Mediaboss Marketing

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro lived up to its green light rating last week when it affirmed the First Amendment rights of students to invite Ben Shapiro, podcaster and cofounder of conservative news media company The Daily Wire, to speak on campus. The event went off without a hitch, and the universitys response to Shapiros appearance should serve as a model for institutions nationwide when controversial figures are invited by students to speak on campus.

Back in February, UNC Greensboros Young Americans for Freedom chapter invited Shapiro to campus. To advertise the event, the group posted a photo of Shapiro with a quote: Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Men who believe they are women are not real women. Other students at the school responded by starting a petition to have the chapter disbanded and argued that the chapter violated policies against harassment and discrimination.

One YAF member, who is also a member of the Student Government Association, responded by introducing a resolution affirming students free speech rights at UNC Greensboro. YAF reports that the SGA voted overwhelmingly to table the resolution and, ultimately, the controversy resulted in the YAF chapter working with Shapiro to host him on campus.

Faced with numerous pleas for censorship, the university held firm. Not only did the school resist pressure to abridge fundamental rights notable in light of routine compromises elsewhere it also took the opportunity to reiterate its commitment to free speech through a shared statement and answers to related FAQs. FIRE applauds this response.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus

The answer continues, You can voice your opinion, you can join or host a counter-demonstration, you can educate others, but you cannot enact a hecklers veto where you block the view of a display, impede walkway on the public sidewalk, shout down speakers, or in any other way interfere with the Constitutionally-protected free speech.

Thats exactly right. By plainly laying out avenues for peaceful protest, students were able to make their own views known by engaging in lawful activities that embraced free speech principles of more speech. For example, although the event did not directly address Shapiro, a Queer Celebration event was hosted nearby by the Campus Violence Response Center, the Dean of Students Office, and Spartan Open Pantry, among others.

Shutting down opposing viewpoints is a counterproductive approach to persuading others. In contrast, free speech principles embrace the idea that individuals at odds with certain messages maintain their own free speech rights to counter those views. Further, by having an opportunity to listen, those with conflicting beliefs are better able to come to their own conclusions.

Despite the opportunity to join active and lawful counter-activities, one student attended the speech and was escorted out of the building after shouting Fuck you at Shapiro multiple times during his presentation, to which the podcaster responded, Fuck you is not an argument.

The universitys FAQ also highlighted the value of academic inquiry, stating, We believe there is no better place than a college campus for thought-provoking discussions.

Similarly, the FAQs make clear that [f]ree speech is essential to a healthy Democracy, and we protect it because we believe speech is one method for learning and growth. Censorship of speech is illegal, violates our Democracy, and has no place in a University.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

UNC Greensboros efforts helped mitigate unlawful conduct by drawing the lawful parameters for response and reminding students of the reciprocal benefits of free speech ahead of Shapiros visit.

In the past, the on-campus presence of Shapiro, or other Daily Wire contributors, has raised concerns of violence not because words themselves are violence, but because, as was the case at UC Berkeley in 2017, banned weapons carried by demonstrators could result in it. At the time, hosting Shapiro on the California campus cost the university $600,000 in security fees and led to the arrest of nine individuals.

Violent protests are not unprecedented on campus. Some administrators take this concern as an excuse to waffle on the free speech rights of students to host certain guest speakers, which rightly raises concerns over viewpoint discrimination. Research conducted by FIRE suggests that disinvitations of guest speakers have become more common over the last twenty years and disinvitation efforts, from 2000 to 2013, were three times as likely to target speakers with views more conservative than their own than speakers with views more liberal than their own.

UNC Greensboro is a green light institution, meaning the university is one of the elite few that doesnt have any policies that seriously threaten campus expression. However, a green light rating only considers an institutions written policies, not their enforcement. Therefore, it is encouraging to see the university stick to its First Amendment commitments. By doing so, the university honors its legal obligations and preserves the academic benefits that freedom of expression affords students benefits which other universities too often deny their students.

Kudos to UNC Greensboro. Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus and ensured that the university met its mission to prepare students for meaningful lives and engaged citizenship.

As always, FIRE stands ready to assist schools with revising their policies and speaker protocols so that students from across the ideological spectrum can hear from their invited guests without interference.

Excerpt from:
UNC Greensboro: Ben Shapiro speaks at green light university and 'you cannot stop it' - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

In brief

The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published a draft amendment of the Notification of the Trade Competition Commission re: Guideline on Fair Trade Practices relating to Credit Terms with SMEs Offering Goods or Services (or commonly referred to as the SME Credit Term Guideline).

This is the first amendment after the guideline became effective in December 2021 (see our previous newsletter in August 2021) and is now open for public hearing.

The draft amendment proposes changes to the definition of an SME as shown below. The other provisions remain unchanged.

*The proposed amendment refers to the employee threshold as well. However, in essence, the annual revenue threshold will dominate.

The main objective is to carve out businesses which are able to generate substantial revenue with a small number of employees (e.g., less labor-intensive industries such as tech companies, having work outsourced to third parties).

The TCCT is accepting public comments on the draft amendment until 20 April 2022. The public is encouraged to submit their comments electronically viawww.tcct.or.th.

After the public comment period, the TCCT will consider the comments and suggestions from the public and will publish a summary report, along with its opinion, and proceed with the issuance of the official amendment.

We will closely monitor the situation and keep you updated on the developments.

Read more:
Thailand: Draft amendment to the SME Credit Term Guideline - Open for public hearing - GlobalComplianceNews

From Hershey v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, decided Wednesday by Judge Douglas Harpool (W.D. Mo.):

Plaintiff often handed out flyers and brochures, and he advocated for vegetarian or vegan eating. Plaintiff claims that the University's policy that placing regulations on speech on areas of campus is unconstitutional. More specifically, he claims that Defendants applied the policy, CRR 110.010, unconstitutionally against him and infringed on his First Amendment rights by restricting his speech based on content.

Plaintiff alleges that, in December of 2021, he was distributing literature at the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) and was asked by a Jane Doe who identified herself as "with operations" to relocate to another location on campus. Plaintiff claims that Ms. Doe called University police after Plaintiff "declined to remove himself from his desired location." Plaintiff asserts that he spoke with a MU police officer for "approximately ten minutes," who purportedly told Plaintiff he would be removed from campus if he made students feel uncomfortable or if he was otherwise rude. He claims that "the University's actions interfered" with his protected speech activities and that the officer's presence "deterred some students from accepting a booklet from Hershey."

Plaintiff next alleges that, on August 23, 2021, he was distributing literature regarding vegetarianism on the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) campus. Plaintiff alleges that UMSL staff "demanded that he distance himself farther from his intended audience outside the [Millenium Student Center]." Plaintiff names as a defendant Dorian Hall ("Hall"), the Director of the Millenium Student Center, and claims that Director Hall "directed his staff to move Hershey farther away from the door." Plaintiff alleges that "UMSL's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities" and that the "staff's presence" deterred students from accepting Hershey's literature."

Plaintiff next asserts that, on May 7, 2021, he was distributing literature on the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) campus when he was approached by Sergeant Mark Ritter ("Ritter") and told he "had to leave the University." Plaintiff claims that Ritter "looked at the booklet for several seconds" and "arbitrarily, in response to the content and viewpoint of the booklet," told Plaintiff he was "prohibited from handing out his literature" and that he was on "private property." Plaintiff concedes that Ritter "relent[ed]" after speaking with his police chief. Plaintiff alleges that "Ritter's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities and caused Hershey to not offer his booklets to some of the passersby." Plaintiff alleges that Ritter's presence deterred students from accepting booklets.

Last, Plaintiff alleges that, on December 5, 2018, he was distributing booklets regarding vegetarianism on MU's campus. He contends that Nancy Monteer, the Director of Campus Dining ("Monteer"), "arbitrarily, in retaliation based on the content and viewpoint of the booklet," confronted Plaintiff and "yelled" at him to "get away" from the dining hall doors. Plaintiff alleges his confrontation with Monteer culminated in Plaintiff "rais[ing] his arms up to protect himself from Monteer's increasingly aggressive advances."

Plaintiff sued for violation of the First Amendment and of the Missouri Campus Free Expression Act:

The court held that the Act hadn't sufficiently expressly waived Missouri's sovereign immunity from lawsuits in federal courts:

"[A] federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment." Even if a state has waived immunity with regard to "its own courts," this "is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts."

But it allowed the First Amendment claim to go forward:

Defendants do not dispute that the areas where Plaintiff alleges interference with his free speech rights, including preventing him from communicating with his target audience, harassing, accosting, arresting, and banning him, were traditional public forums. It has long been bedrock, clearly established First Amendment law that the most stringent standard is applicable to restrictions on speech in a traditional public forum, particularly at public schools, parks and streets.

Here, Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendants imposed content-based exclusions that are not necessary to preserve a compelling state interest and that the restrictions are not narrowly tailored.

It is clearly established law that that restrictions on speech based on the content of the speech is subject to the highest scrutiny under the law. "For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The State may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."

The clearly established law regarding content-based restrictions on speech is one which a reasonable person would have understood at the time of the Plaintiff's alleged deprivation. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Monteer, Hall, and Ritter infringed on his rights to freedom of speech based on the vegetarian/vegan content he was communicating. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled actions by these defendants overcome their claim to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 1983 claims against the remaining defendants (Monteer, Hall, and Ritter) in their individual capacities are not dismissed.

More here:
First Amendment Lawsuit by Vegan Advocate Against University of Missouri Can Go Forward - Reason

CINCINNATI Shawnee State University professor Dr. Nick Meriwethers three-year court battle for his First Amendment rights has concluded with a settlement in his favor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in March 2021 that the university violated Meriwethers free speech rights when it punished him because he declined to call a student by their preferred pronouns.

According to court documents, Meriwether offered to use any name the student requested instead of titles and pronouns, but the university rejected that compromise, instead forcing the professor to speak contrary to his religious convictions and philosophical beliefs.

As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. The university also agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.

This case forced us to defend what used to be a common beliefthat nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job, said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham. Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldnt endorse an ideology that he believes is false. Were pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwetherand every other Americanthe right to speak and act in a manner consistent with ones faith and convictions.

Public universities should welcome intellectual and ideological diversity, where all students and professors can engage in meaningful discussions without compromising their core beliefs, said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. Dr. Meriwether rightly defended his freedom to speak and stay silent, and not conform to the universitys demand for uniformity of thought. We commend the university for ultimately agreeing to do the right thing, in keeping with its reason for existence as a marketplace of ideas.

As part of the settlement in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University, the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwethers attorneys fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuits ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether in June 2018. In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case Thursday.

The Portsmouth Daily Times reached out to Shawnee State University but has not received a comment at this time.

Meriwether

See the original post here:
Meriwether reaches settlement in First Amendment case with university - Portsmouth Daily Times

Coin Center has vehemently pushed back the controversial SEC proposal that sought to redefine the definition of exchange within the Securities Exchange Act in a bid to include systems that offer the use of non-firm trading interest and communications protocols to bring together buyers and sellers of securities. The group deemed the regulators move as unconstitutional.

The Washington-based non-profit that focuses on cryptocurrency policies, Coin Center, announced filing a comment letter with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the crypto lobby, the proposal by the commission breaches the First Amendment by requiring a license to speak, even for open source developers working behind projects in the ecosystem.

Think tanks and crypto lobby groups motivations to rebuff SECs proposal comes amidst the regulators of the country gearing up to tighten oversight.

Last month, the agency published Amendments Regarding the Definition of Exchange. Many experts believe it targets bringing the crypto and, most importantly, decentralized finance (DeFi) sector into its regulatory perimeter, thereby dramatically redefining the risk profile of operating a project in the US.

While arguing that the implications on developers, publishers, and republishers would be adverse, Coin Centers comment letter stated:

A new SEC proposal has a serious change hidden within its complex language. Bottom line: The proposal violates the First Amendment by requiring a license to speakeven of open source developers. Its unconstitutional and they should change it. Coin Center is pushing back.

The non-profits research director Peter Van Valkenburgh said that the proposal is unconstitutional and that the SEC should retract it.

The regulatory authoritys interpretation of exchange is deemed as inappropriately broad since the lengthy 200 pages document never mentions crypto or DeFi once. Coin Center also cited Supreme Courts (SC) previous precedent, which could potentially compel the SEC to withdraw the proposal if it finalizes the new rule as drafted.

Coin Center also stated that the Commission should narrow the definition of exchange before finalizing the proposal to true professional conduct. Failing to do so could cool down substantial protected speech, and stifle innovation in the country, besides facing an unfriendly Court that the lobby believes, is primed to vindicate the First Amendment freedoms.

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter POTATO50 code to receive up to $7,000 on your deposits.

Link:
SECs Proposal to Amend the Definition of Exchange Violates the First Amendment, Says Coin Center - CryptoPotato