ReportWire

Tag: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

  • The Trump administration’s war against ICE critics

    [ad_1]

    It’s no secret that the Trump administration is thin-skinned about criticism and intolerant of efforts to document its activities. Administration officials smear ideological opponents and those who monitor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as potential “domestic terrorists.” So, it’s no surprise the administration is targeting online channels where its opponents coordinate. It’s no surprise, that is, but it’s an intolerable attack by yet another presidential administration on free speech rights.

    Last week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged tech companies to resist federal demands for data about users who have been critical of the administration.

    “DHS has consistently targeted people engaged in First Amendment activity,” warns Mario Trujillo, a senior staff attorney for the civil liberties group. “Among other things, the agency has issued subpoenas to technology companies to unmask or locate people who have documented ICE’s activities in their community, criticized the government, or attended protests.”

    Trujillo emphasizes that the subpoenas “are unlawful” and that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been leery of testing their legitimacy. In November, DHS withdrew a subpoena seeking details about Instagram users who posted about ICE raids in Los Angeles rather than defend the document in court.

    EFF recommends that tech companies abide by recommendations developed with the ACLU of Northern California. Among other things, it urges that subpoena recipients fight the demands in court, inform targeted users so they can secure legal assistance, and resist gag orders that seek to prevent recipients from warning users and publicly discussing the situation.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is also battling the administration’s war against critics. As reported by Reason‘s August Billings, FIRE is suing the federal government on behalf of two plaintiffs who created a Facebook group and an app that helped people document ICE activities.

    “As U.S. citizens, we have the right to keep each other informed about what our government officials are doing and how they’re doing it,” commented Mark Hodges, one of the plaintiffs.

    The problem is that the Trump administration doesn’t recognize that right. In December. Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella asked a DHS representative if the feds considered following or recording federal agents to be obstruction of justice. He was told, “That sure sounds like obstruction of justice.”

    Since then, after violent clashes in Minneapolis culminating in two killings of protesters by federal agents, the FBI has opened an investigation into Signal group chats used by opponents of the federal immigration crackdown.

    “That sort of Signal chat being coordinated with individuals, not just locally in Minnesota, but maybe even around the country,” FBI Director Kash Patel commented, “if that leads to a break in the federal statute or a violation of some law, then we are going to arrest people.”

    Patel claims the investigation will result in arrests “if” Signal chats lead to violations of law, but that’s a big “if” that could be applied to any conversation at any time. Recording, tracking, and sharing information about government enforcers is perfectly illegal.

    “While the Supreme Court itself hasn’t yet faced the issue squarely, the seven federal circuits that have done so—the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and 11th—all agree that the First Amendment protects the right to record police performing their duties in public,” points out Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

    The Trump administration must have some lawyers on staff who told them the same thing. So, federal officials have complained that critics are doxing—collecting and publicizing information about—federal agents and that this is, perhaps, illegal-ish.

    “Videotaping ICE law enforcement and posting photos and videos of them online is doxing our agents,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin told the Center for Media and Democracy last September. “We will prosecute those who illegally harass ICE agents to the fullest extent of the law.”

    But doxxing isn’t illegally harassing. It’s not illegal anything.

    “Government officials and employees don’t enjoy special immunity from ‘doxxing’,” writes David L. Hudson, Jr., associate professor of law at Belmont University, for FIRE. “Merely disclosing the names of government agents or places where they carry out their official duties is constitutionally protected speech, especially when tied to political criticism.”

    If collected information is then used to do something illegal—like attack people in their homes—that’s a different matter. But it’s that extra action that violates the law, not the gathering of faces, names, and addresses. Unfortunately, the administration (like many of its predecessors) seems to have a problem with criticism and opposition of any sort.

    In the wake of the assassination of conservative figure Charlie Kirk, when many Americans were understandably profoundly upset by the crime, the White House issued a memo charging that “common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi followed up with a directive to federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to target “domestic terrorists” identified in part by “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”

    It’s true that these viewpoints can inspire crimes—just look at Kirk’s murder, for starters. But if you target beliefs rather than violent actions, you go down a dangerous path that threatens everybody. Under the last administration, the FBI investigated fans of the Gadsden flag and other “Revolutionary War imagery.” In both cases, government officials clearly targeted opponents, not crimes. The intent was to stifle people’s right to dissent, not address real threats to the public.

    That’s why the EFF, FIRE, tech companies, and regular people need to resist efforts to investigate critics of the government and to shut down communications platforms. They need to resist not because the critics are always right, but because governments can’t be permitted to target and muzzle their opponents.

    [ad_2]

    J.D. Tuccille

    Source link

  • Eastpointe agrees to unique settlement after ex-mayor’s public meeting outburst

    Eastpointe agrees to unique settlement after ex-mayor’s public meeting outburst

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Courtesy of Mary Hall-Rayford

    Mary Hall-Rayford is one of four plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against Eastpointe Mayor Monique Owens.

    A group of First Amendment attorneys reached a unique and powerful settlement with the city of Eastpointe after its then-mayor shouted at residents and refused to let them speak during a public meeting in September 2022.

    As part of the lawsuit settlement, the city agreed to designate Sept. 6, the day that Eastpointe Mayor Monique Owens shouted down residents, as “First Amendment Day.”

    On Tuesday, the council also voted to apologize to the residents — Mary Hall-Rayford, Karen Beltz, Karen Mouradjian, and Cindy Federle — and entered into a consent decree prohibiting the city from enforcing unconstitutional limitations on the public criticizing elected officials.

    Each of the plaintiffs also received $17,910 in addition to attorneys’ fees.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in November 2022, alleging the mayor violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of four residents who tried to criticize Owens at a public meeting.

    “The First Amendment protects every American’s right to criticize government officials,” FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick tells Metro Times. “With this settlement, Eastpointers can have confidence their voices will be heard and local governments can be left with no doubt there are serious consequences for violating the First Amendment.”

    click to enlarge Ex-Eastpointe Mayor Monique Owens. - City of Eastpointe

    City of Eastpointe

    Ex-Eastpointe Mayor Monique Owens.

    The first-term mayor, who was later convicted of fraudulently applying for a $10,000 COVID-19 grant, prevented residents from speaking during the September 2022 meeting, insisting they had no right to criticize her. As the meeting descended into chaos, with Owens berating a resident for explaining the First Amendment, the council’s four other elected members walked out of the meeting and didn’t return.

    It wasn’t the first time Owens prevented residents from criticizing her during the council’s public comment period. According to the lawsuit, Owens frequently used her authority “to suppress dissent and criticism by interrupting and shouting down members of the public who criticize her or raise subjects she finds personally embarrassing.”

    Owens, the city’s youngest and first Black mayor, ran for reelection last year but didn’t collect enough votes during the primary election to advance to the November general election.

    Former Councilman Michael Klinefelt is now the mayor of Eastpointe.

    Fitzpatrick says the settlement is a victory for free speech rights everywhere in America.

    “Regular Americans should feel comfortable going to their local government or school board meeting and make their views heard,” Fitzpatrick says. “This is what American democracy is about. There are some countries where you can be put in jail for criticizing a public official or asking the wrong question. Luckily that is not the case in the United States of America, and the U.S. Constitution makes sure that is not the case.”

    At the September 2022 meeting, residents were questioning Owens’s actions after she alleged that Councilman Harvey Curley, who is in his 80s, assaulted her by yelling and putting his hands in her face during the open ceremony for Cruisin’ Gratiot in June 2022. Owens was trying to speak at the event, but Curley was opposed, explaining that he didn’t want to politicize the event since it was operated by a nonprofit.

    The Macomb County Sheriff’s Office dismissed the case, and the Macomb County Circuit Court denied Owens’s request for a personal protective order.

    Hall-Rayford, a community activist, school board member, and former chaplain, was the first to speak at the September meeting, but she didn’t get far.

    “I’m going to stop you right there,” Owens said as soon as Hall-Rayford began to speak. “We’re going to stop the council meeting because I’m not going to let you speak on something that has to do with police.”

    City attorney Richard S. Albright informed Owens that she didn’t have the right to prevent a resident from speaking.

    As part of the lawsuit in December 2022, the city agreed to prohibit Owens from interrupting or shutting down speakers during public comment periods.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    [ad_1]

    Are colleges facing a free speech crisis?

    From the picket lines of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, to social media posts surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict today, expressing free speech — and how to better define it — continues to test higher education decision-makers.

    The increase in student-led protests at U.S.-based colleges and universities surrounding the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict has brought free speech on campus, back into popular discourse. After the actions and suspensions of some student groups led to televised congressional hearings and then the resignation of two elite university presidents, defining and outlining free speech on campus appeared to be at a stalemate. Groups such as, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE are attempting to keep the dialogue going. FIRE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works on a national scale to spread awareness regarding free speech rights on college campuses. “We’re seeing large amounts of students professing self-censorship and the culture of free speech being deteriorated on college campuses,” Zach Greenberg said, the senior program officer within campus advocacy at FIRE. “And so while the law remains solid, we do worry about how it’s being applied and how universities actually are defending students’ free speech rights.” By expressing and exercising their free speech rights, student-led groups have consistently influenced federal legislation especially during the 1960s and 1970s. Most notably, the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Nixon signing the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18-years-old at the federal level. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was amplified by courageous students such as Claudette Colvin, Diane Nash, the Little Rock Nine, and the Greensboro Four, and several student-led and founded groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party. However, protests reached a fever pitch on May 4, 1970, with the Kent State Massacre, in which four students were shot and killed by Ohio State National Guardsmen. Less than two weeks later, on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State in Mississippi, law enforcement fired into a crowd, killing a pre-law student and a local high school student, who was on campus at the time. Following these national tragedies, the Nixon administration assembled a task force to study campus unrest on a national scale. What resulted was a 400-plus page magnum opusEditSign titled, “The Report of the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest,” which analyzed the Kent State and Jackson State tragedies, the history of campus protests stretching back to the American Revolution, and suggestions for students, faculty, and law enforcement moving forward. Although, the Nixon administration hesitated to implement the commission’s suggestions from the lengthy tome, today’s students aren’t limited by formal case studies to share their thoughts and reach a wider audience. Whether students speak formally through congressional hearings (that are subsequently shared on YouTube to view beyond traditional airtimes) or informally through social media posts, clarifying free speech for students in the digital age may continue to be a challenging, but a necessary, discussion. “Students aren’t really having the kind of discussions that they were having, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago,” Greenberg said. “The first step to defending your rights is knowing your rights.”

    The increase in student-led protests at U.S.-based colleges and universities surrounding the October 2023 Israel-Hamas conflict has brought free speech on campus, back into popular discourse. After the actions and suspensions of some student groups led to televised congressional hearings and then the resignation of two elite university presidents, defining and outlining free speech on campus appeared to be at a stalemate.

    Groups such as, The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE are attempting to keep the dialogue going. FIRE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works on a national scale to spread awareness regarding free speech rights on college campuses.

    “We’re seeing large amounts of students professing self-censorship and the culture of free speech being deteriorated on college campuses,” Zach Greenberg said, the senior program officer within campus advocacy at FIRE. “And so while the law remains solid, we do worry about how it’s being applied and how universities actually are defending students’ free speech rights.”

    By expressing and exercising their free speech rights, student-led groups have consistently influenced federal legislation especially during the 1960s and 1970s.

    Most notably, the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Nixon signing the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18-years-old at the federal level.

    In the 1960s, the Civil Rights movement was amplified by courageous students such as Claudette Colvin, Diane Nash, the Little Rock Nine, and the Greensboro Four, and several student-led and founded groups such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party.

    However, protests reached a fever pitch on May 4, 1970, with the Kent State Massacre, in which four students were shot and killed by Ohio State National Guardsmen. Less than two weeks later, on May 15, 1970 at Jackson State in Mississippi, law enforcement fired into a crowd, killing a pre-law student and a local high school student, who was on campus at the time.

    Following these national tragedies, the Nixon administration assembled a task force to study campus unrest on a national scale. What resulted was a 400-plus page magnum opus

    Although, the Nixon administration hesitated to implement the commission’s suggestions from the lengthy tome, today’s students aren’t limited by formal case studies to share their thoughts and reach a wider audience.

    Whether students speak formally through congressional hearings (that are subsequently shared on YouTube to view beyond traditional airtimes) or informally through social media posts, clarifying free speech for students in the digital age may continue to be a challenging, but a necessary, discussion. “Students aren’t really having the kind of discussions that they were having, perhaps 10 or 15 years ago,” Greenberg said. “The first step to defending your rights is knowing your rights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Professors Are Sharply Divided on DEI Statements in Hiring, Survey Finds

    Professors Are Sharply Divided on DEI Statements in Hiring, Survey Finds

    [ad_1]

    As diversity statements in faculty hiring are increasingly scrutinized by Republican-controlled state legislatures, a new survey suggests that faculty members themselves are sharply divided on the issue.

    The survey, the results of which were released Tuesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, asked about 1,500 faculty members which description of diversity statements more closely aligned with their view: “a justifiable requirement for a job at a university” or “an ideological litmus test that violates academic freedom.” Half of respondents endorsed the first option, and half identified with the second.

    Colleges often require or request diversity statements as part of applications for faculty jobs; candidates typically must explain how they have contributed to supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion in their academic careers. Supporters say the statements can help increase faculty diversity, ensure that the extra service work done by scholars of color — often called “invisible labor” — is recognized, and assist institutions in hiring professors who are ready to work with a diverse student population. Critics say the statements force academics to agree with progressive beliefs.

    Political ideology influences faculty members’ views on mandatory DEI statements, according to the FIRE survey results. Three-fourths of liberal faculty said they were a justifiable requirement, while 56 percent of moderate faculty and 90 percent of conservative faculty considered them an ideological litmus test.

    While politics is a factor, it’s not the only driver, said Nathan Honeycutt, a research fellow at FIRE who helped author a report on the survey results. While there’s a narrative that most professors support diversity statements, Honeycutt said, some faculty might be afraid to share their real opinions on the statements publicly.

    “Given the context and the conversations we hear surrounding DEI, it seems like many faculty are on board,” he said. “That’s why so many universities are instituting these things, but as the numbers from our study suggest, it’s even hotly contested among faculty.”

    As the use of DEI statements has become increasingly common among colleges over the past five years, the debate about them has become more heated. Some states, including Utah, West Virginia, Florida, and Texas have introduced legislation in the last two months that would ban mandatory DEI statements.

    FIRE has publicly opposed DEI statements. The organization released model legislation aimed at banning such requirements on February 16.

    The report noted that FIRE’s involvement with the faculty survey could have affected the results. Faculty members who identified as conservative made up 26 percent of respondents and thus were slightly overrepresented in the sample compared to other recent faculty surveys, according to the report. The survey was designed by FIRE and conducted by a market-research firm; faculty respondents came equally from a FIRE database and an education consulting firm’s database. The 1,500 professors all worked at four-year public and private colleges. The survey was conducted from July to August 2022.

    The survey also found that 52 percent of faculty are afraid of losing their jobs or reputation due to a misunderstanding of their words or actions, their words or actions being taken out of context, or something from their past being posted online.

    Honeycutt said it’s disheartening that faculty are so scared of losing their jobs, since academics should be able to study and discuss any topic. He worried that faculty members’ job-security fears could chill the advancement of research, with scholars afraid to challenge the established canon.

    “We seem to have a climate today which is also reflected in the data, where a lot of faculty don’t feel comfortable speaking up about things,” he said.

    The survey also asked faculty members whether they would support a college conducting a formal investigation into a professor, based on several hypothetical scenarios. Thirty-six percent of respondents said they’d support an investigation if a professor told a class that “all white people are racist.” Twenty percent said they’d support an investigation if a professor told a class that “it’s racist to say that all white people are racist.”

    Honeycutt said he hopes faculty who feel they have to self-censor their work realize they aren’t alone after reading the report.

    “We really need courageous faculty, faculty who can dissent even when it might be uncomfortable, who can ask difficult questions, who can confront those who are censoring others, or who have the courage to publicly support colleagues who are speaking up,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Marijolovic

    Source link