From The Center Square

By Lauren Jessop

“Republicans trust Republicans to protect their speech, and Democrats trust Democrats. But the true test of commitment to free speech is whether politicians protect dissenting speech. No matter who’s in charge”

Freedom of speech is a critical issue for most Americans, over crime, immigration, and health care, a new poll says.

Despite bipartisan agreement on its importance, there is disagreement on who will safeguard our First Amendment rights – a question the outcome of the presidential election may soon answer.

A new poll from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago finds a majority of Americans rate free speech as very important to their vote in 2024, second only to inflation.

When asked about a host of issues in context with the upcoming election, 1,022 Americans were most concerned with inflation – 68% said increasing costs were “very important,” with 91% calling it at least “somewhat important.”

Free speech followed, with 63% saying it was “very important” and 90% said it was at least “somewhat important.”

“Higher prices might be the top concern for Americans, but a very close second is the increasing cost of speaking your mind,” said FIRE Research Fellow Nathan Honeycutt. “The message is clear: Americans want their free speech rights respected.”

Although at least 90% of both major parties rate it “somewhat important,” 70% of Republicans are more likely to rate it “very important,” as opposed to 60% of Democrats.

The report says Democrats and Republicans both express very low confidence the opposing party will respect their free speech – and Independents don’t trust either party to do so.

It also states that Republicans were more likely to respond that they were somewhat concerned about their ability to speak less freely today than they were four years ago.

“Republicans trust Republicans to protect their speech, and Democrats trust Democrats,” said FIRE’s Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “But the true test of commitment to free speech is whether politicians protect dissenting speech. No matter who’s in charge, FIRE will be there to keep them honest.”

The organization’s Senior Program Officer Marcus Maldonado told The Center Square that it was pleased to partner with the National Constitution Center and First Amendment Watch at NYU to bring the First Amendment Summit back to Philadelphia for the second year in a row.

“Featuring a keynote conversation about global free speech with Jason Rezaian of The Washington Post and panel discussions about free speech online and on campus, the National First Amendment Summit presented the public with a vigorous discussion of the state of free speech in America and around the globe,” he said.

Jonathan Turley, another panelist and author of The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, said since the beginning of the republic, every generation believes they have some existential threat that allows them to silence their neighbors.

He added that technology and social media have created new free speech challenges, was critical of how Twitter and Facebook have restricted free speech and does not believe in trade-offs made to prevent “disinformation.”

Even though the technology is new, he said, “it takes a lot to get a free people to give up freedom. Since the beginning, fear and anger have caused rage rhetoric, which becomes an excuse for every government to crack down. And the question is whether each generation is willing to give up that part of their freedom.”

Turley asserted that “this is the most dangerous anti-free speech period in our history, because we’ve never seen an alliance with the government, media, academia, and corporations” like this one.”

From Reclaim The Net

By Didi Rankovic

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

What started out as the EU’s “voluntary code of practice” concerning “disinformation” – affecting tech/social media companies – is now set to turn into a mandatory code of conduct for the most influential and widely-used ones.

The news was revealed by the Irish media regulator, specifically an official of its digital services, Paul Gordon, who spoke to journalists in Brussels. The EU Commission has yet to confirm that January will be the date when the current code will be “formalized” in this way.

The legislation that would enable the “transition” is the controversial Digital Services Act (DSA), which critics often refer to as the “EU online censorship law,” the enforcement of which started in February of this year.

The “voluntary” code is at this time signed by 44 tech companies, and should it become mandatory in January 2025, it will apply to those the EU defines as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) (with at least 45 million monthly active users in the 27-nation bloc).

Currently, the number of such platforms is said to be 25.

In its present form, the DSA’s provisions obligate online platforms to carry out “disinformation”-related risk assessments and reveal what measures they are taking to mitigate any risks revealed by these assessments.

But when the code switches from “voluntary” to mandatory, these obligations will also include other requirements: demonetizing the dissemination of “disinformation”; platforms, civil society groups, and fact-checkers “effectively cooperating” during elections, once again to address “disinformation” – and, “empowering” fact-checkers.

This refers not only to spreading “fact-checking” across the EU member-countries but also to making VLOPs finance these groups. This, is despite the fact many of the most prominent “fact-checkers” have been consistently accused of fostering censorship instead of checking content for accuracy in an unbiased manner.

The code was first introduced (in its “voluntary” form) in 2022, with Google, Meta, and TikTok among the prominent signatories – while these rules originate from a “strengthened” EU Code of Practice on Disinformation based on the Commission’s Guidance issued in May 2021.

“It is for the signatories to decide which commitments they sign up to and it is their responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of their commitments’ implementation,” the EU said at the time – that would have been the “voluntary” element, while the Commission said the time it had not “endorsed” the code.

It appears the EC is now about to “endorse” the code, and then some – there are active preparations to make it mandatory.