The Orange County Schools Board of Education, faced with public demands Monday that it ban the Confederate flag from school grounds, essentially punted.

That wasnt a bad idea.

The flag controversy -- far from unique to Orange County or its schools -- raises sensitive issues of racism, hate speech -- and free speech.

We understand the flag is an abrasive symbol that to many evokes generations of white supremacy and enslavement and mistreatment of African-Americans.

On the other hand, when official bodies decree what symbolic speech is permitted and what is proscribed, the slope is slippery indeed.

The board said it would establish an equity committee to advise it on the flag and the issues it raises.

We understand that improvement is an ongoing process and we are committed to collaborating with our community to support the health and well-being of all students, board chairman Stephen Halkiotis said.

That collaboration might not be easy. Finding the right path through such sensitive issues seldom is.

Perhaps the committee and the board can view this if not as a teachable moment at least an opportunity to ponder the difficulties of honoring free speech in a time of societal discord.

We tend to look to the American Civil Liberties Union in this sphere. The organization has a staunch belief in the broadest construction of permitted speech, and argues persuasively that the most important speech to defend can be that we find most disagreeable.

A couple years ago, the ACLU raised some eyebrows when it praised the South Carolina legislatures decision to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol while at the same time criticizing Texas for not allowing a Confederate flag as an option in the states specialty license program.

Those license messages are designed and paid by individuals, and are not messages of the state, Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project wrote in the Washington Post in July 2015.

If the schools were hoisting the Confederate flag, that would be government speech which government could (and should in this case) renounce.

But private speech? The government cant stop you from taping up your bumper sticker or rabble-rousing from your soapbox, whether your message is a peace sign, battle hymn, swastika or heart, Rowland wrote. Your individual liberty to speak, unconstrained by government, is at the heart of both the First Amendment and our American tradition of protest and freedom.

We hope the school boards committee has a full and spirited discussion, but that those words are on their minds.

Here is the original post:

Free speech isn't easy - Durham Herald Sun

The events at Ramjas College in Delhi University, the ensuing protests and the vicious trolling of a girl student Gurmehar Kaur, which saw Union minister Kiren Rijiju criticise Kaur rather than take on the trolls, all misconceive and truncate the right to freedom of speech.

True, the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on this freedom, on grounds of sovereignty and national integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Free speech is not meant only for those who agree with a dominant view; it matters most when it comes to unpopular, minority views. If those who disagree with such views unleash violence, and create a threat to public order, what should the state do? Some Delhi policemen present when Ramjas College students were allegedly attacked by ABVP activists, who sensed a threat to Indian nationalism from a speaker, chose to take off their name tags and beat up Ramjas students.

Minus such blatant partisanship, if the state merely used the public order proviso to gag the minority opinion, that would still fall short of defending the right to freedom of expression. That would only be an invitation for people to stage violence to muzzle opinion they disagree with. The countrys courts are the final arbiters of when a restriction on free speech is warranted, but in a technical sense. It is the lived practice of democracy with citizens actively defending free speech, even of the kind they disagree with that will give substance to this and other fundamental rights.

In this light, it is welcome that many students, teachers and others have come out against violent suppression of free speech and lent support to Gurmehar Kaur, including senior minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Excerpt from:

The right and wrong of free speech - Economic Times (blog)

(Francisco Kjolseth | Tribune file photo) Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, pushed through the House a bill recognizing and bolstering free-speech rights on the campuses of Utah's public colleges and universities.

ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY (1)

HB54 A bill promoting freedom of campus speech won unanimous approval Tuesday in the Utah House and now heads to the Senate.

Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, has said that HB54 was created to address limits on speech on certain campuses

Coleman said the bill affirms that college campuses are traditional public forums for speech and that "the institution may maintain a reasonable time, place or manner of restrictions on expression, but everything else is free."

Outdoor areas of public colleges and universities are reserved for free speech and an institution may not prohibit it so long as the speakers' conduct is lawful = under the bill. It also recognizes a cause of legal action if free-speech rights are violated.

See the article here:

House OKs free-speech on campus bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks about free speech as an issue on college campuses and in national politics on Monday, Feb. 27, 2017 at the University of Tennessee. Rachel Ohm/ News Sentinel.

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, speaks at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)Buy Photo

A free speech forum at the University of Tennessee on Monday touched on First Amendment issues as they have affected the university over the past year, including a controversial tweet made last fallby a professor of law.

"Free speech is one of the most important topics in America today," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and the moderator of Monday's forum at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy. "On campus we're seeing dramatic debates about the boundaries between dignity and freeexpression online. We're seeing debates about whether presidents should be tweeting and whether members of Congress should respond. The boundaries of free speech have never been more contested."

The forum also comes as Tennessee lawmakers earlier this month proposed a bill to ensure free speech on Tennessee campuses after the controversial speeches of a former Breitbart News editor spurred protests at colleges around the country.

Two students, two faculty members and an administrator made up a panel that weighed in Monday on various issues related to free speech as they have appeared on the University of Tennessee campus.

Melissa Shivers, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of Tennessee, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

The discussion mostly focused on a controversial tweet made last fall by Glenn Reynolds, a UT law professor andcontributing columnist for USA TODAY and the News Sentinel, whourged motorists to run over demonstrators blocking traffic in Charlotte, N.C.; and a letter to the editor that appeared in the student newspaper, The Daily Beacon, last spring that took issue with the idea of "safe spaces" on campus.

Barry Hawkins, a UT senior who penned the letter to the editor and a member of Monday's panel, said during the course of the discussion that he hasn't seen any recent barriers to free speech on campus, and faculty and administrators on the panel also said the issue is one that is taken seriously with an emphasis placed on the importance of free speech on campus.

One faculty member not on the panel, however, did express concerns Monday about a lecture scheduled to take place Tuesday at UT's Alumni Memorial Building entitled "How Killing Black Children is an American Tradition."

Mary McAlpin, a professor of French and member of the Faculty Affairs Committee in the Faculty Senate, said during a question-and-answer portion of Monday's forum that she was concerned that funding from three of the four departments sponsoring the lecture had been pulled because the title was "too provocative."

Amy Blakely, assistant director of media and internal relations for the University of Tennessee, said she "was not sure about the specifics of the funding" but that the lecture would still be held as planned Tuesday.

"The challenges are difficult; the lines are hard to draw," Rosen said during opening remarks Monday. "I know how this campus, like campuses around the country is struggling with these issues, but we can unite around them. We can be inspired and take solace in the beautiful tradition that speech is a natural right and our democracy is stronger if we have confidence that bad speech will be driven out by good speech."

Brittany Moore, president of UT Black Law Students Association, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2mxs4eG

See more here:

UT forum discusses free speech on campus - Knoxville News Sentinel

Feb. 27, 2017, 4:35 p.m.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday against the state for continuing to demand the removal of a blog post that listed the home addresses of legislators who voted for California's newest gun control measures.

The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of one of the groups members, who is listed in the lawsuit under the pseudonym Publius and writes a blog called The Real Write Winger.

Last year, the blog published the names, home addresses and homephone numbers of 40 legislators who voted for a package of gun control measures in June, saying the lawmakers decided to make you a criminal if you dont abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry.

The Web hosting company WordPresstook the post down after it received a letter from Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg saying the information putelected officials at grave risk, and citing state law barring the release of such information.

Chief U.S.District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in Fresno issued an order Monday granting the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the 1st Amendment civil rights lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs are likely to succeed ontheir claims that the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

We are delighted that Judge ONeill saw the statute and the States enforcement of it for exactly what it was: an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, said coalition president Brandon Combs.

Read the rest here:

Gun rights activists win round in free-speech court case against state of California - Los Angeles Times

Georgetown University received a dubious distinction last Wednesday after landing on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Educations list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech.

For a university that has, in the past two years, hosted speakers of every ilk and creed, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and feminism skeptic Christina Hoff Sommers to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, this categorization seems hyperbolic. Georgetowns Speech and Expression Policy contains provisions that allow any student group to host an event or peacefully protest for demonstrators.

Regardless of if the university deserves the distinction of FIREs worst of the worst list for campus free speech policy, the report spotlights how the ambiguities in the Speech and Expression Policy are sometimes liable to misinterpretation and confusion by administrators and students alike.

According to the report, the ranking is largely predicated by an incident in September 2015, in which the Georgetown University Law Centers Office of Student Life prevented a group of law students from campaigning for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign on campus. The university claimed that its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization precluded the universitys engagement in partisan political activity, but later acknowledged in a February 2016 letter to a congressional subcommittee that the GULC had applied an overly cautious interpretation of the legal requirements governing the use of university resources.

Similarly, another incident cited by FIREs list also stemmed from a misunderstanding, after the Georgetown University Police Department removed condom envelopes from the doors of students volunteering for H*yas for Choice after reportedly mistaking them for vandalism.

These events in the past year do not represent insidious, systemic attempts by the university to muzzle free speech and expression on campus. Rather, the incidents cited by FIRE to justify its ranking all arise from the vague and obscure language of an otherwise permissive and accepting policy.

For instance, even after issuing a swift revision of its policy that clearly permits students to table for campaigns, GULC expressly prohibited the use of university-sponsored resources, including Georgetowns phone system, email lists, computer networks or servers, or postal service, for partisan political campaign activity. But as FIRE points out, other university resources including classrooms, bulletin boards and even campus Wi-Fi are absent from the policy, leaving it to the universitys discretion as to how to enforce expression policy.

These ambiguities persist on the main campus, where confusion abounds among students and administration about the regulation of free speech. In 2014, GUPD removed students tabling for H*yas for Choice in Healy Circle outside a Right to Life event because H*yas for Choice strayed outside the confines of Red Squares designated free speech zone, despite Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson reassuring the group in a Jan. 16, 2014 free speech forum that it was not confined to the area.

The conflicting reports from campus law enforcement, administration and students about free speech rights demonstrate that although the university remains committed to free expression and the exchange of ideas, the exact provisions of the policy remain subject to interpretation. This is easily remediable through the consolidation of a definitive Bill of Rights for student free speech, with specific language about space and resources that administrators can show to students who violate the terms, or, alternately, students can point to when disputing their right to expression.

Despite FIREs ranking, Georgetown will demonstrate its commitment to free speech this week by hosting two contentious speakers, Nonie Darwish and Asra Nomani, who proclaim inflammatory views about radical Islam. At the same time, Georgetowns Bridge Initiative will host a conversation on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism with Rabbi Rachel Gartner and Imam Yahya Hendi. This campus climate is a far cry from FIREs ranking Georgetown as a repressive university for free speech. But in order to assure this continued commitment, the university needs to clearly delineate its expectations regarding free speech for both students and campus officials.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Read this article:

EDITORIAL: Clarify Free Speech Policy - Georgetown University The Hoya

Yms6Aw3Hzub;: DBbHY8w5["bwbI|/NoF+2P?$lhRX#Su"Z$fBNb/4R*$,9 Y0cH.CzgJ"(]2#"eC$"Y8Qn%[cxFlh K%R>i,5iyPZp;v_ "2Mt]m|"3V&`:^"If}%+JTpf!k9JDqVU}J}6I:h*:;XT:yS>rg1rGg>$x2>8ul:&6{Ne8A[ph^l8th)`Q/(oQ#$!2WlzWx.u4Nef@*~"m;P"IU,^[~e-WZ P1!J'LlP@Xn]>n9OP{E3P^M_jf*>Xb|'=/L%m111j,^-7&):C,d#]G<<)]b*uP.MU+t4*~ZngY2I{utgD=r$))h}si+_z_M~xKF!Nkw1mqbx|{FD-%,nhf:C,7Ew=LBt ptCc/ 8yx'+UbHYyM~~'Zp W>wEJ[/VNJ]R~ZP)U*~R@%4,SQIr;nuE`(z.>UKNZt|O-@W8;-YD5QhX3'4#,^W$1EHe{5#9YRC| RhQ!D[kB1e)}lm VW}PBAMcOz^!+r$/x4/xVJZ*_) hS[HzB?wMMWoO3t0 *C/[1/`q5I :~8PtbETl(6,3s5:!N(X7iK62tTw6_{JpuA)R)R|Ecn.:UU n"(tX4bc"Qu0?tLc"h:U48$f:)NECr#rEt?ft"X`Ei k H_DgvH1c,8_*?>l.mNvo.BLB`T18QvKLC6q+9CrTqy:gsK Z6Kyp*Lm 1Ng- ]!xM"V^kF5 +DedMBa6o>k={""f"! K`{"?lf^3nW&lP7` Up~gK}_I|`sfbD+f KSw>ePcgocU#1'M_n=41N1[Qvv[kYr1DYk+kG[HHBk$=$$ZvvIgqF"s/}Iw|fv;ze J:0|kf!ag}y$[,3MM_{`Sk K1{/Lh-ow;Wa +E*^ &3dom *=_wr_!BgT1#u;n=dFbRAd;z3 BX>[j>{bv1Z/EQHb!OoONGggoG_s5t3<>==r4>J3S!_U^^gb@N{w|y5fdG7R2H0 @s]j ",%E#47!yB&LJsK< A]C_.IC[6A'1*x;fsOB6%i}Lf'9uwvX_p:S,[nn)ea(38*-p xxS17R( xNR<5Tah&wO>nU8y]lOu[W1uQ}y-O x^YR{eWBY8{dG/;3M0IF[+p&b5R"]750tLJ#G#HR,jlHDnJC o1ST?G[D}i~'JVNT9w3lak)fw>ozEOpNrKs-g[5mtD`m(llWqk)*l%R*s, lNX6.Z-LH1{wej]]k+LO^jc/T:s6~5".;,.,|^j'yt"'l8N1`*8;(pwoXz}Q]^,.i _) ]G`~g"y-un#_;OTk<[#agm8e8+~pc5J ;dm'7oFbGH6UR-1%#DqY2Tv}e+`ZM}njF"Gn$m*exq}so~oj$GRyKws=`Q1[Iw73r[(14HqEa LI"jd@UDAM?QYF;9D OFT 5')?%-8Cd]q8'Lz0*u#)D_d]sr@&@A<&LMaK w|i0*nr{5'N'RUaJ(}ES#Z0mn6{Y#SeIH=(%3Q3>0?=g)gGoR0>J;{04rqdgK[FK?ga 3I~p%*{<=JqD8q/ ]#u ID&~ ;X$9Y5d}0 h_wGdO$q5G+og_!*fMg7Cz41FWN0CUP170 S u VtMb.I$FqmCg^+(S(C))npl';LQXR^ H^bbc^iP#}I% GDo+ QLBI Utz P84S{zdZnP1W3q6"N+ ]s _2IW0EPq c/FuIc)UhQ K(-~CmIi ZjO>`IA`j[q# fC[(%;a;4D|w%2Gw7i=J4F}sqnE!Th6Gr25ip(f-=-;y

Continue reading here:

The threat to campus free speech comes from Republicans, too - NY ... - New York Daily News

FrontPage Magazine

Free Speech Smackdown FrontPage Magazine On Tuesday, February 21, California's senate Democrats memorialized the late Tom Hayden, a former state senator, husband of Jane Fonda, and leading figure in the New Left. On Thursday, February 23, southern California Republican Janet Nguyen rose to ... and more »

Originally posted here:

Free Speech Smackdown - FrontPage Magazine

A survey of U.S. political science professors a month into Donald Trumps presidency shows that fraud-free elections tops a list of 19 principles as most essential to democracy, as do free speech and a free press.

Political scientists at Dartmouth College, the University of Rochester and Yale University collaborated on the survey as part of an initiative they called Bright Line Watch. They wanted to get the experts reading on the status of democratic practices and potential threats to American democracy.

Dartmouth professor John Carey said the groups motivation was impatience with many news articles saying the sky is falling with regard to the status of American democracy since Trumps victory. He added: What were doing is not motivated by a partisan agenda; its really an intellectual agenda.

Participants were asked to rank principles on how important they are for a democratic government, and then rate them on how well they describe the United States now. Clean elections and equal voting rights were ranked as high priorities for democracy.

One principle, that elections be free from foreign influence, was regarded by the vast majority as essential or important. But less than half thought the U.S. mostly or fully meets this standard, and a number said they werent sure if it did. The results probably speak to how new and unsettling the prospect of foreign interference is for many political scientists, said Yale University professor Susan Stokes, who co-organized the survey.

My own hunch is that anxiety about this issue is related not just to reporting that there was Russian influence (in the November presidential election), but also to reports of the insidious nature of that influence that it was carried out in a highly clandestine manner through hacking, and that its true nature may never be revealed, she said.

U.S. agencies, including the FBI, have been probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three congressional committees are conducting separate investigations into the issue, including contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign and administration.

The principle of all votes having equal impact on election results ranked low on the priority list for democracy, probably reflecting long-standing institutions of electoral exclusion and wide socioeconomics inequalities that have been matters of concern for many years, the study said.

Rated as least essential is that politicians campaign without criticism of their opponents loyalty or patriotism.

The group surveyed 9,820 professors at 511 U.S. institutions by email Feb. 13 through 19, and received 1,571 responses. The survey sample was compiled from a list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 meeting of the American Political Science Association conference.

Visit link:

Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy - Concord Monitor

Charlotte Observer

Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' Charlotte Observer Many on the right hailed Milo as one of the few brave enough to defend free speech and speak uncomfortable truths. After his speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, he was invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action ... Un-blurring the lines of free speechHuffington Post The limits of promoting 'free speech'The State Milo outs the fair-weather friends of free speechSacramento Bee The Globe and Mail -The Student Life -cuindependent all 180 news articles »

Read more:

Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' - Charlotte Observer

Forbes

Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights Forbes Northwest Florida is largely inhabited by conservative folk who believe in private property and limited government under the Constitution. Nevertheless, officials in Walton County have been hammering both the First Amendment and property rights in an ...

Original post:

Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights - Forbes

I testified yesterday before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House on the model campus free speech legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute. After my initial presentation, fireworks followed. Although my sense is that the majority of the committee is positively inclined toward legislation designed to ensure campus free speech, a few of the Democratic representatives were more skeptical. These skeptics dominated the questioning. One skeptic in particular, Orlando Democrat Carlos Guillermo Smith, pressed me repeatedly on the need to limit freedom of speech in order to combat hate speech. If you want to see an open clash on the free speech vs. hate speech controversy, this is it.

You can find video of the hearing here. My initial presentation runs about 17 minutes, from the 35:5053:27 mark of the video. The fireworks come during the 32 minute question period, particularly (but not exclusively) during the back and forth with Rep. Smith, which begins at the start of the question period (53:30) and returns again at the 1:18:16 mark.

Also note that in my response to questioning by Democratic Representative Robert Asencio (Miami-Dade), (which begins at 1:12:22), I refer to an incident in which leftist students silence a conservative student by way of the rehearsed and coordinated tactic of clapping her down. Video of this clap-down can be found here.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read more:

Free Speech Fireworks in Florida - National Review

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER The Georgetown University Law Centers policy against campaigning was criticized as anti-free speech.

Georgetown University was included in a list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education based on free speech cases the foundation has worked on during the previous year.

In a report released Wednesday, FIRE a nonprofit focused on defending individual liberties at educational institutions citied an incident last year at Georgetown University Law Center in which students were blocked from campaigning for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on campus.

During the September 2015 primary season, GULCs Office of Student Life rejected students request to table for Sanders outside GULCs McDonough Hall. The group instead used tables inside the McDonough cafeteria to campaign, but Oct. 13, 2015 the day of the first Democratic debate the group was asked to leave by university officials.

The university cited that because of its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization under the 501(c)(3) category of the Internal Revenue Code, it could not engage in partisan political campaign activity.

FIRE Director of Litigation Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon cited the status of the student group H*yas for Choice, which is not formally recognized by the university, as an additional reason behind Georgetowns position on the list.

Georgetown has made some efforts to improve its policies on speech and expression in recent years, but its execution has not always been great, as Im sure H*yas for Choice can attest, considering they are still not a recognized student organization, Beck-Coon wrote in an email to The Hoya. The Law Centers confusing and overly restrictive handling of student partisan political speech this election year is another example of that.

FIRE wrote an open letter to Georgetown University Law Center Dean William Treanor on Feb. 1, 2016, on behalf of Alexander Atkins (LAW 17) and other students who were tabling in support of Sanders.

Additionally, the group spoke on behalf of Atkins at a subcommittee hearing of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, entitled Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses, on March 2, 2016.

Georgetowns Office of Federal Relations wrote in a letter to the subcommittee hearing on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses that it was changing its policies to better protect Georgetown Law students right to political expression.

The Office of Federation Relations wrote in a letter to the Chairman Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ranking Member of the subcommittee John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Feb. 29, 2016, to further explain changes in its policies.

We are adjusting the policies to make very clear that individuals as well as groups are able to reserve tables for organized activity and that all members of our community are able to make reasonable use of University resources to express their political opinions, the letter reads.

Treanor stressed the importance of free speech at GULC in an email to The Hoya.

We share Georgetowns commitment to the fundamental right of members of our community to free expression, dialogue and academic inquiry and are aware of the concerns expressed by our students, Treanor wrote. We are currently exploring the best ways to respond to these issues.

Despite these changes in university policy, some groups still say they encounter restrictions.

2017 marks the second year Georgetown has appeared on FIREs list. Georgetown was first listed in 2014 because of a free speech incident regarding H*yas for Choice in which the group was removed from tabling in Healy Circle and was relocated outside of Georgetowns front gates.

Additionally, two condom envelopes were removed Sept. 23, 2016, from the doors of students who volunteered with H*yas for Choice on the fifth floor of Village C West.

According to a September email interview with Georgetown University Police Department Chief Jay Gruber, the envelopes were removed because GUPD had received a report of vandalism on the fifth floor of VCW and interpreted the envelopes as part of the vandalism.

Georgetown University Student Association and H*yas for Choice cited the incident as a violation of the free expression policy at Georgetown.

H*yas for Choice Co-President Brinna Ludwig (NHS 17) said she believes there has been little policy change in recent years, and free speech restrictions are still a major problem for the organization.

H*yas for Choice has encountered a number of issues related to free speech, Ludwig wrote. We are also restricted by the tabling zone policy, which limits where we are allowed to set up our table.

Georgetown College Republicans President Allie Williams (SFS 19) also highlighted the importance of expanding free speech areas on campus. Williams wrote in an email to The Hoya that because the student body tends to be more liberal, free speech issues occur particularly in regard to GUCR and the speakers the group invites to campus.

As a college campus with a student body that inevitably leans left, Georgetown has had its fair share of free speech issues and, as a conservative organization that often invites controversial speakers, we have absolutely suffered from closed dialogue at GUCR, Williams wrote. The limited areas for free speech on campus is concerning and something that the University should definitely work on going forward.

GUSA free speech policy team chair D.J. Angelini (MSB 17) wrote in an email to The Hoya that students should see the ranking as motivation to continue to fight for free speech improvements across campus.

I look at that rating not as an indication of what Georgetowns doing wrong, but rather to show that we need to constantly regard speech and expression as one of the most important pieces of campus life today, Angelini wrote. I believe Georgetowns administrators and students are committed to these ideals and I hope the rating energizes more students to get involved in promoting a culture of free speech on campus.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

See the rest here:

Study Ranks Georgetown Low for Free Speech - Georgetown University The Hoya

5500509

The annual Manning Centre Conference in Ottawa Canadas answer to CPAC focused on free speech and Islamophobia Friday.

Interim Conservative Party of Canada leader Rona Ambrose began the event with a passionate pledge to continue to fight for freedom of religion and free speech. Ambrose had led the fight the previous week in the House of Commons to stop an Islamophobia motion from an Ontario Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) that could eventually criminalize criticism of Islamic extremism.

The Conservatives were the only political party to oppose Motion M-103, opting to propose their own that would not have granted special status to Islam and its adherents.

At a special session at the event, noted critic of Islamic extremism Raheel Raza, herself a Muslim, warned the audience that radical Islam is dedicated to infiltrating and destroying Western countries like Canada and the U.S. After reading from polling that revealed a majority of Muslim around the world are in favor of Sharia law replacing the secular criminal codes of the countries in which they live, Raza stated that radical Muslims have an ideology that is not in-synch with human rights.

Raza noted that she cant remember how Canada removed the Lords Prayer from schools when she was a child but now in Toronto-area schools there are Muslim prayers on Friday, that has established an ominous double-standard.

She blasted M-103 as akin to a blasphemy law and ridiculed the motions author, MP Iqra Khalid more suggesting that one million Canadian Muslims are victims of racism and bigotry.

Raza asked, Seriously?

She suggested that Canadians are being subjected to a disinformation campaign by Muslim extremists while the Canadian government continues to deny the existence of radical Jihad.

The Muslim Brotherhood, she said, has publicly stated its intention of eliminating and destroying U.S. civilization from within.

Raza was followed by Terrorism and Security Experts Network director Thomas Quiggan, who also said the Liberal Islamophobia motion was a danger to free speech and democracy. Quiggan said that the motions author should be asked, Is it Islamophobic to say that women might not enjoy being beaten, after citing Muslim literature that advocated wife-beating.

Quiggan said the Quebec City mosque shooting was a clear failure of intelligence because the targeted congregation had received threats prior to the fatal event. With that tragedy, Quiggan said, the cycle of violence has come to Canada with terrorist organizations raising money, indoctrinating agents and ultimately breeding more violence and death.

In a question and answer session, Raza contradicted one member of the audience who termed radical Islamic terror as delicate issue, saying, It is an important, not a delicate issue. It has an aura of delicacy around it because of political correctness.

Follow David on Twitter

Read the original post:

Canadian Conservatives Vow To Defend Free Speech - Daily Caller

5500053

The chair of a university Free Speech Task Force bashed what he called the stifling politically correct left and is planning to create content and events pertaining to free speech.

Censoring, just banning someone on campus and saying we consider you dangerous because of your ideas, because of [sic] what you said doesnt have a lot of educational value, said Glenn Geher, Chair of the Free Speech Task Force at State University of New York (SUNY) New Paltz. This is a place where all voices can be heard, even if some of them are unpleasant.

The cancellation of SUNYs debate with Accuracy in Media (AIM) director of investigative journalism Cliff Kincaid, yet again puts the university at the center of the national discourse about free speech on college campuses.

What I find troubling, which people dont seem to be talking about that much, is what is the point of bringing people who are essentially hate mongers to a college campus? said SUNY sociology professor Anne R. Roschelle. I disagree with the idea of a university spending money on someone [sic] is a known hate monger.

The discussion was cancelled after Roschelle complained about Kincaids participation during a conversation over faculty email. The would-be debaters were paid $7,500 in total for the unexpected cancellation. The sociology professor later said that she supported the expression of different perspectives.

I have a couple of problems with [faculty resistance to speakers]; one is that makes this presumption that students arent bright enough to come up with their own opinions, said Geher, in response. If were doing a good job educating students, they should be able to listen to something like that and if there are genuine problems with their argument or if the student is concerned about what theyre saying, then they should be able to process it and argue back.

Gehers Free Speech Task Force has already hosted events on campus, one of which was a talk by Dr. Jonathan Haidt on victimhood culture, safe spaces, and political correctness.

Resources offered by SUNY New Paltzs Free Speech Task Force can be accessed here.

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Send tips torob@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

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

Visit link:

University Free Speech Chair Slams 'Stifling Politically Correct Left' - Daily Caller

Given what Ive seen lately, Im not sure most of us really understand the concept of free speech enshrined in our Constitution. The First Amendment is essential to the preservation of our liberty, and weve treated it with all the respect of a box of Kleenex use it when convenient and toss it.

Lets review the historical context first. English common law contained a doctrine called seditious libel that essentially prevented criticism of the state. Many of Americas founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson recognized the potential threat that kind of speech restraint posed to our young republic. In fact, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789 would test the mettle of the Bill of Rights only a few years after its adoption. In the modern context, the First Amendment preserves the right of the people to criticize government and public officials without fear of punishment.

As powerful as it is, the First Amendment is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the government may impose speech restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech. Such restrictions must be content-neutral, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest and provide for alternative channels of communication. So, no, you dont have a constitutional right to protest in the middle of the interstate at night.

Here are some critical speech and press issues we ought to address:

The First Amendment protects our rights in wonderful ways, but theres nothing magic about the paper or ink of the Bill of Rights. Our speech, press and religious freedoms depend on us. Its time we use them more frequently to advance liberty and less often to tear each other down.

Image by Chris DeRidder and Hans VandenNieuwendijk

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/02/free_speech_isnt_a_justificati.html

Alabama Media Group

Read the rest here:

'Free speech' isn't a justification for being terrible - R Street

State Sen. Kim Thatcher has what she says is a plan to help protect free speech and ensure student safety on college campuses.

It involves expelling students.

Thatcher, a Keizer Republican, deserves points for originality sort of. The qualifier is needed because one suspects that Thatchers main goal is to yank Democrats chains, given that her bill has less chance of passing the Oregon Legislature than a resolution honoring President Trump.

Thatchers Senate Bill 540 would require community colleges and public universities to expel students found criminally guilty of violent rioting.

Thatcher says she is a huge supporter of the First Amendment and that this is a free speech issue.

Free speech protects us all and ensures we can exercise the critical right to share our truth., she said by way of explanation. Violence is not free speech. My bill will help protect students who are peacefully protesting from bad apples in the crowd who exploit peaceful protests to engineer violent riots.

Thatcher is not an attorney she owns a highway construction firm so her bill glides past several issues. These include the states legal definition of a riot, which requires that there are a minimum of six people acting violently.

Theres also the difficulty of convicting someone of rioting.

Portland police arrested almost 20 people after a January protest turned violent but later dropped charges against all but four of them. It is not clear if any of the four remaining people are 1) still facing charges and 2) students at state colleges or universities.

Then theres the question of whether the Legislature really wants to get into the business of writing student conduct codes for the state schools, which are unlikely to greet the prospect warmly.

Thatcher has had her fun. She and her colleagues need to settle down now to the serious business of dealing with the states massive budget deficit, figuring out how to fund health care if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, and what to do about Oregons dismal high school graduation rate.

More Editorial articles

See the original post here:

'Protecting' free speech - The Register-Guard

After issuing a warm Aggie welcome to incoming UC Davis chancellor Gary May from Georgia Tech, interim UCD chancellor Ralph Hexter delivered A message to our campus community about a completely different subject.

Hexter, who has agreed to carry on in his interim role until the new chancellor comes aboard on Aug. 1, begins with the words I have no doubt that the next few years will be ideologically charged ones for many college campuses across the country.

Certainly doesnt take a Ph.D. behind your name to agree with that statement.

As I said at our Fall Convocation, Hexter continues, I cannot recall a moment in my lifetime when the discourse of our national community was more vitriolic and polarized.

Given that I have a few years on the interim chancellor, I can state with authority that his words are correct. We are most definitely sailing in uncharted waters.

Hexter then leaves the national arena to discuss recent polarizing events on the UC Davis campus itself.

Because UC Davis is a public university, he notes, our faculty and duly registered student clubs are allowed to invite speakers with diverse perspectives to share their views and insights with the larger community. Consistent with our legal responsibilities, we do not screen these speakers based on the content of their views.

Many U.S. Supreme Court decisions have rested on that very principle. However, there are still folks out there who wish to ban anything that might hurt their feelings or rupture their eardrums.

Added Hexter, We have for many years received demands from individuals in our community to ban invited speakers whose views they found objectionable, and those demands have recently intensified. (Can you spell Yiannopoulos?)

Again, consistent with our legal responsibilities, grounded in the First Amendment to the Constitution, we do not exercise prior restraint on speech.

Thank heavens for clear thinking in the face of the recent ugliness on campus.

We understand that controversial speakers may well inspire protest, and we fully support properly conducted protests. Protesters, too, enjoy free-speech protections, but like any expression, protest is subject to time, place and manner restrictions.

Which means no reading the Bible out loud in advanced calculus, and no yelling someone stole my popcorn in a crowded theater.

Yes, all you purists, free speech does come with limits. But not many.

Unfortunately, at one event last year, protesters shouted down and for a time physically blocked the audience from observing the speaker. Recently, a student club invited a speaker with views abhorrent to many. On this occasion, protesters managed to prevent the orderly entry of ticketed audience members to the lecture hall so that the speech was cancelled before it could even begin.

A hecklers veto, as the court would call it.

I am mindful that some speakers may be extremely upsetting to members of our community, particularly those who believe they are targets of the speech. However, I am also vigilant about our obligation to uphold everyones First Amendment freedoms. This commitment includes fostering an environment that avoids censorship and allows space and time for differing points of view.

UC Davis is a community for all ideas, and our campus is committed to ensuring that all members are allowed to freely hear, express and debate different points of view. In the incidents I described above, we fell short of permitting free expression and exchange of ideas.

Indeed, it was an unnecessary, but well deserved black eye.

Our First Amendment rights are treasures provided to every member of our American community, but those rights do not include the silencing of speakers or blocking of audiences from hearing speakers. When we prevent words from being delivered or heard, we are trampling on the First Amendment. Even when a speakers message is deeply offensive to certain groups, the right to convey the message and the right to hear it are protected.

Hexter has hit on a key, but unwritten part of free speech when he talks about the right to be heard. While the Constitution does not specifically say that anyone has a right to be heard, the whole reason behind free speech goes out the window if no one can hear you.

Of course, no one can be forced to hear what you have to say, but on the flip side, no one should be allowed to prevent others from hearing you.

Hexter also is right to point out that the campus oft-mentioned Principles of Community are aspirational in nature and not grounded in Constitutional law.

Concludes Hexter, In the coming weeks, I will be creating a work group of campus representatives students, faculty and staff and key campus constituents to develop recommended practices and policies to ensure invited speakers can deliver their messages unimpeded.

Hopefully, participants will take a serious stroll through the First Amendment and study the many volumes of case law on the subject before instituting any such practices and policies.

Reach Bob Dunning at [emailprotected]. Catch Bobs Tuesday and Thursday columns at http://www.davisenterprise.com, under web update

See the rest here:

Bob Dunning: Safeguarding free speech, and easy listening - Davis Enterprise

Georgias colleges and universities would be required to expand areas designated for free speech under legislation filed in the state House on Thursday.

House Bill 471, byRep. Buzz Brockway, R-Lawrenceville, says public colleges and universities may notlimit or restrict a students expression or discipline a student because others oppose the students speech.

Any member of the university community who wishes to engage in expressive activity shall be permitted to do so, the bill says, in anygenerally accessible outdoor areas of campuses.

But the bill also says schools may not deny agroup of students the right to form an organization ordiscriminate against a student organization based on the expression of the organization.

Brockway said the bill includes protections for schools to combat harassment or bullying and from organizations like the KKK from forming on campuses.

They have these tinyfree speech zones, that gives ahecklers veto to anyone who opposes what is being said, Brockway said.

Originally posted here:

Bill requires free speech on campus for all - Atlanta Journal Constitution

Last night in Charleston, South Carolina, police arrested local Black Lives Matter leader Muhiyidin dBaha for taking away a Confederate flag from a member of the SC Secessionist Party and damaging it. Authorities held dBaha overnight. Today they charged him with disorderly conduct and malicious injury to real property. He was released this afternoon.

W. Scott Poole

The incident occurred at an event sponsored by the College of Charleston featuring Bree Newsome, herself arrested in 2015 for tearing the flag of the dead slaveholders republic from the flagpole on the grounds of the South Carolina State House. The College, of which I am a faculty member, created a free speech zone for those Confederate flag enthusiasts who sought to intimidate those attending the event even though the group has threatened to visit our campus every Sunday in retaliation for asking Newsome to speak.

Muhiyidin dBaha, however, was the one arrested for disorderly conduct.

About seven neo-Confederates appeared (four according to a colleague) and faced a counter-demonstration of perhaps two hundred students and community allies, including BLM and a white anti-racist ally organization called SURJ (Showing Up For Racial Justice). During the event, one man held the Confederate flag while others stood by facing the massive counter-protest.

At least one of the neo-Confederates yelled insults, including racial epithets at African American students. Police and campus security fully protected the S.C. Secessionist Party in their free speech zone, including the symbolic act of waving a symbol that reminds not only of slavery but the 150 years of racial violence that have followed, including the 2015 slaying of nine black parishioners of Charlestons Emanuel AME Church by Dylann Roof, himself a fan of the Confederate flag.

But the authorities have charged Muhiyidin dBaha with disorderly conduct.

SURJ began a fundraising campaign for dBaha last night and quickly met their goal for his bail. SURJ allies also went to court today and stood in solidarity with him. However, one member of SURJ told me they had been disturbed that some white liberals expressed anger at dBahas action, suggesting that he violated the tenets of peaceful demonstration. The SURJ activist confessed concern over this attitude since it reflects the tendency of even allies to be shaped by white privilege and expectations about proper Black behavior.

After all, Muhiyidin dBaha took a symbolic action just as did the whites who sought to intimidate with their use of the flag. They received a free speech zone. He went to jail for disorderly conduct and, in context, the ridiculous charge of malicious damage to real property.

The American South, even in the century after slavery, maintained a tradition enforced by violence of racial etiquette. dBaha rejected that whole tradition last night. In the spirit of Bree Newsomes talk that the SC Secessionists wanted to prevent, he sought to tear hatred from the sky.

I dont expect white conservatives to think Muhiyidin received any less than he deserved. So I dont write for them. But white allies owe him more.

At a public forum today on Frederick Douglass, one of my colleagues read a portion of his speech What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? It is not light that is needed, but fire, she read, it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and Man must be proclaimed and denounced.

Last night in Charleston, a city slavery built, Muhiyidin dBaha brought the storm, the whirlwind and the earthquake. Others brought their shameful efforts to frighten and intimidate with a symbol that festers with a sordid past.

So the police arrested dBaha for disorderly conduct and the damage he did to real property.

In South Carolina, there is free speech and then there is Black Speech.

Original post:

Free Speech and Black Speech in Charleston, South Carolina - Huffington Post