Linfield College administrators have forced a Young Americans for Liberty group to cancel a free speech event over a cartoon frog.

Staff at the university labeled participants white supremacists after one of them drew a picture of Pepe the Frog, the popular meme thats been unfairly maligned as a hate symbol by Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the mainstream media.

The libertarian group set up a table on campus to promote their organization, and planned to sponsor a series of free speech events planned at college, which is in Oregon.

According to Reason, Kiefer Smith, vice president of the chapter, brought an inflatable free speech ball for participants to write and draw pictures on.

The majority of the things written on there were uplifting things, not political, not inflammatory at all, he said.

Typical examples were said to include youre awesome and have a nice day.

When one participant drew Pepe, the group came under attack by other students on campus, and involved the administration in their complaints.

Immediately we were deemed alt-right, said Smith, who says that YAL were even accused of being white supremacists over the drawing.

Reason states that the Linfield Advisory Committee on Diversity responded to the drawing by inviting the group to a free speech forum, where they were supposed to hold an hour-long discussion on the freedom of expression, but the event turned into a four-hour condemnation of the group.

Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt, a professor of English and gender studies coordinator accused the group of being funded by alt-right dark money.

Following the forum, the school administration canceled the planned free speech events that YAL was sponsoring, including a talk hosted by University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson on ethics and free speech.

Peterson has come under fire from the progressive left for speaking out against the enforcement of gender-neutral preferred pronouns like ze/hir and xe/xir.

The campus faculty, including Dean of Faculty Dawn Nowacki, took aim at YAL in the campus newspaper, where they falsely described the libertarians as alt-right.

These efforts are a lot more subtle, wrote Nowacki. Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step-by-step process, people do not become part of the alt-right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

The Young Americans for Liberty went ahead with their free speech event at an off-campus site, where they received a turn-out of over 400 attendeesdouble the number they were expecting.

The banned lecture also received around 90,000 views on YouTube.

This colleges efforts to suppress free speech backfired spectacularly.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Go here to see the original:

Pepe the Frog Drawing Forces Free Speech Event Cancellation at Linfield College - Heat Street

Last week there was another horrific shooting that took place at a baseball field filled with Republican members of Congress and their staff. They were practicing for the annual Democrat v Republican charity baseball game.

Five people were injured, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Mass shootings are far too commonplace in this country. In fact, this was not the only one that took place that day.

Fortunately, President Donald Trump rose to the occasion by reminding us that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, unity fell apart and the finger pointing began when airways from the right began shouting that the left had blood on their hands. Connections were made between the baseball field shooting and recent anti-Trump statements.

One such violent statement was made by Madonna at the Womens March in D.C. She said she thought about blowing up the White House. That triggered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for her arrest.

Another act caused widespread condemnation of comedian Kathy Griffins grotesque idea of a joke. She apologized for holding up a bloody, severed head that resembled the president, and admitted she went too far. I agree she went too far, but the apology didnt stop her from losing her job. It also didnt prevent social media from lighting up with calls for her arrest.

We may never know if these inflammatory incidents influenced the shooter but the right was loudly calling for limits on free speech. No matter how disgusting we may find these statements, they dont rise to the level of being unlawful. Even though Madonna and Griffin both received a visit from the Secret Service, it seems public outcry is the main the consequence for such actions.

There are exceptions to that norm however. It seems rocker Ted Nugent may have benefited from a mountain of repugnant, hate filled statements such as, Obama suck on my machine gun. Those types of hideous comments seem to have garnered Nugent not only a place in Governor Greg Abbotts campaign, but also a dinner at the White House at Trumps invitation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized very few exceptions to free speech. They include: obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence.

While I agree with the exceptions to our precious right to free speech, I also long for common sense limits to our Second Amendment rights. Limitations that would keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldnt have them like domestic abusers, felons or people who are dangerously ill or even suspected terrorists.

There have been numerous calls made for sensible restrictions, but those were always blocked by Republicans. In fact, there were unsuccessful efforts to restrict the type rifle used in this recent assault.

Even though 90 percent of Americans wanted to see expanded background checks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the GOP killed that effort.

Shortly after taking office, this administration began rolling back the Obama-era regulation that would keep guns out of the hands of people with severe mental disorders.

Since the shooting, there has been talk among Republicans of not tightening gun laws but loosening them.

As much as I want to see the hateful rhetoric end, I doubt it will. Both sides are guilty of it. Our Constitution protects speech and gun rights, yet even though Republicans scream for limits on the one, they refuse to allow any common-sense limits on the other. Sadly, thats the one that can actually kill you.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: After shooting, calls for free speech limits but not for guns - Austin American-Statesman

Some musicians might have just shrugged at this point and changed their name to something innocuous (" ... and here they are ... from Portland, Oregon ... THE PLANTS!")

The decision has led some so-called anti-PC crusaders to claim vindication, calling the ruling a mighty blow against those who believe that institutions have not just the right, but the responsibility to provide protections against hateful speech. They're wrongly using a case of a specific victory to make a general -- and ultimately, untenable -- claim.

Yes, the Lanham Act is archaic and poorly written. The definition of "scandalous, immoral or disparaging" is subjective to the point of absurdity, and government institutions should be extremely wary of being put in the position of determining the meaning and application of any of these adjectives. What's a "scandal" in an era where we wake up cringing at presidential tweets every morning? Whose standards should be used to define "immoral"? And especially, what constitutes "disparaging" when the user of a term is also its typical target?

The fact is, the context in which Tam and his bandmates are using Slant, as a conscious commentary on its legacy of harm, as a way of reclaiming it from that legacy, is not scandalous, nor immoral, nor disparaging. Yes, it challenges those who hear it, demanding awareness of the term's ugly roots and history. But the band is perfectly willing to provide the resources needed to share in that awareness. It's what they do: The band goes out of its way to play college campus and Asian-American festival gigs and is deeply involved in supporting and promoting social justice-related causes.

Blanket rejection of the dirty laundry in our history is cultural erasure. Refusal to acknowledge that it's dirty, by claiming that all speech is the same, regardless of who's speaking and with what intent, is tantamount to declaring open season on marginalized groups and individuals. All Tam has ever asked is for the Patent and Trademark Organization to bring a "culturally competent" approach to their decision-making, and frankly, that's what we should ask of every government institution.

The bottom line: Freedom of expression and protection of the oppressed can coexist, if people take the example set by The Slants and do the work to defend them both.

Originally posted here:

The Slants show full meaning of free speech - CNN

Harvards decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says

For many, it's a dream come true. Acceptance into the oldest institution of higher education in the United States, Harvard.

But for at least 10 incoming freshmen, the dream was dashed after they were caught participating in an exchange of images, or 'memes', in a private Facebook messaging group.

Many of the posts were described as racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic. Some mocked sexual assault or violence.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY REPORTEDLY PULLS 10 STUDENT OFFERS OVER ONLINE COMMENTS

The prestigious school rescinded admission, a move Harvard's own professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, described as over-punishment and draconian.

"Harvard is a private university, technically not bound by the First Amendment, but since I got to Harvard 53 years ago, Harvard has committed itself to following the First Amendment and I think this violates the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment," said Dershowitz.

Harvard officials declined Fox News request for an interview, stating: "We do not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants."

However, the school reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission for many reasons, including student behavior that "brings into question their honesty, maturity, or moral character."

THINK BEFORE YOU POST: ADMISSIONS EXPERTS' SOCIAL MEDIA TIPS

Rachel Blankstein, the co-founder of Spark Admissions, a Massachusetts-based consulting business that helps students gain admission to top U.S. colleges and universities, said Harvard's move did not shock her.

"They also have a highly selective admissions process in which they're looking for students with strong moral character," said Blankstein. "It's really not about free speech, it's about character."

Blankstein noted that all elite institutions have a code of conduct, adding "I would not be surprised if other schools would have made the same decision."

Harvard's call may well serve as a cautionary tale for hopeful college applicants and those who have already gained admittance.

"My first day teaching students both at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, I warn them about the social media, Dershowitz said. I warn them about putting things on Facebook that will come back to haunt them and they just don't seem to get it."

Molly Line joined Fox News Channel as a Boston-based correspondent in January 2006.

Go here to read the rest:

Harvard's decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says - Fox News

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on Face the Nation Sunday to denounce efforts by studentsat various universities to shut down free speech, and the violence some have resorted to in order to silence others.

Sanders has been outspoken on the issue of free speech in the wake of the attempted June 14 shooting of GOP legislators in Alexandria, Virginia, that wounded five, includingRepublican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.).

The shooter,James Hodgkinson, was a die-hard Sanders supporter who had volunteered for Sanders campaign during the 2016 election before he was killed by police during the shooting. Hodgkinsons cover photo was a picture of Sanders, and was later found to have social media postsexcoriating Republicans, and belonged to Facebook groups such asTerminate the Republican Party, The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans, and Donald Trump is not my President.

On the day the shootingoccurred, Sanders said he was sickened by the fact that someone who participated in his campaign attempted to murder his colleagues. Hecondemned the shooting during a speech on the House floor, saying real change can only come about through non-violent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.

Sunday, Sanders voiced his support for free speech to Face the Nation host John Dickerson, and encouraged Americans to stand up against violence.

Look, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about, Sanders said. And, politically, every leader in this country, every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable. And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a full recovery from the tragedy that took place.

Dickerson asked Sanders where he comes down on the issue of campus free speech, noting the various recent protests and attempts to silence speakers students do not agree with. Sanders shook his head in disagreement before Dickerson finished asking the question.

I think people have a right to speak, Sanders said, and you have a right, if you are on a college campus, not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her.

But what why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? Sanders continued. You have a right to protest. But I dont quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view.

Sanders told Dickerson that we are in a contentious and difficult political moment in our country, and expressed his grave concerns about the Trump agenda. The Vermont senator surmised that the vast majority of Americans disagreed with the approach, but stated that you dont have to be violent about it.

Lets disagree openly and honestly, but violence is not acceptable, Sanders said.

Read more from the original source:

Even Bernie Sanders wants the fight against free speech on campus to stop - TheBlaze.com

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings this week on legal issues related to campus free speech. On Tuesday, the panel delved into incidents that took place at the University of California, Berkeleywhere students have lit fires and ravaged their own campus in order to avoid hearing from right-leaning speakers like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who hails from California where the worst incidents have happened, seemed unable to fully grasp the idea that there is no hecklers veto on speech.

No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is, you should find a way to accommodate it? Feinstein asked those called to testify. They included several First Amendment scholars and students who had been muzzled by their own colleges for inviting controversial speakers.

Feinstein went on to suggest that it was nearly impossible to expect students to embrace a full, diverse spectrum of opinion, and handle their disagreements like the mature, educated adults they are.

No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance, the university has to be prepared to handle it. Its the problem for the university, she went on.Youre making the argument that a speaker that might fulminate a big problem should never be refused.

She claimed that a university could stop a conservative speaker from taking the stage just to protect students general welfare.

I think particularly in view of the divisions within this nation at this time which are extraordinary from my experience, I think we all have to protect the general welfare too. And I appreciate free speech but its another thing to agitate, its another thing to foment, and its another thing to attack.

Constitutional scholar and law professor Eugene Volokh, was forced to explain, slowly and in terms Feinstein could understand, that its the governments responsibility to protect Constitutional guarantees of free speech. A simple difference of ideas is not fomenting an attackstudents have a choice on how to behave.

If they cant control themselves, and serious measures are required, the problem is endemicand its not the speakers problem.

If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speech, whether its universities or otherwise, then yes, indeed, we are in a very bad position, Volokh told Feinstein.

He went on to lecture Feinstein that First Amendment considerations should be paramount, correcting her idea that a university can step in to stop a speaker merely to protect the student body from unrest.

The potential for violence, Volokh said, cannot be enough to justify suppression of those they tried to suppress.

Read the original post:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Defends Campus Fascists Instead of Free ... - Heat Street

Jonah Goldberg

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. Theres no philosophical consistency to when they get picked up and deployed, beyond the unimpeachable consistency of opportunism.

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. Gabby 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.

If words dont matter, then democracy is a joke, because democracy depends entirely on making arguments not for killing, but for voting. Only a fool would argue that words can move people to vote but not to kill.

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.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online. Contact him at JonahsColumn@aol.com.

View original post here:

Goldberg: Free speech not always tool of virtue - Peoria Journal Star

Washington Post

Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues Inside Higher Ed Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized the decision making of campus administrators in a hearing Tuesday but didn't suggest any new federal responses to issues of free speech on college campuses. Although Congress has examined free ... Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, MiddleburyWashington Post Assembly bill on UW free speech threatening expulsion set for vote amid First Amendment debateMilwaukee Journal Sentinel When your First Amendment rights offend me: Senators considers free speech on campusFort Worth Star Telegram The Seattle Times -Fox News all 31 news articles »

Visit link:

Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues - Inside Higher Ed

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the court struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from visiting social-networking websites that allow minors to become members of those websites or to create personal web pages. This would include sites like Facebook, Twitter, WebMD and The New York Times online locations visited regularly by billions of people.

One of those people was Lester Gerard Packingham, who was prosecuted under the law after he posted a Facebook message in 2010 giving thanks for the dismissal of a parking ticket. Mr. Packingham had been convicted eight years earlier for having sex with a minor. The state did not argue that he had used Facebook or any other site to seek out sex with minors or for any illegal activity at all; the fact that hed visited a prohibited site as a registered sex offender was enough to convict him.

The justices rightly reversed the State Supreme Courts decision upholding that conviction. States have a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion for the majority, but the law went far beyond what was needed to achieve that goal barring access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.

GERRYMANDERING On Monday the court also agreed to hear a case involving partisan gerrymandering, or the skewed drawing of legislative district lines to benefit one political party. The courts decision, which would be issued in the first half of 2018, could transform American politics.

The case comes from Wisconsin, where Republicans won control of the state government in 2010, just in time to draw new maps following the decennial census. They were extremely efficient: In 2012, Republican assembly candidates received less than half the statewide vote and yet won 60 of 99 assembly seats. They took even more seats in 2014, while winning just a bare majority of the vote.

This distortion of the voters will is one of the oldest and dirtiest practices in American politics, and while both major parties are guilty of it, the benefits over the past decade have flowed overwhelmingly to Republicans.

The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering could in theory become so extreme that it violates the Constitution, but it has never settled on who should make that determination or on what standards to use.

In the meantime, because the court voted to stay the lower-court decision ordering Wisconsin to redraw its district lines before the 2018 elections, the states Republican-friendly maps are likely to remain for at least one more cycle. The stay also raises doubts about whether a majority believes the court should ever resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. If not, voters will remain at the mercy of self-interested politicians, with no help in sight.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this editorial appears in print on June 20, 2017, on Page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech at The Supreme Court.

Visit link:

Free Speech at the Supreme Court - New York Times

JUDY WOODRUFF: But first: Schools are paying a lot more attention to what students post online, and that can have severe consequences for students and schools.

Harvard University withdrew the admittance of at least 10 incoming freshmen who had reportedly posted violent, racist and sexually explicit content in a private Facebook group.

High schools are cracking down, too, with some hiring outside companies to police social media posts.

But monitoring online behavior is difficult, and civil rights groups are watching.

Special correspondent Lisa Stark with our partner Education Week visited a school district in Arizona.

LISA STARK: Its just before summer break at Dysart High School in Surprise, Arizona, outside Phoenix. Students are eating lunch, signing yearbooks, and theyre immersed in social media.

Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube. More than 90 percent of teens say they go online every day, and nearly a quarter are online almost constantly.

Let me ask you, first of all, do you all have phones?

STUDENT: Yes.

STUDENT: Yes, we do.

LISA STARK: Do you ever not have a phone with you?

STUDENT: No.

STUDENT: Its always on.

LISA STARK: We sat down with four Dysart students to talk about how they use social media.

Snapchat, I post every single day, like, every day, all day.

STUDENT: I always like post my thoughts, certain way Im feeling. Depends on how Im feeling that day.

STUDENT: When Im done with all my work, and if I dont have any work from other classes, I just go on my phone and see whats going on.

STUDENT: I dont really care who sees it. Like, Im just posting it because I think its public. Like, Im open about it.

LISA STARK: The problem for schools, what happens on social media doesnt always stay on social media.

ALYSSA WAMSLEY, Student, Dysart High School: I see a lot of bullying on Facebook that it transfers to the school. And then, like, at the beginning of this year, this girl got into an altercation on Facebook, and she ended up fighting the girl at school.

AMY HARTJEN, Principal, Dysart High School: When somethings posted on social media and its being talked about on campus and it disrupts learning, thats when we have to step in and decide if theres something that we need to react to.

LISA STARK: Nationwide, a growing number of districts are watching whats posted online for anything that might impact their schools.

Principal Amy Hartjen says the number one concern is safety.

Whats like, OK, we have to get involved here? Bullying, would that be a red line?

AMY HARTJEN: Absolutely, threats, intimidations.

LISA STARK: What if someone posts something that is offensive language, racist, sexist?

AMY HARTJEN: Absolutely.

LISA STARK: Really? And why would that be a red line?

AMY HARTJEN: Because that is just its against the campus culture.

LISA STARK: Students threatening to harm others or themselves sometimes telegraph that on social media, and districts have been sued for not paying attention to online posts.

These days, the schoolyard has new boundaries.

ZACHERY FOUNTAIN, Communications Director, Dysart USD: The information space is just as important as the physical space anymore, because it has that ability to snowball at a really rapid pace.

LISA STARK: Zachery Fountain is the Dysart District Communications Chief, and point man on social media. He trains staff on how to document troublesome posts.

ZACHERY FOUNTAIN: Thats teaching them things like asking for a screen shot of what has happened, understanding that a message could disappear in five seconds, as soon as its brought to their attention by a student.

LISA STARK: Nationwide, both public and private schools keep tabs on social media in a variety of ways: hiring firms to actively monitor students accounts, encouraging students to report anything worrisome, friending students to gain access to posts that may not be public, and through simple alerts every time the district and its schools are mentioned in any type of media.

Theres anecdotal evidence, but no hard data, to show that early identification of troubling social media posts can help schools head off problems.

School officials here insist they are most concerned about safety. Theyre not trying to pry into students lives. But civil rights and privacy groups say it can be a slippery slope and that some districts have gone too far, that they have violated students constitutional rights.

Students have been disciplined for liking other posts, for private online chats that others made public, for forwarding racist posts, even in order to denounce them.

CHAD MARLOW, American Civil Liberties Union: Schools need to think about, how do we take on these issues in an appropriate way that doesnt have kind of the collateral damage effect of destroying students privacy and free speech rights?

LISA STARK: Chad Marlow is with the American Civil Liberties Union. He says, first and foremost, school shouldnt have open-ended access to students social media accounts.

Youre saying no fishing expeditions?

CHAD MARLOW: No fishing expeditions. And the way to do that is by not allowing passwords to be turned over, what we call shoulder surfing. Log onto your account, and the teacher will stand over the students shoulder and say, scroll, scroll, scroll.

LISA STARK: Are you asking students for passwords?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI, School Resource Officer, Shadow Ridge High School: No.

LISA STARK: Or log-in information or anything?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: No.

LISA STARK: School resource officer Wendy Klarkowski is assigned to Shadow Ridge High School in the Dysart district. Her morning routine includes searching for school-related posts on social media. Shes uncovered criminal activity.

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: A young man had decided to bring some marijuana-laced brownies to school, and he advertised them on Twitter and, meet me in the cafeteria. We got him with all the brownies still on him.

LISA STARK: And possible campus disruptions.

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: Some kids were going to protest something they thought was unfair, and it was all over Twitter, so we were able to get the kids that were leading it, actually, the night before, so that they put an end to that, so it didnt disrupt the campus.

LISA STARK: But why isnt that their free speech right to protest something theyre not happy about?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: It is their right to protest, but it is not their right to disturb an educational institution.

LISA STARK: The ACLUs Marlow worries about districts stifling free speech.

CHAD MARLOW: It is very important to draw the line between punishing an action that occurs on social media vs. thoughts that are expressed on social media. Once you start policing and punishing thoughts, you are into very, very dangerous territory.

LISA STARK: Two of the Dysart students we spoke with say they tread more carefully online after each posted a disparaging remark about one of their teachers.

ALYSSA WAMSLEY: I made a reference to one of my teachers last year on Facebook, and I almost got a referral for it, for what I said about her. And then me and the teacher ended up talking, and now shes my favorite teacher ever.

HADIN KHAN, Graduate, Dysart High School: It was funny at first. Then I was like, OK, I need to take some precautions for next time, when Im angry about something, not mention names or anything. I could say English teacher, as opposed to saying their name.

LISA STARK: So, you are censoring yourself in a way, right?

HADIN KHAN: Yes, kind of. Yes.

LISA STARK: How do you feel about having to do that?

HADIN KHAN: I dont really have a problem with it, because its not that serious of an issue.

LISA STARK: Superintendent Gail Pletnick insists the district is careful not to violate free speech or privacy rights.

GAIL PLETNICK, Superintendent, Dysart Unified School District: Were not crossing that line. Were not monitoring people 24/7. Were not the social media police. But we are concerned about anything that we feel will be harmful to our students.

LISA STARK: Pletnick says technology changes so quickly that schools can find themselves operating in a gray area.

GAIL PLETNICK: Those laws, those rules, those guidelines that were going to have to use are being developed. So, were really not only flying this plane while we build it, while its being designed.

LISA STARK: It can be a rough ride, so Dysart and other districts are increasingly starting to teach digital citizenship, the responsible use of technology, to impress upon students to think before they click.

STUDENT: I like that. Thats cute.

LISA STARK: For the PBS NewsHour and Education Week, Im Lisa Stark in Surprise, Arizona.

Original post:

Schools are watching students' social media, raising questions ... - PBS NewsHour

U.S.senators focused Tuesday on the issues surrounding free speech on college campuses, as someexpressed concerns that voices have been suppressed because they have been deemed offensive, and othersraised questions about how to balance First Amendment rightswith safety.

There is no point in having a student body on campus if competing ideas are not exchanged and analyzed and respected by each other, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The committee examined the issue at a Tuesday hearing titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

Here's a look at some of the protests in the Berkeley, Calif., area in recent months. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

When a hecklers veto succeeded, what effect did that have on the campus climate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) asked two college students at the hearing. Some states allow guns on college campuses, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Doesnt that make the issue more complicated for university presidents?

On too many college campuses, Grassley said, free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Cruz, meanwhile, commented that too many institutions quietly roll over at the threat of violence.

Its tragic what is happening at so many American universities, Cruz said. Where college administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police.

The committee heard from a panel that included both students and other experts. Among them: Zachary Wood, a student at Williams College who is involved in an organization that brings provocative speakers to the Massachusetts campus; Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Frederick Lawrence, a former university president who is secretary and chief executive of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

The challenges of free expression on our campuses have never seemed greater, Lawrence said. I know this from my years as a law school dean, and as a university president.

These challenges, he continued, come in all directions and from all contexts.

They come from the left, and they come from the right, Lawrence said. They involve students, they involve faculty, they involve outside speakers.

Students at Middlebury College in Vermont protested an author who has been called a white nationalist, causing the college to move a planned lecture to another room on campus. (Will DiGravio)

The hearing followed high-profile incidents involving free-speech issues on colleges campuses across the country. In April, a scuffle broke out during protestsof an appearance from Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came to speak on the Alabama campus.

A few months ago at Middlebury College, an angry mob swarmed Charles Murray, an author and conservative scholar, after he attempted to deliver a lecture at the private liberal arts college in Vermont.

At the University of California at Berkeley, a speech from conservative commentator Ann Coulter was canceledin April, after concerns about protests growing violent. There was also unrest on Berkeleys campus in February over aplanned appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart writer.

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a talk by inflammatory Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and put the campus on lockdown after intense protests broke out on Feb. 1. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

What brings us here today is that time and again, speech is being effectively banned on campuses because the speaker has ideas that offend, said Floyd Abrams, senior counsel at the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel and another witness. Thats the problem. It does not arise in the main because university administrations are seeking to suppress speech, it arises more often than not because students find it intolerable to have certain speakers appear and certain ideas expressed with which they disagree and they find offensive or even outrageous.

At the hearing Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) noted that universities deal with speaking events that could present a danger or threat to the campus community, particularly those that draw outside groups of protesters. Colleges dont always have the resources to deal with those types of situations, she said, and run the risk of harm.

I know of no effort at Berkeley, of the University of California, to stifle student speech. None, she said. And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention. But I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Read More: Milos appearance at Berkeley led to riots. He vows to return this fall for a week-long free-speech

Ann Coulter finds an unlikely ally in her free-speech spat with Berkeley: Bill Maher

Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them.

Follow this link:

Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, Middlebury - Washington Post

THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washingtons National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may disparage people or bring them into contemp[t] or disrepute. The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself the Slants on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jaggers bunch uses the Rolling Stones even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning.

The justices were obviously, and properly, influenced by the fact that the Asian American members of the Slants took the name in a bid to reclaim that slur as something more positive and prideful. To apply the existing disparagement proviso in the statute despite the bands expressive intent would not merely have exercised government control over government expression, implicit in trademark registration, as the Obama administration argued when the court heard the case shortly before Inauguration Day this year. It would, as the justices ruled, have put the government in the business of picking and choosing among points of view, a role that the court has repeatedly forbidden it to perform.

To be sure, the opinion for the court by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a staunch conservative, came accompanied by a concurring opinion in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and three liberal colleagues, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, set out doctrinal nuances. But what was striking about all the opinions Monday was the strength with which every member of the court embraced the First Amendment, strongly enough to protect even speech that many people legitimately find hateful or offensive. The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate, Mr. Alito wrote. The concurring opinion followed with the rationale underlying that jurisprudence: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion specifically the Washington football teams name, which was also the subject of a suit against its trademark. The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably cant be one of them. As the courts decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.

View post:

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech - Washington Post

Protesters in black masks started fires and damaged property in an attempt to stop controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California-Berkeley in February.

It is situations like those that have U.S. senators on the Judiciary Committee discussing free speech on college campuses.

In the past several months, universities have canceled speakers after threats of violence.

Many of the speakers have been conservative, prompting concern among Republican senators about universities potentially silencing controversial voices.

That is an open invitation to discriminate based on viewpoint, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, said shes worried universities lack equipment and security to protect students from violence at speeches.

I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence, Feinstein said.

Zachary Wood, a student at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, testified in front of the committee.

He said it is important to have your beliefs challenged.

Instead of nurturing thoughtful debates of controversial topics, many college educators and administrators discourage free debate by shielding students from offensive views, Wood said. Yet one persons offensive view is another persons viewpoint.

See the original post here:

Are colleges silencing free speech? Senators want to know - Palm Beach Post

The Senate held a hearing today on free speech on college campuses. There was a disagreement among the witnesses about how far campus administrators should go to protect speech in the face of determined efforts to shut it down. Law Professor Eugene Volokh argued that authorities must protect speech lest those trying to use the hecklers veto learn that they can silence their opponents by making threats. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein disagreed, suggesting protection of the right to speak could result in another Kent State shooting.

After reading aloud the First Amendment in her opening remarks, Sen. Feinstein said, 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. She went on to say, 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 said police arent always equipped to handle this situation making it a horse of another color. She concluded, I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Professor Eugene Volokh disagreed with her during his testimony.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. He continued, 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.

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.

A few minutes later, Sen. Dick Durbin pushed back by suggesting that college administrators had to consider the possible threats posed to campus by people with concealed weapons:

A few minutes later, Sen. Feinstein suggested that public campuses might not have the resources need to protect speech from the hecklers veto. How should a university handle this, Feinstein asked the panel. Volokh responded saying, If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speechthen yes indeed we are in a very bad position.

Professor, let me just understand what youre saying, Feinstein interrupted. She continued, 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.

Volokh replied, Right, and that cannot be enough to justify suppression of those who they came to try to suppress. As Volokh argued that protection from violence was a fundamental role of government, Feinstein replied, You dont think we learned a lesson at Kent State way back when? This is a reference to an incident that took place in 1970 when national guardsmen opened fire on Vietnam war protesters, killing four people.

Professor Frederick Lawrence stepped in saying, I think the way to start with this is with a strong presumption in favor of the speech, particularly if its speech thats coming from a student group who has invited somebody.

Sen. Feinstein replied, No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced,fascist the program is? You should find a way to accommodate it.

Lawrence replied, If were talking about the substance of the program, not the danger and credible threats but the substance of the program, then yes.

Feinstein genuinely seems to be missing the concept of the First Amendment. Of course, speech isnt allowed or disallowed based on content. How does a Senator even suggest such a thing? And frankly, the idea that the campus shouldnt be expected to protect speech on the grounds that it might incite others to violence is an endorsement of the hecklers veto. Its saying that as long as opponents of speech are willing to resort to threats, they can silence their opponents. Thats a horrible message for any American to endorse. Im not surprised to hear this sort of thing coming from Evergreen College students, but I am surprised to hear it coming from a Senator.

You can see Professor Volokhs statement on free speech at around 1:10:00 into this clip. Feinsteins exchange with Professor Lawrence comes around 1:46:00.

Follow this link:

Sen. Feinstein is ready to accept the 'heckler's veto' of free speech on college campuses - Hot Air

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders Wall Street Journal (subscription) Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders. A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age.A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age. June 20, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET ... and more »

Read more here:

Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

If youre a lawyer arguing against free speech at the Supreme Court, be prepared to lose. Today the Court affirmed once again the Constitutions strong protections against governmental viewpoint discrimination, even when the viewpoint discrimination is directed against offensive speech. In Matal v. Tam, the Court considered the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices refusalto register a trademark for a band called The Slants on the grounds that the name violated provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibited registering trademarks that disparage . . . or bring into contemp[t] or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

Given existing First Amendment jurisprudence, there would have been a constitutional earthquake if SCOTUShadnt ruled for Tam. The Court has long held that the Constitution protects all but the narrowest categories of speech. Yet timeand again, governments (including colleges)have tried to regulate offensive speech. Time and again, SCOTUShas defended free expression. Today was no exception.Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Alito noted that the Patent and Trademark Office was essentially arguing that the Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. His response was decisive:

[A]s 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.

Quick, someone alert the snowflakes shouting down speeches on campus or rushing stages in New York. There is no constitutional exception for so-called hate speech. Indeed, governments are under an obligation to protect controversial expression. Every justice agrees.

The ruling is worth celebrating, but when law and culture diverge, culture tends to win. The law protects free speech as strongly as it ever has. The culture, however, is growing increasingly intolerant subjecting dissenters to shout-downs, reprisals, boycotts, shame campaigns, and disruptions. Some of this conductis legal (boycotts and public shaming), some isnt (shout-downs, riots, and disruptions), but all of it adds up to a society that increasingly views free speech as a dangerous threat, and not asone ofour constitutional republics most vital assets. Liberty is winning the important judicial battles, but it may well lose the all-important cultural war.

Original post:

Free Speech Wins (Again) at the Supreme Court - National Review

USA TODAY

2 students are testifying to the Senate about free speech on campus ... USA TODAY The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing about free speech on campus. Meet the two students being called as witnesses. and more »

Read more from the original source:

2 students are testifying to the Senate about free speech on campus ... - USA TODAY

CommentaryAs mentioned here Saturday and Sunday, Commentary magazine recently published a big symposium on the question "Is Free Speech Under Threat in the United States?" I contributed a brief essay, as did a whole bunch of people who have written for Reason over the years. Here are links to their archives around these parts, in addition to some choice quotes from their Commentary commentaries:

Jonathan Rauch ("Free speech is always under threat, because it is not only the single most successful social idea in all of human history, it is also the single most counterintuitive"), Harvey Silverglate ("today's most potent attacks on speech are coming, ironically, from liberal-arts colleges"), Laura Kipnis ("Here I am, a left-wing feminist professor invited onto the pages of Commentary"), John Stossel ("On campus, the worst is over"), Richard A. Epstein, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers ("Silencing speech and forbidding debate is not an unfortunate by-product of intersectionalityit is a primary goal"), Jonah Goldberg ("God may have endowed us with a right to liberty, but he didn't give us all a taste for it"), and John McWhorter.

Additionally, many of these and other contributors to the symposium have been subject to Reason interviews, including Epstein, Silverglate, Stossel, Sommers, Goldberg, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kipnis, and Rauch, the latter two of which are embedded at the bottom of this post.

The symposium repeats many of the same themes, as the campus-centric excerpts above indicate. Many contributors noted the paradox between our widening legal speech freedoms (unanimously reinforced by the Supreme Court twice just today) and the shrinking intellectual support for the stuff. I for one was predictably inspired by Jonathan Rauch ("Every new generation of free-speech advocates will need to get up every morning and re-explain the case for free speech and open inquirytoday, tomorrow, and forever. That is our lot in life, and we just need to be cheerful about it"), and repulsed by Islam critic Pamela Geller ("The real question isn't whether free speech is under threat in the United States, but rather, whether it's irretrievably lost. Can we get it back? Not without war, I suspect").

But the biggest surprise argument I don't recall encountering before came from mega-bestselling author Michael J. Lewis, who argued that even a proFirst Amendment Supreme Court unwittingly harms the culture of free speech by taking too many issues out of the scrum of consequential public debate. Excerpt:

If free speech today is in headlong retreateverywhere threatened by regulation, organized harassment, and even violenceit is in part because our political culture allowed the practice of persuasive oratory to atrophy. The process began in 1973, an unforeseen side effect of Roe v. Wade. Legislators were delighted to learn that by relegating this divisive matter of public policy to the Supreme Court and adopting a merely symbolic position, they could sit all the more safely in their safe seats.

Since then, one crucial question of public policy after another has been punted out of the realm of politics and into the judicial. Issues that might have been debated with all the rhetorical agility of a Lincoln and a Douglas, and then subjected to a process of negotiation, compromise, and voting, have instead been settled by decree: e.g., Chevron, Kelo, Obergefell. The consequences for speech have been pernicious....[A] legislature that relegates its authority to judges and regulators will awaken to discover its oratorical culture has been stunted. When politicians, rather than seeking to convince and win over, prefer to project a studied and pleasant vagueness, debate withers into tedious defensive performance.

I suspect Lewis is exaggerating here, but his argument is intriguing.

After the jump, some relevant Reason interviews on free speech:

Laura Kipnis, from May 2017:

And Jonathan Rauch, from November 2013:

See the rest here:

Michael Lewis: The Supreme Court Has Harmed the Culture of Free Speech by Deciding Too Much Stuff - Reason (blog)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Fist of Etiquette|6.19.17 @ 4:30PM|#

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear a case on gerrymandering in Wisconsin.

Gerry's not gonna like this. Neither is the GOP, I assume.

|6.19.17 @ 4:34PM|#

JFree|6.19.17 @ 5:31PM|#

If the SC made the right decision, both parties would be the losers. Since they most likely won't make that decision, only the American people will be the losers.

Lord_at_War|6.19.17 @ 7:35PM|#

"Gerrymandering" is all on Dems. We have two legally ordained "minority-majority" districts in OH that will elect any black Dem by a 75-25 margin. We also have metro Toledo and Cleveland that will also regularly elect a Dem... and Repubs win all the rest 55-45 or 53-47.

JFree|6.19.17 @ 10:59PM|#

I have no idea whether Ohio is gerrymandered - but its pretty clear you don't really understand what it actually is. Because what you are describing is called packing and cracking - and with those results it would be the R's doing it.

Mithrandir|6.19.17 @ 4:30PM|#

Two important Supreme Court decisions came down today upholding citizens' free speech rights. Good stuff from the USSC today.

Tom Bombadil|6.19.17 @ 7:51PM|#

Unfortunately, good news is bad news according to Welch in the next article.

Fist of Etiquette|6.19.17 @ 4:31PM|#

...Russia is threatening to target aircraft flown by the U.S. and its allies over Syria.

Hey! The U.S. has dibs on No Fly.

Mithrandir|6.19.17 @ 4:32PM|#

Who's fucking idea were no-fly zones?

Citizen X - #6|6.19.17 @ 4:31PM|#

Two important Supreme Court decisions came down today upholding citizens' free speech rights.

Still bracing myself for the massive nutslap the universe is surely preparing in order that balance may be restored.

Rich|6.19.17 @ 4:41PM|#

Something like "hate" language is legally a separate category from "offensive" language?

Chipper Morning, Now #1|6.19.17 @ 4:43PM|#

Like beaver alarming mate of danger with loud slap, universe smack Citizen X scrotum with police abuse story.

Half-Virtue, Half-Vice|6.19.17 @ 4:43PM|#

What is the Trumpocalypse, chopped liver?

Citizen X - #6|6.19.17 @ 4:46PM|#

That's just some trifling shit that way too many people won't stop whining about.

Crusty Juggler - Elite|6.19.17 @ 4:32PM|#

Lena Dunham's dad taught her how to use a tampon

Citizen X - #6|6.19.17 @ 4:35PM|#

What a dreadful anecdote.

|6.19.17 @ 4:36PM|#

She's all dreary banality this chick.

Half-Virtue, Half-Vice|6.19.17 @ 4:38PM|#

I should have Lena Dunham sign my trash can.

BearOdinson|6.19.17 @ 4:41PM|#

Crusty, you have finally gone too far!!

This cannot stand, man. This aggression cannot stand!

Chipper Morning, Now #1|6.19.17 @ 4:47PM|#

Crusty always offers his penis as a tampon.

Chipper Morning, Now #1|6.19.17 @ 4:46PM|#

Still better than dreaming of being abducted by aliens and then waking up to a blood-soaked bed to the arrival of your menarche. This happened to someone I know.

The Last American Hero|6.19.17 @ 6:31PM|#

The anesthesia used by the Greys often causes people to assume those were dreams.

Fist of Etiquette|6.19.17 @ 4:47PM|#

If this were true, we'd have known about it long before now. Her first period? First anecdote, for sure. Sounds like instead she finally watched Armageddon.

Juice|6.19.17 @ 4:49PM|#

Yeah, she had NO IDEA what was happening.

BearOdinson|6.19.17 @ 4:52PM|#

Every fucking day I thank Freyr (the god of fertility) that I only have sons and no daughters!!

Fucking "misty-eyed"??

More like "Here is a piece of my shirt. Stuff it in there until we get home!"

|6.19.17 @ 5:47PM|#

More like "Here is a piece of my shirt. Stuff it in there until we get home!"

Fuck that! Shirts cost money. Unless you're going to bleed to death, rub dirt on it until it stops bleeding.

BearOdinson|6.19.17 @ 6:03PM|#

Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?

Unlabelable MJGreen|6.19.17 @ 5:05PM|#

Diane Reynolds (Paul.)|6.19.17 @ 5:12PM|#

Everything Lena believes or has experienced is a social construct.

Meh.|6.19.17 @ 5:17PM|#

So her dad taught her how to use a tampon, she molested her sister... I hate to ask what kind of a messed-up relationship she had with her mom, but I'm sure she'll tell us all soon!

|6.19.17 @ 5:40PM|#

Well, her dad specializes in crude "art" cartoons of naked women, mostly with really prominent hairy vaginas as the focal point.

Her mom could be totally normal, in other words, and all would still be explained.

Half-Virtue, Half-Vice|6.19.17 @ 4:32PM|#

After the United States downed a Syrian warplane, Russia is threatening to target aircraft flown by the U.S. and its allies over Syria.

Wouldn't it just be easier for Putin to call Trump's cell?

Tom Bombadil|6.19.17 @ 7:58PM|#

Not pr effective. Don't you see the ongoing conspiracy? Trump tells Putin he needs an anti-Ruskie act to boost his cred. Putin says, you're not fucking with one of our planes. They agree on Syria. Nobody likes him anyway. Trump gets a kill. Putin cries fake tears and makes some threats. Everybody wins.

Guarantee that will be mainstream libtard talking point within 24 hours.

WakaWaka|6.19.17 @ 4:32PM|#

"Well, we have all those leaks, though"

Which have mostly blown-up spectacularly

Half-Virtue, Half-Vice|6.19.17 @ 4:33PM|#

A driver crashed into a police vehicle and died in Paris in what authorities believe was an attempted terrorist attack. Nobody else was injured.

No virgins for you!

BearOdinson|6.19.17 @ 4:42PM|#

If I get to Valhalla, I am going to laugh my ass off when I see that all those Islamist terrorsists who thought they were getting 72 virgins are nothing but target practice for the Einherjar!

PurityDiluting|6.19.17 @ 6:47PM|#

Or as Robin Williams once explained, it's a typo ... 72 Virginians are waiting to pummel the terrorists

Chipper Morning, Now #1|6.19.17 @ 4:48PM|#

Haha, imagine if the Soup Nazi is the gatekeeper in Muslim heaven.

Rich|6.19.17 @ 4:33PM|#

The court ruled that the federal government cannot reject trademarks just because they use "offensive" language.

Like "Fuck you!"?

Fist of Etiquette|6.19.17 @ 4:34PM|#

A driver crashed into a police vehicle and died in Paris in what authorities believe was an attempted terrorist attack. Nobody else was injured.

Vous avez eu un seul travail!

Illocust|6.19.17 @ 4:34PM|#

Wait, does this mean the redskins are no longer in danger of losing their trademark?

Rich|6.19.17 @ 4:35PM|#

The Last American Hero|6.19.17 @ 6:32PM|#

Bubba Jones|6.19.17 @ 7:48PM|#

Ironic because they wanted to consolidate and take over the cases. This seems to have worked out well enough for them.

Tom Bombadil|6.19.17 @ 8:03PM|#

Continued here:

Free Speech Wins Big at Supreme Court, Russia Threatens US over Syria, Possible Failed Terror Attack in Paris: PM ... - Reason (blog)

By Dan Jackson, Campus Reform

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber both recently decried the intolerance toward free speech exhibited by liberal college students.

In a letter published in the latest edition of Princeton Alumni Weekly, Eisgruber begins by declaring that he emphatically endorses a 2015 faculty statement affirming Princetons institutional commitment to the broadest possible construction of free expression, but notes that the actual state of affairs on many campuses, including Princetons, is often hostile to that bedrock principle.

Many people worry about the state of campus speech today, and understandably so, he writes. Higher education has been embarrassed by appalling incidents such as the one at Middlebury College, where protesters shouted down Charles Murray and some physically assaulted him and his host, Professor Allison Stanger.

Princetons own Professor Peter Singer was interrupted repeatedly when he tried to speak with an audience at the University of Victoria in Canada, Eisgruber continues, but points out that instances of civility receive much less attention.

When Rick Santorum spoke at Princeton in April, for instance, he notes that students asked sharp, tough questions, and Santorum defended his position vigorously, rather than attempting to prevent the former senator and presidential candidate from speaking.

When the event ended, Eisgruber recounts, Santorum thanked Princetons students for being very polite and respectful, adding, This is what should happen on college campuses.

Continued here:

Princeton Prez 'Embarrassed' By Students' Hatred Of Free Speech ... - Fox News