Category Archives: Free Speech

Harvard President Drew Faust gave a ringing endorsement of free speech in her recent commencement address. There was, however, one passage where Faust asserted that the price of Harvards commitment to free speech is paid disproportionately by those students who dont fit the traditional profile of being white, male, Protestant, and upper class. That point has been illustrated by a few recent controversies over speakers whose words were deemed offensive by some members of those non-traditional groups of students. But focusing solely on those controversies, and on a handful of elite campuses, risks obscuring a larger point: Disadvantaged groups are also among the primary beneficiaries of vigorous free-speech protections.

The Department of Justice Stands by Texas's Voter ID Law

Universities have often served as springboards for progressive social movements and helped to consolidate their gains. They have been able to fulfill these functions largely by serving as spaces where ideasincluding radical and contrarian ideascould be voiced and engaged with.

Today, many universities seem to be faltering in their commitment to this ideal, and it is the vulnerable and disenfranchised who stand to lose the most as a result. Thats particularly true beyond the world of elite private universities such as Harvard. The reality is that, as compared to white Americans, blacks and Latinos are much more likely to attend public universities and community colleges than elite private institutions. The same goes with those from low-income backgrounds as compared to the wealthy. This dynamic holds with regard to faculty as well: Female professors and professors of color are more likely than their white male counterparts to end up teaching at public universities as opposed to elite institutions like Harvard.

Heres why this matters: In virtue of their heavy reliance on taxpayer funding and major donors, public colleges are much more receptive to calls from outside the university to punish faculty and staff for espousing controversial speech or ideas. Groups like Professor Watchlist, Campus Reform, or Campus Watch exploit this vulnerability, launching populist campaigns to get professors fired, or to prevent them from being hired, on the basis of something they said. The primary targets of these efforts end up being mostly women, people of color, and religious minorities (especially Muslims and the irreligious) when they too forcefully or bluntly condemn systems, institutions, policies, practices, and ideologies they view as corrupt, exploitative, oppressive, or otherwise intolerable.

Those most vulnerable to being fired for expressing controversial views are the ever-growing numbers of contingent facultywho also tend to be disproportionately women and minorities. Meanwhile, the better-insulated tenured faculty tend to be white men.

As a result, if progressives are concerned with ensuring a more representative faculty, if they are committed to protecting freedom of conscience and freedom of expression for women and minorities, then they need to be committed to protecting free speech across the board. Every attempt to censor Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopoulos makes it easier to mount a campaign to fire someone like Lisa Durden (who made controversial comments about holding an all black Memorial Day celebration that excluded whites). Progressives lose the moral high ground they would need to defend radical and provocative speechwhich is unfortunate because they are arguably the ones who need free-speech protections most.

Americans tend to be politically to the right of most university faculty and studentsand as a result the public is more likely to be shocked and offended by views expressed by progressive scholars than by academic conservatives, who are few in number, generally rather moderate politically, and usually cautious about what they say publicly. Politicians are also more likely to throw their weight behind campaigns against left-leaning scholars, given that Republicans control most state governments, and thereby the purse strings of most public universities.

And if progressive scholars face a constant threat from the right coming from off-campus, they also face a threat from the left on campus. Many of the student-led campaigns that have made national news in the last two years have targeted professors who, themselves, identify as liberal or progressivebut who managed to challenge or violate some tenet of the prevailing activist orthodoxy.

Progressives, therefore, have reason to celebrate the fact that conservatives and their allies seem to be rallying behind the cause of free speech on campus. They can take advantage of this moment to institutionalize more robust protections, clearer standards and policies, and a healthier civic culture that turns disagreements into opportunities for learning. If progressives fail to embrace free speech, and if they cede this basic American value to the right, then, as Harvards President Faust warned in her commencement address, any effort to limit some speech opens the dangerous possibility that the speech that is ultimately censored may be our own.

Read the rest here:
How Free Speech on Campus Protects Disadvantaged Groups - The ... - The Atlantic

On June 7in Los Angeles, California, theNational Constitution Center hosted a program on the future of digital free speech, in partnership with the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society.

The first half of the program is a one-on-one conversation between Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosenand Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Listeners can find it right now on the Constitution Centers YouTube channel and in the coming weeks onLive at Americas Town Hall.

This week's episode ofWe the Peoplepicks up with the second half of the program, when Judge Kozinski was joined by Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, for a wide-ranging discussion.

Todays show wasedited byJason Gregoryand produced byNicandro Iannacci. Research was provided byLana UlrichandTom Donnelly. The host ofWe the PeopleisJeffrey Rosen.

Continue todays conversation onFacebookandTwitterusing@ConstitutionCtr.

We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at[emailprotected].

Sign up to receiveConstitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member ofSlatesPanoplynetwork. Check outthe full roster of podcasts atPanoply.fm.

Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is aprivate nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Recent Stories on Constitution Daily

John McCain to be awarded 2017 Liberty Medal

Trump team may go back to Supreme Court on immigration

Anticipation already begins for Courts next term

Filed Under: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Podcasts

See the original post here:
Podcast: The future of digital free speech - Constitution Daily (blog)

|

Posted: Jul 08, 2017 12:01 AM

As college students prepare to go back to school this fall, they will need to set aside time for a newly minted annual tradition: mandatory sexual harassment training. But as the recent example of Iowa State demonstrates, these mandatory online training programs aimed at educating students about their rights under Title IX may also be creating new First Amendment problems for universities and their students.

According to news reports, Secretary DeVos is evaluating Obama-era guidance to universities that contributed to this confusion about the First Amendment freedoms of students. She should take this opportunity to ensure that universities understand that their moral and legal obligation to protect students from being subjected to sexual harassment and violence does not excuse them fromand need not conflict withtheir constitutional obligation to respect students First Amendment rights.

In 2011, the Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights issued a letter warning universities of a new Title IX emphasis on sexual harassment and violence on campus. That itself is unobjectionable. The problem is that, in 19 pages, the OCR letter failed to even mention that universities must also protect students First Amendment rights, a glaring omission because so many university speech codes were already drafted as if the First Amendment had never been ratified.

In 2014, the Department of Education issued another 46-page guidance document, mandating that every university train students on its harassment policies without requiring that this training even mention student free speech rights. Of course, for-profit firms jumped at the opportunity to help more than 6,000 universities comply with this new federal training mandate for millions of students. The result has been an instant cottage industry of Title IX training programs that generally omit that public universities must also comply with the Constitution.

Iowa State demonstrates how this federal training mandateand its avoidance of the First Amendmenthas been and will be playing out on campuses across America over the next few months. Iowa State sent Robert Dunn and 36,000 other students an e-mail last summer informing him that he must complete an online training program on the universitys Title IX policies. When Robert logged on, he found that there was no mention of any interplay of Title IX or university policies with the First Amendment in any of the 118 slides addressing topics like how students could talk about gender identity.

Most troubling, however, was the final slide, requiring him to certify that he would comply with certain Iowa State speech codes. Upon review, Dunn found that these policies were egregiously unconstitutionaleven warning students that engaging in First Amendment protected speech activities might constitute harassment depending on the circumstances.

Defining true harassment need not be complicated. The Supreme Court has already defined it as conduct so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institutions resources and opportunities. But universities routinely expand the scope of these speech code policies to reach not only true harassment, but constitutionally protected speech to which another may claim offense.

When Dunn inquired about the consequences for not completing this requirement, ISU officials told him that his graduation could be placed on hold and reviewed by the president if he did not sign away his First Amendment rights. ISU believed it had little leeway to waive this requirement for one of its 36,000 students with the federal mandate in place. The Center for Academic Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on Dunns behalf. In April, ISU agreed to revise its harassment policies.

These mandated training programs, at tuition-paying student expense (and, at public universities, taxpayer expense) contribute to a confusion about the First Amendment freedoms of students and create a major compliance problem for universities. Universities are incentivized to subordinate students free speech rights to federal Title IX demands. And tomorrows judges, legislators, and voters learn that their First Amendment rights are, at best, an afterthought.

Secretary DeVos has repeatedly affirmed the importance of free speech on the university campus. She should ensure universities provide students with a working knowledge of the First Amendment and take this opportunity to clarify that public universities can claim no Title IX safe harbor for violating their students constitutionally protected freedoms.

Here is the original post:
Secretary DeVos Can Bring Needed Clarity to Campus Free Speech - Townhall

A Connecticut woman who hurled a variety of insults at a grocery store manager was protected by constitutional free speech rights and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Nina Baccala was arrested in her hometown of Vernon in 2013 after subjecting a Stop & Shop assistant manager to a profanity-laced tirade. Prosecutors said she became enraged when the manager told her it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer.

Baccala called the manager "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names, prosecutors said.

Baccala, 44, was convicted of breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the name calling and insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to constitutional free speech rights.

All seven justices on the state Supreme Court agreed the conviction should be overturned. Four voted in favor of acquittal, while three said there should be a new trial.

Justice Andrew McDonald wrote in the majority opinion that while the words and phrases that Baccala used were "extremely offensive and meant to personally demean" the manager, they were not criminal. He wrote that the evidence was insufficient to support Baccala's conviction under federal constitutional law.

"Uttering a cruel or offensive word is not a crime unless it would tend to provoke a reasonable person to immediately retaliate with violence," McDonald wrote.

He added, "Store managers are routinely confronted by disappointed, frustrated customers who express themselves in angry terms. People in authoritative positions of management and control are expected to diffuse hostile situations."

Prosecutor Mitchell Brody declined to comment Friday. Baccala did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Brody wrote in his opposition to the appeal that Baccala's insults were "fighting words" and that the state's breach of peace law allows prosecution for "abusive language."

The "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights dates back to a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Hampshire case. In that case, Walter Chaplinsky was convicted of breach of peace for cursing at a town marshal in Rochester, New Hampshire, and calling him a "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist."

Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was an exemption to free speech rights for "fighting words," which it defined as words "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

The rest is here:
Court: State Woman's Profanity-laced Tirade Was Protected Free Speech - Hartford Courant

GUEST: Laila Abdelaziz, 2017 Kairos Fellow and Campaigner with Fight For The Future

BACKGROUND: A poll by Politico and Morning Consult recently found 60% support among the public for the Federal Communications Commission's existing rules on Net Neutrality. The Obama-era rules were put in place after years of campaigning by grassroots activists who want to prevent the Internet from becoming a corporatized space. But Donald Trump's new FCC Chair Ajit Pai wants to do away with the rules that currently restrain major Internet Service Providers such Comcast, Time-Warner and AT&T from upending Net Neutrality.

Across the political spectrum, advocacy groups, content creators, and even major online websites like Twitter, Amazon, Netflix, Reddit, Vimeo, and Etsy are converging on a "Day of Action" next Wednesday the 12th of July to protest Ajit Pai's plan to end Net Neutrality. On that day, thousands of websites will display messages urging their users to send letters and comments supporting Net Neutrality. The online action may break the previous record of Internet activism in 2012 against two bills called SOPA and PIPA.

Read the original post:
'Day of Action' For Net Neutrality May Be Largest Ever - Free Speech TV

Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white nationalist Richard Spencer speaking at Texas A&M University Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016 in College Station.

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Continued here:
Campus free speech bills advanced around the country -- but Texas' bills died in committee - Chron.com

Recently I undertook a final year undergraduate class in political philosophy. The opening lecture commenced with a trailer from1984(1984). This film adaptation of George Orwells original dystopian novel (1949) imagines a society monitored pedantically by an all-encompassing omniscient totalitarian super state (Oceania).

My lecturer subsequently discussed her upbringing in formerly USSR-controlled East Germany. East Germany was a microcosmic manifestation of Airstrip One (Britain rechristened in1984). It was a relatively small communist province managed maliciously from Russia.

What dangers can transpire when a singular overriding ideology is bequeathed an exclusive cultural and legislative precedence?

Stringent protections of free speech (the right to dissent) are an important guarantor against any potential monopoly of power. When free speech is unjustifiably curtailed, democratic societies are threatened. Enabling disparate voices to participate in political and academic life ensures that current orthodoxies become neither lackadaisical nor presumptively unequivocal. Unpopular schools of thought, strong opposition parties and a variety of editorial slants constrain intellectual egomania and unhealthy political power grabs.

Most people will acknowledge this principle to some extent. At a base level, many Republicans recognize that they need Democrats. Often, academics are more indebted to their detractors than they would care to admit. But should disparate fascist cohorts and militant Islamic groupsbe given a hearing in democratic societies? Should extremist spokespersons be allowed to benefit from the privileges which they would seek to suppress in alternative circumstances?

What if particular radical tenets exploited susceptible listeners? Surely some measure of benevolent paternalism is warranted. In practice, many developed nations do place limitations upon free speech.

Recently, Ursula Haverbeck, a prolific revisionist historian and neo-Nazi, was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust on German soil. The British government has also introduced anti-extremism legislation. Even views which were oncethemain sway of opinion merely decades ago are now mitigated against legislatively and on university campuses.

In 2016, Angus Buchan (a conservative evangelical South African evangelist) was banned from preaching in Scotland. LGBT groups cited his allegedly homophobic and misogynistic views in justification of the prohibition. Offbeat second wave feminists like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have had their invitations to universities revoked by disenfranchised students.

These measures are not only inappropriate, but fundamentally counter-productive. Furthermore, they send a dangerous message to zealous minority factions. Theprima facieobvious ought to be stated: these demarcations are purely symbolic. Everyone knows that the most efficient way to stifle reprehensible opinions merely requires not paying attention to them.

Unsurprisingly; bannings, finings and imprisonment provide frenzied radicals with much larger spheres of influence. Nothing is more ineffectual than bestowing notoriety upon fringe groups which would otherwise have never been given any platform. Attempts to curtail free speech merely ratify the grandiose outlaw status which agitators thrive upon. Outrage just adds fuel to the fire of irrational contempt.

Ifcertain views really are beyond the pale of rational discourse, there is no inherent reason for their adherents to feel any compulsion towards dialogue, compromise or self-critique. Abhorrent positions should be forced to earn their place in an economy of ideas rather than being crowned royalty in a much more lucrative, less competitive, black market.

Why then have coercive attempts to restrict hate speech become so popular? Perhaps attempts to officially proscribe certain opinions pertains to a far more raw, emotive and visceral essence. An ancient human facethas resurfaced: team psychology.

An ability to cooperate in large collectives is one of the characteristics which distinguish humanity from other primates. This remnant of our tribal ancestry is manifest almost everywhere; competitive sports; fashion; political partisanship; etc. Even whenever we are not facing any imminent danger we still sense a pressing need to express particular loyalties and make specific alliances.

However, in his infamous Ted Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (N.Y.U.) identified one precarious trait innate to team psychology: The psychology of teams [] shuts down open minded thinking.

This is tantamount to stating the obvious. But Haidts observation should provoke serious introspection. Is it possible to reasonably discard ingroup thinking and pursuethecommon good? Do attempts to officially silence various antagonistic voices actually have a predominantly self-validating function?

Our position within a specific social tribe is reinforced. We are no longer required to critically assess objectionable opinions. The immense pleasure tribalism affords us makes it difficult and painful to distinguish between advocacy and enactment. Acknowledging the practical ineffectuality of anti-free speech legislation feels like betrayal.

Notwithstanding this phycological complication, there remains an immense difference between allowing persons to vocalize positions and possessing a blaze attitude towards the manifestation of such beliefs. Mob psychology has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of populism and social polarization (e.g. identity politics) throughout many Western nations which arose after the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown. Speech regulation provides continuity in an unstable world.

However, preemptively shutting down the possibility of dialogue with others cannot provide long term social security. The War on Extremism will soon be cataloged alongside other failed social Wars (like the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs). If monitoring language is counter-productive, what posture should anti-extremist political engagement take?

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent years. The rise of cultural libertarianism (embodied by alternative media outlets like the Rubin Report) has remapped the political landscape for many millennials. Its purported free speech fundamentalism resonates amongst people alienated by consensus politics; which characterized both the 90s and Noughties. Cultural libertarianism is a flashy somewhat adolescent protest movement with plenty of uncanny insights and a remarkable lack of real solutions.

The conscientious branding which these star struck demagogues have deployed does their crusade a damning disservice. They have inadvertently capitalized upon the tribal loyalties which underlying anti-free speech regulation in the first place.

Furthermore, this movement has failed to attract much needed cross-partisan support. Left of center socially minded democrats, often disparagingly christened Social Justice Warriors, are presumptively excluded from this more open project. As Milo Yiannopoulos (a recently defamed former darling of the Cultural Libertarian troop) states; free speech is now a conservative issue.

Cultural Libertarianism is too facile. Its unwavering commitment to value facts over feelings reflects a limited awareness of the complexities inherent throughout the historical development of moral and political theory. Social liberalism has produced revolutionary free speech advocates liketheinfamous British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Without the Quran political toleration may never have got off the ground.

Yes; free speech is under threat. Democratic participation is difficult. Authentic university life is fragile. The freedom of the press is always somewhat in jeopardy. Protecting free speech involves hard work. It requires putting up with ideas we dislike and hoping that reasonable discourse will win out in the end.

Free speech advocates on the right, left, top, bottom and center should recognizethe importance ofgrey. We must stop painting ourselves and our adversaries in cheap gaudy colors. Unless we are careful, one persons utopia may become everyone elses nightmare.

Photo: John Nakamura Remy/Creative Commons

See the article here:
Protecting truly free speech is hard work - GlobalComment.com

Jack Phillips is the operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Phillips, who has religious objections to same-sex marriage and had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips is devout about his artistry in icing and fondant. Hes also devout about his Christian faith, so much so that he believes it would be deeply sinful to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission one in a series of efforts to fence in the galloping acceptance of same-sex marriage could come as soon as this fall.

Events were set in motion in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who planned to marry in Massachusetts, stopped into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused to serve them, even though Colorado law says businesses open to the public cant discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Advertisement

Phillips, of course, has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to profess his faith. And hes made it clear theres no room for compromise, telling The New York Times: I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that to participate in a sin is wrong for me. For me to take part in it against my will is compelling me to make a statement that I dont want to make. But theres another right hanging in the balance, rooted in the 14th Amendment and codified by the Supreme Court in 2015: the right to same-sex marriage.

Historically, courts have tried to strike an equitable balance between expanded civil rights and religious expression. Since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1964, lawmakers and the courts have allowed some exemptions but have tended to draw the line when claims of religious freedom are used to justify discrimination. As James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT project put it: You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision two years ago was transformative, addressing vital claims to liberty and dignity for millions of gay Americans. Phillipss protest also comes at a time when national support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. A majority of Americans surveyed 62 percent now support gay marriage, including two-thirds of Catholics and 68 percent of mainline Protestants. And while white evangelical Christians arent exactly waving rainbow flags, support for same-sex marriage has grown from 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent today, according to Pew.

Theres a broader First Amendment principle at stake, however. The Phillips case is another alarming assault on freedom of speech, part of an effort by businesses large and small to turn that most essential constitutional right into an antiregulatory tool. This compelled speech doctrine is already making its way through Congress and the court system, most notably in a case involving business groups fighting a 2010 law that requires them to disclose whether their products contain minerals linked to warlords in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In June, the US House passed the Financial CHOICE Act, which includes a pro-business provision to repeal the conflict-mineral disclosure. The US Senate should reject the bill, which also rolls back Dodd-Frank reforms. And the Supreme Court justices should recognize that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not about forcing speech, but about banning discriminatory conduct. The Colorado cakemaker should be free to worship as he pleases, but not to abrogate settled civil rights law under the guise of the First Amendment.

Read more:
Using 'free speech' as a cover for discrimination - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

Jonathan Turley, Opinion Columnist Published 4:03 p.m. ET July 5, 2017 | Updated 6:14 p.m. ET July 5, 2017

CNN has been accused of blackmailing the man who created a meme of President Donald Trump tackling CNN by threatening to reveal his identity. USA TODAY

President Trumps video tweet on July 2, 2017.(Photo: Twitter, @realDonaldTrump)

CNN has reported that it has confirmed the identity of the creator of the controversial videothat shows President Trumptaking down someone with the CNN logo for a head. Like many, I was highly critical of the president for reposting the video on his Twitter account. That wasboth irresponsible and unpresidential.

What is curious is that CNN has withheld the creator'sidentity while making a thinly veiled threat that it will release his name if he posts anything CNN finds disturbing or offensive. That is an odd role for a news organization. The newsmedia do not usually put citizens on probation forexercising theirfree speech.

CNN announced that it had identified the Reddit user HanA**holeSolo who first shared the video that Trump reposted with the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN said the man also posted images with racist and anti-Semitic imagery. Heissued a long apology and removed all of the images.

"I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life.I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts, he wrote. He said hewas engaging in what he thought was satire or trolling fun on Reddit.

Like the poster, I ama fan of Reddit, which is known for its open forum and varied viewpoints. It is often caustic and funny. At times, it is offensive and disturbing. However, it is a genuine and largely uninhibited forum for free expression.

No, Trump's wrestling tweet doesn't 'incite violence'

Yes, Donald Trump and other presidents can be charged with obstruction

The Trump videoby the Reddit user was a typical satire on contemporary political events. It is not even clear whetherit was meant as a celebration or a criticism of Trump. It simply swapped out the face of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Vince McMahon with the CNN gif.

It was the exercise of free speech. It was also news. While posting such a video on Reddit is not surprising or noteworthy, it took on an entirely new character when Trump reposted it. He haswaged an intense war against the news media and CNN in particular. That makes the original poster'sidentity newsworthy.

CNN, however, stated that it has decided to withhold hisname for now. He is a private citizen, the network said, who apologized, took down the offending posts and said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

The last statement is particularly jarring. It sounds like CNN is putting a citizen on a type of media probationary status threatening to reveal his name if it deems any posting as constituting ugly behavior. It puts a news organization in the position of monitoring free speech and deciding whether to ruin someone if he crosses some ill-defined line with CNN. It is the antithesis of what a news organization is supposed to be about.

CNN caved to Trump. It should have stood by its reporters.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

If the mans name is news, CNN can choose to publish it or not publish it. In reality, he is news only because his videotape was snatched from obscurity and paraded to the world by the president of the United States. It is the Internet equivalent of being hit by lightning. If the man posts an anti-media comment or gif, will CNN then declare it news and post his name? It is not clear how long this probationary period will run, let alone the standard for distinguishing between free speech and ugly speech.

Nor is there a clear rationale behind a media probationary status. Journalists will often withhold the names of sexual assault victims or minors. However, they don'tthreaten to reveal those names if they fall to meet the news organizations' expectations or standards in future conduct. Indeed, even when juries reject sexual assault claims, CNN continues to protect thenames.

In this case, CNN is behaving like a media censor. The president arbitrarily selected this man and his gif. Now CNN appears willing to arbitrarily punish him.

It is the threat of future disclosure that is so concerning and dangerous.News is not supposed to be a weapon to be brandished to induce good conduct by organizations like CNN. Free speech and free press go hand in hand. Indeed, many reporters are protected more under the former right than the latter in legal controversies. Once a news organization becomes the manager of free speech, it becomes a menace to the free press.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tRZ4Fb

Follow this link:
CNN in odd role as censor: Network threatens free speech over Trump wrestling video - USA TODAY

Last week, President Trump tweeted a video of himself wrestling a man to the floor, the man's head digitally replaced with the CNN logo. CNN tracked down the Reddit user who created the video, and also asked him about other posts of his that consisted of racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic language and imagery. HanA**holeSolo, as the user is known, apologized profusely, insisted that he loves "people of all races, creeds and origins," and insisted that the video wasn't intended to incite violence against the media. The President, on the other hand, did not say "sorry." He tweeted: "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" Parties on each side of this saga could legitimately say they're taking a stand for free speech. CNN is defending the freedom of the press against a President who has sometimes appeared to threaten it. Conservatives charge CNN with being thin-skinned, but I've reported on Trump rallies where the audience has been moved to send up a chant of "CNN sucks," and where the anger at the so-called mainstream media nearly boiled over into outright intimidation. When the President of a democracy tweets a video of himself beating up a media organization, isn't that an implicit threat against the free press?

HanA**holeSolo's creation is classic Trumpery: it shows the President figuratively wrestling the media to the ground, yes, but with a dash of self-aware humor that the left is oddly tone-deaf to.

Does Trump really think he has the physique of a pro wrestler? Or that his tweets are witty ripostes worthy of Downton Abbey? No. He's a troll on a cosmic scale, and sometimes liberals would do well to ignore the one-liners he bashes out on his phone and focus on what he's doing in his day job.

So, which is it? Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? Personal experience has taught me that the line between these two things is vanishingly thin.

Down the years, I've had it all thrown at me: anti-Semitism, accusations of being a racist, homophobia, accusations of homophobia, cartoons of me in a gas oven, etc. I've said some bad things myself -- never that bad, I want to emphasize -- and feel guilty for having contributed my own small portion to this moral mudslide.

But if I might pretend to be completely innocent for a moment, then I have a couple of observations to make. One is that women always get it worst. Another is that people are happy to turn a blind eye to abuse when they agree with it politically. Liberals can give offense but they never take it lightly.

A third is that the cost of being bad online is rising. Reputations can be ruined by a nasty tweet, or even a tweet that just wasn't well phrased or was unfairly misinterpreted. Generosity is dying; it's rare to be given the benefit of the doubt. Social media is starting to become a strange mix of the abrasive and the censorious, of which the CNN wrestling story is a rather good illustration.

My sympathy, however, does lie with CNN -- for one simple reason. Online abuse is killing the appeal of public service. Any sane, ethical young person would see the ugliness of modern politics and journalism and conclude they want no part of public life. The President is encouraging that.

Horrible things have been said about Trump, true. He could argue that he's simply fighting back, yes. But fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to more fire, and while I'm sympathetic towards some of Trump's agenda, I look upon the state of politics in this era with despair. It is not unreasonable for journalists to say "enough is enough."

See the original post:
Stanley: Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? - CNN