During an end-of-semester town hall in my political ethics class at the University of South Florida this past spring, one presentation took a turn worthy of pause. A student spoke up.

I know Im usually pretty quiet, she began, but I do have opinions about the things we discuss in class. She usually kept these views to herself, however, because she thought that her opinions wouldnt exactly jell with everyone elses. But since it was the last day, she said, she shakily decided to open up.

She went on to give a thoughtful analysis of the speech in question (U.S. Rep. Adam Schiffs closing arguments in Donald Trumps first impeachment trial). She took a nuanced stance in his defense, communicated her views persuasively, and I saw many students nodding along. Schiff had not convinced her because Schiff focused on what Trump would be willing to do and what Trump had done in the past, rather than what he did do.

I was surprised. Our professor, Stephanie Williams of the Judy Genshaft Honors College, had made a point of encouraging us to feel empowered by our First Amendment protections and to push back on others views. She understood that, in addition to protecting individuals from government censorship, the First Amendment is intended to promote not prevent peer pushback. Given that our professor actively sought to create an environment for robust disagreement, why had this student kept her views to herself for so long?

The simple answer, I think, has been offered before: Legal protection from the government for free speech on its own is not enough. Our professor made sure we knew our opinions werent going to be suppressed by USF. But young people in class hesitate to share well-articulated dissent from the perceived consensus of a campus or classroom majority.

In the words of the late Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter: The ultimate reliance for the deepest needs of civilization must be found outside their vindication in courts of law. We need a culture that embraces free speech, not just legal vindication of the First Amendments protections. Student expression may be jealously guarded against government action, but thoughtful people should feel empowered to voice dissent even when they fear ostracization on social media or in the classroom.

During our current moment, it might be hard to be optimistic.

Conversations about politics feel more stressful than they used to for many Americans, and they also feel more omnipresent. Neighbors know each others party affiliations when such information didnt use to matter. Social media is rife with hateful partisan rhetoric, and like-minded users fall into group polarization if exposed only to congenial points of view. Cable news organizations like Fox, MSNBC and CNN are transparently partisan. Political tensions at home are also reflected in electoral politics, with examples of real compromise across party lines in Congress few and far between.

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Want more of our free, weekly newslettersinyourinbox? Letsgetstarted.

Elected officials outside of Congress are signaling that they notice these problems with (often misguided) action. For their part, the Florida Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis have been quick to claim that they are defending freedom of speech but not for everyone. When HB 7 went into effect on July 1, educational instruction including at public colleges and universities became unlawful if it espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels belief in any of eight listed viewpoints. By passing expressive legislation that disfavors certain viewpoints, the Legislatures actions undermine the nonpartisan principle for which the First Amendment stands. When only certain viewpoints are admitted to classrooms, students are robbed of the opportunity to encounter and dismantle arguments with which they disagree.

Despite these challenges, I still hold out hope for a culture of free speech because I know from firsthand experience that its possible. At weekly meetings of First Amendment Forum (1AF), a student organization that I founded in 2019, students from all backgrounds and perspectives gather to discuss and disagree about contemporary issues.

During an abortion discussion last fall, for example, one student opened with the claim life begins at conception. He was one of a few pro-life participants in the discussion, and I feared that a breakdown in civility was sure to come.

But what happened during this discussion surprised me. Holding their breath, students began to disagree, but they qualified their arguments by acknowledging what little common ground they had. Though their opinions on the issue did not overlap, they did agree that abortion raises tough questions. They recognized that it is difficult to decide when life begins, and they conceded that viability is an ever-shifting line in practice. From there, they went on to explain their divergent views, and our conversation moved forward.

At the end of the evening, I suspect that few students opinions had changed or flipped. However, this meeting proved that, even though we may begin and end discussions on opposite sides of an issue, earnestly engaging with the other side can have positive effects. If your interlocutor makes their best attempt to persuade you, and you can still come up with good reasons to maintain your view, then you can leave the interaction more confident in your position. Moreover, in a culture where opinions are often traceable only to a profile picture, real-life discussions are a good reminder that opinions come from people, with faces, personalities, and complexities.

I have often wondered to myself: What is the trick at 1AF meetings? What force tames the passion of students with fundamentally different world views?

There are probably many forces working together. After the first couple of topics we discussed, I thought perhaps that 1AF had gotten lucky and found a group of students who had a unique appreciation for civility. Then, these students started bringing their friends, and civility persisted despite fluctuations in attendance.

Civil discussion, then, involves more than just a civil disposition. Students have often told me after 1AF meetings that the disagreement is precisely what makes the conversation interesting even when a debate touches beliefs we hold fundamentally dear. Civil discussions prove that disagreement can be invigorating and fun.

My final suspicion is that 1AF works because students feel respected and heard. Each student is equally respected as an intellectual, and each student has the chance to speak. Of course, however, it is not the case that each view offered is equally respected by the group. The arguments make that decision. But at 1AF, each student is viewed as an equal participant in pursuit of more knowledge, even if their view may not win out by the end of the meeting.

Beyond 1AFs discussion meetings, there are other places where a culture of free speech can still be found.

Ive witnessed some of the most open political disagreement in dorm common areas. It has interrupted late night study sessions at the library. Ive seen it in the workplace amongst fellow student leaders. And sometimes, a culture of free speech is most alive in dim apartments late at night. For after the party scenes end, many college students know that what follows is the conversation that continues until dawn.

What unites 1AFs discussions with these fleeting moments? I believe the answer is good faith. It is impossible to understate the essentiality of good faith for a culture of free speech, but it is also hard to define. Its a certain mood between people.

Good faith means recognizing, as did my peers at 1AF, that good people can fall on different sides of an issue. It is making a conscious effort to steel man instead of straw man, and take on the strongest version of others arguments, rather than the weakest version. It is hesitating to make character judgments on the basis of political ideology. It is remembering that the moral consensus of today might be antiquated tomorrow.

Though it may feel like good faith has left American politics, discussion groups like 1AF are powerful because they put real people in touch with each other and, in doing so, foster good faith. Where there is good faith, civil discourse is still possible.

When students like me across the country who promote civil discourse leave the university and enter the broader polity, it will be our job to transplant the culture of discourse weve cultivated on campus and bring it into our workplaces, families and communities. If we are to promote a culture of free speech off campus, we cant forget that humans are complex, and therefore so must be politics. Even if all ideas arent created equal, we can still remember that all people are equal, and therefore entitled to good faith. And finally, building a culture of free speech in an era of self-censorship will require lots of people to have the courage to be the first but probably not the last voice of dissent.

As I look ahead to fall, a couple of developments look promising.

There is some support for such probing dissent at the state and university level. Floridas Board of Governors, which regulates the State University System of Florida, recently recommended that universities review their speech-related policies and adopt proactive activities to encourage civil discourse on campus. Irrespective of the Board of Governors intentions, universities like USF have taken up these recommendations as an opportunity to advance a culture of discourse on campus.

Before this report was released, USF had already debuted its own program: a Free Speech on Campus presentation to incoming students. Students were shown three common free speech dilemmas an uninvited speaker, a disruptive student and a dispute over dorm posters. Then, 1AF leaders were invited as panelists to share our wisdom about freedom of speech in the academic setting. I am excited that this program will be shared with every incoming student at USF for years to come.

I hope that programs like USFs Free Speech on Campus presentation will empower incoming students to be the voice of dissent on campus. Not just on the last day of class, but from day one. They might just find new friends. The day that the student in my political ethics class shared her views at our town hall, for example, she was the most popular student as we left class. A lot of students commended her for sharing her views, even though it was hard. Some wanted to talk more. And one student (three guesses who) invited her to the next meeting of First Amendment Forum.

I have hope for a culture of free speech in America. This hope is not naive; I recognize that free speech is an eternally radical idea. Navet is ignorant of circumstances; hope is optimistic in spite of them. I have observed campus discourse up close, and I have hope.

Sam Rechek is president of First Amendment Forum, a student organization at the University of South Florida in Tampa, where he is a rising senior. He is also a former summer intern at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Florida First Amendment Foundation.

Read more:

I'm a senior at USF, and I still have hope for a culture of free speech. Here's why. | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Legal complaints are stacking up against Floridas 15-week abortion ban, all of them arguing that the law imposes a narrowly sectarian definition of when life begins upon other elements of the faith community that hold markedly different ideas about the matter.

The trend began in early June, when Barry Silver, a South Florida lawyer and former lawmaker turned rabbi, filed a lawsuit in Leon County Circuit Court challenging the abortion law as violating the religious rights of his Congregation LDor Va-Dor in Palm Beach County.

In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the act. As such, the act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom, Silvers complaint reads.

Then, on Aug. 2, came separate litigation, organized by the Jayam Law group, based in Chicago, raising similar claims in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of three rabbis and clergy associated with United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalist, Episcopal, and Buddhist congregations.

These claims, like Silvers, assert violations of freedom of speech and free exercise and enjoyment of religion under Article I Sections 3 and 4 of the Florida Constitution; the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and freedom of speech and free exercise of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Since time immemorial, the questions of when a potential fetus or fetus becomes a life and how to value maternal life during a pregnancy have been answered according to religious beliefs and creeds, one of these lawsuits, filed on behalf of an Episcopal priest in that faith argues.

HB 5 codifies one of the possible religious viewpoints on the question, and in its operation imposes severe burdens on other believers including Episcopalians and their clergy like plaintiff.

The latest development is Silvers announcement during a telephone interview that he plans as early as Monday to file an amended complaint adding a Unitarian minister, a Buddhist, an atheist rape survivor whos undergone two abortions, and the Los Angeles-based Shalom Center.

In order to support this law, the state has to show that it has some type of compelling governmental interest, Silver, an active litigator who served in the Florida House between 1996 and 1998, told the Phoenix.

The only interest thats being served is the political ambitions of Gov. [Ron] DeSantis. He has to curry favor with his base, which believes that they have the right to inflict their Biblical misimpressions, misunderstandings, on everyone else, he continued.

They certainly dont have the right to inflict them on Jewish people we wrote the Bible, he said. And, unlike DeSantis and these fundamentalists and Catholics, we actually can read it in the original. We know what it says.

The law in question, HB 5, bans abortions after 15 weeks gestational age, or following the last menstrual cycle. The law contains exceptions only to protect the pregnant persons health or life or in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities but not rape or incest.

All of the religious plaintiffs seek a court order barring enforcement of the law.

Opponents of the abortion ban have already realized a preliminary legal victory. That came on July 5, four days after the law took effect, when Leon County Circuit Judge John Cooper declared that it violated the privacy clause in the Florida Constitution.

The Florida Supreme Court in 1989 had ruled the privacy clause covered the right to abortion. The Legislature passed the 15-week ban, and DeSantis signed it in April, in anticipation that the U.S. Supreme Court would overrule Roe v. Wade, which that court did on June 24.

Notwithstanding all that, Cooper concluded that he was bound by the 1989 Florida precedent, which stuck down a parental abortion notification law for minors.

However, the Florida First District Court of Appeal allowed the ban to take effect. The case remains before that court pending further proceedings on its merits. It presumably will eventually land before the Florida Supreme Court, which DeSantis appointments have rendered far more conservative than in 1989 and cant be relied upon to sustain its own precedent.

The Jayam litigants, like those in Silvers case, argue that clergy belonging to denominations that sanction abortion under some circumstances could face felony penalties of up to five years in prison if they counsel congregants to undergo the procedure.

Under HB 5 and Floridas criminal law, plaintiff is at risk of prosecution for counseling women, girls, and families to obtain an abortion beyond the narrow bounds of HB 5 as someone who aids and abets the crime. Under Floridas aiding and abetting law, he commits the crime itself by counseling in favor of it, a brief filed for a Unitarian minister reads.

HB 5 violates the sacred trust between a clergy member and their disciples, and tramples plaintiffs First Amendment and Florida constitutional rights to free speech and free exercise of religion, and the rights under the [Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act]. It also violates the separation of church and state under the federal and state constitutions, reads a brief filed for a Buddhist lama.

Its a misconception that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception, Silver said.

Theyre confusing potential with actual. It makes as much sense as calling an acorn an oak tree or an egg a chicken. Its not a preborn baby, its a fetus. And its not fully developed, its not human, until birth, according to Jewish law. And we have the right as Jews to practice our law but we also are championing the rights of others. Thats why we expanded this lawsuit to cover other religions, he said.

Silver described what DeSantis and the Legislature are trying to do this way:

Theres a legal term for that, Silver said. Its called chutzpah.

Read the rest here:

Religion-based claims are piling up against Florida's 15-week abortion ban - Florida Phoenix

Imagine an America where you are not permitted to exercise your First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression, where efforts to define and be yourself are policed by or prohibited by a government that is watching your every move an America defined by undemocratic government mandate. In a growing number of states, trans youth are faced with this harrowing scenario simply for being who they are. Florida has taken these efforts to restrict freedom of speech and expression to new extremes, with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) leading the charge.

Through administrative changes by DeSantis, the state of Florida recently issued a direct attack on transgender youth with the publication of dangerous new guidance designed to restrict the ability of children to define and express themselves. This guidance, which stands in direct opposition to best-practice child development principles, has been issued in the wake of a vague Dont Say Gay law that will result in trans kids being outed in schools, perhaps their one safe space. This is the latest attack by conservatives against marginalized people, and they are laser-focused not only on restricting access to life-saving gender-affirming medical care, but also on controlling how trans and gender-diverse people exist in the world.

Meanwhile, DeSantis prepares his own likely presidential run and is showing the nation what his campaign may look like.

Make no mistake: DeSantis unilateral decree, issued without substantial input from Floridas legislature or residents, is an attack on freedom and liberty. He is attempting to prevent American citizens from being able to use their own names, express their own inner selves and exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech. While this guidance and the law are cloaked in the language of restricting social transition or speaking about gender identity, they are very much an attempt to bar children from expressing themselves.

Social transition is a process where transgender and gender-diverse individuals adopt the name, pronouns and gender expression of their identified gender. This process is not clinical in nature but a choice that someone makes in a community with others. When this transition begins, it allows individuals to begin to express themselves publicly and be embraced for who they are by those around them. This can be lifesaving for many trans kids, as it allows them to express their inner self better and grow and develop as the person they know themselves to be.

Conservatives claim that social transition is part of some liberal agenda or fad, when in reality it is simply part of the process of normal human growth and development something the GOP is in clear opposition to.

As a health care provider, I have seen many kids grow up healthy and happy after society got their names, pronouns and clothes right. They knew, while others had to catch up. I recall one little transgender girl who just had to go to Disneyland as a princess after this, she went to school as the girl she always was and flourished. I remember a little transgender boy who knew he was a boy since age 4 and after being accepted for who he was, he lived a life that would have been expected of any other boy his age.

Preventing social transition interferes with the healthy process of trans and gender-diverse kids growing up as their whole authentic selves. It is not a fad. Social transition has positive outcomes for kids, families and communities meanwhile denying children this opportunity is not only cruel, harmful and discriminatory, but it directly contradicts the position of every major medical, nursing or health care society in the United States.

A driving force behind the anti-trans legislation, policies and guidance being proposed by social conservatives is the misguided belief that there are too many LGBTQ+ kids. Instead of accepting that the world has changed and ideas around gender have expanded as more people have felt comfortable coming out and identifying as LGBTQ, social conservatives have responded by championing a dangerous agenda that censors ideas, cracks down on social expression and puts vulnerable children in the crosshairs of grotesque political attacks.

Whats happening in Florida is an example of government overreach at its most dangerous, as it exploits its authority in an unscientific and malicious way to dictate what is considered appropriate medical care and even further, what is an appropriate way for individuals to speak, dress, act and express themselves.

These recent moves by the state of Florida and DeSantis should be concerning to all Americans who believe in freedom of speech and expression. DeSantis will likely be a presidential contender, and this unilateral executive action clearly shows what type of future he and his campaign appear to want for America: one that is destructive to individual liberty and freedom of expression and one which harms those at the margins.

We must speak up and fight back.

Dallas Ducar, NP, is the chief executive officer of Transhealth Northampton. Follow Ducar on Twitter and Instagram: @DallasDucar

See the original post:

How Gov. Ron DeSantis is attacking the freedom and liberty of all Americans - The Hill

Five years after the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia's former public safety and homeland security chief says challenges remain during large-scale protests and rallies.

Five years after a violent weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, surrounding the white nationalist Unite The Right rally, the commonwealths former homeland security chief says challenges remain in preventing a recurrence.

Some of the very same groups that were involved in Charlottesville stormed the United States Capitol, on Jan. 6, 2021, said Brian Moran, who was Virginias Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security, under Gov. Ralph Northam, in a WTOP interview. In 2017, they unmasked themselves.

Moran said lessons were learned about preparing for large-scale gatherings in the wake of Charlottesville weekend, in which hundreds of white nationalists and neo-Nazis marched through the University of Virginia campus with tiki torches. The next afternoon, James Alex Fields drove through a group of counterprotesters, killing Heather Heyer, and injuring dozens more.

Intelligence gathering and dissemination is essential, Moran said, saying the state like others has a fusion center, which was established after Sept. 11, 2011.

According to the fusion center website, A fusion center is a collaborative effort of state and federal agencies working in conjunction with local partners to share resources, expertise, and/or information to better identify, detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist and criminal activity utilizing an all crimes/all hazards approach.

In addition to the agencies charged with gathering intelligence, according to Moran, Its gathered from even individuals see something, say something.

An ongoing challenge is ensuring that the information is shared, since historically there has been some turf-protecting between federal and state agencies.

Its essential those silos and barriers continue to be eliminated, but Im not here to tell you that has been so, Moran said.

In 2017, we were concerned about achieving the right balance, and we didnt want to militarize the streets of Charlottesville, said Moran. In fact, we were sued by the ACLU.

A major problem in security during Charlottesville was the proximity between protesters and counterprotesters, which led to hand-to-hand battle on the streets.

You have to prioritize public safety when you have groups that have demonstrated their proclivity to commit acts of violence, said Moran. You can achieve a reasonable balance where First Amendment rights are respected.

An extensive report by former U.S. Attorney Tim Heaphy, requested by Charlottesville officials after the violence, criticized police planning as inadequate and disconnected. Charlottesville police supervisors failed to provide adequate training to line officers and police planners waited too long to request assistance from state emergency response officials, the report said.

It can be a difficult balance to achieve, when you have thousands on one side and thousands on the other to keep them separate, and to allow them to use the public square, said Moran. Individuals should have the opportunity to express themselves, whether you like or dislike what they have to say.

Moran said courts will recognize and allow certain barriers to occur, to keep opposing groups physically separated.

It can be an inconvenience, for those hoping to engage opponents, Moran acknowledges.

But, youve got to learn from the past, Moran said, which led to local and state police imposing some access restrictions in 2018, on the one-year anniversary of the Unite The Right rally.

Moran pointed to later instances in Virginia, in which the strategy succeeded, including the 2020 and 2021 Lobby Day protests in Richmond.

In 2020 when gun rights groups came to the Virginia Capitol, we had 15,000 people demonstrating for Second Amendment rights. We imposed some restrictions on their access to the capital, said Moran. They were not happy about it, but at the end of the day, everyone went home safely.

Moran said the Richmond protests were proof that a proper balance of free speech and public safety is achievable.

Protesters for and against law enforcement, members of the community, everyone went home safely, and were able to express their views.

Continue reading here:

5 years after Charlottesville violence: What lessons have been learned? - WTOP

Donald Trumps decision to plead the Fifth Amendment Wednesday in response to the New York attorney generals questions about his dealings as a real estate mogul sent many Twitter users down memory lane.

Thats because the former president is famous for disparaging people who invoke their constitutional right to self-incrimination.

For instance, there was that time in 2016 when he told an Iowa rally: The mob takes the Fifth Amendment. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?

This despite taking the Fifth 97 times during his 1990 divorce trial from Ivana to avoid admitting adultery.

Not surprisingly, many Twitter users found the news that he would take advantage of the same amendment he previously trashed to be quite amusing.

And they kept bringing up the past.

Here is the original post:

Twitter Users Remind Trump What He Previously Said About 5th Amendment - HuffPost

REDINGTON BEACH After receiving complaints about door-to-door solar panel canvassers and other unwanted visitors who come knocking on doors, Redington Beach commissioners decided to take action and control solicitation in residential neighborhoods.

Some residents say it has become a problem and a nuisance.

We had some recent problems, so I asked the town attorney to address our ordinance, Mayor David Will told those gathered at the Aug. 3 Town Commission meeting.

City Attorney RobEschenfelder said the city is greatly restricted by First Amendment protections, but it does have some recourse. He said residential front doors have been found by federal courts to be a traditional First Amendment invitation.

Throughout history, it has been understood by society that someone can come and knock on your front door, the city attorney said.

While a municipality cannot regulate core First Amendment speech, which would be political or religious speech, you can regulate charitable solicitations and you can regulate commercial solicitations people trying to sell you a product, Eschenfelder said.

The city plans to focus on strictly enforcing existing state statutes, while adopting some of its own ordinance regulations.

State and county law includes a detailed registration requirement that requires significant information to be on file in order to receive a permit to solicit. That permit has to be carried by the seller, and if the owner asks for it, it has to be displayed to the homeowner, Eschenfelder told commissioners.

In addition, the county permit requires that the solicitor has to leave a business card that includes the name, address and phone number of the parent company, and the name, address and phone number of the solicitor. If they fail to do any of those things, there are criminal penalties that come with violation of both the statutes, he said.

Will indicated he wanted the town to have a local enforcement option. An ordinance was proposed stating that commercial solicitors can only visit a home Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The case law on the First Amendment says when you do a reasonable time, place and manner regulation, you have to leave open adequate alternative means of engaging in the First Amendment speech, he said. The proposed ordinance provides for and addresses a reasonable time, place and manner, the city attorney said.

He added that residents can always post No Trespassing signs. Florida statutes does allow an owner of a home to be able to utilize the trespass statute ... If someone comes to your door and you say leave my property and they dont leave your property, theyre engaging in a first-degree misdemeanor and obviously, you should call the deputy.

While the city attorney initially proposed that soliciting be allowed on Saturdays and until 6 p.m. weekdays, Commissioner Richard Cariello said he would prefer the time frame be from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. because people are eating dinner at 6 p.m. He also advocated that Saturday should be included in the weekend days of rest.

The rest of the commission agreed.

Commissioners unanimously agreed on first reading of the ordinance to permit solicitation Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. only.

A public hearing and final reading on the ordinance changes will likely be Wednesday, Aug. 17.

Originally posted here:

Redington Beach takes aim at door-to-door solicitation - Tampa Bay Newspapers