Bill C-16, which recently received Royal Assent and will soon become law, is the most recent bill to threaten free speech and to mandate that individuals adopt a social constructionist philosophy of gender. Those who refuse to use gender neutral pronouns such as they or zi and zir, or who oppose the notion that gender is subjectively determined, may find themselves facing the full force of federal law. The federal statute is akin to existing provincial laws in Canada and municipal laws in the United States, and demonstrates a disconcerting turn toward compelling speech and ideology. Laws that protect people from discrimination need not infringe on free speech or individual rights. However, Bill C-16 risks crossing the line into coerced speech for favored groups at everyones expense.

The bill itself looks quite innocuous. It makes three alterations to federal law. Two are amendments to the Criminal Code to include "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the groups protected from hate propaganda, and to include gender identity and gender expression as an aggravating factor. That is, if a crime is committed against a transgender individual and there is evidence that the crime was done due to the individuals gender identity or gender expression, the defendant may be given a harsher sentence.

Serious restrictions on free speech come with changes to the Human Rights Act to include gender identity and gender expression to the list of groups protected from discrimination. Previously, discriminatory practices did not include failure to refer to an individual by their preferred name. Rather, they included denying someone public employment due to their race, gender, sexual orientation.

Now, particular courts may find that individuals who do not use preferred pronouns guilty of discrimination as well. Precise grounds for discrimination are not laid out in the legislation. Rather, according to Canadas Department of Justice, With very few exceptions, grounds of discrimination are not defined in legislation but are left to courts, tribunals, and commissions to interpret and explain, based on their detailed experience with particular cases. An individual accused of discrimination can be named in a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and then be tried and fined by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This is not at all far-fetched, given the precedent of the provincial courts where this kind of legislation already exists. Even supporters of Bill C-16 have been forthcoming about this possible interpretation of discrimination by the Human Rights Tribunal. University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman wrote, Non-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression may very well be interpreted by the courts in the future to include the right to be identified by a persons self-identified pronoun.

Theryn Meyer, a political commentator on YouTube who focuses on transgender issues, critiqued Bill C-16 for claiming to benefit transgender individuals while infringing on everyones right to free speechtransgender people included. She noted that transgender individuals are already protected under the laws against discrimination, which do not infringe anyones rights.

Everyone who cares about free speech should be concerned that this prima facie benevolent legislation actually harms everyone who wishes to practice their right to free speech.

Provincial law in Canada has prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression for years. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) added "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the listed of protected groups in 2012. The OHRC defined gender identity as "each person's internal and individual experience of gender. It is their sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. A persons gender identity may be the same as or different from their birth-assigned sex.

As with the federal law, the problem arises with the definition of discrimination: "Refusing to refer to a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering (using a pronoun that is not ones preferred pronoun), will likely be discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code, including employment, housing and services like education."

Individuals who refuse to use made-up words, who refuse to endorse a social constructionist philosophy of gender, who refuse compelled speech and ideology can be brought before the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal and severely fined. Professor Jordan Peterson, a University of Toronto psychologist, came under fire last fall when he made a YouTube video saying that he would not use made-up gender pronouns. The University sent him a letter requesting that he stop making such videos because he was expressing an intent to violate the law. Ontario human rights commissioner Renu Mandhane suggested that Peterson might be liable under the law, but no action has been taken.

This kind of legislation has already made its way into the United States. In the District of Columbia, the Office of Human Rights, which enforces the D.C. Human Rights Act, prevents discrimination on the basis of gender identity and has recently stated that Deliberately misusing a persons preferred name or pronoun may be considered unlawful harassment.

In New York City, the Commission on Human Rights Legal Enforcement requires employers and covered entities to use an individuals preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individuals sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individuals identification. The legislation states, Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir. Failure to comply can result in, civil penalties up to $125,000 for violations, and up to $250,000 for violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.

If each person is allowed free speech, then surely each person should be able to decide for him or herself whether or not to act out a radical social constructionist philosophy of gender. However, each of these laws, regardless of their intent to benefit transgender people, infringes individual liberty. They require not only that people use government approved speech, but that they adhere to a government-approved ideology. They are coercive intrusions by the government into the speech of individuals. Protections for transgender individuals can and should be accomplished without infringing on everyones rights.

Max Diamond is a writer and editor in New York.

Excerpt from:

Free Speech for Zi - The Weekly Standard

Inside Higher Ed

College lawyers hear discussion about tension between free speech ... Inside Higher Ed At meeting of college lawyers, panelists rue students' lack of understanding of First Amendment and share strategies for balancing expression and sensitivity. Q & A : Free Speech 101 | Newton Daily NewsNewton Daily News Inside the First Amendment: In United States, law protects even ...The Westerly Sun all 4 news articles »

Read the rest here:

College lawyers hear discussion about tension between free speech ... - Inside Higher Ed

Actor James Woods is more outspoken than ever about his conservative political and cultural beliefs. Hes earned nearly 700,000 followers on Twitter thanks to his sharp and constant commentary about the news and about the Left.

Surprisingly, the actor doesnt often take his opinions beyond social media. He doesnt pop up in many interviews or throw himself at the press. It appears this is for a very good reason.

A writer at Independent Journal Review recently attempted to interview Woods to get the artist's opinion about Johnny Depp's assassination "joke" and Woods politely declined. He explained why he generally avoids the press these days even press of which he approves.

"Well, I'm deeply flattered, but turn down hundreds of requests to do interviews. I'm a big fan of IJR, but I must graciously decline. I find that Twitter makes it impossible for the sleaze liberal press to take my words out of context. If I were to do an IJR interview, surely CNN and NYT would misrepresent my thoughts and words. As honorable as IJR may be, they can't stop others from engaging in malicious behavior. Sadly, free speech is dead in liberal America," wrote Woods to the reporter who requested the interview.

For the record, Woods was one of the first and only celebrities to condemn Depp's commentsand his attacks on liberals haven't stopped or slowed since then.

His reason for declining interviews is understandable, yet it's a sad commentary on how far gone the mainstream media are today. The actor has worked with everyone from Martin Scorsese to John Carpenter, but he can't share whatever expertise or viewpoint he has because the press is so blatantly biased against people like him.

Related: James Woods, Culture Warrior, Returns to Fight

Woods even admitted in 2013 that his outspokenness would likely lose him future opportunities and end his career in Hollywood. He may have been right. His last major role was in 2013 on Showtime's "Ray Donovan," which also starred conservative actor Jon Voight.

Other than that, Woods has done mostly sporadic voice work.

While it's easy to miss his work as an actor, his commentary on Twitter is something people can enjoy each and every day.

Read the original:

James Woods: 'Free Speech Is Dead in Liberal America' - LifeZette

Campus Free Speech Act moves on to Senate.

Despite Democratic arguments, a Republican-led bill that punishes student protests at the University of Wisconsin is moving on.

The Campus Free Speech Act passed the Assembly by a 61-36 vote. It moves to the Senate, where a similar bill was already introduced.

A UW System student who interrupts a speaker twice would constitute suspension for a semester, while a third offense would mean expulsion.

"We don't allow free speech here like we should, as people in the gallery can't sit quietly and protest with a piece of tape across their mouths," Representative Jill Billings, D-La Crosse, said of the Capitol rotunda. "I don't think we are the role model on free speech - that we should be legislating what should happen on campus."

Billings pointed out that it's not even a reoccurring problem.

"I'm not happy when speakers are shouted down on campus," she admitted. "The fact is, that doesn't happen all the time. A few cases have been cherry picked, mostly outside of Wisconsin."

Lead sponsor Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, said. "Around the country we've had situations that have gotten to the point of demonstration shout downs and we do not want to get to that point in Wisconsin."

Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison, pointed out that not one speaker has ever been silenced from a protester on a UW campus, and said the bill"bags and gags" First Amendment rights. She added that the irony that "Assembly Bill 299 (that) "protects" free speech by restricting it for our UW System students.

Taylor went on to argue Republican lawmakers keep restricting opposing speech at the Capitol since assuming control. They've restricted protesters from gathering at the rotunda, a public forum where people are entitled to the most heightened protection on speech.

Those who run the show have shown hostility to free speech and hostility to the university, Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, D-Milwaukee, added.

Billings was also upset that UW System president Ray Cross was not spoken to.

"I don't think it's by accident that this bill came out for the public hearing during finals week," Billings pointed out. "I'm disappointed president Cross was not consulted."

Read the original here:

Democrats speak out, as Republican bill aimed at silencing UW protesters passes - La Crosse's NewsTalk 1410AM 92.3FM

Protesters attending the free speech rally. (WTOP/Liz Anderson)

WASHINGTON At the National Mall Sunday afternoon, a few hundred people gathered with signs and flags to exercise their First Amendment rights.

Both rally groups gathered near the Lincoln Memorial; one in support of free speech, the other just steps away to rally against hate speech.

Were not going to be replaced, one speaker told the audience gathered near the reflecting pool for the free speech rally. This was our country, the founding fathers objectively founded this country for white people.

There were a variety of ideological representations at the gathering including Ariel Kohane, who held Jews for Trump signs. Kohane said he traveled from Manhattans Upper West Side for the rally.

I definitely think that the left is trying to smother free speech. We on the right definitely promote it, Kohane told WTOP.

The free speech speaker lineup included controversial white nationalist Richard Spencer.

At the counter rally staged by D.C. Unite Against Hate, attendees said they felt it necessary to also make their voices heard.

The U.S. is very progressive as of right now. I think were moving in the right direction. But of course there are some people who just are living in the past, said Rose, who is from D.C. but now lives in Rockville, Maryland.

I think we have to come out when the far right is demonstrating and the racist white supremacists are out here, said John van Kamp of Arlington, Virginia.

But everyone at the free speech rally didnt agree with everything they heard.

I think that shows I stand up 100 percent for freedom of speech, said Irma Hinojosa, a rally speaker who says shes taken lots of flack because she is a Donald Trump supporter.

Others gave a listening ear at that rally, not to show their support for all the rhetoric, but to understand other points of view and try and see what people are concerned about and what their grievances are with other political parties and ideologies, said William, a student studying government at Georgetown University.

Meanwhile, Yale University student Sidney Daniels attended the counter rally because there are people in this country, Americans, fellow citizens, who dont believe in my right to exist and who dont believe in my right to have rights, she told WTOP.

Now that Trump is in office, lots of people have been given license to do and say things that they wouldnt have said before. Things that werent previously (socially) acceptable have become socially acceptable, said Daniels. Because of that, I think its important to have counter protests in order to demonstrate that Black lives matter, that women matter, that all people matter.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

Excerpt from:

Steps from Lincoln Memorial: Dueling rallies for free speech, against hate - WTOP

A proposal to define the contours of political discourse in Israeli universities has sparked a stormy debate: Is it a government assault on free speech -- or the long-overdue injection of balance into a bastion of liberalism?

Photographer: Thomas Coex/AFP via Getty Images

The academic ethics code commissioned by pro-settlement Education Minister Naftali Bennett would bar university and college faculty from conducting political activity on campus, including an unbalanced airing of political views. Students would be able to lodge complaints against teachers, and on-campus units would be set up to enforce the code.

Bennett says the blueprint, which is still being fine-tuned,would shield students from unwanted politicking, and would prevent lecturers from promoting a boycott of Israel mounted by Palestinians and their supporters.

It is inconceivable that students wont voice their opinions for fear of their grades, or that professors call for a boycott of the institutions where they themselves teach, he said through a spokesman.

These and other controversial measures seen by critics as hindering free speech have drawn fire beyond Israels borders from academic associations and liberal U.S. Jews.

The code of ethics that the government of Israel is considering for the countrys academic institutions is a threat not only to academic freedom in Israel, but to Israels standing as a democracy, theAmerican Association of University Professors and American Federation of Teachers.

The proposal reflects a frustration among Israeli government backers about the limits to their power. While the nationalist Likud Party has governed for most of the past 40 years, its supporters say the majoritys views arent given adequate voice in other centers of influence, including the courts, arts, media and universities.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus government has been active in recent years in trying to reshape the media landscape, which he accuses of pursuing a left-wing agenda antagonistic to his policies and family. Other members of his government have trained their sights on other institutions.

Culture Minister Miri Regev has said she would withhold funds from cultural institutions that are subversive, support incitement and racism, or burn the Israeli flag. In adding conservative justices to the Supreme Court earlier this year, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked declared a historic day. The flagship of our judicial system changed its direction tonight.

Photographer: Gali Tibbon/AFP via Getty Images

The academic code, condemned by associations of Israeli university and college heads and the national students organization, would need to be approved by the states Council of Higher Education, which hasnt commented on the proposal written by Tel Aviv University philosophy professor Asa Kasher.

Some schools already have their own guidelines on political discourse. Kasher, a co-author of Israels military ethics code, has said the draft was modeled after the code of theAmerican Association of University Professors,which said the U.S. government had no hand in its document.

Opponents see the code as part of an objectionable government pattern.

This is serious, impacts on the important issue of academic freedom, and is part of a broader attack on freedom of speech,said Amir Fuchs, a researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute.

The government is reducing democracy to a matter of majority rule and making it legitimate to reject criticism, he added.

They say, we were elected and if the law passes, then what is the problem? he said.

The government says its acting to defend the country against the diplomatic, economic, academic and cultural sanctions advocated by the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.

A law recently approved by Israels parliament denies visas or residency rights to foreigners who champion boycotts of Israel or its settlements. In April, Netanyahu canceled a meeting with Germanys foreign minister after he insisted on meeting with BTselem and Breaking the Silence, groups that accuse the Israeli army of violating Palestinian human rights and are heavilyfunded by foreign governments.

Officials in the prime ministers office declined to comment for this story. Deputy Minister for Diplomacy Michael Oren said he doesnt see Israels democracy unraveling.

Photographer: Jay Mallin/Bloomberg

Israeli laws go through the democratic process and are democratically voted on, he said.

In the past, some bills assailed as undemocratic have foundered before reaching a parliamentary vote, or have been watered down because their constitutionality was questioned. But some derailedbills have been successfully revived by subsequent governments, like the law passed in February legalizing previously unauthorized settlements on privately owned Palestinian land.

These measures have been deplored by liberals in the the U.S. Jewish community that Israel relies on for support.

They paint a picture discordant with the Jewish democratic state as a beacon of hope and light, said Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Union of Reform Judaism in the U.S.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

With most American Jews identifying as Democrats, the contentious legislation could chip away at bilateral support for Israel. Republicans told the U.S.-based Pew Research Center in January that they sympathized more with Israel than the Palestinians, by a margin of 74 percent to 11 percent. About a third of Democrats said they sympathize with the Palestinians and a similar share with Israel -- the largest party gap on this question since 1978.

Controversial legislation will only exacerbate the problem, said Stuart Eizenstat, who served as U.S. ambassador to the European Union and deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury Department.

Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg

It is important for Israel as a sovereign state to act in what it considers are its national interests, but no country can be isolated from the world, particularly from the U.S., Eizenstat said. Israel cant afford to lose support of a significant element of part of one of the two major U.S. parties.

The rest is here:

Attack on Free Speech or Reality Check? Israel Code Fuels Debate - Bloomberg

As Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar said, perhaps ironically, There are no tricks in plain and simple faith.

Only a fool would fail to see the decaying political discourse in America and the sharp partisan divides. These divides in America have become so overt and tense that the arts have become outlets to express partisan anger in an ever-increasingly distasteful manner.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, Madonna spoke of blowing up the White House, Snoop Dogg assassinated a clown resembling Trump in a music video, and Kathy Griffin held up a severed head that resembled President Trump in a photograph, all under the auspices of the resistance. Last week, the Republican baseball team was nearly massacred by a man who clearly had targeted them for their political views. The escalation of both rhetoric and violence should be alarming to any rational citizen.

Over the past weekend, supporters of Trump aimed to directly combat Shakespeare in the Park in New York City, in which Julius Caesar, dressed to resemble Trump, is assassinated on stage. Their tactic? Rushing the stage and interrupting the performance while yelling things such as stop leftist violence! and, Goebbels would be proud!

Their actions did not calm and tone down the rhetoric: they only furthered it. Ironically enough, these same people belong to a base that was vocal and united against campus protesters who employed the same tactics to shut down and harass conservative speakers.

Its worth mentioning that the very same production did the same thing to an actor resembling President Obama, and no public outcry took place. The directors of the play used the modern context of the presidency to illustrate the plays point, although continuing to do so in the wake of last weeks violence was distasteful and unnecessary.

Laura Loomer, the woman who first rushed the stage, claimed on Fox News: I am protecting the presidents life. I am protecting our Constitution. I am using my constitutional right of free speech and protest to protest against the bastardization of Shakespeare.

These claims are as ridiculous as they are false. The Secret Service protects the presidents life, not stage-rushing playgoers. Shakespeare in the Park is a free event, albeit one that requires tickets from its attendees. As a closed event, any interruption cannot be described as an exercise of free speech, but instead an act that infringes on the rights of those who are attending the event.

The producers of the play had already come under immense pressure and were already losing sponsors. By rushing the stage, the narrative switched from the disturbing act of the play, to silly protesters shouting down the play itself in the name of free speech.

Perhaps these protesters should have better studied Julius Caesar. The play portrays the assassination of the historic Roman leader, but focuses on the infighting and strife that ensues among the assassins. The plays tragedy is not Caesar himself, but rather the friendships, and eventually the lives, of those who wished to seize power. It is itself a condemnation of political violence.

In the aftermath of what was obviously a publicity stunt, Loomer used her airtime on Fox News to bash the never-Trumpers who she claimed are unhappy with President Trump being our president.

They havent accepted it and the only way that they would be resolved is if he was eradicated or taken out, she said.

I voted for Trump. Supporting our president and supporting free speech are not mutually exclusive. Americans who chose to not vote for Trump have the same rights to free speech as those who voted for him. The get in line or else mentality on display is the very sort of behavior that fuels the hyperpartisan rhetoric originally at fault.

Fight fire with fire is the mantra these demonstrators have used to defend their actions.

This sort of logic (if you can call it that) is only furthering the downward spiral of political discourse. After the many times the right has claimed to be the champions of free speech, this sort of behavior is unbelievably hypocritical.

Discourse in America, on both sides, is seriously flawed. Taking away others free speech is not the solution. You can fight back with outrage and strength while upholding decency and respecting the rights of others.

Kassy Dillon is the founder of Lone Conservative blog and has appeared on Fox News discussing issues surrounding free speech and cultural issues on college campuses. @KassyDillon

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

Original post:

Backing Trump, Shakespeare and free speech (at the same time) - The Hill (blog)

Theres a tension so deep in how we think about free expression, it should rightly be called a paradox.

On the one hand, regardless of ideology, artists and writers almost unanimously insist that they do what they do to change minds. But the same artistes, auteurs and opiners recoil in horror when anyone suggests that they might be responsible for inspiring bad deeds.

Hollywood, the music industry, journalism, political ideologies, even the Confederate flag: Each takes its turn in the dock when some madman or fool does something terrible.

The arguments against free speech are stacked and waiting for these moments like weapons in a gladiatorial armory.

Hollywood activists blame the toxic rhetoric of right-wing talk radio or the tea party for this crime, the National Rifle Association blames Hollywood for that atrocity. Liberals decry the toxic rhetoric of the right, conservatives blame the toxic rhetoric of the left.

When attacked again heedless of ideology or consistency the gladiators instantly trade weapons. The finger-pointers of five minutes ago suddenly wax righteous in their indignation that mere expression rather, their expression should be blamed. Many of the same liberals who pounded soapboxes into pulp at the very thought of labeling record albums with violent-lyrics warnings instantly insisted that Sarah Palin had Rep. Gabrielle Giffords blood on her hands. Many of the conservatives who spewed hot fire at the suggestion that they had any culpability in an abortion clinic bombing, gleefully insisted that Sen. Bernie Sanders is partially to blame for Rep. Steve Scalises fight with death.

And this is where the paradox starts to come into view: Everyone has a point.

The blame for violent acts lies with the people who commit them, and with those who explicitly and seriously call for violence, Dan McLaughlin, my National Review colleague, wrote in the Los Angeles Times last week. People who just use overheated political rhetoric, or who happen to share the gunmans opinions, should be nowhere on the list.

As a matter of law, I agree with this entirely. But as a matter of culture, its more complicated.

I have always thought it absurd to claim that expression cannot lead people to do bad things, precisely because it is so obvious that expression can lead people to do good things. According to legend, Abraham Lincoln told Harriet Beecher Stowe, So youre the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war. Should we mock Lincoln for saying something ridiculous?

As Irving Kristol once put it, If you believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book. You have to believe, in other words, that art is morally trivial and that education is morally irrelevant.

Ironically, free speech was born in an attempt to stop killing. It has its roots in freedom of conscience. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the common practice was that the rulers religion determined their subjects faith too. Religious dissent was not only heresy but a kind of treason. After Westphalia, exhaustion with religion-motivated bloodshed created space for toleration. As the historian C.V. Wedgwood put it, the West had begun to understand the essential futility of putting the beliefs of the mind to the judgment of the sword.

This didnt mean that Protestants instantly stopped hating Catholics or vice versa. Nor did it mean that the more ecumenical hatred of Jews vanished. What it did mean is that it was no longer acceptable to kill people simply for what they believed or said.

But words still mattered. Art still moved people. And the law is not the full and final measure of morality. Hence the paradox: In a free society, people have a moral responsibility for what they say, while at the same time a free society requires legal responsibility only for what they actually do.

Read more from the original source:

Jonah Goldberg: Free speech isn't always a tool of virtue - Arizona Daily Star

Kellogg Community College claimed that it was vilified by a lawsuit filed against it after arresting three students for distributing pocket copies of the U.S. Constitution on campus.

As Campus Reform first reported, student Shelly Gregoire and two conservative activists, Nathan Berning (a former employee of Campus Reforms parent organization, the Leadership Institute) and Isaac Edikauskas, spent the duration of an afternoon passing out copies of the Constitution to their peers and recruiting for a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) chapter before they were accosted by administrators.

"Free speech is a right, not a privilege that can be censored by university officials on a public campus."

[RELATED: Campus cops: free speech needs approval from college]

Ultimately, all three were arrested and brought to jail after they refused to leave the premises, prompting the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to sue the school for violating their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

"Free speech is a right, not a privilege that can be censored by university officials on a public campus," ADF declared in a press release at the time. "If public universities silence free speech on campus, they deny their students opportunities for engagement and learning. If public universities stifle these learning opportunities on campus, they impair a student's ability to function in the real world."

Now, Kellogg has responded to the lawsuit with a briefing of its own, particularly opposing ADFs request for a preliminary injunction on the schools solicitation policy.

[RELATED: Rutgers: no such thing as free speech]

Our campus guests could have resolved their dispute with KCC in a matter of minutes on Sept. 20 and carried on their solicitation activities that same afternoon if they had simply filled out basic paperwork and moved out of the pedestrian walkway where students were trying to get to class, Kellogg spokesman Eric Greene remarked in a press release, though ADF has argued that a policy of requiring basic paperwork for expressive activity is precisely what is objectionable.

Because public colleges have the duty to protect and promote the First Amendments guarantee of free speech, we are asking the court to prevent Kellogg from enforcing its unconstitutional policy while our lawsuit proceeds, said ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham in a press release. Like all public colleges, KCC is supposed to be the marketplace of ideas, but instead, it arrested these club supporters for exercising their freedom of speech, and, ironically, for handing out copies of the very documentthe Constitutionthat protects what they were doing.

[RELATED: Students threatened with arrest for handing out constitutions]

Kellogg, however, claims that it is being unfairly vilified by YAL and its supporters who are allegedly spreading false information about why individuals were arrested.

These accusations couldnt be further from the truth, Greene continued. The College takes seriously any allegation that an individuals freedom of expression has been infringed and we have carefully reviewed our Solicitation Policy and concluded that we have been and continue to be in compliance with all applicable laws.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @AGockowski

Original post:

Kellogg claims it's been 'vilified' over free-speech suit - Campus Reform

Wisconsin Democrats accused their Republican counterparts of hypocrisy Thursday in a desperate bid to halt the progress of a bill to protect free speech on college campuses.

According to The Journal Times, Democratic state lawmakers leveled the charges in an unsuccessful effort to prevent passage of the Campus Free Speech Act by the State Assembly, contending that GOP legislators have shown hostility to free speech in other contexts, and are merely attempting to silence liberal students at the states public colleges and universities.

"If you man-terrupt me in feminism class, I can sue you?"

The bill, which would require schools to penalize students who disrupt free speech on campus, nonetheless passed in a 61-36 vote, and now heads to the Senate.

[RELATED: Four more states join fight to protect free speech on campus]

Those who run the show have shown hostility to free speech and hostility to the university, declared Democratic state Rep. Jonathan Brostoff, citing recent GOP actions to cut funding for the University of Wisconsin system and prohibit protesters from holding signs in the Capitol rotunda.

Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor also condemned conservative colleagues as hypocrites for having previously criticized liberal hegemony at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, saying legislative rebukes related to the content of courses and political affiliations of guest speakers could influence how professors present material.

In December, Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the UW-Madison administration calling for the cancellation of a class on The Problem of Whiteness, and the following month they denounced an anti-masculinity program that they said declares war on men.

[RELATED: UW program explores dangers of masculinity]

The author of the Campus Free Speech Act, Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer, dismissed objections that the bill is intended to shut down liberal speech, asserting that the legislation was developed in response to requests for action from students and regents in the UW System.

In a press release provided toCampus Reform,Kremer pushed back even more forcefully, describing a "mob mentality" that leads to "conservative groups being shouted down by their liberal counterparts" at UW-Madison.

Repeatedly, weve seen students shouted down and silenced by those in disagreement and unconstitutional policies that violate the First Amendment on the books at the UW," Kremer said. "The Campus Free Speech Act will end the unconstitutional 'hecklers veto' and create a behavioral shift on campus."

Taylor also claimed that she has personally experienced Republican restrictions on speech, accusing her colleagues of mansplaining for suggesting that she ask fewer questions in committee hearings, as well as violating the First Amendment by refusing to provide state funding for her to attend a conference on reproductive rights.

[RELATED:Liberals mock UW free speech center as 'GOP safe space']

Democratic Rep. Katrina Shankland concurred that female legislators are constantly interrupted, and sought to provoke discomfort among the bills supporters by suggesting that mansplaining on campus could constitute a violation of its provisions.

Under this bill, if two people get really tired of this person in political science speaking up every day, and asking good questions, could they decide to report them? Shankland asked. If you man-terrupt me in feminism class, I can sue you?

The bill does require that administrators investigate any incident in which two or more people accuse someone of disrupting free expression, but also includes caveats allowing professors to maintain order in the classroom and guaranteeing that those who stand accused of disruptive activity are entitled to a full disciplinary hearing, complete with the ability to retain legal representation, confront and call witnesses, and even appeal the results.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @MrDanJackson

Read the original here:

Wisconsin Dems complain free speech bill targets UW-Madison - Campus Reform

A spate of terrorist attacks has hit Europe in the past month, not only in Manchester and London but also in Paris and Brussels, where incidents this week were mercifully terminated before they could do any real damage. In Britain, a man seeking vengeance rammed a van into a crowd exiting a mosque, giving rise to real and justified fears of an anti-Muslim backlash. The incidents have left the Continent, and especially Britain, in a state of nervous agitation, fearful of a prolonged period of social unrest and heightened tensions between Muslim communities and their secular neighbors.

On the issue of free speech, the response from authorities has been sad but predictable. Reports the New York Times: In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion, and incitement to racism. Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement. In Sussex, in southern England, a man has been charged with publishing written material intending to stir up religious hatred against Muslims on his Facebook account in 2015; he faces a year in prison. The Sussex police say they hope the lengthy sentence will deter those looking to spread messages of fear and hate on the Internet.

There are two things that come to mind in the wake of this suppression. The first is that Americans should never forget the value of free speech. Free speech not its anodyne, Continental form is by and large a uniquely American institution. It simply does not exist in Europe. Those who yearn for an America that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their mind always.

The second thing to say is that the crackdown on free speech is not occurring in absentia. The ongoing suppression interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other domains of policy and public debate. The most important of those decisions is that politicians and the culture more broadly have chosen not to inquire into the specifically Islamic roots of terrorism. To decline to blame Muslims en masse for terrorism is well and good and should continue. But the unwillingness to ask how Islam may provide a wellspring of justification for terrorist actions is harder to rationalize. It comes with a certain set of implications and corollaries.

Because someone still has to be blamed. Humans are incapable of accepting acts of terrorism or just about any human action that causes mass suffering as quasi-random acts governed by processes too byzantine for us to understand. We still feel the need to pin the blame on somebody or something, so that through punishment we may eradicate the chance of another attack.

In this case, the refusal to query the role of Islam in inspiring terrorism a refusal regarding which my argument is agnostic has directed the blame in the opposite direction, toward those people who make it their business to propagate their hatred of Islam and those who follow it. Not only does this blame-shifting fulfill the political need to shore up Britains international image nobody likes a country of racists and display the requisite concern for Muslim communities. It also fulfills the psychological need to force someone anyone to take responsibility for the heinous crimes.

In fact an entire ideology, that of right-wing xenophobia and racism, can be blamed, and its proponents punished. The energies that might have been directed toward Wahhabi extremism flow instead toward the elimination of an ideology expressing similar hatred but boasting considerably less power to incite actual violence. The logic motivating this suppression is precisely the one that authorities neglect to use in the case of Islam: that certain sorts of rhetoric, however anonymous and innocuous, have a radicalizing effect on the environment and can effect physical violence; therefore they must be prohibited.

That strategy is likely only to backfire. Responding to a terrorist attack by jailing entirely innocent men they are nearly all men who express unappealing and unwelcome views does little more than radicalize the opposition and reduce the size of the acceptable center ground. When a government tells its citizens that they may not hold certain views, those views do not fancifully dissipate; rather, they come to be articulated only by their most radical proponents, thereby polarizing the political climate and stifling the expression of more-moderate and constructive opinions. Had the present system of legal enforcement existed in the 1960s, Enoch Powell may well have faced prison time for his infamous rivers of blood speech. But that would not detract from the attraction of his ideas, or from their popularity: It would only ensure that they became the property of characters far more unsavory.

But that it will backfire does not mean it cannot do its damage. The terms in which the authorities conducting widespread suppression of free speech emanating largely from the right are jarring. Our society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the Internet, says the president of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. That would not sound out of place in an Orwell novel, not only for its totalitarian mindset but also for its absurd juxtaposition with the situation on the ground: Idiots spewing their vile thoughts on Facebook are conflated with Islamic terrorists killing hundreds.

Europe has responded to the rise of terror with the tactics of suppression. That these tactics wont work will become obvious soon enough. But until then, there is plenty of reason to fear.

READ MORE: Normalizing Terror Is Worse than Overreacting to It London Attacks Followed the Same Old Stale Arguments Lessons from Norther Ireland

Noah Daponte-Smith is a student of modern history and politics at Yale University and an editorial intern at National Review.

The rest is here:

Europe's Free-Speech Crackdown: Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore Terrorists - National Review

North Carolina colleges earned the most pro-free speech ratings from The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit group that tracks civil liberties on campus.

FIRE gave five North Carolina colleges green light ratings for embracing free speech on campus. It gave special distinction to the University of North Carolina Charlotte, which received the highest free speech rating across the country.

UNC Charlotte is showing a sincere commitment to free speech a commitment that only a few dozen colleges and universities nationwide have made, said Laura Beltz, policy reform program officer for FIRE, in the press release. FIRE is thrilled at the progress in North Carolina and around the country, and looks forward to working with more colleges to protect student and faculty speech rights.

Duke University, North Carolina Central University, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, and the University of North Carolina Greensboro also received green light ratings from FIRE. Across the nation, 31 schools

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to UNC Charlotte for comment, but received none in time for publication.

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Connect with Rob Shimshock on Facebook

Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

See the article here:

North Carolina Colleges Rated Most Free Speech Friendly - The Daily Caller

BBC News

Johnny Depp on Donald Trump: Crime or free speech? BBC News Actor Johnny Depp has caused controversy after he appeared to threaten US President Donald Trump at the Glastonbury Festival. "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" he asked the crowd. It is a crime in the US to make threats ... Johnny Depp jokes about killing Donald Trump in Glastonbury appearanceThe Guardian Johnny Depp: 'When was the last time an actor assassinated a President?'CNN Johnny Depp slams Donald Trump at Glastonbury and asks: 'When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?'Telegraph.co.uk all 315 news articles »

Read more from the original source:

Johnny Depp on Donald Trump: Crime or free speech? - BBC News

In the never-ending battle to preserve free speech, there is always good news and bad news. There are triumphs and setbacks. The struggle for liberty always encounters the will to power, and often the will to power is cloaked in terms of compassion, justice, and equality.

And so it is with the quest to censor so-called hate speech. First, lets address the good news. Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled 80 against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which had refused to register a trademark for a band called The Slants. The PTO claimed that the bands name violated provisions of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registering trademarks that disparage...or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

As I wrote immediately after the decision, it would have been shocking if the Court hadnt ruled against the PTO. After all, there are literally decades of First Amendment precedents prohibiting the government from engaging in punitive viewpoint discrimination, even when the viewpoint expressed is deemed hatred or offensive. Justice Alito made short work of the notion that the government has an interest in preventing speech that expresses offensive ideas:

As we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. Ive seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections arent absolute, and then move to the core pitch in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because its emotionally and physically harmful:

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of self-objectification, which is associated with eating disorders.

This is the very close cousin of the speech as violence argument sweeping campuses from coast to coast. Its the heart of the argument for the campus speech code that subjective listener response should dictate a speakers rights. The more fragile the listener, the greater the grounds for censorship.

And there is no limiting principle. If How does this speech make you feel? is the core question, it incentivizes victim politics and overreaction. Robust debate triggers robust emotions, and robust debate on the most sensitive issues issues like race, gender, and sexuality trigger the most robust of responses.

Lest anyone wonder about the actual definition of hate speech, look to campus and liberal activist groups. At Evergreen State College in Washington, a progressive professors statement against racial separation and division was deemed so hateful that he couldnt safely conduct classes on campus. Influential pressure groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center label the Ku Klux Klan and other genuine racistshate groups but also apply the same label to mainstream Christian conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. The SPLC has branded respected American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray a white nationalist. Moreover, its far more forgiving of leftist extremism than of moderate speech that is conservative or libertarian.

In a stinging piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jeryl Bier notes the double standard:

Kori Ali Muhammad allegedly murdered three white people in California in April. The SPLC reports that on Facebook Mr. Muhammad wrote of grafted white devil skunks and repeatedly referred to the mythical Lost Found Asiaiatic [sic] Black Nation in America. Yet in contrast with its unequivocal (and false) tagging of Mr. Murray, the group describes Mr. Muhammad as a possible black separatist.

Got that? One of the Rights most important scholars stands condemned, while a man who shot and killed three people is just a possible separatist. Thats the through-the-looking-glass world of the anti-hate speech Left. The definitions are malleable, but one thing you can count on the Right will always lose.

Interestingly, the day before Nielsens call for censorship appeared in the Los Angeles Times, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful social-media postings. Thats where prohibitions against hate speech lead. Indeed, wannabe American censors often extol Europe as a model for their proposed American laws. Do you trust the government to decide when your viewpoint is unacceptable?

Left-wing censors discount voices like mine, claiming that its easy for me to pontificate on free speech while basking in my white privilege. Yet my family has been exposed to more vile and vicious rhetoric than most people will experience in ten lifetimes. Yes, its painful. Yes, it has consequences. But it is far more empowering to meet bad speech with better speech than it is to appeal to the government for protection even from the worst ideas.

To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.

READ MORE: Free Speech Isnt Always a Tool for Virtue Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Self-Expression When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more:

Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up - National Review

The tensions between them exploded in December after Mr. Paladino made offensive remarks about the Obamas in a local weekly newspaper. The newspaper, Artvoice, sent a survey to members of the Buffalo community asking about their hopes for 2017. Mr. Paladino said he hoped Mr. Obama would die of mad cow disease and that Mrs. Obama would return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.

Mr. Paladino apologized. He also said he meant to send the remarks to friends, not the newspaper, but he hit reply instead of forward. About a week after his comments were published, the Buffalo school board demanded his resignation, which he declined to provide.

Not long after, the board filed a petition with the Education Department to have Mr. Paladino removed from his position, saying he had twice disclosed confidential information. In one instance, they said that he shared information with reporters about a legal dispute the board was having with a contractor, which had been discussed with the boards lawyer in executive session, meaning it was closed to the public. Then in January, Mr. Paladino published an article in Artvoice about contract negotiations with the teachers union, which occurred in the fall.

Mr. Paladinos lawyers disputed that his disclosures were improper, arguing that the closed-door meetings had not been convened correctly. But the thrust of their argument was that the board wanted him removed after his comments about the Obamas, and when it learned he could not be removed for what he had said, it looked for another reason. Such an effort violates his right to free speech, the lawyers said. Last week, Mr. Paladino sued members of the board who are trying to remove him, seeking damages.

Frank W. Miller, a lawyer representing school board members, has conceded that Mr. Paladinos statements were protected speech but said that the board was not trying to remove him for those statements. He said Mr. Paladinos disclosures were an unmistakable rejection of his oath of office that made it difficult for the board to have open, fair, and candid discussion. In her testimony Thursday, Dr. Nevergold agreed.

It was quite disturbing to have a board member to go out and reveal executive session information knowing we were in the process of negotiating a contract, she said. It really disrupts the ability of the board to function appropriately.

This was the first day of testimony in a hearing that is expected to stretch into early next week. MaryEllen Elia, the states commissioner of education, is presiding over the hearing and will decide whether Mr. Paladino may remain on the board.

Luis Ferr-Sadurn reported from Albany, and Elizabeth A. Harris from New York

A version of this article appears in print on June 23, 2017, on Page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech Is Defense For Paladino At Hearing.

The rest is here:

With Paladino's Job at Stake, Right to Free Speech Is His Defense - New York Times

The fact of the matter is that there are certain occasions on which individuals assemble not to act peaceably, but to act as destructively as they possibly can, Feinstein stated. When you have a set group of people that come to create a disturbance, some of them even wearing masks or wearing certain clothing, what do you do? Feinstein added. I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh pushed back hard against Senator Feinstein, arguing that the First Amendment protects speech against the possibility of a hecklers veto, which is the suppression of speech by a government out of concern ofa violent reaction by protesters.

There are of course times, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, that the University isnt trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive that there is then the threat of a violent reaction to such speech, Volokh said, but I tend to agree with Senator Cruzs view that that kind of a hecklers veto should not be allowed.

The question was asked When you have a set group of people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do? I think the answer is to make sure they dont create a disturbance and to threaten them with punishment, meaningful punishment, if they do create a disturbance. And not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech that they are trying to suppress, Volokh continued.

Volokh argued that rewarding protesters with a cancellation of an event that they find objectionable will only serve to reinforce their behavior.

One of the basics of psychology that I think weve learned, and all of us who are parents I think have learned it very first hand, is behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence then therell be more such threats from all over the political spectrum. And I think the solution to that is to say that the speech will go on and if that means bringing in more law enforcement and making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively that they be punished.

Feinstein countered by suggesting that public universities might not have the resources to handle a protest on the scale of the Berkeley riots that erupted before an event featuring former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos in early 2017.

How should a university handle this, Feinstein asked. No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance the University has to be prepared to handle itTo me the extraordinary circumstance is when people come in black uniforms and hit other people over the head.

Right, and that cannot be enough to justify suppression of those who they came to try to suppress, Volokhcountered.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read the original post:

Diane Feinstein Defends Public Universities Shutting Down Free Speech - Breitbart News

This week, Germany launched a major crackdown on free expression. In 36 simultaneous raids across multiple states, German authorities sought evidence for speech-related criminal offenses based on things people posted on the Internet.

Most of these offenses come under incitement to racial hatred laws. That might sound good to some, but it isn't.

There's a major difference between U.S. and German incitement laws. U.S. law at federal and state levels criminalizes only incitement that is designed to foster imminent unlawful violence. The incitement must also be likely to lead to unlawful violence. This three-prong test means that saying "I [expletive] hate [racial/religious/social group] and think they should all burn," for example, is not illegal in America.

And Americans take that for granted. But such postings would be illegal in Germany and in much of Europe.

In the U.K., the Public Order Act mandates that, "A person is guilty of an offense if he uses threatening [or abusive] words or behavior ... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." Importantly, proven intention and actual harm are not necessary for conviction. It is enough that the speech possibly alarmed someone nearby.

Consider what impact that law might have on the willingness of individuals to discuss sensitive issues like immigration, or abortion, or terrorism? It is a recipe for chilled speech.

Amazingly, however, Germany takes things further, proactively punishing speech that might feasibly upset someone on the Internet. Which, if you've ever been on the Internet, could be said of almost everything on it.

The head of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, Holger Mnch, explained the government's position. "Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the Internet." Again, think carefully on those words. Germany seeks not simply to punish offending speech, but to "not allow a climate" of offense.

To accomplish this objective, Germany isn't simply arresting speakers, it is punishing the platforms of speech. As Germany's Justice Minister, Heiko Mass, put it, "We need to increase the pressure on social media companies." Mass is referring to a draft law that would impose $56 million fines on Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, if they fail to remove offending speech within a short period. As I've noted, similar legislation is also being considered in Britain.

There's an immensely pathetic quality to this authoritarianism. Such coordinated efficiency and absent restraint raises troubling parallels with another era in German history.

Regardless, Americans should be grateful that the founding fathers chose a different approach. First, our deference to the freedom of individuals is the best moral, social, and political approach to offensive speech. By allowing those with grievances to articulate their beliefs, however unpleasant those views might be, we trust in the debate of different ideas. We know that ultimately, the best ideas will triumph. Moreover, by refusing to ban viewpoints that are perceivably upsetting or intolerant, we ensure that our policy debate is checked by an insidious chilling of speech.

What are Twitter and Facebook to do? I would suggest they threaten to withdraw from Germany. When German voters see that, they might be more offended by their government's policy than by what's said on social media.

Read the original here:

Why Germany wages war on free speech - Washington Examiner

University of Wisconsin students who repeatedly disrupt campus speakers or presentations could be suspended or expelled under a Republican-backed bill the state Assembly passed Wednesday.

The measure, approved on a 61-36 vote Wednesday night with no Democrats in support, is the latest salvo in the national push among some conservatives to crack down on disruptions they say is quelling free speech on liberal college campuses. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters, while other students have complained about free expression fanning hate speech.

Democrats, who didn't have the votes to stop the bill in the Assembly, blasted it as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech.

"It basically gags and bags the First Amendment," said Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison.

Republican backers told reporters that the bill would protect speech from those who repeatedly try to quash it.

"We have to lay down some groundwork here and we have to create a behavioral shift so everyone can be heard and has the right to express their views," said the measure's sponsor Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer.

The proposal must still pass the GOP-controlled Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Walker has voiced support for it.

"To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions," he said in an April interview with WISN-TV. "But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."

The proposal comes in the wake of incidents on college campuses across the country in which protests or threats marred conservative presentations.

Fights broke out at New York University in February after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist. That same month there were protests at the University of California-Berkley ahead of an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. That school canceled an April speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter due to security concerns. And in November, UW-Madison students shouted down former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Under the Wisconsin bill, two complaints about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another's freedom of expression would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. UW institutions would have to remain neutral on public controversies and the Board of Regents would have to report annually to legislators about incidents.

"You're hoping to neuter the university from having any stance on things," said Democratic Rep. Cory Mason.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

Democrats argue that the measure could open the door to partisan operatives attending speeches and filing complaints against students to get them thrown out of school.

"We are returning, when we do this, to the witch hunt era of Joe McCarthy," said Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler, referring to the former U.S. senator from Wisconsin who made it his mission in the 1950s to identify Communists.

The only group registered in support of the measure is Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization. Opponents include a group representing faculty on the flagship UW-Madison campus, the labor union representing UW employees and the League of Women Voters.

Read the original here:

Wisconsin Assembly passes college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Michael Reynolds/EPA/NewscomGosh, protecting controversial free speech from violent protests is expensive. Wouldn't it be easier for colleges to just not let any of that stuff happen? Who wants another Kent State?

That is, with no exaggeration, the attitude expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a Senate hearing this week on free speech on college campuses.

The hearing came just a day after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment is so important to American culture that the federal government cannot simply reject trademarks on the basis of offensiveness. Feinstein, by contrast, expressed bafflement at the argument that universities shouldn't succumb to the heckler's veto and to the idea that publicly funded colleges should have to host invited speakers "no matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is."

There's a reason Feinstein appears on Reason's list of "enemies of freedom."

Ultimately, Feinstein's objection to protecting controversial speech is that of the bureaucrat disguised as the concerned nanny. When people intent on violence show up at protests, other people can get hurt. But colleges have limited resources, she arguesso why should campus police be expected to be able handle protests if they get seriously out of hand?

"You don't think we learned a lesson from Kent State way back when?" she asked at one point, a fascinating reply that illustrates so much about her mind-set. Feinstein's argument seems to be that the killing of four college students by members of the National Guard would have been prevented if the government hadn't allowed the protests in the first place.

Fortunately, lovers of liberty were well-represented on the panel by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who patiently explained that, yes, publicly funded colleges are expected to make sure the civil liberties of the students on their campus are protected appropriately by law enforcement. "One important job of the government is to prevent violence, and to prevent violence without suppressing free speech," he said in response.

There is an odd mind-set out thereone not confined to any particular ideologythat thinks it's some sort of distraction for law enforcement officials to spend their time protecting protesters from violence or standing along parade routes to make sure people come to no harm. These people have their priorities backwards. Protecting people who are expressing their First Amendment rights is what the police are for. The distractions are arresting people for drugs and citing people for not wearing seatbelts.

Similarly, people like Feinstein complain about the costs of protecting liberty as though colleges haven't been undergoing a dramatic increase in administrative bloat. The answer isn't more money from the government. The answer is better spending priorities.

Over at Hot Air, John Sexton says he's surprised to see Feinstein support submission to the heckler's veto. He shouldn't be. Feinstein is actively pro-censorship toward anything she perceives as potentially contributing to violence, including imaginary guns in video games.

Ken "Popehat" White, who recently wrote an excellent explainer for the Los Angeles Times detailing how and why "hate speech" is protected speech, took note of the Supreme Court decisions this week and the overall trend of judicial decisions that bolster the First Amendment. But he also worries what it means for the future if we culturally abandon free speech values:

The Supreme Court is upholding the black letter of liberty, but are Americans upholding its spirit? When college students, encouraged by professors and administrators, believe that they have a right to be free of offense, no. When Americans hunger to "open up" libel laws or jail flag burners, no. When our attitude towards the hecker's veto becomes "let's do it to them because they did it to us," no. Not only is speech practically impaired, but in the long term the cultural norms necessary to sustain good Supreme Court precedent are eroded.

After giving White space to explain why hate speech is legally protected, the Los Angeles Times gave the sociologist and legal scholar Laura Beth Nielsen an opportunity to argue that hate speech should be restricted. The crux of her argument is that hateful speech disproportionately affects the disenfranchised and causes actual measurable harms.

Here is what is especially wrongheaded about Nielsen's op-ed: She repeatedly notes how government's speech restrictions have historically protected the powerful and influential. Yet she somehow does not realize that this is an argument against granting the government the authority to define and restrain hate speech.

So she complains that Congress passed a law to prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting military funerals but never did anything to stop the church from protesting the funerals of people who died of AIDS. She denounces anti-panhandling laws, saying they were enacted to protect the interests of businesses that don't want them around. (She doesn't mention that the courts do in fact frequently strike these laws down as unconstitutional.) It's true: The government is more likely to restrict speech on your behalf if you have more political influence. If the government adds "hate speech" to its rationales for cracking down, do you really think the outcome will be any different?

Neilsen simply doesn't seem aware of how her rationales for restricting speech could be deployed in ways she wouldn't like. As if to underline the point, she pulls out the old "fire in a crowded theater" trope as an example that free speech is not absolute without mentioning that the quote comes from a case where a man was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft.

So, to sum up: Feinstein sees government forces shooting student protesters and concludes that colleges should restrict free speech in order to prevent violence. And Nielsen thinks censorship laws that unfairly harm or exclude the disenfranchised are arguments in favor of giving the government more power to censor speech.

Go here to read the rest:

Sen. Feinstein: Protecting College Free Speech from Violent Protests Is Too Much of a Burden - Reason (blog)

Jon Ossoff, a novice Democratic candidate who ran for election in Georgia's 6th District on Tuesday, earned the dubious distinction of presiding over the most expensive failure in congressional election history.

His campaign burned through $22.5 million, most of it from outside Georgia, which is more than the combined amount spent by both major-party candidates in any previous House race. Ossoff's victorious opponent, Republican Karen Handel, spent a modest $3.2 million.

This greater than 6-to-1 advantage for Ossoff was narrowed considerably by spending by outside groups. In all, spending for Ossoff amounted to $30.5 million, as compared with $21.4 million for Handel.

Perhaps this narrower gap was on Ossoff's mind when, as he sank to a humiliating defeat, he denounced the proliferation of money in politics.

Either way, it takes gall for the biggest congressional spender ever to try to take the high ground on this issue. Ossoff said, "The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money." In an election day interview on NPR, he added, "There have been super PACs in Washington who have been putting up tens of millions of dollars of attack ads in air for months now."

The money in question wasn't anonymous, for parties PACs and super PACs must report their donors, but set that aside. Let's also set aside the fact that Ossoff led outside spending during the runoff, between the April 18 jungle primary and the June 20 finale. Let us charitably also set aside the fact that the Democrat's opinion is self-serving hypocrisy.

Instead, let's focus on the more important fact that Americans have a constitutional right to express themselves on political issues and that in the modern world this expression takes the form of mass media campaigns. Democrats seem unanimously to disagree with this right.

Ever since they were toppled from power in Washington in the early 1990s after nearly two generations of near hegemony, Democrats have been trying to limit free political speech by regulating the tools of its delivery.

In response to the Supreme Court's repeatedly vindicating this treasured First Amendment right, not just with Citizens United but also by striking down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in earlier decisions, Senate Democrats voted in 2014 to weaken the First Amendment guarantee of free political speech. The constitutional amendment that every single Democrat present on the floor voted to pass would have explicitly empowered both Congress and state legislatures to pass laws abridging the freedom of political speech for the first time in this nation's history.

Last year, Democratic Federal Election Commissioners went even further in their war on the First Amendment by attacking the freedom of the press, again in the name of campaign finance regulation. They tried unsuccessfully to prevent newspapers with more than 5 percent foreign ownership (this would include The New York Times) to endorse candidates.

They also tried to punish Fox News for its editorial decision about how to stage a summer 2015 GOP primary debate. At issue was the network's last-minute choice to hold a separate "undercard" debate for minor candidates, in order to avoid an unwatchable forum that included 16 or 17 candidates on the same stage. FEC Democrats tried to construe this editorial decision as an illegal in-kind corporate campaign contribution to the candidates who participated.

These efforts show that the party of the Left represents a clear and present danger to the First Amendment. It is the equivalent in government, but an even greater threat than the hecklers' veto over conservative speakers now being exercised by radical leftists at college campuses around the country.

The increasing hostility of leftists and their party toward the First Amendment may not have played a large role in the Democrats' several recent losses. But it is misplaced in any event. As various and ideologically diverse large-dollar donors have learned the hard way everyone from Sheldon Adelson to Tom Steyer one cannot just buy elections, hard as one tries.

More importantly, the loss of an election is no excuse for limiting others' constitutional rights, no matter how worthy of office the deluded young Ossoff believes himself to be.

Continue reading here:

If you want to restrict free speech, you can Ossoff - Washington Examiner