Monthly Archives: February 2022

I enjoy reading the letters to the editor in the Summit Daily News. I appreciate when a writer can enlighten me on a local issue while also being entertaining. Im not fond of angry letters; a civil style is more persuasive. I prefer short and sweet; I only have a 200-word attention span.

What I like most about the letters is how they demonstrate freedom of speech in action. It may be frustrating to read opinions in the Summit Daily that differ greatly from your own views, but consider the sobering alternative of living in a country such as Russia, China or Cuba, where conformity is the standard and voicing your differences with government policy is dangerous.

In his book American Creation, Joseph Ellis wrote that one of the major accomplishments of our nations founders was that they created political parties as institutionalized channels for ongoing political debate. Dissent toward government policies became a normal part of reaching consensus on various issues. I suggest taking a positive view of the differences of opinion you see in the news.

One of the strengths of our country is diversity. We have a variety of religions, ethnic groups and regional cultures, and a spectrum of opinions on every topic. Self-education comes from reflecting upon our current beliefs and seeking out new and accurate evidence. Without free speech, our sources of information are limited, and everyone is worse off.

There are many misconceptions about free speech. The Bill of Rights restricts the government from passing laws to hinder a free press and freedom of speech. Can the Summit Daily refuse to print your letter to the editor? Yes, they are a private business and can set their own policies.

Twitter and Facebook also set their own policies on what they allow. Do you have freedom of speech at work? Private companies can set their own rules for employee conduct. Speaking unfavorably about your employer can get you fired. It is not protected speech.

There is plenty of bad speech out there con artists who spread misinformation for profit, higher ratings or political gain. There will be calls for legislation to ban hate speech and media lies, but it is better to counter bad speech with more speech, better speech. Laws restricting speech have generally been ruled unconstitutional in U.S. courts. Hate speech restrictions in Europe have often proved difficult to enforce and sometimes result in restricting the speech of the groups that were meant to be protected.

When I started watching the evening news in the 1960s, there were three choices: ABC, CBS and NBC. They were each thorough in their efforts to report all the important news and to be accurate and unbiased. They do the same today. Everyone fortunately has the freedom to listen skeptically and seek out news sites that are reliable and have minimal bias.

I hope you have noticed how well the Summit Daily covers local news, from high school sports to controversial issues. The reporters work diligently to give us important and reliable news. Commentary and readers letters reflect conservative to liberal views. You not only get the free press promised by the Constitution, but you get a free paper.

People often take for granted that we have freedom of speech in America. There is an old Soviet joke that sums up how fortunate we are. An American and a Russian are debating free speech:

American: In America, I have the right to say that our presidents policies are wrong.

Russian: It is the same in Russia. I can also say that your presidents policies are wrong.

Take pride in Americas freedom of speech that we encounter each day in the local newspaper, the neighborhood coffee shop and in the national media. Diversity of opinion has been an important strength of our nation throughout our history. Enjoy this freedom, but be prudent. As Oscar Wilde said, I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.

Paul Olsons column A Friendly Conservative publishes biweekly on Tuesdays in the Summit Daily News. Olson has lived in Breckenridge since 1995. Semiretired, he works at REI in Dillon and enjoys snowboarding, Nordic skiing and hiking. Contact him at pobreck@gmail.com.

See original here:
Opinion | Paul Olson: Diversity of opinion benefits us all - Summit Daily

Pressure to restrict faculty speech is as old as the modern university, but recently things seem to be on overdrive. Dozens of state-level bills targeting pedagogical content related to race and gender; the politicization of Boards of Trustees; and the weakening or elimination of tenure have all cast a lengthening shadow over faculty members freedom to conduct themselves as teachers, scholars, and commenters on public issues.

The past few months alone have seen controversies erupt over the University of Floridas preventing professors from testifying in court; Collin Colleges firing a faculty member for comments made on Twitter; a tenured history professor suspended for a profane syllabus video; a tenured philosophy professor suspended over a discussion of his research on ethical issues related to sex between adults and minors; and a tenured math professors lawsuit against his institution for, he says, retaliating against him for questioning academic standards.

On paper, faculty members should be confident that they are protected by both the First Amendment (if their institutions are public) and the principle of academic freedom. When they sue as L.D. Burnett sued Collin College they win settlements. Burnett, for instance, received $70,000 plus legal fees.

Is this a victory for academic freedom? In the case of Collin College, another outspoken professor was removed mere days after the settlement. Did Collin not learn its lesson the first time? Was the colleges legal counsel not paying attention?

In fact, events at Collin should serve as a warning. Suing and settling may provide some satisfaction, but they alone will not change the higher-education landscape, or even the institutions in question. For example, while Burnett got her payout, Collin admitted no wrongdoing, and Burnett no longer teaches there. Who, then, actually won?

To see more clearly why the sue-and-settle strategy is not enough, its instructive to look at one of the most infamous cases in memory: That of Steven G. Salaita.

The short version: In 2013, Salaita accepted a tenured appointment from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaigns American Indian-studies program. After accepting the offer but before starting his role, Salaita, a Palestinian American, posted angry tweets condemning Israels 2014 Operation Protective Edge military campaign in Gaza. The conservative website The Daily Caller publicized the tweets, and an outcry erupted. On July 21, the UIUC spokeswoman Robin Kaler said, We recognize the freedom-of-speech rights of all of our employees. But on August 1, Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise informed Salaita that she would not forward his appointment to the Board of Trustees. Salaita said he was fired; Urbana-Champaign said he was technically not yet hired. Scholars began a boycott of the university, and the American Association of University Professors threatened censure.

In January of 2015, Salaita announced he would sue, seeking reinstatement. Released emails revealed compromising discussions between Wise and others; Wise eventually resigned from the chancellorship. In June, the AAUP voted to censure Urbana-Champaign. In August, Judge Harry Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois shot down the universitys motion to dismiss in a blistering 56-page ruling. In November, the university and Salaita settled. Salaita received $600,000, plus $275,000 in legal fees. When one adds UIUCs own legal expenses, the case cost the university over $2 million. Salaita himself declared, This settlement is a vindication for me, but more importantly, it is a victory for academic freedom and the First Amendment. Many rejoiced.

Fast forward several years. After a two-year position at the American University of Beirut, Salaita was unable to find an academic job. In 2017 the AAUP voted to remove UIUCs censure, though the university never admitted fault and took minimal, if any, corrective action. Robert Warrior, director of UIUCs American Indian-studies program, left the institution. By 2019, Salaita was working as a school-bus driver.

How could such a big victory mean so little? One group that would not have been mystified was Urbana-Champaigns administration. Before Salaita filed suit, Chris Kennedy, chair of the Board of Trustees, was frank: The university will calculate whats going to cost us more to defend and win the lawsuit or to settle. When the settlement was announced, Interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson said that it represents an important step forward in our efforts to see the AAUP censure lifted. It also allowed the university to avoid admission of wrongdoing. Salaita won the settlement, but the University of Illinois won the war.

For administrations wanting to get rid of nuisance faculty, all that may be needed is a little patience and a willingness to settle; despite having no legal basis to stand on, UIUC got exactly what it wanted. Settlement was essentially a onetime payment to silence faculty speech.

The day the former professor L.D. Burnetts settlement with Collin was announced, she posted a GIF of dancers. But Collins leaders had admitted no fault. Days later, they ousted the professor Michael Phillips because, Phillips said, hed publicly complained about a Collin policy prohibiting faculty members from recommending masks in class. For them, its as if the Burnett case had never happened. And thats the point.

In December 2020, Garret Felber was fired from a tenure-track position at the University of Mississippi. The universitys stated reason was that Felber refused to communicate with his department chair, a justification as strange as it was baseless. (Felber argues that he was fired because he was outspoken in challenging the university.) Several scholars boycotted the university and signed a public letter in support of Felber, but the university refused to budge. In July 2021, Felber and the university reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount. Again, no wrongdoing was admitted: A university representative said, The university stands by the process it followed, the ruling of the faculty committee that reviewed this case and the decisions made. We wish Dr. Felber well as he pursues his future opportunities.

In 2007, the adjunct faculty member June Sheldon had her offer for future courses revoked and was then terminated by San Jose/Evergreen Community College District after an in-class discussion of sexual orientation. The dean of mathematics and science concluded, against the views of other science faculty members, that Sheldon was not teaching science. A lawsuit was filed, and a federal-district court found that Sheldon had First Amendment rights in the classroom. The district settled, paying Sheldon $100,000 and removing her termination letter. A representative of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which supported Sheldon, said after the settlement that the district had better things to spend its money on than fighting a First Amendment lawsuit against a professor who was just doing her job. The district may disagree; while it removed Sheldons termination letter, it did not offer her future courses. At the time of this writing, Sheldons LinkedIn profile identifies her as self-employed tutor.

Each of these settlements can of course be seen as a victory for free speech. But administrations appear to see a simple cost calculation one without reference to any principle beyond institutional public relations. After all, if the faculty members remain gone, how was their speech protected?

A few cases that went differently suggest an alternative strategy is possible.

Mike Adams was a constant thorn in the side of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, regularly posting social-media comments that many found hateful. When UNC denied his promotion to full professor in 2006, he sued. After a district court dismissed his case, he appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which overturned the district courts ruling. Six years after filing suit his case went to trial, and in 2014, UNC settled with him for the promotion he had been denied, plus back pay and lawyers fees. (Adams continued to attract controversy after the settlement. He and UNC at Wilmington reached a second settlement in 2020 in exchange for his early retirement. His story ended tragically, however: Less than a month after reaching the settlement, he died by suicide.)

Adams had the benefit of already being tenured. Even with his job not at risk, it took years and an appeal for Adams to get his promotion. This is one lesson: To protect speech, faculty members and their supporters must have the will and the means to carry out a long, long battle. Even with the law on ones side, fighting an institution with millions of dollars and a squad of lawyers is daunting. Settling can be a result of insufficient funds and lack of income; after all, ousted professors still need to eat. Supporters of faculty speech should work on developing resources to support extended litigation, similarly to how unions develop ways to support workers during strikes. Administrations must believe that faculty will fight to win, even when, unlike Adams, they are out of a job.

The recent case at the University of Florida is also instructive. There, several faculty members were prevented from testifying against the state on matters related to their professional expertise. The faculty members filed a legal challenge. In January, Judge Mark E. Walker of the U.S. District Court for Floridas Northern District found for the professors in a blistering ruling. The university appealed that decision on February 8, but meanwhile, its accreditor had started asking questions. To settle with one or more faculty members is one thing. To risk accreditation is to risk an institutions ability to take in federal financial aid, an enormous potential cost. Accreditation, as has recently been argued in these pages, is potentially a huge lever that could be used to protect academic freedom.

We should always promote faculty speech on principled grounds. But if an administration is acting without principle, settlements for what amount to minuscule fractions of the budget will not compel it to care. In that case, another argument must be made: Violating faculty speech doesnt pay.

Visit link:
Lawsuits and Settlements Won't Save Free Speech - The Chronicle of Higher Education

By Ann McMaster

Bobby R. Burchfield prepared for his impressive four-decade legal career in the classrooms and in the stacks of the Jacob Burns Library at the GW Law. Now, Burchfield, through the Burchfield Family Charitable Foundation, has made a landmark gift to highly ranked GW Law to create a new professorship and recruit a nationally-recognized scholar to teach his passion, Free Speech and First Amendment law. The gift is the largest commitment yet made by the Burchfield Family Charitable Foundation, which Burchfield founded almost 20years ago.

A renowned legal mind long sought after by leaders in business and politics, Burchfield credits George Washington University's GW Law as the foundation of his professional success.

I believe in paying it forward, and the concept of noblesse oblige, said Burchfield. I have been very fortunate, and I gained so much in law school. I got a great education, made life-long friends, and have been able to practice with some of the best and brightest lawyers of my time. Attending GW Law is one of the best decisions I ever made.

GW Law Dean Dayna Matthew said that the Burchfield Professorship of First Amendment and Free Speech Law brings the imprimatur of a world-class attorney to GW Law and will be highly sought after by top free speech scholars from around the nation.

The two First Amendment cases Mr. Burchfield argued before the U.S. Supreme CourtMcConnell v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FECare considered seminal standards taught today in constitutional law classes, Matthew said.

Our constitutional law faculty are remarkable scholars and practitioners, and this gift is a game-changer that will allow us to attract a prominent free speech expert who solidifies GW Law as a premier school for serious First Amendment scholarship. This is a transformative gift that will have a profound and enduring influence not only on GW Law but also on the national First Amendment discourse. It serves as an example to others who wish to invest in attracting highly distinguished scholars to the GW Law faculty."

A longstanding pillar of support for GW Law, Burchfield, who was editor-in-chief of GW Law Review and graduated with high honors, has served on the Deans Advisory Council and delivered the Law Commencement address in 2015. In 2008, he established an endowed scholarship to support GW Law students.

Burchfield, who retired from active law practice in March 2021, cited his belief that free speech is both the apex and the foundation of a functioning republic and civilized society as the impetus for establishing the Burchfield Professorship of First Amendment and Free Speech Law.

Everything is intertwined with free speech. Without it, you cant have informed and democratic elections, accountability of public officeholders, religious discourse, academic freedom, scientific inquiry, even commerce, said Burchfield.

This is the issue of our age. Free speech issues are in the news every day, from controversies about Joe Rogan and Dave Chappelle to efforts to ban books to controversies about what can be said on university campuses. Its perilous to trust anyone to determine what speech should be heard, said Burchfield. Encouraging scholarship in Free Speech by endowing this First Amendment professorship is a way I can be impactful in preserving free speech.

Over a remarkable 42-year career, Burchfield argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court and represented major corporations in antitrust, class action, constitutional, and other commercial matters. He is also well known for serving as counsel for political parties and officeholders in constitutional and political litigation. His client list includes three United States presidents, the leader of the U.S. Senate and the majority leader of the House.

As a freshly minted lawyer, Burchfield was the first attorney to argue before a newly seated judge on the D.C. Circuit, Antonin Scalia. Burchfield added, with a chuckle, that he also holds the distinction of being the first lawyer to lose a case in an opinion written by eventual Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Burchfield named his pandemic pup, Nino, in honor of Justice Scalia.

Mr. Burchfield is a truly exemplary alumnus, said Donna Arbide, GWs vice president of development and alumni relations. He has served on the Dean's Law Advisory Council for decades and has just completed teaching a seminar in Free Speech at GW Law. His outstanding accomplishments and contributions to GW and society were recognized in 2012 with GWs prestigious Distinguished Alumni Achievement Award.

We are so grateful for Mr. Burchfields incredible, historic gift, which is in addition to the generous endowed scholarship he established at GW Law to open the door for talented students, said Ms. Arbide. GW Law is already one of the countrys top ranked law schools, and this gift will lift it to new heights. We know Mr. Burchfield supports many institutions, and GW is honored he chose us to receive this record-setting gift.

Contributions to the Law School Deans Fund enable us to increase student and faculty support, bolster student placement servicesand enhance student networking opportunities and other law school programs. Consider a gift to GW Law.

See the article here:
GW Law Alumnus Bobby R. Burchfield Endows $4.5 Million Professorship with a Gift from the Burchfield Family Charitable Foundation - GW Today

Last night, as Russia was beginning its attack on Ukraine, Donald Trump was on Fox News to badmouth the Biden administration. Trump appeared on Laura Ingrahams The Ingraham Angle and really seemed to cherish the opportunity. He said, [Putin] was going to be satisfied with a piece [of Ukraine] and now he sees the weakness and the incompetence and the stupidity of this administration. And as an American, Im angry about it and Im saddened by it, and it all happened because of a rigged election.

Trump then rambled on about unrelated issues including inflation and the US southern border, but its almost beyond parody that he would connect the Russian invasion to the election he lost a while ago. Moments later, Trump misheard what Ingraham said on air and thought she said that the US invaded Ukraine. He said, you told me about the amphibious attack by Americans. You shouldnt be saying that because you and everybody else shouldnt know about it. They should do that secretly. Laura then had to step in to correct the former president. Even compared to other Trump TV interviews, this appearance was a total embarrassment for everyone involved.

Russian invasion is a news and political talk program, known for its controversial interviews with political and religious extremists, liberal and conservative politicians, and other guests.

Missed an episode? Check out David Pakman on our Youtube Channel anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at fr

The Ingraham Angle #davidpakmanshow Biden Administration Donald Trump Fox News Russian invasion Trump TV interviews Ukraine

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump badmouths the Biden Administration - Free Speech TV

President Biden says 'we're in a better place' in first 2022 address

President Biden gives his first presidential address of 2022.

USA TODAY

Tuesday will mark an important milestone in President Joe Biden's presidency: He will give his first State of the Union to a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It will be the first such address since the finalone given by former President Donald Trump in February 2020. Biden spoke to a joint session in April, on the eve of his first 100 days in office.

The president will likely speak about several initiatives currently stalled in the Senate, such as his $1.75 billion Build Back Better infrastructure bill and voting rights legislation. He may also address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

Here are some details on the State of the Union, including how to watch:

The address is scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. ET.

It will be carried by all major TV news networks (CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS) and cable news networks includingFox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN.

NPR will also carry the address.

The speech will also be live-streamed by the White Houseand many organizations, including USA TODAY. Readers can follow live updates on the speech from USA TODAY.

More: State of the Union: Biden faces a nation rattled by inflation, uncertain of his leadership

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds will give the Republican Party's rebuttal to the speech.

"Republican governors across America are leading the charge in defending liberty and securing unmatched economic prosperity in our states," Reynolds said in a statement. "The Biden administration is governing from the far-left, ignoring the problems of working-class Americans while pushing an agenda that stifles free speech, free thought, and economic freedom. The American people have had enough, but there is an alternative, and that's what I look forward to sharing on Tuesday evening."

This response should also be livestreamed by news outlets.

More: President Biden will deliver his first State of the Union on March 1. Why is this important?

Contributing: The Des Moines Register

Reach out to Chelsey Cox on Twitter at @therealco.

Original post:
Here's how to watch President Biden's first State of the Union address - USA TODAY

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu's home.) I therefore thought I'd repost an item of mine that answers the question:Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I've seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn't draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers' ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm"; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens "on more than one occasion," rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketingespecially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General's home)may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can't deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that ignore others.

Read more from the original source:
Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment - Reason