wwlp.com | Free speech or hate speech? 10 students kicked out of Harvard for ... wwlp.com The university rescinded the acceptance letters of 10 incoming freshmen, who had made offensive social media postings. |
Link:
Free speech or hate speech? 10 students kicked out of Harvard for ... - wwlp.com
Middlebury Colleges decision to discipline 67 students who participated in a raucous and violent demonstration against conservative author Charles Murray brings closure to one of several disturbing incidents that took place on college campuses this semester. But larger disputes about the state of free speech on campusand in public liferemain unresolved.
Many critics have used the incident at Middlebury, as well as violent protests at the University of California Berkeley, to argue that free speech is under assault. To these critics, liberal activists who respond aggressively to ideas they dislike are hypocrites who care little about the liberal values of tolerance and free speech.
The left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down, Milo Yiannopoulos posted on Facebook after protesters stormed a building at Berkeley where he was scheduled to speak in February.
Such criticism has not come solely from the right. Nor is it new. Over the past few years, a steady stream of commentary has deplored the state of free speech and intellectual inquiry on campus. The Atlantic has published a series of articles with titles such as The New Intolerance of Student Activism and The Glaring Evidence that Free Speech is Threatened on Campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has argued that free speech in academia is at greater risk now than at any time in recent history. And the eminent First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams went so far as to claim (prior to the election of Donald Trump) that the single greatest threat facing free speech today comes from a minority of students, who strenuously, and I think it is fair to say, contemptuously, disapprove of the views of speakers whose view of the world is different from theirs and who seek to prevent those views from being heard.
The violence at Middlebury and Berkeley was troubling and should be condemned by both liberals and conservatives. But the truth is that violent demonstrations on campus are rare, and are not what the critics have primarily been railing against. Instead, they have been complaining about an atmosphere of intense pushback and protest that has made some speakers hesitant to express their views and has subjected others to a range of social pressure and backlash, from shaming and ostracism to boycotts and economic reprisal.
Are these forms of social pressure inconsistent with the values of free speech?
That is a more complicated question than many observers seem willing to acknowledge.
A simplistic answer would be that such pressure does not conflict with free speech because the First Amendment applies only to government censorship, not to restrictions imposed by individuals. But most of us care about free speech not just as a matter of constitutional law but as a matter of principle, so the absence of government sanction hardly offers much comfort.
Many of the reasons why Americans object to official censorship also apply to the suppression of speech by private means. If we conceive of free speech as promoting the search for truthas the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas suggestswe should be troubled whether that search is hindered by public officials or private citizens. The same is true of democratic justifications for free speech. If the point of free speech is to facilitate the open debate that is essential for self-rule, any measure that impairs that debate should give us pause, regardless of its source.
But although social restraints on speech raise many of the same concerns as government censorship, they differ in important ways.
First, much of the social pressure that critics complain about is itself speech. When activists denounce Yiannopoulos as a racist or Murray as a white nationalist, they are exercising their own right to free expression. Likewise when students hold protests or marches, launch social media campaigns, circulate petitions, boycott lectures, demand the resignation of professors and administrators, or object to the invitation of controversial speakers. Even heckling, though rude and annoying, is a form of expression.
More crucially, the existence of such social pushback helps protects Americans from the even more frightening prospect of official censorship. Heres why. Speech is a powerful weapon that can cause grave harms, and the First Amendment does not entirely prohibit the government from suppressing speech to prevent those harms. But one of the central tenets of modern First Amendment law is that the government cannot suppress speech if those harms can be thwarted by alternative means. And the alternative that judges and scholars invoke most frequently is the mechanism of counter-speech.
As Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in his celebrated 1927 opinion in Whitney v. California, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Counter-speech can take many forms. It can be an assertion of fact designed to rebut a speakers claim. It can be an expression of opinion that the speakers view is misguided, ignorant, offensive, or insulting. It can even be an accusation that the speaker is racist or sexist, or that the speakers expression constitutes an act of harassment, discrimination, or aggression.
In other words, much of the social pushback that critics complain about on campus and in public lifeindeed, the entire phenomenon of political correctnesscan plausibly be described as counter-speech. And because counter-speech is one of the mechanisms Americans rely on as an alternative to government censorship, such pushback is not only a legitimate part of our free speech system; it is indispensable.
Yet many people continue to believe that pressuring speakers to change their views or modify their language constitutes a threat to free speech.
Kirsten Powers makes this argument in her 2015 book, The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech. Discussing the case of author Wendy Kaminer, who elicited angry responses from students when she used the n-word as part of a campus forum on free speech, Powers writes that rather than arguing with her on the merits, her opponents set about the process of delegitimizing her by tarring her as a racist. Powers also complains that many liberals instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These efforts, she concludes, are a chilling attempt to silence free speech.
Its worth asking, though, why expression that shames or demonizes a speaker is not a legitimate form of counter-speech.
One possibility, as Powers implies, is that such tactics do not address the merits of the debate. But that reflects a rather narrow view of what counts as the merits. To argue that a speakers position is racist or sexist is to say something about the merits of her position, given that most people think racism and sexism are bad. Even arguing that the speaker herself is racist goes to the merits, since it gives the public context for judging her motives and the consequences of her position.
Besides, what principle of free speech limits discussion to the merits? Political discourse often strays from the merits of issues to personal or tangential matters. But the courts have never suggested that such discourse is outside the realm of free speech.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that speech is valued both for the contribution it makes to rational discourse and for its emotional impact. As Justice John M. Harlan wrote in the 1971 case of Cohen v. California, We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.
Fine, the critics might say. But much of the social pressure on campus does not just demonize; it is designed to, and often does, chill unpopular speech. And given that courts frequently invoke the potential chilling effect of government action to invalidate it under the First Amendment, social pressure that has a potential chilling effect is also inconsistent with free speech.
The problem with this argument is that all counter-speech has a potential chilling effect. Any time people refute an assertion of fact by pointing to evidence that contradicts it, speakers may be hesitant to repeat that assertion. Whenever opponents challenge an opinion by showing that it is poorly reasoned, leads to undesirable results, or is motivated by bigotry or ignorance, speakers may feel less comfortable expressing that opinion in the future.
Put bluntly, the implicit goal of all argument is, ultimately, to quash the opposing view. We dont dispute a proposition in the hope that others will continue to hold and express that belief. Unless we are playing devils advocate, we dispute it to establish that we are right and the other side is wrong. If we are successful enough, the opposing view will become so discredited that it is effectively, although not officially, silenced.
Such has been the fate of many ideas over the centuries, from claims that the earth is flat to declarations that slavery is Gods will to assertions that women should not be allowed to vote or own property. Each of these positions can still be asserted without fear of government punishment. But those who make them in earnest are deemed so discreditable that the claims themselves have mostly been removed from public debate.
This highlights a paradox of free speech, and of our relationship to it. On the one hand, Americans are encouraged to be tolerant of opposing ideas in the belief that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in his landmark 1919 opinion in Abrams v. United States.
On the other hand, unlike the government, Americans are not expected to remain neutral observers of that market. Instead, we are participants in it; the market works only if we take that participation seriously, if we exercise our own right of expression to combat ideas we disagree with, to refute false claims, to discredit dangerous beliefs. This does not mean we are required to be vicious or uncivil. But viciousness and incivility are legitimate features of Americas free speech tradition. Life is not a debating exercise or a seminar room, and it would be nave to insist that individuals adhere to some prim, idealized vision of public discourse.
This, one suspects, is what bothers many critics of political correctness: the fact that so much of the social pressure and pushback takes on a nasty, vindictive tone that is painful to observe. But free speech often is painful. It was painful to envision neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, home to thousands of holocaust survivors, in 1977. It was painful to watch the Westboro Baptist Church picket a military funeral in 2006 with signs reading Fag troops and Thank God for Dead Soldiers. In both cases, the speech was deeply offensive to our sense of decorum, decency, and tolerance. But the courts rightly concluded that this offense was irrelevant to whether the speech was worthy of protection.
Many critics, particularly on the left, seem to forget this. Although they claim to be promoting an expansive view of free speech, they are doing something quite different. They are promoting a vision of liberalism, of respect, courtesy, and broadmindedness. That is a worthy vision to promote, but it should not be confused with the dictates of free speech, which allows for a messier, more ill-mannered form of public discourse. Free speech is not the same as liberalism. Equating the two reflects a narrow, rather than expansive, view of the former.
Does this mean any form of social pressure targeted at speakers is acceptable? Not at all. One of the reasons government censorship is prohibited is that the coercive power of the state is nearly impossible to resist. Social pressure that crosses the line from persuasion to coercion is also inconsistent with the values of free speech.
This explains why violence and threats of violence are not legitimate mechanisms for countering ideas one disagrees with. Physical assaultin addition to not traditionally being regarded as a form of expression too closely resembles the use of force by the government.
What about other forms of social pressure? If Americans are concerned about the risk of coercion, the question is whether the pressures are such that it is reasonable to expect speakers to endure them. Framed this way, we should accept the legitimacy of insults, shaming, demonizing, and even social ostracism, since it is not unreasonable for speakers to bear these consequences. This is not to minimize the distress such tactics can cause. But a system that relies on counter-speech as the primary alternative to government censorship should not unduly restrict the forms counter-speech can take.
Heckling raises trickier questions. Occasional boos or interruptions are acceptable since they dont prevent speakers from communicating their ideas. But heckling that is so loud and continuous a speaker literally cannot be heard is little different from putting a hand over a speakers mouth and should be viewed as antithetical to the values free speech.
Because social restraints on speech do not violate the Constitution, Americans cannot rely on courts to develop a comprehensive framework for deciding which types of pressure are too coercive. Instead, Americans must determine what degree of pressure we think is acceptable.
In that respect, the critics are well within their right to push for a more elevated, civil form of public discourse. They are perfectly justified in arguing that a college campus, of all places, should be a model of rational debate. But they are not justified in claiming the free speech high ground. For under our free speech tradition, the crudest and least reasonable forms of expression are just as legitimate as the most eloquent and thoughtful.
This article was written for the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Original post:
What Critics of Campus Protest Get Wrong About Free Speech - The ... - The Atlantic
On Friday, Todd Krainin and I posted a video rebutting popular cliches that are used to attack free speech. The video is based on a powerful piece in The Los Angeles Times by lawyer and blogger Ken White of Popehat.
In the short time the video went live, other stories have emerged that underscore how free speech is always under attack and in need of defending. Check out Matt Welch's post about a recent Vice documentary about the situation at Evergreen State College, where a progressive professor came under attack for criticizing a "Day of Absence" during which whites would not be welcome campus. From Welch's post:
This piece came out concurrently with a big Commentarysymposium (to which I contributed) on whether free speech is under threat in the United States. My bottom line: "But in this very strength [of recent Supreme Court protections] lies what might be the First Amendment's most worrying vulnerability. Barry Friedman, in his 2009 book The Will of the People, made the persuasive argument that the Supreme Court typically ratifies, post facto, where public opinion has already shifted. Today's culture of free speech could be tomorrow's legal framework. If so, we're in trouble."
Threats to speech often come from strange quarters. Consider the sentence given to Michelle Carter, a Massachussetts teen found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after texting her suicidal boyfriend, Conrad Roy, that he should kill himself. As Sarah Siskind wrote at Reason:
Carter's punishment does not fit the crime. Involuntary manslaughter is a conviction for a negligent surgeon, for an abusive husband who unintentionally kills his spouse, for a drunk driver who accidentally runs someone down. A reckless text is not a reckless, swerving car. Words are not literal weapons, and the moral turpitude of Carter's comments does not change that.
Writing about the same case in The New York Times, Reason's Robby Soave argues:
For decades, efforts have been underway to criminalize every obnoxious or problematic social interaction between K-12 kids in American schools. Hardly a week passes without a national news story about teenagers who were arrested on child pornography charges and face unfathomably long prison sentences because they had inappropriate pictures of classmates (or even themselves) on their phones. In Iowa, in June 2016, authorities tried to brand a 14-year-old girl as a sex offender for Snapchatting while wearing a sports bra and boy shorts. The following month, Minnesota police officers busted a 17-year-old for swapping consensual sexts with his 16-year-old girlfriend. Such matters should be handled by parents and teachers, not the cops. The same is true for the various issues that plagued Ms. Carter and Mr. Roy.
Free speech is at the center of a free society. Without it, virtually all other freedom is strictly curtailed, if not literally unimaginable. Pick any three days to follow and you will likely find multiple attacks on the concept of free and open expression. Even on Sunday, there's no rest for those of us who want to live in libertarian world.
See original here:
Free Speech Is Always Under Attack. Here's How To Fight For It. - Reason (blog)
An organizer of a free-speech rally against radical social justice activism at Evergreen State College this week was pepper-sprayed and left bloodied by Antifa activists. After the event, attendees of the free-speech march found several of their cars vandalized.
Joey Gibson, founder of the Vancouver, Washington-based Patriot Prayer group, organized the event in protest of the colleges treatment of biology professor Bret Weinstein. Last month, Weinstein launched the small liberal arts college into the national spotlight after it emerged that he was berated, threatened and driven off campus by students and faculty because he took issue with an event that asked white people to stay off campus for a day.
Gibsons free speech-themed, pro-Donald Trump rallies in the Pacific Northwest have attracted significant controversy. In May, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler asked the federal government to revoke the permit for Gibsons rally on June 4 after a fatal knife attack in Portland left two men dead. The request was denied and Wheelers request was denounced by the ACLU of Oregon.
In the week before Gibsons planned Evergreen State protest, local self-identified anti-fascist groups mobilized over social media, accusing Patriot Prayer of supporting white supremacy and fascism.
Gibson dismissed the accusations and called them baseless. We have several people of color, including myself, he said. Antifa is just a bunch of white people.
Gibson and around 50 othersmostly conservatives and libertarians from the Washington and Oregon areacongregated at a small plaza near the Evergreen State campus in Olympia, Washington. After a few short speeches, the group walked to the center of campus, where they were promptly confronted by at least a hundred masked protesters dressed in black. The Antifa black bloc, as they are commonly known, hurled projectiles at Gibsons group and sprayed them with silly string.
Dozens of heavily armored police officers moved in to keep the two groups separated, but Gibson was later hit in the face with a spray candrawing blood. He was also pepper sprayed when he attempted to speak to some of the protesters.
Separately, a group of men quickly tackled a masked protester, accusing him of brandishing a knife. After restraining him, he was turned over to police officers.
Coltan Campion, who traveled from Seattle to protest Evergreen State, called the black bloc activists dangerous ideologues and racists.
Social justice is racist, he said. Racism is when you believe that people of different ethnicities are inherently different from one another and therefore should be treated differently.
The heavy police presence prevented further serious altercations although there was one arrest. At one point, some Antifa protesters used whatever they could gather as projectiles. A small group picked pine cones and twigs off a tree and hurled them at a black man standing on the Patriot Prayer side. Earlier in the protest, I was hit by a banana.
Although most attendees at the event were politically polarized, a dozen people observed from the sideline.
Alex Pearson, at junior at Evergreen State, said he supports racial justice but doesnt agree with all of the tactics coming from the far-left. If youre not to the level of where they are, you have the risk of being put with the complete opposite people, he said.
On the colleges planned Day of Absence, where white people were asked to leave the campus for a day,Pearson, who is white, said he accidentally attended class. I was not aware that I wasnt supposed to be on campus, he said. There was an aura of you werent supposed to be here. He added that outside of a few odd looks, he was not harassed or accosted, however.
I attempted to interview Antifa protesters, but most declined to speak. One masked female, who declined to give her name, explained the groups skepticism towards media. People frame Antifa very poorly and call them terrorists, she said. Theoretically, I havent heard of Antifa beating up any minorities ever.
After the rally, Gibson and his group discovered that several of their cars tires had been slashed once they returned to the parking lot. Thats all they got in their lives, Gibson said. Just running around and slashing tires like little children. Someday theyll grow up and learn how to have a conversation.
Before the rally began, I witnessed a small group of masked people standing at a distance and monitoring Gibsons group as they arrived. They declined to comment beyond stating that they were there to document the event.
A young male dressed in black was later seen taking photographs of license plates belonging to the cars of people with Gibsons group as they were driving away.
Follow Andy on Twitter @MrAndyNgo.
View post:
Antifa Slashes Tires, Bloodies Free Speech Rally Organizer at Evergreen State College - Heat Street
Jordan Ellenberg 10:00 a.m. CT June 16, 2017
Daryl Tempesta tapes a sign over his mouth in protest during a demonstration in April in Berkeley, Calif. Demonstrators gathered near the University of California, Berkeley campus amid a strong police presence and rallied to show support for free speech and condemn the views of Ann Coulter.(Photo: Associated Press)
Youd think Id be in favor of the campus free speech bills the Wisconsin Legislature is considering. Im a strong proponent of free speech on campus, and I believe that our students benefit from being exposed to all kinds of views, even those that mock or directly attack the values they were raised with by their families.
The group answers a viewers question on if free speech is disappearing from college campuses.
But these bills are bad law. Theyll suppress free speech at the University of Wisconsin, not protect it.
AB299, the Assemblys bill, requires that the university suspend any student found to have twice interfered with free expression on campus and expel a student after a third offense. There is no other university infraction for which the state Legislature determines the penalty. Beat up a fellow student, vandalize a campus building, steal the final exam and sell copies, cheer for Ohio State in public no matter the crime, the university determines the punishment based on the merits of the individual case. The Wisconsin Institute on Law and Liberty, a right-leaning organization that strongly supports free speech on campus, has called for this provision to be removed, saying the specific punishment in any given incident should be left to the educational institution.
The bill forbids violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others. What counts as disorderly? How much disruption is substantial? Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who wrote the bill together with Rep. Jesse Kremer, has insisted that no student would be disciplined for reasonable protesting. I hope hes right. But weve already seen dozens of people charged with felony rioting in Washington, D.C., who were present at a violent protest but who havent been associated with any act of vandalism or disruption. Students who want to exercise their First Amendment right to protest will have no way of being sure they wont be thrown out of school for doing so. Thats no way to protect our constitutional rights.
Sen. Leah Vukmirs bill arguably is an even graver threat to freedom. Her bill requires that University and college campus administrators shall remain neutral on public policy controversies. That doesnt square with the universitys very real need to argue for scientific research and humanistic scholarship, and for support for our students and employees. Vos, who co-authored AB299 with Rep. Jesse Kremer, rightly praises strong statements in favor of free speech by administrators at Chicago and Yale; under this bill, our own chancellor would be barred from standing up for freedom of speech in the same way. How does that help?
The Vukmir bill also says no person. may threaten to organize protests with the purpose to dissuade an invited speaker from attending a campus event. To disrupt a lecture is one thing, to dissuade is another. If speakers come here to argue that Israel has no right to exist, or that white people are genetically superior to lesser races, or just to display unflattering photos of our students and make fun of them in public, they have every right to do so. But theyd better expect some kids to be clamoring outside the hall. If thats enough to dissuade them from coming, too bad for their tender selves. Peaceful protest is a right.
A roundup of commentary written by our opinion editors hits your inbox every Tuesday covering local topics of interest from the right, center and left.
Sign up for the newsletter
A roundup of commentary written by our opinion editors hits your inbox every Tuesday covering local topics of interest from the right, center and left.
Sign up for the newsletter
Lets be honest. What Vos and Vukmir are worried about isnt free speech in general; theyre worried that conservative views are forbidden by thought police on campus. Good news: thats just not true. And Im proud its not true. Gov. Scott Walker has spoken here. Sen. Ron Johnson has spoken here. Dinesh DSouza has spoken here.
Conservative firebrand Ben Shapiro was here in November: protestors hollered and made a ruckus but then cleared the hall and the man had his say. This spring we hosted Steve Forbes and Wisconsins brilliant solicitor general, Misha Tseytlin. Forbes, too, drew a small group of protesters. They protested outside the building not the building where Forbes was speaking, but the one next door. Wisconsin kids are nice.
Harry Brighouse, a philosophy professor at UW-Madison, told graduating students this year:
You might be pro-choice or pro-life about abortion. You might support or oppose charter schools which aim to serve low-income kids in urban areas. You might support or oppose increasing redistributive taxation. Whatever your stance, you know for sure that there are morally decent, and reasonable, people who disagree with you.
If you dont know that, by the way, you should get out more.
Hes right, and he represents a commitment to hearing all views that the University of Wisconsin always has been proud to uphold.
Vos pointed out in his testimony that Colorado recently passed a campus free speech law, with bipartisan support, which he described as substantially similar to his bill. It isnt. The Colorado bill establishes a legal principle that free speech is sacrosanct on campus without suppressing the right of students to express their views. If our state legislators really want to stand up for our constitutional rights, theyll follow Colorados lead and do the same.
Jordan Ellenberg is the John D. MacArthur and Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of How Not to Be Wrong.
Read or Share this story: http://jsonl.in/2tuZXQ0
Read this article:
Ellenberg: A 'free speech' act that's really bad for free speech - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
HBO's Bill Maher's interview with Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow was expected to be full of fireworks and disagreement, but instead the two bonded over mutual condemnation of recent political rhetoric.
If Obama was Julius Caesar and he got stabbed, I think liberals would be angry about that, Maher remarked.
I disagree with that too, said Maher in agreement. I dont think they should have Trump playing Julius Caesar and getting stabbed, and I hate Trump. So were agreeing that there are some places where free speech does pause."
"It's bad strategy certainly to put that out there because they all look like hysterical lunatics," Marlow added.
Maher and Marlow also agreed that corporations under threat of organized boycotts should not have so much influence on free speech. Marlow pointed to his own publication in Breitbart and various anonymous campaigns of "misinformation" against the conservative publication that has led to many companies pulling ads from the site.
Whats happened is that corporations are now deciding whats free and fair speech, who can make a living, what opinions can make a living saying, Marlow, 31, said. Now youre seeing the right fight fire with fire and want boycotts of when the left takes it too far in their Trump hatred.
Its a very dangerous path were on," he added. "People on the left and the right who are free speech advocates need to come together and say that corporations are not going to define the First Amendment and free speech in this country."
Marlow was applauded by Maher's audience for the statement.
The host also addressed the shooting at a Republican congressional baseball practice this week that wounded four, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) who remains in critical condition but is improving.
"Do you think Breitbart with the politicization it is involved in, has any responsibility for the kind of violence that we see in our society, including what happened this week?" Maher asked.
The appearance marked the first for Marlow, who also hosts "Breitbart News Saturday" on SiriusXM.
Read the rest here:
Bill Maher, Breitbart editor bond: Sometimes 'free speech does pause' - The Hill
HBOAre you one of those people who suspects that all the brouhaha over campus free speech outrages, no matter how individually insane the stories, might be exaggerated in the aggregate when it comes to prevalence and effect? It's OKI am one of those people, despite writing about the subject on occasion and reading all the fine work done at Reason by Robby Soave and other colleagues.
Or I should say, I was one of those people, before watching Thursday's Vice News segment from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, where (as Ben Haller has written here previously) things have gone pear-shaped ever since a lone white professor refused to stay home during an activist "Day of Absence" for those with pallid skin pigment. Vice News correspondent (and former Reasoner/current Fifth Columnist) Michael Moynihan visited the embattled campus to query the antagonists in the controversy, and the results are stunning, infuriating, bananas. I have often wondered what it would be like to capture people in the midst of an ideological re-education exercise; now I wonder no more:
As timing would have it, this piece came out concurrently with a big Commentary symposium (to which I contributed) on whether free speech is under threat in the United States. My bottom line: "But in this very strength [of recent Supreme Court protections] lies what might be the First Amendment's most worrying vulnerability. Barry Friedman, in his 2009 book The Will of the People, made the persuasive argument that the Supreme Court typically ratifies, post facto, where public opinion has already shifted. Today's culture of free speech could be tomorrow's legal framework. If so, we're in trouble."
And just yesterday, Nick Gillespie pushed back on "5 Clichs Used to Attack Free Speech":
View post:
As a Muslim I will defend free speech, even if it goes against my traditions and my beliefs, freedom of speech is what defines America, and it is one of the most sacred values of humanity. A few Muslims may not like it, but if they see that Freedom is a God-given, inalienable and inseparable right, they will appreciate it even more.
No bull, but very specific items that require calibrated changes are prescribed in this essay. At this time, I am committed to write three articles. The first one deals with clash of values on free speech, one of the most enduring values of humanity and what does it take to catch up with fellow Americans. The second topic will be about Muslim unwillingness to have a conversation with the ones who are opposed, and finally the deficiency of democratic attitudes in American Muslim Institutions that kills many good ideas and what can be done about it.
Quran -13:11, Verily, God does not change mens condition unless they change their inner selves. Muhammad Asad, the Quranic exegist elaborates, This statement has both a positive and a negative connotation: i.e., God does not withdraw His blessings from men unless their inner selves become depraved (cf. 8:53), just as He does not bestow His blessings upon willful sinneruntil they change their inner disposition and become worthy of His grace. In its wider sense, this is an illustration of the divine law of cause and effect which dominates the lives of both individuals and communities, and makes the rise and fall of civilizations dependent on peoples moral qualities and the changes in their inner selves.
Bhagvad Gita 5:14 shares its wisdom, God does not decide what each person should do, nor he induces people to act, nor does he create fruits of any action. Each person acts according to his/her perceptions of mind.
Neither Bhagvad Gita nor Quran says the message is for Hindus or Muslims, such is the greatness of holy books, all holy books, the universal books of guidance to build cohesive societies.
Indeed there is no compulsion in what one believes (Quran 2:256); even God does not induce one to do things one way or the other, HE has uploaded Free-will and Free-speech into every humans DNA. Didnt he give a choice to Adam as to what would happen if he were to eat the fruit or not? Adam made the choice, God could have stopped him, but he did not, God meant business he gave Adam a choice and honored his own word. Watch this 3 minutes humorous video about it.
Quran 55:5-11 brings clarity to ones role in life. HE has spread the earth for all living beings. HE has created everything in balance all things in the universe run per a program Humans were given a free will to find their own balance and equilibrium. Elsewhere in Quran, he called the human race by the title Ashraful-Mukhlooqat the honored species. A term to describe the species that did not wash away in floods, blown apart in storms, melted down in heat, crashed under falling meteoroids, died of hunger. but survived! HE expects this species to preserve and sustain harmony and balance with which he has created the world. That balance is environmental, cultural, religious, physical, social and mental including the human body.
There is plenty of wisdom in Quran with which Muslims can fine tune their future. What is good for Muslims has got to be good for all to sustain. No one can live in peace unless people around him are in peace, no one will live securely unless others around him/ her are secure. It behooves everyone to work for common goodness. Security and peace are pluralistic in nature.
Free Speech and disappointment with Muslim Organizations
After leafing through nearly 50 articles in various News outlets, I am disappointed in Muslim organizations in how they reacted towards the nasty Perfect Man bill boards that went up in Indiana, Texas and elsewhere in the nation.
One of the most cherished values of America is free speech; indeed, it is an Islamic value as well. If Muslims need to build bridges on common grounds, it would be on free speech. All of us need be on the same page. Muslims are far behind on the topic.
Muslim responses were that of anger, fear, begging for sympathies and seeking support from others. Cant Muslims tolerate that nasty Perfect Man bill board? Are Muslims so thin skinned? Is their faith so weak that they think Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)will disappear by such bill boards? Is it easy to provoke them? Isnt it? As long as you get irritated, they will do more of it.
Isnt it the responsibility of Muslim organizations to understand and communicate the meaning of free speech to Muslims? Every American should fight for his or her right, but without attacking free speech. The intent is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill a formula of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
In Huffington Post, we wrote, Muslims Respond to Perfect Man Bill boards and offered solutions and invoked responsibility for Muslims and Christians to do the right thing accept and respect free speech. All the issues related with it and quotes from Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus are included in the following article at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/59409a76e4b03e17eee087eb
Just take a look some of the titles a sheer lack of knowledge on first amendment, Google for Muslims respond to the Perfect Man(Muhammad pbuh) you will find over 50 news items all negative responses.
America solidly stands on free speech, an enduring value we cannot compromise on. Muslims will find comfort with fellow Americans if they fully understand Free Speech. We strongly recommend you to take the online course on Free Speech from the Religious Freedom Center located at Neseum in Washington, D.C. with a weekend attendance at the Center. Please check http://www.ReligiousFreedomCenter.orgThis will ease the tension with the stuff like Bill Boards, Muhammad Cartoons, Quran Burning or Quran Bashing. The Center for Pluralism will assist you in every which way, we can and will also arrange for a three hours intensive workshop on First Amendment and Free Speech at your place at your cost. Lets learn to live gracefully with the free speech no matter how ugly it is.
The Center for Pluralism has consistently offered pluralistic solutions on issues of the day, we are in the news every week- if you are in the business of serving public, be there every week and serve the community.
Over the last 20 years, we have brought actions and solutions to a variety of issues including: Quran Burning Pastor Terry Jones in Mulberry, Florida and Quran bashing pastor Robert Jeffress in Dallas, Texas. We were involved in Ground Zero Mosque and have responded to Fitna film by Geert Wilders. We have provided standard responses to non-sense spewed by Noni Darwish, Walid Shoebet, Wafa Sultan, Front Page Magazine, and a host of others. This week we will respond to all the items on this nasty bill board. They are not a fact but fiction.
We have organized the first Muslim Intra-faith conference with Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya Muslims at University of Houston and many conferences and events after that. We have visited every Muslim denomination mosque during Ramadan and chronicled at http://www.RamadanNews.com .Talking about Muslim unity is fine, but actually doing the work is better.
We have chosen to work with all of humanity including those who appear to be Anti-Muslim including Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, John Bolton, Jamie Frank and several others.
We will continue to do this work with your support. Please donate online at: https://www.paypal.me/AmericansTogether or mail the check to Center for Pluralism, PO BOX 1490, Washington, DC 20013
At the Center for Pluralism, we produce results and build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in tension, apprehension or fear of the other.
Dr. Mike Ghouse has dedicated his life to the mission of building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions onissues of the day. He is a pluralist, thinker, writer, activist, speaker (Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Politics and foreign policy) Interfaith wedding officiant and a news maker. More about him in 65 links atwww.MikeGhouse.net
Free speech is the most enduring value of humanity
#Free Speech, #ReligionNews, #Hannity, #FoxNews, #MikeGhouse, #PamelaGeller, #First Amendement, #ReligiousFreedomCenter, #CenterforPluralism
Wake up to the day's most important news.
Continued here:
Muslims need a tune-up on free speech, and a lot of catching up to do. - HuffPost
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley announced Friday a witness list for a hearing next week to explore First Amendment restrictions on college campuses.
The hearing includes testimonies from students from Williams College and the University of Cincinnati College of Law, as well as faculty from American University and the UCLA School of Law.
Additionally, witnesses representing the Southern Poverty Law Center, Phi Beta Kappa Society and Senior Counsel Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP will be in attendance.
Called Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses, the hearing will likely include issues pertaining to campus speakers disinvited by school administrators over the speakers views as well as student and faculty free speech on campus.
Recent violent incidents on college campuses sparked by leftist protesters gave some lawmakers pause as to how to approach the problem.
Florida Republican Rep. Francis Rooney, a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee,suggestedlast week that congress could consider limiting funds from universities that restrict free speech rights on campus.
Washington Republican state Rep. Jim Walsh introduced a bill in his state legislature this week that would mandate all state-funded colleges and universities establish a set of standards that endorse the free exchange of views.
Follow Kerry on Twitter
See more here:
Congress To Hold Hearing On 'Assault' Of Campus Free Speech - The Daily Caller
WPRI 12 Eyewitness News | Mass. ACLU: Carter conviction violates free speech protections WPRI 12 Eyewitness News In this Aug. 24, 2015, file photo, Michelle Carter listens to her defense attorney argue for an involuntary manslaughter charge against her to be dismissed at Juvenile Court in New Bedford, Mass. (Peter Pereira/The New Bedford Standard Times via AP ... Mass ACLU: Michelle Carter conviction 'imperils free speech' What Michelle Carter's Guilty Verdict for Telling Boyfriend to Kill Himself Means for Free Speech and Assisted Suicide Free speech advocates assail judge's verdict in texting-suicide manslaughter trial |
View post:
Mass. ACLU: Carter conviction violates free speech protections - WPRI 12 Eyewitness News
We live in perilous times when it comes to free speech, and the threats are coming from both the left and right. The president has threatened legal action against the media, and progressive activists have used violence to shut down campus speakers they don't like.
In The Los Angeles Times, former federal prosecutor Ken White has some sharp insights on how to fight back against the would-be censors by shredding the most-popular clichs used by people trying to make the rest of us shut the hell up.
If today's calls for suppressing speech teaches us anything, it's that we can never take the First Amendment for granted. Even if the Supreme Court is on our side, free expression will only continue to exists if we're brave enough to make it ourselves.
Produced by Todd Krainin. Camera by Jim Epstein.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.
Read the original here:
Even police officers in riot gear were not enough to prevent masked antifa thugs from assaulting peaceful demonstrators at a free speech rally at Evergreen State College Thursday night.
The event was organized by a pro-Donald Trump organization called Patriot Prayer in direct response to appeals from students concerned by the recent disturbances on campus, which Campus Reform has documented extensively.
"The leadership needs to take a stand against all this racism and all this hate."
Political Correctness and Hatred has taken over the campus. Several students have reached out to Patriot Prayerthey are upset that professors and students have been spreading lies and threats to try to control the behavior of the students at the school, the group declared on Facebook. [If] no leadership in the school will step up then the civilians will.
[RELATED:Evergreen Trustees condemn 'indefensible' protest tactics]
Organizer Joey Gibson was a major presence at the rally, explaining his motives in a video statement included on the Facebook event page.
Evergreen State College: you guys need to wake up...You dont understand what the real world is like, he says. And you need to understand how lucky you are. You are at a university, getting an education. You dont have to be running around complaining and screaming and acting like victims.
[RELATED: Evergreen State faculty publicly praise student thuggery]
Patriot Prayer clashed with local counter-protesters and armed, masked antifa members during the event. The Puget Sound Anarchists made an announcement soliciting support for its protest efforts through a post on its website, as did several other Anti-Fascist chapters.
This is a call out to antifascists, radicals, artists, anarchists, anti-racists, queers, feminists, and others to oppose the patriot prayer rally at Evergreen and drown out, embarrass, and expose them as the bigoted pathetic fools that they are.
Police arrived on campus at around 5:30 (Pacific time), fully clad in protective gear and carrying batons as they marched in formation to their positions, a development that the counter-protesters who were already on the scene took as an indication that Patriot Prayers demonstration would soon begin.
[RELATED: White prof harassed for questioning diversity event]
Violence ensued shortly thereafter when a member of the Patriot Prayer chapter was attacked by one of the antifa protesters. The attacker was removed by police, but this failed to dissuade another antifa member from assaulting the leader of Patriot Prayer, Joey Gibson, by macing him in the face.
In an interview with Campus Reform immediately after the attack, Gibson described being maced and punched by protesters as he attempted to shake their hands. His face is visibly red and there appears to be a cut above his right eye where he was allegedly punched.
I know there are a lot of students here that are good people, and I don't want them to suffer because of some kids running rampant on this campus, he told Campus Reform. The leadership needs to take a stand against all this racism and all this hate, otherwise we have no choice but to pull the funding.
[RELATED: Prof: House GOP should be lined up and shot]
A student who was present at the rally concurred, describing a feeling of exasperation with the level of hostility on campus.
I think that socially we should come to an understanding of what is and isnt appropriate, but it is not for the government for decide what is or isnt hate speech, the student opined. If the school can be held hostageif the students can take over like they are an insurgency force and hold the president hostage and if they can preach ideologies that promote segregating an entire population of the school because of their ethnicitythen the best way to shut down that kind of stuff is to defund the schools that act that way.
State legislators in Olympia are proposing various ways of doing just that.
Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @MrDanJackson
Correction:An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the student interviewed byCampus Reform as attending Evergreen State. The article has been updated to reflect the fact that the student did not indicate which school he attends.
Continued here:
VIDEO: Antifa thugs attack free speech rally at Evergreen State - Campus Reform
To the editor: Although it is correct and important to say that hate speech is legally protected, this op-ed article is misleading. (Actually, hate speech is protected speech, Opinion, June 8)
For instance, in the famous Supreme Court decision in Schenck vs. United States in 1919, the constitutional principle about not shouting fire in a crowded theater is not actually bad law as suggested. Nor is it accurate to suggest that such speech is illegal or unethical only if it is false.
A better example is from the libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill: It is still criminal to incite mob violence or carnage at the house of a corn dealer even if the speech there is true. Another reason not to make truth or falsity the test of protected speech is that what was once thought false might turn out to be true.
There should be no doubt, however, that so much of so-called hate speech is legally protected but is nevertheless currently suppressed especially on college or university campuses (I am a philosophy professor at Cal State San Luis Obispo). Hate speech has come to mean whatever political speech one hates or finds offensive.
Despite the articles shortcomings, it is to be applauded for prompting reflections on these points.
Stephen W. Ball, San Luis Obispo
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook
Continued here:
On Friday nights episode of Real Time, Bill Maher sat down with Alex Marlow, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart News.
And despite being on polar opposite sides of the political spectrum, they actually had a civil, intellectual conversation.
They agreed to disagree on how the media covers Russia and the ongoing investigation surrounding President Trump, but they had a lot in common on the subject of free speech.
The conversation began when Maher pointed out that Marlow attended UC Berkeley, a university Maher was invited to speak at a few years back, but then was disinvited after an uproar and was re-invited after another uproar.
Maher then brought up the Julius Caesar production that portrays President Trumps assassination and conceded to the argument that had that be President Obama, liberals would have been angry. Marlow called that and Kathy Griffins photo shoot not off-limits to free speech but bad strategy on behalf of liberals.
They then shifted the conversation to how corporations pull funding from these incidents and Marlow believed it all stems from what happened to Breitbart when there was a campaign of misinformation that put pressure on corporations to pull their ads from their site.
Whats happened is that corporations are now deciding whats free and fair speech, who can make a living, what opinions can make a living saying, Marlow said. Now youre seeing the right fight fire with fire and want boycotts of when the left takes it too far.
He added, Its a very dangerous path were on and I think people on the left and the right who are free speech advocates need to come together and say that corporations are not going to define the First Amendment and free speech in this country, which received an applause from Mahers audience.
Watch the clip above, via HBO.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
See the original post:
Bill Maher, Breitbart Editor-In-Chief Bond Over Free Speech - Mediaite
This article first appeared on the History News Network.
The recent furor in the right-wing press over the New Yorks Public Theatres current anti-Trumpian Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar would be funny if it wasnt so predictable.
Following on the heels of the public castigation of comedian Kathy Griffins inopportune tweet of two weeks ago (which in light of ShakesGate Im inclined to now charitably interpret as a promotional still for a contemporary staging of Euripides The Bacchae ), conservative sites have gone apoplectic over the insensitivity of director Oskar Eustiss decision to stage the play in Central Parks Delacorte Theater, a production which exemplifies the observation that Shakespeares political masterpiece has never felt more contemporary.
Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
The productions unsubtle message was not lost on the audience when the ancient Roman dictator appeared with a ridiculous blonde bouffant, a cheap, inexpertly knotted tie hanging below his crotch, and a wife who purrs in a Slovenian accent.
As could be guessed, the clanging chorus of the conservative news media was not amused. Fox News, who share Eustiss distrust of subtlety, disingenuously headlined one of their articles with NYC Play Appears to Depict Assassination of Trump, as if one of the great plays of one of our greatest playwright were simply only a NYC Play.
Its telling that after much deserved mockery, the editors at Fox amended the article to more prominently state that the mock assassination occurred in a production of Julius Caesar," as if the initial ambiguity in their title wasnt intentional.
Oh, the Bard, ahead of his time, a coastal elite liberal and dead for four hundred years! Of course that the character of Caesar is in many ways the hero of the play was lost on these pundits, as indeed was the fact that the text itself is vehemently against political violence.
Furthermore, in making Caesar Trumpian the director inadvertently complimented a man as consummately incompetent as our current, accidental, Head of State.
Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C.; Julius Caesar. Sculpture by John Gregory (1932). Vysotsky, public domain
Despite that, both Bank of America and Delta Airlines pulled their financial support for the play, for an upstanding institution like Bank of America (which surely has never been responsible for any damage to the lives of actual people) could not be associated with such an intemperate play as Julius Caesar.
Shakespeare has never been politically neutral, and the right-wing anxiety over a New York production of a classic play belies how little of their defense of the canon and of great literature since the heyday of academes Culture Wars of a generation ago was actually just disingenuous posturing.
As a teacher of Renaissance literature Ive often been bemused by conservative hand-wringing over trigger warnings and snowflakes in need of safe spaces and yet anxiety over art often seems to be a particularly reactionary impulse.
There is a cottage industry of right-wing pundits with apocryphal stories about sensitive young undergraduates unable to read Macbeth because of violence, or The Merchant of Venice because of anti-Semitism. The phenomenon of overly-sensitive undergraduates clambering against free speech matches little of my or many of my colleagues experiences as regarding college education today.
Ill note that the petulant opprobrium at Shakespeare in this season of our discontent seems to exclusively be coming from the right side of the aisle, or as scholar Stephen Greenblatt remarked to the Guardian:
Whats kind of amusing, in a slightly grim way, about this is to have Julius Caesar of all things suddenly the point at which the right can no longer endure free expression, which theyve been hollering for .... Every time they send out a crazy provocateur on campus, they go bonkers if there are protests.
Bad faith conservative defenders of the humanities, from William Bennett in the 1980s to the more noxious western nationalists of today, conveniently try to obscure the historically subversive nature of so much of canonical literature. Elsewhere, I have written that the conservative defense of the canon is so often a celebration of mere wallpaper, a means of demonstrating ones education, pedigree, or wealth.
If there was any doubt about the conservative war on the humanities (their claim to be supporters of free speech being shown as totally empty), witness Trumps catastrophic proposal to defund the National Endowment for the Humanities, an act that is at least honest in its brazen philistinism (in contradistinction to the ravings of the William Bennetts and Lynn Cheneys of the world).
Lets remember whats implied with things like the Fox headline theirs is not only an attack on Eustis, or a New York theatrical production, but it is also an attack on Shakespeares play itself. If conservatives are made uncomfortable that an onstage tyrant reminds them of the president, maybe theyd do better to ask why that comparison is so easy to make in the first place.
Shakespeare scholar Marjorie Garber once provocatively wrote that Shakespeare makes modern culture and modern culture makes Shakespeare. She continues by saying that one of the fascinating effects of Shakespeares plays [are that].they have almost always seemed to coincide with the times in which they are read, published, produced, and discussed.
Julius Caesar has as its subject themes like authoritarianism, treachery, and violence, it serves to reason that in authoritarian, treacherous, violent times Julius Caesar will appropriately enough be on our minds. Julius Caesar, as befitting a Republic such as ours which always made great significance of our perceived Greco-Roman ideological origins, has been perennially reinvented over the years, from Orson Welless landmark anti-fascist version of the 1930s, to an anti-Obama production in Minneapolis five years ago (Ill add that Fox News was silent on that one).
Shakespeare, like all great art, is ours to invent and reinvent. Donald Trump Jr., when not accidentally confirming James Comeys account of his interactions with Trump Sr., took time to tweet Serious question, when does art become political speech & does that change things?
Well Mr. Trump Jr., its inadvertently a good question I would argue that art is always political speech, and that that changes nothing. Shakespeare has been enlisted in all variety of political causes, often wildly contradictory ones. The multi-vocal brilliance of the playwright is that he has come down to us as both monarchist and republican, democrat and authoritarian, elitist and populist. There are worlds within the plays of the folio, and that is precisely what can be so threatening about him.
ShakesGate puts me in mind of Shakespeares younger colleague (and sometimes collaborator) Thomas Middleton, whose 1624 Jacobean play A Game at Chess was "the greatest box-office hit of early modern London, in part because it contained thinly veiled representations of both King James I, and the Spanish King Phillip IV (in violation of a law which prohibited depictions of living monarchs).
After nine sold out performances, the play was shut down by authorities. One imagines that had they existed in 1624, Bank of America and Delta would also have pulled their support of that production.
It is inevitable that all literature is read and reread within the context of the present moment in which we find ourselves. Shakespeare himself said as much in Julius Caesar when Cicero remarks,
Indeed, it is a strange disposed time:/
But men may construe things after their fashion, /
Clean from the purpose of the things themselves.
We are in our own strange disposed time, and it is inevitable that well construe literature after our own experience, separate from the historical concerns which helped to produce said literature. Thats the same as it ever was.
But ironically, the rather immutable message of the play is provided in a playbill gloss by its director, who writes that Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means. This, it would seem, is crucial, for in such context a production as this can be read as anti-trump without being pro-violence, with Eustis continuing by explaining that To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him.
And this, I think, gets to the heart about what the right finds so dangerous about Shakespeare in this circumstance. It has nothing to do with taste or appropriateness, and everything to do with the fact that such a classic text is able to see a tyrant for precisely what he actually is.
Ed Simon is the associate editor of The Marginalia Review of Books, a channel of The Los Angeles Review of Books.
Go here to see the original:
Killing Free Speech. Et Tu Delta? Et Tu Bank of America? - Newsweek
Free speech, the great American right
We should be relentlessly vigilant against attempts to curtail it
Free speech is a bedrock constitutional right, perhaps the crown jewel among American civil liberties, and a necessary component to any free societyand so it makes perfect sense that so many people, campus radicals chief among them, would wish to curtail or destroy it. The latest such effort comes from the University of Maryland, where a student group, seizing upon the tragedy of a murdered young black man, have demanded that the schools administration treat hate speech like cult activity and regulate it accordingly.
This is a by-now familiar type of demand: there is not a single pretext to which a certain kind of college student will not resort in order to quash free speech. Note, of course, the glaringly practical flaw to this proposal: even if the university were permitted to regulate hate speech (its not; see Constitution, United States, Amd. 1), there is no indication that hate speech, on or off campus, had anything to do with this murder, or that clamping down on it, however that would work, would have any genuine effect on preventing another such crime in the future.
But the point of anti-free-speech efforts isnt to achieve some measurable outcome; its to stifle free speech. Indeed, it is highly unlikely that even the exercised and agitated student activists at the University of Maryland believe that hate speech is itself a genuine threat that must be treated like cult activity. Rather, they just wish to shut people up with whom they dont agree. In a sense this is perfectly understandable; nobody wants to hear unpleasant things. But just because someone says something unpleasant doesnt mean they dont have the right to do so.
Once upon a time students might have known this. These days, its apparently not as clear. Nearly three-quarters of college students, for instance, believe that colleges should be able to restrict slurs and other language on campus that is intentionally offensive to certain groups. The failure of our students to grasp the basic precepts of free speech is staggering. It is a failure not just at the college level, but through high school on down: where our educational system might have once inculcated in the studentry a healthy civic respect for American speech freedoms, we now have seven out of every ten young adults believing that universities should be permitted to muzzle offensive language. Something has gone terribly wrong here.
It is likely that the University of Maryland will not, in fact, make any moves to classify any kind of hate speech as cult activity. But dont worry: the university is looking to strengthen sanctions for hate and bias. So perhaps it will come to the same thing, in which case anti-speech student groups will be satisfiedand everyone else will be muzzled.
MORE:An inside look at the Free Speech class UCLA blocked students from taking
MORE:Berkeley op-ed: safety of marginalized more important than free speech
Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter
IMAGE: Flickr
More here:
Police arrested at least one person at a free speech rally organized to oppose political correctness at Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington. Clashes marked the gathering, as black-clad counter-protesters arrived with silly string and pepper spray.
Riot police flanked protesters from both sides of the political spectrum gathered at The Evergreen State College, as the liberal arts institution was otherwise closed and all campus activities were suspended Thursday.
Read more
On one side, the Patriot Prayer conservative group gathered to protest the colleges Day of Absence, a long-time annual event that came with a twist this year. Instead of a voluntary boycott by a particular minority such as women or immigrants this time students demanded a day without white people be enforced. In May, protests erupted after a white professor at the college refused to participate. Dozens of students later demanded the professors resignation after he wrote an email about the incident, which they deemed to be racist.
The Patriot Prayer group is calling for the colleges funding to be cut since they say it has been taken over by political correctness and hatred.
You cannot ask students and professors to leave campus because of the color of their skin, the groups Facebook page said.
On the other side, counter-protesters often referred to as anti-fascists, were dressed all in black, with black masks and black hats.
The Puget Sound Anarchists website called for people to come protest the Patriot Prayer rally, saying the group works closely with explicit fascists, and white supremacists.
Both groups were met by around 65 Washington State troopers armed with rifles and dressed in riot gear, according to the Olympian.
At one point, the counter-protesters began spraying the free speech protesters with silly string.
Joey Gibson, the leader of the Patriot Prayer group, was seen being escorted away from the event after he claimed he approached the counter-protesters and tried to shake hands with them. Gibson said he was called a racist and a fascist and someone dressed in black hit him in the face with a can and pepper-sprayed him.
Not one person shook my hand, not one. I just wanted to have a conversation, Gibson said. They act like theyre against hate, theres no way. If theyre against hate then they would have taken my hand and shaken it like a man. Thats all Im asking for.
Upon leaving the protest, Gibson also allegedly had his tires slashed, along with several other protesters.
Washington State Patrol confirmed that a 25-year-old man was arrested for disorderly conduct during the event. No other arrests were made.
No other details were provided about the individual who was arrested, however, one user posted an image on Twitter, showing two men fighting on the ground, along with a caption that said, Patriot Prayer supporter wrestles man with a knife at Evergreen State College. They handed him over to state troopers.
Other users also confirmed that someone at the event had a knife and was tackled.
At the end of the day, the protesters left without any major incidents or injuries reported. As one Twitter user said, This is an actual conversation happening between 2 sides that hasn't gotten ugly.
More here:
At least 1 arrested as free speech rally at Evergreen College sees counter-protests - RT
Alison Morrow, KING 11:05 AM. PDT June 14, 2017
Washington State University carnivore expert Dr. Rob Wielgus documented wolf pack and livestock movements in Ferris County. (Photo: KING)
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating the first livestock death blamed on wolves in this year's grazing season.
It was found near the historic range of the Profanity Peak pack, which was monitored by a Washington State University researcher, who is now suing over free speech
A range rider found the dead calf on private land in Ferry County near the Lambert Creek area Monday evening. It's near the Profanity Peak pack's range, the wolves killed last summer by WDFW after attacking 15 cattle 10 confirmed and five probable attacks. A female and three pups survived. No one has confirmed what pack is responsible for the most recent death.
The lethal removal further divided the state over wolf management, as protesters rallied in Olympia and cattle ranchers received death threats in the northeast corner where the majority of wolves live.
"I love these cows and I don't want to feed them to the wolves. I don't want to see them tortured," Kathy McKay said. "At least the locals, none of us need them, none of us want them. We're fine without them. They're killers. They're vicious killers."
McKay's parents built the K Diamond K Ranch in 1961. Life was good, she said, until wolves migrated back to Washington after nearly a century of being gone.
The Profanity Peak pack killed 30 times more cattle than the majority of wolf packs studied by WSU carnivore expert Dr. Rob Wielgus.
"In particular we noticed that the Profanity Peak pack last year had completely switched to livestock. They were killing a lot of livestock in that particular location," he said.
Wielgus monitored the pack last year. He found salt licks were attracting cattle near the den site, aggravating the problem. His wildlife camera video of the Colville National Forest shows cattle and wolves crossing paths. It's a large expanse of public land on which ranchers have paid to graze cattle for decades.
During the study, Wielgus followed wolves and cattle to track wolf depredations, the term used to refer to injuries or deaths attributed to wolves. He found that 99 percent of ranchers in wolf occupied areas in Washington lose one out of a thousand cattle to wolves. The rancher who lost cattle to the Profanity Peak pack had a 3 percent loss rate 30 times what Wielgus observed.
WDFW authorized the lethal removal of the pack on August 5. The salt blocks were removed August 8, according to WDFW. Wielgus knew about the salt blocks June 27.
"The livestock were still on the den site. We got video monitoring of wolves trying to chase them away from the den site, but the livestock kept returning because of the salt blocks. Then the livestock started being killed by the wolves," Wielgus said.
Bill McIrvin, the rancher whose cattle were killed in the incidents, was also at the center of controversy over the lethal removal of the Wedge pack in 2014 after losing cattle.
"Last year, during a period of repeated wolf depredations to livestock by the Profanity Peak wolf pack, the Department became aware that the wolf rendezvous site overlapped with part of the normal grazing path, where livestock were concentrated with the use of salt blocks. Once that overlap was detected, the Department contacted the producer, who removed the salt blocks from the area on August 8. Some livestock continued to use the general area where the salt was, so the producer (and family members, staff, and range rider) increased human presence around the livestock to check on and move livestock as needed," WDFW Wolf Lead Donny Martorello wrote in a statement.
KING 5 also asked WDFW about steps McIrvin took to prevent conflict.
"For Producer #1, the proactive deterrence measures were 1) turned out calves at weights generally over 200 lbs., 2) met expectation for sanitation, and 3) cows birthed calves outside of occupied wolf territories. Also, after the first wolf depredation, the producers agreed to the use of regular human presence (a reactive deterrence measure) for the remainder of the grazing season. This was accomplished by hiring two additional ranch staff, using a range rider, and increasing presence on the grazing site by the producer and family members," Martorello said.
Wielgus reports the den site was common knowledge. When Wielgus told the Seattle Times what he knew last summer, he couldn't believe the response.
"I was labeled a liar and a fraud. I was told by my superiors not to talk to the press so I could not tell the full story," he said.
Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda,argued that ranchers used the same land as years past and didn't know they'd put salt near wolves.
"When they salted they had no idea a rendezvous site had moved in. They put it on the same bench they'd put it for 45 damn years. It's the same place. It's part of the rotation through the grazing season. You keep your cows moving," he said.
Martorello said the state is aware of Wielgus' video.
"The Department has seen the video, reportedly made during the conflict with the Profanity Peak pack in 2016. We were made aware of it by WSU graduate students operating the trail cameras. It did not change Department's assessment of the situation. The majority of the known wolf packs in Washington overlap livestock, and many overlap active grazing allotments. That is one result of wolves recolonizing of Washington state. However, the fact that livestock and wolves overlap and actively use the same landscape doesn't necessary mean there will be conflict. In fact, experience in Washington and other western states shows that wolves and livestock coexist without conflict about 80 percent of the time," Martorello said.
For Kretz, Wielgus did more harm than good, further dividing the state over wolf management.
"We all got tired of the death threats. That's not the way for a scientist to be operating, I don't think," he said.
Kretz told WSU he thinks Wielgus' science is driven by agenda. WSU reviewed the research but that resulted in no evidence of misconduct. Still, Wielgus believes his job is hanging by a thread.
"I was publicly discredited and defamed by the university. The university said I had lied. I did not lie. I simply reported the facts," he said.
Wielgus plans to sue for six years salary and then leave his teaching position.
At the same time, he's publishing research he calls one of the most in-depth wolf studies ever. He found wolf attacks on livestock are extremely uncommon, and that the more humans kill wolves, the more wolves kill cattle the following year. Depredations, he says, typically follow lethal removal of wolves due to disarray in the social dynamics of the apex predators.
"My agenda is scientific truth, and that's what's gotten me in trouble in this case. I could've just shut up," Wielgus said.
Conservation Northwest is part of the Wolf Advisory Group, a diverse mix of stakeholders, which drew up the criteria for lethal removal of wolves. They're hoping to refocus the conversation on much needed work to continue forging a path ahead.
"Profanity was a horrible experience for everyone involved. Nobody wanted it to happen then and certainly nobody wants to go through anything like it again. What makes us happy is that the Wolf Advisory Group continues to work collaboratively on policy and that increasing numbers of ranchers are signing on to do conflict prevention work. It is that, more than anything, that will minimize the number of painful events we have in the months and years ahead," saidCNWDirector Mitch Friedman.
For Wielgus, the answer is simple: keep cows away from wolf dens. He believes many ranchers are working hard to live beside wolves, but are too afraid to speak out in areas where animosity toward the carnivores continues to mount.
"It's all about the encounter probability. Predators respond to prey on how frequently they encounter them," he said.
For Kretz, wolf management isn't so clear. He's furious that WDFW did not respond fast enough to the calf found dead Monday. It was called in around 6 p.m., he says, and WDFW responded that there were no conflict specialists available to investigate until Tuesday morning.
"The first incident of the year they can't get somebody there?" he said. "We can't trust them to have their act together."
Kretz worried the evidence would deteriorate, making it more difficult to confirm it as a wolf kill.
"They're not going to work 24-7. That's impossible to expect from them," said Western Wildlife Conservation Director Hank Siepp. "We're trying to educate people that we have a new critter on the landscape and there will be challenges."
Washington State University tells KING 5 it has no plans to terminate Dr. Wielgus and hopes he stays on staff. Administrators sent a letter to Kretz in regards to his concern over Wielgus. It included the following findings:
"Discussion of the data set and its analysis is continuing among Professor Wielgus, Professor Dasgupta, and other WSU researchers. The University believes the best path forward is continued analysis and discussion of the data within the research community, culminating in submission of articles to scientific journals as appropriate. There is no evidence of research misconduct in this matter. Accordingly, the University has not opened a research misconduct investigation."
2017 KING-TV
Read more here:
Wolf researcher plans to sue WSU over free speech - KING5.com
The fundamental authoritarianism of the progressives has spilled over on free speech. Old liberals mostly took the I may disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it idea to heart, but no longer. The new line is Why tolerate speech that could obstruct our plans?
That intolerance was on display recently at Duke University. After one member of the Divinity School faculty sent around an e-mail urging all of her colleagues to go to one of those training sessions where there is an drumbeat for lefty beliefs on how racist America is, another, Professor Paul Griffiths responded with an e-mail urging them not to waste their time on it. His words were blunt. If you think that academic freedom still extends to blunt criticism of such progressive sacred cows as diversity training, think again.
Griffiths was promptly attacked by the Dean and the professor who had sent around the original e-mail went boo-hooing to the universitys administration with a complaint about harassment. Rather than face the torture of an investigation run by other lefties who would love taking his scalp, Griffiths has resigned.
I write about this ugly case in todays Martin Center article.
The Griffiths case is remarkably similar to that of Marquette professor John McAdams, who faces termination for having had the temerity to question a young woman on his faculty over her handling of a student who wondered why her class wasnt going to discuss same-sex marriage. Free speech and vigorous debate on college campuses? Not if it might offend a progressive who can easily take revenge by filing charges. Of course, the reverse never happens leftists can and do say anything without fear of repercussions. And thats the way it should be.
As for diversity of thought at Duke, I think its a sure bet that the replacement for Griffiths will be a true believing progressive.
See original here:
There he goes again.
He being comedian and talk show host Bill Maher. The host of HBOsReal Timestepped in it the other week, as described here byEsquire:
Yet while Maher has never hidden the joy he takes in busting on Trump or, for that matter, his broadly Democratic leanings he has distinguished himself from John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, and Seth Meyers by sucker-punching the Left as gleefully as he does the Right. Before introducing his panel, he talked one-on-one with Elizabeth Warren, the senior senator from Massachusetts, about why Americans chronically vote against their interests. Maher didnt miss a chance to needle her with one of Trumps own epithets. Attempting to explain the Democrats dismal fortunes with working-class voters, he told her, They dont like you, Pocahontas. Warren didnt respond to the insult, choosing instead to stare a hole through her hosts high forehead.
A few weeks later, Maher would answer a joke by Nebraska senator Ben Sasse with a similarly tone-deaf response. When Sasse extended an invitation to come work in Nebraskas fields, Maher playacted surprise and said,Im a house nigger.Whereas the Pocahontas remark prompted another round of an ancient Internet dispute whether Maher is a misogynist, a dick, or a fearless political savant the comment to Sasse sparked universal outrage. HBO called it completely inexcusable and tasteless, and many clamored for Maher to be fired.
Full disclosure. Ive been on Bills show and, heaven forbid, had a great time. Bill is a liberal, his audience is liberal, the panelists for the most part are liberal. He says outrageous things. And what?
This time around he said something that truly was offensive, disgracefully so. He quickly and correctly apologized, saying his words were, indeed, offensive. CNN wrote up his apology and reported on Mahers conversation the following week as follows:
I did a bad thing, Maher said to his first guest, sociology professor Michael Eric Dyson. For black folks, that word, I dont care who you are, has caused pain. Im not here to do that.
Maher added that, It doesnt matter that it wasnt said in malice. If it brought back pain to people then thats why I apologized freely and I reiterated it tonight.
This was just a mistake, he said. This was just a dumb interception.
Later in the show, rapper and actor Ice Cube told Maher that the word is like a knife in that it can either be used as a weapon or as a tool.
I think this is a teachable moment not just to you, but the people watching right now, Ice Cube told Maher.
Maher responded by saying, I think the people watching right now are saying, That point has been made.
My CNN colleague Symone Sanders was also on the show and said that his remark was a slap in the face to black America. I rarely agree with Symone, but on this one? Are you kidding? She was right a thousand times over.
This was exactly the way to address this issue. Admit the mistake and have three Americans who are black on the show to discuss. Then move on to show next.
The problem America seems to be enduring at this moment in history is an epidemic of repression of free speech. It is particularly evident on college campuses where speakers like Ann Coulter or Charles Murray are either prevented from speaking under threat of violence (Coulter at Berkeley) or are, in fact, physically assaulted (Murray at Middlebury College in Vermont.) At Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington Professor Brett Weinstein had his own tale, which he related in theWall Street Journal, which he headlined this way:
The Campus Mob Came for Meand You, Professor, Could Be Next
Whites were asked to leave for a Day of Absence. I objected. Then 50 yelling students crashed my class.
Weinstein wrote in part:
I was not expecting to hold my biology class in a public park last week. But then the chief of our college police department told me she could not protect me on campus. Protestors were searching cars for an unspecified individual likely me and her officers had been told to stand down, against her judgment, by the college president.
Racially charged, anarchic protests have engulfed Evergreen State College, a small, public liberal-arts institution where I have taught since 2003. In a widely disseminated video of the first recent protest on May 23, an angry mob of about 50 students disrupted my class, called me a racist, and demanded that I resign. My racist offense? I had challenged coercive segregation by race. Specifically, I had objected to a planned Day of Absence in which white people were asked to leave campus on April 12.
The other week there was an attempt to get Sean Hannity off the air. Bill OReilly, while he had other, internal problems at Fox, was successfully targeted with leftist bullies threatening his sponsors. And of course, periodically there are attempts to Hush Rush. And yes, over at CNN, there was Reza Aslan and Kathy Griffin.
But the Maher incident is the latest of these and it is important to speak up not just for his free speech but, particularly when violence is threatened much less used as at Middlebury, Evergreen, or Berkeley, to re-state yet again what should never have to be re-stated in America. Which is to say this is a country that has a First Amendment written into its Constitution for a reason.
No society can exist much less prosper if the rights of its individual members are threatened and if there is a hierarchy of Americas constitutional values, free speech is at the very top. There can be no Bill Mahers in North Korea and for a reason. Irreverent comedians are a symbol of free speech razzing not just those holding government power but any and everything in society that remotely smacks of authority.
Is it a good thing Bill Maher apologized? Yes. He made a mistake. And as his guests on his follow-up show made clear, it was a serious mistake. But not for a minute should he have lost his job. Free speech, among other things, implies the freedom to make mistakes. And move on.
See the article here: