The social networking website Twitter has put new measures in place to try to stop users from being harassed or from seeing things that offend them.

Some free-speech activists are worried that the changes could lead to unpopular ideas being censored.

The measures were announced last week. They include hiding possibly threatening messages even if no one has complained to the company that the person who sent them is abusive.

In a statement announcing the change, the company said, Were working to identify accounts as theyre engaging in abusive behavior -- even if this behavior hasnt been reported to us."

The company said it would take action only when it strongly believes abuse has taken place. It uses software to identify abuse.

Risk to free speech?

But some free speech supporters are worried about the changes.

Suzanne Nossel is the executive director of the free speech activist group PEN America. She said Twitter is considering taking action, in her words, where there is really no problem that needs to be solved. To take action when there hasnt been a complaint raises the concern of whether there will be mistaken blocking of accounts or suspending of accounts, she said. That raises a risk.

Twitter has been pressured to deal with abusive speech in the past few months after some famous people complained about long-term, planned abuse campaigns.

Actress Leslie Jones left Twitter for a brief time last year after she received many racist messages and death threats. Several months after she met with the head of Twitter, the company announced it had developed new ways to deal with abusive messages.

Those ways included strengthening the ability of users to stop receiving messages that had certain words or expressions in them, and expanding the ability of users to report abuse.

Twitter also retrained its workers on how to deal with online abuse.

Esha Bhandari is a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Unions Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. She told VOA that she supports these kinds of changes, which permit users to have more control over what messages they see and from whom they receive messages.

She said the ACLU encourages companies to focus less on ways it can stop abuse and more on tools that allow users to control their experience on the platform."

Low-quality tweets and safe search function

But some tools launched by Twitter give the company a lot of power to decide what messages are seen. In February, the company began hiding what it called potentially abusive or low-quality tweets. The messages will still be able to be seen, but only if people search for them.

VOA asked Twitter many times for more information on how it decided which messages are low-quality. Twitter did not answer our questions.

Also in February, Twitter introduced a safe search function that removes messages that have potentially sensitive content from search results. VOA also asked the company how it identified this kind of message, but Twitter again did not answer our questions.

Global town square

As a private company, Twitter is not forced to permit free speech. However, spokespeople say the service permits free expression. And they say they believe in speaking truth to power.

PEN America and the ACLU support this role. Nossel and Bhandari say they consider Twitter a kind of global town square, where everyones voice has equal weight.

Bhandari said, As a practical matter, decisions made by Twitter have a huge impact on the messages that we receive, and I hope that Twitter and other companies take those responsibilities seriously."

Nossel noted that Twitter has financial reasons to be careful as it seeks to balance free expression and stopping abuse.

The power and influence of their platform depends on the free flow of ideas, so I think there are commercial reasons why they would not want to limit (free speech), Gnossel said. And I think for their users, they do have a kind of softer, implicit contract that they are going to be a platform in which you can express things freely.

Im Ashley Thompson.

VOA News Writer Joshua Fatzick reported this story from Washington. John Smith adapted the story for Learning English. Kelly Jean Kelly was the editor.

We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments Section, or visit our Facebook page.

________________________________________________________________

account n. an arrangement in which a person uses the Internet or e-mail services of a particular company

complain v. to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something

engage in phrasal verb to do (something)

encourage v. to make (something) more appealing or more likely to happen

allow v. to make it possible for someone or something to have or do something

focus v. to direct your attention or effort at something specific

racism n. the belief that some races of people are better than others

potentially adv. capable of becoming real

function n. the special purpose or activity for which a thing exists or is used

platform n. something that allows someone to tell a large number of people about an idea, product, etc.

practical adj. likely to succeed and reasonable to do or use

impact n. logical and reasonable in a particular situation

implicit adj. understood though not clearly or directly stated

Follow this link:

Twitter Fights Abuse, But Free Speech Activists Worry About Censorship - Voice of America

Starting in the '70s, the General Social Survey has periodically asked Americans if they think someone should have a right to give a racist speech in their community. John Sides has charted the responses over at The Washington Post, dividing the people surveyed into four groups: Americans aged 18 to 25 who have had at least some college education, Americans aged 18 to 25 with no college education, older Americans with at least some college education, and older Americans with no college education. The results are striking:

Washington Post

The first thing you'll probably notice is that the percentage of the college-age crowd supporting the racist's freedom of speech has decreased dramatically over those four decades. Another thing you'll notice is that the college kids aren't leading the way so much as they're converging with the non-college crew. But what really leaps out for me is when most of the drop happened. For the people who are actually on campus, the big plunge ended in the late '80s. Things then flattened for a while, sliding slightly but not severely in the 1990s; the decline didn't accelerate again until the 21st century.

This flies in the face of folk memory, which tends to treat the '90s as the first age of political correctness. But it's probably better to remember that period as a time of backlash against political correctness. That first big wave of "P.C. Kids Gone Mad!" stories that hit the national press in 1990 wasn't a sign that pro-censorship sentiments were taking off; it was a sign that more people were resisting those sentiments. When there's a backlash against some social force, many people assume that force is surging, just because they didn't really notice it before. That doesn't mean it's actually on the rise.

But that's not all that happened in the '90s. Sides also charts the percentage of Americans in each group who support free speech for communists. Here the decline in the college crowd isn't as severethe share supporting the communist's rights is well north of 50 percentbut there's still a noticeable drop at the beginning, followed by a flattening in the '90s and then a resumption in the post-9/11 era:

Washington Post

So the fall-off in campus tolerance for controversial speech doesn't just affect the right. The good news here is the trend among those 26-and-uppers. The ones with a college education didn't see any decline, and the ones without a college education have actually grown steadily more tolerant. (A third chart, which I won't repost here but you can find in Sides' article, shows a similar jump in the number of non-college-educated older Americans willing to back the free-speech rights of an atheist.)

The biggest question for me, looking at those data, is why the decline in collegiate civil libertarianism resumed after the '90s. One possible factor: The further you get into the 21st century, the more college-age people there are who don't remember the '80s. Backlashes fade with memory.

More:

Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? - Reason (blog)

Last week when one of my students caught sight of me approaching on a campus walk, he pulled out his smartphone to show me a picture he had taken. Look at this, he said, disgusted, it was in the Liberal Arts building. The picture showed a hand-lettered sign, hung over an atrium railing, that read, No free speech for fascists.

Because I care intensely about free speech, especially in a university, and more especially still in my university, I was sorry and angry to see the sign. It pained me that shutting down the opinions of others, even fascists, should be publicly advocated.

I tore it down, my student said.

Good for you, said I.

Was I right to say that? Was my student right to tear down the sign? I dont think so. Im ashamed of it now.

The lights came on for me when I told a colleague about the incident a couple of days later. Something in his tone when he asked, He tore it down? gave me pause.

For the first time, I questioned the act. I saw myself in a contradiction. The sign had urged silencing fascists. I hold fascism to be contemptible and wrong, but I believe fascists should be allowed to express their mistaken ideas as freely as anyone else. And that sign was attacking freedom of expression. The signs message was wrong.

But the sign was expression. And my student had silenced it. And I had approved. We were both wrong to do so.

Free expression is so important that we must tolerate even the expression of opposition to free expression. The proper response to bad speech is better speech, not shutting it down.

So what should my student have done? Next to that sign that read, No free speech for fascists, he should have posted another with an arrow toward the first, saying, Free speech for all, even those who are wrong, like fascists and the person who posted this sign.

Follow this link:

Yes, free speech for fascists a confession - Learn Liberty (blog)

The final report from the Committee on University Discipline for Disruptive Conduct (CUDDC) was released on Tuesday, detailing several recommended changes to the way the University handles protests, event disruptions, and related disciplinary cases.

Among the reports recommendations are proposals to implement Deans-on-Call specifically trained to respond to disruptive conduct, make more efforts to publicize rules and punishments regarding disruptions, and to create a system by which protests would be authorized in advance.

The report lists framing principles, including a statement that argues that [d]isruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct. Other listed principles for the report include affirmations of the Universitys commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive campus climate and to an approach to free speech centered around individual expression by members of the community and upheld by the Universitys administrative authority.

The reports recommendations are divided into five sections covering different aspects of University responses to disruptive conduct. One of these sections proposes that the All-University Disciplinary System be replaced by a new central process with a five-member panel of three faculty, one student, and one University staff member presiding over individual disciplinary conduct cases. The report also suggests that information about audience rules and Dean-on-Call and UCPD roles for speaking events, as well as consequences for disruptions, should be included in the Student Manual and posted on a new University website.

One of the reports sections recommends that the University change its policies toward disruptive conduct by people who are not affiliated with the University, who are able to attend many University events but cannot be handled as easily as students or faculty under existing guidelines. In the future, according to the recommendations, [w]hen appropriate, unaffiliated individuals who engage in disruptive conduct can be barred from all or part of the University permanently or for discrete periods under standards and processes set forth in the Universitys No Trespass (Ban) Policy.

The report recommends revising the University statute that defines disruptive conduct to highlight that disciplinary actions can be taken against individuals who act as part of a group. The new statute would also note that individuals could face punishment for involvement in multiple obstructive incidents over a length of time, because [p]ersistent and serial conduct may in the aggregate rise to the level of disruptive conduct even if a single instance of such conduct does not.

The CUDCC was created in June of 2016 following a charge by Provost Daniel Diermeier to review and suggest modifications to the existing All-University Disciplinary System, which was first implemented in 1970. The committees charge noted that the current system is inefficient and, as a result, rarely used. In recent years, the University has seen an increased frequency of protests at events featuring invited speakers, including former Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez and Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski.

Continue reading here:

Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans ... - The Chicago Maroon

Desperation tactics to shut down discussion of the Israeli regime's mega-crimes reach new heights of absurdity

A fake anti-semitism campaign masterminded by the usual Zio suspects, their Israel lobby colleagues and their stooges in the corridors of power, continues to sweep across UK universities and our political parties, especially shambolic and rudderless Labour.

The University of Central Lancashire cancelled an event due to be held last month entitled Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions organised by the Universitys Friends of Palestine Society. The University said it would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances new definition of what constitutes anti-semitism and would therefore be unlawful. The event went ahead, off campus, at the premises of a local voluntary organisation.

Exeter University banned students from staging a re-enactment called Mock Checkpoint, in which some dressed up as Israeli occupation soldiers while others acted the part of Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives. The event was approved by the students guild but banned for safety and security reasons less than 48 hours before it was due to take place. An appeal was rejected.

At Leeds former British ambassador Craig Murray was asked by the trustees of the University Union to provide details of what he was going to say in his talk Palestine/Israel: A Unitary Secular State or a Bantustan Solution just 24 hours before he was due to speak. Craig reluctantly gave them an outline to allow the lecture to go ahead. He writes in his blog: I have just been told by Leeds University Union I will not be allowed to speak unless I submit what I am going to say for pre-vetting.

I am truly appalled that such a gross restriction on freedom of speech should be imposed anywhere, let alone in a university where intellectual debate is meant to be an essential part of the learning experience. I really do not recognise todays United Kingdom as the same society I grew up in. The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated.

Also at Leeds the student Palestine Solidarity Group was refused permission to mount a visual demonstration outside the Leeds Student Union Building or to have a stall inside.

At Liverpool Professor Michael Lavalette was contacted the day before he was due to speak with a demand that he sign the Universitys risk assessment for the event. This included reading the controversial IHRA definition of anti-semitism and agreeing with it. He emailed his response in which he carefully avoided mention of the dodgy definition and the meeting went ahead.

The University of Manchester allowed a series of talks marking Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to go ahead, but only after several meetings and imposing strict conditions which the organisers called unheard of. other societies and groups do not face the same problems. University authorities, however, vetoed the students choice of academic to chair an IAW event on BDS over concerns about her neutrality, and other speakers had to acknowledge the British government-endorsed definition of anti-semitism.

Meanwhile some reports say that a conference with the title International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism to be held at University College Cork at the end of this month has been cancelled thanks to pressure from Zionist groups. StandWithUs Israel, in cahoots with Irish4Israel, claim the University has been persuaded to impose added security stipulations and other limitations that amount to a de-facto cancelling of this hateful event. But these are desperation tactics. Checking with the organisers Im told the event is 100% going ahead. The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English. The conference, if you remember, was chased away from Southampton University two years ago by a similar campaign against free speech. The official reason, as usual, was security concerns.

Now comes the scandal of the 26 year-old Exeter student, noted for her work on anti-racism, being smeared by the Zionist Inquisition for her Pro-Palestinian activism.

She is accused of having tweeted two years ago: If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist. So what? As everyone and his dog knows, or ought to know, the Palestinians are perfectly entitled, under international law, to take up arms and resist a brutal illegal occupier. As Malaka Mohammed herself says:

It may appear as a radical statement that could raise serious concerns at both the University of Exeter and its Students Guild. However, it is my honest belief, and as I will attempt to explain, these kind of statements by Palestinians in general, and me in this instance, are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonize and dehumanize Palestinians. This is done by using the emotive dog whistle by Israeli descriptors of terrorist and terrorism whenever referring to the Arab population. Palestinians who throw stones in response to Israeli soldiers invading their villages are labelled violent thugs, rioters and terrorists. Palestinians who non-violently protest the illegal occupation are portrayed as violent individuals who terrorize Israeli Jews. Practically any Palestinian who resists the Israeli occupation and its plethora of human rights violations, war crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is stigmatized in this way.

After reading that, I dropped the Vice-Chancellor a line:

Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor University of Exeter

Dear Sir Steve,

Im writing as a graduate of Exeter University with fond memories of the place, and because Im shocked to see its good name besmirched by ludicrous accusations linking Palestinian PhD student Malaka Mohammed (aka Shwaikh) to anti-semitism and supporting terrorism.

As an acknowledged international relations specialist you will know the score regarding Israels decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinians homeland and its brutal subjugation and merciless dispossession of the Palestinian people. You will also, I imagine, understand who the true terrorists and anti-semites are.

Lest we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

And the US has used this definition to terrorise and degrade individuals, groups and countries it doesnt happen to like.

Ironically its a definition that fits the US administration itself and the thuggish Israeli regime like a glove.

I sincerely hope that amidst the flurry of investigations going on you will take steps to ensure that plucky Ms Mohammed/Schwaikh ceases to be victimised by tiresome Zionist Inquisitors and is allowed to get on with her studies, and from now on free speech prevails across the beautiful Exeter campus.

Sir Steve is said to earn 400,000 a year according to this report. Perhaps he and many other university bosses need rousing from their plumptious comfort zone.

Im with Craig Murray on this. I too dont recognise our society today as the same one I grew up in. Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?

Stuart Littlewoods book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.uk. Read other articles by Stuart.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 8:08am and is filed under BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement), Censorship, Freedom of Expression/Speech, Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Narrative, Propaganda, United Kingdom, Zionism.

View original post here:

Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? - Dissident Voice

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate

A conservative student group at the University of Lincoln in the UK criticized their students union over a lack of free speech over criticism of an online magazine. In response, the students union shut down the groups social media accounts, thus proving their point.

A student paper called The Linc reported:

Conservative Society suspended from Twitter by SU after criticising their record on freedom of speech

The University of Lincoln Conservative Society has been forced to hand over control of their twitter account to the Students Union.

It follows a tweet sharing a report which said the University of Lincoln had a bad record on freedom of speech.

The university as a whole was given a red status by online magazine Spiked, which means the institution has banned and actively censored ideas on campus.

On Monday afternoon the society tweeted confirmation their twitter account will be suspended until May, however they plan to appeal the decision by the SU.

A spokesman for the student group made this statement:

On the 6th March 2017, the University of Lincoln Conservative Society, in compliance with a decision by the Student Union (SU) disciplinary panel, handed over control of all social media accounts to the University of Lincoln Students Union, with the accounts to be suspended until the 1st of May 2017.

This decision was reached by the SU following an anonymous complaint over two tweets by the society account. The first, in relation to freedom of speech, linking an article from Spiked and the second was in relation to an SU questionnaire that had to be completed before voting in recent SU elections

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate, as the society was simply trying to raise the important issues of free speech and democracy, and the tweets in question have been taken out of context.

Here is part of a statement by the Students Union, also courtesy of The Linc:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union. The SU is built on a foundation where students can express opinions and ideas freely within the law.

The Students Union is run by students for students. There are agreed policies in place based on national guidance for charities which protect students and aims to provide a safe environment in which complex issues can be discussed and debated.

Ahh, a safe environment. That almost sounds like a safe space doesnt it?

Robby Soave of Reason has more on this:

University of Lincolns Conservative Student Group Censored for Complaining About Censorship

Talk about proving a point. The University of Lincolns student union has suspended a conservative student groups social media accountsan act of retaliation against the group for daring to criticize the student unions hostility toward free speech.

In effect, the British universitys student government is censoring students because they objected to censorship.

Just to reiterate the irony of this situation, wrote a different conservative club at another university, their student union, upon being criticized for being anti-free speech, have silenced those complaining about a lack of free speech!

The story has gone international as concerns over free speech are growing throughout academia. Heres a video report from the BBC News:

Even though the group being censored is conservative, there are student protests being planned.

Heres more from The Linc:

Protest organised against SU over freedom of speech clampdown

A sit-in protest is being organised at the Engine Shed a student union venue on Friday in opposition to the University of Lincoln Students Union (SU).

It follows the SUs decision to suspend the Conservative Societys social media accounts after they tweeted a link to a report which criticised the universitys approach to freedom of speech.

Lincoln MP Karl McCartney has also described the SUs actions as intolerant, illiberal and totalitarian.

The SU have defended the suspension saying there was a suspected breach of the code of conduct and freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union.

The event is called the UoL Free-Speech/Repeal the Conservative Society Ban Protest.

Featured image via YouTube.

Go here to see the original:

U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)

Last week, author and conservative scholar Charles Murray was surrounded by an angry mob after trying to give a lecture about his most recent book at Middlebury College.

Hundreds of protesters, including masked demonstrators who climbed on the hood of the car and pounded on windows as he tried to leave, objected vehemently to a book he co-wrote in the 1990s, The Bell Curve, calling it racist.

[A conservative author tried to speak at a liberal college. He left fleeing an angry mob.]

Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and a graduate of Duke University and its law school, writes his opinion that something fundamental is at stake when a controversial speaker is forced to flee campus. Susan Svrluga

Free speech on campus is facing a profound threat.

Not at the hands of President Trump, nor even at the hands of the administrators and lawyers who have done so much to erode academias respect for freedom of expression.

No, as highlighted by the violent disruption and end of Charles Murrays visit to Middlebury College in Vermont last week, the immediate crisis comes from one of freedoms most ancient enemies: the angry mob.

Its time for college leaders and law enforcement to take a stand: In our nation, this is not what democracy looks like.

While Americans rightly tend to focus on threats to freedom of speech from the authorities, we cannot overlook the danger of allowing people to be silenced by groups prepared to be violent.

History is littered with such warnings, from Diogenes to Robert F. Kennedy, who, on the day after the Rev. Martin Luther Kings assassination, said, A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

That voice of madness led to Murray being forced to give his talk on social stratification in America by videolink after disruptive protesters made Murrays actual presence before the audience impossible.

It caused masked protesters to hurl a stop sign at the car in which Murray was attempting to leave, and sent his discussion partner, Prof. Allison Stanger, to the hospital with a neck injury after a protester grabbed her hair.

And it led Murray and Stanger to flee a post-event dinner after being warned that demonstrators were coming, after which, in Stangers words, she and Murray decided it was probably best to leave town.

That voice of madness also famously left the University of California, Berkeley, aflame in February, with masked vigilantes setting fires, smashing windows and attacking would-be speechgoers. And, as further violent attacks on marchers in the city of Berkeley this weekend demonstrate, the disease is not only confined to campus, though its perhaps at its most obvious in the very places that are supposed to be dedicated to the exchange of ideas.

[President Trump lashes back at Berkeley after violent protests over speaker]

While peaceful protesters must be accommodated and protected, there can be no excuse for violence in response to mere speech, and the authorities must ensure that attempts to shut down speakers do not succeed.

UC-Berkeleys February approach, with only three reported arrests and with dozens of police barricaded inside a building while attacks on people and property took place just yards away, has to be counted as a failure.

Those persuaded to write off the Berkeley mobs violent response to provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos as understandable should realize that the well-publicized lack of consequences undoubtedly encouraged the use of similar tactics to silence a sober academic in small-town Vermont.

Middlebury College may be charting a different course.

President Laurie Patton directly apologized to Murray and Stanger on behalf of Middlebury in an official statement, visited Stanger in the hospital, and promised that the college will be responding in the very near future to the clear violations of Middlebury College policy.

Some Middlebury students even reached out on their own to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), where I work, to tell us that they believe that Patton will do the right thing.

Yet the same students also begged FIRE for anonymity, saying, we are currently terrified to express any opinions that do not fall in line with the culture of moral authoritarianism that is permeating this campus.

FIRE has heard versions of this statement from students on hundreds of other campuses.

Were students this widely uncomfortable about any other matter, college leaders would rush to address it.

Instead, campuses continue to shore up this authoritarianism through efforts such as the more than 230 bias response teams nationwide that summon students and professors for lectures (or worse) on how their use of language might violate campus rules or hurt the feelings of some protected class of people.

This only encourages the vigilante censors to believe that silencing opponents is what good and moral people do. Its not.

Even if academia does nothing to address the immediate problem, law enforcement has a role to play. Local police can and should aggressively investigate reports of violence against speakers or their audiences. Smartphone pictures and video footage should give detectives plenty to go on, enhanced by their ability to legally request text messages and social media updates that may shed light on the identities of perpetrators.

While police forces may understandably prefer to spend their time pursuing major crimes, it would be a mistake to allow our democracy to be undermined simply because dissenters are being beaten and not murdered.

Lets face it: Right now, when it comes to violent censorship, crime pays.

Until that changes, we must expect more of the same and as ground zero for mob attacks on free speech, its time for colleges to lead the way.

Originally posted here:

Colleges are ground zero for mob attacks on free speech, lawyer says - Washington Post

As protests flare on campuses nationwide, the University of Maine System is moving forward with a new free speech policy that affirms constitutionally protected speech, calls for civility and gives the university room to prohibit speech if it crosses into harassment or threats.

The timing is critically important, system trustee chairman Sam Collins said Wednesday, referring to violent protests that broke out days ago at Middlebury College in Vermont, after students shouted down a controversial speaker. Last month, riots broke out at University of California Berkeley in connection with a speech by a provocateur and conservative activist.

Closer to home, the University of Southern Maine recently hosted a speaker on immigration that drew protesters, but remained civil.

Collins and other members of the UMS trustees executive committee met Wednesday to discuss the new policy, saying it would help the system navigate sensitive free speech issues, while making clear that students do not have the right to shout down a speaker.

(D)emands for civility and mutual respect will not be used to justify restricting the discussion or expression of ideas or speech that may be disagreeable or even offensive to some members of the University community, the policy reads in part. Free speech is not absolute, and one persons claim to exercise his or her right to free speech may not be used to deny another persons right to free speech.

The policy defends constitutionally protected speech, and reads: There shall be no restriction at any System institutions on these fundamental rights, although the University may prohibit speech that violates the law, defames specific individuals, genuinely threatens or harasses others, or violates privacy or confidentiality requirements or interests.

The policy is based in part on the findings of the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, and the model language suggested by that committee.

This is a very positive thing, said Samantha Harris, a vice president at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that defends student and faculty rights on campus and urged campuses to adopt the Chicago language. Its heartening to see a public institution affirm their beliefs.

Seventeen colleges have adopted the Chicago language so far, Harris said.

The new policy will be voted on by the full board of trustees at its April meeting.

Noel K. Gallagher can be reached at 791-6387 or at:

[emailprotected]

Twitter: noelinmaine

See the original post here:

UMaine System pushes ahead with free speech policy - Portland ... - Press Herald

Imposea steep and lasting price on them

Less than two months after a professor said students should pay a steep and lasting price for bringing Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, a faculty resolution in support of free expression was withdrawn with no explanation.

Bucknell University faculty were scheduled to vote on the resolution, which was adapted and abridged from more expansive statements by the University of Chicago and Princeton, at their monthly meeting Tuesday night, according to the agenda.

An administration spokesperson told The College Fix he didnt know why it was pulled, and the faculty sponsors didnt respond to Fix email inquiries.

The incident infuriated a Bucknell alum who has been lobbying the board of trustees to adopt a more sweeping resolution in response to the professors comments.

Bucknell already promises the essence of the resolution

Unlike the so-called Chicago Principles, which were adopted by a committee established by its administration, the Bucknell resolution would have only amended the faculty handbook.

It was not a University-wide motion directly involving the administration, the spokesman said in an email. He claimed that the essence of the resolution is already captured in various handbooks and the Universitys statement of nondiscrimination.

MORE: If you invite Milo to campus, you should pay a steep and lasting price

The resolutions background statement says the faculty handbooks language on academic freedom is decades old:

It does not clearly support campus free expression more broadly, in an activist twenty-first-century era at a residential campus seeking to be more engaged with our larger community and society. We feel that it is time for Bucknell faculty to highlight, affirm, and update our support as a faculty community for free expression on campus, in complement with university prohibitions on bias and harassment.

Bucknell University faculty resolution on freedom of expression by The College Fix on Scribd

A new faculty policy on free expression says the university should guarantee all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn.

The resolution itself would add a new appendix to the faculty handbook. It would say that members of the Bucknell community should not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe, and that the administration has a solemn responsibility to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

How we fought fascists back then: Snap a few bones

On Jan. 16, nearly a year after conservative clubs brought the anti-feminist provocateur Yiannopoulos to campus, Bucknell Prof. Marcellus Andrews sent a mass email to all faculty regarding Yiannopoulos.

[T]he targets of his abuse need to be able to impose a steep and lasting price on the racists and fascists that invited him, Andrews wrote, apparently referring to the College Republicans, Conservatives Club and Young Americans for Liberty.

MORE: Bucknell protestersmad they still haveto march for marginalized

The professor, who is black, said free speech is not a general principle that vicious speech is without a social price in general.

As a Yale graduate student, Andrews said he was tormented by groups of young conservative white men. After one such group urinated on him and other black students who were extremely skilled in combat, the black students used our skills to rearrange a few faces [and] snap a few bones.

Andrews email was obtained by student Tom Ciccotta, who had helped bring Yiannopoulos the year before. Ciccotta read it aloud as he introduced Factual Feminist Christina Hoff Sommers for an event last month.

Just days after Andrews email went public, Bucknell alum David Kinnear launched a Facebook initiative to raise awareness about the lack of free expression at his alma mater.

Bucknellians for Freedom of Expression, composed of proud alumni and friends of the university, calls on Bucknell to join with other schools that have repudiated the new American virus of hypersensitivity by adopting the Chicago Principles.

The Bucknellians released their own proposed statement that says, in part, it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.

While much of the language between the faculty resolution and the Bucknellians statement is identical, the administration spokesman told The Fix that the latter was not adopted from the former. (Both cite the Chicago Principles.)

Also an alum of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Kinnear told The Fix that the difference in political climate between the two schools is like night and day. At Bucknell theyre not comfortable in engaging in debate and are missing out on a lot by not having that opportunity to engage in discourse.

Presented with a copy of the now-withdrawn faculty resolution, Kinnear called it an entirely self-serving effort by the five sponsors.

MORE: Why isnt anyone showing up to Bucknell social injustice conference?

Citing the resolutions language, Kinnear said: Their stated intention was to provide context, through a statement of faculty values, for interpreting Handbook provisions on academic freedom, including faculty intent to protect in the tenure process those colleagues speaking out for the rights of other community members. (The Bucknell spokesman told The Fix the handbook is stored on a campus intranet and nearly 5,000 people on campus have access to it.)

Kinnear said he has yet to hear back from the administration and board, including trustee Ken Freeman, about the absence in dialogue at Bucknell. Freeman did not respond to a Fix inquiry.

Andrews personifies theilliberal, despotic fascist hes seeking to eliminate

The alum has made his case in letters to the editor of The Bucknellian and on the self-publishing site Medium.

Currently, Bucknell policies prohibit students from fully exploring their opinions, values, and beliefs and learning how to intelligently, eloquently, and respectfully voice them, he wrote in one letter. [T]hey will be ill-prepared upon graduation to express and question viewpoints beyond those sanctioned within the Bucknell monoculture.

The controversy from the Andrews email demonstrates why Bucknell must adopt the [Bucknellians for Freedom of Expression] Statement, Kinnear said.

MORE: Bucknells sorry history with free speech

In his Medium post, Kinnear said Andrews is an intimidating and powerful authority figure to his teenage students, who nonetheless casts himself as a member of the oppressed underclass to justify his rhetoric.

He is the personification of the illiberal, despotic fascist hes seeking to eliminate from Bucknells campus, Kinnear said.

In both his Fix interview and his articles, though, the alum said he simply wants everyone else to enjoy the same freedom of expression as Andrews. I implore President John Bravman and the Board of Trustees to remove themselves as arbiter of acceptable speech, he wrote on Medium.

I dont see any consistency in how they apply these vague policies, he told The Fix.

Typical of the wide generalizations made about conservatives

Bucknellianconservative columnist Samantha Woolford said Andrews email comments are representative of the wide generalizations made about conservatives.

He assumed something about me that is false and unfounded, she wrote. Saying you are a conservative tends to cause people to automatically assume not only your opinions on certain matters, but also who you are as a person, in my experience, and this leads conservative students to self-censor.

In a statement given to The Tab, Dean of Students Amy Badal said the very reason that Bucknell helped facilitate the Yiannopoulos event in the face of disinvitation demands was because it promotes conversation about ideas and diverse viewpoints and critical thinking skills.

Kinnear was not satisfied with the deans response in his letter. Bucknells weak official response to Andrews disturbing email appears arbitrary and capricious because it is driven by ambiguous policies interpreted and enforced by the administration.

Other schools are considering resolutions similar to the Bucknell facultys.

A University of Maine System board committee was scheduled to consider a statement Wednesday that would affirm the First Amendment but prohibit speech [that] harasses others, according to the Portland Press Herald.

MORE: Bucknell prez expels students for offensive radio show

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: YouTube screenshot

About the Author

Jackson Richman is a senior studying political science at George Washington University. He has interned at The Weekly Standard and The Daily Caller. He's a frequent contributor for Red Alert Politics, Campus Reform and American Action News.

Continue reading here:

Free speech resolution withdrawn at Bucknell, where professor called Milo organizers 'fascists' - The College Fix

The Badger Herald

Sorry, but hate speech doesn't count as free speech The Badger Herald I recently read an article titled Are There Limits to Online Free Speech? by Alice Marwick, assistant professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University. In the article, Marwick recognizes the increasing amount of discourse ...

View post:

Sorry, but hate speech doesn't count as free speech - The Badger Herald

A Vermont college professor upset with the disintegration of discourse on his campus released a "statement of principle" for staff to sign to highlight the importance of free speech on campus.

Middlebury College English Professor Jay Parini said on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that he does not agree at all with the ideology of controversial author Charles Murray, but that Murray should not have been silenced by students.

Murray was to speak at Middlebury, but was overpowered by chanting protesters in the auditorium, and a professor who escorted Murray out after his event was forced to be canceled was injured by the demonstrators.

"Nothing I wrote was brain surgery," Parini said, "I was frustrated and horrified by what happened at Middlebury last Thursday."

O'Reilly Presses Sen. Cotton: Who Ordered Flynn Wiretap?

Rep. Brady: GOP Health Care Bill Isn't 'ObamaCare Lite,' It's 'ObamaCare Gone'

Some of the principles Parini laid out in his statement include:

Only through the contest of clashing viewpoints do we have any hope of replacing mere opinion with knowledge.

The incivility and coarseness that characterize so much of American politics and culture cannot justify a response of incivility and coarseness on the college campus.

Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence.

A protest that prevents campus speakers from communicating with their audience is a coercive act.

Parini said he was "distressed by the unwillingness of students to hear from opposing views."

People are fed up with the coarseness of discourse in the United States, he added, calling the context of his petition "enlightenment values."

He said he met with several colleagues after the Murray incident, and the group eventually agreed with the basic principles of free speech.

"This is Free Speech 101," he said.

Krauthammer: 'You Cannot Retract an Entitlement Once It's Been Granted'

Freedom Caucus Slams ObamaCare Replacement, Promises 'Clean Repeal'

Read this article:

'This Is Free Speech 101': Professor 'Horrified' After Campus Speaker Silenced - Fox News Insider

Amid increasing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant tensions nationwide, the University of Maine System is considering a new free speech policy that would affirm constitutionally protected speech, but also would allow campus officials to prohibit speech that harasses others.

The executive committee of the board of trustees will discuss and vote on the proposed changes at a meeting Wednesday.

This is a timely issue as many universities nationally have been and are facing questions about campus climate and civility, according to the narrative accompanying the suggested changes.

The policy is based in part on the findings of the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, and the model language suggested by that committee.

One of the biggest differences between the UMS and Chicago language is that the model language has a strongly worded and lengthy defense of free speech, with a narrow section spelling out the exemptions. The UMS policy uses the Chicago exemption language almost verbatim and has a more limited description defending all speech. The final section of the UMS policy says this policy shall not be construed or applied to restrict academic freedom within the University, nor to restrict constitutionally protected speech.

In December, the trustees directed an ad hoc committee chaired by Chancellor James Page to consider whether changes were needed to policies regarding free speech and expression, campus climate, and political impartiality. Also on the committee were trustees James Erwin and Gregory Johnson, University of Southern Maine President Glenn Cummings, UMaine Machias Interim President Sue Huseman and general counsel James Thelen.

Here is the original post:

UMaine System considering new free speech policy - Press Herald

By Carter Yancey | 03/06/2017 7:02pm

CW / Kylie Cowden

It is astonishing that discussion over the extent to which free speech applies is taking place in the United States of America. The right of free expression is fundamental and absolute, just as it ought to be. Hate speech is free speech, offensive cartoons are permissible, calls to insurrection are totally legal and vile advocations of Nazism should be ignored but by no means silenced. So far, the United States Supreme Court has done a supreme job at preserving and protecting these rights. But free speech is more than just a right; it is a fundamental moral principle.

As a human being, your ability to express yourself is a necessary by-product of your right to exist; if it is denied or suppressed, your humanity itself is being compromised. It is not only necessary to protect this right from government intervention, but also to protect speakers from other citizens. Those who would advocate assault against preachers of hate or endorse the banning of trolls from social platforms are undermining one of the most necessary concepts for a civilized society to prosper. Defenders of liberty, when citing the First Amendment to speak out against such cases, are often met with a defense that goes something like: "Free speech means the government can't punish you for giving your opinion. It doesn't mean that you don't have to face the consequences of what you say." To that, I have several responses.

First of all, we need to be ever conscious about the direction legislation is taking in first world countries. Canada has already passed laws preventing a person from using speech that could be deemed offensive by others. The phrase "hate speech is not free speech" is an attack on free speech which is clearly intended to influence political action. To dismiss the defense of free speech by calling it inapplicable to the private sector is to ignore the fact that such ideas are infiltrating our political sphere. It is not an overreach to proudly invoke the Constitutional right to free speech as a defense against current events when the other side of the debate, if left to its own devices, would gladly pass laws to limit this fundamental freedom.

Secondly, a right is something that the government has an obligation to preserve, meaning it is the duty of the government to protect me from those who would try to prevent me from or attack me for speaking my mind. You cannot relieve the government from that responsibility and then accuse me of misusing the First Amendment to defend hate speech. Anyone who commits assault should be punished by law, even if the victim of the assault is a Nazi. When riots ensue and property is damaged in the heart of protesting a speaker and the government sits by idly, reminding people that free speech is a right becomes of dire importance.

But most importantly, people who say that free speech doesnt apply to the private sector are missing the point. Of course universities have the right to deny speakers a platform on their premises, and of course Twitter has the right to ban those who would harass other users from using their site. The question is not should they be allowed to do so, the question is should they do so. No honest and proud institute of education would shy away from the opportunity to discuss and dismantle ideas. Listening to your opponents does not grant them legitimacy cowering from them does. It is good for a free market to bring bad ideologies to ruin by boycotting the lectures and writings of their supporters, but the difference between a University not accepting a speaker because there is no profit to be made and prohibiting a talk because it is contrary to an established agenda is extraordinary.

Free speech is more than a legal right to be protected by the government; it is a moral necessity that every individual should be encouraged to exercise. For readers of this column, as students of a university, this idea is of particular relevance. Campuses across our country are making a habit of creating zones where students are safe from being exposed to dissenting opinions. We have seen Universities go through great lengths to prevent certain influential people from appearing on their grounds. With this in mind, students should not only be reminded that free speech is a right, but should be taught that it is inherently a good thing even when the words spoken are bad.

Carter Yancey is a sophomore majoring in computer science and mathematics. His column runs biweekly.

Here is the original post:

Free speech is more than a right - The Crimson While

New York Times

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech New York Times Mr. Erdogan's opponents in Germany, both Turkish and German, say the president wants to use the freedoms of Western democracy to further consolidate his anti-democratic powers at home, and they accuse him and his men of using their right to free speech ... The Latest: Opposition: Turkish govt limits free speech too - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.comKHQ Right Now How Germany accidentally gave Erdogan a boost ahead of key voteAl-Monitor all 704 news articles »

Link:

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech - New York Times

We asked readers, Does America have a free speech problem?

In the United States, free speech is in big trouble

Free speech in America is in big trouble. Take the recent case of Orange Coast College student Caleb ONeil, who would have been punished by administration were it not for the exemplary defense mounted by Freedom X attorney Bill Becker and others who rallied at his side.

This mindset that declares that Trump supporters are racist white supremacists is ludicrous. Many on the left are blinded by their own hysteria and this shuts down any chance of reasonable discourse on issues.

Read the free speech column by John Phillips, Its a college campus run by bullies. You will be shocked. If not, you may have blind hysteria syndrome.

Tressy Capps, Fontana

Limited speech is not free speech

I do not believe that America has a free speech problem. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted society freedom of speech and we are grateful for it.

Some people dont want to hear what others have to say, but do we not wish for freedom of speech? Some may argue we should have freedom of speech but only to a certain extent. What is the point if we are restricted from expressing ourselves?

Itd be ironic to be a country that has freedom of speech but only to a certain point. We should be allowed to voice our thoughts and feelings regardless of the topic. That is freedom of speech.

Karla Davalos, Ontario

Respect First Amendment

When the U.S. Constitution was written, it included individual freedom of speech; therefore there is not too little or too much freedom of speech.

With freedom of speech comes disagreements, and when a person expresses their political views it becomes a sensitive subject, especially regarding hatred of Donald Trump.

Therefore, many Trump supporters feel they cannot fully express their opinion and that is not right. People allow their emotions to take over and cannot separate political views from other issues and that is why many feel they are not able to speak and write freely.

And California Democratic leaders need to respect that everyone has the right to the First Amendment instead of removing people from the floor.

Lesle Chicas, Rancho Cucamonga

Advertisement

Read the original here:

Does American have a free speech problem? Readers answer our ... - San Bernardino County Sun

Its been an OK news week for us smug snowflakes and libtards who are so high-minded about things like facts, peer review, government accountability, intelligence briefings and so on. National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned, Senator Tom Cotton got grilled at a town hall, and some come around finally went around and caught an alt-right leading spokesman in a comment praising priest pedophilia.

This spokesman, Milo Yiannopoulos, isnt new to controversy. Hes made his career on it. Yiannopoulos is the token minority of the alt-right: a gay British immigrant who calls himself a Dangerous Faggot and dresses like a living debunker of the stereotype about fashionable gays. As a Breitbart editor, he wrote articles like 10 Things Milo Hates About Islam, Heres Why There Ought to be a Cap on Women Studying Science and Maths and other posts denying the existence of racism, sexism and social injustice. He got banned from tweeting for targeting actress Leslie Jones with a series of tweets steeped in racial tropes about black women.

So at the beginning of February, students at University of California Berkeley who were offended by his views, took to the streets where Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak. They protested and rioted, and the speech was canceled. Yiannopoulos and other conservatives claimed that this was an infringement on his free speech. Yiannopoulos and his allies claimed that his speech could not be limited, even by the expressions of others who were offended.

Until this week that is. A video surfaced showing Yiannopoulos clearly appearing to support sex between 13-year-old boys and grown men, including Yiannopoulos saying that he wouldnt give nearly such good head if it wasnt for him (Father Michael). Suddenly, all of those free-speech advocates willing to defend him for offensive comments disappeared like the Arctic ice shelf.

The unwillingness of these advocates to speak sooner is a little hypocritical, but I think that it shows that there is a line where free speech becomes something else. There are limits on speech in the law already; you cant falsely yell fire in a crowded room. Its a hard line to draw, but when someone is harmed by speech or the acts it implies, that speech isnt warranted.

With comments about pedophilia, its really clear why its harmful. With other statements about race, gender and so on, its less obvious but statements like those made by Yiannopoulos which target minorities question the value of minority participation in society. Those statements downplay some peoples desires to make choices or speak which is inherently harmful and dehumanizing.

Its okay to speak out against a speaker is repeatedly irrational and resistant to facts it is a hasty generalization to draw conclusions from someones gender, race, sex and religion since these things individually tell very little about a person.

Just because someone has a right to speech doesnt mean they have a right to a venue, so its justified to protest a speech by someone whos unduly offensive. And if the speech is harmful, like Yiannopoulos pedophile comments, and repeatedly false or inaccurate, like his other comments, it is fine to limit it. Its a shame it took Yiannopoulos free-speech allies so long to realize that the line had been crossed.

Original post:

Milo and the Limits of Free Speech - The Arkanas Traveller

Will Arrington | Published 7 hours ago

Mike Adams, a UNCW professor and conservative columnist, gave a speech in the auditorium in the student union Monday evening.

UNC-Wilmington criminology professor Mike Adams argued that speech codes on college campuses don't do what some students think they do.Adams gave aspeech sponsored bythe UNCCollege Republicans, the Carolina Liberty Foundation and the Carolina Review at the Student Union on Monday.

Adams spoke about his perception that campus speech codes rules that prohibit hate speech across the country are unconstitutional and dangerous. Hesaid he thinks sometimes speech codes backfire and can reinforce negative stereotypesagainst the minorities they are trying to protect.

If there is a negative stereotype thatblacks have a chip on their shoulder, a negative stereotype that women are emotional; if there is an awfulnegative stereotype that someone who is gay has an emotional disturbance, guess what? Comingalong and saying that (speech codes) are going to defend only them, because theyre too weak to makearguments on their own, reinforces the stereotype, Adams said. I think it is an ugly source of bigotry, thesespeech codes.

Adamscited several cases in which these codes werefound to violatethe FirstAmendment, including one case at Georgia Tech wheretwoconservative students objected to the subject matter and coarse language in a performance of theVagina Monologues at their school. These students created a poster that expressed their opinions, andwere found to be in violation of the schools speech code. With the encouragement of Adams, thestudents sued the universityand were in court for two years before a court ruled in their favor.

Adams sued UNC-W in 2007for denying him a promotion, which Adams said was due to his outspoken conservatism.He spent several years in court before the jury ruled in his favor. More recently, he faced astorm of controversy over his denouncement of Nada Merghani, a UNC-W student, as a queer Muslim social justice warrior on a private blog. Adams did not mentionthe incident at the event.

Despite the controversy surrounding Adams, organizers said the eventwas not designed to inspirefurther division.

Carolina Liberty Foundation CEO, Alec Dent, said the event was designed toeducate people about their right to free speech on campus.

Thats certainly been a major issue, I think, over the past year for conservatives and liberals alike, Dent said. Conservatives have really been concerned over the politically correct culture, and liberals have grown concerned about how theyll be able to speak their minds under our currentpresidential administration.

Sophomore WilliamMarshall said he was inspired to attend the event due to his growing concern over censorship andother free speech issues on college campuses, including UNC-Chapel Hill.

I see that its a major issue in the 21st century on college campuses, that the First Amendment isconstantly not well represented, he said. I heard about this talk and I heard about what Dr. Adamsstood for and figured I should go and listen to see what he has to say.

university@dailytarheel.com

Read the original:

UNC-W professor Mike Adams talks campus free speech and the codes that regulate it - The Daily Tar Heel

Lisa Rathke, AP Images

Protesters turned their backs and shouted as Charles Murray, the controversial political scientist best known for The Bell Curve, tried to speak at Middlebury College on Thursday. The confrontation became violent later as protesters swarmed Mr. Murray and the professor who moderated the event as they tried to leave.

In the wake of protests that disrupted a controversial speakers appearance and left a professor injured, Middlebury College has become the latest flashpoint in a national battle over campus speech and safety.

In a statement to the campus on Friday, Laurie L. Patton, the colleges president, described a violent incident with a lot of pushing and shoving as protesters swarmed Charles Murray, the speaker, and Allison Stanger, a professor who served as moderator, after the event. Ms. Patton apologized to Mr. Murray, Ms. Stanger, who was injured during the encounter, and everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion.

We believe that many of these protesters were outside agitators, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.

Even before it happened, Mr. Murrays appearance had put those values on trial. Now the incident has stoked new debate about whether the protesters were suppressing or exercising free speech, and about who was responsible for escalating the disruption into a fracas that sent Ms. Stanger to the hospital for treatment of an injury to her neck.

At the center of the incident was a familiar figure: Mr. Murray, the polarizing political scientist best known for his 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. The book, co-written with the psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein,argues that the gap in academic achievement between black and white students can be at least partially explained by genetics. The book has been widely criticized for both its sociological methods and its racial implications.

A conservative student organization invited Mr. Murray to Middlebury; the colleges political-science department then sponsored the invitation.

On Wednesday, a day before the event, the student newspaper published a letter from a group of nearly 500 alumni and students who condemned Mr. Murrays visit, calling it a decision that directly endangers members of the community and stains Middleburys reputation by jeopardizing the institutions claims to intellectual rigor and compassionate inclusivity.

The following day, The New York Times reported, most of the over 400 students at Mr. Murrays speech turned their backs to the speaker and shouted him down. Middlebury officials moved Mr. Murray to a new room, where Ms. Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics, completed an interview streamed on video despite further disruptions.

In an essay published Sunday, Mr. Murray no stranger to campus protests argued that, due to its length and intensity, the Middlebury disruption "could become an inflection point."

"Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon," he wrote. "If this becomes the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let themselves in for an experience like Middleburys will plunge to near zero."

After the event, as protests continued outside, a group including Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger left the venue. There, according to Ms. Patton, a violent incident occurred, culminating in an attack on the car in which they were leaving campus.

Bill Burger, a college spokesman who was part of the group escorting Mr. Murray, told the Times that masked protesters accosted Ms. Stanger. Someone grabbed Allisons hair and twisted her neck, he told the newspaper.

Ms. Stanger was treated and fitted with a neck brace at a nearby hospital, according to the Addison Independent.

A group of student protesters published a conflicting account of the incident, arguing that Middlebury officials had exacerbated the incident and that Ms. Stangers hair was not intentionally pulled but was inadvertently caught in the chaos that Public Safety incited.

On Twitter, Mr. Murray applauded both Mr. Burger and Ms. Stanger:

We believe that many of these protesters were outside agitators, wrote Ms. Patton in her note to the campus, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.

Whatever the mix of students and outsiders, many commentators from across the political spectrum were quick to portray the incident as an example of students intolerance of uncomfortable speech.

In an editorial assailing The Mob at Middlebury, The Wall Street Journal urged Ms. Patton to follow through with discipline to scare these students straight. And Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America, an association of writers and editors, condemned a lawless and criminal attack that marks a new low in this challenged era for campus speech.

Amid the fiery off-campus response, Middlebury students and faculty took stock. Some expressed dismay at the disruption of Mr. Murrays speech and the chaos that ensued.

It is understandable why some students may find Murrays research findings offensive, wrote Matthew Dickinson, a professor of political science at Middlebury. It is less clear, however, why so many believe that the appropriate response was not to simply skip his talk, but instead to prevent others from hearing him and, in so doing, inadvertently give him the platform and national exposure they purportedly opposed.

But the view that student protesters erred in shouting down Mr. Murray is far from unanimous. I am angry that free speech is conflated with civil discourse, wrote Linus Owens, an associate professor of sociology. Mr. Owens argued that Middlebury legitimized Mr. Murray by giving him a stage and deciding that only then we can ask smart and devastating questions in return.

Thats one model, sure, he wrote, but its not the only one.

In a Facebook post, Ms. Stanger described Thursday as "the saddest day of my life." By turning away from the stage during Mr. Murray's speech, the professor wrote, the protesting students had "effectively dehumanized me." Still, she argued against a common criticism of the disruption as an example of ivory-tower excess.

"To people who wish to spin this story as one about what's wrong with elite colleges and universities, you are wrong," she wrote. "Please instead consider this as a metaphor for what's wrong with our country, and on that, Charles Murray and I would agree."

Update (3/5/2017, 8:47 p.m.): This article has been updated to add statements from Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger.

Brock Read is assistant managing editor for daily news at The Chronicle. He directs a team of editors and reporters who cover policy, research, labor, and academic trends, among other things. Follow him on Twitter @bhread, or drop him a line at brock.read@chronicle.com.

Go here to read the rest:

A Scuffle and a Professor's Injury Make Middlebury a Free-Speech Flashpoint - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Bills are being introduced in state legislatures around the country in an attempt to curb the increasing restrictions being placed on political speech at state-funded campuses.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

College should be a place where all opinions, popular or not, should be able to be freely expressed, Texas State Representative Briscoe Cain argued. Students have the right to free speech and HB 2527 will help protect the constitutional rights of students and student organizations.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkers recent budget proposal includes a $10,000 allocation that would go towards academic freedom initiatives in the University of Wisconsin system.

It is not the proper role of the board or any institution or college campus to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive, the Wisconsin legislation states. The board and each institution and college campus has a responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberationbut also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

Several other states have proposed legislation that would protect free speech rights at public universities. Those states include North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

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

Follow this link:

Legislation Proposed in Four States to Protect Free Speech at Public Universities - Breitbart News

Its that season again. Inside Higher Education, a higher ed newspaper, dubbed it Disinvitation Season in response to those commencement speakers who find themselves disinvited. Juan Williams, a somewhat controversial conservative journalist, is the latest to find himself out of synch with a schools faculty. Disinvitations often begin with faculty who disagree with a speaker. Odd, eh?

Recently, Del. Steve Landes introduced legislation to ensure colleges protect speech on Virginia public campuses. How can anybody be against free speech and promoting free speech? he said.

I wonder if legislators understand the nature of speakers on campus. Indeed, some now claim Landes proposed legislation is overly broad, allowing anyone to traipse anywhere on campus at any time setting up the proverbial soap box disrupting normal activities. The right to control time and place (but not speech) is a time-tested legal principle.

Landes, in reference to the violence at Cal Berkeley surrounding an ultra-right speaker, said in this newspaper that schools have the discretion to not invite a speaker who might incite violence. In addition to that sounding like prior restraint, a form of censorship, this implies misunderstanding of how campuses work. One will not find a centralized Office of Approved Speakers on Virginias public campuses. When a student or faculty group invites a speaker to campus, they dont first clear it with the presidents office.

Yet, there is the public perception that holds a university administration responsible for the actions and speech of any individual speaking on campus, as if each speaker were first vetted and cleared by the fictitious OAS.

In the mid-1990s, Virginia Tech raised the ire of Virginias timbermen when a speaker from a self-described eco-terrorist group, Earth Liberation Front (ELF), was invited by students and spoke on campus. How could you let him speak on our campus, we heard. It was incredibly difficult for the spokesperson, this author, to defend the ELF speakers right to speak, particularly when the ELF had claimed credit for high profile property destruction, including a $24 million Vail ski resort. Yet students had every right to invite the speaker.

In the controversys wake, one board of visitors member proposed a policy resolution that would require the presidents approval for all speakers invited to campus. Notwithstanding the impracticality of vetting virtually hundreds of speakers invited by hundreds of campus groups each year, the very notion of administrative approval implies some criteria for disapproval. In doing so, an administration clearly enters a censorship role.

Defending free speech in the abstract is easy. Try it when emotions among key constituencies or the very powerful hit alert status. In 2013, a Virginia Tech professor published a column titled No thanks, Stop saying support the troops. Imagine the outcry among Hokie alums, many of whom served in the military or whose families worked in the nations capital. While the article in its own convoluted writing was essentially about questioning authority and inferred support for the troops, it opened floodgates of commentary. The presidents office was inundated with hundreds of hostile phone calls and emails calling for the professors immediate dismissal. This author caught incoming fire on that one too from those who wanted the prof gone, from those who agreed with him and from those who felt like I shouldnt have defended his right of free speech. While highly uncomfortable for the president, he clearly stood behind the professors rights.

It is ironic to find Virginias legislators introducing legislation codifying campus free speech because I doubt there is a Virginia college president who has not heard from legislators about offensive speech from students or faculty. Delegate Bob Marshall, for one, is well known for his harangues. Marshall once demanded that Techs president stop a student TV production, albeit a rather bawdy one.

Legislators call for free speech on campus, yet seem to want university administrators to govern said speech obviously mutually exclusive concepts.

This is not to say that campuses are pristine. Restrictive speech codes are real and many have been struck down by the courts around the country. The very notion of trigger warnings is troubling, particularly when they purport to protect young people from thoughts or ideas that might be upsetting. Free speech and the First Amendment are not intended to protect someone from discomfort. Bart Hinkle, editorialist for the Richmond Times Dispatch, wrote that the right of free speech implies the right to be offended, too. Without some discomforting introspection, ones own ideas will never be tested or reaffirmed.

Campus speech is complicated. So, think twice when you hear calls to promote free speech, restrict speakers on campus, or hold the administration responsible for all campus speech. Have some sympathy for university presidents, many of whom hear about controversial speakers only when the outcries start. Many times Ive heard this presidential retort, They invited WHO to speak on campus!?

Larry Hincker, is a retired public relations executive living in Blacksburg.

Visit link:

Few understand free speech on college campuses; even fewer can ... - The Daily Progress