NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 2:50 PM

Let's get one thing straight from the start: President Trump was utterly and completely wrong to equate the white supremacists who converged on Charlottesville, Va., last weekend with the counter-protesters who challenged them.

By saying that there were "bad people" in both groups, he implicitly placed them on the same moral plane. And by repeatedly emphasizing that "both sides" engaged in violence, he ignored the obvious fact that only one side the white supremacists counted a murderer among their numbers.

I'm talking about James Alex Fields, Jr., of course, the reported neo-Nazi who killed paralegal Heather Heyer and injured 19 others by driving his car into a crowd. There was nothing even close to that on the other side.

But the counter-protesters did engage in violence, wielding fists and sticks to attack some of the white supremacists. It was small potatoes, by comparison, but it has big implications for free speech. Across the political spectrum, a growing number of Americans want to deny that right to people they detest. And once you do that, you can visit any wrong upon them.

John Kelly's five stages of grief during Trump's news conference

Witness the assault on Jason Kessler, one of the key organizers of the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. When he tried to speak at a press conference on Saturday, a pair of men charged at him; one of them shouted an obscenity, and the other said, "Indict for murder now."

As Kessler scurried away from the podium, a man identified as Jeff Winder punched him. "Jason Kessler has been bringing hate to our town for months and has been endangering the lives of people of color," Winder said. "Free speech does not protect hate speech."

Actually, it does. For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of Americans to say pretty much anything they want. The lone exception is for "fighting words," personal threats that pose an immediate danger of physical harm to somebody else.

Did Kessler's words pose that kind of peril? Of course not. Instead, they provoked a violent reaction against him, by people who took it upon themselves to decide what he should and shouldn't be allowed to say.

Mom of Charlottesville victim says daughter's cause won't stop

And if you think that's OK, how can you object when other people try to muzzle speech that you might approve, but which they find abhorrent? I'm thinking especially of Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, whose selection as a commencement speaker at the City University of New York School of Public Health last spring provoked protests outside the university and death threats against Sarsour.

Calling Sarsour a supporter of terrorism, which she resolutely denied, critics urged Gov. Cuomo to cancel her speech. He refused, fortunately, and Sarsour delivered her address without incident. But she also had to hire two private bodyguards to accompany her to public events.

I'm not equating Sarsour with Jason Kessler. My point is simply that "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we need to protect it, no matter how vile or offensive it seems.

19 photos view gallery

The alternative is to have the government define and delimit hate speech, via laws and regulations. Every federal court who has examined such rules including campus speech codes has struck them down. And thank heavens for that, because our own government is now led by one Donald J. Trump.

Trumps response to Charlottesville attack was weak and cowardly

At every turn, Trump has shown himself to be an enemy of free speech. During his campaign, he openly wished for the demise of newspapers that criticized him. He encouraged supporters to attack protesters at his rallies, even offering to pay the resulting legal bills. Do you really want this guy deciding what you can and can't say? I didn't think so.

And that's one of the sad ironies of our current moment. The last few days have witnessed a surge of disgust for President Trump, who has openly defended racists and white supremacists. But we have also seen attacks on free speech, including a tweetstorm against the American Civil Liberties Union for upholding the rights of these same white supremacists.

That plays right into Trump's hands. At this delicate juncture, the last thing we should be doing is restricting freedom of speech. In America, everyone should have their say. And if you say otherwise, watch out! He might be coming for you next.

Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author (with Emily Robertson) of The Case for Contention: Teaching Controversial Issues in American Schools.

Visit link:

In Charlottesville, some on the left attacked free speech ...

La Jolla Playhouse Presents

July 29 August 21, 2016

Free Speech! (While Supplies Last) offers an irreverent look at Americas electoral insanity. This topical new show features political satire made famous by Second City stars like Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert and Keegan-Michael Key, as well as brand new scenes, songs and improv straight from their sold-out shows in Chicago and Toronto. This must-see evening of comedy features some of Chicagos best and brightest in a special three-week engagement.

Click here for full company bios and to read more in-depth articles about the show.

Contains strong language and adult situations.

Patron Services will be happy to answer any questions you have at (858) 550-1010.

Please check back for more information.

Please check back for press and reviews.

The Mandell Weiss Forum is a 400-seat thrust stage theatre, with audience members surrounding the stage on three sides. It contains a rehearsal hall, two courtyards and an outdoor "lobby." Built with sleek industrial materials and intersecting geometric shapes, it has a long free-standing entry wall with massive reflective smoky-glass panes that generate the illusion of being both within and outside of the partition.

> Learn more

Children under the age of 6 are not permitted in the theatre during performances unless otherwise posted.

Every Thursday during the run of Free Speech, starts at 7:00 pm

Join us before your performance for complimentary beer tastings from Modern Times Brewery. Presented by La Jolla Playhouse in partnership with James Place. Includes two 3-oz beer tastings.

Every Friday during the run of Free Speech (except August 5), starts at 6:00 pm

Theatergoers are invited to attend Foodie Fridays, where a ticket to select Playhouse performances also includes access to some of San Diegos finest food trucks!

Every Saturday evening during the run of Free Speech

Enjoy live music before the show. More details to follow.

See original here:

The Second City's Free Speech! (While Supplies Last)

Boston police said 27 people were arrested during day-long demonstrations to protest hate speech a week after a woman was killed at a Virginia white supremacist rally. (Reuters)

BOSTON Tens of thousands of counterprotesters crammed Boston Common and marched through city streets Saturday morning in efforts to drown out the planned free speech rally that many feared would be attended by white-supremacist groups.

By 1 p.m., the handful of rally attendees had left the Boston Common pavillion, concluding their event without planned speeches. A victorious cheer went up among the counterprotesters, as many began to leave. Hundreds of othersdancedin circles andsang, Hey hey, ho ho. White supremacy has got to go.

City officials said that at least 40,000 people participated in the counter protest, 20,000 of whom participated in a march across town.Tensions flared as police escorted some rally attendees out of the Common, prompting several physical altercations between police and counterprotesters.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said there were 27 arrests, primarily for disorderly conduct. He said no officers or protesters were injured and there was no property damage. Evans added that three individuals were wearing ballistics vests, one of whom was later found to be armed. It is unclear if those three are among the arrests.

Evans said there were three groups of people in attendance: attendees of the free speech rally, counter protesters, and a small group of people who showed up to cause trouble.

Overall everyone did a good job, Evans said. 99.9 percent of people were here for the right reason, and thats to fight bigotry.

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh met up with the counterprotesters at themarch.

I think its clear today that Boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate, he said.

[Donald Trump brought me here today: Counterprotesters rout neo-Nazi rally in Berlin]

President Donald Trump praised law enforcement and Mayor Marty Walsh via tweet Saturday afternoon for their handling of the crowds, saying that there appeared to be many anti-police agitators in Boston. More than an hour later, he tweeted support for protesters.

The showdown between right-wing ralliers and the far larger group of counterprotesters in the heart of downtown Boston comes just one week after a chaotic gathering of far-right political groups including neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members left dozens injured and one woman dead in Charlottesville aftera reported neo-Naziallegedly plowed his carinto a crowd of counterprotesters.

In anticipation of potential violence, city officials corralled more than 500 police officers onto the Common, installed security cameras and constructed elaborate barriers to separate the free-speech rally from the massive demonstration in opposition to it. The handful of rally attendees gathered beneath a pavilion near the center of the Common, surrounded by metal barriers and dozens of police. Several hundred feet away, thousands of counterprotesters surrounding them carrying signs declaring Black Lives Matter and Hate Has No Home In Boston, while mockingly chanting we cant hear you when it appeared the ralliers had begun to speak.

One moment of tension came when rally attendees ventured outside of the barriersand were promptly confronted by counterprotesters. One man, draped in a Donald Trump flag, was immediately surrounded by media, while demonstrators chanted at him to go home.

[Shame!: Part of Bostons protest looked eerily like a scene from Game of Thrones]

One rally attendee, Luke St. Onge,a young man wearing a red Make America Great Again hat and GOP T-shirt, saidhe came even though he knew it might be attended by white-supremacist groups, whose views he said he does not agree with.

I definitely wouldnt associate myself with the KKK or any white supremacist. I dont stand with them at all, said St. Onge, who is from Las Vegas. I do support their right to an opinion, he added. Free speech is definitely something I stand for.

Plans for the Boston rally, which organizers said was not about white supremacy or Confederate monuments, were nearly scrapped following the violence in Charlottesville. Several speakerspulled out of or were uninvited from the event, but John Medlar, a Boston-area college student and the rallys lead organizer, said that the rally would go on.

Among those who were scheduled to speak were Joe Biggs, formerly a writer for the conspiracy-theory website Infowars, and Kyle Chapman, a far-right activistcharged with beating counterdemonstratorswith a wooden pole during a clash at the University of California in Berkeley earlier this year, though it is unclear if either man attended. Members of the KKKtold the Boston Heraldthat they expected several of the groups members to attend, but there was little, if any, visible KKK presence at the rally.

There have been questions about why we granted a permit for the rally, Walsh said on Friday. The courts have made it abundantly clear. They have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are. But they dont have the right to create unsafe conditions. They have the right to free speech. In return, they have to respect our city.

Wewill not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry, organizers said in aFacebook postearlier this week. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence.

Last weeks gathering in Virginia was ostensibly in protest of the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. In the days since, cities across the nation have announced the removal of dozens of Confederate monuments, sparking anew the long-heated debate over what, if anything, should be done with the hundreds of statutes, streets, and schoolhouses named after or in honor of those who fought to maintain slavery.

[Deconstructing the symbols and slogans spotted in Charlottesville]

Thousands of protesters are expected to attend rallies calling for the removal of Confederate monuments at cities across the country this weekend, including Dallas and New Orleans. Meanwhile, supporters of the Confederate monuments are also organizing, with a rally plannedin Hot Springs, Ark.

Organizers in Boston said todays gathering is not in solidarity with white nationalists, but few of those who attended the massive counterprotest believed them.Across town, thousands began gathering before 10 a.m. on Malcolm X Boulevard for a march to the Common.

Were not standing for it. Were not standing (for) white supremacy. Were not going to have it in our city, not in Boston, said Boston activist Monica Cannon, who was among those who organized the counterprotest. We want to send a clear message that you dont get to come to the city of Boston with your hatred.

Thousands of people demonstrated against a rally featuring right-wing political figures in downtown Boston on Aug. 19. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Rebecca Koskinen stood in front of her brick rowhouse on Tremont Street, awaiting the marchers, with her daughters Elle, 5, and Liv, 1. The older daughters sign read Im only five and even I know Black Lives Matter.

Koskinen said she and her husband, who are white, had taken the girls to the several other marches earlier this year and felt that it was important to show support for an event that was particularly important to people of color especially because Elle will soon start kindergarten at a private school that is less diverse than the South End neighborhood where they live.

Because shes not going to public school, it felt really important to me to talk about this with her and how different groups are treated, Koskinen said.

Joel Moran, a Boston resident who attended the march with his partner and a friend, said he was moved to have my voice heard against white supremacists, against people who think that, for some reason, they have more rights than other people have.

Moran said they were absolutely influenced to participate today after the tragedy in Charlottesville.

It wasnt even on my radar until last weekend, he said. After seeing that and having a very emotional and disturbing response to that, I feel like its basically my responsibility.

Read more:

Boston 'free speech' rally ends early amid flood of counterprotesters; 27 people arrested - Washington Post

Counterprotesters during Saturdays march from Roxbury to Boston Common.

Boston Common was the scene of two rallies Saturday. One was joyous and boisterous, the other minuscule and impotent. One triumphed, one fizzled.

There was supposed to be a free speech rally at which self-described libertarians were supposed to make some kind of statement about their rights, with the help of a few speakers from the far right. It started late, ended early, and its headliners were fortunate to make it out of the area unscathed.

Advertisement

The so-called counterprotest was the days true main event a resounding display of unity and harmony.

The crowd for the counterprotest began gathering early in Roxbury. By the time they began marching from Malcolm X Boulevard to the Common, the crowd was an estimated 15,000 strong, far larger than anticipated. It was a mix of Black Lives Matter activists, suburban Womens March veterans, organized labor stalwarts, and regular citizens intent on refusing to let intolerance carry the day. There was a visible, through unobtrusive, police presence, bolstered by a significant cadre of undercover officers and a SWAT team.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

As the crowd grew, Superintendent in Chief Willie Gross of the Boston Police Department worked the crowd. He thanked marcher after marcher, individually, for coming out to make their voices heard. He complimented people on their creative signs. He took dozens of pictures with marchers who looked relieved to discover that the police werent there to give them a hard time.

This is how we do it in Boston, he said. We exercise our right to free speech, but we do it peacefully. If anyone starts anything [at the Common] well get them right out.

Gross was also monitoring events around town by radio. And something unexpected was happening or not happening downtown: right-wing troublemakers, who so many feared would trigger violence, were barely showing up.

Advertisement

By the time, the counterprotesters, fortified by a brass band, began their march down Columbus Avenue, the it was clear that the other side was likely to be drowned out.

After the counterprotesters were on their way, Gross stopped into the command center at Boston Police headquarters. There, a group of officers from agencies across the area watched both the Common and the counterprotesters on a bank of television monitors. Commissioner William Evans was in charge.

To my surprise, Governor Charlie Baker was there too. True to form, he was immersed in the details. He said he was there because hed been nervous. But by early afternoon, everyone in the room was breathing a tentative sigh of relief. As planned, the protesters and counterprotesters were far enough apart to have little opportunity for direct confrontation. The major concern of the free speech group seemed to be getting out of the area.

One of them was followed down Charles Street South by a group of counterprotesters chanting Shame! as police led him away. Others, on the Tremont Street side, were taken out by police in riot gear. A small number were held voluntarily, police said in a building on Boylston Street across from the Common, until after the crowd thinned out.

In effect, the free speech rally became a giant peace rally. The were a few tense encounters between police and demonstrators, but nothing out of the ordinary for an event like this.

To be smug about that would be silly. Theres doesnt seem to be much doubt, in this unstable time, that those who harbor bigotry and hate feel more free to express, and act on, those feelings than they have in years. Theres no question that a president who cannot bring himself to condemn evil has emboldened it.

But Boston resisted, emphatically. Thats no small thing.

Toward the end of the day, Gross stared over at an empty Boston Common bandstand, abandoned ahead of schedule by the free speech provocateurs.

I wont say they were driven out, but they decided to leave, Gross said. I think they were influenced by love. They couldnt stand any more.

View post:

As a 'free speech' rally fizzled, a march for unity triumphed - The Boston Globe

By MARIA DANILOVA and JOCELYN GECKER,Associated Press

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) When Carl Valentine dropped off his daughter at the University of Virginia, he had some important advice for the college freshman: Dont forget that you are a minority.

As classes begin at colleges and universities across the country, some parents are questioning if their children will be safe on campus in the wake of last weekends violent white nationalist protest here. School administrators, meanwhile, are grappling with how to balance students physical safety with free speech.

Friday was move-in day at the University of Virginia, and students and their parents unloaded cars and carried suitcases, blankets, lamps, fans and other belongings into freshmen dormitories. Student volunteers, wearing orange university T-shirts, distributed water bottles and led freshmen on short tours of the university grounds.

But along with the usual moving-in scene, there were signs of the tragic events of last weekend, when white nationalists staged a nighttime march through campus holding torches and shouting racist slogans. Things got worse the following day, when a man said to harbor admiration for Nazis drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring 19 others.

Flags flew at half-staff outside the universitys Rotunda, and a nearby statue of founder Thomas Jefferson was stained with wax from a candlelight vigil by thousands of students and city residents in a bid to unite and heal. Some student dormitories had signs on doors reading, No Home for Hate Here.

In an address to students and families on Friday, UVA President Teresa Sullivan welcomed every person of every race, every gender, every national origin, every religious belief, every orientation and every other human variation. Afterward, parents asked university administrators tough questions about the gun policy on campus, white supremacists and the likelihood of similar violence in the future.

For Valentine, of Yorktown, Virginia, the unrest brought back painful memories of when, as a young boy, he couldnt enter government buildings or movie theaters through the front door because of racial discrimination.

Weve come a long way, but still a long way to go for equality, he said.

His daughter Malia Valentine, an 18-year-old pre-med student, is more optimistic.

It was scary what happened, but I think that we as a community will stand together in unity and well be fine, she said.

Christopher Dodd, 18, said he was shocked by the violence and initially wondered if it would be safe at UVA.

Wow, I am going to be in this place, it looks like a war zone, Dodd, a cheerful redhead, remembered thinking. But I do think that we are going to be all right, there is nothing they can do to intimidate us. I am not going to let them control my time here.

Others feel less confident.

Weston Gobar, president of the Black Student Alliance at UVA, says hell warn incoming black students not to take their safety for granted. The message is to work through it and to recognize that the world isnt safe, that white supremacy is real, that we have to find ways to deal with that, he said.

Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, said colleges are reassessing their safety procedures. The possibility of violence will now be seen as much more real than it was a week ago and every institution has to be much more careful.

Such work is already under way at UVA.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Sullivan said the university will be revamping its emergency protocols, increasing the number of security officers patrolling the grounds and hiring an outside safety consultant.

This isnt a matter where we are going to spare expense, Sullivan said.

Hartle said some universities may end up making the uneasy decision to limit protests and rallies on campus and not to invite controversial speakers if they are likely to create protests. There is an overarching priority to protect the physical safety of students and the campus community, he said.

Student body presidents from over 120 schools in 34 states and Washington, D.C., signed a statement denouncing the Charlottesville violence and saying college campuses should be safe spaces free of violence and hate.

Jordan Jomsky, a freshman at UC Berkeley, said his parents had advice he plans to follow: They told me to stay safe, and dont go to protests.

I wish people would just leave this place alone. Its become this epicenter. Were just here to study, said Jomsky, an 18-year-old from a Los Angeles suburb.

The school has become a target of far-right speakers and nationalist groups because of its reputation as a liberal bastion. In September, former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak on campus. Right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos has vowed to return for a Free Speech Week in response to violent protests that shut down his planned appearance last February.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ told incoming freshmen last week that Berkeleys Free Speech Movement in the 1960s was a product of liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to hold political protests on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, Christ said. That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with. Even of those whose views you find abhorrent.

We respond to hate speech with more speech, Christ said to loud applause.

At the same time, though, she said, theres also an obligation to keep the campus safe. We now know we have to have a far higher number of police officers ready, she said.

Concerns for safety are compounded for international students, many of whom have spent months reading headlines about the tense U.S. political situation and arrived wondering if their accents or the color of their skin will make them targets.

It was scary taking the risk of coming here, said Turkish international student Naz Dundar.

Dundar, 18, who considered going to university in Canada but felt relief after attending orientation at UC Berkeley. So far, no one hated me for being not American.

She plans to stay away from protests. Especially as a person of another race I dont want to get stoned, she said.

______

Associated Press writers Sally Ho in Nevada and Kantele Franko in Ohio contributed to this report.

See more here:

Colleges grappling with balancing free speech, campus safety - The Mercury News

CNN

Boston rally touting free speech: Live updates CNN (CNN) Thousands of counterprotesters gathered Saturday in downtown Boston in response to a self-described free speech rally at Boston Common. The demonstrations come a week after protests over race and national identity in Charlottesville, Virginia, ...

Original post:

Boston rally touting free speech: Live updates - CNN

Counterprotesters assemble at the Statehouse before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins on the adjacent Boston Common, on Saturday. Michael Dwyer/AP hide caption

Counterprotesters assemble at the Statehouse before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins on the adjacent Boston Common, on Saturday.

Updated at 1:00 p.m. ET

Thousands of counterprotesters gathered on the Boston Common on Saturday, far outnumbering a "Free Speech" rally of a few dozen conservative activists who said they have no connection to last week's violent protests in Charlottesville, Va., which drew white nationalists and sparked violent clashes and a deadly vehicle attack.

Under police escort, the Free-Speech demonstrators left the location where they said they would rally as they faced a sea of counterprotesters. It wasn't immediately clear if they would reassemble elsewhere.

Earlier, a speaker who addressed the counterdemonstrators condemned what many see as President Trump's tepid response to events last week in Charlottesville that led to the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer.

"If you don't condemn it, you condone it," the speaker said. Demonstrators also chanted "black lives matter" and "our streets."

Chris Hood, an 18-year-old Boston resident who planned to join the Free Speech rally, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: "The point of this is to have political speech from across the spectrum, conservative, libertarian, centrist."

"This is not about Nazis. If there were Nazis here, I'd be protesting against them," Hood said.

Some 500 officers, both uniformed and undercover, have been deployed to maintain order, according to Boston Police Commissioner William Evans. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a Democrat, both warned that extremist unrest in the city would not be tolerated.

Speaking with member station WBUR in Boston, an organizer of the self-described free speech rally insisted that the message from the demonstrators "is one that [is] anti-hate and pro-peace."

"I think we've taken pretty much every precaution, not only with [Boston police], but with the other organizers, to make sure our message is clear," John Medler, of the Boston Free Speech Coalition, said.

However, WBUR reported Friday that a "free speech" rally in Boston in May drew not only more mainstream conservative activists, but also some of the same groups that caused violence in Charlottesville:

"On May 13, a group of veterans, ex-police, Tea Party Republicans and young people affiliated with the self-described 'alt-right' a conservative faction that mixes racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and populism gathered around the Common's historic Parkman Bandstand.

"Organizers claimed that they were honoring their First Amendment right to assemble and express radical viewpoints. But the event felt more like a small, right-wing rally than a celebration of the Constitution."

For Saturday's rally, Police have banned backpacks and signs on sticks. The Boston Globe writes:

"Boston officials said Friday that they will shut down the Saturday event if there are signs of violence.

" 'The courts have made it abundantly clear that they have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are,' said Mayor Martin J. Walsh. 'They don't have the right to create unsafe conditions. ... They must respect our city.' "

"He urged the public not to confront members of hate groups who show up Saturday and advised residents and tourists to avoid the Common during the rally."

WBUR's Bruce Gellerman, reporting from the Common, tells Weekend Edition Saturday that the site of the Parkman Bandstand, the focus of the rally, is historic because of speakers such as then-candidate Barack Obama, Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass.

More:

Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By Counterprotesters - NPR

Thousands of leftist counterprotesters marched through downtown Boston on Saturday, chanting anti-Nazi slogans and waving signs condemning white nationalism as conservative activists appeared to cut short a rally one week after a Virginia demonstration turned deadly.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

Dozens of rallygoers had gathered on the Boston Common on Saturday, but then left shortly after the event was getting underway. It's unclear if they will gather to rally somewhere else in the city.

Rallygoers had been met by thousands of leftist protesters who marched peaceably through downtown Boston on Saturday, chanting anti-Nazi slogans and waving signs condemning white nationalism ahead of the rally.

Organizers of the midday event, billed as a "Free Speech Rally," have publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others whose Unite the Right march in Charlottesville turned deadly Aug. 12. A woman was killed at that march, and scores of others were injured, when a car plowed into counterdemonstrators.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers -- some in uniform, others undercover -- were deployed to keep the peace Saturday.

BOSTON HOPES TO KEEP PEACE AT 'FREE SPEECH RALLY'

Counterprotesters hold signs before conservative organizers begin a planned "Free Speech" rally on Boston Common, Saturday in Boston. Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers, some in uniform, others undercover, would be deployed to keep the two groups apart. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

Opponents feared that white nationalists might show up in Boston anyway, raising the specter of ugly confrontations in the first potentially large and racially charged gathering in a major U.S. city since Charlottesville. But only a few dozen conservatives turned out for the rally on historic Boston Common -- in stark contrast to the estimated 15,000 counterprotesters -- and the conservatives abruptly left early.

There were some confrontations amid the counterprotesters and conservative rally participants in Boston as they marched from the city's Roxbury neighborhood to Boston Common, where the rally was being held.

TV cameras showed a group of boisterous counterprotesters chasing a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him. Other counterprotesters intervened and helped the man safely over a fence to where the conservative rally was to be staged.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

Black-clad counterprotesters also grabbed an American flag out of an elderly woman's hands, and she stumbled and fell to the ground.

Boston police estimated the size of the crowd participating in the march by conservative activists to the Common at about 15,000.

The permit issued for the rally on Boston Common came with severe restrictions, including a ban on backpacks, sticks and anything that could be used as a weapon. The permit is for 100 people, though an organizer has said he expected up to 1,000 people to attend.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, said it has nothing to do with white nationalism or racism and its group is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way.

"We are strictly about free speech," the group said on its Facebook page. "... we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence."

But the mayor pointed out that some of those invited to speak "spew hate." Kyle Chapman, who described himself on Facebook as a "proud American nationalist," said he will attend.

Events are planned around the country, in cities including Atlanta, Dallas and New Orleans.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more here:

Thousands march through Boston for 'Free Speech Rally' - Fox News

Photo Credit Hanna Barczyk

Even before violence erupted in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, city residents and the police anxiously watched the arrival of self-styled militias swaggering gangs of armed civilians in combat fatigues standing guard over the protest by white supremacists and other racist agitators against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Who were these men, counterprotesters asked as the riflemen took up watchful positions around the protest site. Police? National Guard? The Virginia National Guard had to send out an alert that its members wore a distinctive MP patch. This was so people could tell government-sanctioned protectors from unauthorized militias that have been posing as law-and-order squads at right-wing rallies.

In brandishing weapons in Charlottesville, the militiamen added an edge of intimidation to a protest that was ostensibly called as an exercise in free speech. By flaunting their right to bear arms, they made a stark statement in a looming public confrontation. You would have thought they were an army, noted Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, one of 45 states that allow the open carrying of rifles in public to some degree, most without a permit required.

The limits of that freedom are being increasingly tested by jury-rigged militias at demonstrations, public meetings and other political flash points around the nation. These strutting vigilantes have become such a threatening presence that government should rein them in to allow for a truly free exchange of ideas. State and federal laws would seem to allow their curtailment, provided that political leaders and the courts face up to the risks of mob rule.

No shots were fired in the Charlottesville violence, but with more alt-right rallies planned the danger that these militia members loaded weapons might be used increases. The armed groups mostly back up right-wing protests, although there was one militia in Charlottesville claiming to protect peaceful counterdemonstrators at a church. (The protest also drew antifa anti-fascist counterprotesters on the political left, ready to brawl with fists and sticks against those on the other side.)

Police officials have warned that gun-packing vigilantes only compound the risks in confrontations. Charlottesville officials, citing public safety, had sought to move the protest to a different site but were rebuffed in federal court. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the protesters free speech rights, though lawyers concede that the issue is becoming more complex as the potential for violence grows. Some critics think that the intrusive militias in Charlottesville could have contributed to the initial hesitation by the police to break up the violence.

Original post:

The Gunmen at 'Free Speech' Rallies - New York Times

Since its founding during a period of anti-communist paranoia in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has served as a reliable line of defense for those who find their constitutional freedoms under threat.

Sometimes, that means fighting for liberal causes: ACLU lawyers were involved in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the two U.S. Supreme Court victories that underpinned womens right to abortionin modern America.And the ACLU was the only major U.S. organization to speak out against the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But sometimes, the group has decided to defend people who its liberal supporters find less palatable. In a 1934 pamphlet, entitled "Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?" the group defended its choice to stand up for German-American Nazis who wanted to hold meetings in the U.S. Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only as an abstract principle, demands the defense of all who are attacked in order to obtain the rights of any? its justification read.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

In modern America, the ACLU finds itself in a similar bind. With far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan more visible, and white nationalists grouping under the self-defined banner of the "alt-right,"it must decide whether it will defend the rights of such groups to demonstrate and spread their often hateful views.

While the ACLU does still advocate for such groups, it is now laying out some strict boundaries about what it is willing to stand up for. Prior tothe Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,Virginia, the ACLU actedin support of the organizers, who were originally denied a permit to gather. However, that gathering resulted in violent clashesand the death of a woman when a man drove his car into a group of anti-fascist counterprotesters.

On Thursday, the ACLU made a statement specifying that it would not defend groups that wanted to incite violence or march armed to the teeth, the Los Angeles Times reported.

We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence, the statement, from three California ACLU affiliates, said.

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution, the statement continued. The 1st Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

Waldo Jaquith, a former member of the ACLU Virginia board, had already resigned over the groups decision to defend far-right activists. I just resigned from the ACLU of Virginia board, he wrote on Twitter. Whats legal and whats right are sometimes different. I wont be a fig leaf for Nazis.

As the organizations ranks have swelledin many cases with people opposed to the policies of U.S. President Donald Trumpand left-wing views on zero-tolerance anti-fascist tactics gain a greater hearing, this is likely to be just the start of a long wrestle within the ACLU on the boundaries between defending free speech and endangering more vulnerable groups.

Members of the Charlottesville community hold a vigil for Heather Heyer, who died protesting the rally, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 16. The Cavalier Daily/Handout/Reuters

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups - Newsweek

It was 1934 and fascism was on the march not only in Europe but in America. People who admired Adolf Hitler, who had taken power in Germany, formed Nazi organizations in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by lawyers who were Jewish, faced an existential question: Should the freedoms it stood for since its founding in 1920 apply even to racist groups that would like nothing more than to strip them away?

Ultimately, after much internal dissent, the ACLU decided: Yes, the principles were what mattered most. The ACLU would stand up for the free-speech rights of Nazis.

We do not choose our clients, the ACLUs board of directors wrote in an October 1934 pamphlet called Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America? Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us. To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask where do you draw the line?

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists.

In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLUs three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that white supremacist violence is not free speech.

The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLUs official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Officials in Charlottesville had initially denied organizers of the Unite the Right rally a permit to hold the event at the site of a Robert E. Lee statue. But the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters rights to gather there. The rally ended with one woman killed and dozens of people injured as neo-Nazis and other far-right groups that had come armed with shields, helmets and even guns clashed violently with counter-protesters.

Now, with more far-right events scheduled in California, the states ACLU affiliates are warning that there are limits to what they will defend.

We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence, said the statement, which was signed by the executive directors of the ACLU affiliates of Southern California, Northern California, and of San Diego and Imperial Counties.

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution, the statement continued. The 1st Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

That statement drew some criticism from former ACLU board member Samuel Walker, a history professor at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, who supports the ACLUs historical stance on far-right groups. He called the remarks irresponsible.

How is the 1st Amendment being a shield for violence? he said. They need to be clear on that, and this statement is not clear.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said it was not the organizations perspective on civil liberties that had changed, but the nature of the far-right groups themselves a willingness to come to events ready for violence.

The factual context here is shifting, given the extent to which the particular marches were seeing in this historical moment are armed, Arulanantham said.

For decades, the ACLU has defended the speech rights of far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan on the principle that if those groups rights are not upheld, the government will try to restrict the free-speech rights of other groups as well.

Most famously, the ACLU successfully defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Ill., in 1978, which was home to many Holocaust survivors.

But the ACLUs stance was costly. The groups membership and donations which had soared during the Nixon administration declined sharply after the Skokie case, with thousands of supporters abandoning the group. A left-wing civil liberties counterpart, the National Lawyers Guild, accused the ACLU of "poisonous evenhandedness.

The group has seen its membership and its donations soar under the Trump administration as left-leaning Americans embrace the organization as a bulwark against the administration.

But some emerging factions of the left do not share the ACLUs values on free speech and assembly. Surveys have shown that young people are more likely than older Americans to support a government ban on hate speech, which is constitutionally protected.

Leftists who call themselves anti-facists and in many cases endorse illegal violence, viewing it as a morally just tactic to prevent neo-Nazis from gathering publicly, have also seen their numbers grow since Trumps election, which was supported by far-right groups.

The ACLUs decision this month to file a 1st Amendment lawsuit on behalf of right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos whose rhetoric about immigrants and minorities has made him a target of violent protests prompted a high-profile ACLU attorney to publicly object.

Though his ability to speak is protected by the 1st Amendment, I don't believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases, wrote Chase Strangio, who stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. His actions have consequences for people that I care about and for me."

The outcry from the ACLUs California affiliates prompted the groups national leader, Anthony D. Romero, to respond with a statement of his own.

We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California, Romero said. The 1st Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day.

But, Romero added: At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we'll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.

Link:

Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right - Los Angeles Times

On Wednesday afternoon, a Canadian university, Ryerson, decided to immolate its educational principles. It cancelled a discussion between conservative journalist, Faith Goldy, and Professors Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad.

Let's be clear, the excuse the school offers is fake. What's really going on here is that Ryerson has decided to sacrifice intellectual curiosity at the altar of far-left fascism.

Declaring that it is "prioritizing public safety" over free speech, Ryerson is offering a false choice. For one, Ryerson is in Toronto, a city with more than 5,000 police officers and named the safest city in North America in 2015. Had Ryerson sought to preserve free speech, it could have requested and enacted a security envelope around the event.

A warped sense of political correctness is at blame here. The individual who led the effort to force Ryerson to cancel the event, Christeen Elizabeth, explained that "Transphobia is violence, Islamophobia is violence. Violence is contextual."

Sure.

Regardless, to sabotage the discussion, Elizabeth told the National Post that she "inundated Ryerson with calls and emails protesting the panel. She said she also collaborated with the school's student union, who added to the pressure." The pressure campaign worked as Ryerson yielded to the threats and abuse.

Still, what's most troubling here is the degree to which this situation shows how far the far-left's "no speech" platform now extends. After all, the panelists who were no-platformed are hardly neo-Nazis.

For one, Faith Goldy bears nothing in common with Hitler. She works for an online conservative media outlet, The Rebel, which revels in being controversial and cheeky. But that website is not a malevolent entity. Indeed, this week, Goldy gave a compelling defense of her viewpoints. "I do not bathe in tears of white guilt, that doesn't make me a white supremacist. I oppose state multiculturalism and affirmative action, that doesn't make me a racist. I reject cultural marxism but that doesn't make me a fascist."

Indeed.

Similarly, Professor Jordan Peterson isn't Himmler, he's a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His great crime against social justice? Making intellectual arguments against the subjective appropriation of gender pronouns. But search for any video of Peterson.

And Gad Saad? His topic is consumer choices.

In the end, there's only one takeaway from what's just occurred. Goldy, Peterson, and Saad, are far better people than Christeen Elizabeth, her fascists, and Ryerson's administrators. Professor Peterson proved as much when he offered a very measured response to the cancellation of his event. He told the National Post that "We're drifting into a scenario of increased polarization, and it's not an advisable time to contribute to that, wittingly or unwittingly."

View post:

The far-left strikes another blow against free speech - Washington Examiner

The University of California at Berkeley is a place where right-wing provocateurs such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos know they can get a rise. But maybe less so, starting now: On Tuesday, the school's recently-appointed chancellor, Carol Christ, declared this year to be a "Free Speech Year" on campus, and marked that the school would be doubling down on not only protecting speech, but also teaching the value of discourse to college students that seem to have forgotten.

In February, campus protests became violent, shutting down a Milo Yiannopoulos appearance. This upcoming academic year, he's slated to speak again. A less controversial (but still somewhat cringe-worthy) Ben Shapiro will be speaking on campus later next month. This time, though, new policies will be in place to bolster security and event preparation, regardless of viewpoint. "We have not only an obligation to protect free speech but an obligation to keep our community safe," said Christ.

Other Berkeley events during this upcoming year will center around core constitutional issues, the school's history as the forefront of the student activism movement, and employ a "point-counterpoint" format for panels, where participants can practice civil exchange of ideas in a public forum.

In Christ's own words, Berkeley "would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious."

She's completely right, and it's wonderful to see a university administrator choosing not to mince words when it comes to defense of free speech, especially at a place such as Berkeley. If administrators were more fervently clear that hateful, offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment too, we might see more ideologically-tolerant college students.

Of course, Christ isn't claiming that every year can't be devoted to free speech rather, she's making it abundantly clear that there is, and will always be, immense value to civil discourse. And she is making it clear that the birthplace of the student free speech movement shouldn't be desecrated by violent protesters who don't understand the most challenging aspects of a liberal democracy that one should extend free speech rights to those you find abhorrent, lest your own be taken.

Perhaps Berkeley will, once again, lead the campus free speech movement.

Liz Wolfe (@lizzywol) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is managing editor at Young Voices.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more from the original source:

Free speech might be coming to Berkeley in a shocking turn of events - Washington Examiner

According to a post on the Frog Ponds Facebook and Twitter accounts, the pool and surrounding areas will remain closed for the entire day.

The Boston Common Frog Pond, a popular splash park and fountain for children, will be closed Saturday because of a controversial rally scheduled at the nearby Parkman Bandstand.

According to a post on the Frog Ponds Facebook and Twitter accounts, the pool and surrounding areas will remain closed for the entire day, as attendees of the so-called Boston Free Speech rally descend on the public park.

Advertisement

Notice! Saturday, August 19, 2017: Frog Pond will be closed for the day, the post said.

The Frog Pond spray pool, which is operated by the Skating Club of Boston, is typically open daily, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., during the summertime and is a draw for families and tourists.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Doug Zeghibe, executive director of the club, told the Globe they decided to shut down due to an abundance of caution.

He said that recent events in Charlottesville, Va., where a woman was killed as white nationalists and counterprotesters clashed on the streets, prompted the decision.

We have full faith in the Park Rangers and Boston police, but I think what you saw in Virginia is just evidence that you never know what might happen, he said. Random people can get injured sometimes fatally.

Advertisement

Zeghibe added, These days you cant exercise too much caution.

Saturdays event, organized by the Boston Free Speech Coalition, is expected to draw both counterprotesters and a heavy police presence to the park.

Some speakers have dropped out of the planned rally, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd.

Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued a permit to organizers of the rally but set down zero tolerance rules: No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down, Walsh said this week.

Ryan Woods, a spokesman for the citys Parks and Recreation Department, said that almost everything is closed at the park Saturday because of the rally, including the Earl of Sandwich and the Swan Boats at the adjacent Public Garden.

Woods said the parks department also asked this week that vendors not set up shop on the Common amid the protest.

He said getting vendor carts into the park requires the use of vehicles, which will be banned from entering Boston Common Saturday.

Original post:

Frog Pond to close Saturday because of 'free speech' rally - The Boston Globe

Reuters:

Apple Inc CEO Tim Cook has joined a chorus of business leaders who have voiced their opposition to President Donald Trump after he blamed white nationalists and anti-racism activists equally for violence in Virginia over the weekend.

I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans, Cook wrote in a note late on Wednesday to employees, according to technology news website Recode.

Cook also said in the letter that Apple will donate $1 million apiece to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and will match two-for-one their donations to the organizations and other human rights groups until Sept. 30.

Let me note first that I am not very impressed (to put it mildly) with the way that the president has responded to the events in Charlottesville.

That said, lets concentrate on this: Cook is spending $1m of shareholders money on a gift to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC has, shall we say, its issues. You can find some interesting commentaryover at that well-known bastion of the right, Harpers Magazine, here, here and here.

But Id like to focus on the SPLCs Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, and two of the names included in that guide (something already discussed by Ericka Andersen on this very Corner back in June).

Firstly, theresMaajid Nawaz a British activist and part of the ex-radical circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam.

Amongst the evidence of his extremism is this:

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.

So Apple is funding an organization that deems taking a stand in favor of free speech as evidence of extremism. The company that once advertised itself as the antithesis of Big Brotheris now a de facto supporter of controlling blasphemy. Times change.

Doubtless this will play well in Apple (Saudi Arabia), so theres that.

Heres (part of) what The Atlantic had to say about Nawaz last year (my emphasis added):

Nawaz is a star in certain anti-terror circles, thanks to a compelling personal narrative: A self-described former extremist who spent four years in an Egyptian prison, he has changed approaches and now argues for a pluralistic and peaceful vision of Islam. He stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat in 2015, and advised Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.

Nawazs work has earned him detractorscritics claim he has embellished or neatened his narrative, some attack him for opportunism, and others question his liberal bona fidesbut calling him an anti-Muslim extremist is a surprise. Unlike the likes of Gaffney and Geller, he doesnt espouse the view that Islam itself is a problem; unlike Ali, who now describes herself as an atheist, Nawaz identifies as a Muslim.

Ali? Ah yes: Someone else who is on the SPLC extremist list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali knows a thing or two about Islam, having been brought up in thatfaith (at one point in her youth she was very devout) and then broken with it publicly and, yes, abrasively, something that put her life in danger (which goes some way to backing up what she has to say about Islam). Sometimes she has, in my view, overreached in her rhetoric (others will disagree), but to go from that to claiming that she is an extremist in the way that the SPLC use that word is absurd, no more than that, its sinister.

Another prominent atheist, Sam Harris, has described the labeling of Hirsi Ali and Nawaz as extremists as unbelievable. After Hirsi Ali was snubbed by Brandeis in 2014 (two years before the SPLCfield guide came out), Richard Dawkins referred toher as a hero of rationalism & feminism.

Over at Patheos,Hemant Mehta. the Friendly Atheist (and no rightist)called the SPLCs designation of Hirsi Ali and Nawaza f****** joke :

If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it wont be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list, too. And make no mistake, thats what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. Thats all theyre doing. Theyre not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. Theyre critical of the worst aspects of Islam. For goodness sake, theyre not attacking Malala Yousafzai.

Hell, Hirsi Alis foundation works to end faith-based honor killings and female genital mutilation. Who knew that would make her the Worst Person Ever?

Mehta added:

Essentially, while her words may have been harsh, they should be seen with the understanding that she has been personally affected by the worst aspects of the faith. As I wrote before, it takes a very uncharitable interpretation of Hirsi Alis words to think her goal of defeating Islam means we should commit violence against peaceful law-abiding Muslims or descends into hate speech. Her goal is full-scale reform of Islam, not genocide against all Muslims.

She has repeatedly said that her goal is to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism, not to prevent peaceful Muslims from practicing their faith.

Yet sheand Nawaz have attracted the ire of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But all of thats fine with Apples Tim Cook, so fine that hes prepared to throw one million dollars of his shareholders money SPLCs way.

See the rest here:

Silicon Valley and Free Speech: Tim Cook Edition - National Review

Following last weekends violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, many tech companies have been thrust into a debate over free speech and social responsibility.

One tech company after another has taken steps to effectively choke off white supremacist groups after a violent rally.

Some have said they have an obligation to take down content that incites violence. Others have simply suggested that hateful or racist behavior violates their community standards.

The moves have left some hate groups and websites in internet limbo, unable to communicate, move money or find a home online.

GoDaddy and Google each stopped hosting the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer after it published a derogatory story about Heather Heyer, who was killed while protesting against the rally. Facebook has taken down a number of white supremacist Facebook Groups and pulled the event page for Saturdays rally after it became clear it was violent.

On the payments side, PayPal has been cracking down on white supremacist accounts, and GoFundMe is banning crowdfunding campaigns for the man who alleged plowed his car into the crowd killing Heyer. Apple has reportedly cut off payments to websites selling Nazi-themed merchandise.

This approach even had consequences offline. Airbnb removed users who were connected with the rally and planned to stay at several of its home rentals. And an Uber driver in Charlottesville kicked out a group of prominent white nationalists from her car. The driver was then honored at Ubers all-hands meeting on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson.

Tech companies have long faced pressure to do more to address hate and harassment online.

But this weeks sudden and aggressive crack down reignites concerns about the industrys immense power to decide who does and doesnt have a place on the internet.

To me, the question is never about whether white supremacists deserve a platform, but who gets to decide that? says Jillian York, director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As private companies, the Facebooks and Googles of the world are free to determine who uses their products. Typically, however, theyve tried to cultivate the image of being neutral and unbiased platforms by relying on artificial intelligence and user feedback to flag offensive content.

At a more fundamental level, some tech companies were built by teams who strongly believed in free speech. One former Google employee told CNN Tech the company was reluctant to remove hate speech from its Blogger platform in the mid-2000s because of concerns it amounted to censorship.

The industry has been forced to evolve its approach in recent years amid greater media and regulatory scrutiny over online harassment and the spread of terrorist content from groups like ISIS.

York says most of the worlds governments and nearly all Silicon Valley companies decided that terrorists dont get speech rights. Now she says the tech industry is at risk of being seen as unilaterally deciding the same to be true for Nazis and white supremacists.

By asserting more control over offensive content, tech companies may find themselves on a slippery slope. They could face redoubled efforts from media outlets and governments to take down other controversial posts in the future.

Matthew Prince, CEO of internet firm Cloudfare, wrestled with these concerns in an unusually candid blog post Wednesday after his company terminated The Daily Stormers account.

After today, make no mistake, Prince said, it will be a little bit harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they dont like.

Meanwhile, a new cottage industry of fringe copycat startups has gained attention for catering to those who arent welcome on more mainstream platforms. But even some of these sites are starting to be more discerning.

Discord, a Skype and chat service popular with the alt-right, said this week it was shutting down accounts associated with the Charlottesville events. We will continue to take action against white supremacy, Nazi ideology, and all forms of hate, the company said in a statement.

View original post here:

Charlottesville forces Silicon Valley to confront its approach to free speech - wtvr.com

Some speakers have dropped out of the Boston Free Speech rally planned for Saturday on the Common, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd at the event, which expected to draw counterprotesters and a heavy police presence.

The rally organizers said early Thursday in a Facebook post that the four headliners will be Kyle Chapman, Joe Biggs, US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, and congressional candidate Samson Racioppi.

Advertisement

So its been a little tumultuous running up to the 19th. Weve attracted much love from the Alt Left aka Antifa and their trolly bits, the post said. We apologize for the upheaval of our speaker list.

Of the four speakers, Chapman and Biggs appeared likely to draw the most ire.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

Chapman gained notoriety earlier this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an anti-fascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Mayor Walsh said. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Chapman, who became known on the Internet as Based Stickman, then started a group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a New Alt-Right Fight Club ready for street violence.

The Alt Knights are linked to another extremist group, the Proud Boys. According to the SPLC, Chapman says his new militant, highly-masculine group will be the tactical defensive arm of the Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters.

Advertisement

The Proud Boys were founded by Gavin McInnes, who was originally scheduled as a speaker at Saturdays rally but dropped out earlier this week.

Biggs, a former US Army staff sergeant, worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

The conspiracy theory almost went horribly wrong when a man showed up at the pizzeria and fired a miltiary-assault-style rifle. He was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Biggs previously told the Globe that Saturdays rally is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence.

These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He was referring to the rally in Virginia that turned deadly when white supremacists and neo-Nazi demonstrators clashed with counterprotesters, and one white supremacist allegedly plowed his vehicle into Heather Heyer, killing the young woman who was part of the counterprotest.

Tensions have been high in the leadup to the planned rally in Boston, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh telling hate groups that the city does not want you here. City officials have granted the organizers a permit allowing them to rally on the Common from noon to 2 p.m., with restrictions on objects that attendees can bring into the area.

Among the banned items for demonstrators on both sides: bats, sticks, and backpacks. Walsh said police will have a zero-tolerance policy.

Walsh is not the only political leader to condemn bigotry ahead of the rally.

During an ornate State House ceremony on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker was joined by a number of elected officials including Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg in submitting an official resolution decrying white nationalism in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

The officials took turns reading portions of the resolution, including one excerpt read by Baker that said the state strongly denounces the bigoted ideologies promoted by white nationalists.

Meanwhile, the rally organizers continue to insist that the event is open to a range of political views and not a forum for hate groups.

We are STILL offering our platform for left groups to join us and have open slots for speakers if any left groups would like to furnish some, the Facebook posting said. We will, of course, ask that speakers stick generally to the subject of Free Speech. We will not tolerate advocacy for hate against any ethnic/racial groups, as stated on our recent release.

Ayyadurai, a Cambridge Republican who has staked out a populist stance in the early months of the GOP Senate primary in Massachusetts, recently told the Globe via e-mail that he was concerned Saturdays rally could turn violent.

He added that racial strife is manufactured and fueled by the Establishment to distract from the economic problems that they have caused and profit from. ... The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.

Racioppi, the fourth speaker who is also running for Congress, is enrolled at Suffolk University and served as a Cavalry Scout in the US Army for three years, according to his campaign website.

Speech is such an important thing to me, a blog post says on his site. It is the most important value a society can recognize for free people to stay that way.

The site also includes a YouTube video of Racioppi speaking under a headline that says, How drug legalization reduces addiction and overdose deaths.

Here is the original post:

Speaker list for 'free speech' rally includes right-wing extremists - The Boston Globe

John Medlar, an organizer of Saturdays free speech rally on Boston Common.

No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

Those are on the list of zero tolerance rules that Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued to organizers of a controversial free speech rally scheduled to be held on Boston Common on Saturday.

Advertisement

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which also goes by the name New Free Speech Movement, received permit, but it will have major restrictions.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Walsh explained. We are going to have a zero-tolerance policy. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

That goes for everyone, he stressed.

The group has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

The approved permit, which was reviewed by the Globe, was issued to John Medlar, spokesman for the coalition, at 2:47 p.m. Wednesday. It is for a total five hours, including two from noon to 2 p.m. for the rally. Three hours are reserved for setting up and shutting down.

Police officials met with organizers from the free speech rally and a separate solidarity march and explained the high expectations for Saturday, Evans told reporters. He said members from both groups were cooperative.

Advertisement

We asked like we do to any large-scale events that people dont bring backpacks, Evans said. They are going to be subject to search because we still worry about ... the threat of terrorism. Any large sticks [and] anything that can be used as a weapon are banned.

Medler confirmed the meeting with police, including Superintendent Kevin Buckley, at police headquarters around 10 a.m. Wednesday. He also had a separate meeting with city permitting director Paul McCaffrey to discuss logistics related to the rally.

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Medler said he was relieved the permit issue is resolved.

Its one thing to be told its going to happen, said Medler, a spokesman for the coalition. Its another thing when you actually have real confirmation.

The police commissioner and other law enforcement officials met separately with organizers of a racial justice solidarity march that is also planned for Saturday, said Tanisha Sullivan, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP.

Sullivan said the NAACP is not holding the march but hosted the meeting at its Roxbury offices to help ensure a clear understanding of the public safety measures that will be in place Saturday.

Monica Cannon, a Roxbury advocate who heads the Violence in Boston Movement, is leading the racial justice solidarity march organized in response to the free speech rally also attended the meeting.

The meeting was informative, and the NAACP will continue to monitor the impact of any new developments, Sullivan said. It is very likely that there will be large numbers of people converging on the Boston Common Saturday afternoon. Our hope is that the message of racial justice and equality rings loud, while at the same time everyone makes it home safe.

The free speech rally garnered major attention after the bloodshed that tarnished Charlottesville, Va. Virginia authorities said neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists incited the violence. And many across social media feared some of the people involved in Charlottesville might also attend Saturdays rally.

Organizers of the Boston free speech rally who are mostly young white men in their 20s insist their event is all about the freedom of expression. They said they denounce violence.

But civil rights activists, noting the extreme, white nationalist views of some of the speakers who were initially invited, criticized the coalition for offering a platform to people who spew hate and racial violence.

As the rally day nears, a handful of faith leaders gathered under a glowing sun on City Hall Plaza around lunchtime Wednesday to lock hands and pray for healing and peace in Boston and the White House.

The prayers came a day after a vigil at the New England Holocaust Memorial, which was vandalized Monday for the second time this summer.

The mayor used the opportunity to again deliver a message to any group that wants to stir trouble Saturday.

You can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate, bigotry, and racism, Walsh said.

Evans, the police commissioner, said officers will monitor Saturdays events as they do any major gatherings. There will be barricades separating the free speech rally and the social justice march, he said, adding that he is not sure of how many people are expected to fill the Common.

Evans also said that although police met with organizers of the free speech rally, he said he has no way to know whether they support white supremacist views.

Obviously they are claiming they are all about free speech, but thats not my role to determine who and what they are, Evans said. I know we have a job to do and that is to keep people safe.

More:

'Free speech' rally in Boston to get two-hour permit with stiff restrictions - The Boston Globe

Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeleys 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nations top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a Free Speech Year as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold point-counterpoint panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeleys free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view, Christ said in an interview. We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a tent city in Berkeleys iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellors daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeleys free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, she said. That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is more speech rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious, she said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the the surest form of safe space.

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, We want to eliminate all gray areas and make sure theres clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christs focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

I want her to really protect free speech because theres really high political tensions here, Nguyen said of the chancellor. Were at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com

Twitter: @teresawatanabe

See original here:

UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events - Los Angeles Times

John Medlar, one of the organizers of Saturday's Boston Free Speech Coalition rally on Boston Common.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition evolved quietly online and out of the view of authorities in recent months, shaped in part by outrage over violent protests at political rallies and riots on a California campus, a spokesman for the group said Tuesday.

John Medlar, the 23-year-old spokesman, said he and other young men began communicating on the Internet to express alarm over what they viewed as support for protesters who set fires, damaged property, and started fights following the University of California Berkeleys decision to invite controversial conservative figures to speak.

Advertisement

We were alarmed that people were OK with fringe anarchists burning down a campus and driving [out] speakers, Medlar said.

As the coalition which also goes by the name The New Free Speech Movement prepares to hold a controversial rally on Boston Common on Saturday, a picture of the sponsoring organization has emerged. The group, which until recently planned to include speakers with white nationalist ties at Saturdays event, has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

We are not professional activists, Medlar said. We are just a bunch of volunteers who set out to go do something.

Medlar said he has been in contact with police and the city and is working to ensure a permit for Saturdays event. The city had said the group did not apply for one. But records show an organizer started the process by filling out an online application on the citys special events portal in July. He did not apply for a permit with the Boston Parks and Recreation Department, which issues permits for large-scale events in the citys parks.

Medlar said the organizer was confused by the process, but the group is working with parks and police officials to address the matter. City officials had said that if a permit is issued there would be conditions.

Advertisement

Many Boston-area activists said the group is giving a platform to those who spew racial hate and incite violence.

Ivn Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, said the coalition is naive to think that the issue is about the right to free speech if the expression at their rally dissolves into bigotry and violence.

You have the right to speak. You dont have the right to threaten or intimidate people, he said. You dont have a right to promote racial violence.

The group describes itself on Facebook as a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents that is willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties.

They are mostly young white men in their 20s from places like Newton, Cambridge, and Charlestown who like to think of themselves as free speech absolutionists, members of the group said.

But civil rights specialists say the group is alt-lite, and that Saturdays event is part of a broader effort among some right-wing groups to bring their ideological battles into the streets.

Medlar acknowledged that at least one white nationalist group has been trying to use the rally to insert itself. But he distanced the coalition from that group or any group that espouses violence.

We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence, the groups Facebook posting said.

One of the Virginia rallys speakers and another alt-right member who attended it were also invited to speak at the Boston event months ago. Both are no longer speaking.

The group came on scene in May with a small rally on the Common that drew protests. Police Commissioner William Evans had said the free speech group that held the event was not affiliated with Saturdays rally. But Medlar said he helped to organize the May rally. Police officials said they are trying to determine who was involved in both rallies.

Coalition members did not anticipate the uproar they would cause when they began planning Saturdays event at the Parkman Bandstand in May, Medlar and others said.

Just last week, a rally led by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white racists led to bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va. Immediately after, there was worry on social media that the speakers who police said incite violent and hate would also speak on the Common.

Amid the uproar, Medlar said the Boston rally organizers were unsure how to respond and panicked. They wavered over whether to continue with their rally or cancel it.

In the confusion, he added, one of the groups six organizers notified headliner Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, to not to come to Boston. Invictus attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016. He told the Globe this week that organizers said they were worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Tensions between Invictus and the group soared.

We do not support him due to his willingness to support violence, as well as his Holocaust denial, said one member who would only identify himself as Louis. So he has been disinvited, and he has pulled out.

Six other participants also dropped out as of Tuesday afternoon, Medlar said, and the groups list of speakers remains in flux. Part of the speakers exodus stemmed from uncertainty over whether the event would be held, and the other part has to do with the disinvitation of Invictus. There was a breach of trust between the coalition and speakers, he added.

It was a mistake on our part we believe, Medlar said. It created the impression that we are not fully committed to free speech.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only three people are confirmed to speak, he said.

Hoping to get a handle on the situation, Medlar said the group decided it needed a public face to address reporters questions and work with the city and police.

Postponing the rally now is not an option. If organizers postpone or cancel it, they would be seen as caving to pressure, the coalition said. Plus, members added, people are going to come.

In many ways it has already [become] bigger than us, Medlar added. And we need to get our act together and take control of the reins to make sure we are on course.

View original post here:

Who is the Boston Free Speech Coalition behind Saturday's rally? - The Boston Globe