Civil rights organizations say this is the latest in a long string of incidents targeting pro-Palestinian speech on college campuses across the U.S.
Source: George Washington University Allows Flags to Fly From Dorm Rooms — Unless They’re Palestinian
The French Interior Ministry on Monday ordered that five websites be blocked on the grounds that they promote or advocate terrorism. “I do not want to see sites that could lead people to take up arms on the Internet,” proclaimed Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve.
When the block functions properly, visitors to those banned sites, rather than accessing the content of the sites they chose to visit, will be automatically redirected to the Interior Ministry website. There, they will be greeted by a graphic of a large red hand, and text informing them that they were attempting to access a site that causes or promotes terrorism: “you are being redirected to this official website since your computer was about to connect with a page that provokes terrorist acts or condones terrorism publicly.”
No judge reviews the Interior Ministry’s decisions. The minister first requests that the website owner voluntarily remove the content he deems transgressive; upon disobedience, the minister unilaterally issues the order to Internet service providers for the sites to be blocked. This censorship power is vested pursuant to a law recently enacted in France empowering the interior minister to block websites.Forcibly taking down websites deemed to be supportive of terrorism, or criminalizing speech deemed to “advocate” terrorism, is a major trend in both Europe and the West generally. Last month in Brussels, the European Union’s counter-terrorism coordinator issued a memo proclaiming that “Europe is facing an unprecedented, diverse and serious terrorist threat,” and argued that increased state control over the Internet is crucial to combating it.
Taber, a town of 8,100 in Alberta, Canada, must be in the midst of the nation’s smallest and least impressive crimewave. How else would you explain the town’s new “Community Standards Bylaw,” which imposes the following on its residents?
With a sweeping new bylaw, the southern Alberta town of Taber has outlawed swearing in public, instituted a nightly curfew on kids and teenagers, and granted local law enforcement the power to break up any assemblies of three or more people.
It’s petty enough in the summary, but it gets even worse in the fine print.
Here’s the “swearing” part of the bylaw:
No person shall yell, scream, or swear in any Public Place.
Which won’t hold up to Canada’s free speech laws, even with the plentiful exceptions the government can enact at any time. And it will apparently be up to patrolling officers to decide when a raised voice constitutes a “yell,” and always with one ear cocked towards any errant public swearing occuring at lower volumes.
Then there’s this part of the bylaw, which makes possibly disturbing others a crime.
No persons shall, during any period of the day allow, suffer or permit any electronic equipment, musical instruments, vehicles or any other devices to be sounded or used in any area of the Town of Taber, that may, or is likely, to disturb others.
There’s also a clause apparently inserted by Taber’s Behavior Nazis solely to anger the world’s Grammar Nazis.
And bad cops will have all sorts of fun with this one:No person shall be a member of the assembly of three or more persons in any Public Place where a Peace Officer has reasonable grounds to believe the assembly will disturb the peace of the neighborhood, and any such person shall disperse as requested by a Peace Officer.
“Reasonable grounds.” As is common to the rest of the bylaw, criminal intent is scuttled in preference of “whatever the Peace Officer believes.”
So, what has prompted this move towards a more controlled populace? The answer appears to be that it’s just something the town’s law enforcement wanted.
[Police Commission Chairman Ken] Holst said the goal of the bylaw was “to give another layer of tools to our police service.”
He said it came largely in response to concerns raised by citizens in a survey commissioned by the Taber Police Service.
“Graffiti was the main concern and the second concern was large gatherings of youth and other people on town property, sometimes causing issues,” he said.
While some of those issues could be addressed through existing provincial and federal laws, Holst said Taber wanted to empower its law enforcement when an offence is “imminent to occur,” which he described as “preventative policing.”
Ah, the old “thoughtcrime,” as practiced by loitering youths. Holst didn’t want this community of 8,100 to suffer the existential threat posed by aimless teens, so he and his law enforcement buddies helped write the bylaw.
Holst said the bylaw was drafted by town staff and the Taber Police Service and was reviewed by the police commission before being sent on to town council, where it was approved by a 6-1 vote.
And, since it was written by law enforcement, there was apparently no need to ensure the bylaw didn’t violate anyone’s rights or would even hold up in court. Because who knows the law better than law enforcement officers? No one, that’s who. Just ask any cop.
Holst said no lawyers were involved in the police commission’s review and they didn’t discuss whether aspects of the bylaw would violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms…
“Exactly how that sits with the Charter, to be 100 per cent honest with you, that discussion did not come up with the commission,” Holst said.
Because screw the public.
Save that 100%, Holst. You’re going to need it. Here’s an actual legal expert with 45 years experience, and he’s of the opinion there’s a 100% chance it’s in violation.
“It clearly, clearly infringes the Charter,” [Michael] Dietrich said.
And now that the ridiculous bylaw has drawn mockery from around the internet, Holst and other city representatives are shocked and saddened by all the criticism.
“It hurts my heart,” Ken Holst said Tuesday. “I’m hurt today to read some of the extreme comments that have circulated on social media…”
“We really feel this is the best for Taber and makes it a better place, as opposed to ‘the worst place on Earth,’ as the way some people are portraying this,” he said.
Holst further defended his stupid bylaw by pointing to other similarly stupid Canadian towns that have enacted similarly stupid bylaws. Presumably, this belated justification will also not be run by any legal experts — armchair or actual — who may point out that two wrongs still don’t equal a right, no matter what some informal, police-guided survey might “indicate.”
In the stupidest case of school administrators taking federal agencies’ names in vain since a Huntsville, AL school swore a phone call from the NSA prompted its secret social media monitoring program, a middle school principal from Espanola, NM is threatening to sic the FBI on a student who threw an American flag out a classroom window.
A middle school principal said a student was misbehaving with his friends and took things too far. The student threw an American flag out a second-story classroom window. Now the principal says the 14-year-old needs to be held accountable.
Sure, maybe a stern discussion with him and his parents and a couple of weeks of detention would do the trick. But that’s not enough for Principal Robert Archuleta. He has already suspended the student for 10 days and is now pushing for his expulsion. But he also wants the feds to take control of the situation… because jingoism.
“He says, ‘Because I was just messing around,’ and he started to laugh,” Archuleta said. “Then the other kids were laughing, the kids that were with him. ‘There goes the flag.’ That was his last statement.”
The principal is a veteran. His father is also a veteran who fought in World War II.
“A lot of men have died over [the flag], men and women,” Archuleta said. “We fought to keep our country safe and to keep it free.”
Well, let’s stop you right there, Robert. Nobody “died over the flag.” The flag is a symbol of this country and what it stands for, but it is not what people die “over.” They die defending this country and the freedoms it affords its citizens — among them being the right to throw a flag out the window. It’s not as starkly effective as burning it, but it’s pretty much the same thing.
France’s misguided efforts to grapple with hate speech—which is already prohibited by French law—have been making headlines for years. In 2012, after an horrific attack on a Jewish school, then-president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed criminal penalties for anyone visiting websites that contain hate speech. An anti-terror law passed in December imposes greater penalties on those that “glorify terrorism” online (as opposed to offline), and allows websites engaging in the promotion of terrorism to be blocked with little oversight. And following the attack on Charlie Hebdo last month, Prime Minister Manuel Valls stated that “it will be necessary to take further measures” to address the threat of terrorism.
Despite such a history, the latest proposal to emerge from the country is shocking. At the World Economic Forum last week, President Francois Hollande called on corporations to “fight terror,” stating:
The big operators, and we know who they are, can no longer close their eyes if they are considered accomplices of what they host. We must act at the European and international level to define a legal framework so that Internet platforms which manage social media be considered responsible, and that sanctions can be taken.
In effect, Hollande’s proposal seeks to hold social media companies accountable for the speech that they host. This is antithetical to US law, where online service providers are explicitly exempted from being treated as publishers, with few exceptions, thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
