Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin testifies during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Last week, a Los Angeles jury found not guilty the student activists arrested for heckling Mnuchin during a 2018 talk he gave at UCLA. (AP Photo / Carolyn Kaster)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

In February 2018, Tala Deloria and several other young people at the University of CaliforniaLos Angeles protested against Steve Mnuchin, Trumps very wealthy, more-or-less-openly corrupt Treasury secretary, who was due to speak on campus about the US economy.Ad Policy

Deloria, 24, and her fellow activists hadnt planned on going inside the auditoriumthey wanted to protest Mnuchin outside the event space with other activists. But there were seats available, and at the last minute, Deloria and a few others from the local chapter of Refuse Fascism (part of the Revolutionary Communist Party) decided to go in.

She sat in her seat quietly at first, but she couldnt take hearing Mnuchin talk anymore without being challenged. So Deloria began yelling at Mnuchin about the Trump administrations cutting of social programs and detaining of immigrants. UCLAs police force quickly moved in, picked Deloria up under her arms and legs, and dragged her away. Several others began shouting in her stead. They were arrested too, and brought to a holding room for several hours. UCLA banned the protesters from campus for seven days.

Deloria was surprised by the arrest, but thought it was all over after she was releaseduntil six months later, when Los Angeles prosecutors filed a host of charges against her and her fellow protesters, including trespassing, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace. Im pretty furious, Deloria said recently in an interview. Not only because of what happened to me, but because this is part of bludgeoning the right to protest and the right to speak out.

Last week, a Los Angeles jury found all defendants not guilty. But the fact that UCLA arrested the demonstrators and cooperated with prosecutors who pressed charges against themfor peacefully disrupting an event may foretell a grim future for campus politics. Theres no official tally, but this appears to be one of the first instances in which protesters on a college campus were charged for nonviolent, nonthreatening behavior that involved no property destruction or violence but only a simple heated exchange of words. Im angry because the university is at the helm of this, Deloria said. Its gonna affect me, but its also gonna put a chill on speech across the US.

Jerry Kang, UCLAs vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion, said that by arresting the protesters, the university was following its lengthy speech and protest policy document, which guarantees a right to speak and protest, but draws the line at disrupting a speaker.

We want serious critique and conversation, but we want persuasion and not coercion, Kang said in a recent interview. We make very clear that we understand and celebrate protest, we understand the need for people to state their case, its just when the protest becomes so disruptive that its essentially an act of force that silences the speaker from reaching a willing audience, that we cant permit that to happen.Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

Kang said that the school was not involved in recommending that charges be filed, but that he trusts the system that has the court decide what the appropriate punishment should be. There has to be accountability for your actions, he went on. Civil disobedience has a very rich and important tradition in our country. It helps break down laws that are truly unjust, and I want to recognize that we should celebrate civil disobedience, but civil disobedience has always had consequences.

Refuse Fascism members and their supporters, however, point out that UCLA did not simply remove the protesters from the Mnuchin event. It arrested them, cooperated with prosecutors, and granted Mnuchins request to suppress video of the event. The university also delayed the release of documents related to the event, and only after a year of cajoling from free speech groups and a lawsuit from the free speech advocacy group FIRE did UCLA acquiesce to the public records request.

Theyre saying, Look, folks, this is actually a case of free speech, because the free speech rights of Steve Mnuchin were violated, Deloria said. Theyre weaponizing the First Amendment in order to suppress speech.

Dan Kapelovitz, a lawyer for several of the UCLA protesters, said that the charges filed were extraordinarily rare. Usually, in actual disturbing-the-peace cases, like an annoying neighbor playing loud music, they dont file charges, he said. I think the police have it out for this group. Kapelovitz added that the police used excessive force in their arrest, refused to stop interrogating the protesters when they asked for a lawyer, and did not read them their Miranda rights.

If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nations work.

Though the charges against the protesters were ultimately fruitless, UCLAs tough stance against the demonstrators is part of a worrying trend on college campuses: In the name of free speech, colleges and universities, and the governments that fund them, have instituted anti-protest laws that call for the arrest and even expulsion of protesters if they disrupt a speaker.

Over the past three years, the conservative Goldwater Institute has been working to pass variations of model legislation that would prevent schools from disinviting speakers, require the establishment of disciplinary policies for disruptions, and require universities to pay court and legal fees for anyone who is disrupted on campus. The Goldwater Institute has close ties to ALEC, the think tank notorious for pushing through dozens of business-friendly, far-right bills at the local, state, and federal level.

At least 17 states have now passed legislation modeled on the Goldwater Institute bill. And perhaps more troubling is the fact that many colleges and universities are either remaining silent on the new policies or actively instituting them without being asked to by their state governments.

In Wisconsin, for example, where the bill stalled in the state Senate, the University of Wisconsin board of regents nonetheless approved its own Goldwateresque policies that mandate that students who disrupt speakers twice be suspended and those who disrupt three times be expelled. The US House and Senate have also introduced similar bills, which would apply to all public universities and colleges.

The model legislationits a disingenuous use of the term free speech, Risa Lieberwitz, general counsel at the American Association of University Professors, said. Theres a very distinct, very conservative agenda. The problem with the laws, Lieberwitz explained, is that they skew the determination of whose right to express themselves matters: The mission of the university is a public mission, and part of that mission is to protect free speech and the right of students and faculty to engage in vigorous and heated debate. That might be very loud, and some might view it as disruptive, but just because of that, doesnt mean the student should be silenced.

In other words, the laws protect mostly conservative speakers invited to campus without considering the rights of those who protest the speakers.

The laws amount to a conservative-backed bait-and-switchusing the universalist language of the First Amendment to push a one-sided agenda, and limit backlash to that agenda. Its becoming a tried-and-true tactic for the far right. In March, President Trump signed an executive order called Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities that encouraged his administration to cut off funding for any institute of higher learning that doesnt create a safe space for campus speakers. Only a few months later, the administration ordered the University of North Carolina and Duke University to change the content of their courses on Middle East studies to include more positive teachings on Judaism and Christianity, or else risk losing funding from the federal government.

Over the past several years, the nonprofit UnKoch My Campus has collected thousands of pages of documents that show the true intent of these laws and policies prohibiting dissent: they are not meant to increase free speech, but are instead part of a larger strategy to turn higher education into a conservative thought and policy factory. The Koch family now funds programs, professorships, and student groups at over 300 colleges and universities, and many of the free speech organizations, that push for restrictive protest policies.

It remains to be seen how many colleges and universities go along with this conservative agenda. So far, there has been little resistance from administrations over the laws. Given that fact, and also that ostensibly liberal institutions like UCLA have begun to punish student protesters, its likely that restrictive speech codes that lead to disciplinary actions, expulsions, and arrests will become more common across the United States.

Get unlimited digital access to the best independent news and analysis.

The whole free speech movement is tied to billionaires efforts to teach theories that favor their conservative views and their economic model, Jasmine Banks, the executive director of UnKoch My Campus, said. They want to make sure that theres no dissent to their ideas.

Editors note: This article has been corrected to show that prosecutors, not UCLA, pressed charges against the students, and that the FIRE lawsuit was over various public records but not the video of the event itself.

View post:

Colleges Are Spreading Trump's Disingenuous Notion of 'Free Speech' - The Nation

The speech wars are resuming on campus with the new semester. But in the opinion columns, conference panels, and state houses debating the state of free expression on campus, they never abated.

The positions are well staked out. Activists point to the videos of invited speakers shouted down by students who object to what they will say. Skeptics retort that free speech is no more imperiled on college campuses than elsewhere. But this seemingly unending debate misses the point.

Free expression on campus matters not because there is a unique speech crisis on campus, but because universities are uniquely positioned to address broader societal crises. The question isnt whether universities have a problem but how theyre uniquely positioned to solve ours.

There are over 5,000 colleges in the United States, and they arent all the same. But together, they are a critical part of the solution for our growing tribalism and intolerance of other points of view.

More than two-thirds of Americans attend college, and more than 1 in 3 will receive a bachelors degree. As a result, college graduates will disproportionately hold positions of influence in our government and culture. These campuses are where the next generation of teachers, judges, cultural influencers, and community leaders are educated. And college is also the first significant opportunity for many students to experience truly diverse ideas and find ways to resolve differences.

Universities are unique in their mission, their impact and in the centrality of free expression to that end. As a sign prominently displayed over an academic building at my alma mater, the University of Virginia, proclaims: For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it. Even assuming we know the truth from an error, allowing error to challenge truth helps to guarantee that the ideas we hold true are not accepted as mere dogma. Truth has nothing to fear. It can only be sharpened by conflict.

So civil liberty advocates are not wrong when they raise concerns about the roughly 90% of universities with speech zones, speech codes, and other formal written policies that, however well-meaning their intent, violate the First Amendment. Not only do these policies require taxpayer expense to defend when enforced, but they signal to students that the state can tell you when and where you can speak and what you can say. If 91% of municipalities suddenly enacted written policies unconstitutionally limiting free expression, it seems doubtful there would be much debate about whether this constitutes a crisis in need of resolving.

But skeptics are also correct to note that the focus on a crisis of campus free speech obscures the fact that university students may be no more supportive of censorship than the general population. Almost 30% of adults say that the First Amendment goes too far in its protections, 25% would give the president power to shutter news media engaged in bad behavior, and 50% of adults say that universities should disinvite speakers who will offend some part of a campus population.

So is the crisis really limited to the campus? Hardly.

The necessity of promoting free expression, and eliminating unconstitutional barriers to it on campus, need not be premised on a demonstrated campus crisis. This framing lowers expectations for what our universities should be, grading free speech on campus on a curve with the rest of our society. Yet, free expression is critical to the achievement of the universitys own mission and universities are not just part of our national culture, they graduate the leaders who shape it.

By eliminating speech zones, speech codes, and similar restrictive policies, universities demonstrate that other students and their ideas are not a threat to be managed but an opportunity for growth to be embraced. Supporting debate and other programs that allow students to engage with and even empathize with others with different views is a critical step in ending the tribalism infecting our society.

These ideas are not new, especially to free-speech advocates. But they should pursue these goals not with the aim of simply protecting the rights of combatants in a speech war, but because they enable universities and their graduates better leaders for our future.

Its time we stop focusing on universities as the problem and start treating them as the needed solution.

Casey Mattox is a senior fellow of free speech and toleration at the Charles Koch Institute.

Read the original here:

We're asking the wrong question about the campus free speech 'crisis' - Washington Examiner

The U.S. Constitution is easily one of the most important legal documents ever written, governing the most powerful nation in the history of the world. No laws or regulations can ever trump this document. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are supposed to protect citizens rights from government tyranny.

Or does it?

The First Amendment does not protect a citizens free speech if what they say or write qualifies as blackmail, defamation, libel, slander or obscenity. That begs the question: Why are citizens, specifically students, being punished and censored for speaking their minds on various matters when they fall under none of these categories?

In 2011, the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange denied a group of student protesters an open records request. They asked for things such as donor records and information about their training programs.

Instead of giving them the information, former state Attorney General Sam Olens suggested to WSB-TV that these students request could aid terrorists, an absurd notion that all but silenced student voices regarding the organization until earlier this year.

It got to the point that this same state attorney general even pushed for an amendment to the Georgia Open Records Act, which made it harder for people to access the information they need and made it easier for government agencies and public institutions to reject requests. This has only added to the confusion over the freeness of free speech and the governments role in regulating it.

Indeed, an aura of confusion over free speech leads to much confusion between people. This could be based on ethics, morals or religion. There are people who take advantage of their right to free speech to incite violence and encourage hate, and these are the people who create concern.

For example: the extremist Christians who stand in the designated free speech zones at Georgia State and tell students who pass by that theyre going to hell for their religious background or sexual orientation encourage hate that could lead to violence.

Its understandable that theres some concern surrounding what people are saying and how others will react. But, it is completely baffling that there is an amendment to the Constitution, presumably the highest law in the land, that guarantees free speech for all. For many, their speech is anything but free.

All across the world, we see students, racial and ethnic minorities and political dissidents fighting for what they believe in getting unlawfully silenced by their own governments, many of which have provisions similar to the First Amendment in their own constitutions. It is one of the most basic human rights to be able to speak our minds. Of course, there are negotiated limits, but when what people say is within certain allowed parameters and people still get shut down, that is when things start to become a problem.

Silencing people who speak out against others is nothing new, but that has never mean its right, not then and certainly not now. Being able to express ourselves in every way possible should not be stifled by someones feelings.

Read more here:

How free is free speech? - The Signal

Have you heard about the crisis on Britains university campuses? Free speech is under assault it seems, with students no-platforming guest speakers because they hurt their feelings. Political correctness is absolutely roiling higher education. Students are vandalising curriculums, forcing their teachers to replace white authors with those of colour, demanding trigger warnings ahead of classes on classic works of literature, and calling for safe spaces to be set up to exclude others for no reason other than their racial background or sexuality. You cant even clap at events any more because student unions think its overwhelming for those with PTSD. The solution? Jazz hands, apparently.

It is likely that some of this is already familiar to you, if not in the detail then in the mood music. There is now a mini-industry within the media, often backed up by unquestioning politicians, based on the idea that Britains universities are going to the dogs. But let me tell you about another crisis that you probably havent heard of. In 2018, it was reported that the number of racist incidents in universities across the UK had surged by more than 60% in the two years preceding. A freedom of information request by the Independent showed a similar rise in the number of religiously motivated hate crimes at universities. Antisemitic or Islamophobic incidents were reported in 26 UK universities. The situation became so dire that the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a public body in England and Wales that promotes and enforces equality and non-discrimination laws in the UK, launched an official inquiry into what seemed to be an epidemic of racism. A Warwick University student discovered racial slurs written on bananas he had stored in a shared kitchen. In 2018, two 18-year-old men were arrested after a Nottingham Trent University student posted video footage of racist chants, including we hate the blacks, outside her bedroom door in her student halls.

In July this year, another freedom of information investigation by the Guardian revealed not only widespread evidence of discrimination in higher education but, according to interviewees, an absolute resistance to facing the scale of racism in British universities. Last week, senior staff at Goldsmiths, University of London, supposedly the wokest of Britains colleges, said that its record of addressing racism was unacceptable after a report found that black and minority ethnic students felt victimised and unsafe.

This disconnect between reality and the myths is not a matter of sloppiness or poor reporting, it is ideological

Incidents tend to receive public attention only when they are circulated on social media. Ayo Olatunji, the black and minority ethnic students officer for University College London, told the Guardian in 2018: We would hear about a case [every] day in the media if everything that happened went online. Instead, we hear about other things.

What has cut through is not the widespread racism and the institutional failure to deal with it, but the PC crisis, evidence of which is sometimes simply made up. In 2017, students wrote an open letter to the faculty of English at Cambridge University requesting that non-white authors be added to the curriculum. Four months later, following precisely zero complaints from fellow students or members of the faculty, the Daily Telegraph published a black female students picture on its front page with the headline Student forces Cambridge to drop white authors. This was not true. Not only had Cambridge not dropped any white authors, the open letter did not make any such request in the first place, nor was the featured student the sole signatory. A day after the story ran, the paper issued a correction on page two.

Between 2015 and 2018, the libertarian website Spiked published Free Speech Rankings of universities, which supposedly showed the extent to which censorship is rife on campuses. But writing in Times Higher Education, the University of Surreys Carl Thompson called the rankings misleading, ill-informed and worryingly influential. He found that about 85% to 90% of Spikeds evidence each year amounts merely to human resources policies and codes of conduct, of a sort now standard in most large organisations and often required by law. That did not stop the Spiked research being widely quoted.

This disconnect between reality and the myths circulating about Britains universities is not a matter of sloppiness or poor reporting, it is ideological. University campuses have always made the establishment nervous, with student bodies easily able to organise around progressive causes. The targeting of these spaces is an old weapon in the culture wars, one that aims to discredit and discourage challenges to the status quo from the left, and from marginalised groups whose entry into the mainstream happens via higher education.

But students have somehow been vandalising academic freedom since at least the 1960s without bringing about a political coup run by ethnic minorities and queer people. The reality is that universities in the UK remain deeply conservative organisations that not only do not coddle students minds, but also fail to protect them against the most basic violations. So I ask you again, have you heard about the real crisis on British campuses?

Nesrine Malik is a Guardian columnist

Original post:

There is a crisis on campuses but its about racism, not free speech - The Guardian

CNNs Christina Macfarlane was cut off at a Japan press conference after an exhibition game between the Houston Rockets and Toronto Raptors. The Rockets have been at the center of a dispute that started when one of its executives, general manager Daryl Morey, tweeted support for the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Macfarlane attempted to ask Rockets stars James Harden and Russell Westbrook whether they would feel comfortable speaking out on political and social issues in the future after the uproar from China in reaction to Morey and the events of this week. The unidentified Rockets media relations person stopped them from answering even though Harden appeared ready to respond saying that basketball questions only were the only permissible path.

The incident was yet another stain on the leagues effort to find a balance between placating China and avoiding further outraging those who feel the league has been somewhat mealy-mouthed in its defense of free speech. Tim Frank, an NBA senior VP, later called CNNs Macfarlane to apologize, according to several reports. You can bet the question will be asked again, if not by CNN, then by others.

Despite its attempts to squelch uncomfortable questions on China, the NBA and its Chinese partners face an uphill battle to mend fences on multiple fronts. So far, NBA merchandise has been stripped from Chinese stores, banners touting NBA exhibitions have been taken down, plans to televise and stream games have been halted, and advertising and sponsorships placed on hold. Chinas social media has also voiced its outrage at perceived interference in its domestic problems.

Reports indicate China currently contributes 10% of the NBAs revenue, and represents (or represented) a growing and coveted market. Now, thats in limbo.

The Los Angeles Lakers and Brooklyn Nets (owned by Hong Kong resident and Alibaba founder Joe Tsai) played a game Thursday in Shanghai. But the only people who saw it were ticket-holders, and outside the arena, protesters denounced the NBA. Things were so bad that former Houston Rockets star and Hall of Famer Yao Ming, who helped the NBA build a bridge to China and stoked his countrys enthusiasm for the game, skipped an appearance. Ming is the president of the Chinese Basketball Association and a key to ongoing partnerships.

In the US, NBA Commissioner Adam Silvers lukewarm defense of free speech has won him little support. No less than President Trump noted that the league, which has shunned the White House and been outspoken in its opposition to many aspects of his administration, had no problem previously speaking up. He particularly targeted Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr, who refused to answer a question on China.

He couldnt answer the question he was shaking, Oh, oh, oh, I dont know. I dont know,' Trump said. He didnt know how to answer the question, and yet hell talk about the United States very badly. Trump also had words for San Antonio coach Gregg Popovich.I watched Popovich sort of the same thing, but he didnt look quite as scared actually, Trump said. But they talk badly about the United States, but when it talks about China, they dont want to say anything bad. I thought it was pretty sad, actually. Itll be very interesting.

Now, the question centers on how the league can move forward. Prominent game ambassadors like LeBron James, who makes annual trips to China, have yet to make a statement. Will they continue to remain silent? And how will they respond to charges of hypocrisy if they speak out on US domestic problems, but refuse to address China and its human rights issues?

Other businesses beyond the NBA will also be affected. Television and streaming deals, sneaker and apparel sales, transportation companies and marketing/advertising programs will all take an economic hit if the free speech issues continue to simmer.

Its only the first quarter of this particular game, and theres a long season to come. Hollywood already deals with Chinas sensitivities in marketing its products. The NBA will provide yet another test case of how to navigate a global community filled with differing opinions. So far, its shots arent falling.

See original here:

NBA Struggles To Find The Balance Between Free Speech And Chinas Sensitivities - Deadline

You might have thought I was going after China, which is using its economic might to punish the National Basketball Association, just because the general manager of the Houston Rockets tweeted support of anti-government protesters in Hong Kong. Remember that Twitter is banned in China, so hardly anyone there ever saw the message. This wasnt about stifling domestic protests, but silencing criticism everywhere else in the world.

While the NBA belatedly stood behind the free-speech rights of its personnel, some of its fans who attended an exhibition game of a Chinese team in Philadelphia this week said they were ejected for showing solidarity with the Hong Kong protesters. Meanwhile, even mighty Apple has been cowed; it pulled an app from its online store at Chinas behest that pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong used to track the movements of police. And Google has stopped distributing a game for Android phones that let users pretend to be a protester in Hong Kong.

The news from Europe isnt nearly as bad as the bullying from Beijing. But precisely because its a matter of law rather than a dictators whim, the Case of the Irritated Austrian may pose a worrisome threat to online freedom for years to come.

The ruling arose out of an incident in 2016, when someone on Facebook wrote that Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek, head of the Austrian Green Party, was a lousy traitor and a corrupt bumpkin who belonged to a fascist party. That kind of babble happens in the United States every day and barely merits a shrug, or maybe just a holla-back Im no traitor! Youre a traitor! But in Austria, such words may be sanctioned as illegal defamation.

Glawischnig-Piesczek sued in an Austrian court and won an order that Facebook must take down the offending words. But the court wasnt content with riding herd on the reading habits of people in Austria. It held that Facebook had to take the message down around the world, so that absolutely nobody could read it.

Id thought the United States had dodged this particular bullet. In 2014, the European Unions highest court declared that citizens of the EU had the right to demand that search services like Google must take down embarrassing information about them if it was no longer relevant being fired from a job 20 years earlier, for instance. Google grudgingly complied. Since then, its received nearly 846,000 takedown requests from Europeans and removed 1.3 million web pages. But since the law applied to the EU, Google didnt delist the pages elsewhere in the world.

In 2016, France fined Google for refusing to delete the disputed information beyond the EU. After all, someone in France could still access that information, simply by going to the American version at Google.com instead of the French edition at Google.fr. But in September, the EUs supreme court disagreed, ruling that Europes right to be forgotten can be enforced only against Googles European sites.

Case closed? Not so fast.

On Oct. 3, the same court, ruling in the Glawischnig-Piesczek case, said that if the message in question is defamatory, the ban can be enforced worldwide. Facebook has to delete the disputed insults against her from its entire network, or it could face sanctions in the European Union, where the company generated about $14 billion in revenue last year. Worse yet, the court ruled that Facebook must also take down equivalent content in other words, posts that say essentially the same thing.

Now, how to enforce such a ruling? Automate the process, the EU court says. Surely Facebooks computers can ferret out every instance of the insults in question. That might work for exact copies of the original post. But Facebook must also ban messages that say roughly the same thing. But what if the words are used in a message that supports Glawischnig-Piesczek, or a news story that merely describes the affair?

Facebook must sort it all out on a global scale, every time an EU court demands a new takedown. That will never work. Either insults will seep through, or the filters will be so strict that even modest criticisms are barred, and free speech is smothered.

Its unlikely this ruling will lead to a torrent of censorship requests, as unhappy Europeans will have to first win a defamation case. And while the EU nations may impose more limits on free speech than the US, they at least recognize the principle.

But social networks might face similar demands from less liberal countries. China doesnt have to since it already bans Facebook, Google, and Twitter. But these companies are in other countries with other nasty regimes. Imagine Russia calling for worldwide takedowns of Facebook messages that defame Vladimir Putin, if such a thing is possible. Now he can use the EU court ruling to give any such demands a veneer of legality.

A few years back, I wrote about the need for an international treaty to set standards on Internet content regulation. We Americans already have the perfect template the First Amendment but most of the world isnt nearly as open-minded. So well have to compromise. And heres where to start: Lets tell the Europeans that well recognize their right to be forgotten law and its nitpicky definition of defamation, but only until we hit the Atlantic Coast. On this side of the water, lets play by our rules.

But the US cant hash out such a deal with China because Beijing wont bend on the issue of censorship. So theres only one question: Will we?

In effect, Americas corporations, desperate for Chinese cash, are negotiating with themselves. And so far, free speech is losing.

Hiawatha Bray can be reached at hiawatha.bray@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeTechLab.

View post:

China isnt the only country trying to stifle our free speech - The Boston Globe

Fox News Headlines 24/7 anchor Brett Larson reports on Fortnite disappearing into a black hole as the games season ends.

Political speech is now something that can be wagered on, at least when it comes to The League of Legends World Championship. One wagering firm is taking bets on if political statements will be made at the upcoming championships in Berlin.

This weekends The League of Legends World Championship could be the next battlefront for the democratic movement in Hong Kong. Last week, Ng Wai Chung, who is known by his gaming handle of Blitzchung,had been banned and stripped of his earnings after an interview on the Asia-Pacific Grandmasters broadcast of Hearthstone. In the interview, Blitzchung made a pro-democratic statement and was summarily stripped of his winnings, and was banned because ofhis statement by the game's owner, which is partially owned by Tencent, a Chinese media company..

Now, political speech inspired by Blitzchung is open to bets. SportsBetting.ag is offering three wagering lines on the topic for this weekends championship:

The case at the center of the betting odds continues to draw more attention to the protests in Hong Kong.

Blitzchung wore a gas mask while conducting the interview,a nod to the protesters in Hong Kong. At the end of the interview shouted "Liberate Hong Kong! The revolution of our times!"

This was deemed by Activision Blizzard to be against the games code of conduct, the games owner and operator. Blitzchung was stripped of his winnings and banned for the statement. Days later, Activision Blizzard caved to pressure and re-instated the winnings while cutting the suspension to six months.

Blitzchung responded to his commuted punishment by posting his appreciation on social media channels, but he has left the question of his future participation in the esports community open.

"Honestly, I have no idea on that yet," Blitzchung wrote about if he will compete again. "Since my next tournament is very likely to be the grandmaster tournament of next season, it's probably at least a few months from now on. I will take this time to relax myself to decide if I am staying in competitive hearthstone scene or not."

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

See the rest here:

Betting on free speech at the The League of Legends World Championship - Fox Business

The latest skirmishes in the bruising trade war between the U.S. and China have led to the unlikely politicization of the NBA. But how did the views of a basketball executive become such a political football? And what does Chinas ideological commitment to censorship say about the value of free speech and of free speech money, as bitcoin is sometimes known?

Also read: Berlusconi Admins Disappear Darknet Users Rush to Find Alternatives

The Communist Partys gangsterish demands on private companies is nothing new, but the recent decision by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey to tweet support for pro-democracy protestors amid bedlam in Hong Kong quickly exposed just how fragile the notion of free speech really is. In the face of opprobrium from Beijing, Moreys climbdown, augmented by groveling input from Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta and NBA spokesman Mike Bass, was pitiful to behold. But it hinted at the wider problem of gutlessness among companies that have provoked the ire of the Chinese government.

A curated list of companies that have kowtowed to Chinese censorship requests, maintained on Github, is damning. As well as the NBA, the roll of shame includes Apple, Marriott, Nike, ESPN, several of the worlds largest airlines like British Airways, Qantas and American Airlines, and Versace. With trade talks between the US and China underway in Washington, the specter of censorship, while not on the agenda, will loom large over proceedings.

Both nations have a lot to answer for as far as free speech, privacy, money and other basic human rights are concerned. Chinas persistent assault on freedom seems more flagrant, but the U.S. and, for that matter, other western nations hardly cover themselves in glory. Attorney General William Barr recently squeezed major tech companies to provide government agencies with backdoor entry points for encrypted devices and software. It remains perfectly legal for citizens throughout the world to be fired by their employer or interrogated by customs for something theyve said on social media even when it occurred years ago.

Edward Snowdens expos of rampant state surveillance shows that when it comes to assembling a digital panopticon thats always watching, the Americans are even more ruthless than the Chinese. At least in China you can see the cameras observing you; theres no such courtesy when the U.S. agencies activate your webcam and start recording.

Speaking of surveillance and its insidious incursion into peoples lives, the Washington Post just reported that more than 400 police departments across the U.S. have entered into surveillance partnerships with Amazons camera-enabled doorbell company, Ring. Its yet another way in which the government is utilizing tech, while co-opting big business to bear down upon civil rights and liberties.

In the modern world, digital freedom is everything. The bulk of our lives now unfold online: our conversations, our financial transactions, our very identities. What we are witnessing, increasingly, is free speech being smothered via the deplatforming of certain voices and an attempt by governments to introduce regulatory oversight on financial transactions which goes beyond ensuring proper taxation, but under the guise of crime prevention impinges upon privacy at a fundamental level. When governments seek to blunt-force encrypted devices and software, it requires a stupefying level of naivety to assume that their motivation is cracking down on kiddie porn.

Value and dignity exist in an internet where speech, financial autonomy and other basic rights are not controlled by government agencies or international conglomerates. Where our private data is not commoditized and sold to the highest bidder, and where we have the right to lives that are not the object of constant and unforgiving scrutiny.

Avoiding inference from third parties in the form of censure (deplatforming) and restriction of speech are basic desires shared by all digital citizens. This is why, when the topic of censorship and governmental overreach rears its head, Bitcoin isnt far behind. Being able to process payments on the internet without permission or risk of confiscation is a privilege that provokes a desire to exercise the same level of freedom in other realms. To harness fully open source, secure and private systems of expression that are immune to the tentacles of power.

If the convergence of state and corporate interests continues unchecked, we are all imperilled; Chinese, American, or otherwise. Seized bank accounts, stolen information, frozen assets and ever greater attempts to stifle free speech and freedom of association will become the norm, and not just for those existing on the fringes, but for the masses. Is it any wonder that protestors harness technology to combat the might of the state? Tools such as PGP, Bitcoin, and decentralized networks allow individuals to conduct their affairs without permission from any bank, corporation or government.

While the summit in Washington is focused on matters such as trade imbalances and intellectual property violations, at an individual level we have bigger questions to ask of ourselves. Are we prepared to endure online censorship and a veritable onslaught on our civil liberties? Or are we willing to fight for an internet that does not function as an arm of the state but as an open platform for the free exchange of ideas and value? A censorship-resistant internet benefits everyone. It also benefits Bitcoin, for where theres free speech, theres demand for free speech money.

Do you think free speech and financial sovereignty as provided by Bitcoin are interlinked? Let us know in the comments section below.

Op-ed disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors own. Bitcoin.com is not responsible for or liable for any content, accuracy or quality within the Op-ed article. Readers should do their own due diligence before taking any actions related to the content. Bitcoin.com is not responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any information in this Op-ed article.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can verify any unconfirmed Bitcoin transaction with our Bitcoin Block Explorer tool? Simply complete a Bitcoin address search to view it on the blockchain. Plus, visit our Bitcoin Charts to see whats happening in the industry.

Kai's been manipulating words for a living since 2009 and bought his first bitcoin at $12. It's long gone. He's previously written whitepapers for blockchain startups and is especially interested in P2P exchanges and DNMs.

More:

Bitcoin Is a Weapon for Free Speech in the Face of Government and Corporate Censorship - Bitcoin News

HAMBURG, Germany Germany doesnt have a problem with free speech. It has two or rather, it is caught between two very different conceptions of free speech, each of which has significant shortcomings and each of which is rooted in our inability to close the chasm that remains between eastern and western Germany, 30 years after reunification.

Simply put, the division pits one part of the country that believes freedom of speech is on the decline against another that believes freedom of speech is going way too far. These arent just different concepts, rooted in two different formative national experiences the Nazi era and the East German Communist regime. They are also at fundamental odds with each other, meaning that the day in, day out debate over what counts as acceptable speech is driving Germans further apart.

Lets start with the Germans who believe that freedom of speech is endangered. Concentrated in eastern Germany, many of them experienced communism and its better say nothing atmosphere firsthand, only to be freed with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

For many eastern Germans, the revolution of 1989 held the promise that in a free country you would be able to utter any opinion, without suffering consequences. Instead, they complain, when they express conservative views on hot topics like immigration or multiculturalism, they are quickly labeled Nazis.

We know what it feels like to live in a society where certain opinions are unacceptable, they say, and increasingly, were feeling that same pressure.

The second group, rooted in western Germany, has a different concern, and a different historical reference point. They believe they see social norms around tolerance and diversity eroding, and fear a replay of the 1930s.

From 1933 onward, the incremental acceptance of hatred, racism and dehumanization paved the way to the Holocaust. This group, which includes high-profile journalists and celebrities, believes that hatred should not be covered by the freedom of speech. That in itself is not a new view in Germany, but recently those who hold it have ceased to draw a distinction between the broad political right and right-wing extremism.

To them, rechts right-wing has become the new collective term for an immensely broad range of people, from conservative critics of Chancellor Angela Merkel to neo-Nazis. We have learned our lesson, this group says, and we will never again allow intolerance and inhumanity to enter legitimate discourse.

Both groups command support from broad sections of German society. And both fundamentally misunderstand what free speech means.

The promise of 1989, to start with, never included a guarantee that speech came without consequences. In fact, most opinions have and will always have a social price. Freedom of speech never meant freedom from ridicule. Part of the messy necessity of democratic civil society is sorting out good ideas from bad ones. Plus, in Communist East Germany, people who criticized the government were often tortured by the Stasi. We are far from this danger today.

What the other side gets wrong is that brute, malign and even hateful speech is, in fact, broadly covered by freedom of speech. Freedom of opinion includes the right to utter opinions against freedom.

The German constitutional court ruled in 2009 that even the dissemination of National Socialist ideas as a radical challenge to the existing order is principally covered by the right of the freedom speech. Why? Because theres no better way to fight nonsense than a good counter argument.

Increasingly lost on the German left is exactly this confidence: that the freewheeling fight of opinions is the best insurance against a victory of inhumane ideologues. In Nazi Germany, this clash of ideas did not exist. Dissidents were shut in concentration camps or killed. We are far from this danger today as well.

The real danger Germany faces today is neither a creeping leftist regime nor a nascent far-right dictatorship. Rather, it is the irrational insinuation that people who hold views different from your own are themselves illegitimate. This suspicion leads to tribalism, and tribalism is what drives societies apart.

What protects us against this drift? A good start might be the realization that complaining about the others who allegedly impair ones freedom of speech is often an excuse for ones own lack of courage to speak out. Right after World War II, the German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, had a good piece of advice for citizens who feared others anger: Its only after having made yourself unpopular that you will be taken seriously.

In the age of Twitter, it is extremely easy to make yourself extremely unpopular. It is also easy as never before to gain a voice. Thats the new deal.

Jochen Bittner is a co-head of the debate section for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:

Is There Freedom of Speech in Germany? - The New York Times

In a significant victory for free speech rights, the European Unions highest court ruled that the EUs Right to Be Forgotten does not require Google to delist search results globally, thus keeping the results available to be seen by users around the world.

The EU standard, established in 2014, lets individuals in member states demand that search engines not show search results containing old information about them when their privacy rights outweigh the publics interest in having continued access to the information. The question before the court was whether Google had to remove the results from all Google search platforms, including Google.com, or just the ones identified with either the individuals state of residence, in this case Google.fr, or ones identified with the EU as a whole.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) decided that the Right to Be Forgotten does not require such global delisting. Thus, by delisting search results from Google.fr and from any search performed through an IP address identified as being located in France, Google was in compliance with the Right to be Forgotten. Frances data protection authority, the Commission Nationale de lInformatique et des Liberties (CNIL), had argued that the Right to be Forgotten required Google to delist search results from all of its sites, since they were all available to users in France.

EFF joined Article 19 and other global free speech groups in urging the Court of Justice to reach this decision and overturn a ruling by CNIL. As the brief explained, a global delisting order would conflict with the rights of users in other nations, including U.S. users protected by First Amendment. U.S. courts have consistently held that the First Amendments protections for expression, petition, and assembly necessarily also protect the rights of individuals to gather information to fuel those expressions, petitions, and assemblies.

As we explained in the brief:

"In the United States, a right to de-reference publicly available information on data protection grounds would be unconstitutional: the First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of people to publish information on matters of public interest that they acquire legally, even in the face of significant interests relating to the private life of those involved (Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. 443 US 97 (1979)). This reasoning extends to those situations where there is a significant governmental interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information in question (Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. Distr. Court 430 US 308 (1977), where the information concerns judicial procedures (Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia 435 US 829 (1978) and even where the publisher of the information knows that her or his source obtained the information illegally (Bartnicki v. Vopper 532 US 514 (2001). The First Amendment also guarantees the right to receive information, including by means of a search engine (see e.g. Langdon v. Google 474 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Del. 2007)). . . . The incompatibility of broad de-referencing obligations with US law is especially relevant in the present case given that all major search providers are established in the US"

The CJEU agreed. It found that numerous third States do not recognise the right to de-referencing or have a different approach to that right. . . . Furthermore, the balance between the right to privacy and the pf personal data, on the one hand, and the freedom of information of internet users, on the other, is likely to vary significantly around the world. Thus, there is no obligation under EU law, for a search engine operator . . . to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine. . . . [and] a search engine operator cannot be required . . . to carry out a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine.

The CJEU also found that EU state data protection regulators could only order de-listing in domains associated with other EU member states after conferring with their counterparts from other states. The purpose is to ensure that such an order would be consistent with any other states implementation of the Right to be Forgotten.

In a passage that has left commentators scratching their heads, the court emphasized that even though the Right to be Forgotten does not currently require delisting from all versions of Googles search engine, EU law does not prohibit such a practice. The court said an authority in an EU member state may balance an individuals right to privacy and the freedom of information and, where appropriate, order the operator of a search engine to delist search results from all of its versions.

It is unclear how to square this with the courts statement that a search engine operator cannot be required . . . to carry out a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine. Some commentators have suggested that the EU could rewrite the Right to Be Forgotten directives to permit global delisting. Another interpretation is that the court was preserving the ability of individual state authorities to order global delisting as a remedy in extraordinary cases. And yet another interpretation is that the court was simply allowing for the possibility of global delisting orders for violations of other laws, but not the Right to Be Forgotten. So this is unlikely to be the last time the CJEU takes up the issue of global delisting; indeed, another case, presenting a similar issue in the context of a defamation claim, is expected to be decided soon.

The ability of one nation to require a search engine to delist results globally would prevent users around the world from accessing information they have a legal right to receive under their own countrys laws. That would allow the most speech-restrictive laws to be applied globally. The CJEU decision rightly rejected that scenario.

Here is the original post:

European Court's Decision in Right To Be Forgotten Case is a Win for Free Speech - EFF

Free speech is under attack by the Big Tech monopolies that dominate the internet. The flogging that Beto ORourke received during his Reddit ask me anything session this month perfectly underscored the distinction between a mainstream media and a genuinely free press. ORourke gave Americans a chance to grill him about his pivot from a centrist Senate candidate to a radical presidential hopeful, and in contrast to the handling he has gotten from the media, they treated him like hamburger meat.

No surprise there. The expression of free speech can be edgy, brutal, irreverent, and sometimes downright offensive. I should know. My father and I have been subjected to some of the most withering attacks and false claims in politics. Participating in democracy, however, is as American as apple pie. There is no substitute for open, honest, unrestricted dialogue and criticism when it comes to holding our leaders accountable.

For all the platitudes offered by liberal journalists about the free press standing as a cornerstone of democracy, they do not actually have a very good grasp of the concept. The free press that the founders envisioned looked a lot more like the Reddit users who roasted ORourke than New York Times writers who misrepresent basic tenets of free speech and demand censorship to protect their friends from online harassment.

In the 18th century, English newspaper editor John Wilkes anonymously published a satirical pamphlet savagely blasting the British prime minister. Wilkes was thrown in jail for writing it, but our founders, whom Wilkes firmly supported, wound up basing their concept of a free press on his example. Common Sense by Thomas Paine, the most important pamphlet championing the patriot cause, was also published anonymously, as were the Federalist Papers that informed the writing of the Constitution.

As I have written many times, the greatest threat to free speech and our democracy today is not the government, but the technology giants that deplatform people at the behest of liberals and then justify the action as combating hate and making the internet somehow safer. I was reminded of this reality when Instagram once again stifled my voice, as well as that of my father, by preventing our accounts from appearing in search results. As with every time this happens, Instagram simply blamed an error.

If social media can do that to the president, then no one is safe. I do not believe that such an error could possibly account for the extent to which conservatives are silenced by Big Tech. The sustained pattern of leftward bias both within the companies themselves and in their conduct around elections has been clearly established. After all, when is the last time you heard a liberal complain about being unfairly stifled on social media?

Technology companies are now openly claiming that they can engage in biased censorship, with Facebook arguing in court that it has the right to censor content because it is a publisher. If it were not for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the admission that it is a publisher would make Facebook liable for every word of defamation and slander on its various platforms. Instead, Facebook escapes liability because it is a provider of interactive computer services protected specifically because it offers a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.

Which sounds more like free speech to you? Google, Facebook, and Twitter wielding their unchecked power to silence conservative voices while avoiding the obligations imposed on normal publishers? Or citizens and political candidates freely expressing their opinions online without fear of suppression? The disdain shown by technology companies for viewpoint neutrality and their refusal to be honest about it shows the threat of the Silicon Valley monopoly over the modern public square.

Thanks in large part to the White House, people are recognizing the gravity of the situation. A majority of Americans support breaking up the technology giants, including a majority of liberals, while 50 state and territory attorneys general have brought the first antitrust investigation of its kind against Google. This comes in addition to antitrust investigations into Google, Facebook, and Amazon that have already been announced by both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

For years, state and local governments allowed Silicon Valley to amass monopoly power over activities that affect significant areas of our lives. In return, the technology companies allowed liberal activists to dominate their corporate culture and abuse their power to restrict free speech. If Big Tech keeps kowtowing to this, it might very well soon regret it.

Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpKamala Harris calls for Twitter to suspend Trump account over whistleblower attacks Clinton jokes she 'never' had to tell Obama not to 'extort foreign countries' John Dean: 'There is enough evidence' to impeach Trump MORE Jr. is executive vice president at the Trump Organization.

See the original post here:

Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech | TheHill - The Hill

You probably have heard about Senate Bill 18 by now, a law passed by the 86th Texas Legislature allowing anyone to speak on designated public spaces on campus. Before SB 18, organizations unaffiliated with the university could come onto campus, but they had to be invited by a campus organization or affiliate beforehand. Now, any party, excluding those engaging in commercial solicitation, can come onto campus with no prior permission necessary.

This law isnt exactly revolutionary, as it will really only change how outside speakers are treated procedurally. It is up to the student body to react to this new policy in an effective and responsible manner. If students see this law as a threat to our public area, it will cultivate an exclusive mindset that reinforces existing negative stigma surrounding universities and free speech. This procedural change gives students the chance to prove that UT is an institution made of thoughtful students who can listen to opinions, even though they may contradict our own, and respond in a productive way.

As a whole, universities have gained the unfortunate reputation of not accepting free speech, particularly toward more controversial or inflammatory ideas. Students have pushed to shut down certain speakers nationwide, prompting others to accuse those students of not acknowledging opposing views.

Though we should not tolerate hate speech, by responsibly accepting the changes brought by SB 18, we can reject that reputation and build our own based on open-mindedness. Students can demonstrate this by listening to speakers on campus and engaging in thoughtful and constructive debate.

The urge to filter who has a platform on campus is understandable from a students perspective. No one wants to feel like their institution is actively hosting or promoting hateful and outdated ideas. Thats one of the benefits of this change since these speakers are not being invited by the university itself, students wont feel betrayed if someone whose agenda they dont agree with makes their way onto campus. Its a win-win for both the university and the students. Both are relieved of any liability from being associated with such speakers.

Largely, though, students shouldnt expect an increase in these types of speakers. Its not like the university was strictly filtering the types of speakers in the past, as there has always been a healthy diversity in the types of groups brought onto campus.

Youll probably see the same people that youve always seen, without a dramatic change, said JB Bird, director of media relations and newsroom. Except that instead of being invited, they can now come on their own.

There are sure to be exceptions, but for the most part, this policy is simply protecting the presence of those who want to influence students with the best of intentions.

We should appreciate our space in the community as a place of free expression, and allowing this interaction with the community not only fosters open debate, but reforms our image into one of acceptance.

Ruder is a political communications freshman from Frisco.

Read more here:

Students can protect free speech on campus - UT The Daily Texan

RESTON, VA The Free Speech Alliance (FSA), a coalition of conservative organizations and conservative leaders committed to protecting free speech online, surpassed 60 members today.

Recent members to the FSA include: PragerU, Susan B. Anthony List, Americas PAC, and Independent Womens Forum. As big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter continue to de-platform conservatives, it is more important than ever for conservatives to band together in the fight to protect free speech online. That is why the FSA was formed.

The FSA fights for transparency and equal footing for conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, Google and other social media platforms. We defend the incredible and revolutionary ideal of free speech in which American democracy is rooted. We actively engage with tech companies to ensure they are protecting conservative speech online and that the radical left does not contaminate the national online dialogue with their bias.

Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell stated:

It is critical for the survival of the conservative movement that we unite in defense of our right to express ourselves online without threat of being censored by the social media giants. Protecting our freedom of speech is something that should not only be important to conservatives, but to all Americans. Facebook, Twitter and Google/Youtube own the most widely used online platforms for speech in the world. Facebook, Twitter, and Google/Youtube have full control over what we say, hear, write, and read. It is immensely important that these platforms remain neutral. How can any movement or ideology survive when the means to share its ideas is stripped away? As the FSA continues to grow, it sends a signal to Silicon Valley that change must happen and must happen quickly.

For more information about the Free Speech Alliance, visit: https://www.mrc.org/freespeechalliance#about

Read more:

Free Speech Alliance Continues to Gain Momentum: 60 Members and Growing - NewsBusters

William Turner. Photo: Michael Erickson

Longtime Berkeley lawyer and educator William Bennett Turner has been increasingly disillusioned by First Amendment decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Turner practiced constitutional law for 45 years, argued cases before the court and has published widely on free-speech issues. He has taught courses on freedom of speech and the press at UC Berkeley for more than three decades. Now, hes written a book charging that the court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been deploying the First Amendment in ways that serve the interests of corporations and the religious right instead of the individuals who traditionally need the amendments protection to get their voices heard. Turner says the court has taken free speech principles developed decades ago to shield and empower oppressed citizens and applied them to further conservative political interests.

The book, just published by Roaring Forties Press in Berkeley, is Free Speech for Some: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing the First Amendment to Empower Corporations and the Religious Right. I wondered what had convinced him that more people need to know what the Supreme Court is doing these days about free speech.

Free speech has been loudly proclaimed, especially in Berkeley, for decades. Most recently, the First Amendment was tested in the violent protests surrounding the appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos and others on the UC Berkeley campus throughout 2017. Security for the events cost the campus and local law enforcement millions of dollars.

Turner and I talked about his book at the Baker & Commons Caf, a calm venue on College Avenue in the Elmwood, which itself has been in the past the site of more than one bitter community controversy. The conversation has been edited for clarity and concision.

Having taught generations of Berkeley students about these explosive issues, you say, What the First Amendment means is what at least five current justices say it means. So the meaning can change as the composition of the court changes?

It can and does. The text of the amendment doesnt give us any answers, not even clues, to the free speech issues that come before the court. Now that the Roberts Court has a solid majority of political conservatives, they are free to decide cases in ways that favor conservative political and economic interests, and thats what theyve been doingsystematically.

The originalists on the court, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hold that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in 1787?

Yes, the Originalists, now also including Neil Gorsuch and to some extent, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, say the Constitution should be interpreted the way the framers would have understood it. But theres precious little information about what the framers had in mind in adopting the First Amendment. Its pretty clear they wanted to protect political speech, but thats about it. How they would think about Facebook, Twitter, violent video games and 21st-century communications is anybodys guess.

Is there historical precedent for the First Amendment being used in favor of business and corporations?

Traditionally, the amendment was used to shield individuals and groups like civil rights demonstrators, antiwar activists, and eccentrics who needed the amendment to get their voices heard. Theres some precedent for corporations having free speech rights, and Citizens United took that precedent and ran with it. Generally, corporations dont have more or better free speech rights than individuals. But the Roberts Court has decided that certain categories of individuals dont have full First Amendment rights: students, prisoners, government employees and military personnel. The court in Citizens United didnt satisfactorily explain why corporations should have greater speech protection than these real human beings.

Could you explain the Lochner ruling, which used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to target social welfare legislation like Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal? How was that similar to what you see happening in the courts free speech decisions today?

Thats complicated but important. Lochner, in 1905, used the Due Process clause to strike down all kinds of laws opposed by business. It said the liberty protected by Due Process included a fictional liberty of contract between, for example, employers and employees, so laws that set minimum wages and hours interfered with that liberty and violated the Constitution. During the Lochner era, the court threw out maybe 200 state and federal laws on this reasoning. Lochner is now viewed as a disgraceful period in the courts history. Even Chief Justice Roberts has denounced it. What he doesnt acknowledge is that his court is accomplishing much the same resultsgetting government off the backs of businessby using a different amendment, the First. In other words, a new Lochner era is afoot, with the majority justices using a broad, unspecific constitutional provision and reading into it their political and economic preferences.

The Roberts Court is the most business-friendly since the Lochner era. It has consistently struck down environmental and consumer protections, limited the rights of injured individuals to receive fair compensation, restricted class actions, hobbled labor unions and made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to get access to the courts to redress their grievances. This pro-business bent has been widely recognized. Whats new is the courts now deploying the First Amendment to further business interests.

The courts Citizens United decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act, which had limited corporate spending in campaigns. What else did it do?

Citizens United drew an important distinction between contributions to candidates campaigns, which are still limited and were not involved in Citizens United at all, and independent expenditures, which is spending on elections that is not coordinated with any candidate or campaign. The court said independent expenditures for example, spending your own money to take out television ads expressing your candidate or policy preferences are incapable of creating corruption, and therefore beyond governments authority to limit. Theyre speech protected by the First Amendment.

Theres a misconception that the Roberts Court invented the concept of corporate personhood for constitutional purposes. It didnt. Another misconception is that the court blessed Super PACs. It didnt; none existed at the time of the decision. The creation of Super PACs was probably an unintended consequence of the decision. And the court did not rule that corporations could now put dark money into political campaigns. The court, in fact, upheld the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold. A lot of dark money (undisclosed, unlimited) goes through 501(c)(4) social welfare advocacy groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Roves Crossroads GPS and others, but that wasnt involved in Citizens United at all.

Will you discuss the courts decision in the ruling on violent video games?

The court struck down Californias law prohibiting the sale of extremely violent video games to minors. Justice Scalias caustic, cynical, playful opinion is a classic. The court held that video games are speech, as deserving of First Amendment protection as books, movies, etc. The court rejected the states contention that violent games are of so little social value that they dont deserve any constitutional protection. The court found no evidence that playing the games caused actual violence and no credible evidence that gamers own psyches were harmed.

You could say this is just another pro-business effort by the court, this time benefitting the highly profitable video game industry. But it was more. The opinion was an impressive display of how potent an engine, for better or for worse, the modern First Amendment has become.

Where do libertarian principles fit into Free Speech rulings?

The Roberts Court has not abandoned the First Amendments libertarian tradition. It has continued to find protection for unpopular and even disturbing speech, including bigoted funeral protests, racial insults, and hate speech. It has protected the speech rights of congenital liars and registered sex offenders. Some political conservatives including judges are also libertarian, not trusting the government to make the decisions about what speech is valuable and what isnt.

You have practiced law for many years, have argued First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, have seen many changes. Is it possible that the First Amendment can be retooled?

Not likely that the current justices will renounce their background, training, personal philosophy and track record. But not impossible that some justice, perhaps most likely the chief (the court will forever bear his name), will shift position and call a halt to subserviently carrying out the agenda of a particular party. No justice should want to be viewed by history as a political hack whose votes are entirely predictable and congenial to special interests.

Frances Starns recent writings are online at francessmithstarn.in

Berkeleyside relies on reader support so we can remain free to read for everyone in Berkeley. Become a member and be part of the future of independent, local journalism.

BECOME A MEMBER TODAY

Here is the original post:

Is the Supreme Court using the First Amendment to empower corporations, the right? - Berkeleyside

Last week, New York City's Commission on Human Rights declared that using the term "illegal alien" pejoratively to describe an undocumented person violates laws designed to protect employees and tenants from discrimination, and could result in fines of up to $250,000. But the city's interpretation of the law is so broad that it may very well be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Perceived immigration status has long been a protected category under the New York City Human Rights Law, and the commission has now issued guidance that "use of the term 'illegal alien,' among others, when used with intent to demean, humiliate, or harass a person, is illegal under the law."

It's important to note that this guidance does not affect all kinds of speech: The law covers workplace harassment, tenants' rights, and public accommodation. Merely calling someone an illegal alien on the street, or threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement on them, would not be illegal.

The courts have, of course, held that anti-discrimination ordinances can survive scrutiny, even if they appear to limit the free speech rights of employers and landlords. But NYC is going further here. The 30-page guidance notes, for instance, that "the severity or pervasiveness of the harassment is only relevant to damages. Even an employer's single comment made in circumstances where that comment would signal discriminatory views about one's immigration status or national origin may be enough to constitute harassment."

That's a problem, and one that might push the guidance into unconstitutional territory. Government decrees to prohibit free speech in the name of anti-harassment or anti-discrimination must come with certain limiting conditions to survive a First Amendment test.

"The Supreme Court requires that conduct be not just unwelcome, but also severe or pervasive enough to make the work environment both subjectivelyand objectively hostile, before it is legally considered harassment under federal law," wrote Hans Bader, an attorney and former official in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. "Even the 'severe or pervasive' standard found in federal law is not sufficiently protective of speech, so it is alarming that New York City has eliminated that modest limit on liability."

Bader's entire post on the subject is worth reading in full. The government cannot simply prohibit people from making politically incorrect statements about undocumented peopleit must limit the scope of anti-discrimination mandates in order to satisfy the broad free speech guarantees enjoyed by all people.

Go here to see the original:

New York City Declares Using the Term 'Illegal Alien' Can Result in a $250000 Fine - Reason

GREEN BAY, Wisconsin As long as she can remember, Polly Olsen, 29, said she has handed out heart-shaped cards on Valentines Day.

Basically since I could walk, me and my siblings would distribute them at nursing homes and hospitals, said Olsen. My mom would dress us up fancy and we would go hand them out. The handmade cards included a positive, handwritten message in the center, along with a Bible passage.

Olsen continued the tradition when she enrolled part-time at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College in 2009. On Valentines Day 2018, after distributing about 30 cards on the NWTC campus, Olsen was stopped by a campus security officer after someone anonymously called the security office.

She was told that handing out the cards constituted soliciting and was in violation of the colleges public assembly policy. Olsen also was told that some people might find the Bible references on her cards offensive.

Olsen, through the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, filed a complaint against the college Sept. 4, 2018, claiming that the college was violating her First Amendment rights of free speech. On Sept. 13, 2019, a federal judge in Green Bay ruled that NWTC did infringe on Olsens right to free speech.

In his 14-page summary judgment, U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Griesbach stated that NWTC had no more right to prevent (Olsen) from handing out individual Valentines than it did to stop her from wishing each individual to have a good morning and a blessed day.'

In a statement, Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, said he was thankful for Olsen stepping up to defend not only her own rights, but the rights of all students.

This case was very simple, said Esenberg. NWTC, through their public assembly policy, sought to restrain and contain the First Amendment rights of students. That is, and always has been, unconstitutional.

The colleges president, H. Jeffrey Rafn said in a statement: We fully support freedom of speech and we promote the respectful exchange of ideas. We also have a responsibility to protect the privacy of students and the integrity of the learning environment. The college will continue to ensure that it meets its legal obligations.

In an email to The Compass, Green Bays diocesan newspaper, Rafn said the colleges decision to prevent Olsen from distributing cards wasnt an attempt to obstruct her freedom of speech but said it came in response to her entering private areas of the campus to hand out her cards.

We did not have a concern until Polly went into back offices where, among other things, confidential information is handled, said Rafn. I am unaware of other circumstances where students freely went into back offices. It is commonly assumed in any business that customers would not freely walk around into back offices. Our students abide by this common courtesy, although we have since added this admonition in the student handbook.

In his summary decision, Griesbach said there was no evidence Olsen trespassed in restricted areas.

Although NWTC makes much of the fact that Olsen went into the General Studies office to give a Valentine to her friend Casandra, there is no evidence that this was a restricted area and it is undisputed that Olsen had a practice of visiting employees at NWTC who were friends for both personal and school-related reasons, the judge wrote.

In an interview, Olsen, who graduated from NWTC last May with a paralegal degree and law office administration certificate, told The Compass that she was first prohibited from distributing Valentine cards in 2014, the year she and another student formed an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship chapter on campus.

When they stopped me and a couple of my friends from handing them out, they decided to go after my club, saying that we had disruptive members on campus, she said. They asked me to apologize for my Jesus loves you Valentines. I told them I would not do that.

Olsen calls the Valentine tradition my personal thing that I do every year. It became more personal on July 16, 2013, the day her mother, Debra, died from pancreatic cancer.

She said she makes 500 to 600 cards and distributes them with friends.

This spring Olsens case made national headlines when she was invited to the White House by President Donald Trump to attend a March 21 ceremony where he signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.

What motivated me the most to not give up and not cower to the schools bullying was the fact that they wanted me to apologize for Jesus name, Olsen, who attends Jacobs Well Presbyterian Church in Green Bay, told The Compass.

I will not deny Jesus in any way, she said, so I guess, stand up for Jesus no matter what, would be what I would tell people. He uses little things to do big things, like change a law in our country with a Valentine.

Lucero is news and information manager for The Compass, newspaper of the Diocese of Green Bay.

Crux is dedicated to smart, wired and independent reporting on the Vatican and worldwide Catholic Church. That kind of reporting doesnt come cheap, and we need your support. You can help Crux by giving a small amount monthly, or with a onetime gift. Please remember, Crux is a for-profit organization, so contributions are not tax-deductible.

Go here to read the rest:

Woman says vow not to 'deny Jesus' was motivation in campus freedom fight - Crux: Covering all things Catholic

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a massive, long-lasting student protest which took place during the 196465 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.[1] The Movement was informally under the central leadership of Berkeley graduate student Mario Savio.[2] Other student leaders include Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, George Barton, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Michael Teal, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others.[3]

With the participation of thousands of students, the Free Speech Movement was the first mass act of civil disobedience on an American college campus in the 1960s.[4] Students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. The Free Speech Movement was influenced by the New Left,[5] and was also related to the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement.[6] To this day, the Movement's legacy continues to shape American political dialogue both on college campuses and in broader society, impacting on the political views and values of college students and the general public.[7]

In 1958, activist students organized SLATE, a campus political party meaning a "slate" of candidates running on the same level a same "slate." The students created SLATE to promote the right of student groups to support off-campus issues.[8] In the fall of 1964, student activists, some of whom had traveled with the Freedom Riders and worked to register African American voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer project, set up information tables on campus and were soliciting donations for causes connected to the Civil Rights Movement. According to existing rules at the time, fundraising for political parties was limited exclusively to the Democratic and Republican school clubs. There was also a mandatory "loyalty oath" required of faculty, which had led to dismissals and ongoing controversy over academic freedom. Sol Stern, a former radical who took part in the Free Speech Movement,[9] stated in a 2014 City Journal article that the group viewed the United States to be both racist and imperialistic and that the main intent after lifting Berkeley's loyalty oath was to build on the legacy of C Wright Mills and weaken the Cold War consensus by promoting the ideas of the Cuban Revolution.[5]

On September 14, 1964, Dean Katherine Towle announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, outside political speakers, recruitment of members, and fundraising by student organizations at the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenues would be "strictly enforced."[10]

On October 1, 1964, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. The police car remained there for 32 hours, all while Weinberg was inside it. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car.The car was used as a speaker's podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped.[10]

On December 2, between 1,500 and 4,000 students went into Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus.[10] Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment. The demonstration was orderly; students studied, watched movies, and sang folk songs. Joan Baez was there to lead in the singing, as well as lend moral support. "Freedom classes" were held by teaching assistants on one floor, and a special Channukah service took place in the main lobby. On the steps of Sproul Hall, Mario Savio[11] gave a famous speech:

...But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings! ... There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.[12]

At midnight, Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese III telephoned Governor Edmund Brown Sr., asking for authority to proceed with a mass arrest. Shortly after 2 a.m. on December 4, 1964, police cordoned off the building, and at 3:30a.m. began the arrest. Close to 800 students were arrested,[10] most of which were transported by bus to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, about 25 miles away. They were released on their own recognizance after a few hours behind bars. About a month later, the university brought charges against the students who organized the sit-in, resulting in an even larger student protest that all but shut down the university.

After much disturbance, the University officials slowly backed down. By January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson (who had replaced the previous resigned Edward Strong), established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus. He designated the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the Free Speech Movement.[13]

Most outsiders, however, identified the Free Speech Movement as a movement of the Left. Students and others opposed to U.S. foreign policy did indeed increase their visibility on campus following the FSM's initial victory. In the spring of 1965, the FSM was followed by the Vietnam Day Committee,[10] a major starting point for the anti-Vietnam war movement.

For the first time, disobedience tactics of the Civil Rights Movement were brought by the Free Speech Movement to a college campus in the 1960s. Those approaches gave the students exceptional leverage to make demands of the university administrators, and build the foundation for future protests, such as the against the Vietnam War.[14]

The Free Speech Movement had long-lasting effects at the Berkeley campus and was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement in the 1960s. It was seen as the beginning of the famous student activism that existed on the campus in the 1960s, and continues to a lesser degree today. There was a substantial voter backlash against the individuals involved in the Free Speech Movement. Ronald Reagan won an unexpected victory in the fall of 1966 and was elected Governor.[15] He then directed the UC Board of Regents to dismiss UC President Clark Kerr because of the perception that he had been too soft on the protesters. The FBI kept secret files on Kerr and Savio, and subjected their lives and careers to interference under COINTELPRO.

Reagan had gained political traction by campaigning on a platform to "clean up the mess in Berkeley".[15] In the minds of those involved in the backlash, a wide variety of protests, concerned citizens, and activists were lumped together. Furthermore, television news and documentary filmmaking had made it possible to photograph and broadcast moving images of protest activity. Much of this media is available today as part of the permanent collection of the Bancroft Library at Berkeley, including iconic photographs of the protest activity by student Ron Enfield (then chief photographer for the Berkeley campus newspaper, the Daily Cal).[16] A reproduction of what may be considered the most recognizable and iconic photograph of the movement, a shot of suit-clad students carrying the Free Speech banner through the University's Sather Gate in Fall of 1964, now stands at the entrance to the college's Free Speech Movement Cafe.[16]

Earlier protests against the House Committee on Un-American Activities meeting in San Francisco in 1960 had included an iconic scene as protesters were literally washed down the steps inside the Rotunda of San Francisco City Hall with fire hoses. The anti-Communist film Operation Abolition[17][18][19][20] depicted this scene and became an organizing tool for the protesters.

The 20th anniversary reunion of the FSM was held during the first week of October, 1984, to considerable media attention. A rally in Sproul Plaza featured FSM veterans Mario Savio, who ended a long self-imposed silence, Jack Weinberg, and Jackie Goldberg. The week continued with a series of panels open to the public on the movement and its impact.[21] The 30th anniversary reunion, held during the first weekend of December 1994, was also a public event, with another Sproul Plaza rally featuring Savio, Weinberg, Goldberg, panels on the FSM, and current free speech issues.[22] In April 2001, UC's Bancroft Library held a symposium celebrating the opening of the Free Speech Movement Digital Archive. Although not a formal FSM reunion, many FSM leaders were on the panels and other participants were in the audience.[23] The 40th anniversary reunion, the first after Savio's death in 1996, was held in October 2004. It featured columnist Molly Ivins giving the annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecture, followed later in the week by the customary rally in Sproul Plaza and panels on civil liberties issues.[24] A Sunday meeting was a more private event, primarily a gathering for the veterans of the movement, in remembrance of Savio and of a close FSM ally, professor Reginald Zelnik, who had died in an accident in May.[25]

Today, Sproul Hall and the surrounding Sproul Plaza are active locations for protests and marches, as well as the ordinary daily tables with free literature from anyone of any political orientation who wishes to appear. A wide variety of groups of all political, religious and social persuasions set up tables at Sproul Plaza. The Sproul steps, now officially known as the "Mario Savio Steps", may be reserved by anyone for a speech or rally.[10] An on-campus restaurant commemorating the event, the Mario Savio Free Speech Movement Cafe, resides in a portion of the Moffitt Undergraduate Library.

The Free Speech Monument, commemorating the movement, was created in 1991 by artist Mark Brest van Kempen. It is located, appropriately, in Sproul Plaza. The monument consists of a six-inch hole in the ground filled with soil and a granite ring surrounding it. The granite ring bears the inscription, "This soil and the air space extending above it shall not be a part of any nation and shall not be subject to any entity's jurisdiction." The monument makes no explicit reference to the movement, but it evokes notions of free speech and its implications through its rhetoric.[26]

See more here:

Free Speech Movement - Wikipedia

EFF defends your ability to use the Internet as a platform for free expression through law, technology, and activism. The Internet has radically enhanced our access to information in countless ways, and empowered anyone to share ideas and connect with the entire world. Yet while speech is invited and empowered on the electronic frontier, it is also sometimes threatened.

Freed of the limitations inherent in traditional print or broadcast media createdand constrainedby corporate gatekeepers, speech thrives online. Social networking websites allow groups of a dozen friends to grow into massive communities that transcend national borders. Meanwhile, community journalists have used microblogging and video live-streaming to expose the world to stories that long went unheard. Websites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive have pioneered an open-source model of sharing and preserving information.

On the other hand, speech is also threatened online. Coders and developers risk criminal penalties for practicing the kind of digital tinkering, repair, and exploration that enable innovation. Similarly, dissidents and activists, especially those whose opinions may be unpopular where they live, confront chilling effects imposed by government surveillance programs that constrain their freedom of expression. Journalists and researchers can also be stymied by government agencies that limit public access to certain information.

The technological capacity enabling even great wonders can mean little when users are denied legal protections for their creativity. Without sufficient legal protections for users and innovators, it's all too easy for governments and companies to undermine your rights. Learn more below and consider supporting our efforts.

Read this article:

Free Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones, free speech cages, and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner but not content of expression.[citation needed]

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[2][3] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[4] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.[5]

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.[citation needed]

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a "designated protest zone"[6] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."[7] "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.[8]

Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[9]

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. "The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".[10] In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits ... But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights."[11]

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray".[1] "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."[12] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".[13] However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14]

Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places building vestibules, parking garages, or vans and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained some for nearly two days."[15] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[13]

Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[16][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[17][18] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[19][20]

Civil liberties advocates argue that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[21] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[21] The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[17][22]

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[18] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[18]

The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. "The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July."[23]

In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.

The Secret Service denies targeting the President's political opponents. "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations", said one Secret Service spokesman.[24]

"These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"[18][25] District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"[16]

At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away. He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. "Bursey said that he asked the policeman if 'it was the content of my sign,' and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'"[18] However, the prosecution, led by James Strom Thurmond Jr., disputes Bursey's version of events.[26] Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.[18] Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine.[18] After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.[27] In his ruling, Marchant found that "this is not to say that the Secret Service's power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area which was an issue in this case as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area."[27]

Marchant's ruling however, was criticized for three reasons:

In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ACORN v. Secret Service, representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). "The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March [2004] after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones."[29] Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ACORN v. Philadelphia, charged that the Philadelphia Police Department, on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters "further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters. A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Stefan Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders."[21][30] However, the court found the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case and dismissed it.[31]

The Secret Service says it does establish 'public viewing areas' to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech. 'Absolutely not,' said Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the agency created to protect the president. 'The Secret Service makes no distinction on the purpose, message or intent of any individual or group.' Civil libertarians dispute that. They cite a Corpus Christi, Texas, couple, Jeff and Nicole Rank, as an example. The two were arrested at a Bush campaign event in Charleston, West Virginia, on July 4, 2004, when they refused to take off anti-Bush shirts. Their shirts read, 'Love America, Hate Bush' ... The ACLU found 17 cases since March 2001 in which protesters were removed during events where the president or vice president appeared. And lawyers say it's an increasing trend.[32]

The article is slightly mistaken about the contents of the shirts. While Nicole Rank's shirt did say "Love America, Hate Bush", Jeff Rank's shirt said "Regime change starts at home."[33]

The incident occurred several months after the Secret Service's pledge in ACORN v. Secret Service not to discriminate against protesters. "The charges against the Ranks were ultimately dismissed in court and the mayor and city council publicly apologized for the arrest. City officials also said that local law enforcement was acting at the request of Secret Service."[34] ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen pointed out that "The Secret Service has promised to not curtail the right to dissent at presidential appearances, and yet we are still hearing stories of people being blocked from engaging in lawful protest", said Hansen. "It is time for the Secret Service to stop making empty promises."[34] The Ranks subsequently filed a lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, against Deputy Assistant to the President Gregory Jenkins and the Secret Service. "The lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, is seeking unspecified damages as well as a declaration that the actions leading to the removal of the Ranks from the Capitol grounds were unconstitutional."[34] In August 2007, the Ranks settled their lawsuit against the Federal Government. The government paid them $80,000, but made no admission of wrongdoing.[35] The Ranks' case against Gregory Jenkins is still pending in the District of Columbia.[36]

As a result of ACLU subpoenas during the discovery in the Rank lawsuit, the ACLU obtained the White House's previously-classified presidential advance manual.[37] The manual gives people organizing presidential visits specific advice for preventing or obstructing protests. "There are several ways the advance person" the person organizing the presidential visit "can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route. The formation of 'rally squads' is a common way to prepare for demonstrators ... The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform ... As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."[37]

The use of free speech zones on university campuses is controversial. Many universities created on-campus free speech zones during the 1960s and 1970s, during which protests on-campus (especially against the Vietnam War) were common. Generally, the requirements are that the university is given advance notice and that they are held in locations that do not disrupt classes.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that non-disruptive speech is permitted in public schools. However, this does not apply to private universities. In September 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down the free speech zone policy at Texas Tech University.

According to the opinion of the court, campus areas such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other areas are designated as public forums, regardless of whether the university has chosen to officially designate the areas as such. The university may open more of the campus as public forums for its students, but it cannot designate fewer areas ... Not all places within the boundaries of the campus are public forums, according to Cummings' opinion. The court declared the university's policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums.[38]

In 2007, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a survey of 346 colleges and Universities in the United States.[39] Of those institutions, 259 (75%) maintain policies that "both clearly andsubstantially restrict freedom of speech."

In December 2005, the College Libertarians at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro staged a protest outside the University's designated protest zones. The specific intent of the protest was to provoke just such a charge, in order to "provoke the system into action into a critical review of what's going on."[40] Two students, Allison Jaynes and Robert Sinnott, were brought up on charges under the student code of conduct of "violation of respect",[41] for refusing to move when told to do so by a university official.[40] The university subsequently dropped honor code charges against the students.[40] "University officials said the history of the free-speech zones is not known. 'It predated just about everybody here", said Lucien 'Skip' Capone III, the university attorney. The policy may be a holdover from the Vietnam War and civil rights era, he said.'"[40]

A number of colleges and universities have revised or revoked free speech zone policies in the last decade, including: Tufts University,[42] Appalachian State University,[42] and West Virginia University.[42][43] In August, 2006, Penn State University revised its seven-year-old rules restricting the rights of students to protest. "In effect, the whole campus is now a 'free-speech zone.'"[44]

Controversies have also occurred at the University of Southern California,[45] Indiana University,[46] the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,[47] and Brigham Young University.[48][49]

At Marquette University, philosophy department chairman James South ordered graduate student Stuart Ditsler to remove an unattributed Dave Barry quote from the door to the office that Ditsler shared with three other teaching assistants, calling the quote patently offensive. (The quote was: "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.") South claimed that the University's free-speech zone rules required Ditsler to take it down. University spokeswoman Brigid O'Brien Miller stated that it was "a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom."[50][51] Ultimately, the quote was allowed to remain, albeit with attribution.[52]

For example, the Louisiana State University Free Speech Alley (or Free Speech Plaza) was utilized in November 2015 when Louisiana gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards was publicly endorsed by former opponent and republican Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne.[53] The Consuming Fire Fellowship, a church located in rural Woodville, Mississippi, often sends members to convene at the universities free speech alley to preach their views of Christianity. The members have often been met with strong resistance and resentment by the student body.[54][55] Ivan Imes, a retired engineer who holds "Jesus Talks" for students at the university, said in an interview, "Give the church a break. The don't understand love. They don't understand forgiveness."[56]

As of March2017[update], four states had passed legislation outlawing public colleges and universities from establishing free speech zones. The first state to do so was Virginia in 2014,[57] followed by Missouri in 2015,[58] Arizona in 2016,[59] and Kentucky in 2017.[60]

Designated protest areas were established during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Summit in Ottawa, Canada. Although use of the areas was voluntary and not surrounded by fences, some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them "protest pens."[61]

During the 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, over 10,000 protesters were present. Wan Chai Sports Ground and Wan Chai Cargo Handling Basin were designated as protest zones. Police wielded sticks, used gas grenades and shot rubber bullets at some of the protesters. They arrested 910 people, 14 were charged, but none were convicted.

Three protest parks were designated in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympics, at the suggestion of the IOC. All 77 applications to protest there had been withdrawn or denied, and no protests took place. Four persons who applied to protest were arrested or sentenced to reeducation.[62][63]

In the Philippines, designated free speech zones are called freedom parks.

More here:

Free speech zone - Wikipedia

How does the First Amendment right to free speech apply to speakers who have been invited by student groups to speak on campus?

As a public institution of higher education, NC State is committed to fostering free speech and the open debate of ideas. NC State is prohibited from banning or punishing an invited speaker based on the content or viewpoint of his or her speech. University policy permits student groups to invite speakers to campus, and the university provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose. NC State cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Only under extraordinary circumstances, as described on this page, can an event featuring an invited speaker be canceled.

Once a student group has invited a speaker to campus, NC State will act reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

Although NC State cannot restrict or cancel the speech based on the content or viewpoint of the speech, the university is allowed to place certain content- and viewpoint-neutral limits on how the speech can take place. These limits can be based on the time, place and manner of the speech.

What are time, place and manner restrictions?

Courts have long recognized that public educational institutions have the right to impose certain restrictions on the use of their campuses for free-speech purposes. Content- and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the times and modes of communication, often referred to as time-place-manner restrictions, are common features universities implement to ensure that they can continue to fulfill their mission while allowing free expression to occur. Simply put, this means that the when, where and how of free-speech activity may be reasonably regulated if such regulation (1) is scrupulously neutral (in other words, it must apply to all speech, no matter how favored or disfavored) and (2) leaves ample opportunity for speech in alternative areas or forums. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak at any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The university can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and to achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety.

Examples of acceptable time-place-manner restrictions include permit requirements for outside speakers, notice periods, sponsorship requirements for outside speakers, limiting the duration and frequency of the speech and restricting speech during final-exam periods.

The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason the university requires students to work with the administration when setting up certain events, as opposed to students scheduling and creating the events on their own without university input.

Can NC State cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speakers views?

No, NC State is prohibited from canceling an event based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

If it is known that an event with a speaker may lead to physical violence, is that legal grounds for the university to cancel the event?

In general, NC State cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs due to the potential reaction to the speech is often referred to by courts as the hecklers veto and is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

The university is required to do what it can to protect speakers and prevent disruption or violence. Although the university is committed to fulfilling these obligations, if despite all efforts by the university there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, an event can be canceled. NC States primary concern is to protect the safety of its students, faculty and staff. NC States Police Department makes security assessments with input from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

How does NC State respond to hate speech?

NC State is dedicated to fostering free speech in an environment where members of our community can learn from one another and where all are treated with dignity and respect. The university vigorously opposes and denounces all forms of hateful speech. The university encourages faculty, staff and students to use their free-speech rights, consistent with federal and state laws, to condemn hateful speech and to help create opportunities for the campus community to understand and learn from these actions. Students who encounter hurtful or offensive speech are encouraged to reach out to university administrators, including the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED), or to make a report to the universitys Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT). More information about responding to acts of intolerance may be found at the OIED and BIRT websites.

How does NC State ensure the safety of the campus community in light of freedom of speech?

NC State balances its commitment to free speech with a commitment to safety. Individuals who threaten or commit acts of violence or other violations of law may be subject to arrest and prosecution by law enforcement, as well as disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university.

Read more:

Free Speech | NC State University - ncsu.edu