He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.; The Washington Post, April 13, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.

"Brunetti is challenging a neighboring provision in the law, which prohibits the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. And his odds look good."

A board to oversee Georgia journalists sounds like Orwellian fiction. The proposal is all too real.; The Washington Post, April 8, 2019

Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post; A board to oversee Georgia journalists sounds like Orwellian fiction. The proposal is all too real.

"Granted, journalists are far from perfect, and their practices deserve to be held to reasonable standards. But there already is pretty good agreement about journalistic ethics, available for all to see.

Respectable news organizations have codes of ethics — many of them available to the public. The Society of Professional Journalists has a well-accepted code as well."

The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins; The Washngton Post, March 15, 2019

Alex Horton, The Washington Post; The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins

"Lagoze found himself in a murky gray area of free speech and fair-use government products. U.S. citizens can already go on Pentagon-operated sites and download free military photos and video.Their tax dollars fund it, and federal government creations are not protected by copyright.

So could Lagoze take the moments he filmed with government resources and make something new?

He worked with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University to push back against the military’s claims of impropriety. The Marine Corps relented this month."

A university gallery showed art with Confederate imagery. Then students called to remove it.; The Washington Post, February 26, 2019

Mark Lynn Ferguson, The Washington Post; A university gallery showed art with Confederate imagery. Then students called to remove it.

"Joy Garnett, program associate for the National Coalition Against Censorship, said the school had other options than taking the art down. It could have provided more context around the exhibit, such as temporary dividers to conceal the art and signs cautioning visitors on the difficult subject matter. After the exhibit closed, Baldwin did hold listening sessions, but only students and faculty were allowed to attend, according to school spokeswoman Liesel Crosier. The sessions, argued Jonathan Friedman, project director for campus free speech at PEN America, a nonprofit devoted to defending freedom of speech, “would have likely been much richer if the exhibit were able to continue.”

Garnett also found fault with the artists, who she said need to understand the communities where they are showing their work. More than half of Baldwin’s residential students are not white. “It’s not about avoiding offending people,” Garnett said. “It’s about how do you couch the offense in a way that’s productive.”

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."

Time's 2018 'Person of the Year' is killed and imprisoned journalists; NBC News, Decemeber 11, 2018

Tim Stelloh, NBC News; Time's 2018 'Person of the Year' is killed and imprisoned journalists

""The Guardians."

That's what Time magazine is calling the journalists behind 2018's "Person of the Year," which was revealed exclusively Tuesday morning on "Today."

With a record number of reporters behind bars around the planet — the Committee to Protect Journalists documented 262 cases in 2017 — an avalanche of misinformation on social media and government officials from the United States to the Philippines dismissing critical, real reporting as "fake news," Time is spotlighting a handful of journalists who have one thing in common: They were targeted for their work.

For them, pursuing the truth has meant prison and harassment. In some cases, it has meant death."

Slave Bible From The 1800s Omitted Key Passages That Could Incite Rebellion; NPR, December 9, 2018

Michel Martin, NPR; Slave Bible From The 1800s Omitted Key Passages That Could Incite Rebellion

[Kip Currier: Recently I've been recalling a phrase my wise late grandmother, Esther Hughes Currier, used and which has--thankfully--stuck with me through the years: "Consider the source". The way she used it meant considering the character of the person saying or doing something, often with an implication that the source was of, shall we say, questionable quality or less than sterling character. 

Throughout the analog era, information professionals have habitually "considered the source" in making decisions about what to collect for libraries and what to curate for archives and museums. In the digital era, those and whole new kinds of information professionals (--as well as, increasingly, tech companies and "black box" algorithms and AI bots!), are making thorny decisions about what information and data to collect, curate, and provide access to--now and for future posterity. 

This story about bowdlerized Bibles in the 1800's that were used as a tool of oppression is a powerful reminder that we must always "consider the source"--exercising critical thinking--when determining the veracity and intentions of a speaker or information object.]

"On display now at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., is a special exhibit centered on a rare Bible from the 1800s that was used by British missionaries to convert and educate slaves.

What's notable about this Bible is not just its rarity, but its content, or rather the lack of content. It excludes any portion of text that might inspire rebellion or liberation."

Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People; Comic Book Resources, November 9, 2018

Brandon Zachary, Comic Book Resources; Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People

[Kip Currier: With his singular artistic style and rapier insights, Rob Rogers is truly one of America's great political cartoonists and satirists.

Rogers was treated abysmally by the owners and management of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was fired from the paper this year; see this Nov. 4 article in The Washington Post for more background.

It's good to see that his newest compilation Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey will be available for purchase soon.]


"The Pulitzer Prize winner was a 25-year veteran of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette before being unceremoniously fired earlier this year, purportedly because his cartoons were regularly critical of President Trump and his policies.

Titled Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey, the 184-page collection will be released Dec. 11 through the publisher's IDW Limited imprint...

“Satire is the ultimate expression of free speech," Rogers said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "[It] reminds us that we live in a healthy democracy. But we are living in a time like no other in our country’s history, a time when the media is under attack, a time of extreme partisanship. We need satire and editorial cartoons more now than ever.”"

#ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, November 8, 2018

Kip Currier; #ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law:

National Conference on the First Amendment; Duquesne University, October 21 - October 22, 2018

"National Conference on the First Amendment

Sunday, October 21 - Monday, October 22, 2018
Duquesne University Power Center Ballroom

[Kip Currier: Just listened virtually (see the link at the bottom of this post!) to the National Conference on the First Amendment's Monday morning panels comprised of a diverse array of newspaper editors (New York Times, Washington Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), university presidents (Morehouse College, University of Chicago, University of Virginia), and other 1st Amendment and national security experts from government, industry, and the academy. Hearing the thoughts of these impressive thought leaders was enlightening, thought-provoking, AND energizing. I'll be blogging about some of the sessions in the near future. Hopefully, the videos of these sessions will be made available--and transcripts would be a great resource as well!]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

- The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

The National Conference on the First Amendment: Bedrock of American Freedoms will shine a light on the critical importance of the First Amendment in a free and democratic society, to open a dialogue with Americans about the First Amendment and its central role in maintaining the viability of our democratic institutions and to help diverse audiences recognize that we, as Americans, still share foundational values. At a time when incivility and disregard for foundational principles have become the norm in our society, all Americans—regardless of ideology or politics—can find common ground in a national celebration of the First Amendment.
This conference will devote attention to all aspects of our basic freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and to government petition. The conference also will cover modern technology, social media and more. With the help of some of the best minds in the country, the conference will challenge us to rediscover the central role that the First Amendment plays in our American democracy.
Speakers and panelists include nationally known experts in journalism, politics, law, higher education and civic advocacy. For complete details, see the conference agenda.

Live Webcast

In addition, the conference will be webcast live on Oct. 21-22 for those unable to attend in person."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America; The Guardian, August 28, 2018

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Guardian;

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America

"Athletes who speak out are proclaiming their loyalty to a constitution that demands equality and inclusiveness, not to the government officials who try to undermine those ideals by silencing its critics."

A Better Way to Ban Alex Jones; The New York Times, August 7, 2018

David French, The New York Times; A Better Way to Ban Alex Jones

"The good news is that tech companies don’t have to rely on vague, malleable and hotly contested definitions of hate speech to deal with conspiracy theorists like Mr. Jones. The far better option would be to prohibit libel or slander on their platforms.

To be sure, this would tie their hands more: Unlike “hate speech,” libel and slander have legal meanings. There is a long history of using libel and slander laws to protect especially private figures from false claims. It’s properly more difficult to use those laws to punish allegations directed at public figures, but even then there are limits on intentionally false factual claims. 

It’s a high bar. But it’s a bar that respects the marketplace of ideas, avoids the politically charged battle over ever-shifting norms in language and culture and provides protection for aggrieved parties."

What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones?; The Atlantic, August 7, 2018

Alexis C. Madrigal, The Atlantic; What Does It Mean to Ban Alex Jones?

"In banning the Infowars page, Facebook took the next logical step in restricting access to Infowars content, but it still hasn’t outright banned the domain, and it has not disclosed how the News Feed algorithm is dealing with URLs from Infowars.com.  

All of which is to say: There are many kinds of bans, and they each represent a different tool technology companies can use to police speech. Platforms can weaken the distribution of content they don’t like. They can ban the discovery of content they don’t like, as Apple has with Jones’s podcasts. Platforms can decline to host content they don’t like, as YouTube and Facebook have with InfoWars videos and pages, respectively. Or platforms can ban the presence of content they don’t like, regardless of where it is hosted or discovered."

When do rants exceed First Amendment boundaries and become true threats?; ABA Journal, August 2018

David L. Hudson Jr., ABA Journal; When do rants exceed First Amendment boundaries and become true threats?

"True threats are not protected in part because of the fear and disruption they cause in their recipients. “Speech that places a victim in fear for his or her physical safety is deeply harmful in that it disrupts the target’s life and may deter him or her from engaging in key life activities,” says University of Colorado Law School professor Helen Norton, who writes frequently on First Amendment topics.

“Indeed, true threats may themselves undermine First Amendment values by silencing the speaker’s target.” The push to combat threats is understandable. The problem is discerning the boundaries between protected speech and unprotected true threats. “The unclear part of the definition is what makes a threat ‘true,’ meaning that it is an expression dangerous enough for the government to have the power to punish, and the definition is narrow enough that it does not chill protected speech,” says Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a First Amendment expert who teaches at the University of the Pacific.

“We don’t want to criminalize political hyperbole, jokes or drunken rants,” Norton explains. “Not infrequently, we say extreme things that we don’t mean to be understood literally, such as ‘I am so mad at X that I could kill him.’ Speech of that sort furthers an individual’s First Amendment interests in expressive autonomy, and the government’s regulation of it threatens overreaching and other dangers.”"

Newseum Says It Made a Mistake and Pulls ‘Fake News’ Shirts; The New York Times, August 3, 2018

Sopan Deb, The New York Times; Newseum Says It Made a Mistake and Pulls ‘Fake News’ Shirts

[Kip Currier: Photos of some items I bought at The Newseum when I was there for a Social Innovation Summit a couple of years ago:]

"The Newseum in Washington, which caused a stir Friday after reports that it was selling a T-shirt reading “You Are Very Fake News,” announced Saturday that it was pulling the shirts from its gift shop and online store.

“We made a mistake and we apologize,” the museum, which is dedicated to press freedom, said in a statement on its website. “A free press is an essential part of our democracy and journalists are not the enemy of the people.”

China takes its political censorship global. Will America resist?; The Washington Post, July 26, 2018

Josh Rogin, The Washington Post; China takes its political censorship global. Will America resist?

"The Xi regime claims that any public speech criticizing Communist Party propaganda is a grave offense to 1.3 billion Chinese people. Never mind that Twitter and Instagram are blocked in China: Beijing is trying to enforce its political censorship outside its borders and online. That can’t be tolerated. The whole world cannot become a “safe space” for Chinese sensitivities.

By accommodating China’s political demands, even partially, airlines are abetting a false depiction of U.S. policy on Taiwan and playing into China’s game, said Samantha Hoffman, visiting fellow at the Mercator Institute for China Studies...

The Chinese government is also trying to expand its domestic “social credit system” to apply to foreign firms. It’s Beijing’s way of shaping international norms according to its criteria, Hoffman explained in a report for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute."

OIF Responds to Library Bill of Rights Meeting Room Amendment; American Libraries, July 10, 2018

American Libraries;

OIF Responds to Library Bill of Rights Meeting Room Amendment

 

"“As cited in the interpretation, there are two prominent cases addressing public library meeting rooms. One involved religion. One involved a white supremacist group. In both cases, the library prohibiting the groups use of space lost lawsuits and were forced to change their policies.

“The Library Bill of Rights Meeting Room amendment should serve as a catalyst for library staff to review or establish policies with assistance from their legal counsel. We encourage libraries to adopt policies that govern meeting space use while meeting the needs of the community that they serve."

Facebook finally explains why it bans some content, in 27 pages; The Washington Post, April 24, 2018

Elizabeth Dwoskin and Tracy Jan, The Washington Post; Facebook finally explains why it bans some content, in 27 pages

"“We want people to know our standards, and we want to give people clarity,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. She added that she hoped publishing the guidelines would spark dialogue. “We are trying to strike the line between safety and giving people the ability to really express themselves.”"

More advertisers drop Laura Ingraham's Fox News show despite apology to David Hogg; Los Angeles Times, March 30, 2018

Stephen Battaglio, Los Angeles Times; More advertisers drop Laura Ingraham's Fox News show despite apology to David Hogg

"Ingraham is often the fourth most-watched program in all of cable news with about 2.6 million viewers nightly.

Ingraham's apology came quickly, considering that Fox News commentators have typically resisted backing down when under attack for their controversial statements. But the support and sympathy for Hogg and other Parkland students has prompted advertisers to continue to bail from her program.

Hogg did not accept Ingraham's apology. He told the New York Daily News on Friday that Ingraham will have to admit she slandered his classmates in her coverage of their gun protests....

Ingraham said at the end of her Friday program that she will be on vacation with her children next week. Fill-in hosts will appear on "The Ingraham Angle" in her absence."

Quixotic Approaches To Circumventing Censorship, Using Books And Music; TechDirt, March 30, 2018

Glyn Moody, TechDirt; Quixotic Approaches To Circumventing Censorship, Using Books And Music

"The topic of censorship crops up far too much here on Techdirt. Less common are stories about how to circumvent it. The two which follow are great examples of how human ingenuity is able to find unexpected ways to tackle this problem. The first story comes from Spain, and concerns a banned book...

Update: The Finding Fariña site has now been censored. So far, there's no sign of a mirror site being set up outside Spanish jurisdiction, which would seem the obvious response."