free+speech - search results

“We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About something important, about something real?”—Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

A cascade of managerial and public relations blunders has prompted Florida Atlantic University administrators to introduce The Agora Project, a broad initiative intending to promote “the practice of civility and civil discourse in an environment of free speech, academic freedom and open dialogue.”

Faculty valuing free speech and academic freedom whose persistent efforts at cultivating such through their teaching and research will likely be intrigued in hearing of the Agora Project, an endeavor proffering “forums on the importance of academic freedom, academic responsibility, and freedom of expression;” the program even promises to “create workshops on how best to practice civil and respectful interaction with others; and provide opportunities to discuss, dialogue and debate matters relevant to FAU and to our world.”

One is to conclude that, left to their own devices, faculty members and students may never arrive at a rational approach toward civility. Moreover, they may even become suspicious in the event that they are force-fed such an agenda. Indeed, after the Delphi-style exercise was presented at a recent faculty meeting, a colleague quietly pulled me aside and remarked, “This isn’t about civility. It’s about control.”

Will this individual soon be vociferously questioning Agora? Likely no. Wouldn’t want to “rock the boat” and draw attention to her/himself. Could s/he perhaps be on to something? Likely yes.

Not coincidentally, Agora was unveiled by university administrators in August 2013, a few short weeks after a speech code issued by FAU’s Division of Student Affairs was condemned by the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and subsequently revised. “Here at FAU,” the original speech code reads,

we encourage our campus community to exercise this cherished freedom in lively debate. In fact, we protect and promote that right. What we do insist on, however, is that everyone in the FAU community behave and speak to and about one another in ways that are not racist, religiously intolerant or otherwise degrading to others. (Emphasis added.)

FIRE countered that such a policy could impinge on constitutionally-protected speech and expression, possibly quashing not only academic discussion and inquiry, but also protest and debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict under the guise of “religious intolerance.”

In addition, an injunction on “racist” speech might be used to discipline vibrant exchanges on immigration and affirmative action. “And the prohibition on ‘otherwise degrading’ speech could apply to speech on virtually any topic that offends another person,” FIRE contends.

 A cynic might conclude that The Agora Project is a backdoor effort to provide the basis for extending such criteria across each of the University’s constituencies—faculty, students, staff—with their implicit approval given the plan’s professed effort of consultation and engagement.

Along these lines, perhaps the endeavor is an effort to assuage certain communities who for some reason aren’t comfortable with or seek to discontinue open discussion, debate, and social protest—all of which are to be anticipated in a space devoted to the expansion of intellectual horizons.

Of course, those in the upper echelons of university oversight—the administrators and trustees—who are pushing for prospective speech protocols are exempt from such measures, as their actions and behavior are apparently beyond reproach.

For example, last spring then-president Mary Jane Saunders ran into a protesting student with her Lexus sedan, fled the scene down the wrong way of a one-way street, and was subsequently defended by FAU trustees while the police investigating the incident discounted Saunders’ clear commitment of one or more felonies.

In the wake of the “conspiracy theory professor” and “stomp on Jesus” controversies, and protests surrounding a deal that would name the university’s new football stadium after a transnational for-profit prison outfit, dental industry entrepreneur and Republican Party functionary Jeffrey Feingold remarked, “I don’t want hear any more people say they think the lunatics have taken over the asylum.”

Feingold went on to criticize continued use of a headhunting firm that identified administrative candidates including Saunders because it allegedly produces “losers.” He went on to suggest a remarkably bizarre and insulting conspiracy theory that nonviolent campus protests by FAU students—the very children of Florida taxpayers who’ve elected to attend FAU–may culminate in violent terrorist attacks comparable to the Boston Marathon bombings! Unsurprisingly, no media attention or faculty outrage is afforded Feingold’s truly wacko theory.

One might ask, how is anyone given license for such behavior and remarks? Well, in January the ever-modest Feingold gave FAU $250,000 to name the university’s Board of Trustees room after him. “From those to whom much is given, much is expected,” he dictated.

With the above in mind, one’s imagination needn’t work overtime to identify the likely proponents of The Agora Project and its velvet-gloved implementation of “free speech and civility.” When FAU’s head honchos recently sat down to discuss selection of a new president, FAU Foundation Board Vice Chair and former Virginia “super lawyer” Jay Weinberg observed,

Because we are a diverse university … that doesn’t mean that we tolerate bigotry or prejudice. You have to draw a keen distinction between free speech and hate speech. I think that [in light of] recent events at this university, we need a president that understands that and who will act decisively with respect to it.

In other words, a principal holders of the institution’s purse strings asserts that the ideal chief administrator should reprimand and perhaps even fire faculty and staff who articulate extraordinary perspectives—ones that may fulfill the arbitrary and Kafkaesque notion of “hate speech.” In Agora-speak, this would inevitably involve violation of proposed “respectful” and “civic” discourse with-a-twist etiquettes.

In the subtly forced conversation on “civility,” “academic freedom,” and “respectful interaction,” a more clear-cut definition of what exactly constitutes meaningful exchange has been wholly lost, or, perhaps more fittingly, supplanted. In reality, couldn’t such a discussion be targeting the ideals that provide the basis for better understanding “something important, something real” that “really bothers” certain individuals … thus challenging them to consider an issue, an event, or a problem at a far deeper level?

When a university ceases to be a place where a wide expanse of “controversial” ideas and dialogues can be spontaneously ruminated on, one can safely conclude that it has made the transition from sanctuary and laboratory of free thought and ideas to a mere appendage of the consciousness industry and workhouse of the mind.

-JFT

Published time: March 26, 2013 10:35

Social media crazes in the Israeli military have seen a number of soldiers behaving in ways “unbecoming of the spirit of the IDF" – videos of soldiers dancing to Internet fads like the Harlem Shake could damage the IDF's image, officials said.

It is believed that viral videos run against the government's attempts to use social media as an effective propaganda tool. Although the IDF boasts its own official Facebook page and Twitter feed, there are fears that 'unauthorized’ materials could harm the image of the military where most young Israeli men and women aged 18 to 21 are required to serve.

“Just as the government uses social media for explaining, for campaigning, for propaganda or for spinning, it also has to deal with private soldiers using new media. Every soldier is a broadcast station,” Israel’s Center for the Protection of Democracy Executive Director Yizhar Be’er told RT.

Israeli military commanders have been recently told to prevent soldiers from uploading material “not appropriate” to the IDF’s “spirit.”

“It’s the problem of free speech… I don't see how you can control it,” said Dr. Yuval Dror, head of digital media studies at the Middle East college of management-academic studies.

The punishment for such behavior “unbecoming of the spirit of the IDF" can be strict. Earlier this year, two soldiers were sent to military prison for several weeks for posting a clip of their artillery battalion performing a version of the Harlem Shake.

“Under the military code of justice, there is an offense... I think it is sergeant and above... which says in effect any conduct which is unbecoming an IDF soldier would therefore potentially at least expose you to criminal liability. Could actually find yourself in jail if you made an offense under that,” former IDF legal advisor David Benjamin told RT.

IDF officials were also incensed when a group of soldiers turned their patrol in Hebron into a dance number: A video titled 'Battalion 50 Rock the Hebron Casbah' featured six armed soldiers in bulletproof vests who start a Macarena-like dance after a Muslim call to prayer is heard.

“You have to remember that soldiers are 18-year-old kids,” Gil Yogev, who was once an officer with the paratroopers' unit, told RT. Yogev said he would brief his soldiers regularly about what they could and could not post online, but many were careless or childishly unaware of the impact such material could have.

“It is not misuse of power, for them it is just fun,” Yogev added.   

“I don't think that the dancing is abusing power, I do think that putting your sniper aim on an innocent person is an abuse of power and I think that this is the distinction that the army should make,” Yuval Dror said.

“You have to remember that soldiers are 18-year-old kids,” Gil Yogev, who was once an officer with the paratroopers' unit, told RT. Yogev said he would brief his soldiers regularly about what they could and could not post online, but many were careless or childishly unaware of the impact such material could have.

“It is not misuse of power, for them it is just fun,” Yogev added.   

“I don't think that the dancing is abusing power, I do think that putting your sniper aim on an innocent person is an abuse of power and I think that this is the distinction that the army should make,” Yuval Dror said.

Sacha Dratwa, the head of the IDF’s social media unit, sparked controversy when he uploaded a Facebook photo with dark mud from the Dead Sea smeared on his face, and a caption reading “Obama style.” The picture provoked mixed reactions, with some accusing the 26-year-old of racism. Dratwa claimed he had been misinterpreted.

The US has eroded freedom of speech, moral values and human rights for the American people over the past decades, a political activist tells Press TV.

“[US President] Barack Obama came into office as a constitutional professor and we have seen him do more damage to our constitution than even George Bush did,” said Tighe Barry, an activist with the CODEPINK group.

The advocate further criticized Washington for manipulating the American public by denying them the information needed to make decisions in the political atmosphere.

“It is unfortunate because the people do need to have this information if they are going to make good decisions on what they want out of their foreign policy from their leaders,” said Barry.

Americans have known that their rights are being stolen but they do not want to know the extent of the loss of their freedoms, the activist added.

“They see it on their television sets. They see it in the way their leaders are composing themselves. They see it in the fact that every day you see different headlines of companies that have given up information to the government - your cell phones are now being tapped, we are being watched around the globe, our passports have special chips in them,” said Barry.

The United States imposed fresh sanctions last month on Iran that include bans on the country’s media despite Washington’s claims of protecting freedom of speech.

“As a matter of fact, we are seeing that the United States and its European and NATO allies seem to be putting pressure around the world to pigeonhole countries such as Iran, Russia and other ones that are not in the sphere of influence of the United States and the European NATO countries,” Barry concluded.

GMA/HGH/SL

SANFORD, NY - February 12 - The Town of Sanford, New York, is violating its residents’ First Amendment right to free speech by placing a gag order on discussion of proposed fracking in the state at town board meetings, according to a lawsuit filed today by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

“If people are silenced by their own elected representatives, how can they trust them to act in their best interests?” said NRDC senior attorney Kate Sinding. “The Sanford Town Board has taken away residents’ right to speak up on one of the most controversial and daunting issues facing them today, in the very forum designed to give them that opportunity. This is particularly troubling given the board’s history of unwavering support for fracking.”

On September 11, 2012, the Sanford Town Board unanimously passed a resolution forbidding further discussion about natural gas development during the public participation portion of Town Board.

The September vote was the most recent in a series of “pro-fracking” town board resolutions that actively lobbied the state to move forward with proposed natural gas extraction. As early as Governor Paterson’s administration, the Town Board urged the governor and legislature to open the state up to development. Last May, the board passed a resolution urging Governor Cuomo to lift the de-facto moratorium on fracking. Then on September 5^th — days before the gag order passed—Town Supervisor Dewey Decker signed on to a letter urging Governor Cuomo to legalize fracking in the state.

In addition, the Sanford Town Board has shown ongoing support of fracking industry activities within its borders. These include leasing town land to an oil and gas company, and granting industry access to town resources for use in development.  Between 2008 and 2010, Sanford leased town land to XTO Energy for oil and natural gas extraction and licensed the company to use local roads for fracking-related activities.  Between 2011 and 2012, the town passed a resolution in support of Bluestone Gas Corporation’s application to build a local pipeline, granted Bluestone a waiver for certain road and insurance requirements and entered into an agreement with the company for road-use privileges. 

“At the September 2012 Sanford town meeting, when the board chose to cut off discussion of fracking and related issues, they ended any chance that I might have to affect the future value of my home, or the quality of the air I breathe, or the water I drink,” said Sanford resident Mike Musante, who attended the September meeting. “Without debate there is no democracy, only rule by autocrats.”

“I have not accepted that this board decision is legal or ethical. I feel bullied, stifled and frustrated. We should not have to fight for our basic First Amendment right of assembling peacefully and verbally petitioning the government. I plan to take that substantial energy of frustration and work toward a government that is responsive to the people,” said Barbara Lester, a Sanford resident. 

“We regret that the Sanford Town Board, in removing public participation from the democratic process, has left no alternative but litigation,” said Tom Wilinsky of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

NRDC and CCSE filed their lawsuit on behalf of their members who are residents of Sanford, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Sanford is located in Broome County, in New York’s Southern Tier, along the Pennsylvania border and deep within the Marcellus Shale formation. It is a small, rural town with a population of about 2,400.

WATCH: Video of Silenced Sanford Residents on Kate Sinding’s blog, "You're silencing us" - Protecting Free Speech Rights in Sanford, New York.”

SANFORD, NY - February 12 - The Town of Sanford, New York, is violating its residents’ First Amendment right to free speech by placing a gag order on discussion of proposed fracking in the state at town board meetings, according to a lawsuit filed today by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

“If people are silenced by their own elected representatives, how can they trust them to act in their best interests?” said NRDC senior attorney Kate Sinding. “The Sanford Town Board has taken away residents’ right to speak up on one of the most controversial and daunting issues facing them today, in the very forum designed to give them that opportunity. This is particularly troubling given the board’s history of unwavering support for fracking.”

On September 11, 2012, the Sanford Town Board unanimously passed a resolution forbidding further discussion about natural gas development during the public participation portion of Town Board.

The September vote was the most recent in a series of “pro-fracking” town board resolutions that actively lobbied the state to move forward with proposed natural gas extraction. As early as Governor Paterson’s administration, the Town Board urged the governor and legislature to open the state up to development. Last May, the board passed a resolution urging Governor Cuomo to lift the de-facto moratorium on fracking. Then on September 5^th — days before the gag order passed—Town Supervisor Dewey Decker signed on to a letter urging Governor Cuomo to legalize fracking in the state.

In addition, the Sanford Town Board has shown ongoing support of fracking industry activities within its borders. These include leasing town land to an oil and gas company, and granting industry access to town resources for use in development.  Between 2008 and 2010, Sanford leased town land to XTO Energy for oil and natural gas extraction and licensed the company to use local roads for fracking-related activities.  Between 2011 and 2012, the town passed a resolution in support of Bluestone Gas Corporation’s application to build a local pipeline, granted Bluestone a waiver for certain road and insurance requirements and entered into an agreement with the company for road-use privileges. 

“At the September 2012 Sanford town meeting, when the board chose to cut off discussion of fracking and related issues, they ended any chance that I might have to affect the future value of my home, or the quality of the air I breathe, or the water I drink,” said Sanford resident Mike Musante, who attended the September meeting. “Without debate there is no democracy, only rule by autocrats.”

“I have not accepted that this board decision is legal or ethical. I feel bullied, stifled and frustrated. We should not have to fight for our basic First Amendment right of assembling peacefully and verbally petitioning the government. I plan to take that substantial energy of frustration and work toward a government that is responsive to the people,” said Barbara Lester, a Sanford resident. 

“We regret that the Sanford Town Board, in removing public participation from the democratic process, has left no alternative but litigation,” said Tom Wilinsky of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

NRDC and CCSE filed their lawsuit on behalf of their members who are residents of Sanford, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Sanford is located in Broome County, in New York’s Southern Tier, along the Pennsylvania border and deep within the Marcellus Shale formation. It is a small, rural town with a population of about 2,400.

WATCH: Video of Silenced Sanford Residents on Kate Sinding’s blog, "You're silencing us" - Protecting Free Speech Rights in Sanford, New York.”

A political analyst says the move to take Iranian media channels off the air calls into question the West’s claim of defending freedom of speech, Press TV reports.

“It is really attacking the very fundamental principles which the Europeans claim to spread, which is freedom of speech and freedom of expression,” Intifad Qanbar said in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.

“Who can decide what is good and what is bad? Why don’t they go and stop many of the hatred-promoting channels... which are spreading... hatred and war and terrorism across the air all over the world?” the analyst asked.

Qanbar criticized the move to take Iranian media off the air as “true hypocrisy” carried out on a “double standard basis.”

“You cannot just hush people whom you don’t like and claim to be democratic and claim to accept and respect freedom of speech as they continue to say," he pointed out, saying it carried a contradictory message.

This is not the first time that the Iranian media are being targeted.

In October 2012, Eutelsat SA and Intelsat SA stopped the broadcast of several Iranian satellite channels.

In November 2012, the Hong Kong-based Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. (AsiaSat) also took all Iranian channels off the air in East Asia under pressure from the United States.

AR/HJL/MA