Brooklyn: Just finished watching a fabulous show on CNN titled The Sixties." During that era, groups like the Stones, Beatles, Animals, Beach Boys, The Who, Dylan, etc., never thought about getting older. I am now in my seventies and am moving on with it. All these 60s people have to do the same. Sometimes when I see these groups at present time, I think, Leave us with the way you were, not who you are now. Its okay. Unfortunately, youth does not last forever, physically anyway. I still can get into the songs and stuff with my mind, but when I look in the mirror I see a different face. So, I will continue to watch and listen to my 60s people, but sometimes, its time to move on. Love all you guys. Rita Leslie

Read more:

Readers sound off on campus free speech, impeachment and the death penalty - New York Daily News

The least-recognized of the amendments five freedoms assembly and petition are facing perhaps the most-immediate challenges, though freedoms of press, speech and religion dont escape unscathed.

At years end, First Amendment issues are as controversial and multi-faceted as anything in our fractured, divided society.

The least-recognized of the amendments five freedoms assembly and petition are facing perhaps the most-immediate challenges, though freedoms of press, speech and religion dont escape unscathed.

Most immediately, a Black Lives Matter activist faces a lawsuit from a Baton Rouge, La., police officer who blamed the activist for injuries he suffered at a 2016 protest over the police killing of a black man. The suit doesnt claim the activist threw or even encouraged the throwing of a rock; rather, it seeks damages because the man led others to block a highway where the violent incident occurred.

A recent Washington Post story notes that Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) plans to introduce legislation to hold protesters arrested during unpermitted demonstrations liable for police overtime and other fees around such demonstrations.

In more than a dozen states in recent years, from Oregon to Florida, lawmakers have faced proposals to increase penalties for obstructing streets and highways and to limit the financial liability of drivers whose cars injure protesters. In Arizona, a failed 2017 proposal rooted in that states racketeering laws would have permitted the arrest and seizure of homes and other assets of those whom simply plan a protest in which some act of violence occurs.

In a similar financial penalty vein, several major news operations face defamation lawsuits seeking massive damages over their coverage of news events claims certain to roil public debate once again about the role, credibility and performance of the nations free press. Critics also say such lawsuits even if unlikely to succeed are effectively attempts to chill reporting and intimidate corporate owners.

Prominent among those filing the lawsuits is Rep. Devin Nunes, (R-Calif.), who wants $435 million dollars from CNN for a report he says falsely linked him to events in the ongoing Ukraine-Biden investigation controversy. He also is seeking $150 million from The Fresno Bee over a report involving a workplace scandal at a winery in which Nunes has a stake, $75 million from Hearst over an Esquire article regarding a family farm in Iowa, with the claim the magazine has an axe to grind against him and a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter for what he says is its intentional effort to downplay conservative content as well as two parody accounts that mock him.

In the introduction to the most recent lawsuit, Nunes says CNN is the mother of fake news. It is the least trusted name. CNN is eroding the fabric of America, proselytizing, sowing distrust and disharmony. It must be held accountable.

Moving to another area of contention, campus free speech issues continue to vex collegiate communities, from complaints that conservative speech and views of faculty and staff are stifled, to a move by President Trump that he says will fight against anti-Semitism but that critics say is really intended to punish student or faculty advocacy for the BDS Movement boycotts, divestiture or sanctions aimed at ending international support for Israel.

Much like the campus controversies, interpretations of religious liberty regarding public policy continued to swirl through the year. As the Supreme Courts 2019-20 term began in October, at least eight cases touching on faith issues the most in recent years were scheduled to be heard. A number involved LGBTQ rights regarding employment or health benefits. While some cases do not directly involve religious organizations, the courts decisions would affect arguments over whether religious beliefs can negate claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

An expansion of First Amendment protection for commercial speech (which at one time did not exist in law) continues, as courts at least give serious consideration to a variety of business arguments. In several instances, corporate lawyers are arguing that to force companies to make certain disclosures about product content or sources is an unacceptable requirement that violates the First Amendment by forcing companies to speak.

Other cases involve claims of free speech protection for hospitals facing a Trump administration rule requiring disclosure of secret rates. Industry groups filed a lawsuit earlier this month, also claiming it is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

New technology continues inexorably to challenge long-standing law. In a mix of free speech and public safety concerns, a Texas man was sentenced in February to eight years in prison for using a 3-D printer to construct a plastic handgun and ammunition in violation of a prior court order against owning of a firearm. Advocates for the so-called 3-D gun argue the computer instructions in such 3-D printing projects are speech and not subject to federal or state firearms regulations. Government officials say existing criminal law on issues such as possession and manufacturing should allow them to regulate or ban making or owning such weapons.

Government officials and social media critics continue to hammer operations such as Facebook and Twitter which are not government entities, but private concerns not governed by the First Amendment with regulatory threats over political advertising, hate speech and evidence of foreign election interference.

Threatened action ranges from using anti-trust legislation to break up the largest social media companies, to removal of what is known as Section 230 protection for companies (from the Communications Decency Act of 1996) that now permits them to avoid legal responsibility for content they simply carry, rather than material they create or significantly edit.

Opponents of watering down or removing Section 230 protection say either action would, in effect, end the web as we know it by shutting down the flow of information to the mere trickle of items or articles that could be independently verified by internet providers, or to bland factual accounts devoid of opinion or interpretation.

The year 2019 may well go down in First Amendment history as a turning point, in which those working to limit or control information avoided direct confrontations over First Amendment rights and turned to tactics designed to make it much more difficult, much too costly or even financially ruinous to exercise those rights.

Link:

First Five: Were divided in new ways over core freedoms - McDowell News

WASHINGTON The White House is pushing back against criticism of its new executive order on anti-Semitism, specifically with regards to accusations that it will harm free speech on U.S. campuses.

The executive order was signed by President Donald Trump last week and has drawn strong praise from leading mainstream Jewish-American organizations, but also criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and from several progressive Jewish groups.

The first wave of criticism focused on media reports that characterized the executive order as redefining Jewishness as a nationality. That description was not based on the orders actual text, which states that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits federal funding of institutions that discriminate against a person or a group based on nationality, race or color will also include anti-Semitism.

The main reason for the Jewishness as nationality interpretation was because Title VI does not apply to religious groups. However, the U.S. government has been treating anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination that falls under Title VI for more than a decade, thanks to decisions taken by government agencies during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law and senior adviser, played a key role in getting the president to sign the executive order. He rejected that interpretation in a New York Times Op-Ed published last week. When news of the impending executive order leaked, many rushed to criticize it without understanding its purpose, Kushner wrote. The executive order does not define Jews as a nationality. It merely says that to the extent that Jews are discriminated against for ethnic, racial or national characteristics, they are entitled to protection by the anti-discrimination law.

The confusion over the nationality issue wasnt limited only to the executive orders critics but also to some of its supporters. Brooke Goldstein, executive director of The Lawfare Project an organization that uses lawsuits to fight the movement to boycott Israel and the settlements in the occupied territories praised Trump for a groundbreaking executive order that acknowledges Judaism as a nationality not just a religion.

The White House battled these interpretations following the initial news reports about the executive order, and the criticism lessened once the full text became available. (It was first published by journalist Jacob Kornbluh in Jewish Insider on December 11.)

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

The executive order is still facing strong criticism, however, over concerns that it harms and limits freedom of speech on American campuses. That criticism centers around how the executive order defines anti-Semitism.

Israeli political discourse

The executive order essentially says that if the U.S. Department of Education gets a complaint under Title VI that a university receiving federal grants is discriminating against Jewish students for anti-Semitic reasons, the university can lose its funding. The main controversy is over what exactly constitutes anti-Semitic conduct.

The executive order relies on the definition of anti-Semitism that was published by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The executive order refers to the IHRA working definition as non-legally binding, and says that when trying to determine whether a certain action is anti-Semitic, the U.S. Department of Education should consider this definition.

In addition, the executive order says the Department of Education should consider the contemporary examples of anti-Semitism that are part of the IHRA definition. These are what critics of the executive order are most concerned about.

The list of examples published by the IHRA includes examples that are indisputably anti-Semitic such as denying the facts of the Holocaust or calling for the killing or harming of Jews. Several examples, however, describe criticism against Israel. One such example is applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. Another example is comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of Nazi Germany.

These two specific examples are part of the political discourse within Israel itself, and are not limited to one side of the Israeli political divide. It is common for Israeli politicians to say that because Israel is a Jewish state, for example, it should be a light unto the nations and demand of itself higher standards than other countries.

As for comparisons with Nazi Germany, they have been made over the years by political figures from both the Israeli right and left, usually against each other, but also against state institutions such as the police and the military.

Haaretz asked the White House how these contemporary examples would, in practice, impact universities that receive federal grants from the government. Could, for example, a university lose federal grants if a student complained about a professor or guest lecturer saying in the classroom that something Israel did is reminiscent of actions taken by Nazi Germany? And could it lose funding over an event that supports an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories something a right-wing Jewish organization could describe as requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation?

Avi Berkowitz, a close adviser to Kushner and heavily involved in working on the executive order, says the answer is no. A complaint against a lecture as you describe would not trigger Title VI, he says. In order for Title VI to apply, there has to be actionable conduct. Title VI requires a certain level of conduct, and the executive order does not change that requirement. The lecture remains protected speech.

In other words, the Department of Education would not respond to a complaint about a statement alone. It would only respond to complaints about actionable conduct meaning an action that could count as discrimination.

The executive order is relevant if there is conduct that rises to the level of possible discriminatory action and the university needs to determine motive, Berkowitz says. For example, lets say a Jewish group, like Hillel, wants to reserve rooms for meetings but the administrator repeatedly refuses, so they cant meet and they suspect there is something underhanded about the process. They file a complaint. If during the investigative process it is discovered that the administrator has written emails saying that he/she would never reserve rooms for Jews, and that email includes anti-Semitic reasons, these emails may be relevant to show whether the conduct had a discriminatory motive, which is necessary for Title VI to apply.

Intimidation technique

Prof. Kenneth Stern has been one of the executive orders leading critics. He was previously the American Jewish Committees expert on anti-Semitism and is currently director of a program on hate at Bard College in New York. Following the executive orderspublication last week, he wrote an article in The Guardian warning about the threat it will pose to freedom of speech on campuses.

Stern explained that he was personally involved in writing an earlier anti-Semitism definition that was the basis for the 2016 IHRA definition. That definition, he wrote, was meant for the purpose of data collection and research. It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but thats what Donald Trumps executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.

Stern also wrote: If you think this isnt about suppressing political speech, contemplate a parallel. Theres no definition of anti-black racism that has the force of law when evaluating a Title VI case. If you were to craft one, would you include opposition to affirmative action? Opposing removal of Confederate statues?

Speaking with Haaretz this week, Stern says he is concerned that right-wing Jewish organizations will use the executive order to go after people they disagree with, using the IHRA definition to accuse people of anti-Semitism for political reasons. He compares that to a trend on the political left in the United States to come and tell universities, We need a safe space to protect us from ideas we disagree with. Thats not a good thing, and now the Jewish right-wing will try to do the same, basically saying: Protect us too.

In response to the same question Haaretz presented to the White House Could a university lose funding over something said in class by a professor? Stern says he could not rule it out completely, but its not very likely.

The main problem, in his view, is that youre going to have groups on the right using this to try and intimidate the universities because even if they file a complaint knowing theres a 99 percent chance it wont be accepted, would the university be willing to take the risk?

Stern adds that complaints like this basically accusing universities of anti-Semitism will also come with bad press coverage and public pressure. This could lead to self-censorship, just in order to avoid all the trouble. This is how you can stifle debate.

Stern refers to a comment made in 2013 by Kenneth Marcus a senior Department of Education official appointed by Trump who was personally involved in several attempts to present Title VI cases against universities prior to joining the White House. Marcus wrote that while most of those cases alleging anti-Semitic discrimination didnt lead to any federal action, the cases were still successful because of the damage they caused to those they were filed against: Getting caught up in a civil rights complaint is not a good way to build a rsum or impress a future employer, he wrote.

Fear of such a scenario was also mentioned in a public letter to Trump by the Middle East Studies Association last week: It is not difficult to imagine how this executive order could induce colleges and universities seeking to avoid investigation and possible sanction by the Department of Education to adopt measures that limit or suppress the unfettered expression of the full range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and advocacy for particular perspectives on it, it stated.

Under siege

Lara Friedman of the Foundation for Middle East Peacealso warned of a similar scenario, in an article published last week on the website Responsible Statecraft: The goal of this effort, and the ones that will certainly follow, is clear: To punish campuses that protect free speech on Israel-Palestine, and to have a chilling effect on academic institutions across the board, ensuring that campus administrators and donors choose to preemptively quash criticism and activism related to Israel rather than risk reputational harm, legal jeopardy, and potential loss of funding.

The White House rejects these arguments, explaining that any complaint based on speech and not actual conduct would be rejected, and that after one or two such complaints fail to succeed, it will be clear what the executive order can actually be used for and where it isnt relevant.

David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University, believes the executive order is mostly symbolic. However, he notes, Jewish students at many campuses really feel under siege, which is why it matters that groups like the Anti-Defamation League, that hate Trump, are supporting it.

After the executive order was signed, Jesse Singal in New York magazine used the following example to try to explain its potential impact: Imagine that a pro-Palestinian student group arouses the ire of a local Hillel chapter, and the Hillel members decide they are experiencing discrimination because the pro-Palestinian group is holding Israel to a double standard. The Department of Education agrees and threatens to yank the university in questions funding, and the university, backed into a corner, bans the club.

Bernstein tells Haaretz there is nothing in the law that would allow for this. First, lets recall that the IHRA definition only comes into play as evidence of discriminatory intent. You need to have an underlying illegal act. Holding Israel to a double standard may be anti-Semitic, but expressing anti-Semitic ideas is not illegal, under Title VI or otherwise.

According to Bernstein, The only plausible threat from the IHRA definition is that a university administrator will misinterpret it as applying to hostile environment liability. In such a scenario, a pro-Israel Jewish student could claim that the university is creating a hostile environment by allowing an organization that supports boycotting Israel or the settlements to have a presence on campus. However, Bernstein says, the executive order doesnt refer at all to the issue of hostile environment liability. In Bernsteins view, The ultimate problem is with the broad scope of hostile environment law, not the executive order.

Bard Colleges Stern is concerned that the executive order, regardless of its impact on free speech, will also have an adverse effect on the very issue of fighting anti-Semitism.

I think the real way to confront this is to educate people about anti-Semitism, and about Israel and Zionism and I say this as a Zionist, he says. This is what I want to see universities investing in. Suppressing speech we dont like isnt the solution to this problem.

Read more:

White House explains to Haaretz how its anti-Semitism executive order will work in practice - Haaretz

The truth about the recent right-wing landslide in the United Kingdom that saw a massive Tory majority and the election of Boris Johnson to Prime Minister over Labour's Jeremy Corbyn.

The David Pakman Show is a news and political talk program known for its astute analysis.

Visit The David Pakman Show page for the latest clips.

--

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

FSTV is the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations. Our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

Boris Johnson David Pakman Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party Prime Minister The David Pakman Show United Kingdom

The rest is here:

The Truth About Right-Wing "Landslide" in UK - Free Speech TV

President Donald Trump is on the cusp of being impeached by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

With a historic vote set today on whether to formally accuse him of abusing his power in dealing with Ukraine to help himself politically and then obstructing Congress by blocking their investigation.

Trump lashed out directly at the vote on Tuesday, calling the proceedings to remove him from office an attempted coup.

Should the House approve either of the articles of impeachment, the Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial with all 100 senators acting as jurors, with a two-thirds supermajority 67 votes required to convict.

Meanwhile, thousands of protesters in favor of impeaching Trump took to the streets Tuesday in cities across the country.

On what many are calling Impeachment Day, we speak with: Rep. Al Green of Texas, who was the first congress member to call for President Trumps impeachment from the floor of the House of Representatives in 2017;

Dahlia Lithwick, senior legal correspondent and Supreme Court reporter for Slate, host of the Amicus podcast; and Mark Green, co-author of Fake President: Decoding Trumps Gaslighting, Corruption, and General Bullsh*t.

Amy Goodman Congress Democracy Now! Donald Trump Free Speech TV hearings House Of Representatives impeachment Senate Trials United States Washington D.C.

Follow this link:

House Votes on Impeachment and Charging Trump with Abuse of Power - Free Speech TV

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with Cliff Albright, the Co-founder of Black Voters Matter. He's also a Radio Host, Writer, Consultant, Social Justice Activist.

A federal judge has just signed off on the purging of hundreds of thousands of registered voters in Georgia, the same state where massive voter suppression efforts just a year ago helped propel a Republican Governor into power. Many of the registered voters are being removed from the rolls simply because they have not voted in years. Others have out-of-date addresses. Stacey Abrams, the charismatic gubernatorial candidate who lost narrowly last year is challenging the voter purges.

The news from Georgia comes days after Wisconsin was shedding voters that could impact the Democratic Party and an Associated Press review of Ohios absentee ballots found widespread application denials.

Black Votes Matter Brian Kemp Free Speech TV Georgia Ohio Rising Up with Sonali Sonali Kolhatkar Stacey Abrams Voter Suppression Wisconsin

Read the original here:

There's Voter Suppression Happening in Georgia, Wisconsin, and Ohio - Free Speech TV

Since this is our last issue of 2019, I had written a light-hearted, end-of-year column that was all set to go to the printer until, that is, an accumulation of hot news items got in the way.

The column was a breezy reflection on the value of dreams. Now all I can dream about is that well have a week quiet enough to publish it. For now, we must deal with the business at hand an avalanche of news, mostly bad, some historic.

Im writing this column early in the morning in the lobby of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (with a little white cat swirling beneath my chair), having just participated in a four-day Strategic Dialogue between Israeli leaders and officials from Australia and the U.K.

Guess what people were asking me about at the closing gala? Yup, a certain synagogue incident in Beverly Hills. A potential future prime minister, Gideon Saar, had just delivered a candid address, and people couldnt stop talking about the ransacking of a sanctuary in Beverly Hills. Maybe it was the ZIP code.

A few days earlier, we were abuzz about the midnight deadline that had just passed in Israel triggering an unprecedented third election in 12 months. The next day, we were consumed with the election results in the U.K., which are paving the way for Great Britains historic divorce from the European Union.

In the meantime, other news items were intruding, like the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the House of Representatives, for only the third time in U.S. history.

Maybe instinctively, thats why I stuck with the free speech cover because Eisgrubers ideal discourse is needed now more than ever.

And did I mention the latest deadly attack against Jews, this one in Jersey City, and the presidents controversial executive order to combat BDS and anti-Semitism? Oh, and I almost forgot: The festival of Hanukkah is coming up!

In the middle of this news tornado, I was still working on a cover story I had planned for several weeks on one of my favorite topics: The state of free speech in America.

So, I had a decision to make: Should I bump the free speech cover for one on the killings in Jersey City? Or the presidential impeachment? Or Brexit and the fall of the anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn? Or Trumps controversial executive order? Or the impossible stalemate in Israel? Or the attack at Nessah Synagogue?

While the free speech issue is timeless, the others are timely. Which should go first?

Maybe its because of my intense jet lag, but, as you can see, I decided to stick with the cover story on free speech and deal with the hot issues inside the paper.

For one thing, free speech is the foundation of a free society, not to mention the foundation of my profession, journalism.

But theres something else: Free speech has become timely. Thats because it has come under assault, especially on college campuses, from activists who focus on its microaggression side effects rather than its fundamental value.

In these chaotic times, we need the freedom to rise up against the forces of hate, the wisdom to engage with dignity those with whom we disagree, and the curiosity and humility to constantly search for the truth.

These sentiments should not be casually dismissed by free speech junkies like yours truly. As I write in the story: Our world is changing. As an evolving society, we are becoming more inclusive and sensitive to peoples feelings of alienation. Inclusivity is giving free speech a run for its money.

The thrust of the story is on the innovative thinking of one man in the eye of the storm Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber.

Eisgruber is a man of deep thought, empathy and cautious optimism. He argues that a vigorous free speech can coexist with a noble value like inclusivity. He threads the needle by reframing the free speech debate around truth-seeking, and seeing universities as truth-seeking institutions.

Under this unifying ideal, Eisgruber marries two seemingly opposite values. Indeed, as I write: If the ideal revolves around the search for truth, the greater the inclusion of different voices, the deeper and broader that search will be.

I encourage you to read the entire story. It is based on a remarkable keynote address Eisgruber delivered recently at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, titled Contested Civility: Free Speech and Inclusivity on Campus.

I call the address remarkable because it aspires to a higher level of discourse that honors intellectual rigor and human dignity in equal measure.

Maybe instinctively, thats why I stuck with the free speech cover because Eisgrubers ideal discourse is needed now more than ever.

In these chaotic times, we need the freedom to rise up against the forces of hate, the wisdom to engage with dignity those with whom we disagree, and the curiosity and humility to constantly search for the truth.

If one considers that ideal a ray of light, well, maybe this was a Hanukkah cover story after all.

Happy Hanukkah.

Read the original here:

When the News Gets in the Way - Jewish Journal

Thom Hartmann did the math on what America could afford if we started taxing billionaires.

What would you do if we started taxing billionaires? Would you be able to access healthcare or go to school should colleges be funded?

#MoreFromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comments about Government politics. Whether Liberal or Conservative, Thom speaks with special guests and callers from all over the globe about the topics that matter.

Full episodes of The TH Program air on Free Speech TV every weekday

Monday- Friday 12pm-3pm ET

Missed an episode? Check out Thom on FSTV VOD anytime or visit freespeech.org/show/the-thom-hartman-program for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

Billionaires College Education Healthcare Taxes The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post here:

What Could The US Afford If Billionaires Are Taxed? - Free Speech TV

A mark of internal inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst

The University of Pennsylvania lost its coveted green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education this fall, after the civil liberties group noticed a pair of policies that undermine free speech on campus.

But its still publicly portraying itself as a green-light school and FIRE isnt happy about it.

In a blog post Friday, FIRE rebuked the Ivy League university for its response to a letter from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Last month ACTA warned the university that its downgrading by FIRE should be an alarm bell that causes the campus to commit to a better culture of free speech and inquiry. Penn was already on the ropes with both ACTA and FIRE for its sanctions against law professor Amy Wax, an outspoken conservative.

As is increasingly common for universities called out for infringements of academic freedom and free speech, Penn responded in a perfunctory one-page letter. The university is aware of the yellow light rating, wrote Associate Vice President Lizann Boyle Rode, but it is not related to Penns Open Expression policies or practices, which continue to receive a green light rating from FIRE.

The yellow-light rating, however, applies to Penn as a whole, as well as to the two policies on sexual harassment that formed the basis of FIREs downgrade. It applies to schools with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.

FIRE warned Penn in January that its 13-year green-light rating was at risk because of those two policies, which use a subjective standard to determine sexual harassment: whether verbal speech has the effect of creating an offensive environment. The university never responded, according to FIRE. (Useful to know: Penn is on the same street as FIRE in Philadelphia.)

Civil liberties group asks by The College Fix on Scribd

Penns response [to ACTA] misrepresents, in two critical ways, what the universitys yellow light rating means, Samantha Harris, vice president for procedural advocacy at FIRE, wrote Friday. Given that Penn may be responding along these lines to anyone who expresses concern over FIREs decision to revoke its green light rating, we felt it was important to set the record straight.

Maintaining policies that threaten speech while proclaiming a stated commitment to free expression is not a badge of honor, Harris wrote, but a mark of internal inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst:

If Penn had wanted to continue to ensure its policies protected academic freedom, it would have responded to FIREs concerns and revised its speech codes. As it stands, Penn maintains sexual harassment policies that pose a direct threat to academic freedom just witness the number of faculty around the country who are disciplinedfor germane classroom speechunder overly broad sexual harassment policieslike Penns.

Penns Boyle Rode also falsely characterizes FIREs speech code ratings as encompassing practices, when in fact they only evaluate written policies, Harris continued.

The university cannot avoid scrutiny of its speech codes and its practices by hiding behind its open expression policies, which only serve as a reminder of how far Penn has fallen.

Read the blog post, ACTAs letter and Penns response.

MORE: Penn throws away stellar free speech rating its maintained for 13 years

IMAGE: Voyagerix/Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Continue reading here:

University of Pennsylvania is misrepresenting its speech code rating from advocacy group - The College Fix

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Indiana University in Bloomington Indiana. Students at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana demanded that officials fire professor Eric Rasmusen, after he posted racist, sexist and homophobic opinions to social media earlier this month. Photo: Don & Melinda Crawford/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

If your professor at a public university regularly tweets out articles like Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably you would probably be confused as to why he taught students. If, after class, you read tweets by the same professor saying that black students are generally inferior academically to white students and that members of the LBGTQ community only want marriage rights to get spousal fringe benefits from the government, you might find fault with your professors boss for not firing the prejudiced chauvinist.

We should expect students, faculty and staff members with a modicum of dignity to call for that professors ouster. No student should be subjected to a professor who moonlights as a bigot. However, what may not be tolerated in other workplaces sometimes gets a free pass in colleges and universities, which adhere robustly to the value of free speech.

Free speech is tied to academic freedom the autonomy to teach and research ideas without the consequence of retaliation. The quality of a professors ideas is enhanced when scholarship isnt tethered to profits, political motives and/or the propaganda of hate groups. Colleges defend professors rights to pursue controversial topics of discussion such as climate change, police brutality, charter schools and pornography. University professors conduct clinical trials and other experiments in which the integrity of that work demands free speech.

Yet as noble as that sounds, higher educations loyalty to free speech can also protect chauvinists like Indiana University Bloomington professor Eric Rasmusen, who posted the bigoted tweets about women and others using his private social media accounts. Rasmusen understandably has come under fire for a history of racist, sexist and homophobic social media posts.

Protecting core principles matters but so does leadership. As the presence of hate groups spreads on campus, reflecting the growing diversity of beliefs in society, its important that university leaders properly balance free speech and academic freedom with facts, inclusion and social cohesion. A person who believes in the illogical notion that women, black and gay people are inferior to white men has as much a place in an institution of learning as a person who believes pigs can fly but the bigot is far more dangerous. How university administrators (and leaders in general) address past and present discrimination influences the kind of world we will live in in the future.

Related: HBCUs are leading centers of education why are they treated as second-class citizens?

Rasmusens boss, Lauren Robel, provost at Indiana University Bloomington, sets a fine example of the leadership we need. As absurd as it may seem, firing Rasmusen would compromise the pillars of higher education: free speech and academic freedom. However, Robel has done everything within her power to confront the discrimination that erodes basic values of truth, democracy and community. Robel is allowing students enrolled in Rasmusens class to transfer into another section. Students can also get out of taking a required course from Rasmusen. In addition, Robel will require Rasmusen to grade assignments without knowing the identities of the students in the class, an attempt to buffer against the biases he laid bare on Twitter.

Compare Robels actions to those of another university leader in the same state, and youll see why leadership is so important. In response to a students question on how to improve the campus for minority students, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, a former governor of Indiana, touted an initiative to bring more inner-city students to campus. Daniels also said, I will be recruiting one of the rarest creatures in America: a leading, I mean a really leading African American scholar.

Students immediately took offense.

Creatures? said DYan Berry, president of the Black Student Union. Come on. Referring to African American scholars as rare creatures sounds right out of Rasmusens Twitter feed.

Responding to the backlash, Daniels explained he was referring to extraordinarily rare talent and told the Journal and Courier, part of the USA Today network, I never felt so misunderstood before.

Related: Students take their future into their own hands on climate change activism

To be clear, there are extraordinarily talented black scholars in many fields; predominately white higher education leaders simply dont hire and invest in black professors development in the same way as their white peers, resulting in their underrepresentation. Protected professors dont see the value in proactively championing diversity and inclusion. The beauty of Robels actions is that she showed how good leaders can work within systems to correct glaring problems. Its an approach Daniels should emulate.

According to the Journal and Couriers analysis of Purdues published diversity numbers, 8.3 percent (161 of 1,931) of tenured or tenure-track professors in 2018 were recorded as underrepresented minorities. In 2013, when Daniels started his tenure at Purdue, that stat was 6.3 percent (117 of 1,849).

Those numbers are moving in the right direction, but they still warrant scrutiny from concerned students, faculty and staff. Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and American Indian faculty make up 4 percent, 3 percent, 11 percent, and less than 1 percent of full-time professors in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

We desperately need academic leadership that can stand up for whats right and stand up to white supremacists and white supremacy. Just last week, CNN reported five incidents of hate that occurred across the country. At the University of Georgia, someone drew swastikas on a whiteboard on the door of a Jewish womans dorm room. Another swastika was carved into a door of an Iowa State dormitory, and racist stickers and posters appeared around campus. Racist graffiti was found at the University of Syracuse during a two-week run of incidents of hate-driven harassment. At the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a thread of a racist post from a private SnapChat account became public, setting off a firestorm of concern on campus. And a noose was hung in the common area of a dormitory. Lets hope that university leaders on these campuses address their issues as Robel did, because a lack of leadership is how we got here.

Related: As Republicans stress political fiction over facts, students math and reading scores fall

Academics dont have to tweet out bigotry to make their beliefs known. Colleges curricula and admissions policies do the talking on their behalf. For most of the twentieth century, Asians, Blacks, Latinos/Latinas and Native Americans were excluded or restricted from the academic offerings and leadership positions in most colleges and universities. People of color who were allowed on campus were insignificant in number or primarily relegated to service, housekeeping or grounds positions. If you want to learn more about racist customs of fraternities and sororities, including the tradition of wearing blackface, just thumb through a campus yearbook.

When campuses begin to value black and brown lives, youll see the presence of authors of color throughout course syllabi as well as more than a token handful of people of color in the student body and faculty. Youll see administrators commitments to affirmative action codified in policy and funding allocations dedicated to creating a positive racial climate. Over time, actions like these will seed the kind of campus where bigotry is cut off at the root and publicly condemned when it isnt.

Academic freedom and bigotry cant coexist on campus. Robel has demonstrated one way to tackle bigots who falsely claim the mantle of free speech. Now we need a new generation of college and university leaders to stand up for the values that create an inclusive learning environment for all.

This story free speech on campus was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechingers newsletter.

Join us today.

Link:

We must not allow bigots to hide behind free speech on campus - The Hechinger Report

As families gather for Thanksgiving in our polarized era, theres no shortage of advice about how to cope with the crazy Trump-lover in your family.

Your angry uncle wants to talk about impeachment. What do you do? go the headlines.

Theres nothing like a constitutional crisis to spice up the holidays.

Of course, the abhorrent relative in these scenarios is always a conservative but, for the sake of argument, not to mention reality, lets say it equally could be a progressive.

It might be your newly politically correct college kid home for Thanksgiving break from Ohio who has decided its her moral duty to re-educate the family.

Believe it or not, leftists can be obnoxious, too.

The polite way to maintain harmony used to be to avoid any discussion of politics or religion around the dinner table. But there may be a better way.

A timely new documentary about free speech that opens next week in New York argues that its crucial for the health of our nation to expose yourself to ideas you dislike and learn how to disagree respectfully.

No Safe Spaces stars conservative talk radio host Dennis Prager and libertarian comedian Adam Carolla.

While they disagree a lot, theyre also friends. Carolla explains their odd-couple pairing early on, saying hes always asked: Why are you friends with Dennis Prager? You have nothing in common . . .

He comes from the East. I come from the West. He comes from religion. I come from atheism . . . He comes from college and knowledge. I come from tomfoolery and sports. And yet we both share a little something called common sense in values [which] should trump everything. It should trump LGBT . . . It should trump Chicano . . . It should trump black. It should trump Trump.

They trace the origins of cancel culture on campus back to 2013, when students started demanding speech codes and trigger warnings.

It evolved into violent protests stopping campus speeches by right-wing agitators such as Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos, and the less easily pigeonholed psychology professor Jordan Peterson and red-pilled liberals such as Dave Rubin and Bret Weinstein.

What they have in common, along with Prager and Carolla, is theyve been banned or hounded off campuses, often violently.

We see violent protests at UC Berkeley, the epicenter of campus free speech in the 60s, where students now riot to shut down speech that offends them.

Conservative students are shown being punched in the face, abused and ostracized for expressing politically incorrect ideas.

Isabella Chow, a student senator at UC Berkeley last year when she abstained from a vote affirming gender fluidity because she is a Christian, says the backlash shocked her.

Hundreds of protesters demanded she be removed from the senate, and she was booted out of every student organization and voted out of every student club.

It was difficult to hear accusations of people calling me a bigot and a hater.

But its not just conservatives falling victim. Liberals who inadvertently break increasingly capricious speech codes also are being shut down.

If you have any spark of individualism in you, anything about you thats interesting or different, they will come to destroy that, too, warns liberal talk show host Rubin.

Weinstein was a liberal professor hounded out of The Evergreen State College in Washington state after refusing to take part in a 2017 stunt requiring all white people stay away from campus for the day. This was anathema to me as a liberal, he says.

When violent protests against him paralyzed the college, police said they could not protect him.

He warns that Evergreen is just a preview.

This is going to spread into every quadrant of society . . . Evergreen is describing a future that is rapidly approaching.

Toward the end of No Safe Spaces, Prager polls a group of college students on their support for free speech, and finds theyre evenly split. One student declares she draws the line at Nazis.

It couldnt have been a better opening for Prager to explain that free speech is valuable only if it protects offensive, obnoxious views.

It is our trial-and-error way of sorting out good ideas from bad. Since you cant stop people secretly holding bad thoughts, silencing them just pushes bad ideas underground, where they fester and grow more virulent.

Allowing bad ideas free expression allows them to be mocked and countered with good ideas.

Im a Jew, says Prager, and Nazis killed 6 million Jews . . . so I have a real hatred of Nazis. But I feel they should be able to speak freely in America because if we say to the Nazis today, You cant speak, well say to a non-Nazi tomorrow, You cant speak either. And we hope, if everyone speaks, that good ideas win.

So speak your mind to your family today in good-natured fashion and give thanks that you live in a country where good ideas still have a chance.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.

Proof, again, that theyre the Finest

After a summer of taking abuse, its worth noting that the NYPD is the unofficial social safety net for New Yorkers.

Take Officers Ricardo Roman and Samuel Baez, of the 10th Precinct in Chelsea, who bought a homeless man a suit, glasses and a haircut last month so he could interview for jobs.

Wilfredo Falman Jr., 34, scored work at Kobrick Coffee Co., a cafe in the Meatpacking District.

He urges New Yorkers to give thanks for the officers: They have helped me see the police in a different light.

By Wednesday, Falman had raised $2,463 on GoFundMe, of which his lawyers, the Khan Johnson firm, say he has donated half ($1,172.34 minus costs) to the GLS Memorial Fund, which provides tuition assistance to relatives of police officers.

Feel free to criticize AOC

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is furious at critics who dismiss her policies as free stuff.

These are public goods . . . So I never want to hear the word or the term free stuff ever again, the socialist Democratic congresswoman ranted at a Green New Deal town hall in the Bronx this week.

Who made AOC language boss? We say free stuff because it describes unfunded policies for tuition-free college, Medicare for all and public housing for anyone who wants it.

She doesnt like the phrase free stuff because everyone knows there is no such thing. Someone has to pay for it and, eventually, if you pluck the golden goose enough, it dies.

Wealth creators move to greener pastures, you lose your tax base and any ability to fund even the most worthwhile public projects.

Who could forget it was AOC and friends who drove Amazon out of New York, along with its 25,000 jobs?

Of course, in AOCs utopia, who needs a job when theres free stuff to be had? Can someone please pay for a study tour of Venezuela?

Read more here:

Devine: Feast on free speech this Thanksgiving - New York Post

The recent interaction between student Michael Moreno and debate coach Ryan Wash caused significant controversy online and on campus after Moreno posted recordings of in-class interactions on YouTube. Since then, WSU faculty and staff have refocused on what it means to provide an environment of academic freedom and free speech while at the same time ensuring that all people on campus feel physically and intellectually safe.

Adrienne Andrews, WSUs Vice President for Diversity and Chief Diversity Officer, hosted a forum discussion for faculty and staff on the morning of Nov. 20. Andrews invited several faculty and staff members to share their ideas and to review the universitys official policies regarding these matters.

The panelists in the discussion included Professor of Economics Dr. Doris Stevenson; Dean of the Library Wendy Holliday; Director of the Womens Center Paige Davies; Professor of Chemistry Dr. Tim Herzog; Professor of Teacher Education Dr. Forrest Crawford and Dane LeBlanc the former chief of WSUPD and the current Director of Safety.

Academic freedom is one of the pillars of the university, Herzog said. It allows us to do things that are controversial and challenging, things that may be upsetting to other people.

Herzog believes that there are challenges with how others may interpret or use academic freedom. He also believes that curriculum should fall within an agreed-upon set of rules. The university has curriculum review processes and committees to ensure and approve curriculum quality.

Faculty cannot just teach any controversial topic they want outside of their disciplinary area, Herzog said.

Dr. Stevenson added to Herzogs sentiment.

You have the freedom to teach anything that falls within the purview of the legitimate pedagogical reason, Stevenson said. How do we balance student rights and teacher rights? You have to fall back on policy.

According to Stevenson, current university policy gives students the right and responsibility to determine whether they should or can complete a course. If a student has a problem with a courses material, they may drop the course. If the course is a requirement for degree completion, the student may ask the course instructor for a reasonable accommodation. It is up to the faculty member to determine what the accommodation will be. The faculty member may deny the request unless the denial is arbitrary, capricious or illegal.

After the panel discussed academic freedom and students options in courses they may have issue with, Crawford addressed the issue of free speech.

The student comes (to class) with the view that they have a wide range of consideration that they can explore, Crawford said. To me, I do not assume that free speech is whenever, wherever, however. Free speech has a particular obligation, a particular guideline, a particular way.

Crawford believes, from a faculty standpoint, that teachers ultimately want students to respond to questions, but in a responsible way. Teachers should provide a structured way for students to share a diversity of opinion.

Andrews concurred with Crawfords idea by suggesting that faculty, with their students consent, should establish rules of debate on the first day of class each semester. Andrews believes students can express dissent more constructively if they establish rules with their peers for expressing opinion.

Holliday continued the discussion on free speech by arguing that spaces for free speech must also be spaces of productive learning. She believes the university must ultimately fulfill its role, not as a public forum, but as a learning space. Holliday will not censor what students and faculty choose to read, but she hopes students and faculty will choose to address inequities.

The conversation then turned to LeBlanc to address issues of campus safety.

If someone wants to protest, we take an unbiased approach, LeBlanc said. Our job is to facilitate safe, free expression.

LeBlanc acknowledges that this sometimes means having to physically separate protestors from counter-protestors.

Davies reviewed and reinforced university policy that is meant to prevent any type of discriminatory harassment.

If a university employee or student is experiencing any type of harassment or feels physical danger, they can seek remedies through the Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity (AAEO) Office, Davies said. There are formal and informal measures to help students, faculty and staff.

An audience member asked about what students can do if they feel disrespected by a professor, but not harassed or unsafe.

In this case, students should report how they feel to the department chair, Herzog said. The department chair or dean can explore that. If the need arises, students can also file complaints with the AAEO Office or the Provosts Office.

See the original post here:

Balancing free speech and safety on campus - The Signpost

Earlier in June, local politician Walter Lbcke of Kassel was assassinated by a neo-Nazi extremist. Once again, Germany began debating the interrelation of right-wing vitriol and violence.

Lawmakers on all levels the local, state and federal have received threats. It is not uncommon for mayors of small municipalities to be among those threatened.So when individuals or a vocal minority create a climate of fear, fewer and fewer people are willing to take on such roles and serve their communities.

Intimidation damages our democratic culture

This can have fatal consequences for our democratic culture. Who, apart from those who are deeply ideological, will volunteer to take on a political mandate if the price is to live in fear or reap contempt? The state must be better at protecting all those who are threatened and subjected to violence And society regardless of party affiliations must openly support individuals who volunteer to serve their communities.

Guest columnist Matthias Quent

But this hatred did not come out of nowhere. For years, German lawmakers have turned a blind eye to this vile undercurrent, letting it fester. The state did nothing when German neo-Nazis gunned down migrants, homeless people and left-wing sympathizers. Few, if any, condemned the murder of punks, foreigners and gay people by the extreme right most likely because they felt no connection to them. Since 1990, 198 people were killed by right-wing extremists in Germany, according to the Amadeu Antonio Foundation. The number of sitting politicians? One.

It seems that only now, after the death of lawmaker Walter Lbcke, Germany's government and police have woken up to the lethal danger posed by German neo-Nazis. Germany's federal states, or Lnder, must strengthen the police and judiciary to this end so that they can more effectively prosecute radicals and protect those who are subjected to hatred and violence.

The funeral service for Walter Lbcke, head of the Kassel regional government, on 13 June.

Internet promoteshate speech

The internet allows people to hurl abuse and insults at others and even send death threats. This new reality shines a light on human depravity. Online, those spreading vitriolsdo not even have to look their victims in the eye.

Hateful statements, from a legal perspective, can be classified as opinions. Freedom of speech is an important principle, yet also one with ambivalent consequences: it permits anyone to make derogatory and aggressive statements as long as they do not violent German lawl. But italso enables anyone to take a courageous stand against such views and counter anti-Semitism, racism, sexism and other such ideologies of inequality.

Right now, there is a heated debate within Germany on whether countering discriminating and disparaging comments which until recently went largely unchallenged until society became more aware of this constitutes a breach of freedom of speech. After all, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD)is systematically violating people's human dignity and we must persistently confront the party about this. The party breaches the basic principles of our constitution and whinges that its freedom of speech is being curtailed when it gets challenged on this. The AfD, after all, is more than happy to cast itself as an unfairly treated victim.

Freedom of speech is thriving

In reality, freedom of speech is thriving in Germany. The voices of those who were previously ignored, overlooked or suppressed are now being heard. Journalist Christian Bangel's hashtag #Baseballschlgerjahre (German for #baseballbatyears), for instance, has provided a platform for all those who have been attacked by far-right radicals across Germany.

Read more:Germany's Angela Merkel vows to fight right-wing extremist terrorism

I am among this group of people. And Iknow all too well what it means to feel hated andexperience violence and fear.

Those who have emancipated themselves, who have been ostracized and discriminated against must speak up. They must dispel the ignorance and indifference that for decades has existed, and challenge the cultural dominance of those who, for decades, have kept the experiences of the suppressed out of the public sphere.

Now, finally, people in Germany are coming to realize that the far-right is attacking the very core of our democracy. Every hate-filled comment targeting refugees, women, Jewish people,and others is an attack on the liberal democratic order we inhabit.

That is why the majority of German society should show genuine solitary and respect for the "other."For we have learned from German history that there may be a time when there is no-one who could intervene if this hatred continued to fester and grow.

Dr. Matthias Quent is a sociologist and the director of the Institute for Democracy and Civil Society (IDZ) in Jena, Thuringia. He authored the German book"Far-right Germany. How the radical right is vying for power and how we can stop them."

Originally posted here:

Opinion: The clear line between hate speech and free speech - DW (English)

President Trumps use of Twitter to shape the narrative is notorious. True to form, he was tweeting fast and furious during the impeachment hearings. Negative testimony about the presidents interactions with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly incited his aggressive retorts, prompting speculation about whether his outbursts may be viewed as witness intimidation. Citing the First Amendment, Trump claims he is free to say what he pleases, including name-calling and denigrating witnesses. But is it criminal witness intimidation?

A number of recent cases have examined the use of social media platforms to conduct witness intimidation. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the witness tampering conviction of a woman who posted on Facebook the name of a potential witness in her brothers criminal trial who she warned not to get upon the stand, posting watch out little snitch. The Supreme Court too has had occasion to consider the criminality of Facebook posts suggesting that the defendants soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Even beyond our prolific president, the issue of improper use of digital media to harass or intimidate has seeped into the political realm. Earlier this year, House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was censured for tweets made on the eve of congressional testimony from former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, suggesting that unfavorable information about Cohen would be released if he testified.

Recent impeachment-related tweets from Trump are not the first public statements from the president to be called into question. Critics previously argued that the president was obstructing justice by dangling a pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, during the Mueller investigation. Tweets expressing sympathy for Manafort and referring to him as a brave man in contrast to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who cooperated with authorities and was referred to by Trump as a coward were viewed as a subtle message to Manafort to stay strong and possibly reap the benefits ala a presidential pardon.

Trumps tweets about the Whistleblower who filed the complaint that has instigated the impeachment hearings also have been questioned. A September 26, 2019 tweet likened the Whistleblower to a spy and further stated You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now. This tweet prompted the Whistleblowers attorneys to send a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence expressing concern for their clients anonymity and safety.

Most recently, a tweet from President Trump blasting Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, as she testified has been called witness intimidation. After hearing Trumps statement that everywhere she went turned bad, Yovanovitch herself stated that it was intimidating. Democrats opined that the Presidents tactics would, and were intended to, scare off other potential witnesses.

The Law of Witness Intimidation

Knowingly using intimidation or threats to influence testimony in an official proceeding, such as a proceeding before Congress, is a crime under Section 1512 of the United States Code. Whether a presidential tweet storm might be considered a violation of this statute centers on a few questions: 1) when can a tweet or public statement implicate Section 1512; 2) when are tweets or statements considered a threat under federal law; and 3) what is the requisite criminal intent?

Section 1512 has been applied to social media posts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction under Section 1512 of Delexsia Harris, who took to Facebook two weeks before her brothers trial for murder. Harris posted threatening statements and depictions of guns and bombs pointing at police cars alongside broad references to individuals identified as potential witnesses in the case. (886 F3d 1120) Harris also named one witness directly. Stating that the question of whether a communication is a threat is a factual question to be resolved by a jury, the Court upheld the jurys determination that a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret [Harriss posts] as a threat.

In Trumps case, Democrats argue that his tweet made during Ambassador Yovanovitchs testimony could have had an effect both on Yovanovitch, who was still in the process of providing information to Congress, as well as on other potential witnesses. The Second Circuit has held that the language of Section 1512 does not require the intimidating statement or threat be directly made to the threatened individual. (US v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015)). The statute states that a violation occurs when the defendant engages in wrongful conduct toward another person with the intent to influence any person in an official proceeding. Accordingly, a threat to X which causes Y to withhold information, qualifies as witness intimidation so long as the person making the threat had corrupt intent.

Section 1512 requires proof of specific corrupt intent to intimidate or persuade a witness either not to testify or to alter his or her testimony. Reasonable minds differ on Trumps motivation. The witness intimidation claims made against Representative Gaetz earlier this year suggest that even where the motivation to intimidate or persuade arguably is clearer, it may not rise to the level of criminality.

The night before Trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Gaetz, a staunch defender of Trump, tweeted Hey @MichaelCohen212- Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if shell remain faithful to you when youre in prison. Shes about to learn a lot . Gaetz defended claims that he was threatening Cohen by stating that he was only challenging the veracity and character of a witness. No criminal charges were brought against Gaetz and an investigation into his behavior by the Florida Bar resulted only in a written censure. In this highly-charged political environment, evidence of criminal intent may be difficult to prove.

Interaction with the First Amendment

The First Amendment may add another layer of protection to unbridled tweeters. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider what distinguishes a true threat from speech protected by the First Amendment in Elonis v. United States in 2014. The Court reviewed Eloniss conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Specifically, Elonis made a series of posts on Facebook suggesting that his soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Other posts contained threats against police, the FBI and a kindergarten class. On appeal, Eloniss lawyer argued the conviction should be overturned because Elonis lacked the requisite specific intent to injure, was just venting about his personal problems, and did not mean to threaten anyone.

The question as phrased by the Supreme Court was whether the statute required that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication and, if not, whether the First Amendment required such a showing. Unfortunately, the Courts opinion did not resolve the question directly, but took issue with the Third Circuits application of a reasonable person standard a civil tort concept to determine the defendants criminal intent, stating that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. The conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Third Circuit. Thereafter, the Third Circuit found the error to be harmless and affirmed the conviction because Elonis testified at trial that he knew his posts would be viewed as threats, thereby satisfying the knowledge element of the crime.

Conclusion

Courts and attorneys are going to have to contemplate how the use of Twitter and other social medium platforms increasingly used as a forum for political and commercial speech must be analyzed under criminal statutes. Like any other form of communication, courts correctly have determined that these types of public statements may be viewed as threats subject to criminal charges. Whether the conduct is criminal will depend upon first, whether a reasonable person familiar with the context within which the statement was made would view it as a threat, and second, whether the speaker intended to intimidate. Certainly, the words and the speakers power and ability to make good on the threat will play a part in that analysis.

To read more fromRobert J. Anello, please visitwww.maglaw.com.

The rest is here:

Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump's Tweets Witness Tampering? - Forbes

Forgive Blaise Alleyne if he doesnt quite agree with the provincial government that Ontario universities and colleges are paragons of free speech. The pro-life advocate has the scars to prove they arent all that tolerant to some speech.

I was assaulted, and my colleague was assaulted with a weapon, said Alleyne of a pro-life outreach he was conducting at Torontos Ryerson University.

Its been a regular occurrence over the 15 years Alleyne has advocated for the rights of the unborn on Toronto campuses, he says. Hes had coffee spit on him and his displays have been blockaded or ransacked. The most recent disruption came in early October at the University of Toronto Mississauga campus.

When I called for assistance from UTM campus police, the first thing that happened is that I got a talking to about the pro-life display, said Alleyne, the founder of Toronto Against Abortion who is an educational co-ordinator with pro-life groups on campuses across Toronto.

Alleyne is still waiting to hear back from U of T after filing a complaint.

On Nov. 4 the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) released its first college and university free speech report and said all Ontario institutes are in compliance with a free speech policy the Conservative government demanded shortly after taking power in June 2018.

Our government worked quickly to protect free speech on campus, and colleges and universities have done a great job of putting consistent, effective policies in place, said Ross Romano, Minister of Colleges and Universities.

In August 2018, schools were mandated to develop, implement and comply with policies that protect free speech while keeping campuses free of hate speech, discrimination and other illegal forms of speech.

Bringing universities and colleges in line with free speech policies was a key plank in the Conservative platform after a growing outcry over speech issues on campus. For years, pro-life groups and others with conservative leanings faced harassment and had events shut down by protesters. It seemed to come to a head in 2017 when Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd found herself at odds with her supervisor for showing a clip of Jordan Peterson the U of T professor who fought using gender pronouns when addressing students in her communications class. It made national headlines and stirred controversy over academic freedom issues.

Shepherd, now a Campus Free Speech Fellow with the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, read the report that said only one out of 40,000 events was shut down for security issues (a Canadian Nationalist Party event at U of T in January). That would seem to indicate schools are taking free speech seriously. But Shepherd said that of these 40,000 events, its minuscule how many would be put on by free speech-minded students.

Thinking about all Conservatives/free speech advocates/Christians across all universities in Ontario who actually have clubs and host events, how many events would that cumulatively be? asked Shepherd in an e-mail interview with The Register. Maybe 20-100? So the few events that free speech advocates/conservatives/right-wingers do host are really the only events at risk of being protested in the first place.

This, she said, is the success the government speaks of when it lauds compliance on campus.

Shepherd said students have been internalized, since elementary school, that they should not question the gender/race/sexuality/gender identity orthodoxy du jour lest they be labelled hateful racist homophobes, so the number of students who would host certain events is already incredibly small.

Alleyne doesnt see university administrations as the main culprit. That belongs to the student unions.

If you look at student unions, thats where you see major problems with free speech, said Alleyne.

That was supposed to be taken care of with the governments call for compliance. Its been a glaring omission in the just-released report, he said.

There are no pro-life clubs with official status granted by student unions on any of the five university campuses in Toronto, notes Alleyne, though theyve found a way around that at U of T and York University, where such clubs are recognized by the administration.

There is currently a complaint against Ryerson before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario concerning discrimination and harassment pro-life groups face. Alleyne said its at the point that pro-lifers have not tried to host an event on campus since April 2017.

This chill is palpable on campus, said Shepherd, and the lack of events cancelled should not be the barometer for free speech on campus. Certain groups are discouraged from hosting events because of the threat of cancellation and being hit with exorbitant security fees in the face of protest, she said.

Still, with the province setting some standards, it is a positive step forward, said Alleyne, and the governments policy is a work in progress.

Follow this link:

Is free speech on campus really free? - The Catholic Register

Michael Roth will discuss his new book, Safe Enough Spaces: A Pragmatists Approach to Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness on College Campuses at a Books & Bagels event at Congregation Beth Shalom Rodfe Zedek, 55 East Kings Highway, Chester on Sunday, Dec. 8 at 10:30 a.m. The event is free and open to all.

Roth, president of Wesleyan University, takes a pragmatists path through the thicket of serious issues todays colleges and universities face. He envisions college as a space in which all students are empowered to engage deeply with a variety of ideas, including those that are disturbing. In such a spacesafe from debilitating harm but not from the discomfort of intense debate and substantial disagreementstudents can develop a sense of who they are, what matters to them, and what they hope to make of their lives, he says.

He suggests it is difficult and altogether possible to create a space that is safe enough for diverse and unpopular perspectives and where no idea is protected from reasoned challenge. Considering cases from around the country and drawing on decades of firsthand experience as a college administrator and professor, Roth offers realistic and concrete solutions to provide a rigorous, bracing, and genuine education to all college students.

Light refreshments will be provided. Copies of the book will be available for sale and for autographing after Roths talk. More information is available at http://www.cbsrz.org or by calling 860-526-8920.

The rest is here:

Michael Roth Speaking on Inclusion, Free Speech, and Political Correctness - Zip06.com

In a country where multiculturalism has a reverent following and criticism of protected minorities has essentially been criminalized as hate speech, it is more than ironic that on some Canadian campuses radical students have taken it upon themselves to target one group, Jewish students, with a hatred that is nominally forbidden for any others. And with a recent incident that took place on November 20th, York University, in particular, has now revealed a troubling pattern of tolerating physical and emotional assaults by pro-Palestinian radicals against Jewish students and others who dare to demonstrate any support for Israel or question the tactics of Islamists in their efforts to destroy the Jewish state.

Herut Canada, a Zionist movement dedicated to social justice, the unity of the Jewish people, and the territorial integrity of the Land of Israel, was sponsoring an on-campus event featuring Reservists on Duty, former IDF soldiers who would be discussing BDS and the particular challenges facing the IDF in its interaction with terrorism. But Yorks perennially-radical group, Students Against Israeli Apartheid at York University (SAIA York), was having no part of the visit and, joined by off-campus members of the equally radical Antifa organization, disrupted the event with some 600 activists heckling, chanting through bull horns, and even physical assaulting other studentsall aimed at shutting down the event and preventing attendees from hearing what the guests from the IDF had to say about negotiating for peace.

What was particularly revealing, and chilling, about the hate-filled protest (or riot, more accurately) was the virulence of the chants and messages on the placards, much of it seeming to suggest that more sinister hatreds and feelingsover and above concern for Israeli military operationswere simmering slightly below the surface. Many of the furious protestors, for instance, shrieked out, Viva, Viva Intifada and Long live the Intifada, a grotesque and murderous reference to the Second Intifada, during which Arab terrorists murdered some 1000 Israelis and wounded more than 14,000 others.

That pro-Palestinian student activists, those who purport to be motivated by a desire to bring justice to the Middle East, could publicly call for the renewed slaughter of Jews in the name of Palestinian self-determination demonstrates quite clearly how ideologically debased the human rights movement has become. Activists on and off U.S. campuses, who never have to face a physical threat more serious than getting jostled while waiting in line for a latte at Starbucks, are quick to denounce Israels very real existential threats and the necessity of the Jewish state to take countermeasures to thwart terrorism. And quick to label the killing of Hamas terrorists by the IDF as genocide, these well-meaning but morally-blind individuals see no contradiction in their calls for the renewed murder of Jews for their own sanctimonious cause, not to mention the irony of the protestors decrying the very presence and alleged barbarity of the IDF at York while simultaneously calling for the continued murder of Jews in the name of Palestinian self-determination.

Other protestors were less overt in their angry chants, carrying signs and shouting out the oft-heard slogan, Free, Free Palestine, or, as they eventually screamed out, Viva, viva Palestina! That phrase suggests the same situation that a rekindled Intifada would help bring about, namely that if the fictive nation of Palestine is liberated, is free, there will, of course, be no Israel between the Jordan River and Mediterraneanand no Jews.

Another deadly chorus emanated from protestors during the rally: Resistance is justified when people are occupied! That is an oft-repeated, but disingenuous and false notion that stateless terrorists have some recognized human right to murder civilians whose government has purportedly occupied their territory. It may be comforting for Israels ideological foes to rationalize the murder of Jews by claiming some international right to do it with impunity and a sense of righteousness. Unfortunately, however, as legal experts have inconveniently pointed out, the rally participants and their terror-appeasing apologists elsewhere are completely wrong about the legitimacy of murder as part of resistance to an occupying force.

Something is clearly amiss on North American campuses, and the York incident is emblematic of a much larger problem endemic to universities today, that anti-Israel activists have hijacked the dialogue of the Israeli/Palestinian conversation and have decided that they, and they alone, should and will decide whose views will be heard and whose will not, something that supporters of Israel have been experiencing for more than a decade already. Anti-Israel campus activists have conducted an ongoing campaign to delegitimize and libel Israel, and their tactics include a concerted attempt to shut down dialogue and debateanything that will help to normalize Zionism, permit pro-Israel views to be aired, or generate support for the Jewish state.

The tendentious, virtue-signaling brownshirts at York who attempted to suppress the speech of pro-Israel speakers whose views they had predetermined could not even be uttered on campus share a common set of characteristics with groups like the radical Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) who have led the assault against Israel and Jewish students who support it: it is they, and they alone, who know what it acceptable speech, what ideas are appropriate and allowed, which groups are victims of oppression and should, therefore, receive special accommodation for their behavior and speech, which views are progressive (and therefore virtuous) and which views are regressive (and therefore hateful), which cause is worthy of support and which is, because of its perceived moral defects, worthy of opprobrium.

Leading up to the York event, protestors had put up posters that read, All Out. No Israeli Soldiers on Our Campus. To help further reinforce the malignancy of the IDF, the posters included a photograph of a grotesque Jewish soldier brandishing an automatic weapon over a cowering Arab child. As other anti-Israel groups have expressed with chants and posters calling for Zionists Off Our Campus and similar messages targeting Jews and other supporters of Israel, the York posters reveal a very dangerous trend on campuses in which self-righteous, morally-preening brats take it upon themselves to speak for entire universities in deciding which views will be tolerated and which must be suppressed. That York administrators, and officials at many other universities as well, regularly allow this represents a failure by academia to live up to its oft-professed goal of encouraging free and open expression and debate.

York administrators may be cautious about curbing the speech of SAIA York, particularly because its members are perceived to be a protected minority group, but the issue here is not about speech but about behavior. In fact, Yorks own student code of conduct specifically prohibits threats of harm, or actual harm, to a persons physical or mental wellbeing, including verbal and non-verbal aggression verbal abuse; intimidation; [and] harassment all of which were clearly violated by the demonstrators physically intimidating protests. Yorks Community Standards for Student Conduct specifically prohibits: disruption of, or interference with, University activities, such as: causing a substantial disorder . . ; creating dangerous situations (intentional or not); making or causing excessive noise; disrupting classes, events or examinations . . ; [and] blocking exit routesall of which regulations were violated by the rioters at the November 20th event.

More importantly, the notion that a vocal minority of self-important ideologues can determine what views may or may not be expressed on a particular campus is not only antithetical to the purpose of a university, but is vaguely fascistic by relinquishing power to a few to decide what can be said and what speech is allowed and what must be suppressed; it is what former Yale University president Bartlett Giamatti characterized as the tyranny of group self-righteousness.

The sententious activists fueling this ideological bullying may well feel that they have access to all the truth and facts, but even if this were truewhich it demonstrably and regularly is notit certainly does not empower them with the right to have the only voice and to disrupt, shout down, or totally eliminate competing opinions in political or academic debates. No one individual or group has the moral authority or intellectual might to decide what may and may not be discussed, and especially young, sanctimonious studentswhose expertise and knowledge about the Middle East, in particular, is frequently characterized by distortions, lies, lack of context, corrosive bias against Israel, and errors in history and fact.

University officials regularly proclaim that they have a commitment to the principles of freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech and freedom of association. But that empty exhortation has shown itself, repeatedly, to be, at best, disingenuous, and, at worst, a masking of the true intention of campus radicals: enabling favored victim groups to utter vitriol and libel against Israel and Jews, with the pretense that they have somehow encouraged intellectual debate and productive political discussion. This is not rigorous debate and dialogue at all; it is Jew-hatred dressed up in academic clothes.

There is no other explanation for why educated, well-intentioned and humane individuals, experiencing paroxysms of moral self-righteousness in which they are compelled to speak out for the perennial victim, can loudly and publicly advocate for the murder of Jewswho already have created and live in a viable sovereign stateon behalf of a group of genocidal enemies of Israel whose tragic condition may well be their own doing, and, at any rate, is the not the sole fault of Israels. That these activists are willing, and ready, to sacrifice the Jewish state, and Jewish lives, in the name of social justice and a specious campaign of self-determination by Palestinian Arabs, shows how morally corrupt and deadly the conversation about human rights has become.

And its lethal nature and intent should frighten us all.

Go here to see the original:

Universities Enabling the Hijacking of Free Speech When Jews are Involved - The Times of Israel

Wisconsins Democratic governor signs oil lobby-backed bill criminalising free speech By Jacob Crosse 26 November 2019

Wisconsins Democratic governor Tony Evers, ignoring opposition from environmental groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple Tribal Nations, last week signed into law Assembly Bill 426. The legislation makes it a felony, punishable with a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison, to protest, trespass or cause damage to critical infrastructure, including transmission lines, fencing, posts and oil pipelines.

In a Wednesday press conference after signing the bill, Evers, who ran in 2018 on a platform of pragmatism and change, admitted that he had problems with the bill, but they were not enough to stop him from signing the bipartisan bill which passed with overwhelming Republican support.

While he easily signed off on the pro-corporate bill, Evers has not announced any plans to push for legislation reversing the corporate handouts to Foxconn or the anti-worker Act 10 measures enacted by his predecessor Scott Walker in the face of mass protests in 2011.

Democrats throughout the state, including State Senator Janet Bewely, tried to hide behind workers as justification for signing the bill. While she didnt care to elaborate on workers safety in regard to the damage created by climate change, or the evisceration of safety regulations under Democratic and Republican administrations, Bewley instead focused on workers on pipelines [who] feel more and more unsafe due to an increase in reported incidents of vandalism that jeopardize not only their safety, but the publics safety as well.

Assembly Bill 426 is based on the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act model bill which was distributed to state legislators by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a conservative nonprofit that derives over 98 percent of its funding from corporate goliaths such as AT&T, Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries, Pfizer and Wal-Mart. Model legislation crafted by these corporations attorneys and lobbyists is distributed via ALEC to members of both parties for passage in legislatures across the country.

In audio obtained by The Intercept earlier this year, lobbyist Derrick Morgan, a senior vice president for federal and regulatory affairs for the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) association, a powerful lobby group, elaborated the purpose of these bills and how he wasintimately involved in crafting the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act.

Speaking at a June conference in Washington, D.C. for the Energy & Mineral Law Foundation, Morgan explained that this model legislation would itemize criminal trespass and also a liability for folks that cause damage during protest.

While it is already a federal crime for individuals to destroy or impede the transportation of energy, this new legislations true purpose is to hold liable any political groups that work to organize protests or direct action against the corporations that are destroying the planet. Morgan noted, [A]nother key aspect of it, which you also include, is inspiring organizationsso organizations who have ill intent, want to encourage folks to damage property and endanger livesthey are also held liable.

By signing the legislation Evers made Wisconsin the tenth state to adopt legislation written by the oil companies which further enhances the power of the state in penalizing protesters. In fact, the Wisconsin law has the exact same language as critical infrastructure bills that have passed with bipartisan support in North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Iowa, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, Texas and Missouri.

The impetus for the passage of this and similar pieces of legislation was the 2016-2017 Dakota Access Pipeline protest, which took place on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota against Energy Transfer Partners plan to construct an oil pipeline under the Missouri River.

The Standing Rock protests won broad support from workers and students as over 10,000 protesters stood firm against the combined might of the capitalist state and multinational oil conglomerates. Live video feeds from the protesters broadcasted the brutality of private military contractors hired by the oil companies as they worked in conjunction with state troopers to violently suppress and beat workers, students and the indigenous population.

In addition to police from across the Midwest, federal agencies including the FBI were mobilized against the peaceful protesters. Together these various private and public agencies developed intelligence reports gathered through drone surveillance and infiltration of the protest movement. These dubious reports, gathered from social media feeds, innuendo and hearsay, were shared across police networks, which prompted violence against protesters including the firing of rubber bullets, water cannon and flash-bang grenades.

The protest movement was eventually dispersed following months of police violence, frigid temperatures and the lack of independent political leadership within the movement. The Obama administration worked closely with the leadership of the Standing Rock tribe, which is aligned with the Democratic Party, to shut down the protests and encourage everyone to go home.

Following the Obama administrations intervention and the betrayal of the movement by its leaders, an evacuation order was given by North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum for the camp to disperse. Following months of protests, riot police violently dispersed the remaining demonstrators in February 2017.

The sight of thousands of workers, students and indigenous peoples united together against the class enemy has led to the concerted effort to pass the latest raft of anti-democratic laws. The intended purpose is not to protect the lives of oil and gas workers but to further criminalize and enhance the punitive measures against any group or person who resists the further degradation and destruction of the planet in the name of private profits.

Once again, the Democrats have shown that they have no fundamental differences with their partners in the Republican Party. Both serve the interests of private profit above all else. The fight against multinational oil corporations requires an international, anti-capitalist socialist strategy uniting workers across national lines against the corporations responsible for the continued destruction of the planet.

2019 has been a year of mass social upheaval. We need you to help the WSWS and ICFI make 2020 the year of international socialist revival. We must expand our work and our influence in the international working class. If you agree, donate today. Thank you.

See more here:

Wisconsin's Democratic governor signs oil lobby-backed bill criminalising free speech - World Socialist Web Site

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg will deliver an unfiltered take on freedom of speech tomorrow via live Facebook video. Ive been writing a speech about my views on voice and free expression that Im giving tomorrow, Zuckerberg wrote. Its the most comprehensive take Ive written about my views, why I believe voice is important, how giving people voice and bringing people together go hand in hand, how me might address the challenges that more voice and the internet introduce, and the major threats to free expression around the world.

The speech will be delivered tomorrow at 1PM ET, and Zuckerberg calls it an unfiltered take on how I think about these questions, based on years of thinking about speech issues. Also, its apparently very long.

Zuckerberg has delivered plenty of lengthy philosophical musings about Facebook, but hes generally published them as blog posts, not delivered them as live speeches. This announcement comes a couple of weeks after he unexpectedly live-streamed an internal Q&A session, following the publication of an earlier sessions audio by The Verge. Its also taking place during an extended fight over Facebooks role in political misinformation.

Zuckerberg has recently sparred with senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren over Facebooks decision to exempt politicians from fact-checking. Earlier this week, he also defended his choice to hold off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists and commentators, widely seen as an attempt to protect Facebook from the Trump administration.

The reference to major threats to free expression around the world, meanwhile, may involve the mainland Chinese governments crackdown on protests in Hong Kong which has put pressure on major tech and media companies to participate in censorship.

Read the rest here:

Mark Zuckerberg is delivering a free speech manifesto tomorrow - The Verge

The federal government has shown a growing interest in campus speech, taking steps to manage administrative and curricular aspects of the work campuses do. Those mounting efforts to regulate speech at colleges and universities are a threat to academic freedom, and it is time for higher education to push back.

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, filed a statement of interest last year, backing a lawsuit against the use of bias response team by the University of Michigan. The department agreed with the plaintiffs, Speech First, that the universitys rules probably inhibited free speech.

A federal appeals court also ruled last month that by operating a bias response team, the university might be undermining open expression. In a 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the powers of the bias response team -- an increasingly common tool used by colleges and universities to address concerns about prejudiced and harassing speech -- objectively chill speech.

In my work on campus free speech, I have raised concerned about bias response teams. Such teams are basically administrative committees that can respond to concerns about bias through voluntary discussions with the parties involved -- and referrals to others if they determine that the conduct in question was against the law or university policy. Administrators can use them to chill speech in ways that are unjustified, and thus create an environment on their campus thats not conducive to open inquiry and effective teaching. That can happen if students and professors constantly have to worry that they might be penalized for their words or ideas.

But the court overreaches in its conclusions, given that no evidence suggests that these voluntary processes are, in fact, chilling speech. The price to speech seems to be low or nonexistent, whereas the gain to the conversation on campuses can be significant, in that more students and faculty members will feel confident in participating and have a way to raise concerns when bias and prejudice limit such participation.

Even more concerning is the Justice Departments interest in the case. Colleges and universities must have the flexibility to deal with matters of conduct without the government looking over their shoulders.

To learn well, students must be exposed to a diverse array of perspectives, and they must do so over time and within a context that supports the expression of dissenting views. The protection of open expression is key to the work that colleges and universities do. So is the protection of a real opportunity for each member of the learning community to try out their views out loud, to consider different perspectives and to share and receive criticism.

Bias response teams can help in the maintenance of a constructive learning environment, depending on how they function. If they are open to students in raising concerns and are built to encourage and mediate a dialogue about those concerns rather than serve as a punitive mechanism, they can contribute to an open atmosphere of research and teaching. The needs of different campuses will be different in this regard, and we will surely make mistakes in the process of establishing them where we choose to do so. But, ultimately, they can serve an important purpose.

Meanwhile, in a similar vein as the Justice Departments filing, the U.S. Department of Education recently accused the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies of an alleged lack of balance in its programming, suggesting that it is treating Islam favorably compared to religious minority groups in the Middle East. The Education Department asserted that the conferences and activities the consortium hosts have failed to promote U.S. national security and economic stability -- key goals of TitleIV, which helps fund the program.

TitleIV programs are good contexts for learning about diverse perspectives, languages and cultures. The governments attempt to regulate the content so that it fits with an ideological vision represents a breach of the needed barrier between regulators and experts. That barrier has been breached before, of course, notably by legislators in Wisconsin and in other states that have looked into syllabi and criticized professors for the contents of their classes. (The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents last week also continued its regrettable and possibly unconstitutional march toward limiting student protest in the name of protecting free speech.)

Such regulatory intrusions by different arms of the federal government, along with recent legislation in various states that curtail student protests and forbid the expression of specific political views, should raise alarms in the higher education sector. Under the guise of protecting speech and defending viewpoint diversity, the government is promoting a political ideology -- an effort that people of all political stripes who are committed to academic freedom should reject. Colleges and universities are institutions where research and teaching take place, both of which, in different ways, are based on shared norms and practices that should not be subject to extensive regulatory tinkering.

Along with the Department of Justice renewal of the investigation against Rutgers University for discrimination against Jewish students, a pattern emerges: one that undermines the autonomy and authority of institutions of higher learning and replaces them with a bureaucratic effort to promote specific views.

Free speech, a necessary condition for learning and expanding knowledge, is hampered when politicians police colleges and universities. Of course, higher education institutions sometimes get things wrong -- including in the structure or language of policies related to bias response teams, or with specific programming or syllabus decisions. But even then, legislative limitations and threats to cut funding unless ideological obedience is ensured are the wrong way to go.

Read the original here:

The government is becoming too intrusive in regulating free speech on campuses (opinion) - Inside Higher Ed