FIRE’s Position on Government Attempts to Ban there Teaching of Divisive Concepts

FIRE's Position on government attempts to ban the teaching of divisive concepts in schools:

FIRE has been tracking and engaging with legislation that would regulate how race and sex is discussed on college and university campuses.

In the past few years, this typically came in the form of bans on training or teaching so-called “divisive” concepts. This legislative season appears no different as several states in the past three months have either issued executive orders or introduced legislation on this topic.

These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

While FIRE takes no position on bill provisions that apply to the K-12 context, in which states generally have broader authority to set curricula, it’s worth noting that even with such broad authority, K-12 legislation could face vagueness challenges if it does not clearly set forth what it prohibits.

We also do not oppose provisions that would regulate or prohibit mandatory non-credit-earning training at institutions of higher education. Restrictions on the content and views expressed during non-credit-earning training doesn’t infringe on the First Amendment or principles of academic freedom because the content of those trainings constitute the government’s own speech. The government is allowed to regulate its own speech and that of government agencies under its control. We also acknowledge that the government can prohibit institutions from compelling students or faculty to communicate personal agreement with views they do not hold.

FIRE, however, does oppose legislation that would institute curricular bans on particular concepts or ideologies at institutions of higher education. These curricular bans threaten academic freedom — which protects the rights of faculty to teach and assert positions as they see fit — and disregards decades of judicial precedent confirming the critical importance of academic freedom in higher education.

FIRE will fight any legislation that crosses the bright line that prohibits the government from banning ideas in college classrooms. Indeed, FIRE is currently fighting Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” in federal court, a law passed last year that restricts instruction on eight concepts related to “race, color, national origin, or sex” in college classrooms. After we filed suit, the court halted enforcement of the law, recognizing that it violates the First Amendment rights of students and faculty."

Note about proposed Missouri legislation:

"Missouri’s HB 75 would prohibit an employee of an institution of higher education from requiring or making “part of a course,” eight concepts related to race or sex stereotyping. Like Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, this provision threatens free speech and academic freedom by regulating what faculty members are allowed to say in their classrooms.

Continue ReadingFIRE’s Position on Government Attempts to Ban there Teaching of Divisive Concepts

Michael Shellenberger’s Testimony to the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Michael Shellenberger testified before Congress on March 9, 2023. This is the Executive Summary of his presentation:

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of “the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex.” Eisenhower feared that the size and power of the “complex,” or cluster, of government contractors and the Department of Defense would “endanger our liberties or democratic processes.” How? Through “domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money.” He feared public policy would “become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

Eisenhower’s fears were well-founded. Today, American taxpayers are unwittingly financing the growth and power of a censorship-industrial complex run by America’s scientific and technological elite, which endangers our liberties and democracy. I am grateful for the opportunity to offer this testimony and sound the alarm over the shocking and disturbing emergence of state-sponsored censorship in the United States of America.

The Twitter Files, state attorneys general lawsuits, and investigative reporters have revealed a large and growing network of government agencies, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations that are actively censoring American citizens, often without their knowledge, on a range of issues, including on the origins of COVID2 , COVID vaccines3 , emails relating to Hunter Biden’s business dealings4 , climate change5 , renewable energy6 , fossil fuels7 , and many other issues.

I offer some cautions. I do not know how much of the censorship is coordinated beyond what we have been able to document, and I will not speculate. I recognize that the law allows Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies to moderate content on their platforms. And I support the right of governments to communicate with the public, including to dispute inaccurate and misleading information.

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingMichael Shellenberger’s Testimony to the House Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government

Censorship Czar Anthony Fauci Bans Discussion of the Lab Leak Hypothesis

Glenn Greenwald connects all the dots regarding the lab leak hypothesis.

Fauci knew lab leak was possible, but he and his $-conflicted pals denied this and summoned the power of the federal government to bar others from discussing lab leak in the "news" media and social media for many months. In addition to this being public health corruption, this is a free-speech disaster. This is your country's leadership keeping you safe by protecting you from ideas they consider harmful, even from true ideas they consider harmful.

You can watch Glenn's show every week-night on Rumble, the free-speech alternative to YouTube.

Continue ReadingCensorship Czar Anthony Fauci Bans Discussion of the Lab Leak Hypothesis

Measuring First Amendment Ignorance

New report by FIRE indicates that many Americans who are celebrating the Fourth of July with BBQ and fireworks don't appreciate the meaning of the holiday.

In a recent AmeriSpeak panel conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, FIRE asked 1,140 Americans if they could name any of the specific rights protected by the First Amendment. The results were dismal.

Almost a third of Americans could not name a single enumerated right protected by the First Amendment and another 40% could name only one — usually freedom of speech. Among Americans who named one or more enumerated rights, roughly two-thirds (65%) named freedom of speech, about a quarter (26%) named freedom of religion, 20% named the right to assemble, 15% named freedom of the press, and 8% named the right to petition. Only 3% of Americans could name all five and, on average, could name 1.33 First Amendment rights. In other words, Americans’ knowledge of the First Amendment remains poor.

he AmeriSpeak panel is funded and operated by NORC, and is a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. household population. Although knowledge of the First Amendment was low across the board, some notable differences did emerge. Generally, males were able to name significantly more rights than females, although they still averaged less than two (1.47 and 1.23, respectively). Males were also significantly more likely to name four-of-five First Amendment rights than females were:

69% of males named freedom of speech compared to 61% of females. 24% of males named the right to assemble compared to 16% of females. 18% of males named freedom of the press compared to 12% of females. 11% of males named a right to petition compared to 5% of females.

These findings may reflect greater interest in the First Amendment among males. Other surveys have found that, compared to females, males are more likely to adopt an absolutist stance on the First Amendment and are more willing to allow the expression of statements that are offensive or hateful. Scholarship has long documented that males are also more opposed to censorship in a number of different content domains.

Liberals were significantly more likely to name at least one right and significantly more likely to name at least two rights compared to moderates and conservatives. One-third of conservatives and 27% of moderates could not name a single right, compared to 15% of liberals. Liberals also named significantly more rights on average than moderates did, although, as with males above, liberals still named less than two rights on average (1.56 and 1.28, respectively).

Generational differences are also evident. Americans aged 18-29 were significantly less likely to name free speech (55%) than other Americans, particularly those aged 45-59 (67%) and those aged 60 and older (70%). Those aged 18-29 (19%) and those aged 45-59 (21%) were also significantly less likely to name freedom of religion as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, compared to Americans aged 30-44 (30%) and those aged 60 and older (29%). Thus, older Americans appear to be the most knowledgeable about the First Amendment, suggesting that knowledge may decline further as they age and represent a smaller overall portion of the American population.

Continue ReadingMeasuring First Amendment Ignorance

Who is the Authoritarian?

because I follow these trends closely, but . . . For the past month Matt Taibbi has been reporting in detail that the FBI, DHS, DOD, CIA and other agencies have built a system for mass delivery of censorship requests to firms like Twitter and Facebook. MSNBC has now accused Taibbi of fueling authoritarianism with his reporting. Taibbi responded by listing some of the many pro-censorship advocates currently lurking around at MSNBC, people who call themselves journalists:

John Brennan, former Director of the CIA, now senior intelligence analyst at MSNBC

Frank Figliuzzi, formeer Assistant Director of Counterintelligence at the FBI

Asha Rangappa, former Special Agent for the FBI, specializing in counterintelligence

Nicolle Wallace, former Communications Director for George W. Bush

Jeremy Bash, former Chief of Staff of the CIA

Clint Watts, former FBI counterintelligence agent and MSNBC national security analyst

Chuck Rosenberg, former Acting DEA administrator and senior FBI official

Nayyera Haq, former Senior Director of the White House

Richard Painter, former Chief Ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush White House

Neal Kaytal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States

Ben Rhodes, former National Security Advisor to Barack Obama

Barry McCaffrey, former U.S. Army General and Drug Czar, security analyst for NBC and MSNBC

Stephen Twitty, former Lieutenant General of the U.S. Army

Joyce Vance, former U.S. Attorney

Barbara McQuade, former U.S. Attorney

Glenn Kirschner, former Assistant U.S. Attorney

For more on the abject silence of the left-leaning legacy media, its refusal to acknowledge the obviously disturbing importance of Taibbi's recent reporting on the Twitter Files, consider this episode of Glenn Greenwald's System Update on Rumble. The title: "Media Silent as Twitter Files Expose Flagrant Misconduct in Govt. & Journalism."

Continue ReadingWho is the Authoritarian?