Daily Archives: April 27, 2023

Freedom of speech is a frustrating thing to embrace.

I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, said biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall of Voltaire, paraphrasing his work.

Voltaire may have been a French philosopher, but that do-or-die attitude toward free speech is one that is frequently ascribed to patriots and Founding Fathers.

Unfortunately, when it comes to real-life free speech, people are much more concerned with their rights and can be dismissive of their neighbors freedoms.

Thats how we get book bans and pushes for eliminating a class or a play in our public schools something that is being seen right now from those on the conservative side.

But it is definitely not an exclusively right-wing behavior. If you want to see it play out on the left, look to universities.

A Change.org petition signed by more than 11,000 people asked the University of Pittsburgh be held accountable in protecting LGBTQ individuals. A university should be responsible for keeping its students, staff, faculty and visitors safe from abuse and unfairness.

At issue, however, was a slate of speakers this spring. The petition called the three events a platform of hate and transphobia. Two appearances by Riley Gaines and Cabot Phillips were sponsored by the Pitt chapter of the conservative student group Turning Point USA. The universitys College Republicans and the International Studies Institute coordinated a debate with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles.

The issue of gender identity and expression is loaded and volatile. The speakers in question were going to provoke opposition. But does that mean they shouldnt speak?

The Knowles event Tuesday prompted what the university described as a public safety emergency. There was an incendiary device. A dummy with Knowles face was burned in the street. This is no way to counter an argument.

College students are often adamant about free thinking and open minds. They need to realize an exchange of ideas has to involve everyone having a chance to speak even if you dont agree.

For one thing, minds are never changed by a refusal to communicate. Second, if you dont want to hear a speaker, thats a reason for you not to attend the speech. It doesnt mean you get to prevent other people from hearing it. Thats always the point made with book bans. Dont like it? Dont read it.

But stopping a message should not degenerate to violence.

Penn State had that happen in October when an event with Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes was canceled at the last minute. Things turned ugly quickly.

Penn State has now canceled two April events by controversial speakers self-titled troll Alex Stein and cultural critic James Lindsay. Both were done very differently this time. They werent disrupted by protesters but by scheduling conflicts over venues and dates. And thats how it should be.

The best way to show that a speaker doesnt represent the students as many protesters have said is for the students to decide for themselves. Thats free speech.

View post:
Editorial: When is free speech not free on college campuses? - TribLIVE

The free speech of all Americans is protected by the First Amendment. But anyone who has ever spoken up against the powerful knows that freedom of speech isnt as simple as that.

There is more than one way to silence people, and dragging them into costly lawsuits has long been a tried and true method.

In 2011, Texas passed a robust law known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act that provided protections against what are known as SLAPP suits strategic lawsuits against public participation. Such lawsuits quash speech by making it too risky to speak up for fear of being sued.

The TCPA gives parties in lawsuits the opportunity to get an automatic stay of costly discovery and other legal proceedings while an appellate court reviews the matter.

Unfortunately, the state Senate has embraced an overreaching bill that is supposedly aimed at curing abuses to the TCPA.

While there are genuine concerns that the act has been used to stay proceedings in meritorious suits, it is far from clear that such cases are common enough to warrant a major revision of the act that could gut critical public protections.

The bill in question would diminish the TCPA by removing the automatic stay of proceedings under three conditions: If a motion under the act was denied because it was not filed in a timely way, was frivolous or was denied under existing exemptions to the act.

Those amendments might seem innocuous. But they are open to broad interpretation and could be misinterpreted or misunderstood by a trial court, leading to legal costs that would chill free speech.

State Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, will chair a hearing in the state House Wednesday morning on this bill. Leach has offered us assurances that the bill will not pass the House in its current form and that he will not accept a bill that impedes the TCPAs protections.

The bill debate has ignited a good conversation around this important issue and Im hopeful we can reach a workable compromise building on our success in 2019 on the major TCPA amendments, Leach wrote to us.

That was encouraging, but a substitute bill Leach is proposing does not appear to resolve serious concerns. Leachs proposal attempts to strike a middle ground by creating a 45-day stay on legal action once a trial court rules on a TCPA motion. But that will only add pressure on appellate courts that already struggle to rule quickly on these matters.

Leach said the substitute was laid out to set up discussion at Wednesdays hearing and is unlikely to be the version that passes.

Make no mistake: We will aggressively protect the First Amendment protections ensured by our anti-SLAPP laws, he said.

Time will tell. The trouble is that even a well-intended amendment could lead to a huge setback for speech. This law is under persistent pressure from powerful interests that want to see it rolled back. Each legislative cycle seems to bring another threat to the laws core.

If that continues to happen, all Texans will become less free to say what they think.

We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here.

Link:
Free speech protections are under threat in Texas Legislature - The Dallas Morning News

Lena Shapiro is a clinical assistant professor of law and the inaugural director of the College of Laws First Amendment Clinic, supported by The Stanton Foundation. Shapiro, an expert in free speech issues, spoke with News Bureau business and law editor Phil Ciciora about the current state of the First Amendment in higher education and popular discourse.

Theres an increasing trend on college campuses of students shouting down speakers they disagree with. How would you characterize the current state of the First Amendment in higher education?

Theres an ongoing battle between those who say they want to advance freedom of speech for everyone versus those who want to drown out voices that they dont agree with. The latter group wants to have it both ways: freedom of speech only for their opinions as well as those whose opinions are the same as theirs.

In other words, freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.

What that does is lower the level of discourse that all people have, which is harmful on a college campus because were supposed to be teaching students how to enhance their debate skills and analytic abilities. And when you say, essentially, I dont want this person here because theyre harmful, I find them offensive or They demean the rights of a number of groups of people you can certainly express those views, but that doesnt mean you can take it a step further, as many want to, and remove that speaker from campus. You cant unilaterally deprive others of that speech. Thats the hecklers veto.

If you are diametrically opposed to what this speaker stands for or has to say, you show up and counter protest. You hold another event, or you sit in the room and challenge the speaker with questions real, substantive questions that you want to debate on.

What you dont want are ad hominem attacks or protests that prevent speech from occurring entirely, which is antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.

What is the danger of the hecklers veto?

The danger is you dont actually change anyone elses mind. And having not changed their mind, you dont change their behavior. Youre also not minimizing the injustice that you believe results from that speakers speech and/or actions and the speaker who you think was perpetuating that injustice just goes on about their day.

Many students, like those at Stanford Law School who showed up to protest Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, want to speak out and advocate on behalf of issues that are deeply personal to millions of Americans. But by exercising the hecklers veto, those individuals didnt actually change any opinions on those issues, certainly not Judge Duncans.

Some believe if they yell loud enough, and if they scare off enough speakers, then it will just rid the world of the injustices that go on. But thats just not how the world works, right? If you want to change hearts and minds, you have to convince them.

The First Amendment is unique in that it allows misinformation and outright lies to flourish under the guise of the free exchange of ideas. Should the government continue to protect the speech of liars, even though they can inflict damage on society?

We saw that issue play out in the various defamation lawsuits against Fox News. And Fox News paid a big price for the misinformation they aired regarding Dominion Voting Systems, so the system does have checks in place to protect against misinformation. Generally, the news media is granted a wide berth to report on issues as they see fit.

If you start to set stricter standards and start to go after what you perceive to be a lie or misinformation on, say, a social media site, youre first going to have define what a lie is. But as we can see from todays environment, nobody can agree on anything so being able to properly define what a lie is will be challenging.

This is why we have the First Amendment. When people see things they perceive as lies, they are allowed to respond accordingly. I noticed a difference in news coverage late in the Trump administration when reporters on broadcasts across a number of different news outlets would report something that President Trump said and then explain why it wasnt true. Thats the way to deal with lies, misinformation and half-truths. If you think somebody is perpetuating an untruth, then bring your evidence forward. It makes us a better and a smarter society to do it that way.

So I dont think we can regulate what we deem or what someone else deems a lie, aside from some rare exceptions. Its just not realistic, and, ultimately, it harms the First Amendment protections that we have in the U.S.

I know people get upset and have a visceral reaction about various issues in the news. But I just dont know that such reactions change hearts and minds.

Its probably better to focus more on why a certain issue or story isnt true, as opposed to accusing the other side of stupidity, mendacity or malice. I am an advocate for always having more speech. Its why we have free speech in the first place.

Go here to read the rest:
How do you handle free speech issues in higher education, popular discourse? - University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

When this correspondent went to University College Dublin, back in the mists of time, freshers used to get two things arriving on campus: a plastic piggy bank emblazoned with the logo of the local bank, and a pep talk on how to think like a third-level student. The message was communicated in three bullet points, which I wrote down and pinned to my bedroom wall: Logic, rhetoric, grammer [sic]. It was only months later I noticed my misspelling.

By all accounts, students today entering college enjoy vastly superior freebies. But has their preparation for higher education improved? A concern increasingly raised by academics in Ireland surrounds the role of free speech, and whether pressure on students to conform to certain ideas is contributing to self-censorship.

Last month, Stanford Law School in the United States announced plans for a mandatory half-day of instruction on free speech and legal norms after students shouted down and disrupted a lecture by a federal judge on the campus. The heckling of Green Party leader Eamon Ryan at an event at Trinity College Dublin last month was hardly of the same order but it highlighted a tension between protesting against speakers and silencing them.

Would Irish students benefit from a mandatory course on free speech? And if so what should it contain?

The first thing to say about free speech on campus is that its a lot more complicated than people assume. Prof Terence Karran, a UK educationalist who has written extensively on academic freedom across Europe, says part of the problem is the absence of an agreed definition on what exactly we are trying to protect.

[Is free speech under threat in Irish universities? A UCD audit raises concern]

Surprisingly, academics have been unable or unwilling to define a concept which is supposedly of singular importance to their teaching and research, but they may have a vested interest in resisting definitional clarity, he says. Ahead of a public lecture at UCD on Thursday, Karran helps to signpost a few general points on the topic that could be used for a campus-wide crash course on free speech.

Karran says the two ideals are different things, even though they are often assumed to be the same. Endorsing the view that academic freedom is a cousin but not a sibling of free speech, he says the former is a professional freedom designed to enable the twin processes of teaching and research to flourish.

By contrast, freedom of speech is a wide generic freedom granted to all, to express their opinions and beliefs. There are no moral or legal justifications for giving academics greater freedoms of speech than are enjoyed by other individuals in the public domain, when they are expressing opinions outside of their subject expertise, Karran states.

If the UK government decided to forbid Chinese students coming to the UK some universities would go bankrupt

When one thinks of controversies surrounding free speech on campus it is generally to do with partisan or provocative visiting speakers. But a more systematic threat to academic freedom comes from commercial forces, particularly universities growing dependence on funding from undemocratic states.

You can see that China is slowly but surely trying to strangle academic freedom in its own country but also in other countries where it has a foothold, says Karran. Some universities in the UK have become so dependent on fees from international students, he adds, if the UK government decided to forbid Chinese students coming to the UK, these universities would go bankrupt.

An EU survey on academic freedom contained in a 2019 report by Karran for the Council of Europe found that one in five academics had practised self-censorship. Lecturers are becoming more wary of attracting complaints over introducing difficult content matter in class or giving frank assessments of coursework.

Students paying high tuition fees now have an expectation that, because they have bought their education, they deserve a good degree, irrespective as to the effort they have expended. This trend has been accompanied by a decline in academic freedom and the casualisation of academic labour, says Karran.

He stresses, however, he sees a role for students in defending academic freedom and making sure it is retained. While academic freedom merits protection in its own right, he says there seems to be causal relationship between universities that uphold the ideal and those that excel in international rankings. Universities that protect academic freedom attract good academics because they know they can undertake cutting-edge research.

[Is free speech under threat in Irish universities? A UCD audit raises concern]

In announcing her plan for mandatory free speech classes, the dean of Stanford Law School, Jenny Martinez, circulated a 10-page memorandum that explores some of the legal and moral issues surrounding deplatforming.

A key argument she makes is that different rules apply to heckling at an organised event, such as an educational meeting, compared with, for example, a public park. The First Amendment of the US constitution does not treat every setting as a public forum where a speech free-for-all is allowed, writes Martinez. To the contrary, First Amendment cases have long recognised that some settings are limited public forums, where restrictions on speech are constitutional so long as they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the forums function and all the surrounding circumstances.

In short, people have a right to heckle but it must be balanced against other rights. The moment when a line is crossed is not always clear-cut.

When John Stuart Mill wrote his classic defence of free speech in On Liberty (1859) he couldnt have envisaged public dialogue coming under the spell of artificial intelligence.

A huge percentage of the utterances which we are presented with each day are produced by algorithms, which are not human and do not have rights, American historian Timothy Snyder recently remarked. I think its pretty important that one of the ways we organise our conversations around free speech is to make sure the utterances are connected to a person.

Snyder here pre-empts a discussion about whether AI speech the output of a chatbot, for example, or a machine-produced research paper deserves the same sort of protection as human expression. Whether we will be able to distinguish between the human voice and AI as time progresses is another matter.

[Why free speech is more complicated than Elon Musk makes out]

Coming back to college campuses, AI is having a more immediate impact on the role of the academic. As well as usurping certain teaching functions, technology can be used for surveillance and performance monitoring.

Karran says one of his PhD students is researching the matter. When he comes in, in the morning, he uses his swipe card to open the door, thats recorded on the system somewhere; when he leaves it is again recorded; when he goes to the library thats recorded ... so that will be an issue in the future. They will be able to monitor us very closely, and Im not sure that will be necessarily a good thing when it comes to research.

How we will think about free speech and academic freedom in years hence is an open question. However, Karran believes that a better conceptual understanding of these ideals is a first step towards guaranteeing their future. Academic freedom was quite difficult to achieve, especially in the United States, he says. It would probably be more difficult to re-establish once it has been removed.

Terence Karran, emeritus professor of higher education policy, University of Lincoln, will deliver a public lecture, Academic Freedom in Ireland: De Jure Protection, at 6pm on Thursday, April 27th in Sutherland School of Law, L024. It is supported by the Irish Federation of University Teachers in association with the UCD school of philosophy, and is billed as the inaugural lecture in a planned series of Dublin lectures on academic freedom

Continued here:
Should Irish universities introduce mandatory free speech classes? - The Irish Times

TALLAHASSEE The Florida House on Wednesday passed a measure that would put new requirements on universities related to debates and other campus forums, with supporters saying it would bolster free speech but critics arguing it could have unintended consequences.

The Republican-controlled House voted 82-34 along near-party lines to approve the bill (HB 931), which still needs to pass the Senate before it could go to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The proposal (HB 931) also would prevent state colleges and universities from requiring students and staff to complete political loyalty tests as a condition of admission or employment.

Under the bill, each university would be required to establish an Office of Public Policy Events, which would be responsible for organizing, publicizing and staging at least four debates or forums per year.

Such debates and group forums must include speakers who represent widely held views on opposing sides of the most widely discussed public policy issues of the day and who hold a wide diversity of perspectives from within and outside of the state university community, the bill says.

But several House Democrats criticized the bill for not defining widely held views. Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, argued that leaving the issue open to interpretation could benefit some groups over others.

I think its hard to dictate what is a widely held view. That often can take the shape of who is in political power at that time, who is the biggest donor to a university, whos the biggest donor to the governor. I just am very concerned that we actually are not creating an environment with freedom of speech, because some speech will be preferred over others, Eskamani said.

Supporters of the bill, however, argued that it would help protect campus free speech. Rep. Doug Bankson, R-Apopka, called higher-education institutions a crucible of free thought.

It is our foundational right to have freedom of speech. This great bill protects those things. It makes sure that all voices can be heard. Because truth has its own legs, it can stand on its own when its given the chance to be heard, Bankson said.

Rep. Rita Harris, D-Orlando, contended that not all arguments deserve equal airtime.

Im sorry but Nazism, there is no pro (side), there is no flip-side to the coin, Harris said.

Bill sponsor Spencer Roach, R-North Fort Myers Republican, pushed back on Harris argument.

I would argue that Nazism is not a widely held idea. But let me ask you this if a speaker came onto campus advocating that we should reinstitute slavery; that we should exterminate the Jewish population, I would say this, So what? And I will quote our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, when he said, The best way to expose a fool is to allow him to rent out a hall and put forth his ideas to his fellow citizens, Roach said.

The measure also would require that, if a schools Office of Public Policy Events cant readily find an advocate from within the state university community who is well-versed in a perspective, the office would invite a speaker and provide a per-diem and a reimbursement for travel expenses.

Democrats also questioned why the measure did not include a cap on how much money could be provided to invited speakers.

The part of the bill that seeks to prohibit political loyalty tests defines such tests as compelling, requiring, or soliciting a person to identify commitment to or to make a statement of personal belief in support of things such as a specific partisan, political, or ideological set of beliefs.

Such tests also could not require statements of support for any ideology or movement that promotes the differential treatment of a person or a group of persons based on race or ethnicity, including an initiative or a formulation of diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the Constitution.

Continued here:
Florida House approves bill that would change rules around campus ... - WUFT

Free speech legislation that aims to eradicate cancel cultureat English universities could be used to protect those with extreme views, according to a former universities minister.

Lord Willetts predicted that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill which is expected to receive Royal Assent imminently will result in quite a lot of legal cases from across the political spectrum.

Asked at a Westminster Higher Education Forum event on free speech whether the bill was just about protecting Conservative views, Lord Willetts who has been involved in scrutinising the legislation in the House of Lords said he did not think this would be the approach taken by the Office for Students (OfS) or the courts.

He added that he could foresee a situation whereby, for example, the bills protections could be claimed by people with quite extreme Islamic views.

Referencing a controversy surrounding the then universities minister Michelle Donelan in May 2021, who said the bill would allow someone who denies the Holocaust the legal right to speak at a university, Lord Willetts said she had been correct as Holocaust denial is not of itself a criminal offence in the UK.

Ms Donelan was eventually overruled by No10, which said Holocaust denial would not be tolerated, but Lord Willetts said if this is to be the case then theOfS will have to outlinehowit intends to regulate universities using the new legislation in its long-awaited guidelines.

These guidelines have not yet been shared with anybody in Parliament, Lord Willetts said, a situation he described as frustrating.

He added that the document will also have to engage with other challenges such as what might happen if the rights granted by the bill appear to come into conflict with different pieces of legislation that universities are subject to, such as the Equality Act which protects individuals against harassment or the Prevent Duty,which aims to minimise the spread of extremist ideologies.

Appearing at the same event, Bryn Harris, the chief legal counsel for the Free Speech Union, said another potential issue when the bill is implemented will be universities arguing that freedom of speech within the law allows them to impose employment policies that can then restrict what academics say.

He agreed the new legislation may see institutions performing a tightrope walk between compliance with this bill or, if they get it slightly wrong, potentially falling foul of the Equality Act. But this could be dealt with by the OfS guidance, he said.

There needs to be interplay between free speech and HR committees to ensure overall compliance with all legislation, he said, adding that universities are going to have a lot of work to do.

Harry Anderson, policy manager for Universities UK, said the different duties being placed on universities was creating a bit of confusion and uncertainty when universities are having to make these very sensitive, very difficult balancing acts.

Lord Willetts said he remained concerned that the much more intrusive regulatory regime could have a chilling effect and result in a safety-first environment whereby no speakers at all are invited for fear of falling foul of the legislation.

The peers efforts to remove a statutory tort from the bill which hands individuals the right to sue if they feel their free speech has been violated by institutions were overturned when the legislation returned to the House of Commons.

He said there was potential for a nightmare scenario whereby a students union caught up in controversy could receive both a letter from the OfS saying they are being investigated and a lawyers letter saying they are being sued, adding that this felt like overkill.

The fact that changes to the bill agreed by the government now mean the tort can only be used after all other means of addressing the grievance have been exhausted felt like a reasonable compromise, Lord Willetts said.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

See the rest here:
Free speech bill 'could protect extreme views' - Times Higher Education

On Nov. 24, 1964, the Illinois Supreme Court did what no other state high court had ever done it vindicated Lenny Bruces free speech right to perform provocative routines in comedy clubs.

But the freewheeling comedian was not so lucky in New York, where a state court thereafter convicted him of obscenity for his comedic bits. It was just one of such prosecutions, the others being in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The New York conviction stood since Bruce died before he could appeal.

Twenty years ago, however, New York Gov. George Pataki posthumously pardoned the outspoken comedian. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve.

As First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere then put it in his petition seeking the New York pardon: Today, comedy clubs are considered free speech zones, and the monologues that prompted New York to prosecute and convict Lenny Bruce would never be considered obscene.

People are also reading

While that is true insofar as the law of free speech is concerned, today the culture of free speech is increasingly succumbing to censorship. This is why comedy clubs must stand up and boldly reclaim their role as free speech zones and antidotes to cancel culture. Hence, the Bruce story takes on renewed meaning in a nation gone mad with silencing anything that offends anyone in any way.

The comedian was preparing for his performance at The Comedy Zone when a man entered the building shortly after 9pm and brandished a gun. Robinson and those inside the venue were evacuated, after which the suspect discharged his weapon. A spokesperson for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) released a statement confirming that the suspect had been detained and nobody was injured. On Sunday, Robinson thanked staff at the comedy club and CMPD officers for the way they handled the situation.

To draw again from Corn-Revere: Lenny Bruce was in the vanguard of the transformation of the stand-up comic from jokester to social critic, and his routines covered a wide range of topics including racism,organized religion, homosexuality, and social conventions about the use of language. In the early 1960s, that got him arrested for acts he performed in several comedy clubs.

Bruce was the last of comedians to be criminally prosecuted for word crimes in a comedy club. It was as if the specter of his persecution forever changed the course of American law even without a Supreme Court ruling. After he died on the run, his spirit resurrected: Uninhibited comedy flourished with the likes of George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Joan Rivers and Margaret Cho. In time, both the law and culture of free speech coalesced in ways that gave meaningful breathing room to a robust measure of speech freedom.

Today, however, though the law of free speech is vibrant, the culture is increasingly threatened by the chilling effects of censorship on the left and right. For one thing, some of Bruces comedy could not be performed on college campuses because it would be deemed offensive. Then there is the recent fiasco at Stanford Law School in which boisterous hecklers vetoed a talk to be given by a conservative federal judge invited to speak there. Additionally, conservatives in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis state have heartily endorsed censorship of all kinds.

Countless other troubling examples reveal much the same. In the words of the late historian Nat Hentoff, it all comes down to free speech for me, but not for thee.

Toleration is an anathema to those easily offended by anything that runs counter to their categorical beliefs. So too, being open-minded is not an option for those whose absolute truth is espoused by their preferred cable station. In such a world, mouths are silenced, and minds are closed. It all makes for a society rife with hypocrisy a sacred cow Bruce delighted in slaughtering.

After comedian Dave Chappelles show in Minneapolis was canceled for being offensive, Jamie Masada, owner of comedy club chain the Laugh Factory, told Fox News Digital that the comic stage is their sanctuary. We have to protect the First Amendment. We cant dilute it. We have to be able to laugh at ourselves. Not only should that sanctuary be preserved, but it must also be enriched to exemplify the vital values of free speech zones.

Carlin said Bruce prefigured the free-speech movement and helped push the culture forward into the light of open and honest expression.

More than ever, that light needs to shine brightly, first in and then out of Americas comedy clubs those last safe havens of free speech in a democracy. So let the free speech campaign begin in comedy clubs across the land, those free speech zones where censorship is bum-rushed out the door.

Collins is a retired law professor and co-author, with David Skover, of The Trials of Lenny Bruce. Actor and playwright Ronnie Marmo portrays Lenny Bruce in his hit one-man show Im Not a Comedian ... Im Lenny Bruce.

Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!

View original post here:
Ronald Collins and Ronnie Marmo: Comedy clubs are free speech ... - Independent Record

On Tuesday night, a large and extremely diverse crowd featuring not only people of different ethnic and social backgrounds but of contrasting political persuasions conservative Republicans, libertarians, liberal Democrats, leftists came together in a banquet hall in midtown Manhattan united by single conviction: dedication to freedom of speech.The occasion was a gala celebrating the recent relaunch of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the group championing freedom of speech in educational settings since 1999, as the Foundationfor Individual Rights and Expression now championing free speech in all walks of life and still going by the catchy acronym FIRE.

The large banners on display in the hall underscored the message. My favorite: Canceling free speech doesnt make us China, but its a red flag.The lineup of speakersincluded Ilya Shapiro, the conservative legal scholar forced out of Georgetown University Law Centerover a tweet arguing that then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was a lesser candidate picked because of her race and sex, and Michael Render, aka Killer Mike,the Black rap artist and activist who has been an outspoken critic of government attempts to use rap and hip-hop lyrics as evidence of criminality. Killer Mikeselectrifying keynote address brought down the house.

Only $1 for 5 months of unlimited access to Newsday.com

On Tuesday night, a large and extremely diverse crowd featuring not only people of different ethnic and social backgrounds but of contrasting political persuasions conservative Republicans, libertarians, liberal Democrats, leftists came together in a banquet hall in midtown Manhattan united by single conviction: dedication to freedom of speech.The occasion was a gala celebrating the recent relaunch of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the group championing freedom of speech in educational settings since 1999, as the Foundationfor Individual Rights and Expression now championing free speech in all walks of life and still going by the catchy acronym FIRE.

The large banners on display in the hall underscored the message. My favorite: Canceling free speech doesnt make us China, but its a red flag.The lineup of speakersincluded Ilya Shapiro, the conservative legal scholar forced out of Georgetown University Law Centerover a tweet arguing that then-Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was a lesser candidate picked because of her race and sex, and Michael Render, aka Killer Mike,the Black rap artist and activist who has been an outspoken critic of government attempts to use rap and hip-hop lyrics as evidence of criminality. Killer Mikeselectrifying keynote address brought down the house.

Over the 20-plus years of its existence, the Foundation has been most often associated with campus wars over politically correct speech restrictions based on sensitivities about race, gender and sexuality; because of this, its critics have often portrayed it as a stealth right-wing group peddling the myth that overzealous college activists are the biggest free-speech threat in America. But in fact, it is an increasingly rare entity in our polarized world: a genuinely nonpartisan group.

It has defended college students and professors accused of racism for criticizing affirmative action or of sexism for defending the presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases. But it has also intervened on behalf of untenured faculty members fired after being targeted by right-wing media for statements about racism interpreted as anti-white and on behalf of students disciplined not over political speech but over criticism of the college administration. It stands up for speakers sponsored by the right-wing organization Turning Point USA who get shouted down by student protesters, but its just-released campus speech report criticizes Turning Point for targeting left-wing professors for harassment. It has criticized mandatory statements in support of diversity, equity and inclusion, but challenged moves by red-state politiciansto ban or restrict diversity and equity programs in schools and corporations.

One thing we all have in common is that we hate bullies, the Foundations president Greg Lukianoff told the audience in his closing remarks.

Some might ask why a pro-free expression organization is needed when the American Civil Liberties Union already champions First Amendment rights. In recent years, however, the ACLU has been a rather tepid defender of free speech in cases where speech clashes with perceived social justice goals such as anti-racism or transgender rights. The presence of former ACLU president Nadine Strossen as a speaker at the Foundations gala underscored the fact that it carries on the ACLUs older tradition of nonpartisan civil liberties advocacy. That doesnt mean the two organizations are rivals; in some cases, they are and will be allies. But in many ways, the Foundation is better suited to this political moment when illiberalism is escalating on both the left and the right. In a polarized world, support for free expression and opposition to bullies can be a depolarizing force.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young,a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute, are her own.

Cathy Young is a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute.

Original post:
A notable foundation for freedom of speech - Newsday

Nonprofit civil liberties group the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) rated two public four-year schools in Alabama "red" for having some of the most restrictive speech codes in the country.

Of the 13 public four-year schools in the state, 10 were labeled "yellow." Only one received a "green" score.

FIRE, formerly known as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, used to focus exclusively on defending free speech on campus. However, the organization underwent a $75 million expansion to also focus on First Amendment advocacy elsewhere.

Nevertheless, FIRE still maintains a database of free speech complaints from universities and evaluates the institutions' speech codes.

The Alabama Free Speech Act (AFSA) went into effect in 2021. It states that trustees at public Alabama campuses must adopt policies on free expression that allow students, administrators and faculty to take positions on controversial topics and not prohibit the use of outdoor space on campus for free speech purposes, among other requirements.

Even with the AFSA, FIRE pointed out how Alabama schools can still restrict the free speech of their students and faculty.

Troy University and Alabama A&M University received "red" scores from FIRE. According to FIRE, each school has at least one policy that "substantially restricts freedom of speech."

Specific sections of Troy's student handbook received "red" rankings, including its housing and residence policy, policy on harassment and discrimination and technology use policy. FIRE cited problems with how the policies define harassment, sexual harassment and "cruelty, obscenity, crudity and offensiveness."

FIRE included just one case from Troy from 2005 when Troy was one of several universities sued by FIRE around that time. FIRE charged Troy with enacting harsh punishments for what they called "indecent expression" or "any activity that creates a mentally abusive, oppressive, or harmful situation for another." The lawsuit also charged Troy with a breach of contract, unlawful conditions placed on the receipt of state benefits and denial of due process and equal protection of the law.

The case was marked a "FIRE Victory" on FIRE's website.

FIRE did not include a recent incident at Troy covered by 1819 News in which Troy trustees attempted to "vet" research at a free-market think tank associated with the university, citing complaints from Alabama Power and the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) about comments made at an event hosted by the think tank that was critical of economic incentive programs, according to leaked emails.

FIRE gave Alabama A&M a "red" score for its definition of sexual harassment, which includes "sexual overtones that the victim deems offensive" and "unsolicited, deliberate or repeated sexual flirtation, advances or propositions." It also cited Alabama A&M's definition of harassment in its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy and Responsible Use of University Computing and Electronic Communications Resources policy.

In 2019, FIRE ranked Alabama A&M as one of its "10 Worst Colleges For Free Speech," along with the University of North Alabama (UNA), which has since earned a "yellow" ranking.

The University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB), the University of Alabama (UA), the University of South Alabama (USA), the University of Montevallo, the University of West Alabama (UWA), the University of North Alabama (UNA), the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), Alabama State University (ASU), Auburn University Montgomery (AUM) and Jacksonville State University (JSU) were all rated "yellow."

Recently, UAH settled a lawsuit with the Alabama Center for Law and Liberty (ACLL) and the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) over a speech policy that limits most student speech to small "speech zones" and requires that students obtain permits to speak on campus three business days in advance. The university agreed to reverse the policy as part of the settlement.

Though not cited by FIRE, a former UA professor claimed he received pushback from the university for raising questions about the efficacy of the university's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies.

Of all 13 Alabama public universities, Auburn University was the only school to receive a "green" score. Auburn worked with FIRE in 2018 to revisit several speech codes and obtain one of the highest ratings for free speech in the country.

Currently, FIRE ranks Auburn as the 22nd best college for free speech in the country.

To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email will.blakely@1819news.com or find him on Twitter and Facebook.

Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.

Original post:
Troy, Alabama A&M receive poor 'red' rating from campus free ... - 1819 News