Latest news with #OnLiberty
Ottawa Citizen
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Ottawa Citizen
Weston: Get the vulgar "F--- Carney" flags off of Parliament Hill, RCMP
Last Friday, I confronted a protester displaying a 'F— Carney' flag directly in front of the Prime Minister's Office, that historic 1880s building serving Liberal and Conservative leaders since 1975. When he refused to remove it, I gave him two minutes before I'd do it myself. Article content Article content An RCMP officer intervened. Despite my outrage at seeing such vulgarity on the grounds of our highest democratic office, the officer explained the flag was 'private property' and he wasn't 'authorized' to remove it. He mentioned protesters had conducted such activities 'for five years.' As a Vancouver visitor, I was appalled. Is this the capital's welcome to tourists? Article content Article content The officer asked me to stand down to avoid an incident before the Prime Minister emerged. Out of respect for the RCMP — descendants of the Northwest Mounted Police, a Canadian institution that brought civility to our untamed frontiers — I complied. The flag stayed. Article content I am a former Conservative MP and my objection transcends partisan politics. I wasn't defending Carney or his party. I was defending the Office of the Prime Minister itself. Article content This protester wouldn't target a 60-year-old Ottawa father named 'Carney' if he weren't Prime Minister. He was degrading our nation's highest office using hallowed public space. This distinction matters for democracy's health. Article content I champion free expression and founded the Canadian Constitution Foundation to defend Charter rights. In 2022, the Foundation successfully defended a homeowner's right to display a 'F— Trudeau' banner on her private property against municipal bylaws. While crass, and in my opinion an ineffective way to conduct political discourse, such expression on private property may be protected. Article content Article content But rights come with responsibilities and limits. The right to profane expression stops at our most symbolic public spaces. The Prime Minister's Office at 80 Wellington St. isn't just any building. It's a National Historic Site and Classified Federal Heritage Building, representing 140 years of Canadian history and governance. Article content Article content The grounds of democratic institutions aren't neutral venues for unrestricted vulgarity. They embody our collective governance. Protecting such displays signals that we don't value the institutions safeguarding our freedoms. This self-loathing invites international disrespect. Article content Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted you can't falsely shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. On Liberty author John Stuart Mill observed freedom ends where it harms others. Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl warned: 'Freedom without responsibility is dangerous.'
Calgary Herald
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
Opinion: When free speech becomes a weapon
Freedom in general, and freedom of speech in particular, is deeply embedded in American identity. In the age of social media, which enables the mass dissemination of false information, freedom of speech is also being dangerously weaponized by the far right. Article content Article content This freedom took on an almost sacred dimension in the United States with the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791. It reads: '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.' Article content Article content This sentence helped make the young Republic one of the freest countries in the world. Even today, across political lines, it remains a point of national pride for Americans. Article content Article content However, the media landscape has changed profoundly since 1791. Some social media platform owners now exploit freedom of speech for both ideological and financial reasons, claiming to defend it against supposed censorship imposed by progressive forces. Article content In the 19th century, British philosopher John Stuart Mill saw the free marketplace of ideas — in other words, the absence of restrictions on speech — as the very condition for truth in a democracy. In On Liberty, he argued that truth emerges through the clash of opinions, as falsehoods are gradually pushed aside. Article content This vision of free speech eventually became dominant in the United States. The far right seized on it, using the First Amendment to defend some of its most abhorrent ideas in the name of this fundamental right. One of the most well-known examples took place in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, where the city tried to ban a Nazi march. In 1977, citing the First Amendment, the Illinois Supreme Court — and then the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to intervene — ruled in favour of the neo-Nazi group, although the rally ultimately never happened. Article content Article content There is reason to ask whether social media, capable of both protecting and undermining free speech, has changed the equation. In 2012, a massacre took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars claimed the massacre was staged to justify greater gun control. Article content Sued for defamation by the parents of children killed in the shooting, Jones defended himself by invoking freedom of speech and the First Amendment, wielding them as a shield against any attempt at regulation or sanction — or rather, as a weapon in the service of lies and violence. In 2022, he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in damages to the Sandy Hook families for defamation. Article content Yet, even after that ruling, he continued to portray himself as a victim of censorship, illustrating the dangers of an absolutist interpretation of free speech. Article content In recent years, freedom of speech and social media have been put to the test by two major crises. The first was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the accompanying flood of disinformation. The second was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggered by false claims that the presidential election had been 'stolen.'
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Policies Are a Conservative Grab Bag
As President Trump governs from a mélange of conservative principles, many are wondering whether classical liberalism can find a home alongside the New Right. International relations scholar Francis Fukuyama believes that President Trumps November win drove classical liberalism into decline. Others suggest that Trump now leads the only major party that champions constitutional liberties. With a second-term agenda in effect, Trump wields conservatism as a means to execute classically liberal tenets - and he is doing well thus far. Trumps domestic policies are a seismic shift towards the individual, giving them more autonomy and association in their daily lives. When applied internationally, that may isolate classical liberals who prefer global integration. On this topic, legal scholar John O. McGinnis wrote that "[p]olitical movements cannot stand still; they must adjust to new circumstances while remaining rooted in enduring principles." Indeed, Trumps synthesis of classical liberalism and conservatism is complementary and a dynamic blend that mostly enhances Americans quality of life. In "On Liberty," philosopher John Stuart Mill conceived the "harm principle," in which "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This set clear boundaries on government intervention and gave citizens flexibility in their social and economic behavior. However, this is not a utilitarian solution; it respects the separateness of people and gives them room to create, innovate, and thrive. President Trump understands the harm principle and has aptly applied it to todays national challenges. Responding to previous federal free speech crackdowns, Trump curbed government interference in constitutionally protected speech, ending federal censorship. The President also delayed the social media platform TikTok from a domestic ban, letting more Americans consume news, engage with virtual communities, and produce various content. The president even launched a massive deregulation campaign with the Office of Management and Budget to delete 10 existing regulations for every new one imposed. With regulatory reform and free speech, Trump brought choice back to the people, imbuing Americans with renewed responsibility for self-governance. These actions uphold negative liberty - the freedom from external constraints - to create a more favorable environment for ingenuity and expression. If American conservatism means upholding a classically liberal order, then Trumps emphasis on negative liberty preserves institutional integrity. Limiting government bias, as Mill would suggest, caps the harm it can do. McGinnis would agree: "The political New Right…sees structural reform as the key to restraining a bureaucracy that increasingly leans ideologically left." Trumps policies are offensive to challenge what he sees as a politically unprincipled domestic sphere. He holds the international order to that same standard. So far, Trump has withdrawn America from the Paris Climate Accord, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the World Health Organization. Amid a public diplomatic scuffle with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the U.S. paused intelligence sharing with Ukraine. Trump also halted aid to South Africa and looks to dismantle USAID. Trump sees all these actions as negative liberties conducive to homeland prosperity: less outside noise and more focus on internal affairs. However, the world orders emphasis on rules-based systems aligns with the values of predictability and protection of individual rights. Its why there are massive pushbacks against Trumps tariff policies and his rhetoric on Canada - critics, including some classical liberals, worry it will undermine cooperation, weaken global stability and free trade, and increase isolationism. A more unilateralist, nationalist, and realist approach to foreign policy rejects the liberal emphasis on multilateral diplomacy and international law. But can you be both a nationalist and a classical liberal? In "A Treatise of Human Nature," Scottish philosopher David Hume argued that ones country is the largest social group that can receive their citizens pride and shame. For Hume, humans have more sympathy for people to whom they are close than with foreigners. Even Ludwig von Mises, one of classical liberalisms most revered thinkers, slammed multinational institutions in "Human Action": "What is needed to make peace durable is neither international treaties and covenants nor international tribunals and organizations like the defunct League of Nations or its successor, the United Nations. If the principle of the market economy is universally accepted, such makeshifts are unnecessary." With international relations, the classical liberal debate goes both ways - and Trump is selectively deciding which pieces to put into play. America can be improved with a balanced ideological approach: Prioritize free trade, support national self-determination, and understand that some transnational problems require multilateral solutions. The U.S. needs allies and strength at home, so it must uphold the rule of law in both arenas. Balancing domestic freedom with greater public safety is delicate and should not require compromise. Trump is proving the two can coexist. Alex Rosado is a professional programs assistant at the Alexander Hamilton Society. Follow him on Twitter/X at @Alexprosado.
The Guardian
27-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
What Is Free Speech? by Fara Dabhoiwala review – a brilliant history of a weaponised mantra
This book arrives at an interesting moment. Elon Musk has declared himself a 'free speech absolutist'. JD Vance worries that free speech in Europe is 'in retreat'. Donald Trump issues an executive order 'restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship'. Meanwhile, journalists are routinely abused, threatened with lawsuits and branded enemies of the people. US federal agencies circulate lists of red-flag words such as 'equality', 'gender' and 'disabled', and reporters are denied White House access for referring to the Gulf of Mexico by its actual name. Free speech is, shall we say, an elastic concept. In fact, as Fara Dabhoiwala explains in this meticulous and much-needed history, it has long been a 'weaponized mantra' in a public sphere dominated by the moneyed and the powerful. Many of those who think of free speech as being uniquely under threat today are rich, white men – but then freedom, like wealth, is something that hardly anyone thinks they have enough of. Our modern understanding of free speech as a more or less absolute right is a quirk of European, and especially American, history. Dabhoiwala traces it to two key texts. The first is Cato's Letters, a collection of anonymous newspaper columns published between 1720 and 1723 by two London journalists, Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard. Their arguments were hastily assembled, full of fabrications and framed to defend their own mercenary interests. But they were taken up as a great, principled cause by the rebel colonies of North America and enshrined in the first amendment. The second text is John Stuart Mill's 1859 bestseller, On Liberty. Mill theorised free speech solely as an individual right. His argument rested on the shaky premise that thought and expression were essentially the same thing, and could not harm others – that speech was not, in fact, action. Mill's view now rules: speech is seen as harmless, which means that bad speech should simply be countered with more speech. Most 19th-century thinkers on free speech, including Mill, supported the selective silencing of non-Europeans. In colonial India, free speech and press liberty were viewed as tools of enlightenment, benevolently bestowed by the British should the natives prove themselves worthy. While the Indian press was ostensibly free, a series of laws and practices maintained government control over all printed materials. Since Indians were seen as hot-headed, there were also specific laws against defamation and religious insult, later inherited by the new nations of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. From its beginnings, free speech was a complex and compromised ideal. Free speech absolutism distinguishes the harmlessness of speech from the meaningfulness of action. It thus concurs with that childhood mantra, 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me' – which, as any child could tell you, isn't remotely true. As Dabhoiwala reminds us, most societies through history have taken the power of words as read. They believed that spells, curses, oaths, vows, prayers and incantations had real effects in the world. 'Many times a scorn cuts deeper than a sword,' wrote John Donne. Some early legal codes allowed a man to kill another to avenge a severe insult. According to medieval Icelandic law, 'if a man calls another man womanish or says he has been buggered or fucked … [he] has the right to kill'. No reasonable person would want to return to that kind of policing of speech. But premodern peoples were at least aware of a truth that the Millian idea of free speech denies: speech is a social act. Words have consequences in the world; that is what they are for. All speech is regulated, Dabhoiwala argues, officially or unofficially. We call this regulation 'censorship' when we dislike it, but it is an inescapable fact of the social nature of language. Academic scholarship, for instance, has a highly evolved system of quality control maintained by agreed methods and protocols, anonymous peer review and norms of scholarly and civil expression. This not only ensures intellectual rigour, but protects against ad hominem attacks and the domination of debate by vested interests. Nowadays, free speech absolutism affects us all because of the unparalleled power of the US companies that control our access to the online world. Social media sites were heavily implicated in Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election; the dissemination of misinformation about Covid and its vaccines; and the spreading of violent propaganda against the Rohingya in Myanmar. Yet Facebook is now following X in rolling back its content moderation and factchecking operations in the name of ending 'censorship'. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion The lax attitude to hate speech by American social media companies shouldn't come as a surprise. Their main concern is with profit and market share, which favours both the proliferation of content and algorithms guiding us to the shoutiest and most polarising statements. But they can dress up this economic self-interest in American beliefs in the nobility of the first amendment – and may be sincere in doing so. Dabhoiwala, it shouldn't be necessary to say but perhaps is, is not against freedom of speech. He is only asking us to question whether we should laud it as an end in itself, even as the highest ideal of all. He wants us to think of free speech as being not just about the content of words but about which voices are heard most loudly and which are marginalised. 'People hardly ever make use of freedom of thought,' Søren Kierkegaard wrote in his Journals. 'Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation.' As free speech becomes more and more of a war zone, some free thinking about it might be in order. We could start by acknowledging that conflicts over it are inevitable, and can never be separated from larger questions about money and power. What Is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea by Fara Dabhoiwala is published by Allen Lane (£30). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at Delivery charges may apply.
Yahoo
01-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Washington Post Is Dying a Death of Despair
How does a free press in this country die? Probably not the way Americans imagine. It's unlikely—though not impossible—that heavily armed police are going to raid newspaper offices, confiscate computers, and haul editors and reporters off to jail. Media websites probably won't go dark under government bans. Pro-regime militias with official backing won't light a bonfire of anti-regime books and magazines on Pennsylvania Avenue. The demise of independent journalism in the United States will be less spectacular than the notorious examples of other times and places—as much voluntary as coerced, less like a murder than a death of despair. The Washington Post is dying not in darkness but by the light of noon, and by its own hand. Over the past few months, the Post's owner, Jeff Bezos, has shed a large part of the paper's workforce, asserted control over the management of its newsroom, spiked a presidential endorsement for the first time in the paper's history, and driven out some of its best writers and editors. On Wednesday, Bezos announced that the Post's opinion pages will exclude views that contradict his own libertarianism. 'We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,' he wrote to his staff—missing the irony that he had just curtailed liberty of expression. 'Viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.' Anyone wanting a different idea, Bezos added, could find it on the internet. For an argument in defense of anti-trust enforcement, stricter labor laws, tariffs on foreign goods, or higher taxes on billionaires, readers can take a dive into the online ocean and something will turn up. Aside from the mind-numbing monotony, why does it matter that the Post's opinion pages will no longer allow pieces from, say, a social-democratic or economic-nationalist point of view? One reason is that 'viewpoint diversity'—the airing of various and conflicting ideas—prevents the onset of orthodoxy, creates an atmosphere of open inquiry, and thereby comes closer to the discovery of truth. This argument goes back to John Stuart Mill's defense of free speech in On Liberty: 'Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.' [Joshua Benton: Jeff Bezos's hypocritical assertion of power] We are likelier to reach the truth and understand why it's true if we constantly subject our ideas to criticism. I dislike the opinion pieces of the Post's arch-conservative Marc Thiessen, but I don't want them killed—not just for the sake of free expression and lively debate, but because they force me to see my own views in a negative light and, once in a while, revise them. Even 'personal liberties and free markets' aren't self-explanatory or self-justifying. To mean anything, these ideas need to be challenged. Otherwise, Bezos's twin pillars will petrify into dogma and eventually crumble. But there's something more profoundly dispiriting about the Post making itself the predictable mouthpiece of a single viewpoint. We don't expect publications such as First Things, The Nation, and the Daily Caller to host ideological battles—their purpose is to advance a distinct outlook. But a national newspaper like the Post should speak to a democratic public and represent public opinion, which means publishing the widest possible range of thoughtful views. When it ceases to do so, it becomes more like the narrow, partisan, mutually hostile, and uncomprehending media that create most of the noise in America today. At times in recent years, under pressure from staff and subscribers, the Post and The New York Times have edged closer to this model (one name for it was 'moral clarity'). Bezos's edict takes the Post a large step in that direction, just as it would have done had he ordered that all opinion writing must reflect the value of social justice. Whether Bezos is wounding the Post in this way to ingratiate himself with the new president or for some other reason, he has made his property less resilient and more like the kind of paper that Trump knows how to break. Its opinion pages will continue to criticize the administration, but the views it airs will matter less. In a landscape of dead and sick newspapers, Bezos is making his own less free, less intelligent, less surprising, and more balkanized. This is exactly the kind of press with which an authoritarian ruler like President Donald Trump is comfortable. Trump doesn't believe in the free search for truth; in his mental world there is no truth, only friends and enemies, his side against the other side. The purpose of media isn't to bring information and ideas to the public, but to win the war for power. When he says that the news is fake, he doesn't just mean that the Times or CBS is running false stories. He is signaling that truth is irrelevant because everything is rigged. In this game, Trump and his enablers and sycophants are learning to control the information space. [Adrienne LaFrance: Intimidating Americans won't work] The First Amendment makes it hard for any president, even an openly authoritarian one like Trump, to kill the press, but he can create incentives for its owners—whether corporate or plutocratic—to bend to him. In December, Disney settled a weak defamation suit brought by Trump against ABC News, encouraging him to bring economic and political pressure on other news organizations. This week Paramount, which owns CBS, is in talks with Trump's lawyers about an even more dubious lawsuit directed at the editing of a 60 Minutes episode. The outcome of mediation might affect the administration's willingness to allow Paramount's sale to the tech mogul Larry Ellison. In other words, CBS might be forced into a settlement to advance the business interests of its parent company and those of a multibillionaire who is close to the president. Trump's attacks on the press, as on other institutions, show how much democratic freedom depends on custom and restraint. These are always breakable if a president has the will. If an administration decides to give access only to news organizations that provide favorable coverage, the White House Correspondents' Association can do little more than complain. If a president wants to sue a news organization, assert full control of the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, and use them to coerce a media owner to hand over money, the law and Constitution can't prevent him. The only obstacle is the media's willingness to say no, which partly depends on the public's desire for a free press to exist. Some news organizations will fight, in an atmosphere of constant anxiety, with the prospect of growing irrelevance. Others will count the cost and give in to pressure. And others will feel the direction of the wind and submit on their own, under no pressure at all, like the circus animal that doesn't need a trainer to tell it to jump. Article originally published at The Atlantic
