Jim Walsh introduces bill to protect free speech on college campuses – Longview Daily News

Local state Rep. Jim Walsh has introduced a bill that he says would protect free speech on public college campuses following protests and threats of violence that shut down The Evergreen State College in Olympia for three days recently.

The legislation would require all state-funded colleges and universities to adopt a set of principles that support the free exchange of ideas. It would also prohibit schools from revoking invitations to controversial speakers or establishing free speech zones, which are areas set aside from shared public spaces for political expression.

Evergreens campus was rocked by protest and controversy in late May when Bret Weinstein, a biology professor, wrote a widely-shared email criticizing a demonstration in which white faculty and students were encouraged to leave campus. In past years, minorities have voluntarily left campus for a day to raise awareness about what life would be like without people of color.

Thurston County law enforcement eventually received death threats against faculty at Evergreen after a series of protests, prompting the schools closure.

We need to protect our deeply-held commitment to freedom of speech and free academic inquiry at state universities, Walsh said in a press release. The vulgar, closed-minded tyranny that weve seen recently at Evergreen State has no place on campuses funded with public resources. This bill protects both students and teachers. It reminds our public universities that they must encourage the ability to think, speak clearly and express opinions freely.

Walsh could not be reached for further comment at press time.

Protests at liberal college campuses across the country have flared up repeatedly over the past year. On Jan. 20, a man was shot at the University of Washington by a Milo Yiannopoulos supporter outside a protest in response to a speech by the alt-right leader. In April, the University of California in Berkeley revoked conservative author Ann Coulters invitation to speak in response to student protests and riots.

Walshs bill, HB 2223, has been referred to the House Higher Education Committee and awaits a public hearing.

See original here:

Jim Walsh introduces bill to protect free speech on college campuses - Longview Daily News

Wisconsin ‘Campus Free Speech Act’ risks stifling free speech … – RT

Wisconsin legislation to protect free speech on college campuses would force the states university system to discipline students who disrupt speakers. Opponents warn that the bill will silence those who protest harmful speakers.

Wisconsin state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) introduced the Campus Free Speech Act last month to ensure that free speech is not only welcome, but encouraged throughout Wisconsin academia.

In recent decades, attacks on free expression have become commonplace and in-vogue at institutions where ideals and truths should be challenged the American university, Kremer said in a statement. This most recent degradation has been at the behest of the leftist elite who promote their own progressive, opinionated beliefs as gospel while touting a bumper sticker slogan of coexist.

The Campus Free Speech Act would require any student who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others to attend a disciplinary hearing. Any student that has more than one hearing would be suspended for at least one semester or expelled.

The bill comes after free speech has become an issue on college campuses across the country. In February, protests at the University of California-Berkeley turned violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak.

In November, UW-Madison students also interrupted former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, who was speaking out against safe spaces on college campuses.

After that protest, the Wisconsin Assembly approved the Campus Free Speech Act with an 8-6 vote, sending it to the Assembly floor. All six Democrats voted against the bill, warning it would stifle free speech relating to the research and scientific pursuits of the facility.

Democrats questioned the bills neutrality clause, which states that universities must remain neutral and not take action on the public policy controversies of the day.

During a committee hearing on May 11, Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) questioned if the bill would allow a professor to correct a student that was arguing the Biblical theory that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Read more

The earth is 6,000 years old, Kremer stated, according to the Cap Times. Thats a fact.

But, Kremer said the bill stays out of the classroom and would only be intended to deal with students who disrupt speakers.

However, Kremer said that any student who felt they were unable to express their opinions in class could bring their complaints to the Council on Free Expression, an oversight board created in the bill.

The council on free expression would submit annual reports to the Board of Regents, the governor and the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, detailing any disruptions of free expression that occurred throughout the institution.

How are we to be taken seriously as an institution of higher learning and research if our professors can be called before a Council on Free Expression to defend their teaching of geology? said Dave Vanness, an associate professor of population health sciences, according to the Cap Times.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), one of the sponsors of the bill, said the biggest debate is going to be around global warming.

A lot of people think its settled science and an awful lot of people think it isnt, Vos said, according to the Cap Times. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.

Vos wrote an article in 2016, where he complained that a large number of the guest speakers invited to speak at UW-Milwaukee were easily identifiable as being liberal. He challenged the UW system to find more ways to ensure that all perspectives, including conservative ones, are present in the classroom.

Many Democrats questioned whether the bill was necessary at all, since the UW system already has policies that deal with protests.

State Rep. Dana Wachs (D-Eau Claire) called the bill a substantial overreach for a problem that frankly does not exist.

Instead of supporting free speech for all students, the authors of this bill have created a broad, vague proposal that could chill speech and ultimately silence those who want to respectfully share their beliefs on an issue, Wachs said in a statement.

Read more:

Wisconsin 'Campus Free Speech Act' risks stifling free speech ... - RT

Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case – recordonline.com – Times Herald-Record

James Nani Times Herald-Record @JamesNani845

MIDDLETOWN - A federal judge hasruled that there areenough questions to warrant a trial onwhether the Middletown school boardand superintendentrestricted free speech at a contentious school board meeting in 2010.

Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, denied a motion on Tuesday by Middletown School District Superintendent Ken Eastwood for summary judgment inthe First Amendment claim.

The long-running lawsuit that's dogged Eastwood was brought in April 2010 by Francis Hoefer.

In March 2010, Hoefer, who lived inOswego at the time, tried to speak at Middletowns meeting but was cut off by board President Will Geiger.

Hoefer was removed from the building and handcuffed by Middletown police.

Hoefer had come to air complaints about Eastwood, dating back to the time when Eastwood was in charge of Oswegos schools.

Hoefer, a former Oswego school board member, filed the lawsuit regarding that ejection, naming three parties Geiger, Eastwood and the Middletown district.

He's represented by Goshen civil rights attorney Michael Sussman.

Hoefer said his civil rights were violated, including the right to free speech.

The parties came pretty close to a settlement at one point. Geiger and the board signed it, but Eastwood refused because he had a defamation suit against Hoefer.

Hoefer had put his comments in an online blog post soon after the 2010 board meeting.

Eastwood sued Hoefer for defamation in state court, won,and last year a state appellate court upheld the decision that Hoefer defamed him in part ofthat statement.

In Ramos' June 6 opinion, he saidcourtsmust construe facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in motions for summary judgment.

"Based on the facts before the court, a reasonable fact finder could determine that Eastwood engaged in a viewpoint-based prior restraint by suppressing statements that were critical of him while conversely allowing statements that praised him," Ramos wrote.

Ramos also ruled that just because Hoefer was able to publish his statement in a blog post after the meeting "does not do away with the fact that his intended speech was chilled, indeed frozen, at the board meeting."

Finally, Ramos found that Eastwood doesn't have immunity. A defense attorney has appealed the opinion on the immunity grounds.

In an email, Sussman said the trial will begin on July 7 and called the order "a stirring affirmation of the First Amendment."

The case will now likely go to trial, Eastwood said.

"Settlements are for when you think you've done something wrong," Eastwood said.

"I didn't do anything wrong, so I'm not going to roll over and take it."

jnani@th-record.com

Here is the original post:

Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case - recordonline.com - Times Herald-Record

Redl Commits to Internet as ‘Engine of Free Speech’ | Multichannel – Multichannel News

David Redl, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, promised to work with stakeholders to identify underutilized government spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial use and said U.S. interests in the multistakeholder ICANN internet body would continue to be represented 'vigorously.'

Redl's commentscame duringhis nomination hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last week, a hearing thatwas overshadowed by another Hill hearing on the same day -- fired FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Redl's hearing lacked fireworks.

Redl is former senior staffer on the House Energy & Commerce committee, whose former boss, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the committee, was instrumental in the legislation to free up broadcast spectrum for commercial wireless.

Redlsaid a core mission of NTIA, the White House's chief telecom policy advisor as well, is to balance the need for spectrum for government to meet its needs, like protecting the country, with the need for added commercial spectrum. He said he was committed to working with the FCC to prioritized 5G.

Redl said his experience was in looking for bipartisan solutions to telecom issues and "focusing on things we could agree on."

He said he would commit to some things he hoped would find similar bipartisan agreement: (1) balance the government's need for spectrum with that of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum users; (2) try to improve access to broadband for all Americans; (3) work to advance the digital economy; and (4) work to advance the internet as an engine of free speech, the free market and economic opportunity.

Asked by Commerce chair Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) how he would balance those, Redl said NTIA had a process in place, including a policy and planning steering group he hoped to work with, as well as the Interagency Radio Advisory Committee (ARAC), to try tofind synergies and efficiencies.

Redl was asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)whether he thought the Obama Administration's decision to allow the contract for domain naming and numbering conventions oversight to lapse in the interests of migrating it to a multistakeholder model was a "wise and prudent" one.

Redl cited the debate, but said the reality is "this is the situation we are in." Walden and other Republicans had concerns that the multistakeholder model was an opportunity for some bad actors to get new power over the internet.

Redl said the administration supports the multistakeholder model, but said he also would be a vigorous representative of the U.S. before ICANN.

Cruz was not satisfied, asking the question again about the wisdom and prudence of the administration finding itself in the position it was in thanks to the last administration. Redl said that once the decision was made to move to that model and end the contract, it would have been hard to "put the genie back in the bottle."

He said he had tried to protect the U.S. interest throughout that process, and that given the changes made to the accountability process, the country was in a position to protect those interests.

Asked about broadband infrastructure in rural areas, Redl committed to allocating capital "efficiently."

Redl likely didn't hurt his chances of a warm welcome at his new digs by telling the senators that NTIA staffers were the "unsung heroes" of the digital economy.

See original here:

Redl Commits to Internet as 'Engine of Free Speech' | Multichannel - Multichannel News

Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has ‘Consequences’ – Daily Beast

Comedians typically dont like to publicly condemn other comedians. But that principle was challenged over the past week after Bill Maher casually dropped the n-word on his HBO show Real Time.

Asked about the backlash last week on The View, Kevin Hart said he doesnt believe Maher is a racist, but should have known the consequences of using the word. It was stupid, he added. Maher discovered those consequences as people began calling for him to be fired and on Friday night both Michael Eric Dyson and Ice Cube took him to the woodshed, so to speak, for his transgression.

It took about 10 seconds for the topic to come up once again on Mondays episode of The View, when The Daily Shows Trevor Noah joined the hosts. It seems like its a dangerous time to be a comedian right now, Joy Behar said, citing not only Maher, but also Kathy Griffin, who was let go by CNN for her anti-Donald Trump stunt, and Stephen Colbert, who faced his own backlash for joking about the president.

You know what, to be honest with you, I think its good, Noah said. I genuinely think its good. I wont lie, as a comedian, I look back and I go, there are things I said that I shouldnt have been saying. Were progressing, were moving forward. Theres things that we said about women that we shouldnt have been saying.

Thats one way to look at it, Behar said, in clear disagreement with Noahs point of view.

Noah was speaking from experience. When he was hired to replace Jon Stewart in 2015, he found his Twitter history subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny with reporters digging up and highlighting any joke from his past that could be construed as sexist, anti-Semitic or just generally offensive.

If you look at what youre trying to do as a comedian, essentially what Im trying to do, is Im trying to move forward, Im trying to think progressively, Im trying to push the boundaries, Noah added on The View. I remember a time when I loved making fat jokes, because I thought, oh, look at this, this is edgy. But it wasnt.

Noah made a distinction between censorship and backlash, asking, Shouldnt there be consequences for free speech?

There should not be consequences for free speech, Whoopi Goldberg countered. People dont have to like what you say, but there should not be consequences.

In America, Noah said he finds that people conflate free speech as consequence free, but coming from South Africa, a country where the government could come after you for something you say, he sees a clear difference. You are free to say what you like, somebody may still punch you, though. Thats a consequence.

Losing your job can also be a consequence, one that Kathy Griffin, and subsequently Reza Aslan, suffered at the hands of CNN. But not, so far at least, one that Bill Maher has been dealt by HBO.

Read the original post:

Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has 'Consequences' - Daily Beast

Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech – People’s World

Redemmas.org

President Trump has spent the last several months keeping his campaign promises. From the ongoing push to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the numerous executive orders targeting immigration, abortion care funding, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies, the Trump administration has not eased up.

Many have voiced outrage over the turn the country has suddenly taken, as direct action is one of the few methods of dissent still intact. However, Assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, recently faced death threats after FOX News aired a segment from a commencement address at Hampshire College.

A leading organizer and scholar on Black politics and racial inequality, Taylor is the author of the critically acclaimed book; #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. She spoke on a number of topics, including the growing threat of the Trump administration. From the terror-inducing raids in the communities of undocumented immigrants; to his disparaging of refugees in search of freedom and respite; he has empowered an attorney general who embraces and promulgates policies that have already been proven to have had a devastating impact on Black families and communities.

Taylor called the President a racist sexist megalomaniac and stated that Donald Trump has fulfilled the promises of a campaign organized and built upon racism, corporatism, and militarism. While the speech received backlash after being featured on a number of conservative platforms, including during, conservative news anchor, Glenn Becks The Blaze, it is far from the first time the African American professor has spoken out about the injustices that marginalized communities face. In a statement released on Facebook through the Haymarket Books page, Taylor stated that she was cancelling appearances to various universities due to ongoing threats against her and her familys safety, Since last Friday, I have received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails. Some of these emails have contained specific threats of violence, including murder.

While there has been a long history of white institutions silencing black academics, it seems that the increasing popularity of alt-right movements has encouraged censorship from outside influences as well. Taylor has claimed that the segment on FOX was framed as an anti-POTUS tirade that was meant to incite violent intimidation from the right-wing viewers, Fox did not run this story because it was news, but to incite and unleash the mob-like mentality of its fringe audience, anticipating that they would respond with a deluge of hate-filled emails or worse. The threat of violence, whether it is implied or acted on, is intended to intimidate and to silence.

Similar incidents around the country have featured the same type of censorship patterns towards women activists and political voices. In Iowa, Democratic candidate Kim Weaver abandoned the race against Republican Congressman Steve King (IA). Weaver cited alarming acts of intimidation, including death threats and stated that her safety and personal health had become a growing concern.

Across the country, in New York City, Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour faced death threats before she even had a chance to get on stage. While her speech ended up being well received at the New York City commencement ceremony, the discourse surrounding her in the weeks leading up to the delivery was hostile, with messages like A good Arab is a dead Arab and Youre getting two bullets in your head being sent to Sarsour on an hourly basis.

The white nationalist movement has long used acts of violence and intimidation to manipulate public discourse. In the past the Klan played a critical role in preventing people from reaching the election polls, and harbored their extensive social network to control facets of the media. Nevertheless, the rise in the mob mentality of cyber-bullying has become a frequent tactic of the Republican partyand provides tools for doing harm to their ideological opponents.

This may seem to some to be ironic, given the anger and outrage that emerged when activist shut down Milo Yiannopoulos was forced to cancel his visit to the University of California/Berkeley after anti-fascist activists caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus in protest. Yiannopoulos however, had threatened to out undocumented and Trans students during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Such potential for harm is a far cry from Taylors voice of dissent towards an existing government that has enacted several harmful policies in a matter of months. One speaker demands non-violent liberation and the other uses their platform to doxx, and thus endanger, local students.

It seems there are clear patterns to the way in which conservatives chose who they target; women, and specifically women of color, are frequently in the crosshairs of attacks from the right. These individuals are often spammed with misogynistic comments, intertwined with a threat of sexual and/or physical violence. For black and brown women, Like Taylor and Sarsour, these threats are also frequently coded with racism and Islamophobia. It makes it possible for white nationalist to masquerade their attacks as part free speech campaign as opposed to confronting the reality of the hate speech they utilize to enact violence.

While free speech is often lauded as one of the main talking points of the right, they remain surprisingly silent when it comes to the rights and liberties of marginalized voices. As long as womens dissent poses a threat to the predominantly white-male dominated GOP, then they will feel the need to retaliate towards any potential threat. This is a status quo that Taylor directly challenges: this system is led by a billionaire president and a Congress composed mostly of white men who are millionaires, Despite the setbacks, the fight against the alt-right and their methods of censorship continue. The brilliant women of the movement will continue to be at the front lines.

***When reached out to for comment Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor stated that they are not doing interviews at this time***

Here is the original post:

Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech - People's World

Free speech: Ted Wheeler is the enemy he invokes – The Fayette Tribune

Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland, Oregon, wants to control who can say and hear what. He's asked the federal government to cancel one permit and deny another, both for "alt-right" demonstrations at Portland's Shrunk Plaza.

His excuse: Portland is "in mourning" and its "anger is real" over an incident in which an anti-Muslim bigot, Jeremy Joseph Christian, allegedly harassed two women on a commuter train and then stabbed three men who came to their defense, two of them fatally.

Not a bad excuse as excuses go, I guess, but no excuse can be allowed to trump our rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. On this matter, Mayor Wheeler is objectively taking the same position as Christian: The position that it is acceptable to use force to suppress ideas one disagrees with.

There are two metaphorical ways to describe a world in which various ideas compete for our attention and allegiance. Each of those metaphors has consequences.

Metaphor 1: A "marketplace of ideas" in which the best product wins out because it is sold with good arguments and people like it better. In this marketplace, any idea can be offered at any time by anyone who supports it. Hopefully the better ones get enough "market share" to be implemented; if an idea doesn't work out, its supporters can move on to another.

Metaphor 2: A "war of ideas" in which things take a darker turn. The competing sides each conclude that their ideas cannot win out unless the alternatives are excluded not just from adoption, but from discussion and consideration. At some point, force inevitably becomes the instrument of that exclusion. The war ceases to be metaphorical. America is clearly at such a point now with the increasing frequency of riots and street fights over politics.

Even scarier than ad hoc riots and street fights, though, are calls by government officials for suppression of political speech through government permit schemes, police action to disperse demonstrators, etc.

The difference between Ted Wheeler and an "alt-right" agitator with a baseball bat is that Wheeler has a full-time police force, armed with lethal weaponry and effective legal immunity for its actions, at his beck and call.

We've seen societies in which the likes of Wheeler lay down a party line and the police break out their tear gas and truncheons to suppress all opposition to that line. For example, the Soviet Union, Italy, and Germany before, and eastern Europe after, World War Two.

I don't want to live in such a society. Hopefully you don't either. The events in question shouldn't even require a permit or the permission of Ted Wheeler. Freedom is our path away from the war and back to the marketplace.

(Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, thegarrisoncenter.org. He lives and works in north central Florida. Follow him on Twitter @thomaslknapp.)

Link:

Free speech: Ted Wheeler is the enemy he invokes - The Fayette Tribune

Want to solve this ‘free speech’ debate on college campuses? Look to the handbook. – USA TODAY College

Police detain hundreds of demonstrators on suspicion of disorderly conduct during a protest on June 4, 2017, in Portland, Oregon. A protest dubbed Trump Free Speech by organizers was met by a large contingent of counter-demonstrators who viewed the protest as a promotion of racism. (Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

When I asked students to explore the rules governing speech in the student manual, I realized campuses actually have no free speech, just more or lessregulatedspeech.

For two consecutive semesters, my students wrote letters to the colleges dean and its attorney. The administrators then discussed them with the students directly. Before long, two instances transformed the conversations from hypothetical, to practical.

In the first instance, a group of students spoke out against racist comments on the social media site Yik Yak. They countered with Black Yak, paper-covered bulletin boards on which students voiced their responses to the objectionable posts. The colleges president endorsed Black Yak as a college protest that reveals discomfiting realities while promoting free speech, dialogue and community. Other students, however, called for censorship of Yik Yak and punishment of the racist posts anonymous authors.

Secondly, some students alleged that a fraternity brothers Halloween costume was racist, as he put his blonde hair in corn rows and wore an orange jump suit typically worn by prison inmates. Student leaders organized a forum for students on both sides of the costume question to address hate speech, cultural appropriation and racism on campus.

Some of my seminar students argued the best response to the Yik Yak comments and to the seemingly inappropriate Halloween costumes was dialogue and education, not campus adjudication. Others argued that free speech concerns overlooked ways the marketplace of ideas was already unequal, such as hostile comments that reinforced marginalization by silencing some students.

My students decided to dispose of platitudes about free speech and scrutinize the schools policy about speech. Disciplinary hearings are confidential, therefore so are the rulings, but the students learned details of the colleges speech code that intrigued them. They wanted to know how the college enforces these codes.

Students learned that unlike state-run institutions, private colleges are not required to adhere to the First Amendment and can regulate speech on campus in a variety of ways. Nonetheless, the colleges student code espouses free expression in the form of careful and reasoned criticism of data and opinion offered in any course, which drew student criticism because it was muted. Why was the endorsement of free speech conditional?

Speech codes in the college life manual require students to understand federal civil rights laws, mainly Title IX, which emphasizes violence domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking but also covers speech. Harassment, the manual stipulates, includes advertisements or postings of offensive, indecent or abusive material of a sexual nature.

My students read the 1999 decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, and knew the Supreme Courts standards for defining a hostile environment:plaintiff must show harassment that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institutions resources and opportunities. Our schools speech codes do not mention severe, pervasive or objectively offensive.

My students found the college life manual does not refer to racial harassment or Title VI, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color and national origin at institutions receiving federal assistance. One student argued for a revised manual to include a similar approach to racial harassment as it does to sexual harassment.

The manuals vague language forbids conduct unbecoming of a Franklin and Marshall student. This phrase bothered students. They didnt know what it meant. The manual defines conduct unbecoming as conduct that threatens, instills fear, or infringes upon the rights, dignity and integrity of any person. Students rightly noted threaten and instills fear were struck down as too broad in a 1989 court decision regarding hate speech regulation at public universities Doe v. University of Michigan.

Our college manual gives administrators the flexibility to punish hate speech as conduct unbecoming, but racial harassment is absent from the student code. The dean defended conduct unbecoming, telling students the term is defined and interpreted by the campus community. However, the studentsassessed how regulation of speech actually worked on campus andwanted to see changes made to revise the speech codes and have students serve on the student misconduct panel.

As questions of free speech continue to arise on college campuses around the country, its time to move beyond rallying slogans and choosing sides. The campus speech controversies are more complicated than being for or against free speech. Students, faculty and administrators need to know the rules governing campus speech on their campus, including where the policies get it right and where they go wrong, and where they are outdated compared to recent judicial standards. This kind of engagement leads to meaningful change in how speech is regulated on campus.

M. Alison Kibler, professor of American Studies and Womens, Gender & Sexuality Studies, is chair of American Studies at Franklin & Marshall College. Her most recent book, Censoring Racial Ridicule: Irish, Jewish and African American Struggles Over Race and Representation, 1890-1930, examines race-based censorship.

M. Alison Kibler is a member of the USA TODAY College contributor network.

Go here to see the original:

Want to solve this 'free speech' debate on college campuses? Look to the handbook. - USA TODAY College

Harvard’s revocation of admission offers is no attack on free speech … – Washington Post

REPORTS THAT Harvard College rescinded admission offers to students who had posted extremely offensive memes in a private Facebook chat come at a time of heated debate about free speech on campus. So it probably should have been expected that the schools decision would become ensnared in that discussion. It would be a mistake, though, to conflate the recent events at Harvard with any kind of attack on free speech.

What happened at Harvard is simply this: Misguided young people with an outsize sense of entitlement have been required to suffer the consequences about which they had received sufficient warning for ugly and inappropriate behavior. Harvard was right to insist that those who are granted the privilege of attending the private institution adhere to its standards.

At least 10 high school seniors, prospective members of Harvards Class of 2021, had their offers of admission revoked in April after administrators learned they had traded offensive messages and racist images. Screenshots of the chat obtained by the Harvard Crimson, which first reported the events, show images that mock sexual assault, the Holocaust and the deaths of children, including calling the imagined hanging of a Mexican child piata time. There has been no comment from Harvard, which, according to a spokeswoman, doesnt publicly discuss the admission status of individual applicants.

Critics of the decision were quick to accuse the school of censoring speech it doesnt like and they gleefully seized upon Harvard President Drew Fausts commencement address last month that was devoted to free speech and the dangers of censorship. But when students receive an offer of admission from Harvard, they are clearly told and must acknowledge that it is conditional and can be withdrawn for, among other things, behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character. The information was repeated on the Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook group. The offending students opted to splinter off into a secret group, showing they knew they were being offensive. Someone (good for them) tipped college authorities to the odious posts.

The students still have the right to post whatever garbage they like, but it is also Harvards right indeed, its obligation to its mission of developing leaders to exercise judgment in deciding who will be admitted to its educational community. Harvard gave these young people a needed lesson in civility, honor and personal responsibility. Lets hope they put it to good use and that others are paying attention.

See the article here:

Harvard's revocation of admission offers is no attack on free speech ... - Washington Post

Sparring over testimony leads to free speech debate – Capital Gazette – CapitalGazette.com

Anne Arundel residents who attend County Council meetings are barred from carrying balloons, signs and banners in the legislative chambers. They're restricted to two minutes of testimony on a particular topic. And they can be removed from public meetings for disorderly behavior.

But when it comes to the content of their speech, how much can the government limit?

The question came to a head at last week's council meeting, when several citizens who had come to testify on an anti-racism resolution were told they could not talk about Councilman Michael Peroutka's former membership in a pro-secession group.

The decision, by Council Chairman John Grasso, R-Glen Burnie, sparked an immediate uproar. More than once, the chambers erupted into a shouting match between Grasso and citizens who disagreed with his ruling.

Grasso justified his stance by pointing to the council's rules of procedure, which include a section, 4-106, that prohibits "personal, defamatory or profane remarks" during meetings.

"We are here to talk about resolutions that Councilman (Pete) Smith put in and attacking other councilmen is not going to be permitted," he said. "If you want to talk about councilmen, you can do it on your own time, but not here."

Audience members countered that the comments were truthful and relevant to the broader conversation condemning racism.

Peroutka, R-Millersville, was criticized during the 2014 election cycle for his involvement with the League of the South, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

During the campaign, a 2012 video surfaced that showed him asking the crowd at a League of the South event to stand for the national anthem. He then played "Dixie," a song celebrating the South that became the anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Peroutka later said the clip had been taken out of context.

In October 2014, Peroutka announced he had left the league because he disagreed with statements members made in opposition to interracial marriage. At the time, he said he had no problem with the group and still supported its stances on self-government and preserving Southern heritage.

Along with the rest of the council, he voted in favor of last week's anti-racism resolution.

Yasemin Jamison, who first broached the topic of Peroutka's League of the South links, said her intention was to ask the councilman "to publicly say the League of the South is a racist organization and apologize for his membership."

"He could have said, 'No, I refuse to do that.' That's his prerogative, that's his right," said Jamison, who is a constituent of Peroutka's and a founder of the progressive group Anne Arundel County Indivisible. "I did not defame anybody; I did not say anything negative about my Councilman Peroutka. This is my testimony and it is a fact that he was a member of the League of the South."

William Rowel, who also attended the meeting, defended Jamison when Grasso told her she couldn't talk about the League of the South.

In Anne Arundel County, he said in an interview a few days after the meeting, "you have policymakers with informed constituents."

"If anything, you would champion that; you would say, this is great, people know what's going on in their communities, in their county and they want access to it," Rowel said. "The fact that they would discourage that, that they would shame people for doing it it's wrong. There's really no other way of looking at it."

Jamison said she is considering taking legal action against the council for restricting her speech.

Grasso said he stands by his decision to bar the topic.

"They were leading into a personal attack and the speaker will not address personal attacks towards the body; that's the bottom line," he said. "It wasn't on the subject matter."

Grasso said he shut down League of the South remarks in an attempt to keep order and decorum in his chambers.

"That meeting had clear rules in my eyes," he said. "What my opinion is and what others think might be different, but I was voted the chairman ... I'm in charge of keeping the meeting moving. It's my opinion that counts, and if they don't agree, they can run for office."

Limitations

The law does allow for some restrictions to be placed on speech in government settings, though they must be narrowly tailored. County Council meetings fall under the category of a "designated public forum," created by the government to allow citizens to express themselves to public officials.

The council has for years limited individual testimony to two minutes. In 2013, council members amended their rules of procedure to ban visual displays in the chambers, to prohibit "personal, defamatory or profane remarks" or "loud, threatening and abusive language" and to require speakers to give their name, address and any organizational affiliations before testifying. Grasso voted against the changes at the time.

The rules give the council chair permission to remove anyone who violates them and to clear the entire chambers in order to restore order.

Residents have challenged those limitations in the past. A Glen Burnie woman was removed from a council meeting in 2012 after she went over the time limit for testimony.

Many of the limitations are practical, said Councilman Jerry Walker, R-Crofton, who was council chair when the rules were updated in 2013.

"We banned posters because they would block people's line of sight," he said. As for testimony, he added, "it's supposed to be on the resolution."

As tensions rose during last week's meeting, Councilman Chris Trumbauer, D-Annapolis, asked Grasso to read the rules in an effort to calm the room.

Trumbauer said he believes the rules are "somewhat open to interpretation."

"Free speech means you can say whatever you want and not be penalized for that," he said, but "we have rules because we have to conduct business."

In designated public forums, "the government has the right to restrict what is being said, based on the purpose of the forum," said Eric Easton, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

But officials have to be careful not to bar certain topics based on politics, he said: "What they can't do is limit the conversation to believers of one side only in a controversy. Any restrictions on public speech have to be viewpoint-neutral."

It's common for legislative bodies to make rules against personal attacks, Easton added, but "the problem comes in: is this nothing but a personal attack or is it germane to the subject?"

In the case of discussion surrounding the anti-racism resolution, if the public's comments "were on that subject, they at least have an arguable case that maybe their rights were being restricted," he said.

In the view of Mark Graber, a professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Grasso's decision to bar testimony on Peroutka's past was "a very, very clear violation of the First Amendment."

Graber held a First Amendment workshop for Anne Arundel County Indivisible members and others before the start of last week's council meeting.

He said an example of a personal comment would be calling a councilman "ugly."

In contrast, Graber said, testifiers "spoke on relevant topics."

And, several pointed out at the meeting and afterward, remarks about Peroutka's past League of the South membership cannot be defamatory if they are truthful.

It is particularly difficult for public officials to argue they have been defamed. In the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court ruled that an official has to prove a person acted with "actual malice," meaning they knew a statement was false or they acted with reckless disregard of the truth when they uttered the alleged slander.

"This was a comment of, 'You belong to the following groups,'" Graber said. "You're a public official; the groups you belong to are a matter of public interest."

The county's Office of Law did not return a request for comment.

Without a ruling from a judge, there's not much citizens can do to challenge Grasso's interpretation, Easton said.

"The one interesting thing about the First Amendment is you're never sure until a court rules on the exact facts that you have," he said.

See the rest here:

Sparring over testimony leads to free speech debate - Capital Gazette - CapitalGazette.com

Free Speech and Intellectual Witch-hunts: How Dogma Degrades Democracy – Conatus News

Theres a disagreement in the planning group, about inviting you, an organiser told me hesitantly during a phone call this spring to finalise the details of my speaking slot in a diversity-and-inclusion event, an event one would imagine would prioritise free speech and diversity of thought. I sighed and prepared to respond, knowing the objection to my participation likely had to do either with my post 9/11 writings, critical of the U.S. empire, or my more recent essays challenging the ideology of the transgender movement from a radical feminist position.

This time the problem was 9/11. One of the sponsoring groups preferred to pull out rather than be associated with an event that included me, a reaction that was common in the years following the terrorist attacks. The debate over transgenderism is a more recent source of contention and a current constraint on free speech. Earlier this spring, a talk I was scheduled to give was cancelled when someone objected and another talk was interrupted by protesters who hoped to shout me off the lectern.

These incidents are only a minor annoyance in my life, hardly worth attention except for what they reveal about the cultures difficulty engaging in coherent and constructive arguments about issues that generate strong emotions. The health of a democracy depends on free speech and on peoples ability to argue, to propose public policies and articulate reasons why others should adopt those policies. Democracy atrophies when substantive arguments are sidelined by dogma, when claims are asserted with self-righteous certainty but not defended with reason and logic. Theres nothing wrong with people being emotional about politics so long as it doesnt shut down dialogue.

After several months of furore over high-profile conservative speakers who hadbeen thwarted in some way on college campuses (Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter all made news this way), its illuminating to reflect on the far less dramatic challenges to my writing, which have come from both the right and the left. My focus is not on concerns about free speech my constitutionally protected freedom has never been significantly impeded but rather on the danger of a political culture in which critical self-reflection and thoughtful debate become more difficult, perhaps impossible in some times and places.

One of those times and places was post 9/11United States. Like many in the anti-empire movement a grassroots global justice movement challenging U.S. military and economic policy and demanding that policymakers take seriously our shared moral principles and international law I argued that a mad rush to war would be counterproductive. When an op-ed making such an argumentthat the United States consider a more rational course of action, and that we reflect on a history of U.S. crimes in the developing worldwas published in a Texas newspaper a few days after the attack, I was the target of an ad hoc campaign (thankfully, unsuccessful) to get me fired from my teaching job at the University of Texas at Austin.

A decade later, a series of online essays about the transgender movement (available here, here, here, and here) led to another similarcampaign to exclude me from left/liberal spaces because I argued that the intellectual claims of the trans movement appear to be incoherent and the political program that flows from it undermines feminism. Like many in the radical feminist movement who take such a position, I didnt contest the experiences that transgender people describe but offered an alternative analysis that I believe provides a more compelling account of sex/gender politics.

These two cases are dramatically different in many ways, of course, but some similar features deserve attention. Challenging the foundational mythology of the United Statesthe claim that we have always been the moral exemplar of the world and today are the only force that can ensure a safe and stable world systemprovokes a predictable reaction from most of the right and centre in U.S. politics, which has made acceptance of those myths a litmus test for being a good American. When one invokes history to challenge the myths, conservatives rarely attempt to engage in real debate, preferring to dismiss critics as the blame America first gang and label any debate over policy as a failure to support the troops.

Challenging the biological claims and underlying ideology of the transgender movement that reproduction-based sex categories are somehow an invention and that cultural gender norms can be challenged separate from a feminist critique of patriarchy provokes a predictable reaction from most of the liberal and left end of the political spectrum, which has made acceptance of those claims a litmus test for being progressive. When one invokes basic biology and a radical feminist critique of the transgender movements individualist gender politics, left/liberals rarely attempt to engage, preferring to dismiss critics as TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) and label any disagreement about policy as bigotry.

Because I work for a public university, I believe it is part of my job to take my research and teaching into public. Because Im a tenured professor, I can exercise my right to free speech and engage in public debates without much fear of losing my job. In public writing and speaking, I dont shy away from provocative statements when I believe they are justified by the evidence and are important to democratic dialogue I always strive to support the claims I make with evidence and logic.

I dont mind being criticised and I invite challenges to my ideas. Whats disturbing in both cases, however, is that I was routinely denounced as being morally and/or intellectually inadequate, but rarely did those denunciations include a response to what I actually was writing.

For months after 9/11, any critique of U.S. foreign policy was rejected out of hand, taken by many as evidence that critics were colluding with terrorists. It wasnt until the failure of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq wasundeniably evident that such critiques were taken seriously, and even then the debate focused mainly on failed tactics rather than the fundamental question of why the United States pursues global power through imperial strategies.

Radical feminist critiques of transgender ideology continue to attract denunciations, especially after the Obama administration issued rules about transgender students rights, which seemed to settle what the liberal position should be. Conservative/religious objections to that policy have been widely debated and covered by journalists, but the more substantial analyses of radical feminists are largely ignored in the mainstream and vilified in left/liberal circles.

All of this is troubling, but even more disturbing for me has not been what wassaid in public but what people toldme privately. After 9/11, a number of faculty colleagues took me aside and told me that they thought the UT presidents denunciation of me was inappropriate, but only a couple of them spoke out publicly. The faculty council and the faculty committee charged with defending academic free speech were silent on the university presidents clumsy ad hominem attack on a professor.

Similarly, after a local radical bookstore issued a statement declaring me unfit for future association with the store, many left/feminist friends and allies told me privately that they disagreed with that decision, but, to the best of my knowledge, none of those people publicly challenged the stores statement. Rather than risk similar denunciation, people found it easier to say nothing.

Reasonable people can disagree respectfully about many things, including the appropriate analysis of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and how best to understand the claims of transgender people. But in a democracy, weighty public policy decisions such as going to war or endorsing the treating of trans-identified children with puberty blockers- should emerge from the widest possible conversation in which people provide reasons for their policy preferences and respond substantively to good-faith challenges.

If that process is derailed, whether by forces from the right or the left, the deterioration of responsible intellectual practice will only serve to undermine democracy. What good is the right to free speech if our current political and academic climate makes it impossible or dangerous to exercise it?

More:

Free Speech and Intellectual Witch-hunts: How Dogma Degrades Democracy - Conatus News

Are Far Right ‘Free Speech’ Rallies Breeding Terrorism? – The National Memo (blog)

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

The disturbing ramblings uttered by Jeremy Joseph Christian as he entered thecourtroomMay 27 drew on a horrifying trend in America: Rallying behind the right to so-called free speech, both figuratively and literally, to justify white supremacy and its violent acts.

Get out if you dont like free speech, Christian said. You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism. You hear me? Die.

Christian, 35, was arraigned on charges of aggravated murderof Ricky John Best, 53, and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23. Both men were stabbed and killed by Christian on a Portland light-rail train when they tried todefendtwo young women Christian was harrasing with anti-Muslim slurs. Christian was charged with the attempted murder of athird stabbing victim, Micah Fletcher, 21, who survived and was present in the courtroom.

If there is a central theme to Christians ravings leading up to the attack, its his tendency to articulate a volatile synthesis of xenophobia, Islamophobia, and white supremacy,Jack Jenkins, a senior religion reporter at ThinkProgress, reportedthe day after Christians first court appearance.

In addition to calling for violence against Muslims on his Facebook page, Jenkins added, Christian reportedly attended a free speech rally in April, where he shouted the n-word at protesters and offered up Nazi salutes.

According to Willamette Week, Christian arrived at an April 29 free speech march in Southeast Portland wearing a Revolutionary War flag as a cape. He carried a baseball bat. He threw Nazi salutes and shouted racial slurs in a Burger King parking lot. Twice, left-wing demonstrators grew so infuriated with his antics that Portland police officers formed a barrier to shield him.

Even the alt-right marchers were divided on Christians behavior.

Some of them, leather-clad bikers, told him to shut up and tried to kick him out of the rally, added Willamette Week reporterCorey Pein. Others seemed fine with him expressing himself: Unpopular speech was the point of the event.

Eight days after the Portland murders, another free speech rally took place in the City of Roses, where14 were arrested. Similar right-wing free speech rallies have been popping up in other blue-state cities fromBerkeleyto Boston, while aWashington D.C.version is planned for late June.

In addressing President Trumps overwhelmingprioritization of fightingIslamic extremism, Dan Coats, director of national intelligence, announced at a Senate Intelligencehearing on May 11, Homegrown violent extremists remain the most frequent and unpredictable terrorist threat to the United States.

Alexandra Rosenmann is an AlterNet associate editor. Follow her@alexpreditor.

This article was made possible by the readers and supporters of AlterNet.

See the original post here:

Are Far Right 'Free Speech' Rallies Breeding Terrorism? - The National Memo (blog)

Hate speech is the cost of free speech – Baltimore Sun

As students of the University of Maryland College Park, we were saddened to hear of Lt. Richard W. Collins III's death. A 23-year-old student at Bowie State University, Lt. Collins was visiting a friend in College Park when Sean Urbanski, a UMD student, allegedly stabbed him at a bus stop. An investigation into Mr. Urbanski's online presence reportedly revealed he was a member of a white supremacist Facebook group, casting the stabbing in a racist light; Lt. Collins was black, and Mr. Urbanski is white. Authorities are investigating the death as a potential hate crime, and the university has taken a few unsettling steps in the interim.

Wallace Loh, president of the University of Maryland College Park, commissioned a bias-response team to address instances of hateful speech and actions. He also pumped $100,000 into the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and promised a task force for review of university policies related to hate speech and hate crimes. Mr. Loh said he hopes to "engage the campus on issues at the intersection of free speech and hate speech," which is cause for worry.

Driven in part by their restive student bodies, many college administrations around the country have introduced speech codes to their universities. While UMD and Mr. Loh have long refused them, Mr. Loh's solutions could nevertheless end up restricting free speech on campus.

The constitution doesn't distinguish between hate speech and free speech. And while we would hope that students would self-censor their comments for decency's sake, to mandate it at the administrative level endangers freedom of expression. Hate speech is broadly defined as an attack on a person based on their innate characteristics, which could be interpreted to include speech that merely offends. Where do we draw the line? Once one strain of speech loses its protection, other types will follow. Hate speech is the cost of free speech, and that cost is unavoidable.

Yet many student bodies fail to grasp this, demanding swift and bold action from their respective administrations following examples of hate speech. Ithaca College Pesident Tom Rochon and Yale University lecturer Erika Christakis were both forced to resign amid protests from students who determined the educators' approach to hate and bias did not adequately conform to their own. College administrators, when faced with accusations of being lax in standards of equality, are effectively held at gunpoint in the court of public opinion, which could explain Mr. Loh's response to this putative hate crime.

Mr. Loh's plan for the bias response team is worrisome. Similar teams at a number of U.S. universities (there are more than 100) investigate offenses that run an absurdly broad gamut. (In February of last year, for example, a University of Michigan hall director reported to that school's bias team the existence of a snow penis on the grounds.) These bias response teams largely operate in the shadows with little accountability for silencing expression, and they encourage every student around them to become an individual arbiter of justice. There is little legal standard for hate speech, and in that vacuum, students will themselves decide what does and does not offend, and report their findings. In practice, this leads to a misuse of campus resources on bogus, internecine hate-speech investigations and fosters a culture of mistrust.

Distinguishing between words that are truly threatening such as fighting words, which can directly lead to violence and are not protected by the First Amendment and constitutionally-protected free speech is vital. But creating new administrative bodies to regulate self-expression, however odious, endangers those who contribute productively to what Mr. Loh called a "marketplace of ideas."

Banning so-called hate speech would only suppress public expression of hateful views. Doing so at UMD, while likely to draw support from the student body, would do nothing to address the root of the problem. Instead of stifling those views, they should be debated. Given the opportunity to stand on their own false merits, they will collapse no prohibition required.

Hate speech and hate crimes are a pertinent issue to college students and the country, but our reaction to hate crimes and bias shows our strength of character as we combat these problems with compassion and reason. Knee-jerk reactions and forced self-censoring systems are no way to address hate. Civil discussion is.

James Whitlow (jwhitlow1994@gmail.com) and Tom Hart (tom.c.hart95@gmail.com) are students at the University of Maryland.

See the original post:

Hate speech is the cost of free speech - Baltimore Sun

Editorial: Free speech vs. decency in Portland – Jackson Newspapers – Jackson County Newspapers

"Our city is in mourning, our community's anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation." So said Portland, Oregon, Mayor Ted Wheeler in explaining why - in the aftermath of the deaths of two good Samaritans - controversial rallies planned for this month shouldn't be held. Wheeler's concern for the raw feelings of his community is understandable, but he is completely off-base in trying to block the planned rallies and dangerously wrong in his reading of the U.S. Constitution.

Wheeler unsuccessfully appealed to federal officials to revoke a permit granted to a group to hold a pro-Trump, free-speech rally Sunday at a downtown federal government plaza. His request that a permit not be granted for a June 10 anti-Muslim rally was made moot when organizers opted Wednesday to cancel the rally and encourage participants to attend a similar event in Seattle instead. The mayor characterized the rallies as "alt-right" and said "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment."

Actually, as was pointed out by legal scholars and free-speech advocates, Wheeler is wrong about how constitutional protections of free speech have been interpreted by the courts. Speech, no matter how vile or distasteful, is protected in the United States. It can be banned only if it meets the legal threshold of threat or harassment.

It would have been far better for Wheeler to have followed the advice of the Oregon ACLU and reached out to rally organizers to explain why it might be in the community's best interest to postpone the events. Not only are public passions still aroused about the deaths of two men who tried to protect two young women from anti-Muslim insults, but Portland has become the scene of rising tensions and clashes between extremists from both ends of the political spectrum.

Perhaps it is naive to think that organizers of Sunday's rally might have actually listened to the mayor and allowed Portland to mourn the loss of those two fine men without further upset. Sadly, though, decency these days seems to be in short supply in America's political debate. The most recent example was the stunt by comedian Kathy Griffin, who evidently thought it was humorous to portray the beheading of an American president. It was somewhat comforting that Griffin was widely condemned (including by some of the most ardent critics of President Donald Trump) and that she responded with an abject apology. If only the provocateurs in Portland could be so moved.

-The Washington Post

Visit link:

Editorial: Free speech vs. decency in Portland - Jackson Newspapers - Jackson County Newspapers

The Right Way to Protect Free Speech on Campus – Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Right Way to Protect Free Speech on Campus
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
In my inaugural address as the new president of Middlebury College a year and a half ago, I spoke of my hope to create a robust public square on campus. I said that I wanted Middlebury to be a community whose members engage in reasoned, thoughtful ...

Original post:

The Right Way to Protect Free Speech on Campus - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Redefreiheit in Gefahr – IN DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has just returned to Austria after an extended visit to the United States, where she was invited to speak by various anti-Islamization groups in different cities.

On April 21 Elisabeth spoke in Dallas, Texas at an event sponsored by the Dallas chapter of ACT! For America. She was introduced at the event by Lt. Col. (ret.) Allen West. Below is the prepared text for her speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you for inviting me to speak to ACT! for America here in Dallas, Texas. These are perilous times we are living in. Advocates for freedom on both sides of the Atlantic need to stand together!

For the past nine months Austria and the rest of Western Europe have undergone a profound transformation, one that will inevitably change the face of Europe permanently. I refer, of course, to the migration crisis, which began in earnest last summer, and is continuing as I speak to you. As the weather warms up and spring gives way to summer, we may expect the crisis to intensify even further. More than a million immigrants arrived in Austria and Germany via the Balkan route last year, and at least as many are expected to come this year probably significantly more.

These migrants are generally referred to by our political leaders and the media as refugees, but this is hardly the case. Not only are most of them from countries where there is no war to flee from, but they are also overwhelmingly young Muslim men, of fighting age. In other words, the current crisis is actually an instance of Islamic hijra, or migration into infidel lands to advance the cause of Islam. The hijra goes hand in hand with jihad once enough Muslim migrants have settled in the target country, violent jihad can begin.

It should be quite clear by now that the jihad phase has already begun in Western Europe. The most recent instances were the massacres in Paris and Brussels, which were acts of jihadcarried out by Muslims. Some of the terrorists were in fact refugees who had pretended to be Syrian and came in with the migrant wave.

And all of them were fighting jihad in the way of Allah, as instructed by the Koran.

I could take up my entire time slot tonight talking about the European migration crisis, and never do more than scratch the surface. However, Id like to discuss one aspect of the crisis that is very important: the manipulation by the mainstream media of the news about the migrants.

A single example from a beach in Turkey will help give you an idea of what is going on. The image that sparked Western interest in the crisis was the widely-publicized photograph of the dead toddler on the beach in Turkey. That photo is an example of media manipulation. Not about the fact of the babys death, but what was done with his little body once he was dead. There is now ample evidence that the body was moved and arranged in place so that the most heart-wrenching photo could be taken. Furthermore, the father of the child was not a poor helpless refugee trying to escape to freedom, but an accomplice of the people smugglers who piloted the boat, who irresponsibly brought his family with him.

For journalists working for Der Spiegel or Le Figaro or The Guardian or CNN, the media narrative is more important than the truth. And the media narrative was (and is) that poor innocent refugees are drowning because they are left to die by evil Europeans.

Those facts about the incident never made it into public consciousness. Not like the image of the pitiful corpse at the edge of the waves thats the kind of story that the Western media love to dish out, especially when it promotes the media narrative. Its also the kind of story that Western audiences love to lap up its what Gates of Vienna, the website Im associated with, calls Dead Baby Porn.

Dead Baby Porn tugs the heartstrings of well-meaning Westerners. It reinforces all their presuppositions about current events. It gives them a vicarious frisson about the poor, suffering child. And, in their response, it makes them feel morally superior when they join the clamor to open their countrys borders to the unfortunate refugees.

The media feed the public a steady stream of photos and videos that feature pitiful migrant women and children. We see them looking through the razor wire towards freedom, weeping, cooking their food over a campfire, and being pushed back by border guards. Yet these images are so misleading that they constitute disinformation.

The ugly fact is that the overwhelming majority of the refugees are healthy young men who either have no wives and children, or left them behind to seize the opportunity for hijra into Europe. They come from Afghanistan, Morocco, Eritrea, and Pakistan, but they acquire forged or stolen Syrian passports so that they become Syrian, and thus qualify for VIP status in the flood of refugees.

We are being deliberately manipulated. The Western public is being manipulated into supporting the migration of fighting-age Muslim men into Europe. They are being manipulated into joining the crowd of starry-eyed people holding up Welcome Refugees signs in European train stations. And they are being manipulated into paying for all of it through their donations to various NGOs whose mission is to aid the refugees.

Yet their donations do not cover the entire cost. Its a very expensive proposition to send refugees from Anatolia to the Greek islands, and then through Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria to Germany. Its not just the payment to the people-smugglers who take them across a few miles of the Aegean and dump them just off the beach on Lesbos, although that is expensive enough. From there they are carried by ferry to the mainland, housed, clothed, and fed. When they continue their journey, they ride on buses and trains almost the entire distance they walk only a few hundred yards to cross each border, getting out of a bus in one country and boarding another one in the next.

This is yet another way in which you, the Western public, are being manipulated by the media. All those photos and videos of endless columns of refugees walking along dusty roads carrying their children and pathetic belongings those are not representative of the migrants journey. A typical shot would show hundreds of young men sitting on buses with air conditioning and upholstered seats. But you dont see many of those, do you?

Someone is paying the costs of all this. Public donations cover only a small portion of the billions of dollars paid out to transport migrants. The governments of the countries involved pay some of the cost. And the European Union pays some of it. And there are multiple indications that George Soros and his Open Society Foundations are bankrolling a lot of the process, including the printing of maps and helpful instructions for the refugees in multiple languages.

Make what you will of all of this. No matter what their motives are, the internationalists who push for global governance and a borderless world are expending vast amounts of money to fool the European public and move millions of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. Europe will become more diverse, whether it likes it or not.

And if, as a consequence, terror attacks have to kill hundreds or thousands of people, and women have to be gang-raped, why, those are just unfortunate side-effects.

You cant make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know. Especially white European eggs.

***************

The migrant crisis is just the beginning of what might be called the kinetic phase of the deconstruction of European nation-states. Last summers events were not a new crisis. They were simply a continuation of an ongoing long-term process.

The constant flow of migrants across the Mediterranean into Europe has been going on for at least a decade. It picked up speed after the Arab Spring began in 2011, and especially after Moammar Qaddafi was murdered. Then the flow of migrants accelerated greatly last summer because President Erdogan of Turkey stopped interfering with the boats of the people-smugglers.

And now the European Union has paid an enormous amount of protection money to Mr. Erdogan in return for his promise to do what he used to do for free stop the traffickers boats from crossing the Aegean to Greece.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the flow of migrants into Europe is an intentional process on the part of EU leaders. Many of them especially German Chancellor Angela Merkel are on record saying how important it is to invite all this diversity into Europe. The recent tsunami has obviously taken them by surprise, but it is exactly what they wanted just not this fast.

They didnt want the immigrants entering this quickly because the indigenous people of Europe might become alarmed by the influx and take action to throw their leaders out of office. This would not do. Those leaders want native Europeans to remain asleep so that the process of population replacement can be completed before they realize it.

No, it wasnt supposed to happen this way. But now the European people are waking up, and change is in the air. It may be too little, too late but awareness is finally dawning.

Population replacement is only one of the strategies employed by those who want to deconstruct the nation-states of Europe. In order to complete the process without a hitch, the native populace must be kept under control. Existing cultural institutions such as the Church and patriotic organizations must be discredited and weakened so that people are unable to form networks and organize against what is being done to them. Ideally, they would beunaware that such organizing is even possible. They must remain atomized, divided from one another, and under the full control of the state the EU superstate, that is.

As the situation has worsened for the last decade or so, the European Union and its member states have cracked down on free speech. Bringing in so many migrants has accelerated the Islamization of Europe, which tends to be unpopular. Increased crime, more rape and harassment of women, the insistence that schools must serve halal foods and male students receiving permission to refrain from shaking their female teachers hand these are all things that citizens dislike. But from the point of view of EU leaders, there is no going back the migration must proceed; its a necessary part of the plan. Therefore, people must not be allowed to discuss these things nor urge their leaders to make changes. Instead, the criticism of Islam and Islamization must be forbidden. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations call it defamation of religion, and it has now been criminalized all across Europe. The EU is for all practical purposes enforcing sharia law on its indigenous residents.

Ten years ago, when I first began this work, the number of political prosecutions for hate speech in Europe was very small the cases could be counted on the fingers of one hand. But that number has been increasing steadily ever since, and is now rising exponentially. There are now hundreds, perhaps thousands of cases every year in which people are prosecuted for racism, incitement, and discrimination simply for criticizing Islam or mass immigration. Unfortunately, many of those prosecuted are being convicted and fined. And, horribly enough, some are being sent to prison.

There are many, many cases of people being prosecuted for speaking the truth about Islam. Far too many for me to tell you about them all. Ill discuss my own case in a few minutes, but first Id like to say a few words about two friends of mine.

The first case is that of Geert Wilders, the leader of the Party for Freedom the PVV the most popular political party in the Netherlands. If an election were held today, the PVV would win at least twice as many seats in parliament as any other party. After the current government falls, Geert may very well become the next prime minister.

Yet the government is prosecuting him for what he said about Moroccan immigrants. His first court appearance was last month, but the trial was postponed until next fall.

He is being charged with discrimination for asking his supporters at a rally whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. The charges against him were brought after thousands of complaints had been filed with the police on pre-printed forms that police themselves had handed out in Muslim neighborhoods, and that imams had distributed to their illiterate congregants, many of whom had no idea what they were signing.

In other words, Geert Wilders was set up. His outspoken opinions about Islam, immigration, and the EU are considered unacceptable by the Powers That Be, and he must be stopped at any cost and by any means. His trial is a travesty, a farrago of justice. To call it a kangaroo court would be an insult to the worlds marsupials. A more fitting term would be show trial, just like those ordered by Stalin in the 1930s against his political enemies.

This is not the first political trial that Geert Wilders has had to endure, nor is it the second. This is the third time that the Dutch state has prosecuted him for hate speech. The first ended in a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. In the second he was acquitted. But the establishment will not be satisfied until it has convicted him and ended his political career, so it is putting him on trial again.

Another friend who is being persecuted by the state is Tommy Robinson, who was one of the founders of the English Defence League and was its leader for five years. Tommy has been brought to court by the British government numerous times. All of those prosecutions the hate speech charges and all the others were trumped-up affairs carried out for political purposes.

Tommys most recent conviction was for mortgage fraud, a minor crime for which no one else has done jail time. In fact, members of parliament have done exactly the same thing, but were never even charged. Tommy, on the other hand, was sentenced to eighteen months in prison.

While Tommy was inside, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners. Tommy had learned beforehand that one of them was planning to throw a mixture of boiling water and sugar in his face. This nasty brew is called napalm by the criminals who use it, and it can cause horrible burns, much worse than those caused by simple boiling water. Tommy acted pre-emptively and beat up the man who intended to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he was recently charged. Thanks to the efforts of a group of women who through crowd-funding raised more than enough money, Tommy was for the first time able to retain a top-notch lawyer. He was acquitted and is now a free man.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for hate speech offenses the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Therefore other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

So heres the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the sharia-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But theres more than one way to kill a political nuisance you dont have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

***************

And now for my own case.

In early 2008 I began a series of seminars in Vienna, under the auspices of the FP the Austrian Freedom Party explaining to members and other interested parties what Islam, the Quran and the hadith really teach, along with basic tenets of Islamic law. In my presentations I discussed the consequences for democracy, freedom and human rights today.

For the next year and a half the interest in my seminars grew, and attendance increased. The success of my lectures drew the attention of Austrian leftists, who are determined to discredit and destroy the work of those who criticize the tenets of Islamic doctrine. To them we are racists, fascists, and Islamophobes. Unbeknownst to me, the left-wing magazine NEWS sent a reporter to one of my seminars to make a surreptitious recording of it.

As a result, in late November, 2009, a criminal complaint was filed against me for hate speech . From an Austrian left-wing point of view, my offense was compounded by the fact that my seminars were held under the auspices of the FP. Despite its popularity with Austrian voters, the FP is reviled as a xenophobic party by leftist media and politicians.

The complaint against me was not filed by the state, but rather by NEWS magazine, the publication whose reporter had infiltrated the seminar. For the next ten months the possibility of a formal charge was left hanging over my head, but I received no official word about what might happen to me. All I could do was retain legal counsel and wait.

In April 2010 I gave a deposition to the Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Prevention of Terrorism. After that there was nothing from the prosecutors office. Finally, on September 15, I learned that a formal charge would be filed against me. A few days later I received official notice from the court: my trial date would be November 23, 2010.

During my trial the issue of pedophilia came up, in light of Muhammads status as the perfect example for Muslims, as stated in Quran 33:21. I explained what the hadith collections are, and that they constitute an indispensable part of Islamic scripture. I emphasized that I had made up none of what I said, but simply quoted canonical Islamic scripture concerning Muhammads conduct, including his marriage to a little girl named Aisha.

The trial was then adjourned until the following January. At the second hearing, excerpts from the seminar recordings were played back, demonstrating that the original charge of incitement to hatred was unjustified.

The judge then discussed my statement that the conduct of Muhammad is exemplary for Muslims, and took particular issue with the statement What would this behavior be called today, if not pedophilia? which was a reference to the prophets marriage to a six-year-old girl.

Evidently aware that the charge of incitement to hatred was never going to fly, the judge, at her own discretion, eventually announced a new charge: Denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion. My defense was unprepared for this, and requested that the trial be adjourned.

When court reconvened in February, events moved swiftly to a close. The judge decided that the language used in my seminars did not incite hatred, but the utterances regarding Muhammad and pedophilia were punishable. In particular, the judge found that the use of pedophilia was factually incorrect, as this is a sexual preference solely or mainly directed towards children. The judge stated that this cannot apply to Muhammad, who was still married to Aisha when she attained the age of 18. Thus, I was found not guilty on the count of incitement to hatred, but guilty on the charge of denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion, to be punished with a 480 fine or 60 days in prison.

The charge on which I was convicted was ludicrous on the face of it. Not only did I never say that Muhammads actions constituted pedophilia, but Muhammads actions which were undisputed by the court included having sex with a nine-year-old girl. If I had said what I was accused of, it would have been nothing more than the simple truth, and unremarkable to any normal, sane person.

I appealed my conviction to a higher court. In December, 2011, the verdict was upheld. Later the case was considered by the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the verdict in December, 2013.

I have exhausted my options for justice in Austria, so the case was put before the European Court of Human Rights. It was accepted, and has been pending now for several years.

Whichever way the court decides, the verdict will have implications for citizens throughout Europe, and not just for Austrians. If my conviction is overturned, it will set an important precedent for the freedom to criticize religions and religiously-sanctioned conduct.

If, on the other hand, my conviction is upheld, the situation will be dire indeed. To quote the words of British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, spoken on August 3, 1914: The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.

***************

When taken together, the events Ive described tonight paint a picture of a Europe that is careening over the multicultural cliff. The traditional cultures and nations of Europe are being deliberately deconstructed so that a borderless society with no national identities can be constructed on top of the ruins.

And a borderless Europe is simply a precursor to a borderless global society. This future entity is commonly referred to as the New World Order or global governance, and it is intended to be an unaccountable worldwide system of management and control modeled on the United Nations. A totalitarian behemoth to paraphrase what George Orwell said: If you want a vision of the globalist future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

However, recent reactions to the European migration crisis indicate that events may not in fact be unfolding as planned. The response of most of the member states of the European Union has been to tighten up their borders and reinstitute border controls. Just last week Austria began fortifying its border crossing with Italy on the Brenner Pass, in anticipation of a new surge of 300,000 immigrants that is expected to arrive in Italy this year. Immigrants dont want to stay in Italy or Greece they want to move north to Austria, Germany, Britain, and Sweden, where the welfare benefits are the most generous. The Austrian government is well aware of the northward trajectory of the migrants, and is acting to forestall it, just as it did last winter when it closed the Balkan route.

The successive closure of European borders is widely seen as the death-knell of the Schengen Agreement, under which all but two EU countries (plus four non-EU countries) had been effectively borderless for internal travel purposes. When EU political leaders meet to discuss the crisis, it is often with the stated intention of saving Schengen. But Schengen is already dead they just dont realize it.

Paradoxically, even as they close their borders to more immigrants, European countries are cracking down harder on domestic dissent on the topic of immigration and Islam. In Germany and Britain people are being arrested for posting messages that criticize immigrants or Islam on social media. Police in Berlin recently raided ten residences after their occupants had voiced anti-migrant sentiments on Facebook. A man in Belgium spoke negatively about Muslims who celebrated the Brussels massacre, and was immediately visited at his home by three policemen, who requested that he refrain from such criticism in future.

If European countries are now determined to keep out future migrants, why are they cracking down on citizens who criticize immigration?

The short answer is: there are millions of immigrants already here. Hence they must be placated. If criticizing them makes them angry and causes them to take to the streets in violent demonstrations, then criticism of them must be outlawed.

I dont need to tell you that most of these millions of immigrants are Muslims. Thats why criticism of Islam must be vigorously suppressed. Notwithstanding the much-trumpeted status of Islam as a religion of peace, Muslims in Europe are notoriously prone to violence, and are always ready to take to the streets at a moments notice. They may begin with loud chanting and signs that say behead those who insult the prophet, but they more than likely will escalate rapidly to throwing rocks, assaulting the police, burning cars, vandalizing property, and other forms of general mayhem.

No, its better (and easier) to silence the critics of Islam, in the hope that mob violence may be postponed for a just little while longer.

Exceptions to the general repression may be found in EU member states of the former East Bloc. It seems that people who survived decades under communism are less susceptible to the tyranny of political correctness. An alliance known as the Visegrd Group was formed in Central Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain and is currently led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbn of Hungary, President Milo Zeman of the Czech Republic, and Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia. Not only do these countries allow dissent on the issue of Islam, their political leaders are among the foremost Islam-critics what they say into the microphones in their state broadcasting studios is the same thing that prompted the prosecution of Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson, and myself.

Nowadays those former communist dictatorships host the freest speech in Europe.

And the Visegrd Group is also resisting the mandatory quotas of refugees that the European Union is trying to impose. Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland have all declined to take in any of Mrs. Merkels refugees. President Zeman and Prime Ministers Orbn and Fico have gone so far as to state that they specifically do not want any Muslimimmigrants that Islam is incompatible with a free democratic society.

In the most recent example of former East Bloc resistance, on Sunday April 10 Romanian citizens took to the streets to protest a mega-mosque planned for Bucharest. We fought the Ottomans for eight hundred years we dont want any mosques! such were the chants of the demonstrators on the streets of Bucharest.

The future of Europe may depend on these stalwart patriots behind what used to be the Iron Curtain. They are leading the way showing the cowardly political leaders of Western Europe how these things could and should be done.

***************

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You may be asking yourselves, Why should I care about whats happening in Europe? These things are thousands of miles and an ocean away from here let the Europeans sort it out for themselves.

There are two practical reasons why what happens in Europe should be of concern to Americans. The first is that an Islamic ascendancy in Europe poses a security threat to the United States. Not only does Western Europe offer a springboard for the Great Jihad to jump the Atlantic, but there are also stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other advanced armaments in Europe. There are already far too many Muslims in the ranks of the military in France and Britain. What will happen when the tipping point is finally reached, and the sleeper cells are activated?

The second reason is that your own government is attempting to replicate the European model right here in the United States. Under the so-called Refugee Resettlement Program, thousands of Syrian refugees are being settled all across America. This is being done quietly, whenever possible without consulting local authorities. The U.S. government has acknowledged that it is impossible to vet these migrants properly. Based on what has been happening in Europe, a significant number of those resettled here will be Islamic State terrorists using forged identity documents.

Do you know whether any of these Syrians are being resettled near you?

Does your congressional representative have any idea whats going on? Better ask him!

Europes present is Americas future. The massacres in Paris and Brussels are coming here as soon as enough jihad sleeper cells are in place. The first dark cloud of the coming storm appeared last December over San Bernardino, California. When it breaks fully, it will be fierce indeed.

Those who plan a borderless world are just as intent on overwhelming the United States with third-world immigrants as they are France, Germany, and Britain. Undermining national sovereignty is the name of the game, throughout the entire Western world.

Your migration wave includes more Latin Americans than Muslims, but thousands of Muslims are indeed arriving. And an undetermined number of Latin migrants who walk across your southern border are in fact Muslims from the Middle East, who have acquired forged papers and learned a little bit of Spanish so that they can pass for Mexicans when they arrive in Laredo or San Diego.

Yes, the Great Jihad will arrive here all too soon.

I urge you to exercise your fundamental constitutional rights while you still can. Speak up and speak out against what is happening at every opportunity. And thank God for your First Amendment! We dont have that in Europe, and I wish we did thanks to the Bill of Rights, prosecuting dissenters is much more difficult here in the USA.

And thank God for the Second Amendment! Most Europeans have no ready access to legal firearms. When the refugees assault them, invade their homes, and rape their women and children, they cannot defend themselves. The only thing they can do is to call the police and, as you all know, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.

So I implore you, as American citizens and patriots: Hang on to your hard-won rights! The Constitution is being taken away from you, bit by bit take action while you still can. You are fortunate to live in the United States, but large forces are arrayed against you. Your enemies many of whom are right here in America make no bones about what they intend. They want to eradicate American exceptionalism and make the USA just like Europe a subjugated state.

As for myself, I will continue to speak the truth, no matter what. I owe as much to my daughter, and her children and childrens children. No matter the final outcome, I want her to be able to say: My mother did everything she possibly could.

Europeans and Americans share a common heritage. We must hang together, or we will surely hang separately.

I urge you to stand with me!

View post:

Redefreiheit in Gefahr - IN DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH

Blocked By The President: Are Trump’s Twitter Practices Violating Free Speech? – Forbes


Forbes

See the original post here:

Blocked By The President: Are Trump's Twitter Practices Violating Free Speech? - Forbes

Free speech means language on hate signs is protected | Tampa … – Tampabay.com

ST. PETERSBURG After offensive signs appeared in front of a home in the Historic Old Northeast neighborhood last weekend, residents wrestled with the line between free speech and hate speech. While they searched for answers, a difficult truth presented itself: Just because speech is hateful doesn't mean it's not protected by the First Amendment.

Saturday evening, signs went up on the pristine, green lawn of 303 27th Ave. N in St. Petersburg. "No fags," "No Jews," "No infidels," "No retards," they read.

While people gawked and took pictures, residents scrambled for a solution. Complaints were made with City Hall, but the city government had no power to get the signs taken down, said Ben Kirby, a spokesman for Mayor Rick Kriseman.

"The city's goal is to help protect citizens' ability to exercise their free speech," Kirby said. "The city does not regulate constitutionally protected speech on private property."

The only possible grounds for action were the number of signs in the yard, but the signs were taken down by Sunday evening. City code permits "free speech signs" on private property, but has restrictions on things like size and placement.

The First Amendment serves as a shield for all speech, said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida, and the instinct to gag speech we disagree with is exactly why we need such protections.

"If we don't defend the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even for views that are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure," Simon said.

There's a good reason to keep the government at arm's length when it comes to free speech, he said.

"History has taught us that government with the power to censor hateful speech is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them," Simon said.

The only speech the First Amendment doesn't protect is speech that threatens real harm. But some argue it restricts speech that could lead to physical damage but does nothing to protect against emotional damage, which can be equally traumatic.

Society should employ more scrutiny when deciding what deserves to be protected, said Thane Rosenbaum, a distinguished fellow at New York University and author of the upcoming book The High Cost of Free Speech: Rethinking the First Amendment.

"We've interpreted it so literally that almost every word that comes out of your mouth is protected," Rosenbaum said. "We need to ask questions like, 'Are you doing something because you want to introduce an idea or are you doing something because you want to cause fear?' "

When the signs appeared, several neighbors said they felt unsafe in their own neighborhood. But this isn't the first time an incident like this has happened in Pinellas County.

In 2005, a toilet appeared on the lawn of a house in Pinellas Park with a sign that said, "Koran flush 1 p.m."

The owner of the home said he was making a political statement. At the time, Pinellas Park was home to the largest mosque in the county. Much like last weekend, residents felt threatened and looked to city government for a solution, but found none.

PREVIOUS STORY: Offensive signs cause stir in St. Petersburg's Old Northeast neighborhood

Painful as it may be, confronting hateful speech lets people acknowledge values that conflict with theirs, said Lyrissa Lidsky, a law professor at the University of Florida. Lidsky, who is Jewish, took her children to an event at University of Florida Hillel, where the Westboro Baptist Church was protesting. She considered it to be a powerful lesson.

"It's a lesson in citizenry," Lidsky said. "Children learn early on that there are different values in the world, and it's affirming for them to see their families and communities reach out against hate."

The First Amendment is broad because it expects citizens to fight back against speech that makes them feel attacked, Lidsky said.

"The remedy for speech that we hate is counterspeech," Lidsky said.

After the signs had come down, something new appeared at 303 27th Ave. N. Early this week, lines of black spray paint laced across the house's white shutters, in the shape of the anarchy symbol and "Antifa," which refers to the antifascist movement.

Contact Taylor Telford at ttelford@tampabay.com or (513) 376-3196. Follow @taylormtelford.

Free speech means language on hate signs is protected 06/08/17 [Last modified: Thursday, June 8, 2017 12:53pm] Photo reprints | Article reprints

View original post here:

Free speech means language on hate signs is protected | Tampa ... - Tampabay.com

Myanmar journalists campaign for free speech outside Myanmar trial – Reuters

YANGON Myanmar journalists sporting "Freedom of the Press" arm-bands gathered on Thursday to campaign against a law they say curbs free speech, at the start of a trial of two journalists who the army is suing for defamation over a satirical article.

The rally by more than 100 reporters in the rain outside a court in Yangon was the first significant show of opposition to the telecommunications law, introduced in 2013, that bans the use of the telecoms network to "extort, threaten, obstruct, defame, disturb, inappropriately influence or intimidate".

Despite pressure from human rights monitors and Western diplomats, the government of Aung San Suu Kyi, which took power amid high hopes for democratic reform in 2016, after decades of hardline military rule, has retained the law.

The journalists said they were dismayed by the recent arrests of social media users whose posts were deemed distasteful, as well as of journalists critical of the military.

"At first, they were suing people over news articles and now they are suing even over a satirical article, showing how they are restricting the media," said A Hla Lay Thuzar one of the founders of the Protection Committee for Myanmar Journalists, which organized the rally.

She said that rather than staging a one-off protest, her group wants to launch a movement to raise public awareness of the issue and press the government to abolish the law.

The journalists on trial are the chief editor and a columnist of the Voice, one of Myanmar's largest dailies.

They were denied bail on the first day of their trial, meaning they may have to remain in custody.

"Obtaining bail is our right so we will keep fighting for it during next court dates until we get it," said Khing Maung Myint, who is representing the two journalists.

The telecommunications law was a main piece of legislation introduced by a semi-civilian administration of former generals which navigated Myanmar's transition from full military rule to the coming to power of Suu Kyi's government, from 2011 to 2016.

The protesting journalists said they would wear the arm-bands for the next 10 days to raise awareness about what they see as the threat to freedom of the press.

They are also planning to gather signatures for a petition to abolish the law, to be sent to Suu Kyi's office, the army chief and parliament.

(Reporting by Shoon Naing; Editing by Antoni Slodkowski, Robert Birsel)

RAQQA, Syria At Raqqa's eastern edge, a handful of Syrian fighters cross a river by foot and car, all the while relaying their coordinates to the U.S.-led coalition so they don't fall victim to friendly fire.

MELBOURNE Australian counter-terrorism police conducted pre-dawn raids in the southern city of Melbourne on Friday and were questioning three men they said were suspected of providing weapons used in a deadly siege this week claimed by the Islamic State group.

Continue reading here:

Myanmar journalists campaign for free speech outside Myanmar trial - Reuters