27 Oct 20 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”115312″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]A proposal by the Department of Homeland Security, USA, to limit visas to journalists has been widely condemned by free speech groups.
The proposed changes will require foreign media and journalists to apply for an eight-month visa with a further maximum extension of another 240 days.
Many foreign journalists working in the USA use the so-called “I” visa, which is vital to upholding scrutiny and media freedom from across the world in one of the world’s leading powers.
Dominic Ponsford, editor-in-chief of media-focused magazine Press Gazette, spoke of his concerns with the changes which he described as “an alarming development” and how they reflect the increasingly difficult situation for journalists in the USA.
“There have been concerns about the treatment of journalists increasing over the last four years,” he told Index. “The latest changes are an alarming development.”
“The I visa is a good scheme, although tricky to get hold of. Once you have it, it provides a lot of security and predictability for journalists.”
Under the current rules, the visa allows for a term of one year, but each holder may reapply for an unlimited amount of time. It is this particular change that Ponsford believes will cause problems for journalists.
“The concern with the time limit is the threat of having it rescinded, meaning journalists will constantly be looking over their shoulder. You may not have it renewed if your journalism is not complimentary to the administration.”
Press freedom in the USA has been under increasing threat during President Donald Trump’s four years in power. The difficult situation has intensified since the killing of George Floyd in May, which caused mass outrage and tensions between citizens and law enforcement.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
Non-profit organisation the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) campaigns to protect US citizens’ civil liberties enshrined in the constitution and have been deeply critical of the proposed changes.
A spokesperson for the union said: “This proposal is going to hamper the ability of foreign media outlets to report from the United States, by arbitrarily limiting foreign correspondents to a short period of stay.”
Civil liberties are protected by the First Amendment of the constitution. ACLU believes the proposal is a clear attempt by the current administration to “chill reporting that might hold it accountable.”
“There is no legitimate justification for this proposal and no problem that it is solving. It is critically important that people in America have access to information from a wide range of media operating independently of the government.”
“The US government cannot take actions that are intended to chill reporting that might hold it accountable. The administration should abandon this attempt.”
The likelihood of the proposed changes being pushed through is difficult to determine. With the presidential election on 3rd November looming large, there is a chance these proposals will not manifest. However, with the election being set to be very contentious, with controversy already surrounding the mail-in ballot system, nothing right now is certain.
Should the Trump administration secure four more years, these proposals will almost undoubtedly become law, if they do not already do so in the last three months of the current government. Journalists globally will all be the worse of for it.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also like to read” category_id=”5641″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]
22 Oct 20 | Free Speech and the Law, News and features, Uncategorized, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Rachel Malehorn, WikiCommons
As Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court advances to the Senate – despite a boycott from Democrats – it is still unclear where she stands on free speech.
Coney Barrett did little to allay fears over her positions on key constitutional issues during her confirmation hearings for the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court.
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned the judge on issues including free speech and the First Amendment.
The First Amendment gives five separate protections to citizens. Namely the freedoms of speech, religion, press, protest and redress.
When asked by Republican Senator Ben Sasse what the freedoms protected by the amendment are, Coney Barrett was unable to recall the latter.
The freedom of redress gives citizens of the USA the right to petition or complain to government authorities at the federal, state and local level without fear of reprisals or punishment. It is a vital part of the constitution and very much a contemporary issue.
There has been extra scrutiny on issues around the First Amendment ever since the protests against the killing of George Floyd broke out in May this year.
With the typical rigour of judicial committee hearings, Coney Barrett could be forgiven for what was likely an innocent slip-up. However, the response will have done little to calm the nervousness over her appointment from free speech campaigners and members of the press.
The judge, 48, does not have an extensive record on dealing with with issues of First Amendment freedoms and her position on them has therefore been difficult to interpret.
On whistleblower cases, for example, Coney Barrett has joined different sides of the debate in different cases.
In August this year, Coney Barrett’s court favoured the First Amendment and the right of a public employee to raise alarm. However, in the case of Kelvin Lett, a Chicago investigator who refused to change a police report under direction from his supervisor, Coney Barrett ruled: “Lett may have had a good reason to refuse to amend the report [but this] does not grant him a First Amendment cause of action.”
On other issues, Coney Barrett was repeatedly accused of being “evasive” during the hearings, particularly on more controversial matters; the Democrats have repeatedly alluded to her Catholic faith as a potential problem.
However even before her nomination, she has expressed her belief in the importance of the separation of church and state.
“I think one of the most important responsibilities of a judge is to put their personal preferences and beliefs aside. Our responsibility is to adhere to the rule of law,” she said.
The Trump administration has faced repeated criticism from free speech groups since taking office in 2016. Among the criticisms are the crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests across the country, as well his repeated attacks on press freedoms.
Index, along with other free speech organisations have raised concerns over harms to media freedom in the country and in particular since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.
The US Press Freedom Tracker has logged 219 journalists attacked, 62 equipment damages, 71 journalists arrested and over 10 occasions where equipment was searched or seized in this year alone.
As Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, these issues naturally fell on Coney Barrett to talk at length on during the hearings, but she gave little insight into her stance on media freedom.
Coney Barrett’s addition would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, heightening concern over the consequences of Trump’s potential election victory and the impact on policy should Joe Biden win instead.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
24 Sep 20 | News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”114982″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not set out to be an advocate for gender equality. Coming of age during the McCarthy Era of the 1950s, when freedom of speech and freedom of association were subject to intense scrutiny and repression in the United States, her initial goal was to uphold constitutional rights.
“There were brave lawyers who were standing up for those people [targeted by McCarthyism] and reminding our Senate, ‘Look at the Constitution, look at the very First Amendment. What does it say? It says we prize, above all else, the right to think, speak, to write, as we will, without Big Brother over our shoulders’,” she said in a 2011 interview. “My notion was, if lawyers can be helping us get back in touch without most basic values, that’s what I want to be.”
But as one of only nine female students in her 552-strong class at Harvard Law School, she quickly realised that she would face an uphill battle. This put her on track not only to become a feminist icon, but to become a voice for the few.
“Throughout her career she has not been afraid to push back against the power of the crowd when very few were ready for her to do so,” Index on Censorship magazine’s outgoing editor-in-chief Rachael Jolley wrote in her most recent editorial, not knowing then that RBG’s was to die the following week.
As a Supreme Court Judge, her dissenting opinions (which opposed the majority views that gave rise to judgements) became legendary. The fact that dissents do not carry the weight of the law did not dissuade Ginsburg from putting forward extensive opinions.
“Dissents speak to a future age,” she explained. “But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow.”
Ginsburg knew how to use her voice, but she also knew when to use it. “In every good marriage, it helps sometimes to be a little deaf,” she often told students, repeating the advice offered to her by her mother-in-law on her wedding day. It was advice that she followed assiduously, she said. “Reacting in anger or annoyance will not advance one’s ability to persuade.”
She often moulded her silences into thoughtful pauses. “This can be unnerving, especially at the Supreme Court, where silence only amplifies the sound of ticking clocks,” wrote Jeffrey Toobin, who profiled Ginsburg for the New Yorker in 2013. But her considered interludes likely amplified her voice too.
Ginsburg also understood how to express herself in other ways. In her later years at the Supreme Court she began to accessorize, wearing a golden flower-like crochet collar on days where she would announce a majority view, and a black beaded collar for dissents.
She apologised after criticising Donald Trump in July 2016, saying that as a judge her comments were “ill-advised” and that she would be “more circumspect” in the future. But her decision to wear her so-called “dissenting collar” the day after Trump’s election spoke volumes nonetheless.
Ginsburg’s respectful and dignified expression, her consensus-building approach, and her mission to uphold women’s rights, alongside other fundamental freedoms, made her an antidote to the Trump Era.
At a time when it seems so crucial, Ginsburg inspires us to choose our moment – and our words – carefully, and to stand up for those who need our support. And, when necessary, to fearlessly diverge and wear our dissent with purpose.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You might also like to read” category_id=”581″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
29 Apr 19 | Academic Freedom, News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”106402″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]When conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson was invited to deliver the distinguished Roy H Park Lecture at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s journalism school, outrage exploded online.
Current and former students offered fierce criticism of the choice, especially on Twitter where some called Carlson racist and a propagandist. Many said they were disappointed and ashamed. Carlson, people criticised, was not a journalist, but an entertainer. What business did he have speaking to budding journalists? Others pointed to Carlson’s comments about immigrants — they make the US “poorer and dirtier” — and his critiques of diversity, as well as his use of language, critics say, upholds white supremacy.
Despite the backlash, the school moved forward with the lecture, which was largely uneventful. Students and faculty listened. Some audience members asked pointed questions. And then it was over.
That’s how John Robinson, a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill’s journalism school, remembers it. He understood the outrage but said it was a teachable moment.
“Students aren’t snowflakes. They understand BS when they hear it,” he said. “I just don’t see any evidence that students are intolerant of others’ views when it comes to speakers.”
Yet last month US President Donald Trump signed an executive order to uphold freedom of speech on college campuses in response to a supposed “crisis”.
“Under the guise of speech codes, safe spaces and trigger warnings, these universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity, and shut down the voices of great young Americans like those here today,” Trump said during the signing ceremony, surrounded by predominantly white students in conservative organisations.
Not much is changing. The order encourages universities to “foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate” through the First Amendment — freedom of speech. It requires that universities receiving federal research or education grant money must “promote free inquiry”.
But public universities in the US already have to uphold the First Amendment if they receive funding from the federal government. Further, some academics are arguing that the order could actually hurt freedom of speech by causing universities to self-censor who they invite to campus.
In a survey conducted by professor Tori Ekstrand of UNC-Chapel Hill students, 86 per cent said the university should invite speakers with a variety of viewpoints to campus, including those whose perspectives vary from their own. On the national level, the Knight Foundation found that extreme actions, including violence and shouting down speakers, are largely condemned.
So, who is Trump protecting?
In early April, three students from the University of Arizona protested an on-campus presentation by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, calling them a “murder patrol” and “an extension of the KKK”. All three students were charged with misdemeanours by police: “interference with the peaceful conduct of an educational institution”; one of the students was also charged with “threats and intimidation”. A county prosecutor has yet to decide if a prosecution will go forward.
Trump has not commented on the incident, but many are following the case because it is unusual for arrests to follow a nonviolent protest, especially one on campus. Commentators have said the strong reprimand was a result of the recent order.
The case in Arizona relates to a larger issue on campuses: punishing students who protest. In 2017 the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank, published a report arguing that freedom of speech is under attack on American college campuses — citing “shout downs” that interrupt speakers, safe spaces and restrictive policies. The group created a model bill, establishing punitive measures for students and others who interfere with free-speech — essentially punishing protesters on campus. It also prevents administrators from disinviting speakers, no matter how controversial. Many states, including Arizona and North Carolina, have adopted versions of the Goldwater bill.
In a report on the bill, the American Association of University Professors put it bluntly: the legislation “seeks to support what it sees as the embattled minority of conservatives on campus against the ‘politically correct’ majority”.
And for those who find themselves outside the conservative viewpoint?
“It’s an attempt at intimidation,” said Michael Behrent, vice-president of the AAUP’s North Carolina conference. “The argument is to try and force members of the progressive left … to make them feel threatened and endangered, rather than an attempt to outright block their free speech.”
A chilling effect. And this isn’t the first time Trump has attempted this. In 2016, Trump said he planned to change libel laws to make it easier to sue news organisations. The same year, he threatened to imprison or revoke the citizenship of those who burned the flag.
“What we see coming out of his legacy is this notion of protecting conservative speech,” said Kendric Coleman, a professor at Valdosta University who studied the role of safe spaces in the LGBTQ+ community. Trump “is trying to redefine harassment speech into free speech”.
Technically, hate speech is protected by the US constitution, as long as it doesn’t incite violence. But detractors say some speakers — like white nationalist Richard Spencer, who has been disinvited from a number of events and universities — may actually cross the line into incitement of violence.
But some university administrations are hesitant to actually define the line between protected free-speech and incitement to violence. And with new policies coming from the state and federal level, with the intention of protecting free-speech, that line may only become more blurry.
At the heart of the debate lies this question: Should speech that is harmful to certain groups be protected? In the survey conducted by Ekstrand, 93 per cent said others should be allowed to express unpopular opinions on campus. But that number drops to 61 per cent when that speech is offensive to others.
The Knight Foundation also found that American students consider both protecting free-speech and promoting inclusivity as important to democracy. But only 37 per cent of students identifying as Republican said that it is “extremely important” to promote inclusivity — compared to 63 per cent of Democrats.
This is where policies like Trump’s executive order and the Goldwater bill lie. While the left prioritises inclusivity at the expense of free speech, the right resists in opposition.
At stake remains whose voices receive protection, and whose get censored. [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1556180903639-20dca59b-8321-10″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
