Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Chloe Anagnos

Government Wants a Piece of Facebook’s Digital Currency

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics. No Comments on Government Wants a Piece of Facebook’s Digital Currency

Facebook is entering the cryptocurrency market, hoping to beat bitcoin at its game. And if the government has anything to say about it, the tech firm might as well develop a stablecoin that will do exactly what bitcoin didn’t: become the standard in the global financial market.

After Facebook announced it would launch its cryptocurrency, Libra, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said the company should suspend plans to launch it until regulators can look at the digital coin more closely. As the head of the House Financial Services Committee, she wants the company to succumb to regulations before releasing its currency, claiming that the tech firm “is continuing its unchecked expansion and extending its reach into the lives of its users.”

Perhaps, Facebook already expected this treatment and as such, was quick to explain in its announcement that Libra would not be maintained by the firm but by a non-profit collective of companies.

According to the social media network, Libra will be backed by fiat currencies such as the U.S. Dollar, and it will be available to the tech giant’s 2.4 billion members as well as anyone with a smartphone.

The Libra Association, the firm stated, was founded by companies like Lyft, Uber, eBay, PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, and even Spotify. And according to Facebook, the stablecoin hopes to bring the financial system to the hands of the 1.7 billion individuals across the globe who do not have access to banks.

Considering that credit card companies are directly involved in this effort, it might be fair to say that Libra could be easily accepted as payment across the board. As such, lawmakers might be particularly concerned, as that would set Libra apart from bitcoin right off the bat.

“We need to go beyond the rumors and speculations and provide a forum to assess this project and its potential unprecedented impact on the global financial system,” Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) said, supporting Waters’ call for regulation.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) agreed, saying that “Facebook is already too big and too powerful,” why let it run its own currency as well?

Unsurprisingly, Facebook said in a statement that it was more than willing to respond to their questions.

From the company’s perspective, it is easier for it to cooperate and even suggest regulations than let the state develop rules on its own. After all, if Facebook doesn’t step up, other financial institutions will.

Will Libra Go Mainstream?

As explained by ZeroHedge, Libra isn’t “a cryptocurrency in the traditional sense.” For one, its supply will be dictated by a central authority.

Furthermore, the digital coin is backed by major players in the global financial industry, meaning that it enters the cryptocurrency game willing to compete with digital coins that exist precisely as a response to the banking system. In other words, Libra is a mainstream competitor to bitcoin and the like.

The fact that lawmakers were so quick to hit back shows that Washington is paying attention. And as explained by countless other news outlets, Libra is designed to be used in transactions, bringing the banking system to those without access to it — just the type of thing that would make the stablecoin a leader in the financial industry. But instead of going to competitors of the industry for help, Facebook tapped into a project run by giants such as Mastercard and Visa. This might be a sign that Libra won’t be regulated out of existence by Washington.

Still, there are risks that regulators will actually help Libra.

If Washington does work with Facebook and the Libra Association, it might set up a regulatory framework that could prevent other tech companies from creating their own digital currencies. That would ultimately benefit Libra, Facebook, and the major players behind the currency. The ones who would suffer would be the very digital currency users who are meant to benefit from Libra.

Facebook, as well as the other firms behind Libra, might be truly willing to provide a digital coin system that will help lift the world’s poorest. But if the government is involved in the process, it might just do the opposite, by stifling competition.

What Does Facebook’s Last Data Breach Scandal Say About Its Commitment to ‘Privacy?’

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Personal Liberty. 1 Comment on What Does Facebook’s Last Data Breach Scandal Say About Its Commitment to ‘Privacy?’

Libertarians often talk about respecting private property rights, explaining that no matter how much you might hate a private company’s policy, you should never use the state to force a change of course.

But criticizing a policy openly and passionately has nothing to do with trying to get the government involved. Quite the contrary — making arguments against bad policies openly and trying to persuade others to see the risks is why the free market is vastly superior to an overly regulated economy.

Facebook, a firm with a very bad track record when it comes to cooperating with the government on its unconstitutional spying operations, once again proved all free marketers right by putting our data at risk. Could it be that the Silicon Valley giant just isn’t all that into keeping our data safe?

In a lawsuit, Facebook claimed that two Ukrainian quiz makers used the platform to steal profile data and friends lists of 60,000 people. Some of the quizzes targeting the unaware users included “What does your eye color say about you?”, “Do you have royal blood?”, and “What kind of dog are you according to your zodiac sign?”

Using browser extensions, Gleb Sluchevsky and Andrey Gorbachov reportedly introduced their own advertisements onto Facebook’s news feed whenever the user accessed the social media platform through the compromised extensions. According to the lawsuit, “[t]he scam operated from 2016 to October 2018, when Facebook kicked the men off their site and banned their malicious extensions from app stores.” Most of the impacted users were Russian.

While the lawsuit does not state whether a motive for the data-scraping campaign was established, Facebook states the two men committed fraud, violated federal and California laws and broke the company’s terms of service.

After news outlets reported on this lawsuit, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg posted a note explaining that he envisions a more “privacy-focused” social media experience.

But despite this wish, Zuckerberg himself admitted his platform “[doesn’t] currently have a strong reputation for building privacy protective services.” Still, he expressed hope in the future.

“I believe we should be working towards a world where people can speak privately and live freely knowing that their information will only be seen by who they want to see it and won’t all stick around forever,” he wrote.

While we can all agree that is a worthy goal, it’s still difficult to trust Zuckerberg’s methods. Especially when the firm is constantly on the news for allowing malicious actors to have access to users’ private data.

And we’re not talking about private companies paying to target certain users on Facebook for political campaigns, we’re talking real, unlawful data breaches perpetrated by the government.

Most notoriously is Facebook’s involvement with the National Security Agency (NSA)’s PRISM program, which tapped into the encrypted data generated by online users.

From the time it was made public, it was clear from the leaked documents the surveillance campaign was run with the assistance of the companies and yet, Facebook flatly denied it was aware of the program. Now that Zuckerberg claims he’s engaged in making his platform more privacy-focused, we wonder if he intends on protecting our data only from rogue, private actors or if government’s spies are also a concern.

As philosopher and author Ayn Rand once explained, “[c]ivilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.” If we strive to live in a civilized world, we must put privacy first. And that means putting an end to the government’s never-ending thirst for more of our data.

In an age people sacrifice privacy to remain active on social media, it is important that we begin to ask ourselves how willing we are to allow private companies to remain engaged in government-sponsored surveillance.

While we have recourse in case a company like Facebook misuses our data privately, it’s more than proven we have nowhere to run to when the government is the one engaging in abusive behavior.

Free Speech Advocates: Three In Every Ten US Colleges Still Have ‘Red Light’ Ratings

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus. No Comments on Free Speech Advocates: Three In Every Ten US Colleges Still Have ‘Red Light’ Ratings

When analyzing freedom of speech on campus, there are many reasons to be hopeful. After all, some colleges are making important efforts to better protect the First Amendment on campus. However, a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) that analyzes the state of freedom of speech in the U.S. proves we still have a long way to go.

According to the report, at least 30 percent of colleges across the country earned an overall “red light” rating for having policies that substantially restrict freedom of speech. While the percentage of schools completely restricting speech has fallen four percent this year, public universities are legally bound by the U.S. Constitution — meaning that protecting the First Amendment rights of their students is non-negotiable.

Having policies in place that restrict speech rights is not only a violation of the Constitution, it is also proof that colleges aren’t serious about living up to what’s expected of them. And if we can’t trust an educational facility sworn to uphold the law of the land, how can we trust it with our education and the education of our children?

Freedom Of Speech: Colleges Should Lead By Example

As FIRE explained in its report, the “red light” rating isn’t the only one we should be concerned about.

This year, over 61 percent of higher ed institutions have a “yellow light” rating. Meaning that while their policies aren’t as restrictive as schools that earned “red light” ratings, they still have policies in place that could be abused. In these institutions, students’ First Amendment rights are still at risk.

“[F]ar too many colleges across the country fail to live up to their free speech obligations in policy and in practice,” the report stated.

Thankfully, FIRE will continue to fight for freedom of speech so things continue to change, the report added.

“While the continued decline in red light institutions is cause for optimism, we will continue to work with colleges and universities to ensure that yellow light institutions improve all the way to earn FIRE’s highest, ‘green light’ rating.”

As it stands, only 9 percent of all institutions surveyed hold a “green light” rating. While the low percentage may be cause for concern, it is an improvement from last year.

In 2019, the report explained, 42 colleges and universities protect their students’ freedom of speech rights whereas in 2018, only 35 schools did the same.

What may have played an important role in forcing schools’ hands in changing their policies, FIRE noted, was University of Chicago’s decision to adopt a policy statements that completely support freedom of speech in 2015.

According to the advocacy group, many of the schools that improved their ratings modeled their new policies on the Chicago Statement. This proves that if a college truly wants to dedicate itself to the noble pursuit of awakening students’ desire to learn, all they have to do is to lead by example.

To shine a light of freedom into a dark world of suppression is all that is required of them.

Denny Chimes

University Of Alabama Improves Free Speech Policies

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus. No Comments on University Of Alabama Improves Free Speech Policies

In the midst of a flood of news reports showing us that schools across the country continue to fight a war against freedom of speech, it’s refreshing to see that at least one college is taking steps to change the picture.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the University of Alabama’s ratings improved.

Now with a “yellow light” free speech rating, the school appears to be making considerable efforts to move away from its image of being hostile toward free speech. However, a yellow light from FIRE is nothing to celebrate. After all, some of the school’s policies could still be used to restrict students’ free speech rights. Still, FIRE attorney Laura Beltz thinks the changes the university implemented are positive.

Denny Chimes

“We are currently working with The University of Alabama and are very hopeful that we can collaborate on this and work with them to arrive at policies that meet their concerns but that also protect free speech rights,” she explained.

With most universities in the country holding a yellow light rating, Beltz warned that schools must still do more to follow the Constitution on campus. She’s hopeful, however, as “75 percent of colleges were getting the red light rating” in 2009 when FIRE first put out their report. Now, she said, schools are mostly getting the yellow light rating. While that’s not good in itself, as “these ‘yellow light’ ratings have been struck down by the court as unconstitutional,” she explained, it does show schools are slowly beginning to take the matter seriously.

According to FIRE, some of the policies that make the University of Alabama a “yellow light” institution include its event planning, harassment, sexual misconduct, and advertisement policies. However, the school has a Code of Student Conduct Preamble that was labeled a “green light” policy. Hopefully, the positive response from this change will encourage others to review their own policies.

Freedom Of Speech Is Popular

With public universities such as the University of Alabama making this change, expect to see more institutions joining the movement.

Due to the increasing pressure brought about the many incidents involving left-leaning protestors at events organized by conservative voices in the last years, it’s no wonder FIRE is seeing more schools going from “red light” to “yellow light” ratings. But the move couldn’t come fast enough, as many schools insist on keeping policies easily that are abused, giving students and college staff reason to attack those they don’t agree with politically.

Free Speech Advocates Sue University Of Texas Over Restrictive Policies

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus. No Comments on Free Speech Advocates Sue University Of Texas Over Restrictive Policies

The University of Texas, a public college, is under fire for reportedly stifling free speech on campus. Now, free speech advocates are suing the institution.

According to Speech First, a nationwide community and advocacy group focused on fighting to protect the First Amendment, UT’s speech policies, the campus climate response team, and the school’s residence hall manuals all have policies in place that stifle the free debate of ideas.

In its release regarding the lawsuit, Speech First reported the school received “more than 100 reports of alleged ‘expressions of bias,’” which included posts on social media, fliers, verbal comments, posters, and others. These reports were all investigated by the school’s “bias response team” since September 2017, spreading fear on campus.

According to Speech First, this approach to speech crackdown prompted students to think twice before discussing matters such as abortion, immigration, and identity politics.

To the group, students now “fear their speech will be anonymously reported as derogatory, hostile, and/or offensive to university authorities through the Campus Climate Response Team.”

In addition to targeting the school’s bias task force, Speech First is also questioning UT’s response to speech considered “offensive.”

Because the school has failed to clearly define the terms it uses to describe unwanted speech in its Residence Hall Manual and Acceptable Use Policy, the group explains, the school “failed to appropriately safeguard students’ First Amendment rights,” Speech First President Nicole Neily told reporters.

“Students deserve to be able to express themselves and voice their opinions without fear of investigation or punishment – which is why these policies must be reformed.”

One of the cases highlighted by the group involved the Young Conservatives of Texas.

After the organization set up a table supporting then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who had been accused of assault but never convicted, the group suffered attacks from those who disagreed with them. And many students even said the school should have done more to shut them down.

After the incident, students said that pro-Kavanaugh posters “triggered” sexual assault survivors, pressuring the school to respond. UT eventually issued a statement saying that while it supports free speech it does not support messages that promote violence and threats.

On another occasion, UT cracked down on themed Halloween parties that would encourage “bigoted costumes” such as country or “border-themed” events.

The Public School As An Arm Of The State

To Speech First’s Niely, the problem isn’t about students debating their colleagues or trying to shun each other. What bothers freedom of speech advocates is that “a school as a state actor [is] stepping in and picking winners and losers.” She is right.

A college, especially a public one, stands as an arm of the state, especially in the minds of its students. To use this power to impose a point of view, no matter how harmless it may seem, is stifling the debate and shielding students from going through experiences that will push them to become better versions of themselves.

It’s time we begin to look at this nationwide trend of schools targeting free speech in the name of political correctness as the threat that it really is, especially to the younger generations.

Virginia Colleges Aren’t Doing Much To Protect Free Speech

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online. No Comments on Virginia Colleges Aren’t Doing Much To Protect Free Speech

Virginia colleges are behind when it comes to speech protections, a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) shows.

Out of 18 colleges, only three got “green lights,” meaning they defend free speech on campus. Twelve got “yellow lights,” meaning they uphold one or more policies that are ambiguous enough to restrict students’ speech rights. More concerning is the rating given to Virginia State University, a public college. Its “red light” rating makes it clear the school holds a policy that “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”

This concerning trend is a reality across the country, where the only two states that had more “red light” schools than Virginia were North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

In the age of #MeToo and other movements hoping to make political correctness the leading and, at times, the only acceptable narrative, freedom on campus has suffered a great deal. Especially in public colleges, where the Constitution should rule supreme and where freedom of speech is a guaranteed right.

College Speech Rules Do More Than Restrict Speech

Universities have always served as a forum where students come together to question prevailing narratives and debate ideas — openly. And yet, we’re seeing colleges playing the role of the authoritarian cultural ruler who sets the standards and tells young men and women what to think and how to express it.

As Laura Beltz, the senior program officer for policy reform at FIRE, told reporters, policies upheld in many of these colleges restrict speech by making students themselves enforcers of the status quo.

“One common type is bias incident policies — policies that direct students to report speech that they perceive as biased to university administrators, whether or not it is protected by the First Amendment,” Beltz said. “About half the schools in Virginia maintain a bias incident reporting policy.”

If simply telling students with the “wrong” ideas they are not allowed to hold public forums or demonstrations on campus wasn’t enough, these policies add weight to keeping up with the standards upheld by school administrators by giving students themselves the power to persecute others for their views. Clearly, that’s a policy that is both dangerous to those impacted by it and harmful to the intellectual development of our nation’s young adults. If anything, bias incident reporting is an irresponsible policy.

But, that isn’t the only issue present in many “yellow” and “red light” schools in Virginia. Other policies that end up restricting speech include regulations for posting information, on soliciting, and vague rules about bullying. Some schools even prohibit students from using certain language that conveys that there’s such a thing as a feminine or masculine gender role.

In a world where the internet made information accessible to anyone anywhere, colleges are becoming obsolete. Are they also going to further diminish their impact in the world by making ideas less likely to be discussed openly on school grounds? So far, the answer appears to be a loud and clear “yes.”

Study: College Students Believe Violence Should Be Used To Restrict ‘Hate Speech’

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online. No Comments on Study: College Students Believe Violence Should Be Used To Restrict ‘Hate Speech’

Colleges across the country have increasingly become more resistant to freedom of thought, so it’s no surprise a recent survey found that one in every three students says it’s OK to use violence to shut down so-called hate speech. According to a study carried out by the McLaughlin & Associates and sponsored by the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale, 53 percent of students report feeling “intimidated” when sharing their political beliefs while in class, while 54 percent claim their fear is associated with knowing their views conflict with the views shared by their colleagues. About the same number of students also said most of their professors often share their political views in class, whether these subjects are related or not to the course. The same study found nearly six in ten students believe schools should forbid people engaging in “hate speech” from speaking on campus, while 33 percent think physical violence should be used if a campus speaker uses hate speech during their presentation. Despite these views, undergraduates have a hard time defining hate speech, making it completely plausible that many would defend the use of force against peaceful people who simply do not agree with their politics. The dangerously high number of students who defend the use of violence to oppress speech shows us that the years of growing political bias among college professors and administrators are finally paying off. Now, students feel they are under pressure to subscribe to a particular political philosophy and, what’s worse, they feel schools are justified when they use force to remove an unwanted speaker. The Suppression of Speech And Thought As FEE’s Jay Bowen points out, the revolution of speech repression on campus is directly associated with the rise of political correctness. After all, college campuses were, not too long ago, the place where students went to have access to a real open market of ideas. The 1960s free speech movement, for instance, started at the University of California, Berkeley, where now, speakers deemed offensive and “dangerous” are blocked from entering.   As more and more schools seek to shield students from the dangers of the open debate, Bowen contends, it’s only natural that seeing students defending colleges that pursue violence against those they dislike has become the norm. Lauren Noble, the Buckley Program founder, and executive director said in a statement following the study that it’s “unfortunate that college campuses — which could be leaders in bringing people together around fundamental values — are just as polarized and divided as the rest of America.” But perhaps, what’s even more troubling is to learn violence is seen as an option, whereas free men and women all know using force against someone merely expressing their views is nothing short of wrong. It’s today’s culture, which embraces aggression as an answer, that has cornered us all, keeping us from being able to openly discuss our own views in public. And colleges are a major part of this cultural trend.

Texas Public University Has ‘No Plans’ To Get Rid Of ‘Free Speech Zones’

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus. No Comments on Texas Public University Has ‘No Plans’ To Get Rid Of ‘Free Speech Zones’

In certain public colleges in the United States, students are only allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights in designated “free speech” zones. While many of these schools have recently eased these rules thanks to public pressure, Texas Woman’s University is still lagging behind.

With no plans to change their policies, at least according to campus spokesman Matt Flores, the school is now under heightened scrutiny as its Denton campus “designated free areas” were highlighted by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a campus watchdog group.

According to the organization, the Texas Woman’s University is a “yellow light institution” for restricting students’ protected expression. FIRE adds that the institution’s “ambiguous policy … easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.”

In late 2017, after neo-Nazis were spotted on the school’s Denton campus, the school was under fire for comments made by its chancellor, Carine Feyten. At the time, she said “free speech is not absolute. There are limits.”

“When free speech incites illegal activity, constitutes a ‘true threat’ that causes a person to fear imminent harm or rises to the level of prohibited harassment, it can be addressed,” Feyten added.

But what does that mean, exactly? Could she be talking about “hate speech,” and how exactly is she defining it? What kind of “illegal activity” does a certain speech have to incite to be considered a threat?

None of those questions were addressed in her note, making it difficult for any true free speech advocate to empathize with her. After all, once you use “hate speech” to keep someone from expressing their point of view, you’re picking sides — a role that a public institution should never play.

Taxpayer-Backed Institutions And Free Speech Protections

A private educational facility would have the right and power to tell its students that certain activities are not allowed on campus. But a public facility responds to taxpayers. Restricting students’ freedom of speech rights results in a violation of their commitment to following the Constitution.

Free speech zones exist now because schools wanted to contain anti-war protests in the Vietnam War era, so they created spaces where these protests could occur. However, the policy has always been unconstitutional.

As experts have explained, public schools are not required to protect people or speakers actively involved in expressing a certain viewpoint, but the moment that they start picking who can and who cannot speak freely on campus, then they are acting as political hacks or ideologues, who choose one ideology over another, effectively violating the speaker’s freedom of speech rights.

If the Texas Woman’s University does not understand that fact, it’s up to taxpayers — and students — to remind them of their duties.

Ontario Presses Universities To Protect Free Speech

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Ontario Presses Universities To Protect Free Speech

Canadian universities have a history of restricting and oftentimes completely blocking students from sharing controversial or unpopular opinions on campuses. Now, a directive from a local government could help ignite change across the Great White North.

Ontario’s provincial government issued a mandate requiring that local universities, both private and public, come up with a free speech policy by the first day of 2019. It must emphasize that the school will protect speech while fighting “hate” speech.

In a release titled “Ontario Protects Free Speech on Campus,” the provincial government outlined what policies universities must follow, requiring these institutions to define free speech, base its protection principles on what the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression states, and “ensure that hate speech, discrimination and other illegal forms of speech are not allowed on campus.” However, Canadian laws do not define what “hate speech” is.

Regardless, universities are expected to recognize that free speech protections don’t apply to discrimination or other forms of speech that could break the law. Still, there’s hope that these new policies could actually help expand Ontario’s young minds.

The country’s Supreme Court has established that “everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, indeed all expressions of the heart and mind, however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream.” If universities follow the rule established by Canada’s high court, the country’s reputation could benefit greatly.

Up until recently, Canadian schools made the news for providing a stifling environment to its students.

The problem is so widespread that in 2017, two-thirds of all Canadian universities received F grades for their lack of free speech protections from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF)’s Campus Freedom Index. Student unions got zero A grades.

In many cases, universities were found to overlook the disruption of peaceful events while actually charging students with offenses “solely because of the content of their peaceful expression,”  the Campus Freedom Index explained.

If Ontario’s example is followed by other provinces, the new policy changes could ignite a sweeping wave, helping students feel safe to exchange ideas again. With schools no longer shielding students from being exposed to different worldviews, they won’t fear being punished for expressing contrary opinions. In the end, everyone wins.

As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained in “The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science,” it was the very climate created by capitalism that gave people the freedom to openly discuss “the most momentous problems of philosophy, religion, and science … without any fear of reprisals on the part of the powers that be.” When universities, the very pillars of human expression and development in Western society, turn their backs to freedom of speech, they are turning their backs to centuries of progress, teaching their students that oppression is the pillar of a great society.

Is that the kind of message Canadian schools want to send their young enrollees? If Ontario’s move is considered, then the answer is “no” — and we should all be grateful for it.

Speech

Study: Americans Have No Idea What The First Amendment Protects

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online. No Comments on Study: Americans Have No Idea What The First Amendment Protects

The Freedom Forum Institute released a study recently proving what we have all known for quite some time: Americans don’t understand the First Amendment.

Researchers talked to respondents of all age groups and political affiliations to find out whether they knew exactly what freedoms the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees. What they found was that a staggering 40 percent of respondents were unable to list any of them.

Speech

Others managed to name at least one, with freedom of speech being recalled by 56 percent of those surveyed, followed by freedom of religion, which was mentioned by 13 percent of participants, freedom of the press (13 percent), and right of assembly, (12 percent.)

Only two percent recalled right to petition “the Government for a redress of grievances,” as the amendment states.

Interestingly enough, nine percent of respondents named the right to bear arms, which is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as one of the freedoms protected under the First Amendment.

Trying to figure out whether Ivy League students would fare better than the respondents of the Freedom Forum Institute survey, Campus Reform went to Columbia University and offered any student who could recall all five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment a $20 bill.

Needless to say, nobody took home the prize.

Even at the prestigious Columbia, a student said he had “no idea” when asked to name any of the five freedoms, while another admitted he should go home to read after being able to name just one.

Does Ignorance Brew Fear?

According to the Freedom Forum Institute study, younger and left-leaning respondents were more likely to defend a university’s right to retract the invitation of a speaker who could incite violent behavior or provoke large-scale protests.

As we saw with the experiment run by Campus Reform, it is not far-fetched to believe Americans who are less acquainted with the rights protected by the Constitution may be more likely to try to restrict these rights when applied to people with whom they disagree.

Much like Americans who cannot spot a country on a map are more likely to support a war against it, students who now find themselves fearful of certain speakers because of their political leanings might just not be that well-read. But can that be the only explanation for this phenomenon? Probably not, but it could be a good place to start.

How about teaching our young students more about the Constitution and less about Miley Cyrus for a change?

Freedom Of the Press at Lowest Point in 12 Years

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online, Personal Liberty. No Comments on Freedom Of the Press at Lowest Point in 12 Years

According to a report from Freedom House, an independent organization that promotes freedom around the world, in 2015, press freedom has declined to its lowest point in 12 years, as political, criminal and terrorist forces worked to silence the media. Only 13 percent of the world’s population experiences a free press, meaning that coverage of political events is prevalent, the government minimally interferes in media happenings, and the safety of journalists is guaranteed. These declines are attributed to the partisanship of a country’s media and the amount of intimidation and violence journalists experience world-wide. This data is best visualized in the Newseum’s world press freedom map located in the Time Warner World News Gallery in Washington, D.C. This giant map shows which countries have the greatest amount of press freedom. A green-colored country means the most, yellow is somewhat, and red is least to none at all. The majority of these problems for the press happen in the Middle East where governments, militias and extremists groups pressure journalists and media outlets to push alternate narratives. Often times, these groups distribute news through their own networks without needing to rely on traditional journalists or other outlets. And recently, extremist groups have attempted to silence or eliminate news organizations that they don’t agree with, have taken journalists hostage, or have had them killed. Only two countries improved their practices against journalists in 2015. Burkino Faso and Sri Lanka removed prison sentences for libel and saw a change in government that lead to fewer physical threats against journalists. More than 15 countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others declined in their practices against freedom of the press. For example, the majority of these countries declined to provide protections for journalists against violence and censored websites and other medium. North Korea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan lead the list in countries with the worst press freedom scores. Freedom House lists China, Poland and India as some of the countries to watch in the next year as they may be moving towards important changes in their press freedom conditions. The United States has a “free” press freedom status, however, since the terrorist attacks of 2001, journalists have had difficulties in gaining access to proceedings and facilities related to counterterrorism. These include reporting on the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 100 detainees continue to be held.
speech

UCF “Cyberbullying” Dismissal A Win For Free Speech

Written by Chloe Anagnos on . Posted in First Amendment, Freedom On Campus, Liberator Online. No Comments on UCF “Cyberbullying” Dismissal A Win For Free Speech

The University of Central Florida student whose viral “graded” breakup letter to his ex-girlfriend got him suspended for two semesters was cleared of all charges.

Nick Lutz, 21, posted pictures of his ex-girlfriend’s apology letter which was retweeted more than 122,000 times. He gave the four pages of vulnerable, emotional prose a 61 out of 100 — a D minus.

speech

“Long intro, short conclusion, strong hypothesis but nothing to back it up,” he wrote. “While the gesture is appreciated, I would prefer details over statements. Revision for half credit will be accepted.”

That tweet, his university ruled five months after it was posted, was grounds for suspension after his ex-girlfriend went to her hometown sheriff and the university with a complaint that she was cyber bullied.

UCF suspended Lutz for two semesters on charges of breaking the school’s honor code.

His lawyer, Jacob Stuart, called the punishment a violation of his client’s First Amendment rights and after an appeal, the school reversed its decision and dismissed the case entirely. Stuart said that “Mr. Lutz and his family applaud UCF for recognizing that a student’s right to enjoy the freedom of expression is protected from ill-founded and abusive supervising by a public university.”

The ex-girlfriend was not a UCF student when the snarky tweet was posted, nor has she ever spoken publically about the case. It’s downright perplexing to think that a university would attempt to suspend a student over a petty breakup letter.

Had the suspension held up, it would have set a very dangerous precedent to any student who trolls a social media post. In an age of microaggressions and safe spaces, would publicly funded schools hire administrators just to monitor students’ social media accounts?

Thankfully, this dismissal is a win for free speech for all college campuses and students.