Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

CENSORED: NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani attempted to defund the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 1999 because of THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY a painting he called “sick,” in a blatantly viewpoint-motivated attempt at censorship. Guiliani believed the piece, by artist Chris Ofili, was sacrilegious and hateful. He frequently claimed that elephant dung was “smeared” or “splattered” on the Virgin Mary. As you can see, this is false. Ofili describes his work as “a hip hop version” of the Madonna’s usually “sexually charged” appearance. The most controversial elements of “The Holy Virgin Mary” were the artist’s usage of resin-covered elephant dung and the snipped-out explicit images representing cherubs. Guiliani never actually visited the exhibit, but he turned the museum into a cultural battleground regardless. “You don’t have the right to a government subsidy to desecrate someone else’s religion,” he famously said. On one level, Giuliani’s right. Cities don’t have to fund the arts. But once a city sets up a museum as an independent public forum with its own leadership, it can’t suddenly decide to withhold this funding as a means of controlling the art it exhibits. Legendary First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams made this argument and more while defending the Brooklyn Museum of Art from Guiliani’s vindictive attempts to defund it and evict them from their building — which the museum had resided in for more than a century. Giuliani’s repeated attacks only drew more attention to the exhibit. Crowds of people, many of whom had never visited the BMA, waited outside to see the controversial work for themselves. Ultimately, the courts sided with the BMA. Judge Nina Gershon, who presided over the case, rebuked Guiliani’s accusations that the BMA was attacking Catholicism, saying “it is the Mayor and the city who by their actions have threatened the neutrality required of government in the sphere of religion.” Chris Ofili got the last laugh, as the scandal in Brooklyn only rocketed the already prominent artist to greater fame — “The Holy Virgin Mary” sold for upwards of $3 million in 2016.

We ❤️ a free thinker!

When it comes to free speech, we don’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican. If it’s protected, we’ll defend it. But we can’t do it alone! Our work is only possible with your support. Defend free speech. Donate to FIRE today! https://lnkd.in/e8KjzpBY

Academic boycotts do threaten academic freedom — no matter what the AAUP says. When institutions or faculty organizations tell members not to work with institutions or scholars affiliated with the boycott’s target (usually Israel these days), they limit open inquiry and expression. Academic freedom depends on a “global system of checking, arguing, researching, collaborating, and competing to produce better ideas,” and that preventing this “in the name of opposing that country’s government is incompatible with this open, liberal system” says Greg Lukianoff. Students and faculty still have the right to advocate for boycotts (& FIRE has opposed attempts to punish them for it). That’s just us, defending speech we disagree with 🤷

Learn when, where, and how you can protest!

North Carolina is limiting voters’ political expression for no good reason. Susan Hogarth took a selfie in the voting booth with her completed ballot and later posted the image on social media to endorse the candidates she’d voted for. Two weeks later, she received a letter from the North Carolina State Board of Elections telling her she had committed a crime and demanding that she take the post down. That’s why FIRE is suing to halt North Carolina’s ban on photos of completed ballots, or “ballot selfies.” There are so many reasons why someone might share a ballot selfie —commemorating a first vote, showing off a protest vote, or promoting a favorite candidate. But North Carolina bans taking or sharing them anywhere and anytime, under threat of jail time and thousands of dollars in fines. Ballot selfie bans turn innocent Americans into criminals for nothing more than showing their excitement at how they voted —or even just that they voted. That’s core political speech protected by the First Amendment. We’re suing to protect Americans’ rights to express themselves, inside and outside of the voting booth.

Why would a civil rights advocate oppose hate speech restrictions? Just ask ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, a free speech hero, who campaigned for civil rights for black Americans, women, and Asian Americans in the 1930s and ‘40s. Eleanor famously argued AGAINST restricting “hate speech” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in front of the United Nations. Why? Because as a civil rights advocate, she recognized we should be more afraid of censorship than speech. Eleanor saw that people in power could easily label controversial speech “hateful” to suppress it, leaving valuable perspectives unheard. “Any criticism of public or religious authorities, might all too easily be described as incitement to hatred,” she said. Eleanor herself was no stranger to controversy. ▶️ At a time when many believed women belonged exclusively at home, Eleanor advocated for women’s active participation in politics and public life. ▶️ When segregation persisted, she campaigned against racial discrimination in the military and in public spaces. Eleanor Roosevelt even opposed her own husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, on a few occasions. She supported anti-lynching legislation when FDR would not do so publicly for fear of losing southern support. In response to her advocacy, she faced death threats from the KKK. And when FDR ordered the internment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, she fought to relax restrictions on the interned, saying “Japanese Americans didn’t suddenly cease to be Americans when those bombs fell.” At a time when first ladies were expected to be seen but not heard, Eleanor used her voice publicly and often: ✏️ She wrote a syndicated column, drawing more than four million readers. 💬 She hosted a weekly radio show. 🎤 She held hundreds of press conferences. Her unwavering defense of free speech rights and her frequent exercise of those rights reveals a deep underlying belief: With more freedom, good ideas can win out and improve society. Today, when faced with the temptation to suppress ideas we find offensive, Eleanor Roosevelt’s example reminds us that speech is a better defense against hate than censorship.

After a crisis-filled academic year, how can Columbia University’s new leadership steer the university down a better path? Step 1: Start defending free expression for everyone.

BREAKING: FIRE is suing to stop the SCOPE Act—a Texas law forcing websites to collect adults’ IDs or biometric data before they can access material “harmful to minors.” Put another way, Texas is treating its adults like children. The SCOPE Act also restricts minors’ access to online content that Texas claims is “harmful material” because it “promotes, glorifies, or facilitates” behaviors such as suicide, drug abuse, bullying, harassment, or sexual exploitation. But that language is too vague and will lead to the censorship of constitutionally protected speech. When does arguing for marijuana legalization “promote” substance abuse? That’s a subjective judgment… and websites will play it safe by censoring ANY discussion of the topic. For those who don’t trust websites with their ID or biometric data, this law effectively restricts access to online speech in Texas. That violates the Constitution. So, FIRE is representing a group of adult and minor plaintiffs whose rights would be threatened by the SCOPE Act. Texas has chosen a restrictive and simplistic solution to deal with complex problems. Its attempt to childproof the Internet ends up endangering free speech.

We’re confident 😎 no censorship needed