However, Bondi quickly shows that she doesn’t understand this narrow exception, which doesn’t cover abstract advocacy of violence or “cheering on” political violence — speech that is, in fact, protected:

    You cannot call for someone’s murder. You cannot swat a Member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as “free speech.” These acts are punishable crimes, and every single threat will be met with the full force of the law.

    Actually, you can call for someone’s murder as long as you’re not inciting it. In the landmark Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court established that there is a difference between speech promoting unlawful action and the unlawful action itself. That speech only loses First Amendment protection when it is “directed to and likely to produce imminent lawless action.” The reason for this is to protect our ability to engage in sharp, critical, and even incendiary language — because political speech, as the Supreme Court noted in 1969’s Watts v. United States, “is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact,” and we don’t want a particular politician or administration deciding for everyone when it’s too hateful or offensive.

    Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment?

    Is hate speech protected by the First Amendment? The First Amendment makes no general exception for offensive, repugnant, or hateful expression.


    Read More

    Like hate speech, Bondi also fails to define “doxxing.” It often refers to the intentional release of an individual’s personal identifying information without their permission — though many use the term more liberally, for example, to refer to posting video of ICE agents performing their duties in public. Disclosing truthful information about others is generally protected unless done in a way that amounts to a true threat or incitement. 

    Mercifully, Bondi ended her tweet with something to which we don’t object: 

    Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent but it does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.

    You’ll get no argument from us there. Words are words, and violence is violence. And the distinction makes all the difference: Protect speech. Punish violence.

    What Bondi fails to recognize is the critical importance of protecting ideas, debate, and dissent is why there is no First Amendment exception for so-called “hate speech” — and why there never should be.

    Charlie Kirk himself would have agreed:

    Charlie Kirk post on Twitter: "Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There's ugly speech. There's gross speech. There's evil speech."

    Source link

  • Civil rights, hate speech, and the First Amendment

    Civil rights, hate speech, and the First Amendment

    We know the First Amendment protects hate speech. But has it always done so? And how have civil rights groups responded when their members are the target of hate speech?

    University of Iowa Law Professor Samantha Barbas is the author of a new law review article, “How American Civil Rights Groups Defeated Hate Speech Laws.”

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    04:04 “The Birth of a Nation” movie controversy

    12:44 Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic “Dearborn Independent”

    22:41 American Jewish Committee’s “quarantining” solution

    28:41 ACLU’s Eleanor Holmes Norton defending a racist in court

    33:42 Racist Senate candidate J.B. Stoner

    37:28 Neo-Nazis and Skokie

    47:20 Why are college students afraid of saying “the wrong thing?”

    52:31 Barbas’ favorite free speech literature

    53:15 Barbas’ free speech hero

    Read the transcript here: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/so-speak-podcast-transcript-civil-rights-hate-speech-and-first-amendment.

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email [email protected].

    Show notes:

     

    Source link

  • ‘I hate freedom of opinion’ meme leads to sentencing in German court

    ‘I hate freedom of opinion’ meme leads to sentencing in German court

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a 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. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter

    Guilty finding for German editor’s doctored “I hate freedom of opinion” image 

    Germany’s speech policing can’t stay out of the spotlight for long, apparently. This month, David Bendels, editor-in-chief for the Alternative for Germany (AfD)-affiliated Deutschland Kurier, received a seven-month suspended sentence for “abuse, slander or defamation against persons in political life.” 

    The offense? Bendels had edited and posted a photo of Interior Minister Nancy Faeser so that a sign she held said, “I hate freedom of opinion.” (Just think of how many different versions you saw of the Michelle Obama sign meme here in the U.S.) A Bavarian district court found Bendels guilty under a provision giving advanced protections to political figures against speech. Bendels’ sentencing has provoked criticism outside of his political circle, with figures like former Green Party leader Ricarda Lang questioning the “proportionality” of the ruling.

    Political speech under fire, from Thailand to Zimbabwe to Russia 

    • American academic Paul Chambers, a Naresuan University lecturer, has lost his visa and is facing trial after the Royal Thai Army accused him of violating Thailand’s oppressive lese-majeste laws. The laws, which ban insults to the country’s monarchy, regularly result in long prison sentences for government critics.
    • Hamas militants tortured a Palestinian man to death after he participated in anti-Hamas protests.
    • A St. Petersburg military court sentenced 67-year-old Soviet-era dissident Alexander Skobov to 16 years in prison for participating in the Free Russia Forum and making a social media post in support of Ukraine.
    • Indian comedian Kunal Kamra is experiencing a wave of retaliation after joking about state leader Eknath Shinde at a comedy club. Kamra is facing multiple criminal charges, including defamation, as well as death threats. But he isn’t backing down — his response on X included a “step-by-step guide” on “How to Kill an Artist.”
    • Zimbabwe police have detained journalist Blessed Mhlanga for weeks on charges of “transmitting information that incites violence or causes damage to property.” He had interviewed a veteran and political figure who called for the resignation of President Emmerson Mnangagwa.
    • Israeli military temporarily blindfolded, handcuffed, and detained filmmaker Hamdan Ballal, best known for the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land,”  while he was receiving medical care after settlers attacked him during Ramadan near his home in the West Bank.
    • Burkina Faso’s military junta is accused of forcibly conscripting journalists who criticized severe press freedom violations in the country.
    • Nigeria’s Borno State arrested a 19-year-old for his viral social media post criticizing public schools in the region and intend to charge him with “ridiculing and bringing down the personality of” the governor.
    • Lawyers representing dissenting voices aren’t free from consequences, either. An Iranian court sentenced a dozen lawyers who provided legal services to clients from the country’s 2022 protest movement to three years in prison on “propaganda” charges. 

    Turkey targets journalists amid protests

    Protesters gather in Istanbul after the detention of the city’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu.

    Last month, Turkish police banned protests in Istanbul and arrested the city’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, a popular rival of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The crackdown has extended to the press, too. Authorities arrested BBC correspondent Mark Lowen and deported him for “being a threat to public order,” arrested AFP photographer Yasin Akgül for “taking part in an illegal gathering,” and charged Swedish journalist Kaj Joakim Medin for allegedly “being a member of a terrorist organization” and “insulting” Erdogan. 

    The latest in tech and censorship:

    • Late last month, a massive earthquake struck Myanmar, causing thousands of deaths and injuries. But the country’s military junta nevertheless continued severe restrictions on reporting and internet access, hampering recovery efforts.
    • The Kenyan high court in Nairobi ruled that a lawsuit alleging Meta’s content moderation practices fueled violence in Ethiopia can go forward.
    • Meta says it’s facing “substantial” fines because it “pushed back on requests from the Turkish government to restrict content that is clearly in the public interest” in the aftermath of Mayor Imamoglu’s arrest.
    • Turkish authorities also demanded the social media platform X block hundreds of accounts within the country, to which X partially complied but has since challenged some of the orders “to defend the expression of our users.”
    • X is also challenging the use of a provision of India’s Information Technology Act to issue content takedown orders.
    • India’s Supreme Court, in response to Wikimedia Foundation’s appeal against an order from the Delhi High Court, pushed back against that court’s demand that Wikipedia take down a page detailing Asian News International’s lawsuit against the Foundation.
    • The Investigatory Powers Tribunal issued a ruling opposing the UK government’s attempt to keep secret Apple’s appeal against orders that it offer a backdoor in its encrypted cloud service for users around the world.
    • European Union authorities are reportedly planning to announce penalties including “a fine and demands for product changes” against X for alleged violations under the Digital Services Act.

    Pakistan’s blasphemers still under attack

    Late last month, a Pakistan court sentenced five men to death for posting “blasphemous” content online, a common charge and penalty in Pakistan. But that’s not all. A Pakistani YouTuber is also facing blasphemy charges (not his first) for naming a perfume “295” — a reference to the blasphemy law in the country’s penal code.

    Let’s check back in across the pond…

    Lately, it seems not a day goes by without the UK’s free speech issues hitting the headlines. This month is no different. Here’s the latest:

    • As I’ve written about in recent editions of the Dispatch, the UK has been flirting with enforcement of blasphemy laws in the country. That risk has advanced with the charge of “intent to cause against the religious institution of Islam, harassment, alarm or distress” filed against a man who burned a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. The alleged target in the case — the “religious institution of Islam” — is notable.
    • On the other hand, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority chose not to act on hundreds of complaints filed over an allegedly anti-Christian KFC ad that “depicts a man being baptised in a lake of gravy before transforming into a human-sized chicken nugget.”(Last year, the ASA did act against a comedy tour ad that could cause “serious offence” to Christians.)
    • A lower court in Poole found anti-abortion activist Livia Tossici-Bolt guilty on two charges of breaching a public spaces protection order for standing outside an abortion clinic with a sign that read “Here to talk, if you want.” The court gave her a conditional discharge and ordered her to pay £20,000 (about $27,000) in legal costs.
    • Over 30 police officers arrested six activists from Youth Demand at a Quaker meeting house in London “on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.” One member said the group was “so incensed” by the raid “that they didn’t even offer officers a cup of tea.”
    • Hertfordshire police are conducting a “rapid and thorough review” after the arrest and 11-hour detainment of  a couple on various charges, including harassment and malicious communications because they voiced complaints about their daughter’s school on WhatsApp.
    • The aforementioned arrests are just a drop in the pond — data obtained by The Times found that UK police are detaining around 12,000 people annually for “sending messages that cause ‘annoyance’, ‘inconvenience’ or ‘anxiety’ to others via the internet, telephone or mail.”

    China’s critics targeted in Hong Kong — and Canada 

    Chinese dissident artists Badiucao

    Chinese dissident artist and human rights activist Badiucao holding his Lennon Wall flag that he designed in support of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement, October 5, 2019.

    Milan digital gallery Art Innovation is facing criticism for its response to an artist it featured in a short video broadcast on billboards during a recent art fair in Hong Kong. In it, artist, CCP critic, and frequent target of censorship Badiucao mouthed the words, “You must take part in revolution,” a Mao Zedong quote and the title of his new graphic novel

    When he announced that he planned to publish a statement about his effort to skirt Hong Kong’s censorship laws, Art Innovation warned him there would “definitely” be legal action if material “against the Chinese government is published.” And in a social media post, the gallery said Badiucao was not upfront about the “nature of the work” so they “can consider it a crime.”

    And that’s not all the news out of Hong Kong. In recent weeks, a 57-year-old man was sentenced to a year in prison for “seditious” social media posts including some calling the Chinese government a “terrorist state” and an “evil axis power.” Police also took in for questioning the parents of U.S.-based democracy activist Frances Hui, who is wanted in Hong Kong on national security charges.

    Hong Kong’s campaign to target its activists is causing a stir elsewhere, too — in Canadian elections. Canadian member of parliament and Liberal Party candidate Paul Chiang stepped down from the April 28 election days after a video of comments he made earlier this year surfaced. In it, Chiang encouraged people to bring Conservative party candidate Joe Tay, who is wanted by Hong Kong authorities, to Toronto’s Chinese consulate to collect a bounty for him.

    P.S. If you enjoyed this newsletter, you may be interested in my book, “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.” It comes out Aug. 19 and is now available for pre-order!

    Source link

  • Is it ‘hate speech’ to say Jesus needs a haircut?

    Is it ‘hate speech’ to say Jesus needs a haircut?

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a 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. 

    Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.


    Hate speech sentence for TikToker’s joke about Jesus’ hair

    Is it a crime to joke that Jesus needs a haircut? In Indonesia, the answer is apparently yes. Ratu Thalisa, a popular TikToker in the country, was just sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison after holding up a picture of Jesus in a video and saying, “You should not look like a woman,” adding that he should cut his hair. 

    Thalisa, a trans woman, was responding to a commenter telling her to cut her hair like a man’s. Two days after she posted the video, Christian groups reported her to the police for blasphemy violations and she was soon arrested. She was ultimately found guilty of hate speech against Christianity under Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions law for comments that could affect “public order” and “religious harmony.” 

    Thalisa is one of hundreds found guilty for speech-related offenses under this law in recent years. Similarly, opponents of a demolition project linked to a Roman Catholic diocese in Indonesia now have reason to fear they’ll be targeted under the country’s blasphemy law. The United Catholic Youth Forum, a Catholic group in Indonesia, is pressuring police to arrest a critic who posted a cartoon “depicting a Catholic priest with an excavator,” claiming it “insults the symbol of the Catholic religion.”

    Blasphemous speech remains a target globally

    Rasmus Paludan burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy in Stockholm in January 2023

    • Greek politician Nikolaos Papadopoulos took his feud against artwork he once criticized as offensive to Orthodox Christianity to a new level this month. The country’s National Gallery had to temporarily close after Papadopoulos partially destroyed four works, caricatures of religious icons from artist Christoforos Katsadiotis, by throwing them on the ground.
    • Pakistan’s Lahore High Court issued a ruling intensifying the country’s attack on VPN use and blasphemous speech online. The ruling “ordered the immediate termination of all types of VPNs, the registration of all social media websites, and the establishment of special courts nationwide” to combat online blasphemy.
    • A Pakistani court sentenced a man to death for “disrespectful remarks against the Holy Prophet.”
    • Last month, I wrote about a man who was arrested “on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence” for publicly burning a Quran in Manchester, UK. Another man was arrested on similar charges after burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. And that’s not all — his expression was also met with violence. An attacker was charged after slashing at the Quran burner with a knife. 

    Online Safety Act, threats to China’s critics, and more out of the UK

    Digital graphic world map hologram on flag of China and blue sky background

    Another charged Quran-burner isn’t the only speech news coming out of the UK. Here’s the latest:

    • The UK’s Online Safety Act has now gone into effect. The law is wide-ranging and, among other things, requires platforms to take measures against and have in place systems for removing content including extreme pornography, racially or religiously aggravated public order offences, controlling or coercive behaviour, and terrorism. Hundreds of small websites — like The Hamster Forum, “the home of all things hamstery” — have already announced they are shutting down out of fear that they will be unable to meet compliance requirements under the law.
    • Earlier this year, the UK shocked privacy advocates when leaks reported that the country’s Home Office demanded Apple offer a backdoor in its encrypted cloud service for users around the world. Apple refused, withdrawing its advanced data protection tool for UK users rather than comply, and responded with an appeal to the country’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal. A hearing was held this month — but it was closed, and media outlets were denied access.
    • Neighbors of Hong Kong activists Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, now living in the UK, received disturbing letters offering £100,000 for “information” on their alleged national security crimes against Hong Kong or, even more shocking, for taking them directly to the Chinese embassy in London. An embassy spokesperson claimed the letters were staged but said that “I also want to stress that it is legitimate and reasonable to pursue wanted fugitives.” Similar letters were sent in Melbourne to the neighbors of Kevin Yam, an Australian citizen also wanted in Hong Kong.

    Facial recognition’s role in censorship 

    Last week, Hungarian MPs passed a law making it “forbidden to hold an assembly in violation” of the country’s 2021 law banning the depiction of homosexuality to minors, making Pride marches illegal in the country. Those who hold or attend Pride parades may now face fines — and police “are also allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify possible offenders.”

    Facial recognition is playing a role in Iran’s censorship and suppression of women, too. To enforce its oppressive forced veiling policies, Iranian authorities use a slew of tools to target women failing to wear hijab. Those tools include drones, a phone app to report unveiled women, and facial recognition tech. 

    Speech about Israel and Gaza continues to be a target for law enforcement and legislators

    Protester is holding a placard that reads ''Freedom of Speech'' while nearly a hundred people are participating in a demonstration to commemorate Palestinian Prisoners Day in Bonn, Germany copy

    • Germany’s State Security Police are investigating an incident during the Berlin International Film Festival, where Hong Kong director Jun Li read out a speech from Iranian actor Erfan Shekarriz, who accused German institutions of supporting “the brutal extermination of the Palestinian people.” The investigation likely rests on the director’s use of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a phrase that has sometimes been criminalized in Germany.
    • In an effort to combat anti-Semitism, New South Wales in Australia has passed new protest and hate speech laws despite some concerns about their breadth. The laws, among other things, restrict protests “near” places of worship and criminalize “intentionally and publicly incit[ing] hatred towards another person, or group of people, on the grounds of race.”
    • Canadian writer and activist Yves Engler was hit with harassment and indecent communication charges late last month over comments he made in reply to media figure Dahlia Kurtz on X last summer. Engler said “Racist Dahlia supports killing Palestinian children. 20,000 is not enough she wants even more Palestinian blood spilled.” Engler then alleged he was hit with a new set of charges for writing about the initial ones. Engler spent five days in jail before being released.
    • Universities Australia, the representative body for Australia’s higher education institutions, agreed upon a new definition of anti-Semitism to be adopted across its 39 universities after urging from the Australian Senate to create one that “closely aligns” with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. (FIRE has expressed concerns about enforcement of the IHRA definition on U.S. campuses and its potential to chill or censor protected speech about Israel.)
    • Saying “freedom of expression underpins everything we do at LSE,” the London School of Economics rejected a campaign to cancel a talk for the book “Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters.” Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely had sent a letter to LSE calling for the event cancellation, writing that she was “deeply concerned that the event is providing a platform for Hamas propaganda — a terror organisation proscribed under United Kingdom law.”

    Record high internet shutdowns in 2024

    As Dispatch readers know, many of the most pressing free speech fights today take place over how, and whether, we can speak freely online. A new report from Access Now revealed that 2024 was the worst year yet for internet shutdowns, finding 296 shutdowns in 54 countries, with seven new countries using the tactic for the first time compared to 2023. The most shutdowns occurred in Myanmar, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Ukraine, with some of those shutdowns imposed by other nations and actors.

    Prison for a ‘false post,’ satirical cartoon blocked in India, and more speech news out of the Middle East and Asia 

    • An elderly Malaysian man was sentenced to six months in prison after failing to pay a fine punishing him for posting “false content” about the king of Malaysia.
    • Kyrgyzstan recriminalized libel and insult on the internet and in the media. Now, “complaints will be handled by police and adjudicated by so-called administrative courts in an expedited format” and new fines will be assessed for violations.
    • Police handling online crime in India’s Maharashtra state sent a notice to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove “objectionable” content from the Wikipedia page for Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, a king in 17th century India.
    • There’s more Wikipedia news out of India. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking India’s Supreme Court to reverse an order directing Wikipedia to take down a page about its legal dispute with an Indian news agency. The underlying dispute centers on a Wiki entry describing the outlet as a government “propaganda tool.”
    • And India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reportedly blocked the website of Tamil-language weekly magazine Ananda Vikatan over a satirical cartoon depicting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in chains behind President Donald Trump.
    • Vietnamese scholar and journalist Truong Huy San, who goes by the pen name Huy Duc, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for Facebook posts “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state.”
    • An escalation in President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s campaign against his opponents and critics, Turkish police just arrested Istanbul’s mayor and popular Erdogan rival Ekrem Imamoglu and banned protests for four days in Istanbul.
    • Two of Singapore’s government ministers have filed a libel suit against Bloomberg over the outlet’s reporting about real estate in Singapore. Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, Singapore previously ordered Bloomberg to issue a “correction direction” on its reporting, which the outlet did with a note that it was done “under threat of sanction.”

    Guilty finding in egregious case of transnational repression in the U.S.

    Iranian journalist and womens rights activist Masih Alinejad at the Time Women of the Year Gala in 2023

    Last week, two men were found guilty of a plot to murder Iranian-American journalist and activist Masih Alinejad in New York City. Alleged Russian mob members Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov were found guilty of charges including murder for hire, firearms possession and conspiracy to commit money laundering. 

    Prosecutors accused the Iranian government of putting a $500,000 bounty on Alinejad and of other plots to harm her. The case is yet another disturbing reminder that oppressive regimes overseas are attempting to silence speech — and critics — within U.S. borders.

    Source link