George Washington Could Teach Trump A Lot About Free Speech – Daily Beast

To listen to President Donald Trump and his surrogates rail against the American media, you would think the commander in chief was setting the stage for a nasty divorce proceeding. Some years back, he had a happy and reciprocal love affair with leading news and entertainment outlets, one that that he hasnt yet forgotten.

In Europe and back home recently, the president insisted in another of his myriad fake news claims that, NBC's equally as bad [as CNN], despite the fact that I made them a fortune with The Apprentice, but they forgot that!" And surrogate Kellyanne Conway accused CNNs anchor Chris Cuomo of ignoring other issues at home and paying more attention to Russia than to the good old United States.

Our first president, George Washington, would probably be at least irked to learnwere he to return to the banks of the Potomac for a dayabout all the serious charges of foreign meddling, which he warned adamantly against in his own Farewell Address.

But he also would likely be amused to see the Trump administration in such a dogfight with the Fourth Estate. He knew a little about the symbiotic relationship between people in power and their muses, who, in his day, often came in the form of poets working as journalists, or journalists working as playwrights.

George Washington, as general and as president, spent most of his career gliding past the daggers of his detractors, confident that free voices, though flawed and often inaccurate, were an essential element of a more open society and a bulwark against the omnipresent threat of oppression.

He made a point to be cordial with the press, and for good reason. Early on in his career, men and ladies of letters had adored and feted George Washington.

In October 26, 1775, a recently emancipated black poet, Phillis Wheatley, praised the newly-appointed commander of the Continental Army, writing,

Shall I to Washington their praise recite?

Enough thou know'st them in the fields of fight.

Thee, first in peace and honorswe demand.

The grace and glory of thy martial band.

Fam'd for thy valour, for thy virtues more,

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

Hear every tongue thy guardian aid implore!

It was start of a golden age of revolution in which America needed heroes and the media of the day was there to help polish their legends. Throughout the grueling seven years of the Revolutionary War, the fledgling U.S. press provided blow-by-blow accounts of the revolt, so that as Ben Franklin wrote in 1782, the same truths may be repeatedly enforced by placing them daily in different lights in newspapers, which are everywhere read.

For his part, Washington saw press, poets and playwrightsparticularly the ones on his sideas the best defense against Tory lies. From his desk at Valley Forge, he wrote to the young poet Timothy Dwight to encourage him, stating that nothing would please him more than to patronize the essays of Genius and a laudable cultivation of the Arts & Sciences, which had begun to flourish in so eminent a degree, before the hand of oppression was stretched over our devoted Country.

Washington was, of course, a great actor on the stage of history and politics, and he also knew that no great actor could survive without the help of muses, who could be seen in public as free of shackles that others might place on them.

In May 1788, George wrote to his friend the Marquis de Lafayette, Men of real talents in Arms have commonly approved themselves patrons of the liberal arts and friends to poets, of their own as well as former times, adding that, In some instances by acting reciprocally, heroes have made poets, and poets heroes.

By contrast, Trump and his staff hammer the press daily with personal insults and have threatened to eliminate funding for the National Endowment of the Arts, which provides hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support independent voices, often critical of authority.

The White House has made plain its disdain for funding the NEA as well as public radio and television, but with major corporate and private backing, independent critics of those in power are likely to continue plying their trade regardless.

Breaking revelations that the Trump campaign actively sought foreign help to defeat Hillary Clinton are only likely to further stoke the fires of domestic criticism aimed at White House, also sometimes referred to as The Peoples House.

Such a role for artists and the media is as all American as apple pie and began with the imprimatur of POTUS #1.President Washington had to deal with members of the Fourth Estate out to ridicule and undermine his tenure. A leading and rabid critic, Philip Freneau, hired to work for the U.S. government by Washingtons sometimes friend and rival Thomas Jefferson, spent much of his desk time writing scathing critiques of Washington in his wildly partisanNational Gazette.

The paper was entirely unforgiving of anything that struck of gilded pleasures, calling Washingtons 61st birthday, party, for example, a forerunner of other monarchical vices, and asking rhetorically if the celebration of a leaders birthdaywhich was widely demanded by Washingtons many admirerswas not a striking feature of royalty? One cringes to think what Freneau might have concluded from one of Trumps lavish weekend soirees or staff pool parties at Mar-e-Lago.

The best way to understand the difference between POTUS #1 and POTUS #45 might well be to review the social milieu in which they earned their political chops.

As George launched his military career during the French and Indian War, the heart of the Old Dominion, Williamsburg, was witnessing an explosion of drama and fiction, including new plays marked by scathing satire, often with ironic twists aimed at highlighting or pillorying societal norms. Georges personal development ran parallel to this Augustan Age of wit, wisdom, and criticism.

Comedies of manners, as they were called, became all the rage before and after theFrench & Indian War. Virginia, like mother England, was learning to laugh at society, but, in particular, to make fun of stuffy, wealthy types who typified the ruling classes. Across the channel in France, writers and critics took a similar tack through plays, pamphlets, and cartoons, which would eventually spell the demiseand beheadingof the monarchy.

As in Paris, leading characters in many of Williamsburgs popular dramas were marked by their acute character flaws, whichmore often than notmade them comic misfits. Other stage stories delved into scandalincluding into the sexual peccadilloes of the elite class.

Washington found himself regularly at thetheater in Williamsburgin the company of a Thomas Jefferson, whoin contrast to George, who liked his expensive box seatsoften enjoyed watching performances from the rowdy pit beneath center stage, where detractors could throw rotten apples, tomatoes, and orange peels if they didnt like what they sawwhich could be numerous times in an evening.

Indeed, it is hard to see how Washington could have become the same inspired hero of the Revolution and advocate of a vibrant arts scene had he not been exposed to this rollicking age of drama in his teens and early twenties.

By contrast, it is worth remembering that Trump spent his early days promoting fake wrestling matches before he expanded his interests into beauty pageantsa far cry from the Colonial Era.

Despite the barbs thrown at him later in life, Washington never surrendered hisbelief that a battle of ideas was worth engaging in. He knew that arts and a free, unshackled press provided a means for him and his fellow Americans to envision their own idealsto put meat on the bone, so to speak. It was this faith in his own ideals that guided his evolution as one of Americas earliest and most influential patrons of the arts. He had his flaws, but he always ardently supported freedom of speech.

He wanted his fellow Americans to embrace this love and stated that: To encourage literature and the arts is a duty which every good citizen owes to his country.

While Washington was seenby virtue of his muses and a free pressas the embodiment of all courage and devotion to the nation for most of his career as a leader, and as president, he becameby the end of his first term in officea prime target for ridicule. Ironically, his unusual reward for fighting to oust a monarch from American shores was that he was now accused openly of coveting a crown. It was a story without substance, but it still stuck in some quarters.

Regardless, as president, Washington rarely displayed public disdain for the press. Only on one notable occasion, but within the confines of his own cabinet meeting, did he explode rather wildly against the insults cast upon him by the Fourth Estate.

At the closed meeting, his loyal friend, Henry Knox, who served as secretary of war, seized upon a newly published satire in the press titled The Funeral Dirge of George Washington and James Wilson, King and Judge,a playful little drama in which Washington was dragged before the guillotine for alleged aristocratic crimes. It was light satire, but it went too far for the president. It was, after all, suggesting his beheading in no uncertain terms.

Georges temper, which he struggled to control all his life, blew a fuse, and Thomas Jefferson described the rage of the president in these words: Washington went into a tirade, he said, and shouted that he would rather be on his farm than be made emperor of the world, and yet that they were charging him with wanting to be king. It wasnt the first time he had been ridiculed, and it would not be the last, but even magnanimous George had his limits.

He was at the end of his rope (and almost his presidency), and so he now dreamt about his ensuing and final retreat from politics beneath his proverbial vine and fig tree at Mount Vernon. In the end, the false and unsubstantiated charges in the media that he coveted a crown may well have bolstered his image when it became clear to his fellow Americans that he never harbored any such aspiration.

The rest is here:

George Washington Could Teach Trump A Lot About Free Speech - Daily Beast

Campus free speech politics settles in North Carolina – Greenville Daily Reflector

After a controversial year at ECU in which strong public expressions at both ends of the spectrum drew protests, the university and every other in the North Carolina system received clear instructions this week from the state Legislature on their responsibilities to protect free speech and expression on public campuses.

The N.C. General Assembly enacted into law the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, also known as House Bill 527,written by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest. The bill had been returned July 31 unsigned by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.

LaQuon Rogers, ECU Student Government Association president, said the university had been acknowledging everyones right to free speech before HB 527 became law.

We recently have looked at our procedures and policies in terms of how we handle free speech (on campus), Rogers said. We made some adjustments in those areas that resulted in the campus being green-lighted as a free-speech campus. This legislation is coming at a time when we see differences of opinions in academic settings and people are expressing themselves.

Rogers was referring to the Green Light rating ECU received from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) after changing four campus policies to meet the groups First Amendment standards. That recognition was given the same week that the Legislature sent HB 527 to Cooper.

Essential portions of the new state law require the Board of Governors of The University of North Carolina develop and adopt apolicy on free expression that states, at least, the following:

The primary function of each constituent institution is the discovery,improvement, transmission and dissemination of knowledge by means ofresearch, teaching, discussion, and debate.To fulfill this function, theconstituent institution must strive to ensure the fullest degree of intellectualfreedom and free expression. It is not the proper role of any constituent institution to shield individualsfrom speech protected by the First Amendment, including, withoutlimitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or evendeeply offensive.

The law also states that colleges and universities may not require its students and faculty to express any given view of social policy; must provide access to campuses for free speech purposes, consistent with First Amendment law, including invited speakers; must provide a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone who substantially disrupts its functioning or interferes with others protected free expressions; and enforce a clearly defined set of procedures for disciplinary actions and appeals related to free speech and protected conduct.

The new law also requires the UNC Board of Governors to establish from among its members an 11-member Committee on Free Expression that will report annually to the full board and the General Assembly on barriers or disruptions to free expression, handling of disciplinary cases, difficulties, controversies and successes relating to administrative neutrality on political and social issues.

The session law also protects institutional leaders and board members from personal liability for acts taken pursuant to their duties related to the law.

One thing I can say about ECU is that most of the time were ahead of the ballgame, Rogers said. We want to be sure all students feel welcome, and even the speakers we invite. We invite speakers with different views, and I think thats important for an academic institution.

The Daily Reflector also received a news release Tuesday from the Phoenix, Ariz.-based Barry Goldwater Institute. The staunchly conservative organization said the Legislature crafted HB 527 on its model bill.

The Goldwater Institute model legislation affirms a commitment to free speech on public college campuses, prohibits universities from disinviting speakers, and creates a system of sanctions for those who interfere with the free speech rights of others, the release said.

Groups like FIRE and the Goldwater Institute have been lauded and scrutinized because of their support from strongly conservative backers, including the Bradley Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Foundation and several organizations supported by the activist Koch Brothers and Grover Norquist, who sits on the board of the Goldwater Institute.

Cooper opposed forcing the legislation on universities, but allowed it to become law, a spokesman from his office told The Daily Reflector.

While Gov. Cooper would prefer the state trust university leaders to handle these issues rather than for the legislature to dictate terms, he felt it was best to allow this legislation to become law given the overwhelming majority that supported it, the spokesman said.

The law is a solution in search of a problem, but free speech always should be a priority for public universities, Sarah Gillooly, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, told the Carolina Journal after HB 527 was sent to Cooper.

In the rare circumstances where there is an issue with the stifling of free speech on campus, appropriate remedies exist and are working, Gillooly said.

Virginia Hardy, ECU Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, issued a statement following the changes that led to ECUs green light designation.

We are committed to free speech and freedom of expression on our campus, Hardy said. We want our students, faculty, staff and guests to feel comfortable exercising their rights and exploring their ideas. Allowing the opportunity for freedom of expression and civil discourse around differing views has always been, and continues to be, a mainstay of institutions of higher learning.

Contact Michael Abramowitz at 329-9507 and mabramowitz@reflector.com.

The rest is here:

Campus free speech politics settles in North Carolina - Greenville Daily Reflector

ACLU Sounds Alarm Over Trump Administration’s ‘Threat’ To Free … – HuffPost

Attorney General Jeff Sessionsplan to crack down on leaksfrom the Justice Department and intelligence community by subpoenaing reporters would constitute a serious threat to free speech, the American Civil Liberties Union warned Friday.

Sessions announced earlier in the day that the DOJ would be reviewing its policy on issuing subpoenas to members of the press as part of an effort to prevent such disclosures.

We respect the important role the press plays and will give them respect, but they cannot place lives at risk with impunity, Sessions said. We must balance their role with protecting our national security and the lives of those who serve in the intelligence community, the armed forces and all law-abiding Americans.

The ACLU, which has frequently criticized the Trump administration for encroachments on the First Amendment, said Sessions crackdown constitutes a threat to journalists and whistleblowers.

President Donald Trump has frequently spoken out against leaks he sees as damaging to his presidency, and has threatened to come down hard on government officials speaking to the press. He also previouslycriticized Sessions in public for not being tough enough on leaks, and reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to consider jailing reporters who publish classified information.

The presidents war on leaks reportedly led him to hire Anthony Scaramucci, an outspoken former Wall Street financier, as his communications director. Scaramucci immediately set out to find and fire White House staffers who had leaked to the press, even accusing then-chief of staff Reince Priebus of leaking. (Priebus ultimately resigned one week after Scaramuccis hire.) Scaramucci, however, was immediately fired by Priebusreplacement, Gen. John Kelly.

Trump has also frequently attacked the media as fake news, and has fiercely criticized reporters for covering the FBIs investigation into whether members of his campaign team colluded with Russian officials to influence the election, a probe he has called a witch hunt.

Read the original here:

ACLU Sounds Alarm Over Trump Administration's 'Threat' To Free ... - HuffPost

NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law – Campus Reform

The state of North Carolina has officially enacted the first free speech law based on the legislative proposal by the Goldwater Institute.

The final version of North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed the state Senate by a vote of 34 to 11 in late July, with all 11 Democrats voting against the legislation, National Review reported.

In the House, however, 10 Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to pass the bill by an 80 to 31 margin. The Democratic Governor Roy Cooper also allowed the bill to pass by taking no action on the legislation.

[RELATED: Growing number of states consider free-speech bills]

According to the report, the new law prevents the University of North Carolina administrators from disinviting speakers on campus. It also creates a system of sanctions that is designed to discipline individuals who suppress the right to free speech of others.

Moreover, the law authorizes the Board of Regents to create a special committee that will issue annual reports detailing administrative handling of matters related to free speech.

Stanley Kurtz, one of three authors behind the original Goldwater proposal, praised the passage of the bill and the support that it received from some elected Democrats.

That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states, Kurtz wrote in National Review.

Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Coopers decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.

Kurtz also notes that the university successfully weakened several aspects of the bill, including the cause of action provision which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorneys fees.

The university also succeeded in weakening the provision that designates public areas of the campus as public forums. Potentially, this would allow the university to cabin free speech to restricted zones, he argues while noting a special committee within the UNC Board of Governors should still serve as a check on administrative abuse on issues like free-speech zones.

[RELATED: Prof: college campuses are not free-speech areas]

Kurtz further stresses that the law does not contain a provision that would have suspended students who were found responsible for silencing other individuals more than once.

That provision is important for a number of reasons. First, the punishment is just. A student who twice silences visiting speakers or fellow students obviously hasnt learned a lesson from the initial punishment, he writes.

Second, since universities regularly ignore shout-downs or hand out meaningless punishments, the mandatory suspension for a second offense is the only way to prevent schools from undermining the law by handing out wrists-slaps ad infinitum.

Kurtz maintains, however, that any lax enforcement of the law will be documented in the annual report from the Board of Governors and could further lead to consequences for the administration.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @nikvofficial

See the original post:

NC passes first Goldwater-based free speech law - Campus Reform

McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter – Boston Herald

The First Amendment and the winding road of the appellate process are the only things keeping Michelle Carter out of jail.

And the constitutional issue may be what sets her free forever.

Carter, who yesterday was sentenced to 212 years behind bars with only 15 months to actually serve was given a last-second reprieve by Judge Lawrence Moniz. He held off on the punishment at the behest of Carters attorneys who argued that she shouldnt be jailed for a conviction that may not stick.

This is a novel case involving speech, said Joseph Cataldo, Carters lead attorney. These are legitimate issues that are worthy of presentation to the appeals court.

The crux of the argument is that Carter didnt commit a crime when she convinced Conrad Roy III, through texts and phone calls, to get back in his truck as it filled with deadly carbon monoxide fumes. Her communications, according to Cataldo, were protected by the First Amendment.

Massachusetts does not have an assisted-suicide or an encouragement of suicide law in place, and this is violative of the First Amendment, Cataldo said outside court.

Some may remember that the Supreme Judicial Court already ruled on this case and allowed Carters involuntary manslaughter trial to move forward in 2016. However, the high court did not fully tackle the First Amendment ramifications that surround the case.

In his decision, former Justice Robert Cordy mentioned the First Amendment only three times all in footnotes and brushed over the idea that Carters speech may have been protected without a hefty analysis.

But other courts that have dug deeper into this thorny issue have come out differently. In Minnesota, for example, the states high court struck down a law that prohibited people from encouraging or advising suicide, finding that the statute violated the First Amendment.

Speech in support of suicide, however distasteful, is an expression of a viewpoint on a matter of public concern, and, given current U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, is therefore entitled to special protection as the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, the court wrote in its 2014 decision.

Cataldo has 30 days to file his notice of appeal, and from there the trial court record will be put together and a time frame will fall into place. It could take a year, or it could drag on longer. The SJC can, on its own, grab the appeal before the state Appeals Court hears it a move that would show the high court is particularly interested in the case.

I think that will happen here. Two years ago, SJC Chief Justice Ralph Gants told me that his court wasnt interested in calling legal balls and strikes. No, he said the SJCs job is to set the strike zone and dictate clear precedent that other courts in the commonwealth need to follow.

This is one of those cases. In our evolving digital age, where we can communicate with a touch of a button, its important to outline when a text or call or tweet becomes criminal.

Yesterday, Bristol prosecutor Maryclare Flynn seemed to notice that Moniz was about to set Carter free pending her appeal and made a last-ditch effort to change his mind.

This is not a suicide case, she said. This is not a First Amendment case.

Maybe not, but now a high court will have to decide whether or not its both.

Visit link:

McGovern: Free speech may mean free pass for Michelle Carter - Boston Herald

North Carolina passes campus free-speech law – TheBlaze.com

North Carolina passed a campus free-speech bill last week that willallow sanctions for students who disrupt the free speech of others. The move made the Tarheel Statethe fifthstate to add such a law to the books.

The legislation affords students the right to pass out literature in outdoor areas on campus and limits the disruption of others free speech. It also forbids school administrators from disinviting speakers on campus.

According to Stanley Kurtz, a writer for National Review and one of the co-authors of the proposal, the law will force universities to create asanctions protocol to follow when students are found suppressing the free speech of others. The Board of Regents will also be tasked with creating a special committee that will be responsible for issuing a yearly report detailing the administrative handling of free speech issues.

Kurtz wrote of the new law:

It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

While Kurtz applauded the passing of the bill, he did point out an area of the proposal that was weakened by opposition.

[T]he provision that would have mandated suspension for students twice found responsible for silencing others was struck, he wrote. Without the mandatory suspension for a second offense, the university could conceivably undermine the law through lax enforcement.

The final version of HB527, the North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act, was passed in the House by a margin of 80-31, with 10 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote alongside Republicans. In the Senate, however, the vote passed by 34-11 with no Democratic support. Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper took no action on the bill, thereby passively allowing its enactment.

North Carolina joins four other states with similar campus free speech laws: Colorado, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia.

Several states are currently reviewing proposed legislation on the issue, including California, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin.

Read more:

North Carolina passes campus free-speech law - TheBlaze.com

YouTube Working with ADL to Shut Down Free Speech – LifeZette

Video-sharing website YouTube seems to be systematically purging conservatives and others who challenge politically correct orthodoxy from its platform.

Free speech activists across the internet were shocked on Tuesday after YouTube appeared to suspend the account of noted psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson. I cannot post new YouTube videos, including last weeks Biblical lecture. No access. At least for now the videos are still up, Peterson tweeted on Tuesday morning.

A backlash quickly ensued, and before the end of the day, and indeed shortly after The Daily Caller published a story on the shock suspension, Petersons account was reinstated. But Peterson is not the first to fall victim to YouTubes efforts to censor politically incorrect free speech, nor will he be the last.

The Google subsidiary announced in a blog post published Tuesday that it is taking new steps to combat what it referred to as terrorism content and hate speech steps critics assert are little more than efforts to censor conservative thought.

Greatly reinforcing this perception is YouTube's own admission that it is partnering with far-left organizations to decide what exactly constitutes hateful or "terrorist" content. "Over the past weeks, we have begun working with more than 15 additional expert [non-governmental organizations] and institutions through our Trusted Flagger program, including the Anti-Defamation League, the No Hate Speech Movement, and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue," YouTube said in the blog post.

"This is terrifying in an Orwellian way," said Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center. "Organizations that don't support free speech, like the ADL, are being used to monitor it. The ADL has clearly lost its way and become just another left-wing pressure group in recent years," Gainor told LifeZette.

Indeed only two weeks ago the ADL found itself embroiled in minor controversy after wrongly listing a number of relatively mainstream right-wing activists and politicians as racist hate figures, including Rebel Media's Gavin McInnes (who is married to an Asian woman), former Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart, and Milo Yianoppolous, who is a half-Jewish homosexual.

YouTube's reliance on partisan organizations to police "hateful" content is troubling enough, but "YouTube's insistence on telling us how to live our lives and what words we can use is even more distressing," said Gainor.

"The plan to have a 'playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages' sounds positively like 1984. YouTube apparently doesn't believe its customers are smart enough to know what they want to see," Gainor continued. "Unfortunately, billions of people have turned over their free speech rights to companies that increasingly don't believe in free speech."

In addition to promising to promote progressive propaganda videos, the video-sharing website also admitted that it is effectively implementing new ways to censor politically incorrect content that doesn't actually violate its hate speech policies. "We'll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren't illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism," YouTube wrote.

"If we find that these videos don't violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won't be recommended, won't be monetized, and won't have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes," they wrote.

"We'll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement."

But YouTube has already begun to implement some of these new approaches and has been doing so for some time. Numerous right-wing accounts on YouTube have been demonetized over the past year, including those of leading right-wing millennials such asJames Allsup, an independent journalist and former director of Students for Trump, Infowars' Paul Joseph Watson, and former Rebel Media reporter-turned-activist Lauren Southern.

Nor is YouTube the first online platform to banish right-wing voices. Last week, Patreon deleted Southern's account solely because she reported on the efforts of "Defend Europe" activists to turn back boats owned by radical left-wing NGOs thatEuropean authorities claim have been operating as taxi services for migrants. Last Thursday, fundraising website GoFundMe removed Allsup's account without reason.

"What we have seen in the last decade, across western media, politics and business and through our education sector is a chilling rise in censorship and curtailment of free speech," said Ben Harris-Quinney, chairman of The Bow Group, the oldest conservative think tank in the United Kingdom and an expert on progressive attempts to stifle free expression.

"Online outlets like YouTube became insurgent largely because of this, but as they join the liberal establishment many are culling off the free speech element that was crucial to their success," Harris-Quinney told LifeZette.

"As Bill Clinton said of the last election 'We thought we had changed their minds, but we'd just silenced their voices,'" Harris-Qunney continued. "Brexit in the U.K. and Trump's election in the U.S. prove that establishment media in no way represents the reality of public sentiment, and all censorship does is leave large sectors of society ignorant to reality."

Ultimately, however, efforts to censor "offensive" speech could backfire on the internet media companies that embrace them.

"As a private company I believe YouTube should be free to do as it pleases," said Harris-Qunniey. "However, what we have seen in recent years is a stark decline in the reach and profitability of establishment media, and I suspect the more YouTube curtails, the greater their loss will be."

Read more from the original source:

YouTube Working with ADL to Shut Down Free Speech - LifeZette

Anti-Trump Protesters Target Benson, Coulter at Politicon Free … – Fox News Insider

Guy Benson said anti-Trump protesters proved their critics' point this past weekend when they interrupted a panel discussion on free speech.

Benson, author of the new book "End of Discussion," explained on "Fox & Friends" what happened at Politicon, where he and Ann Coulter were speaking about the attempts to curb conservative voices on college campuses.

Shapiro: Some College Campuses Are 'Unsafe' for Conservative Speakers

'Is This a Parody Segment?': Tucker Debates 'Calexit' Supporter Who Calls CA 'Not the US'

A few protesters wore Nazi garb as they tried to shout down the speakers, while another group interrupted with a large red banner and chanted "Trump and Pence must go!"

"It was like: you're proving our point," said Benson about the panel discussion, which was about denouncing censorship in favor of the free flow of ideas.

Benson said he reminded the protesters that there is an election in 2020, where they're free to make their choice for president and vice president. He said their actions "were not constructive at all" as the hecklers yelled at Coulter rather than listen to her statements and offer opposing arguments.

Despite the incidents, Benson urged young conservatives to still go to college campuses so that students are exposed to differing viewpoints.

Benson recalled that he spoke with his co-author at Princeton last year and the school needed extra security because some students found them too controversial.

"What's alarming is some on the hard left have conflated speech with violence. They say your hate speech is violence and we can shut you down using any means necessary. It's very Orwellian," said Benson.

Last week, Ben Shapiro spoke before a House hearing on attempts to silence conservatives on campuses.

Watch the interview above.

Liberals Outraged After DOJ Starts Calling Illegal Immigrants 'Aliens'

Professor Who Taught 'Beyonce' Classes Calls for Someone to 'Shoot' Trump

Ben Shapiro: UC-Berkeley Giving Me the Ann Coulter Treatment

Student Group: Saying 'Politically Correct,' 'Trash' and 'Lame' Is Offensive

Read the rest here:

Anti-Trump Protesters Target Benson, Coulter at Politicon Free ... - Fox News Insider

Prufrock: Free Speech on Campus, Why Academics Love Jargon, and Ball Lightning – The Weekly Standard

Reviews and News:

Why have university administrators allied themselves with progressive campus activists? They have found common ground in the safe space of intellectual mediocrity through consumer sensitivity. This alliance is unlikely to collapse any time soon. Administrators and campus activists have much to gain from supporting one another. And both can rely on a phalanx of Title IX regulations by the Department of Education to stifle any faculty or student dissent that might arise. Critics can easily find themselves charged with some trumped-up Title IX violation certain to upend their lives for months.

* *

* *

How a French juggler and unicyclist helped create the Information Age: The great Russian mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov put it like this in 1963: In our age, when human knowledge is becoming more and more specialized, Claude Shannon is an exceptional example of a scientist who combines deep abstract mathematical thought with a broad and at the same time very concrete understanding of vital problems of technology.

* *

Ian Tuttle reviews Theodore Dalrymples The Proper Procedure and Other Stories: The volume is filled with lousy neighbors. They play music loud and all night; they deal drugs; they urinate in the stairwells. The women seduce the men, and the men beat the women. The police visit occasionally but are loath to insinuate themselves. Everyone is, as the unhappy Miss Falkenhagen says, a predatory beast.

* *

The Rand Corporations art: It's not as though the hallways of the Rand building, located a couple of blocks from the beach on Main Street, are teeming with boisterous researchers and pontificating analysts gesturing at various artworks. The corridors are frequently quiet; conversations are conducted in indoor voices. But some of those conversations are about or inspired by the art they encounter every day in the 310,000-square-foot building.

* *

A new theory of ball lightning: Ball lightning comes in most colors of the rainbow and ranges in sizefrom a typical toy marble, to those extra large exercise balls some people sit on instead of office chairs. It can form inside closed spaces and move down chimneys and horizontally through closed windows. In addition to producing light, ball lightning can give off sparks and is associated with hissing or buzzing noises and a strong, irritating odor. It typically lasts for only seconds, glowing with the intensity of a bright household light bulb. The unpredictable and variable nature of ball lightning has made it difficult to develop a conclusive theory explaining how it works, but accounts of its strangeness are numerous and have been published for centuries.

* *

Essay of the Day:

Why is free speech suppressed on university campuses? In Modern Age, Roger Scruton argues it is fear: Why protect a belief that stands on its own two feet?

In universities today...studentsand certainly the most politically active among themtend to resist the idea of exclusive groups. They are particularly insistent that distinctions associated with their inherited culturebetween sexes, classes, and races; between genders and orientations; between religions and lifestylesshould be rejected, in the interests of an all-comprehending equality that leaves each person to be who she really is. A great negation sign has been placed in front of all the old distinctions, and an ethos of non-discrimination adopted in their stead. And yet this seeming open-mindedness inspires its proponents to silence those who offend against it. Certain opinionsnamely, those that make the forbidden distinctionsbecome heretical. By a move that Michael Polanyi described as moral inversion, an old form of moral censure is renewed, by turning it against its erstwhile proponents. Thus, when a visiting speaker is diagnosed as someone who makes invidious distinctions, he or she is very likely to be subjected to intimidation for being a supporter of old forms of intimidation.

There may be no knowing in advance how the new heresies might be committed, or what exactly they are, since the ethic of nondiscrimination is constantly evolving to undo distinctions that were only yesterday part of the fabric of reality. When Germaine Greer made the passing remark that, in her opinion, women who regarded themselves as men were not, in the absence of a penis, actually members of the male sex, the remark was judged to be so offensive that a campaign was mounted to prevent her speaking at the University of Cardiff. The campaign was not successful, partly because Germaine Greer is the person she is. But the fact that she had committed a heresy was unknown to her at the time, and probably only dawned on her accusers in the course of practicing that mornings Two Minutes Hate.

More successful was the campaign in Britain to punish Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel Prizewinning biologist, for making a tactless remark about the difference between men and women in the laboratory. A media-wide witch hunt began, leading Sir Tim to resign from his professorship at University College London; the Royal Society (of which he is a fellow) went public with a denunciation, and he was pushed aside by the scientific community. A lifetime of distinguished creative work ended in ruin. That is not censorship, so much as the collective punishment of heresy, and we should try to understand it in those terms.

The ethic of nondiscrimination tells us that we must not make any distinctions between the sexes and that women are as adapted to a scientific career as men are. That view is unquestionable in any territory claimed by the radical feminists. I dont know whether it is true, but I doubt that it is, and Sir Tims tactless remark suggested that he does not believe it either. How would I find out who is right? Surely, by considering the arguments, by weighing the competing opinions in the balance of reasoned discussion, and by encouraging the free expression of heretical views. Truth arises by an invisible hand from our many errors, and both error and truth must be permitted if the process is to work. Heresy arises, however, when someone questions a belief that must not be questioned from within a groups favored territory. The favored territory of radical feminism is the academic world, the place where careers can be made and alliances formed through the attack on male privilege. A dissident within the academic community must therefore be exposed, like Sir Tim, to public intimidation and abuse, and in the age of the Internet this punishment can be amplified without cost to those who inflict it. This process of intimidation casts doubt, in the minds of reasonable people, on the doctrine that inspires it. Why protect a belief that stands on its own two feet? The intellectual frailty of the feminist orthodoxy is there for all to see in the fate of Sir Tim.

Read the rest.

* *

Photos: Earliest crossing of the Northwest Passage

* *

Poem: Heinrich Heine, The Devil Take Your Mother

Get Prufrock in your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.

Originally posted here:

Prufrock: Free Speech on Campus, Why Academics Love Jargon, and Ball Lightning - The Weekly Standard

Nazi-clad protesters try shouting down Ann Coulter at free-speech panel and are badly outnumbered – TheBlaze.com

Protesters dressed in Nazi garb interrupted a free-speech panel featuring conservative pundit Ann Coulter who was set to discuss censorship on campus at the Politicon convention in Pasadena, California, over the weekend.

Our Nazi leader! Our Nazi leader! one of the protesters was heard shouting on video. In a separate clip she also was heard yelling, Heil, Trump! while giving the Nazi salute while accompanied by a similarly dressed man.

Think the capacity crowd of political junkieswas going to put up with it? Heil no.

The protesters were drowned out by chants of USA! USA! USA! and Trump! Trump! Trump! as the pair were led away.

But it didnt end there.

Another couple began shouting Trump, Pence must go!KCAL-TV reported. And like the first pair of interlopers, the station said they were drowned out by the crowd reprising its Trump! Trump! chant before getting the hook from security.

CNNs Jake Tapper weighed in on the action and made his stance clear:

Coulter has recent personal experience with the free speech crisis on college campuses. She had been set to speak this spring at the University of California, Berkeley where left-wing protesters previously rioted over the prospect of conservative views being publicly aired but Coulter canceled her speech due to lack of security and support.

Attendee Patrick Lindsay told KCAL he wanted to hear Coulters views given the growing number of voices against free speech.

I think our First Amendment is under attack right now, he told the station.

But Coulter apparently got the last laugh at the swastika-wearing malcontents:

(H/T: Truth Revolt)

View post:

Nazi-clad protesters try shouting down Ann Coulter at free-speech panel and are badly outnumbered - TheBlaze.com

Harsanyi: Be worried about the future of free speech – The Detroit News

David Harsanyi Published 10:56 p.m. ET July 31, 2017

Opaque notions of fairness and tolerance have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance, Harsanyi writes.(Photo: Max Ortiz / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

Ads That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Will Be Banned in U.K., but Not in the Good Ol USA! reads a recent headline on the website Jezebel. Yay to the good ol USA for continuing to value the fundamental right of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.

Why would a feminist or anyone, for that matter celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about gender stereotypes? Because these days, foundational values mean increasingly little to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points out, because nefarious conglomerates like Big Yogurt have been targeting women for decades. She, and the British, apparently, dont believe that women have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads peddling probiotic yogurts.

This is why the U.K. Committee of Advertising Practice (and, boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the cliche Orwellian to describe a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart idea. It will ban, among others, commercials in which family members create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up, ones that suggest that an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa, and ones in which a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.

If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the state, its unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. Im not trying to pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials and Democrats. For them, opaque notions of fairness and tolerance have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.

You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic Party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is Sen. Dianne Feinstein arguing for hecklers vetoes in public university systems. Its major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

If its not Big Yogurt, its Big Oil or Big Somethingorother. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of fairness. This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than President Donald Trumps tweets mocking CNN.

Its about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper like Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be restricted, and that Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until the rights of their political opponents were shut down.

When I was young, liberals would often offer some iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You dont hear much of that today. Youre more likely to hear I disapprove of what you say, so shut up. Idealism isnt found in the notions of enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you dont believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the left portends danger of freedom of expression, you havent been paying attention.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at the Federalist.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tT2KmJ

See original here:

Harsanyi: Be worried about the future of free speech - The Detroit News

Free Speech, Safe Spaces Hot Topics at Politicon – Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

July 31, 2017 | :

PASADENA, Calif. The unconventional convention Politicon brought together political wonks and fans from all over the country for a full weekend of panels, debates, art and entertainment. A debate sponsored by Turning Point USA, a non-profit organization that promotes conservative grassroots activism, sparked both praise and criticism of safe spaces on college campuses.

The wave of student protests over the past academic year as a result of conservative speakers being invited to college campuses served as an opening focal point for the debate. Among the incidents cited were administrators at De Paul University banning conservative speaker and author Ben Shapiro from entering the campus and Ann Coulter losing a speaking engagement at the University of California at Berkeley after officials informed her that they could not accommodate her due to threats of violence.

Turning Point USA Executive Director Charlie Kirk took on The Young Turks host Hasan Piker on the necessity of safe spaces and the idea that conservatism deserves a place in academia in a session moderated by the bipartisan Millennial Action Project founder Steven Olikara.

College campuses represent a microcosm of American society, Piker said. Definitions of safe spaces are not narrow and conservatives are claiming that liberals are looking for safe spaces yet believe they are victims because they are less popular. Free speech allows people to say what they want but it does not make people more popular.

Kirk, who said he had not attended college, agreed with Piker that conservative speakers such as Shapiro should be able to speak at campuses that will host them. It was pointed out, however, that when colleges promote intellectual diversity, higher education administrators still are responsible for serving the best interests and safety of students.

UMBCs President Hrabowski Pursues Greatness Agenda

Should college administrators not listen to what the students want? asked Piker. Every speaker has the right to exercise their free speech rights. If there a divisive speaker that wants to come to a campus, administrators have to decide whether to put up money to protect an extremist speaker when students protest their appearance.

Piker indicated that he was at Rutgers University when freshman Tyler Clementi was cyber bullied for being gay by his dorm roommate and committed suicide in 2010. After that happened the Rainbow perspective housing dorms were created at Rutgers, said Piker. If you have been discriminated against your entire life and then enroll at a diverse college where people should tolerate you and then be bullied by your roommate for something you cannot change . . . A safe space would have saved his life.

Kirk rejected Pikers justification for safe spaces on college campus. There is a difference between a space where students can go receive mental health treatment and a space that is discriminatory and creates a culture that is inherently for students that are offended by something because they experience trigger words and microaggressions and complain they need a safe space.

The debate was packed with both conservative and liberal onlookers, particularly young people and college students. While carrying a hardbound copy of the U.S. Constitution, College of the Desert student Crystal Pasztor said that she wished the debate wasnt peppered with petty attacks on each other.

I came here to learn something. Although I learned a couple of things about what Kirk and Piker individually do, there was not enough about conservatives views or progressives views, she said. I love Hasan and watch The Young Turks but debates should not be about personal attacks. Debates like this should use official rules that have timed responses and rebuttals so people can take away more of the issues.

Leader of Pennsylvanias Public University System to Retire

MSNBC contributor and Morgan State University School of Global Journalism and Communication professor Dr. Jason Johnson referred to Politicon as an explosion of political fandom.

As a first-time attendee, I wanted to see what happens when you have rival political parties in the same space, said Johnson, who also noted that students should be versed in politics when pursuing journalism. I do think that students should be more informed about politics [when they] are pursuing journalism and I found that they are not. It is not [an] HBCU issue, its a preparedness issue. What I bring back to the classroom to teach political communication is making sure students have some sense of humanity at the center of why you are pursuing this line of work.

Jamal Evan Mazyck, Ed.D. can be reached at j.e.mazyck@gmail.com or on Twitter @jmbeyond7

Read the rest here:

Free Speech, Safe Spaces Hot Topics at Politicon - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

Active Morals: Carrying out the American Spirit of Free Speech – HuffPost

This post was written by Global Citizen Year alum Nathan Edwards.

I recently saw an interview with the always sharp Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) from the summer of 2016. Bezos was asked to share thoughts on Donald Trumps then candidacy. Bezos exercised caution in not turning the interview into a political debate but he did offer commentary on Trump's aversion to criticism and potential threats to squash his naysayers. Bezos argued that the leader of a country such as America, one that champions free speech, should welcome critiques defended by free speech because it is the cultural norm that forms the bedrock of our society. Without cultural norms, the constitution is just a piece of paper, Bezos said. Laws of the land are important. But I agree with Bezos - more important than the law itself, is how laws are given life and incorporated into society.

Currently, I see discord between law and societal implementation in the area our forefathers agreed was the most important pillar of any just society: free speech. Our laws protect our right to free speech but society has no such obligation to tolerate different viewpoints. We are seeing increasing consequences for people speaking their minds and an aversion to engage people with different viewpoints. As a result, I believe it is warranted to question whether the spirit of free speech is being carried out; if individuals are welcoming challenges to their current beliefs and organizations are promoting critical thought and different experiences. Otherwise, the constitution could be becoming just a piece of paper, a historical memento to what Americans once emboldened.

I was fortunate to be a Global Citizen Year fellow in 2012-2013, where I lived abroad as a volunteer in Ecuador. Instead of pursuing the fluorescently lit aseptic aisles in my Colorado hometown, I bought my food from rickety wood carts in the open air streets where credit cards were not accepted. In my eight months abroad, this very real experience challenged me to think in new ways and connect thoughts that I had ignored before. I am now more rooted in the importance of education, having seen 14 year old women with children stay in abusive relationships because of the inability to support themselves without a trade or education. I still marvel at the hospitality of the Ecuadorian people across the whole country who accepted me and other Fellows into their homes and insisted all visitors get a heaping plate of food upon entering. These different experiences from what I was accustomed to, not all necessarily enjoyable, are a part of what shapes me today. They could not have been gained without seeking out a different culture from what I was previously accustomed to.

Whole Foods CEO and co-founder, John Mackey, is a good example of an individual welcoming differing perspectives. Mackey was at a shareholders meeting in 2003 where people protested Whole Foods treatment of animals. Although he could have had the protesters removed and dismissed their message, Mackey opened up a dialogue with the protest organizer, Lauren Ornelas, to better understand why his company of all food suppliers was being targeted by animal activists. In 2006, as a result of his research and dialogue with Ornelas, Mackey gave up all animal products in his personal diet and began to enforce higher ethical standards for the livestock of Whole Foods Markets.

Global Citizen Year and Whole Foods are organizations that encourage different experiences and opinions, permitting the world to speak and subsequently engage in what resonates as true and real. Unfortunately, there are many organizations taking actions contrary to this spirit, perhaps most evident in our universities. Earlier this spring, conservative speaker Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at University of California Berkeley as student protesters threatened violence against her. The Berkeley administration acquiesced to these threats and told Coulter they could not provide adequate security for her safety, a lousy excuse considering the high-profile speakers that pass through Berkeley annually. President Obama lamented the craziness of this spectacle, calling it ridiculous that she not be allowed to speak. He is absolutely right. An institution that seeks to educate people should have enough faith in their members to allow exposure to wide ranging thoughts and let the student decide what they believe in. It is highly ironic that these practices are most prevalent in our institutions of learning; for people to be so assured of their own beliefs that they can in good-conscience drown out opposing beliefs is to abandon being a learner.

As corny as it sounds, free speech is a way of life. It challenges us to be exposed to ideas we may not be accustomed to and to form our own opinions. Bezos pointed out that we need cultural norms to give life to the constitution. Weve reached a point in time where it is fair to question whether we look at free speech only when discussing law and government, or if we as individuals and institutions embody free speech as our cultural norm. As such, I am hopeful that we can actively engage people with different ideas and experiences, do not become so assured of ourselves as to result to censorship and dogmatic discourse, and appreciate what a privilege it is to be a member of a permissive society. Pointing to the first amendment is not sufficient when saying we have a free speech society. It is contingent upon us as individuals to participate in free speech and protect it for the good of ourselves and the overall health of society.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Go here to see the original:

Active Morals: Carrying out the American Spirit of Free Speech - HuffPost

Protect Free Speech Guarantees of Communications Decency Act – Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

One of the most important but unsung laws that gave us the Internet we know today is section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Passed at the dawn of the Internets popularization in 1996, that law immunized providers of interactive communications serviceswebsites and suchfrom responsibility for the actions of their users.

CDA section 230 is rooted in an eminently sound, common-law theory of justice: that people are responsible for their own acts and not those of others. Its unwise to deviate from timeless rules of right and wrong, even when doing so appears efficient.

The practical upshot of CDA section 230 was to give us the Internet weve got today. If operators of websites were responsible for what each of their users posted online, they could be on the hook for every potential defamation, infliction of emotional distress, trade secret violation, and so on.

That isnt some curious legal corner. If they were liable for the wrongdoing of others, websites and services wouldnt just hire a bunch of compliance staff to police every post and settle every online dispute. From the biggest to the smallestfrom Facebook and Google down to the smallest niche hobby sitethey would clampdown on what we get to do online. Our ability to interact would diminish, and we wouldnt have half the sites and services that today allow us to upload, comment, and share material and ideas.

So it was with dismay that I noted the introduction this spring of a bill that makes inroads against CDA section 230. The awkwardly named Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 is a standard think-of-the-children bill that undercuts the protections of CDA section 230 and thus all of our access to online participation and content.

Because some people use web sites in furtherance of sex trafficking crimes, the legislation begins to reverse timeless standards of responsibility and make automated websites and services responsible for what people do with them. The bill allows operators of websites and other services to be criminally responsible if they exhibit reckless disregard as to whether information posted on them furthers a sex trafficking offense.

That sounds eminently reasonable, and it goes after a crime that everyone agrees is deeply disturbing and wrong, but there is nothing in justice that makes a website responsible for the wrongful acts of its users.

If a web operator is actually involved in crime, of course, the benefits of CDA section 230 should and do vanish. But the rule against deputizing websites into law enforcement should stay in place. Even requiring them to have a quick look at what their users post would be very costly.

The incursion on the CDAs rule of justice suggested by the House bill is just the beginning of the breakdown that could come. Just last week, for example, Dallas police sergeant Demetrick Pennie wrote about his lawsuit arguing that Internet and social media giants Twitter, Facebook, and Google should bear responsibility for an attack that killed five of his friends and colleagues last year.

Here again, the subject matter evokes our sympathy. Killing is a dreadful wrong, and the vast majority of police officers have committed themselves to the betterment of their communities. But police killings do no more than sex crimes to undercut the solid rule of justice embedded in CDA section 230.

Sgt. Pennies article speaks of unregulated social media providers as if communications platforms are naturally supposed to be regulated. Not so. Not in an America committed as we are to free speech. Whats subtly on display in Sgt. Pennies piece is the direction of the Internet if CDA section 230 gives way: a less-free, less-robust medium for us all.

My dismay deepened today upon learning that Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Claire MCaskill (D-MO) plan to introduce legislation that may hem in on the Internet and undercut sound principles of justice in similar ways to the House bill.

They have a well-known effort underway to expose and punish Backpage.com for what they say is knowing facilitation of online sex trafficking. Thats a very sympathetic cause, and Backpage may have been skirting the CDAs liability line. But it would be profoundly concerning and regrettable for all of us fully law-abiding Internet users if the effort to stop Backpage were to undercut the sound principle that online intermediaries hosting or republishing others speech are not legally responsible for what those others say and do.

Read the original:

Protect Free Speech Guarantees of Communications Decency Act - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech – Belleville News-Democrat

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech
Belleville News-Democrat
Just a brief reply to a reply from letter writer Lee Pitzer. Within a letter I had recently written I mentioned the suppression of free speech by liberals. Examples include, but not limited to the contents of a book currently being sold by liberal ...

Read the rest here:

Trump openly supports free speech, criticizes fabricated hate speech - Belleville News-Democrat

OPINION | Carolla: ‘Safe spaces’ harm free speech, stunt students … – The Hill (blog)

As someone who makes his living by challenging ideas through humor, social commentary and, if warranted, ridicule, I care deeply about free speech. And there is a growing movement across our college campuses to shut down free speech of teachers, students and invited guests. This should scare the hell out of all us all.

Ive been doing talk radio for more than three decades and I host a daily podcast. This means I constantly have guests on who disagree with me on many subjects. Challenging their ideas and points of views while they do the same to me is an important part of the public discourse. One thing Ive learned about Americans from talking with them for more than 30 years is that we like to argue and debate, even among friends and were damn good at it.

But seriously, America has been that safe space where truth can be spoken to power. Where We the People can challenge a king and a corrupt idea like a monarchy. This right has been reaffirmed through our history. Its been fought for, and people have died for it. We must understand that we have the right to free expression, not the right to not be offended. This fundamental difference is being lost on todays college campuses.

We should not be teaching students to retreat from debate, but to charge intellectually into it. This is one of the most valuable and profound gifts given to us in the founding of America.

When we enter into robust debate, the best ideas will most often rise. Its when ideas and points of view are censored that our country loses, because we may miss new ideas or other ones may not have been properly examined.

I used to love to play colleges as a comedian. College campuses were a fantastic place to perform, but today the negatively-charged environment where everyone is offended has made it toxic. Its so bad that some of the top comedians, including Jerry Seinfeld, Bill Maher and Chris Rock not exactly a right-wing cabal have noted that performing on a college campus is no longer a real option due to the labyrinth of speech codes and hurt feelings.

As comedians, we find subjects, which often includes stereotypes. Then, we make social commentary or a joke about it. String enough of those together and you have a routine. And heres a window into my business: Offending people is the foundation of what comedians do. Finding a moment, person, group or idea and holding it up for ridicule has been a part of comedy since the very first joke ever told.

Someone will almost always be offended; its risky, but if youre a good comedian the joke will reveal a truth we can all recognize. Without this, were all just sitting in a dark theater buying two overpriced drinks. Comedians are the modern-day court jesters holding the mirror of truth back up to society.

I also know that what happens at college does not stay at college. Given this generations impulse to post every moment of life online, nothing they do will stay in college. In fact, it will haunt them from job interview to job interview. There seems to be a growing movement to shut down differing points of view that are not politically correct or fit neatly into todays speech codes, which are nothing short of thought-regulation.

The centrifuge of this movement is ironically the college campus the place that has traditionally been the center of the free exchange of ideas. Instead, colleges now have places known as safe spaces where students who feel threatened by concepts, ideas, differing views, other ethnicities or different economic or geographical backgrounds may retreat.

We currently have more than 20 million people attending colleges or degree-granting programs. This is up from 17.8 million in 2006.Thats a lot of trigger warnings and play-doh and puppy crap to pick up from safe spaces if we continue down the coddling road. But I digress.

Ive also seen how speakers have faced being shut down, intimidated from speaking and even physically assaulted on campus. I recently faced being shut down when nationally-syndicated radio host Dennis Prager and I planned to hold an event at Cal State Northridge in California. The producers of the event confirmed the rental of the facilities, and then, suddenly, two weeks prior to the event, were told the school did not want to have controversial speakers such as Dennis and myself on campus.

Me, I can understand the offense, but Dennis, hes just really tall and really smart. This was later deemed a scheduling conflict not a content conflict. Eventually, after lawyers jumped in, the scheduling conflict was resolved, and the event was held. It also produced a No. 1 iTunes comedy album. But it showed me up close what is happening on campus. To be candid, it shocked me, because our colleges should be an important place that embraces free speech, intellectual diversity and challenging ideas.

What is provided in these safe spaces, and why is it a problem? Instead of fostering the development of young adults, colleges are providingcoloring books, play-doh, puppies and stuffed animals.Its basically your four-year-old daughters bedroom where one can shut out the challenges, facts and outside world. Providing this bubble-wrapped type of education does not prepare the next generation for the challenges of life. It prepares them for failure.

Can you imagine a student like this getting a job in customer service for an IT company where millions of dollars are on the line, and rather than being able to address or fix a problem, they will need play-do and puppies to get through the day?

We also hear a cry for diversity on college campuses, which is total boloney. Diversity by definition doesnt just mean differing races, genders or ethnicities coexisting. True diversity is intellectual diversity, where differing points of view and ideas can be discussed, even the ones we vehemently disagree with. True diversity requires points of view we disagree with, otherwise it wont be diverse, only self re-affirming.

But this definition of diversity does not seem to fit within the current college campus. The definition being pushed is not one of true diversity, but reaffirming already approved thoughts. Its basically like were dressing ideological uniformity in a cheap supermarket costume but calling it diversity. We all know the real kid behind the mask, but students and teachers are forced to go along with the charade.

This point couldnt be made any clearer than by Sol Stern, one of the co-founders of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Stern, looking back 50 years later on what he saw as the failure of the original Free Speech Movementobserved, Because the claim that the FSM was fighting for free speech for all (i.e., the First Amendment) was always a charade. Within weeks of FSMs founding, it became clear to the leadership that the struggle was really about clearing barriers to using the campus as a base for radical political activity. Our movement ignored Orwells warning that political language is designed to make lies sound truthful.

Orwell was right, and 50 years later, the climate on college campuses is growing worse. The stated goal of diversity has been one of inclusion, but the recent growth of identity politics has reversed this to ultimately promote exclusion, nearly indiscernible from Jim Crow laws of the 1940s.

While our national motto is E Pluribus Unum, or out of many, one, identity politics creates a divisive power play on the pattern of basing ones identity on characterizations like race, gender, class, sexual orientation, religion and on down the line in as many divided categories of oppression as one can imagine.

Ultimately this movement against challenging ideas is a disservice to students, as theyre not being prepared for the world outside their safe spaces. Instead, their diplomas some of which cost in the mid-six figures will have actually set them back. I think the only thing worse than being uneducated is being mis-educated.

Adam Carolla is a comedian, television host, actor, podcaster, author and director. He hosts "The Adam Carolla Show," which set the Guinness World record in 2011 for "most downloaded podcast." He and Dennis Prager are currently filming a documentary, "No Safe Spaces," which explores political correctness on college campuses.

Th views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more:

OPINION | Carolla: 'Safe spaces' harm free speech, stunt students ... - The Hill (blog)

US bill on Israel boycotts sets up free speech battle – The Jerusalem Post

The White House. (photo credit:REUTERS)

WASHINGTON Earlier this month, one of Americas largest civil-liberties organizations announced opposition to a congressional bill that would target international efforts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, setting up an uncomfortable fight between US-based Israel lobbies and free-speech advocates.

The American Civil Liberties Union a union at the forefront of several battles against the Trump administration over the rights of immigrants, refugees and minority groups facing systemic discrimination said the bill would make worse a 1970s-era law that had already stymied the ability of individuals and companies to exercise their constitutional right to boycott.

But the Israel Anti-Boycott Act was jointly introduced in March by a Senate Democrat and House Republican, with cosponsors from both sides of the aisle a rare moment of bipartisanship in 2017 as several other legislative items on Israel have wrought division.

In recent years, efforts to legislate against the BDS movement have largely taken place at the state and local level. That tactic has proven successful on paper: The nations largest states, including California, Texas, Florida and New York, have all passed harsh measures that effectively prevent their states from aiding businesses that partake in boycotts of Israel.

But this new bill takes a different approach, reacting to new global efforts beyond the reach of any one state. It was drafted in reaction to a decision from the UN Human Rights Council last spring to compile a blacklist of companies operating in the Palestinian territories, defined by them as anywhere beyond the pre-1967 war Green Line.

The anti-boycott act would amend the Export Administration Act of 1979 originally written to protect US companies from Arab League sanctions on Israel to protect Israel and Israeli businesses from international boycotts of virtually any kind. Specifically, the bill would criminally penalize any US person seeking to collect information on another partys relationship with Israel in pursuance of a boycott.

The ACLU has been joined in recent days by several other civil liberties advocates warning that the law would encroach on free speech: Ones right to join a boycott called for by an organization such as the United Nations. They claim that the law, as it is currently written, is blatantly unconstitutional in this regard.

But the language of the bill offers a clever counterargument: That enforcement of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which compels the US to deepen strategic, security and economic ties as much as possible, in a definitional manner requires Washington to rebut the BDS effort. And it simply expands on the sturdy parameters of 1979 export regulations that prohibit the boycott of friendly countries.

Supporters of the bill contend that the ACLUs argument against the legislation is, in fact, one against the Export Administration Act a basis for international sanctions levied against governments worldwide in the name of national security. The ACLU, on the other hand, argues that its problem with the bill is that is targets specific companies choosing whether to enter into business with other specific companies, such as one operating a factory in West Bank settlements.

Authors of the bill note that their legislation takes no position on Israels settlement activity.

The ACLU has long supported laws prohibiting discrimination, but this bill cannot fairly be characterized as an anti-discrimination measure, as some would argue, the organization said in a July 17 letter to lawmakers. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prevents businesses from discriminating against customers based on race, color, religion and national origin.

This bill, on the other hand, aims to punish people who support international boycotts that are meant to protest Israeli government policies, while leaving those who agree with Israeli government policies free from the threat of sanctions for engaging in the exact same behavior, the group continues. Whatever their merits, such boycotts rightly enjoy First Amendment protection.

Share on facebook

Go here to read the rest:

US bill on Israel boycotts sets up free speech battle - The Jerusalem Post

Court: Politicians blocking followers violates free speech – WND.com – WND.com

(New York Magazine) While there is no set precedent for the issue, more and more courts are encountering a new type of lawsuit related to social-media blocking. The Knight Foundation, for instance, is suing the U.S. government on behalf of Twitter users blocked by President Donald Trump, whose Twitter account has become alarmingly vital when it comes to understanding his presidency.

This week, a federal court in Virginia tackled the issue when it ruled on behalf of a plaintiff blocked by a local county politician. According to The Wall Street Journal, Brian Davison sued the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, who temporarily banned him from her Facebook page after he posted criticism of local officials last year. Judge James Cacheris found that she had violated Davisons First Amendment rights by blocking him from leaving comment, because, in his judgment, the chairwoman, Phyllis Randall, was using her Facebook page in a public capacity. Though it was a personal account, she used it to solicit comments from constituents.

See the original post here:

Court: Politicians blocking followers violates free speech - WND.com - WND.com

The wrong way to preserve free speech on campus | TheHill – The Hill (blog)

Americans are fighting a new war on college campuses this time over free speech and no one is winning.

On the left, aggressive protesters have silenced speeches by conservative thinkers, using intolerance to demand tolerance. On the right, conservatives condemn the suppression of free speech with equally ill-conceived tactics. A recent model policy from the Goldwater Institute urges state legislators to not only intervene in the campus disciplinary process for public universities but also mandate punishments, such as one-year suspensions or even expulsions for any student twice found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others.

ProfessorWatchlist.org, launched in November of 2016 by Turning Point USA, lists close to 200 instructors who, it maintains, advance a radical agenda in lecture halls. At Cornell University, a conservative measure to increase ideological diversity by mandating hiring practices was defeated by one vote in the student assembly in February.

We can do better than this. Protecting free speech and academic freedom is not a liberal or conservative issue. Its an American issue. And its a problem we must solve together. For colleges and universities, this requires policy changes (e.g., eliminating censorship codes) as well as cultural changes (i.e., convincing more members of the campus community, from faculty to students to administrators, that free speech and open discussion is not only desirable, but worth defending).

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), at least 42 colleges and universities withdrew invitations to controversial speakers in 2016 double the number that were withdrawn in 2015. FIREs research also shows that 40 percent of U.S. colleges and universities have speech codes, or regulations that prohibit expression normally protected by the First Amendment.

This goes on all over the country on campuses, Bill Maher recently commented, criticizing his fellow liberals for preventing Ann Coulter from speaking at Berkeley. I feel like this is the liberals version of book burning. And its got to stop.

Some institutions and academics are responding to the challenge. In May, Middlebury College disciplined 67 students for their role in suppressing a speech by author Charles Murray (although none of the students was suspended or expelled). Ideological opposites Cornel West and Robert George, both professors at Princeton, issued a joint statement after the Middlebury incident, supporting truth seeking, democracy, and freedom of thought and expression. The Association for Governing Boards, an organization that advises boards of trustees, strongly endorsed free expression and tolerance in its recent statement on Campus Climate, Inclusion, and Civility.

Yet there are still challenges to overcome at other campuses. Recently, campus police couldnt guarantee Professor Bret Weinsteins safety at Evergreen State College after he raised concerns and asked for discussion around a day of absence officially sanctioned by the school. The students protesting and threatening Weinstein, however, were given an audience with their colleges president. Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers, in misguided attempts to curtail censorship, are responding with calls to eliminate federal funding for schools that restrict speech.

At their best, college campuses are safe havens for intellectual freedom places to confront and explore our differences and learn from the interactions. At their worst, they can become battlegrounds where political tribes fight for territory. Publicly shaming speakers on ideological grounds or targeting professors based on their political affiliation does not challenge their ideas. By unleashing politically motivated bullying, from the left or the right, the nation takes an intellectual risk that imagination will be replaced by fear, innovation by intimidation.

Free speech is a shared American value. Protecting it requires forming unlikely allies not unnecessary enemies. Our uncivil war needs to end.

Sarah Ruger directs the Charles Koch Institutes free expression initiatives.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the article here:

The wrong way to preserve free speech on campus | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

Free speech or college crackdown? – Los Angeles Times

To the editor: As the father of two 2017 graduates of both Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate School this past May, I was heartened to read that College President Hiram Chodosh followed through with his commitment to discipline the hooligans who disrupted the appearance of speaker Heather MacDonald. ( Re College suspends 5 over protest, July 24)

The intent of a liberal arts education is to present all views to its students so they may acquire the ability to process diverse opinions and formulate their own conclusions. When divergent viewpoints and those who deliver them are shouted down, denied a forum or threatened with physical violence the entire system breaks down.

Incidents at UC Berkeley and other institutions formally known as bastions of free speech have demonstrated the need for swift discipline to preserve our 1st Amendment rights. I applaud Chodosh and his team and hope this restores to our higher education system some measure of balance.

Rick Wilson, Pasadena

To the editor: Hooray for Chodosh for teaching students that might makes right.

Heather MacDonalds support of police actions shooting unarmed citizens of color absolutely needs protection.

Ignore students free speech rights because students are considered the bottom of the stack, without rights of any kind.

Please fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address below. Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. This information is seen only by the letters editors and is not used for any commercial purpose. We generally do not publish...

Please fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address below. Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. This information is seen only by the letters editors and is not used for any commercial purpose. We generally do not publish...

President Chodoshs fearless brave actions in suspending outraged students and doling out stiff disciplinary actions should be applauded. Incendiary speakers invited to a campus setting are expected to raise protests. Wasnt that why Chodosh allowed MacDonald to speak in the first place?

Most college presidents handle these situations differently.

Marcy Bregman, Agoura Hills

To the editor: It's about time that finally the president of Claremont McKenna College stood up for our basic right of free speech.

Hopefully, more universities will remember that it is they who are in control of enforcing school regulations, not the students. Too many situations arise when it is the students who seem to make the rules as to what "they" consider is free speech.

Prohibiting speakers they disagree with by shouting them down, inhibiting free access, and causing property damage and violence are the direct opposite of free individual thought. Colleges and universities are places where all aspects of ideas should be expressed.

Kudos to the Claremont McKenna president for standing up for the majority of the student body.

John Golden, Thousand Oaks

To the editor: The actions seem disproportionately harsh, and are resulting in a devastating disruption of the educations and job quests of the students being disciplined.

At a time when media professionals and the rest of us in the community are struggling to formulate an articulate response to the Trump administration and its complete lack of veracity, moral discipline and intellectual integrity, these actions are only causing more confusion for students trying to discern how to stand up for their convictions and for the rights of their brothers and sisters to be free of rhetorical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual, legal and physical violence against them.

Any laws broken by the students during their protest could not possibly be proportionate to the violence suffered by members of our community when ignorant, morally repugnant, and bigoted viewpoints are given disproportionate space in the public commons at the Claremont Colleges and elsewhere.

Brian Prestwich, Los Angeles

To the editor: I was at Claremont McKenna College when a number of students, displaying a great deal of artificial bravery, blocked my visibly elderly and visibly handicapped person from entering the building at which Heather Mac Donald was to speak.

As a child of the 1960s, when protests took place about much more important things, I wondered whether any of them had ever even bothered to vote. Shouting their almost-unintelligible slogans in my face, these wannabe revolutionaries refused to hear my explanations that I was there to attend a special event which was completely unrelated to their blockade.

By their anti-democratic behavior, the protesters made MacDonald, whom I frankly despise, look better than she deserves.

Don Fisher, Claremont

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

See the original post:

Free speech or college crackdown? - Los Angeles Times