# data[].attributes.body
Joey Protenic

# data[].attributes.headline
Can you have a "Western Civilization" without freedom of expression?

# data[].attributes.subject
Can you have a "Western Civilization" without freedom of expression?

# data[].attributes.headline
Western Civilization would not be where it is without freedom of expression.

# data[].attributes.subject
Western Civilization would not be where it is without freedom of expression.

# data[].attributes.body
counterclaim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday, President Trump took his anti-media rhetoric to a new level, doubling down on his description of journalists as "the enemy of the people" and calling for an end to the use of anonymous sources. This on a day when his press secretary Sean Spicer barred reporters from The New York Times, BBC, BuzzFeed News, CNN, Politico, The Los Angeles Times and The Huffington Post from his daily White House press briefing.

The unrelenting attacks on the news media damage American democracy. They appear to be part of a deliberate strategy to undermine public confidence and trust by sowing confusion and uncertainty about what is true. But they do even greater damage outside the United States, where America's standing as a global beacon of press freedom is being drastically eroded.

This is not just a matter of United States prestige. At a time when journalists around the world are being killed and imprisoned in record numbers, Mr. Trump's relentless tirades against "fake news" are emboldening autocrats and depriving threatened and endangered journalists of one of their strongest supporters - the United States government.

Of course the United States' record on press freedom is far from perfect. During the Obama administration, aggressive leak investigations - including a record number of prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act - regularly ensnared the press. But the United States has had tremendous moral influence when it spoke out about press freedom violations, and not just because of the commitment to the First Amendment. The fact that United States political leaders regularly withstood relentless criticism in the press gave them legitimacy when they called for the protection of critical voices in repressive societies.

For example, the Obama administration, through public statements and behind-the-scenes diplomacy, helped win the release of imprisoned journalists in Ethiopia and Vietnam. President George W. Bush regularly spoke out about press freedom violations, in places like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Earlier this month, the Venezuelan government suspended CNN's Spanish language network following accusations by President Nicolás Maduro that the network manipulates the news. President Trump was silent. Really, what could he say?

More ominously, when Mr. Trump was asked in December to comment on the systematic killings of journalists in Russia, he shrugged. "Well I think our country does plenty of killing, too," he told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough.

So far, Mr. Trump's war on the media has been mostly a war of words. But those words have consequences. It is leaders of autocratic countries, not democracies, who make a point of telling journalists how they should do their job. Praising positive coverage while lashing out at reporters who write something critical gives succor to the likes of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, a country where news outlets have been shuttered and a record number of journalists imprisoned. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump's attacks on the use of anonymous sources undermine the work of journalists reporting sensitive stories in repressive and dangerous environments from Iraq to Mexico, where source protection is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Trump's attacks on the news media follow a political logic. They rally those among his supporters who despise the media for its perceived liberal bias; they erode the credibility of the media itself, undermining demands for accountability; and they serve as the ultimate distraction, in the most recent example deflecting public attention from reports that Trump administration officials are impeding the investigation into their ties to Russia.

Thus there is a risk that responding to Mr. Trump's provocations will further advance his aims. Still, one point must be made: In President Trump's carpet bombing of the news media, it is not just the United States' global reputation that is collateral damage. Rather, it is the brave journalists on the front line who risk their lives and liberty to bring the world the news. It is to our great shame that they can no longer count on the support of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Trump Is Damaging Press Freedom in the U.S. and Abroad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday, President Trump took his anti-media rhetoric to a new level, doubling down on his description of journalists as "the enemy of the people" and calling for an end to the use of anonymous sources.

# data[].attributes.body
claim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court brought relief to newsrooms across the country yesterday when it handed down an important First Amendment decision in favor of freedom of the press. The 6-to-3 ruling came in a tricky case that required the justices to weigh legitimate personal privacy concerns as addressed by an excessively broad federal wiretap law against the public's right to know.

The case involved a tape recording of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation between two teachers' union officials. The officials were discussing heated contract negotiations, and there was a reference to blowing up the front porches of school board members. The tape, whose source is unknown, made its way to local radio stations and newspapers, which broadcast and published its contents. There was no dispute that the tape was lawfully obtained by the media and that its contents were of public significance. But its dissemination ran afoul of a 1968 wiretap law that prohibits the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications.

The union officials then sued. But the court correctly saw that holding the press liable in this instance for the illegal conduct of its sources would have established a dangerous precedent and exercised a chilling effect on the media's ability to report truthfully on significant matters of public concern.

''A stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern,'' concluded Justice John Paul Stevens, while acknowledging the harm to people illegally taped. However, as it has in the past, the court declined to bar all restrictions on publishing truthful information. In addition, a concurring opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warned that privacy protections will generally prevail when illegally intercepted information passed on to a paper or broadcaster is purely personal and lacks ''high interest and importance to the public.''

This cautionary language, while potentially worrisome, does not diminish the value of the decision. Faced with a choice between privacy claims and the media's right to disseminate legally obtained information on matters of ''public importance,'' the court sided with freedom of the press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court brought relief to newsrooms across the country yesterday when it handed down an important First Amendment decision in favor of freedom of the press. The 6-to-3 ruling came in a tricky case that required the justices to weigh legitimate personal privacy concerns as addressed by an excessively broad federal wiretap law against the public's right to know.

# data[].attributes.body
counterclaim

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Credit Credit Derek Brahney

WASHINGTON - When Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook called for regulating harmful internet content in an opinion column last month, Republicans in Washington expressed outrage that he was calling on the government to regulate speech.

Within hours, the company's top lobbyists started spreading another message to conservatives: Don't take his suggestion too seriously.

In a flurry of calls and emails to regulators, consumer groups and think tanks - as well as in person, at a weekly breakfast gathering of influential conservatives - the operatives said Mr. Zuckerberg was not encouraging new limits on speech in the United States. His target was mostly overseas regulators, they said, and he has other ideas for Washington.

"Mark believes that by updating the rules for the internet, we can preserve what's best about it - the freedom for people to express themselves and entrepreneurs to build new things," one Facebook lobbyist wrote in an email widely distributed to conservative groups. The lobbyists' actions were described by two people who encountered the outreach and shared the emails with The New York Times but would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Zuckerberg's call for action, and his lobbyists' response, encapsulate why the United States is on an island of its own when it comes to managing violent and racist speech online.

Britain, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and India have adopted or are considering laws that require stricter content moderation by tech platforms. But none of them need to work around the culture of free speech protections, embodied by the First Amendment, in the United States.

For tech businesses like Facebook, that means navigating fraught political terrain - and trying to play on both sides of the issue.

The companies face increasing pressure, particularly from Democrats but also from some Republicans, to stem the spread of messages that can lead to real-world violence. But many Republicans, including President Trump, complain that tech companies like Facebook and Google already curtail too many voices - and that any new limits would only make matters worse. The two parties recently had dueling congressional hearings to help make their case.

"American law and judges are united, but all the cultural and social pressures around the world are in the opposite direction," said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. "The protections of the American Constitution and the demands of countries and consumers around the world are on a collision course."

Navigating the various approaches to speech will require different solutions, said Kevin Martin, Facebook's head of lobbying in the United States.

"Mark and Facebook recognize, and support, and are strong defenders of the First Amendment," Mr. Martin said. That nuance was lost because the opinion piece, which ran in The Washington Post, The Independent in Britain and elsewhere, was written to speak to a global audience, he said.

Tech companies, as private businesses, have the right to choose what speech exists on their sites, much as a newspaper can pick which letters to the editor to publish.

Their online sites do already pull some content for breaking their rules. Facebook and Google have tens of thousands of content moderators to root out hate speech and false information on their sites, for example. The companies also use artificial intelligence and machine learning technology to identify content that violates their terms of service.

But many recent events, like the mosque shootings in New Zealand, show the limits of those resources and tools, and have led to more demands for regulation. A live video by a gunman in the New Zealand massacre was viewed 4,000 times before Facebook was notified. By then, copies of the video had been uploaded on several sites like 8Chan, and Facebook struggled to take down slightly altered versions.

"For the first time, I'm seeing the left and right agree that something has gotten out of control, and there is a lot of consensus on the harms created by fake news, terrorist content and election interference," said Nicole Wong, deputy chief technology officer for the Obama administration.

Getting consensus on basic definitions of what constitutes harmful content, though, has been difficult. And American lawmakers have been little help.

In his opinion column, Mr. Zuckerberg outlined several ideas to rid sites of harmful content. He noted that the company was putting together a group of outsiders who would evaluate harmful speech on its services and whether it should be removed. He also suggested that the government help define harmful speech.

"Regulation could set baselines for what's prohibited and require companies to build systems for keeping harmful content to a bare minimum," he wrote.

Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the telecommunications, broadband and television industries, responded on Twitter that such regulation would be a direct violation of the First Amendment.

"They are trying to pass the buck," Mr. Carr said in a later interview. "But he is asking for the government to censor speech."

Brad Parscale, President Trump's 2020 campaign manager, wrote on Twitter: "Every single regulatory measure Zuckerberg is calling for would benefit his company, his political allies, and himself personally."

Some civil rights groups also raised concerns. "It is extremely difficult to define 'harmful content,' much less implement standards consistently and fairly for billions of users, across the entire spectrum of contemporary thought and belief," wrote Corynne McSherry and Gennie Gebhart of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates open and free expression online. Their article was headlined "Mark Zuckerberg Does Not Speak for the Internet."

So far, Facebook has stood alone in its call for regulations of harmful speech. Google, Amazon, Twitter and Apple did not comment for this article but have been stalwart in their support of free speech online.

With a limited appetite for the government to step in and ban certain content online, regulators and some lawmakers have increasingly warned they will crack down on the internet companies for doing a poor job of policing their own policies. To do that, the government would most likely need to take away a legal immunity for internet companies, established in 1996, that shields them from liability for content posted by users.

The law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is often held up as central to the tech industry's growth in the last three decades. But lawmakers have begun to weigh whether the legal protection extends too far. Last year, Congress passed a law that weakened it by holding social networks and other websites liable for knowingly hosting sex trafficking ads, the first time that an exception was written for the law.

Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon and an author of Section 230, said it allowed sites to better moderate content without fear.

But even Mr. Wyden says the law was not intended to protect tech giants. Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has warned that he would pursue a carve-out of Section 230 for sites that hosted the sale of opioids.

"If these platforms don't fix their problems, you bet I'm looking at 230," Mr. Manchin said. "Everything is on the table."

The building frustration in Washington is being watched with anxiety by both big and small tech companies, as well as investors. Some are warning that any new regulations would hurt start-ups, because many don't have resources like Facebook and Google to hire staff to enforce the rules.

"Be mad at tech, that's understandable," Alex Feerst, head of legal policy for the online publishing site Medium, said at a recent event on the "unintentional harms" of speech regulations.

But adding restrictions to online speech laws or liabilities for platforms would come with downsides, he warned.

"Companies will simply over-remove out of risk aversion," he said.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Can Tech Companies Silence Hate Speech?. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's U.S. vs. World as Big Tech Faces Specter of Limiting Speech Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - When Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook called for regulating harmful internet content in an opinion column last month, Republicans in Washington expressed outrage that he was calling on the government to regulate speech. Within hours, the company's top lobbyists started spreading another message to conservatives: Don't take his suggestion too seriously.

# data[].attributes.body
Michael Gonchar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Is Freedom of Speech an Important Right? When, if Ever, Can It Be Limited? (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even though the concept of freedom of speech on its face seems quite simple, in reality there are complex lines that can be drawn around what kinds of speech are protected and in what setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Staci Garber

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Civics

At a walkout and rally in Washington Square Park in New York on April 20, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting, students called for an end to gun violence. Credit... Holly Pickett for The New York Times

This lesson plan was created in partnership with the National Constitution Center in advance of Constitution Day on Sept. 17. For information about a related cross-classroom "Constitutional Exchange," see The Lauder Project.
_________
While Americans generally agree that the First Amendment to the Constitution protects the freedom of speech, there are disagreements over when, where, how and if speech should be ever limited or restricted.

This lesson plan encourages students to examine their own assumptions about what freedom of speech really means, as well as to deepen their understanding of the current accepted interpretation of speech rights under the First Amendment. The lesson should reinforce the robustness of the First Amendment protections of speech.

While teaching, you may want to use all or part of this related Student Opinion question, which asks: Why is freedom of speech an important right? When, if ever, can it be limited?

_________

Using this handout (PDF), students will read the First Amendment provision that protects the freedom of speech and then interpret its meaning using 10 hypothetical situations. For example, here are two situations in the handout: a person burns an American flag in protest of government policies, and a public school student starts a website for students to say hateful things about other students.

In each situation, students use a five-point scale to determine the degree to which the government is able or unable to limit the speech in question. When students are finished considering the 10 scenarios, they should tally their scores at the bottom of the handout and then stand in a line - from least restrictive interpretation (lowest total score) to most restrictive interpretation (highest total score) of the First Amendment provision protecting speech - so they can see how their interpretation compares with that of their peers. You can then ask students to explain their reasoning.

From left, Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid knelt during the national anthem before a San Francisco 49ers game in 2016. Credit... Marcio Jose Sanchez/Associated Press

The Warm Up should have established for students that there are different ways to interpret the First Amendment. Before moving on, it's worth having the class discuss why they think the freedom of speech is an important right and why it is particularly important in a democracy, where people choose their political leaders. Some thoughts that may emerge in the conversation could include the ideas that citizens need to be able to speak freely in order to make effective electoral decisions, oversee government actions, participate in the policymaking process and hold politicians accountable.

Then, have students read and annotate an essay explaining the ways in which the Supreme Court has interpreted the freedom of speech. This essay, " Freedom of Speech and of the Press," by the constitutional law scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and Eugene Volokh, is part of the National Constitution Center's Interactive Constitution. Students should answer the following questions (also available as a student handout), making sure to provide evidence from the essay.

1. According to the essay, why is it important to protect speech, even if that speech is unpopular?
2. According to the essay, what kinds of actions are included in the term "speech" as it is found in the First Amendment?
3. How has the understanding of what is protected speech changed as technology has changed?
4. According to the essay, when is it acceptable under the First Amendment to limit or punish speech?
5. According to the essay, how has the Supreme Court addressed free speech during the 100 years since the end of World War I, and what is the status of free speech protections today?

When they're finished, students should revisit the hypothetical situations in the Warm Up. If any answers have changed, students should mark their new answers with a check mark.

Minneapolis residents vote on the campus of the University of Minnesota in 2016. Credit... Stephen Maturen/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

As a transition to this next activity about speech issues in current events, we recommend pausing to ask students: Why is it important to protect unpopular or offensive speech? Based on their understanding of the First Amendment, can the government ever draw reasonable limits?

One idea that may emerge in the conversation is that speech is considered a fundamental liberty under American law and that even inflammatory speech, such as racist language by a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, should generally be protected unless it is likely to cause imminent violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

Then, have students read one of these three New York Times articles about speech issues in the news that might affect their lives. We suggest you divide the class into three sections, with each section reading one of the articles. You might choose to break up each section into smaller groups or pairs, based on what groupings tend to work best in your class.

For each article, groups should consider both the relevant policy question and the related constitutional question (here is a student handout).

" Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Banning Political Apparel at Polling Sites " by Adam Liptak (June 14, 2018)

Policy Question: Should voters be able to wear whatever they want to the polling booth? Or, should the government set reasonable limits?
Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment allow the government to limit what voters can wear to the polling booth?

" High Schools Threaten to Punish Students Who Kneel During the Anthem " by Christine Hauser (Sept. 17, 2017)

Policy Question: Should students be allowed to protest, such as by kneeling during the national anthem, during school hours or while on school property?
Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment protect students' right to protest during school hours or while on school property? Does the First Amendment treat students at government-run schools (public schools) differently than students at private schools?

" Colleges Grapple with Where - or Whether - to Draw the Line on Free Speech " by Alina Tugend (June 5, 2018)

Policy Question: Should colleges be able to prohibit controversial or "offensive" public speakers from speaking on campus?
Constitutional Question: Does the First Amendment protect the speech rights of controversial or "offensive" public speakers on college campuses? Does the First Amendment treat government-run colleges (public colleges) differently than private colleges?

After reading their article, groups should also discuss the following question:

Why is it difficult for scholars, judges and lawmakers to balance robust (strong) speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society? Provide evidence.

Finally, have them revisit the hypothetical situations a third time, discussing them as a group. On their individual handout, students should circle any answer they want to change from the previous two rounds.

Groups should report out on their conversations. What article did they read? What was it about? What policy questions did it raise, and what did students think? What constitutional questions did it raise, and what did students think? In addition, they can share any disagreements or changed opinions they have about the hypothetical situations.

If you want to extend the debrief, you can choose one hypothetical situation to restate as a claim, such as "Public school students should be able to criticize school personnel and policies on social media." Have one student take a stand for the statement. Have another student take a stand against the statement. Each student can make a brief speech in support of his or her statement. Then, one at a time, other students can join the two sides, making additional arguments to support or refute the statements until all students are standing. Students are allowed and encouraged to switch sides as they are swayed.

Finally, ask students to complete this "exit ticket" (PDF) before leaving class. It asks the following questions:

1. Identify at least three ways in which speech can be regulated or limited.
* Answers may include time, place and manner restrictions.
* Answers may include distinctions between high- and low-value speech.
* Answers may vary but must address issues discussed in the essays.

2. Describe two areas in which there is some debate over whether speech can be regulated.
* Answers may include social media commentary, bullying and harassment types.
* Answers may include low value speech, campaigning or speech that costs money.
* Answers may include advocating violence, terroristic threats and artistic speech.
* Answers may include speech on high school and college campuses.

3. Explain one way in which your understanding of the speech provision of the First Amendment has changed over the course of today's lesson.
* Students who are stuck may use their warm-up handouts to check how their attitudes changed after reading the essay and talking to others.
* Students may explain any way in which their understanding has changed, including differences between high- and low-value speech, the lack of protection that citizens have against corporations or employers, the actions that have been interpreted as speech, or anything else they may have learned over the course of the lesson.

4. When can the United States government limit the freedom of speech?

_________
Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces and Microaggressions: Discussing Questions of Freedom of Speech on Campus Analyzing the Relationship Between the Press and the President: A Lesson Plan Freedom of Expression, Online: Outlining the First Amendment for Teenagers How Important Is Freedom of the Press? Should Free Speech Protections Include Self Expression That Discriminates? Should You Always Have the Right to Wear What You Want? Are School Dress Codes a Good Idea? Do Laws That Ban Offensive Words Make the World a Better Place? Should 'Despised Dissenters' Be Allowed to Speak on College Campuses? _________ Staci Garber is a social studies teacher at Caravel Academy in Bear, Del., and a member of the Teacher Advisory Board at the National Constitution Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech? A Lesson on Understanding the Protections and Limits of the First Amendment (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Civics This lesson plan was created in partnership with the National Constitution Center in advance of Constitution Day on Sept. 17. For information about a related cross-classroom "Constitutional Exchange," see The Lauder Project .

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Modern Civilization needs to be able to have the right to assemble

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Modern Civilization needs to be able to have the right to assemble

# data[].attributes.body
LibertiesEU