In the week that saw Milo Yiannopoulos lose a book deal, a speaking gig and his Breitbart platform, he left the burning building, still slow dancing with his core value of free speech. I want people to be able to be, do, and say anything, he asserted at his press conference. Thats the ideal. But Milo is proof that free speech obviously isnt free. It has limits. Even in the US, where the First Amendment is a revered cornerstone of the Constitution and a wrong word can cost you sorely.

Its a curious anomaly, and it could be the wording thats the problem. Free speech sounds like an absolute term. Say what you like and done.

But in reality, it more likely exists in gradations; refracted through a variety of subjective differentiators. Free-ish might be the better term.

Pew Research gauging support for freedom of expression confirms where the main fault lines lie: in the US, 95% agree that they should be able to publicly criticize government policies.

Support drops to 77% when it comes to offending religious beliefs. 67% thought people should be able to make statements offensive to minority groups.

Half (52%) say that sexually explicit statements are OK. And 44% are comfortable with calls for violent protests.

Compared to the global median, the research shows the US values freedom of expression more highly across a wider range of issues. But the pattern of depreciation is there. The more racial, explicit and likely to incite violence the more support drops.

There are even more variables you could factor in partisanship, class, gender and the range of what could tick people off becomes so wide that censoring yourself against every potential instance of offence isnt feasible.

Free speech becomes a mire; a tight-rope walk. But the one good guide among the blurred lines is reciprocity. If you can flip what youre saying, so that it applies to you and yours, and youre still cool with expression of the sentiment, then congratulations. Youre a free speech absolutist.

But if you cant take the same back; or dont want to weather the inquiry and criticism that are products of free speech then it has limits. And youve defined them.

See the original post here:

Un-blurring the lines of free speech - Huffington Post

The issue of free speech on college campuses will be the focus of this years Sidney Z. Vincent Memorial Lecture on March 15.

The lecture, Free Speech on Campus: Are There Limits? will be presented during the Jewish Federation of Clevelands community relations committees 70th annual meeting.

The event will begin at 7 p.m. at The Temple-Tifereth Israel in Beachwood.

Bradley Schlang, chair of the community relations committee, said the topic was chosen because of its relevance to the local Jewish community.

We chose the topic because with the political environment and the BDS movement, its become a real issue, especially for our young adults in the Jewish community, Schlang said. Were finding that a number of students are feeling uncomfortable expressing their Jewishness or love of Israel because of the backlash that they face.

Panelists will include Mark Yudof, president emeritus of the University of California and professor of law emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley; Blake Morant, dean and the Robert Kramer research professor of law at The George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C.; and Susan Kruth, program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit founded in 1999 that focuses on civil liberties in academia in the United States.

Kevin S. Adelstein, publisher and CEO of the Cleveland Jewish News and president of the Cleveland Jewish Publication Company, will serve as moderator.

Schlang said Kruth was selected as a panelist due to the work her organization does to protect free speech on campus, while Yudof and Morant were selected for their expertise.

They are experts in their fields, not only being directly on campus that they bring that direct relationship and they have seen first-hand what speech on campus is about today and the problems that were seeing, but also as specialists on free speech from the legal perspective on what free speech actually means, Schlang said.

In addition to learning more about the concerns surrounding free speech on college campuses, Schlang said he hopes attendees will walk away with some strategies for how to combat the issue.

The CRC annual meeting always provides thought-provoking topics but also always with action items, he said. How do you work with students on campus? How do we work with the Hillels in order to provide a comfortable environment for all viewpoints to be expressed in a safe environment?

We want to create an environment here where people can discuss these issues and hear whats happening on campuses so that they can work with the rest of the community and with their kids to understand what theyre facing on campus today.

Kristen Mott is a former staff reporter at the Cleveland Jewish News.

Follow this link:

Free speech on campuses topic of Federation CRC meeting - Cleveland Jewish News

HOLY CITY TRIES TO SHUT DOWN FUTURE CONFEDERATE FLAGGINGS

Days after supporters of the Confederate flag hoisted their banners from the rooftops of parking garages in downtown Charleston, S.C., the Holy City taking steps to block future free expression of

According to a notice issued from the office of liberal mayor John Tecklenburg, city of Charleston parking garages now expressly forbid Signs, Banners, Flags or other Displays that Protrude Through Openings Between Parking Levels, or Upon the Exterior Surfaces Between Parking Levels or that Extend Higher Than the Perimeter Wall on the Top of the Garage.

The misuse of city garages to fly various flags and banners was unexpected, a city spokesman said. This notice makes it clear that city garages are for parking, not for these types of public displays, and it applies to any and every one equally.

Leaders of the S.C. Secessionist Party which unfurled the controversial banners said the citys action was an attempt to silence protected speech. They also said the response to the new edict was yet another example of liberal intolerance.

You would think liberals would be screaming from the roof about infringement upon their rights but theyre cheering this on, said James Bessenger, leader of the party. Theyre too dumb to realize this effects them too.

According to Bessenger, the city never would have issued such an order had we raised an American flag or a rainbow flag or a state flag.

Bessengers group sent a letter to the city asking it to provide its legal basis for restricting free expression at city-owned parking garages.

Following consultation with multiple civil rights organizations and review of the library of city ordinances we have been unable to find anything which supports the ban of flags, banners, and signs that are affixed to privately owned vehicles parked in garages in any standing law or ordinance, he wrote.

According to Bessengers letter, Tecklenburgs administration was attempting to crush under its heel the rights of the People of Charleston to free speech simply because the Mayor was upset about an exercise of free speech he did not agree with.

Our view?

First of all, as weve stated repeatedly, government has no business whatsoeverbeing involved in the parking garage business. This issue shouldnt even be before us because parking garagesshould be private property with private owners determining the policies for patrons as they see fit.

Since government has chosen to intervene in this particular corner of the marketplace, though, it seems to us there is a presumption of permissiveness when it comes to various expressions. So long as that expression does not directly interfere with the exercise of another liberty.

Incidentally, thesuppression of free speech in Charleston comes as another taxpayer-fundedentity in the Palmetto State the University of South Carolina made a list of theten worst campuses for free speech in the entire country.

Clearly speech is only to be tolerated if it conforms with whatever the herd has defined at that particular moment as being politically correct.

Banner viaS.C. Secessionist Party

Original post:

Charleston SC Puts Kibosh On Free Speech - FITSNews

Students at Loyola University rally in solidarity with the Mizzou football team's strike against racism (The Loyola Phoenix)

LOYOLA UNIVERSITY students organizing for a variety of progressive goals, from women's rights and to justice for campus workers, are now at the center of their own struggle to overturn bureaucratic restrictions on their right to free speech and assembly.

In the aftermath of Donald Trump's election victory, students around the country recognized the urgency of organizing in solidarity with those who are the target of Trump's attacks. But in many places, they are facing increased barriers to protesting, as universities place further restrictions on the right to organize--even while administrators claim their campuses to be bastions of free speech.

At Loyola, several organizations--including Students for Reproductive Justice, Students for Worker Justice, Students Organizing for Syria and the Loyola Socialists--recently initiated a campaign in defense of students' right to organize. The groups' petition has already been signed by more than 250 students, faculty, staff and alumni.

Trump's election has transformed the political climate at Loyola. As the new administration targets immigrants and refugees, women, LGBTQ people, people of color, union members and low-wage workers, many students are looking for avenues to effectively organize and resist--and for spaces to discuss political alternatives to a system of racism, sexism, xenophobia, poverty and war.

On Inauguration Day, more than 200 students rallied, marched and briefly occupied the student center--to denounce Trump and to demand that Loyola's administration declare the school a sanctuary for its undocumented students and workers.

Groups of Loyola students participated in the Women's March and the protests at O'Hare International Airport against Trump's Muslim ban, and a number of meetings have been held on campus to discuss next steps in pushing to make Loyola a sanctuary campus for immigrants.

Unfortunately, Loyola's administration has thrown up significant barriers to students organizing to discuss, strategize and speak out. The administration's policies around reserving rooms, publicizing meetings and tabling on campus make it very difficult for any group of students which does not have recognized student organization (RSO) status to do any of these things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE UNIVERSITY'S "solicitation policy" defines "promotion of an idea" as solicitation, which is subject to regulation and approval by the Dean of Students. In effect, any group of students whose political message isn't sanctioned by the university is prevented from communicating publicly or organizing freely.

The Loyola Socialists, a campus branch of the International Socialist Organization, recently applied for and were denied RSO status by the university. And the ISO isn't the only organization on campus that isn't officially recognized. Loyola's hostility to activist organizations fighting for progressive change has a well-documented recent history.

Students for Worker Justice and Students for Reproductive Justice, both of whom have ongoing campaigns targeting the university's hypocritical anti-worker and anti-woman policies, aren't recognized by the university and have faced bureaucratic obstacles.

In addition, the administration has treated recent successful unionization campaigns by graduate employees and non-tenured faculty with outright hostility.

Loyola Students for Justice in Palestine had their RSO status revoked for a whole year following a spontaneous demonstration in the student center against the anti-Palestinian Birthright organization. And in 2015, the administration threatened three students with suspension for organizing a 700-strong Black Lives Matter demonstration on campus.

The arbitrary application of Loyola University's bureaucratic standards around student organizations and the onerous rules applied to groups of students who wish to organize are a significant curtailment of free assembly, free association and free speech.

Those of us who organize on college campuses need to fight against bureaucratic restrictions on free speech and the right to assemble, which always have and always will be used against those who challenge the administration's right to run our universities like corporations.

Go here to read the rest:

Tear down Loyola's walls against free speech - Socialist Worker Online

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an advocacy group, named Cal State Long Beach to its list of 10 worst of the worst U.S. campuses for free speech.

The Philadelphia-based group, which is also known as FIRE, also included Cal State Los Angeles on its list, alongside private institutions including Harvard and Georgetown universities.

Cal State Long Beach ended up on the list following last years events that led to Michele Roberge, the former Carpenter Performing Arts Center director, resigning in protest after school officials declined to support the performance of a potentially controversial theater performance

The performance, Speak Theater Arts N*igger Wetb*k Ch*nk, is a satire of racial stereotypes featuring performers of African, Latino and Asian descent. The Carpenter Center had booked the show for a September 2016 performance that never took place.

Peter Bonilla, FIREs vice president of programs, said in a telephone interview that its obvious from the shows title that the performers are seeking to be provocative, adding the campus did the right thing by letting Speak Theater Arts show go on in 2015.

But what he described as the campuss particular stubbornness and refusal to reverse itself on the shows cancellation last year warranted Cal State Long Beachs inclusion on FIREs list of the worst campuses for free speech.

Its a shame it didnt follow its own script this year, he said.

Campus spokeswoman Terri Carbaugh replied to FIREs list by accusing the organization of ignoring the day-to-day nature of political expression on the campus.

FIREs survey techniques are questionable at best, she said in an email. On any given day a visitor to campus will hear speech ranging from the far right to the far left and everywhere in between. Our campus not only embraces, but teaches the value of, free speech in all forms and is home to a renowned First Amendment rights center.

She also defended the campus environment for artists.

On any given day you could also see a broad array of art projects that meld inside and outside of the mainstream, from the outrageous to the mild mannered, Carbaugh added.

Last year, campus President Jane Close Conoley and Roberge gave different accounts to explain why last years performance was canceled.

Conoley said in September the performance could have gone forward, but she declined to ask faculty and other campus employees to develop educational content related to the social issues involved with the performance, as was the case about the time of the shows 2015 performance.

Advertisement

Roberge, however, said Conoley ordered the shows cancellation. She resigned in protest shortly thereafter and continues to say the decision to cancel the show came from the presidents office.

It was a complete alternative fact, Roberge said Wednesday of Conoleys past description of events.

Roberge said she has not landed at a new job since leaving Carpenter Center, but said her stance led to the Association of Performing Arts Presenters honoring her with its North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents Award for Excellence in Presenting.

I stood up for the artists, and I stood up for the voice of the artists, Roberge said.

FIREs Chief Executive Greg Lukianoff revealed the groups reasons for including 10 schools on its worst of the worst list in a Huffington Post op-ed piece published Wednesday. The list calls out institutions for reported suppressions of conservative, liberal and apolitical expression.

Cal State Los Angeles made the list for events surrounding conservative commentator Ben Shapiros appearance on campus in February 2015. That campuss president allowed Shapiro to appear after a previous decision to cancel his appearance in the interest of safety and security. Protesters blocked people from listening to Shapiros on-campus remarks.

Other instances, as described by FIRE:

Harvard University made the list for administrators reported attempt to blacklist students enrolled in single-gender organizations like fraternities and sororities from certain scholarships and student leadership posts.

Georgetown University received criticism after its law school stopped students from campaigning on behalf of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders while he was seeking the Democratic Partys presidential nomination in 2015. Georgetown altered its policy, but Lukianoffs post asserted pro-Sanders students continued to experience difficulties afterward.

Go here to read the rest:

CSULB makes 'worst of the worst' list for free speech - Long Beach Press Telegram

Self-described troll and conservative writer Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News on Feb. 21, but his far-right speeches and provocative comments aren't going anywhere. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

Update: Milo Yiannopoulos resigned from Breitbart News Tuesday. In a statement, he said the decision was "mine alone," though The Washington Post's David Weigel and Robert Costa previously reported that "by late Monday afternoon, there were ongoing discussions at Breitbart about Yiannopouloss future at the company."

Here is Yiannopouloss full statement:

The original post follows.

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to hate political correctness. He is about to feel the pain of livingwithout its benefits.

Despite all of Yiannopoulos'stalk, the reality is that the Breitbart News editor has thrived on political correctness. He built his brand not by saying substantive things but by demanding that he be allowed to say whatever he wants whileexploiting the fear that nothing couldbe seen asmore politically incorrect than appearing to deny his right to free speech.

That fear the worry that shutting up Yiannopoulos will make you look like an enemy of the First Amendment faded over the weekend when the Conservative Political Action Conference canceled a scheduled speech by the professional provocateur after remarks he made last year about sex involving adults and underage teens resurfaced online.

[CPAC rescinds Yiannopoulos invitation amid social media uproar]

In one interview from January 2016, Yiannopoulos shared his viewthat pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature.

The controversyalso prompted Threshold Editions, a Simon & Schuster imprint that publishes conservative authors, to pull the plug on a book by Yiannopoulos that was scheduled for release in June.

Yiannopoulos has never been a sophisticated voice in conservative politics. He has made a career out of being the gay immigrant who tellshis Breitbart audience that it is okay to use gay slurs and discriminate against immigrants. Yet he is remarkably skilled at convincing others that shutting out his kind of intolerance is a kind of intolerance all its own.

[Milo Yiannopouloss Trumpian rise shows how the GOP is stuck in opposition mode]

AsYiannopoulos has promoted the idea that PC police are trying to silence him, college after college has agreed to lethim speak on campus.Even the University of California at Berkeley, a beacon of liberalism, granted a student group's request to host Yiannopoulos earlier this month. A protest that turned violent forced the event's cancellation at the last minute, but the university said in a statement that it felt bound by the Constitution, the law, our values, and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.

Bound is the key word there. Yiannopoulos knows that people and institutions feel bound to let him talk because of their commitment to free speech and, yes, because of political correctness. Free speech and political correctness have long been Yiannopoulos's best weapons in his relentless PR push.

Now, however, no one will feel bound to givea microphone to someone who thinks sex between a grown man and an underage boy can be consensual. No one will feel bound to amplify a voice that even CPAC deemed unworthy of inclusion.

Until this weekend, the politically correct thing to do was to just let Yiannopoulos talk. Not anymore.

Here is the original post:

Milo Yiannopoulos resigns from Breitbart, proving his free ride on free speech is over - Washington Post

Virginia Delegate Dave LaRock (R-Clarke, Frederick, and Loudoun Counties) has just filed House Resolution 431, The Campus Free Speech Resolution. HR 431 is based on the model legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute.

Since the Virginia House of Delegates is nearingthe end of its current session, Delegate LaRock is offering a resolution conveying the sense of the legislature, to be followed up next session by detailed legislation based on the Goldwater model. As Delegate LaRock put it in a press release, This resolution will put down a marker as a precursor for next session when I will follow up with legislation to assure that universities take this seriously.

Explaining his reason for taking up the Goldwater proposal on campus free speech, Del. LaRock said, Virginia is the cradle of democracy and it is a disgrace that many universities have lost track of the idea that it is their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles By passing this measure we are communicating to universities and the public that students are in school to learn how to think; they are not going to college to be protected from differing opinions.

Virginias HR 431, and Del. LaRocks promise to follow it next session with fuller legislation based on the Goldwater model, means that Virginia is now the third state to move forward with initiatives based on the Goldwater proposal. North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced that a bill will soon be filed in that state, and Illinois Representative Peter Breen has introduced HB 2939. And although no bill has yet been filed, I will be testifying at the request of Education Committee Chair Michael Bileca before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House this Thursday on the Goldwater proposal.

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

Read the rest here:

Dave LaRock's Virginia Campus Free Speech Resolution - National Review

To understand the core of the free-speech challenge in this country, consider the case of a hypothetical young woman named Sarah. In college, Sarah is a conservative activist. Shes pro-life, supports traditional marriage, and belongs to a Christian student club. Her free speech infuriates professors and other students, so the administration cracks down. It defunds her student club, forces her political activism into narrow, so-called free-speech zones, and reminds her to comply with the universitys tolerance policies.

What does Sarah do? She sues the school, she wins, and the school pays her attorneys fees. The judge expands the free-speech zone to cover the whole campus and strikes down the tolerance policy. The First Amendment wins.

Sarah graduates. A brilliant student, she gets a job at a Silicon Valley start-up and moves to California to start her new life. Just as they did in college, politics dominate her conversations, and within a week she gets into an argument with a colleague over whether Bruce Jenner is really a woman. The next morning, Sarahs called into the HR department, given a stern warning for violating company policy, and told that if she cant comply shell need to find another place to work.

What does Sarah do? She shuts her mouth or she loses her job. Her employer isnt the government; its a private company with its own free-speech rights, and it expects its employees to respect its corporate values.

In a nutshell, this is Americas free-speech problem. The law is largely solid. Government entities that censor or silence citizens on the basis of their political, cultural, or religious viewpoint almost always lose in court. With some exceptions, the First Amendment remains robust. Yet the culture of free speech is eroding away, rapidly.

The politicization of everything has combined with increasing levels of polarization and cocooning to create an atmosphere in which private citizens are increasingly weaponizing their expression using their social and economic power not to engage in debate but to silence dissent. Corporate bullying, social-media shaming, and relentless peer pressure combine to place a high cost on any departure from the mandated norms. Even here in Middle Tennessee, I have friends who are afraid to post about their religious views online or express disagreements during mandatory corporate-diversity seminars, lest they lose their jobs. One side speaks freely. The other side speaks not at all.

EDITORIAL: CPACsMilo Disgrace

There is no government solution to this problem. The First Amendment prohibits the state from mandating openness to debate and dissent, and corporations arent designed to be debating societies. Nor can the government prevent (or even try to prevent) the kinds of social-media shaming campaigns and peer pressures that cause men and women to stay silent for fear of social exclusion. The solution is to persuade the powerful that free speech has value, that ideological monocultures are harmful, and that the great questions of life cant and shouldnt be settled through shaming, hectoring, or silencing.

It is thus singularly unfortunate that the conservative poster boy for free speech is Milo Yiannopoulos.

Milo, for those who dont know, is a flamboyantly gay senior editor at Breitbart News, a provocateur who relishes leftist outrage and deliberately courts as much fury as he can. How? Please allow my friend Ben Shapiro to explain:

Jews run the media; earlier this month he characterized a Jewish BuzzFeed writer as a a typical example of a sort of thick-as-pig shit media Jew; he justifies anti-Semitic memes as playful trollery and pats racist sites like American Renaissance on the head; he describes himself as a chronicler of, and occasional fellow traveler with the alt-right while simultaneously recognizing that their dangerously bright intellectuals believe that culture is inseparable from race; back in his days going under the name Milo Wagner, he reportedly posed with his hand atop a Hitler biography, posted a Hitler meme about killing 6 million Jews, and wore an Iron Cross; last week he berated a Muslim woman in the audience of one of his speeches for wearing a hijab in the United States; his alt-right followers routinely spammed my Twitter account with anti-Semitic propaganda he tut-tutted before his banning (the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 70 percent after his ban, which I opposed); he personally Tweeted a picture of a black baby at me on the day of my sons birth, because according to the alt-right Im a cuck who wants to see the races mixed; he sees the Constitution as a hackneyed remnant of the past, to be replaced by a new right he leads.

Oh, and this week recordings rocketed across Twitter that showed Milo apparently excusing pedophilia and expressing gratitude to a Catholic priest for teaching him how to perform oral sex. (Later, on Facebook, he vigorously denied that he supports pedophilia, saying he is completely disgusted by the abuse of children.)

Milo is currently on what he calls his Dangerous Faggot tour of college campuses, which has followed a now-familiar pattern: A conservative group invites him to speak, leftists on campus freak out, and he thrives on the resulting controversy, casting himself as a hero of free expression. Lately, the leftist freakouts have grown violent, culminating in a scary riot at the University of California, Berkeley.

Operating under the principle that the enemy of my enemy must be my friend, too many on the right have leapt to Milos defense, ensuring that his star just keeps rising. Every liberal conniption brings him new conservative credibility and fresh appearances on Fox News. Last week Bill Maher featured him as a defender of free speech, and for a brief time he had been expected to speak at the nations largest and arguably most important conservative gathering, CPAC. (CPAC rescinded its invitation today.)

Lets put this plainly: If Milos the poster boy for free speech, then free speech will lose. Hes the perfect foil for social-justice warriors, a living symbol of everything they fight against. His very existence and prominence feed the deception that modern political correctness is the firewall against the worst forms of bigotry.

Ive spent a career defending free speech in court, and Ive never defended a conservative like Milo. His isnt the true face of the battle for American free-speech rights. That face belongs to Barronelle Stutzman, the florist in Washington whom the Left is trying to financially ruin because she refused to use her artistic talents to celebrate a gay marriage. It belongs to Kelvin Cochran, the Atlanta fire chief who was fired for publishing and sharing with a few colleagues a book he wrote that expressed orthodox Christian views of sex and marriage.

Stutzman and Cochran demonstrate that intolerance and censorship strike not just at people on the fringe people like Milo but rather at the best and most reasonable citizens of these United States. Theyre proof that social-justice warriors seek not equality and inclusion but control and domination.

Milo has the same free-speech rights as any other American. He can and should be able to troll to his hearts content without fear of government censorship or private riot. But by elevating him even higher, CPAC would have made a serious mistake. CPACs invitation told the world that supporting conservative free speech means supporting Milo. If theres a more effective way to vindicate the social-justice Left, I cant imagine it.

David French is a staff writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the original here:

Free Speech Has a Milo Problem - National Review

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate. NICOLE HIGGINS DeSMET/Free Press

Burlington fans, with less controversial signs, cheer for the team during the high school football game between the Rice Green Knights and the Burlington Seahorses at Burlington high school on Friday night September 9, 2016 in Burlington.(Photo: BRIAN JENKINS/for the FREE PRESS)

A bill for students rights and freedom of expression passed its first hurdle last week unopposed in the Senate.

The legislation,Senate Bill 18was sponsored by Sen. JeanetteWhite of Putney, is timelyfor students at theBurlington High SchoolRegister, a school sponsored publication.Censorship hit the Register in Septemberwhen an editor, Alexandre Silberman, 18, wrote an articleabouta sign held by a Rice Memorial High School fan at a football game against Burlington.

The signclaimed that BHS football players were, among other things,gang members and convicts.

"They got really concerned about that story," Alexandre Silberman, said in a January interview.Silberman is also afreelance writer for the Burlington Free Press.

"They had us pull the image. They edited part of the article. We werent allowed to say what the sign said or print the image of the sign, sowe had to be really vague in describing it," Silberman said.

Inspired by whathappenedat the Register and what he heard about how a similar law benefited other student journalism programs,Silberman andco-editorJake Bucci testified before the Vermont Legislature in January, after the bill had been introduced.

Citing the First Amendment's guarantee offreedom of speech, the bill seeksto liberate students from school-sponsored censorship andprotect advisers from administrative backlash.

Burlington High School in May 2016.(Photo: FREE PRESS FILE)

David Lamberti,the adviser for the Register and a business teacher at the high school,supports the bill.

"Knowing I cannot be held legally responsible or fired for supporting my students is comforting," Lamberti wrote back after first submitting questions from the Burlington Free Pressto Principal Tracy Racicot.

"Another reason I support the Bill is because we need to teach kids at a younger age how to ask difficult questions and have conversations aboutdivisivetopics," Lamberti wrote, explaining the difficulty of starting such conversations when the studentslack skills to process them.

"The administration at BHS has always supported a student's right to voice their opinions.Indeed, in my experience, they have always respected the student voice," Lamberti said.

But Silberman says the school has taken actionsthat could createself-censorship, curbingstudents fromtrying to push for more controversial stories.

Student journalists from the Burlington High School Register stand in the Burlington Free Press news room with their editor Alexandre Silberman, who is third from the left.(Photo: Free Press File)

"Now we are required to send the entire paper in advance. They can decideto pull any articles they want," Silberman said of the school's administrative policy. Previously,according to Silberman, Lamberti would flagindividual articlesfor Principal Racicot's review.

Lamberti did not respond to an emailed question regarding how this policyequates with supportingstudents rights to voice their opinions.

The bill, nicknamed New Voices, has just made it to theHouse Committee on Education. Committee Chairman, Rep. David Sharpe, wasn'tfamiliar with the bill on Monday. His first response to the legislation was mixed.

"I can't see why we wouldn't want to protect student journalists," Sharpe said,"but at the same time administration should have some right to control hate speech on t-shirts and promoting risky behavior."

The bill, as introduced, would not givestudents the right to breakstate or federal laws regardinglibel, slander, privacy and the orderly operation of a school.

Rep. KathrynWebb of Shelburne reports that the committee will probably look atthe bill in mid-March.

ContactNicoleHigginsDeSmet, ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter@NicoleHDeSmet.

Read or Share this story: http://bfpne.ws/2loioTr

Original post:

Burlington students press for free speech - BurlingtonFreePress.com

WASHINGTON The Virginia Senate has passed a bill that supporters say promotes campus free speech. But some lawmakers wonder why the law is needed when the U.S. Constitution already provides the First Amendment guarantee.

By a 364 vote, the Senate has followed the lead of the House of Delegates and passed the bill which reads, Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

I wish this wasnt necessary, said Sen. Mark Obenshain, a Republican representing Virginias 26th District, the chairman of theCourts of Justice Committee.

Weve got examples that abound across the country of colleges and universities that have been unilaterally making decisions as to whats appropriate political speech on campus, he said.

During the brief debate in the Senate chamber, no one could offer an example of any such conflict pitting free speech against political correctness occurring on any Virginia campus, leading some members to wonder whether the bill was needed.

It seems to me that its akin to saying the sky is blue except on cloudy days, even on college campuses, but Im not sure why we need to put that language in the Code of Virginia, said Sen. Creigh Deeds, a Democrat representing Virginias 25th District.

But Senate supporters of the measure insisted that the bill was necessary to encourage healthy debate on the commonwealths campuses.

Free speech is uncomfortable at times, and it has to be a two-way street in order for it to be able to work, Obenshain said.

Like WTOP on Facebook and follow @WTOP on Twitter to engage in conversation about this article and others.

2017 WTOP. All Rights Reserved.

See the original post:

Va. Senate upholds campus free speech | WTOP - WTOP

Recently, death threats and violent protests prevented British journalist Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley.

Yiannopoulos is known for his cyber bullying of Saturday Night Live cast member Leslie Jones,.

He encouraged his fans on Twitter to bully her until she deleted her account. He was said to have done this because he thinks shes ugly and fat.

His actions lead to him being permanently banned from Twitter.

Yiannopoulos spoke at UC Irvine last year.

UC Irvine student Catherine Gonzales, a second-year transfer psychology student, said he spent his time telling everyone to vote for Trump.

He aims to spread his message against political correctness and for free speech on college campuses.

But, if he wanted to silence Jones, then isnt he only for freedom of speech for himself and not for other people?

The question remains, should free speech be permitted if it is hateful and/or degrading?

The answer is yes, because even if hateful disgusting speech was blocked, the idea behind the words lives on.

When something is ugly, people dont want to see it. So they silence it without trying to understand it.

We try to ignore it, and like a virus, it kills us before we were ever able to treat it.

People threw fireworks and rocks at police during the UC Berkley protests. Clearly, silencing people leads to radicalism.

Preventing free speech also makes people feel they are being persecuted for their beliefs, which in turn leads to feelings of martyrdom and righteousness.

When you shut people up, they will do desperate and ugly things to be heard. In reality, by taking away any type of free speech, society could create a much worse beast.

Critics may say that words started the holocaust. In actuality, it was the silencing of everyone elses words that did; after all, murder is the ultimate deterrent to speech.

To paraphrase from Holocaust survivor Martin Niemoller, the Nazis came for the socialists, the Jews and the unionists, and he didnt say anything to stop them, but then they came for him and there was no one left to speak up.

If we let them get rid of the speech we dont like at the moment; whos to say they wont come for our speech next?

People have forgotten the difference between actions and beliefs.

No one has the right to force their beliefs on other people and interfere with their lives.

People have their right to voice their opposition to gay marriage, but they dont have the right to harass them, keep them from getting married or living their lives how they want to live them.

You have the right to say and believe whatever you want, but you dont have the right to do whatever you want.

No one, no matter their ranking in society, is a moral authority on who has the right to speak and who doesnt because the meanings of words are not absolute.

The meanings of words are a subjective discussion within society at the current time, but you cannot discuss whats important or whats moral if youre not allowed to speak.

College students may feel that the only speech that they want in a learning environment is the one they agree with, but the real world doesnt care if were offended.

Sexism, racism, rape, xenophobia, suicide, poverty, mental illness, slavery, cancer, death, etc. are all real issues and they cannot be ignored like a homeless person you walk past on the street. Look at the homeless person.

Look at the issue. It exists. Its real and its not going anywhere just because it makes you feel bad.

We are defending the right to free expression at an historic moment for our nation, when this right is once again of paramount importance. In this context, we cannot afford to undermine those rights, and feel a need to make a spirited defense of the principle of tolerance, even when it means we tolerate that which may appear to us as intolerant, stated chancellor Nicholas Dirks in his message to UC Berkeley.

Thankfully, Dirks took a stand against what can only be called fascism.

So yes, Yiannopoulos stands for disgusting things, but he still has the right to speak. If you want the right to speak, then you must give it to others as well.

Angela Stevens is pasionate about free speech.

Follow this link:

We shouldn't mute free speech - The Poly Post

Two controversies concerning so-called free speech are currently circulating in right-of-center circles.

On Saturday, white nationalist Richard Spencer was removedfrom the Washington, D.C., hotel where the International Students For Liberty Conference (ISFLC) was taking place, after a number of attendees, most notably Jeffrey Tucker, publicly reprimanded him for his racist beliefs. Today, infamous Breitbart senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos was disinvitedfrom speaking atthe Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) after a video made the roundsin which the provocateur defended pederasty.

The reaction to both events have generated predictably lazy outcries that thecontroversial speakers free speech rights have been violated. Had they been disinvited or removed from a public university, perhaps the outrage mob would have a point. But its important for libertarians and conservatives to also recognizeprivate property rights when discussing such flare-ups.

In the case of Spencer, he was not an invited speaker or even a registered guest at ISFLC. Instead, he held an impromptu discussion in the hotel bar where the event was taking place. Certainly Spencer had the legal right to be there; its a private business that accepts customers off the street. However, given that Spencer was surrounded by dozens of other conference-goers, it was to be expected that tensions would flare.

RELATED:Milo Yiannopoulos day just got a whole lot worse after the latest announcement from his publisher

Just as Spencer has the right to discuss his despicable views at a bar, so did the ISFLC conference-goers have the right to confront him about them. In matters of private property, its up to the business owners to decidewho gets to stay or leave. In this instance, they decided to disperse the crowd and eject Spencer.

Nobodys rights were violated. Indeed, givenSpencers history as the victim of a physical attack, the ISFLC crowd should be commended for respecting the non-aggression principle.

TheYiannopoulos case is even more clear-cut. CPAC is a private conference with the right to invite and disinvite anyone they wish. Its admittedly a sloppy move on their part to announce a speaker and then disinvite him within a few days.Nonetheless,a PR crisis is not the equivalent of denying First Amendment rights.

Adeeper lesson can be drawn from theYiannopoulos kerfuffle:in the dirty game of politics, libertarians and conservatives should be more conscious of whom they invite onstage in the first place.

RELATED:No, Milo Yiannopoulos is not a white nationalist, but he has spent a lot of time promoting them

ISFLCs reputation would have beentarnished in the public eye had they activelybrought inSpencer. The fact that they quickly denounced the neo-Nazistands as a moral victory for the libertarian camp.

CPAC, on the other hand, made the mistake of inviting Milo without doing their research or consulting their board of directors. As a result, the conferencesalready mixed reputation was dragged throughthe mud yet again.

CPACs slapdash organizing will doubtlessly empower Milo to paint himself as a victim and his supporters to scream, Free speech! The right should not be so careless in allowing trolls todisrespect the cherished institutions of private property and freedom of association. The best way to avoid controversy is to not invite it in the first place.

Go here to see the original:

Milo Yiannopoulos and Richard Spencer remind us what free ... - Rare - Rare.us

The issue has been called Docs vs. Glocks, a term that understates the gravity of this controversy.

When two rights contained in the Bill of Rights fall into conflict, it creates a crisis that the courts must resolve.

The current case involves a Florida law that restricts the free speech of physicians to advise their patients about the dangers of guns. Supporters of the law say doctors have no business talking about guns; just stick to medical care. Opponents of the law say discussions of gun safety are within the purview of physicians.

Doctors have every right and duty to talk to their patients about swimming pool safety, child-proofing electrical outlets, using seat belts, texting while driving, keeping chemicals out of the way of children and making sure guns are safely stored.

So lets say the doctor repeats a warning from the Jacksonville sheriff that 1,000 guns have been stolen from cars in the past two years and that this is a serious threat to public safety. Under the Florida law that could be seen as stepping beyond the bounds of health care.

Because the physician-patient relationship is special, perhaps the patient listens this time and takes action to keep gun away from possible thieves.

But gun rights advocates see that speech as overstepping the bounds for physicians and a potential threat to the right to own arms.

So the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are at odds in this case.

The battle has raged in the courts with three-judge appeal panels affirming the Florida law.

The latest ruling by a wider panel of judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta struck down key provisions of the Florida law.

Any restriction of speech must receive a higher level of review, the appeals court stated.

In fact, there was no evidence that physicians took away any firearms.

No amendment is absolute. There are limits on free speech, for instance. And no single amendment trumps all others.

As one judge said on the panel, this speech prohibition could go both ways.

A state legislature motivated by anti-gun sentiment might have passed a similar law to prevent doctors from encouraging their patients to own firearms. Such a law would be equally unconstitutional.

As a reminder, the Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court underlined the right for individuals to own firearms but it also listed several examples of the sort of restrictions that would be constitutional.

JUSTICE SPEEDED UP

Crime is so serious in Jacksonville that any move to speed up the wheels of justice deserves support.

Therefore, Mayor Lenny Currys request for $250,000 to obtain ballistic results faster deserves City Council approval.

State Attorney Melissa Nelson said this special system can obtain results on gun and ammunition used in crimes in a day or two rather than the 12 to 18 months currently.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement is swamped with requests.

Now there is a better chance of solving crimes shortly after they happen, Nelson said at a press conference.

This is what the public expects.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

EXAMPLE OF POTOMAC SWAMP

Several news organizations are boycotting the annual White House Correspondents Dinner due to the war taking place between the mainstream press and the Trump administration.

Where were they during the Obama years when that administration was waging an unrivaled attack on the press? Obama talked a good game but his administration played extraordinarily tough with journalists.

At least The New York Times had ignored the dinner previously.

The event, broadcast on cable, broke down what ought to be a professional barrier between journalists and the people they cover. Washington already has too much movement from media to government to lobbyists.

Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post ombudsman, suggests cancelling the event. In contrast, Major Garrett, the CBS reporter, notes that the event highlights excellent reporting and awards scholarships.

Fine, have the event without the politicians.

MORE FAKE VOTER FRAUD

White House aide Stephen Miller protested recently on Sunday morning talk shows that there was massive voter fraud with liberal Democrats from Massachusetts voting in New Hampshire. In fact, President Donald Trump claimed that thousands voted illegally there.

Miller provided no evidence, just his firm belief. Look at the facts:

New Hampshire is a Republican-dominated state. Its state officials found no evidence of massive voter fraud.

New Hampshire has a voter ID law.

These bogus urban legends need to be debunked, which is why a thorough study of voter fraud is justified.

LIBERALS AND CONSPIRACIES

Well, look at the people concocting new conspiracy theories. Theyre liberals.

Apparently when your party is out of power, people tend to gravitate to wild speculations.

Losing the presidential election made Democrats more likely to blame secret conspiracies for the state of the world while making Republicans less willing to indulge these sort of claims, The New York Times reported.

One rumor claims the bumbled refugee ban was part of an elaborate plan for a coup. The Snopes urban legend site is seeing more fake news and wishful thinking from liberal corners.

And guess who is discovering states rights? California Democrats in the state legislature hired former Attorney Gen. Eric Holder to represent them in battles with the federal government. And a secession movement is growing there.

The rest is here:

Tuesday's editorial: Physicians win back free speech rights - Florida Times-Union

This article does not necessarily reflect the views of The Clerk as an institution.

Here at Haverford, our student-drafted and ratified Honor Code seeks to establish guidelines for our academic and social behavior, ideally culminating in a campus devoid of academic dishonesty and social iniquity. While the former aim rests on the objective truth that cheating is immoral, the latter goal, addressing our individual subjectivity, inherently evokes a central question to any communityto what extent is an individual personally responsible to our community? The reasonable answer is that we mediate between our personal desires and liberties and our commitment to our community; however, where this line should be drawn remains contentious. In my opinion, Section 3.04s Social category of the current Honor Code overreaches, allowing for viewpoint discrimination and the imposition of an ideological majoritys will. Although the statement may stem from good intentions, its lack of defined procedure provides for an environment in which minority opinions can be silenced under threat of official punishment by Honor Council. In determining the merit and efficacy of this clause, I recommend looking to Supreme Court precedent. One particular 1992 ruling, that of R.A.V. v. St. Paul, parallels a section of Haverfords Honor Code and, when compared to the proceedings of The Muppets, calls into question our treatment of free speech within the context of our responsibility to the community.

On the morning of June 21, 1990, the petitioner, R.A.V., allegedly burned a cross on a black familys front lawn, violating St. Paul, Minnesotas prohibitive statute against symbols which one knows or has reason to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.(1) With the ordinance upheld by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Although it recognized the defendants action as morally reprehensible, the Supreme Court sided with the defendant, unanimously declaring St. Pauls legislation unconstitutional for content discrimination and for de facto viewpoint discrimination.(2) By limiting its prohibition to specific topics, St. Pauls ordinance discriminated against certain subjects, while others, such as political affiliation, union membership, [and] homosexuality remained outside of its scope; essentially, the law unconstitutionally cherry-picked disfavored subjects for prosecution.(3)Further explicating the statutes unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court recognized that In its practical operation, moreover, the ordinance goes even beyond mere content discrimination to actual viewpoint discrimination.(4) In the context of the law, a statement condemning anti-Semitism would be permissible, whereas anti-Semite expression and speech would be considered illegal. Due to this potential imbalance in freedom of expression, the Court deemed the law unconstitutional censorship, declaring that the point of the First Amendment is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its content.(5)

Under Section 3.04 of the Haverford Honor Code,

We recognize that acts of discrimination and harassment, including, but not limited to, acts of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, discrimination based on religion or political ideology, and discrimination based on national origin or English capabilityviolate this Code.(6)

While this long-winded statement avoids an unfairly limited scope by encompassing a plethora of potential topics and providing the clause but not limited to, the threat of viewpoint discrimination remains present in its current form. In fact, during my first semester at Haverford, especially within the context of the recent presidential election, I often heard expletive-ridden denunciations of islamophobes, racists, and sexists, which elicited support from other members of the community. However, if an individual condemned Muslims, a racial or ethnic minority, or any gender in a similar manner, they would receive an overwhelmingly negative response.

While we are undeniably entitled to express our distaste for such expressions, I do not believe that we should be able to impose public consequences through Honor Council upon those who espouse views different from our own. By allowing Honor Council, an institution provided for by the Honor Code, to pass formal punishments, euphemistically referred to as resolutions, against certain types of expression we allow for viewpoint discrimination against unpopular opinions on Haverfords campus. We may believe that Honor Council will protect not only the communal interest, but also individual liberties; however, the potential for abuse remains unquestionably high. In fact, even before the implementation of the aforementioned portion of the code in 2015, its underlying rationale served as the basis for de facto institutional censorship against two students in the infamous 2004 Honor Council trial The Muppets.

As many of us are already aware, the defendants in The Muppets, Bert and Ernie, wore blackface and attached black sexual prosthetics to themselves in their portrayal of Macy Gray and an unspecified blonde haired African American performer.(7) Comprising the confronting party, Grover, Elmo, and Zoe expressed feelings of alienation, pain, and anger at Bert and Ernie for their portrayal, pressing for resolutions that included a public bi-college publication and the exclusion of Bert and Ernie from graduation, claiming that these actions would set the tone that this type of action wont be tolerated. She said that they wanted women and Black students on campus to feel secure.(8) Acknowledging that it did not possess the authority to ban Bert and Ernie from graduation, Honor Council, in its statement of violation, put forth resolutions stating:

-1. Both parties must organize a panel discussion on race and/or gender. The confronting parties are invited to help organize the panel. 2. Each party must write a research paper concerning the White male in America. 3. Each party must write a letter to the community reflecting on how he and others were affected and how he has changed.(9)

By requiring Bert and Ernie to write a detailed, seven-page research paper on the White male in America, the Honor Council passed institutional punishment for their Halloween costumes, providing de jure punishment for their controversial portrayals.

While their actions were insensitive and lacked foresight, I do not believe that Bert and Ernie should have received formal punishment from Honor Council for their engagement in blackface because it presents viewpoint discrimination as outlined by the Supreme Court in R.A.V. v. St. Paul. Just because we do not communally approve of an act of verbal or physical expression does not mean we can subject the accused to institutional punishments by Honor Council. Although appeals to the perceived threat to the security and sense of acceptance of black and female students like Zoes are important in our self-consideration of our actions, I do not believe that these concerns are substantial grounds for subjecting fellow students with minority opinions to unequal standards within our Code. As stated in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, St. Pauls desire to communicate to minority groups that it does not condone the group hatred of bias-motivated speech does not justify selectively silencing speech on the basis of its content.(10)

Arguably, maliciously burning a cross in a black familys lawn constitutes a significantly greater transgression than a negligent costume choice, begging the question: why protect this type of expression? I posit that by protecting the right to this offensive and blatantly disrespectful behavior, regardless of intentionality, we protect Haverfords core dedication to multiculturalism and pluralism.

In rejecting Bert and Ernies joint appeal, the then-current President of Haverford College, Thomas R. Tritton responded, You argue that violating community standards and violating the Honor Code are two different things. I cannot agree.(11) I contest President Trittons claim; while our community standards influence our Honor Code, the two should remain disparate to prevent viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, ensure the safety of an unpopular opinion on campus. If we fail to differentiate the two, then we allow the moral and ethical judgments of the majority to become the formal standard upheld in formal Honor Council proceedings, which subjects those who engage in controversial behavior or harbor unpopular opinions to potential punishment for expression explicitly protected within the First Amendment.

In the defense of such behavior and speech, I implore us to reflect upon historical injustices committed against unpopular opinion and action in the name of public decency and perceived security. In my home state of Louisiana, the 1896 Supreme Court ruling Plessy v. Ferguson set a precedent for over half a century of legal Jim Crow segregation in the South in the name maintaining racial purity and ensuring security. This same ideological imposition and belief in community morality, or majority morality, as absolute morality also led to ethnic and religious cleansing in Germany, Turkey, Rwanda, Iran, and Iraq in the 20th century alone. In these cases, the opinion and bias of the majority defined institutional standards, suppressing individual liberties in the name of security and moral righteousness. Unfortunately for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in these cases, subjectively benevolent intentions did not guarantee positive yield. To clarify, while these events themselves are not comparable to the situation at Haverford, the same foundational problem persists. As in these other historical examples, majoritarian morality is masquerading as an absolute one, threatening freedom of expression with official Honor Council sanction and, thereby, silencing dissent according to its subjective determinations of offensiveness.

Ultimately, the problem with this portion of the Code revolves around an inconsistency within the legitimacy of our desired outcome and the procedures we utilize to realize it. While expressing the incongruence of blackface with our community values is certainly legitimate, the lack of formal proceedings grants Honor Council an unreasonable amount of authority in distinguishing what constitutes a violation of the Code and its corresponding punishment. In its current state, the Social Responsibilities section of the Social Honor Code places communal values and pluralism in stark contrast with each other, demanding a commitment either to the protection of minority interests or to the fundamentals of free speech and expression, and therefore generates unnecessary internal conflict.

The solution to ameliorating such a dilemma entails thoughtful commitment to our values of pluralism and mutual respect. By divesting Honor Code of the ability to pass judgement on Social Code and establishing formal procedures to treat potential violations, we can afford increased protections to individuals irrespective of their opinions popularity. To create these procedural regulations, I recommend the formation of a Free Speech Committee, whose mission would be to align Haverfords Social Honor Code with existing Supreme Court precedent as closely as possible. To ensure that the interests of all minority groups on campus are represented, such a committee would entail proportionate representation on basis of race, gender, and ideology on campus. As members of a diverse community who seek mutual understanding by means of respectful communication and believe in resolving conflicts by engaging each other in dialogue, it suits our aims to edit establish such procedures and redouble our efforts to protect and promote free speech on Haverfords campus.(12) By protecting those we disagree with and the most unpopular opinions, we ensure that no injustice is committed in the name of subjective standards of public decency, morality, or security because, in the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.(13)

(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/377

(2) Ibid

(3) Ibid

(4) Ibid

(5) Ibid

(6) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/the-code/

(7) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/themuppets.pdf

(8) Ibid

(9) Ibid

(10) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/377

(11)http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/themuppets.pdf

(12) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/the-code/

(13)https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

To write a response to this article, e-mail our Editor-in-Chief Maurice Rippel at mrippel@haverford.edu.

Read this article:

The Supreme Court, Honor Code, and The Muppets: Reform for Free Speech and Expression - The Clerk

Bill Maher sat down with Milo Yiannopoulos on Friday's Real Time to talk free speech, religion and the controversy surrounding the self-proclaimed internet troll.

In explaining why, despite the uproar surrounding the Breitbart editor, Yiannopoulos was invited to the show, Maher said, "I think you're colossally wrong on a number of things if I banned everyone from my show who I thought was colossally wrong, I'd be talking to myself."

Maher who at one point compared Yiannopoulos to Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character and Yiannopoulos also discussed what they have in common: Their belief in free speech and the fact they've both been banned from the University of California. "We have both been disbarred at Berkeley," Maher said before Yiannopoulos interjected, "Much more dramatically, I'd just like to say. They just disinvited you. I had riots. People got beaten up."

After making disparaging remarks about Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer and how they've become the face of the Democratic party, Yiannopoulos admitted, "I like to think of myself as a virtuous troll."

Yiannopoulos' appearance on Real Time was so controversial that guest Jeremy Scahill, who was booked on Friday's episode, dropped out because Maher offered Yiannopoulos "a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign."

In a statement following Scahill's cancellation, Maher said, "Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims and he might be nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night."

On Real Time Friday, Maher and Yiannopoulos briefly touched on Scahill's absence. "Stop taking the bait, liberals. The fact that they all freaked out about this little impish British fag," Maher told the audience.

Maher then read some borderline racist, troll-esque jokes from the mouth of Joan Rivers, a comedian who was universally revered despite her predilection for provocative, offensive humor.

However, the conversation or debate never really found its footing, as each question Maher asked resulted in a meandering Yiannopoulos response that forced Maher to reposition and bring up something new, resulting in another unanswered question. Just when Maher stumbled on Yiannopoulos' most paradoxical position his unabashed love of Donald Trump the 10-minute interview concluded before the audience could get an explanation.

Yiannopoulos also took part in the "Overtime" segment where he butted heads with panelist Larry Wilmore over transgender rights:

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Original post:

See Bill Maher, Milo Yiannopoulos Talk Free Speech, Trolling on 'Real Time' - RollingStone.com

New York Times

A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety New York Times As the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held on Thursday in striking down the key parts of the law, this is an obvious violation of the First Amendment, which generally prohibits restrictions on speech based on what's being said. It ...

Read the original post:

A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety - New York Times

Hello gorgeous world was written in massive curly letters on a free speech beach ball in Smith Plaza Wednesday afternoon.

The inflatable beach ball standing taller than some students was brought to Smth Plaza by the UNM chapter of Young Americans for Liberty as a way to remind students of the importance of free speech, and to create dialogues between different-minded groups, according to YAL President Jess Ceron.

We thought it would be a good idea to come out here and talk to them about how we dont support one side of free speech, we support all sides, Ceron said. So anyone and everyone can write whatever they want on this ball. No one is gonna get in trouble for saying it.

Every semester the group does a free speech event, and this is the second time theyve used a beach ball, she said.

This way it makes it fun, rather than if I was to sit here for 30 minutes and say, Let me tell you about free speech. Youd doze off. But with this you can write whatever you want, Ceron said. No ones going to get mad. People arent going to judge you for what you wrote.

Typically student groups holding events outside, in the SUB or in a classroom reserve the space for free, and are asked to do so at least two business days before the event is scheduled to take place so that the space reservation can be approved.

Ceron said YAL intentionally didnt go through that process because they dont believe student organizations should have their free speech limited by space reservations. She said space reservations make holding events difficult because of the time it takes to reserve spaces and wait for a confirmation.

We just dont think that there should be zones where were allowed to do things, especially if were not hurting anyone, she said. And then they could shoot us down, like what if they didnt like the idea of free speech? Thats kind of not fair to students, because

that is our right.

Ceron said she had issues reserving space for a dodgeball event last semester. Student activities would not approve the event because of safety concerns, a reason that Ceron said she understood.

They shot me down for many reasons where I was like, I guess we cant do this event, she said. And I was like, No thats not fair, so I came out and did it without permission. They didnt shoot me down. They didnt say anything.

Ceron said she didnt think events should be denied unless theyve happened before and already been a safety hazard.

YAL has experience with events not coming together, as they originally invited Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, but had to disinvite him and pass the speaker off to the College Republicans, she said.

Milo himself has shown partisanship, and Young Americans for Liberty is not a partisan organization, member Bryan Cusack said. Due to the nature of its tax exemption status it cannot support anyone that supports a candidate.

The group received a lot of messages over initially inviting the controversial Breitbart writer Yiannopoulos they later transferred official hosting duties to UNM College Republicans most of which they didnt respond to, he said.

Most of the criticisms, we just let them go because they were using ad hominem attacks on us, Cusack said. They were using a lot of logical fallacies against us trying to dehumanize the group. Essentially they were playing identity politics.

Ceron said the free speech beach ball was especially important now because the group wants to clarify that everyone can say anything, and they dont have to be nice.

We had a girl who just failed her stats test and she said Forget stats, and wrote it on there, she said.

Officially the group is opposed to hate speech policies, Cusack said.

We just advocate free speech in general, which means the abolishment of hate speech policies, because some of them are written to censor free speech. I could technically say hate speech, but at that point its still free speech, but its just offensive, he said.

The beach ball eventually became adorned with all kinds of messages, some political, some more lighthearted. Just some of the scrawled comments: RIP Harambe, There are only 2 genders and Love each other.

If you really dont want to hear the other side, its totally fine, Ceron said. I just think if you gave your personal opinion on a subject then you should be able to hear it too.

Cathy Cook is a news reporter at the Daily Lobo. She can be reached at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @Cathy_Daily.

Read the rest here:

UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball - UNM Daily Lobo

Forbes

How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech Forbes Earlier this morning social media and the tech press lit up with reports of users across Twitter receiving half day suspensions en masse as the platform abruptly rolled out its decade-overdue hate speech filter to its platform. The company has refused ... and more »

Link:

How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech - Forbes

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes Wall Street Journal (subscription) Letter writer Gary Hartzell makes an interesting statement in his Should Politics From the Pulpit Be Banned? (Letters, Feb. 10). His letter defending the 1954 Johnson Amendment that authorizes tax-exempt status for religious organizations only so ...

The rest is here:

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to notions they once rejected such as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California at Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited.

U. of C. Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U. of C. was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U. of C. students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Related articles:

This, dear white people, is how to look like a snowflake

What the Constitution says about impeachment

Trump is looking like a very weak autocrat wannabe

Trump's White House is falling apart

Continued here:

Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago - Chicago Tribune