[Official] Censorship from governmental actors thread

Supreme Court ruled in favor of the profane cheerleader today in a victory for free speech:

"Supreme Court sides with high school cheerleader in free-speech dispute over profane Snapchat rant"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b905ba-d42a-11eb-a53a-3b5450fdca7a_story.html

excerpt:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled for a Pennsylvania cheerleader whose profane off-campus rant cost her a spot on the squad, saying the First Amendment rights of public school students are not to be easily cast aside.

The court ruled 8 to 1 that the school district’s punishment was too severe, although it declined to adopt a broader rule saying schools never have a role in disciplining students for off-campus speech.

“It might be tempting to dismiss B.L.’s words as unworthy of the robust First Amendment protections discussed herein,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in his 11-page majority opinion, using the initials of the minor in question.

“But sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary,” he wrote.

The short opinion, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenter, was the court’s latest attempt to clarify the free-speech rights of the nation’s 50 million public school students, and a rare win for student speech.
​

more at the link

​

 

Turley sticks up for the free speech rights of a racist college professor who said we should "blow up African Americans"

Spoiler

just kidding. the guy said "blow up Republicans"

 

more Turley for you Turley Only Fans

"Out of Sight, Out of Mind? United Kingdom Moves to Ban Junk Food Advertising":

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/...d-kingdom-moves-to-ban-junk-food-advertising/

 

that's a good point, but there is also a big difference between cigarettes and "junk" food, no? "Cigarettes" is a much narrower class than junk food, with clearer and more readily identifiable harms resulting from their use than most forms of junk food.

 

I was thinking of an example--someone might consider the beef jerky that is commonly found in convenience stores to be "junk food," whereas someone who is a diabetic might consciously make the choice to consume that jerky over potato chips, donuts, or the like. I think Turley's point about the nanny state is still solid, even though I agree with you that junk food can be harmful. I don't think Turley himself denies that. I think he is critical of government paternalism in matters of individual choice and personal freedoms.

 

virtually everything can be harmful in some way . . . car accidents, swimming pool drownings, electrocution from electrical appliances. Would we ban all advertising, you know, "for the children?" I'm only being partly facetious here, but where does government paternalism end when it comes to banning advertising?

 

yes, Turley is most definitely a free speech advocate. he has also consistently argued against political intrusions into curriculum issues in public schools, e.g., https://jonathanturley.org/2017/01/...g-high-school-teachers-how-to-spot-fake-news/

So presumably he would also be skeptical about the Texas efforts as described

 

??

I have long been a critic of politician interfering with curricular issues in our schools. Most of us do not look to politicians as paragons of knowledge. Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez personifies the perils of politicians dictating course choices. Gomez is pushing for a course on to teach students who to avoid fake news. It is part of a new trend around the world to rally people against the scourge of “fake news” — a trend that is already been used as a rationale for censorship and the criminalization of speech. Fake news is now the rallying cry for people who disagree with coverage and is used as a way to avoid answering questions. What one person consider fake news and other considers real news can be highly subjective. The most recent controversy reveals the difficult lines to draw.​

 

I think the key line is "What one person consider fake news and other considers real news can be highly subjective." As Turley suggests, one person's "fake news" is another person's speculative hypothesis--think of the Wuhan lab theory story of how the covid virus got released. A course built upon the idea of "spotting fake news" might just dogmatically go with the consensus (the way the legacy media did last year) and simply dismiss a story like that as "fake news," rather than a more sophisticated analytical model of trying to play devil's advocate and tease apart pros and cons of a "news" story. I think the risk to free speech here is the rather predictable tendency of "curriculum experts" (none of whom tend to be "expert" in anything else) to establish what counts and what doesn't count as "real news" versus "fake news." Again, if one has faith in the marketplace of ideas, and also faith in teachers to navigate these waters sensitively on their own without the invisible hand of curriculum experts dictating their every move, then I think we could probably safely do without the heavy-handed top-down curriculum design mandates (however well intended they might be) coming from above (e.g., in the Jimmy Gomez example above).