Category Archives: Free Speech

July 2 at 6:30 PM

The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion.

When the statute was written, offensive words could still be banned from public use and were not consideredeligible for trademark protection;free-speech protection has since been expanded to includesuch words. But make no mistake: The court, ostensibly in defense of free speech, has now expanded governmental trademark protection tooffensive speech.

The outcome of the case may be legally correct, but by plugging the disparagementgap in the Lanham Act, the court, ironically, has limited free speech.

Kenneth Hall, Rockville

Read the rest here:
Free speech takes a hit - Washington Post

Conservatives are right to skewer liberals as snowflakes who need to go back to their safe spaces when the left starts promoting codes that limit free speech.

That critique is largely aimed at college students who dont want to listen to controversial speakers.

In our politically divided nation, it is too often being left to big corporations to decide the limits of acceptable political speech.

And those companies are concluding that defending free speech is not worth their time if it damages their brand and their stock price.

On this Independence Day, ask yourself what the authors of the Declaration of Independence men heavily influenced by the works of Shakespeare and Roman philosophers might have said about corporate sponsors like Delta and Bank of America pulling their support for the Public Theaters production of Julius Caesar in New York City.

Those big companies ran away from free speech and artistic freedom when far-right talk radio and websites produced a swarm of social media outrage suggesting that the assassination of a Trump-like Caesar could promote violence against the real President Trump.

Top executives at those companies failed to notice that the play was written in 1599. They also ignored that a recent production of the play had the lead character played by a black actor who looked and acted a lot like President Obama. He, too, was assassinated. Yet no sponsors pulled their financial support from that show.

But in these politically polarized days, the billion-dollar brands are skittish about being trolled online by provocateurs on the right and left.

By the way, the takeaway from that play is a warning that stands the test of time about the danger of political violence and its unintended consequences.

The same dynamic featuring big corporations instead of citizens deciding the limits of free speech is now also at play in the fight over the value of opinion shows presented on our ideologically divided media outlets.

The right and the left now press big companies to pull advertising from media personalities with whom they disagree.

They are counting on timid executives to focus only on their profits without giving a thought to the basic American tenet of free speech.

I am not asking corporations to spend a dime on the racists, the women-haters, the gay-bashers, liars or people calling for violence. They deserve to be shunned.

But lets stop and consider how corporate bosses with the power of their advertising dollars have taken charge of determining acceptable speech in America.

Last month, I took my family to the Washington D.C. Capital Pride Parade.

The parade was the biggest and best in years. It was a rainbow-flag-waving celebration of the progress made by the LGBT community in terms of marriage equality and broad social acceptance.

Several parade watchers pointed out to me that some of the corporations whose logos were now proudly placed on floats had not long ago fired those who were open about their homosexuality.

More than a few of these companies stood silent as states passed anti-gay laws. They thought standing up for equal rights might be bad business.

But as the culture shifted on gay rights, those same corporations hopped on the rainbow bandwagon.

Isee the critics point.

But just as the Supreme Court changed the laws to protect gay marriage, I am glad to see corporations take a stand for individual rights.

The heart of the issue is sincerity. Are these firms sincere in promoting gay rights or do they have their fingers in the air, checking comments on social media and fearing for their stock price with no regard for the principle of protecting constitutional rights, even when they are unpopular?

Controversy about free speech on a politically sensitive subject is a storm I know all too well.

Seven years ago, I was fired by NPR for telling Bill OReilly, then of Fox News, that since the September 11 attacks I get nervous whenever I see people dressed in Muslim garb boarding an airplane.

By acknowledging my personal fears, I was pointing out the need to speak freely and have honest debate in a time of crisis. I was making the case for tolerance and for avoiding the kind of fear-mongering that might lead to zoning restrictions against a particular religions house of worship.

My point was this: Giving voice to hidden fears allows for clear thinking and full-throated discussion. This, in turn, can prevent a free people from falling into the same kind of policy mistakes seen in the past the setting up of internment camps for Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, for example.

But the argument was lost on the politically correct crowd who quickly labeled me an anti-Muslim bigot. They didnt like the idea that I work at Fox News, engaging in debate with its conservative personalities, either.

Many people on the right and the left only want to hear news and opinion that confirms their pre-existing point of view.

And they are willing to demonize opposing views. Often dangerously they even try to silence them.

This July 4, liberals and conservatives We the People, not big business, need to find common ground in defense of honest debate and its life blood, free speech.

Free speech can lead to revolution. But we are a nation born of revolution. And the greatest gift of our founders remains the right to speak out.

Juan Williams is an author, and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
Juan Williams: The land of free speech - The Hill

Keith Fink, an adjunct who teaches a UCLA course on campus free speech, says even though his students love him, top administrators couldnt stand the fact that he criticized them in the classroom. His department leaders say hes not as good a teacher as he thinks he is.

But according to Mr. Fink, the tale is far more troubling. Mr. Fink, a conservative, says he was pushed out in large part because of his political beliefs and because one of the courses he taught a popular class on campus free speech dared to criticize UCLAs own actions.

With campus free speech emerging as a hot-button national issue, Mr. Finks continuing struggle with his university has struck a chord. Campus Reform, the conservative news outlet, has championed him in a series of articles; Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host who regularly rails against campus liberalism, has made him a guest.

On Tuesday, June 27, Mr. Fink received a letter from Laura E. Gmez, interim dean of the College Division of Social Sciences, informing him that he would no longer be employed at UCLA once his contract ended, on June 30. "After a thoughtful and comprehensive academic review, it has been determined that your teaching does not meet the standard of excellence," Ms. Gmez wrote. (She did not respond to a request for comment from The Chronicle.)

The letter marked the latest development in a monthslong saga pitting Mr. Fink against several administrators: Ms. Gmez; Kerri L. Johnson, chair of the communication-studies department; and Greg Bryant, the departments vice chair.

Keith A. Fink and Associates

Keith Fink: "The fact that I use current events at UCLA as teaching examples to illustrate free-speech principles likely bothers the administration, often because their campuswide emails run afoul of the First Amendment and directly or indirectly trample on students free-speech rights."

"The fact that I use current events at UCLA as teaching examples to illustrate free-speech principles likely bothers the administration, often because their campuswide emails run afoul of the First Amendment and directly or indirectly trample on students free-speech rights," said Mr. Fink, who was out of the country and responded to questions by email.

He has drawn the ire of administrators in other ways, too, he said. According to Mr. Fink, his conservative political beliefs have always been at odds with those of most other people on the campus. And then there was his lawyerly campus activism: On occasion he has assisted UCLA students who faced campus disciplinary or legal proceedings.

Past department leaders had supported him and "thwarted off attempts by the school to undermine or fire me," Mr. Fink said.

In July 2016, Ms. Johnson became department chair. She said she couldnt speak for her predecessors, but stressed that "in no way has Mr. Finks politics been part of any classroom decision or any academic-personnel decision."

"As a top research university in the United States," she said, "we value and celebrate a diversity of opinion."

The trouble began in January, when Mr. Fink was scheduled to teach his campus free-speech course, a popular class that frequently filled up a large lecture hall. (UCLAs academic calendar is divided into four quarters, and January marked the start of the winter quarter.)

Ms. Johnson also told him his spring-term class had been moved into a smaller lecture hall, with only 170 seats, Mr. Fink said. She "offered no concrete explanation" for the changes, he said.

Ms. Johnson disputes all of that. She said the size of the free-speech class "was not changed from his prior enrollments." Mr. Fink had asked that his course be expanded, she said, but she had decided not to increase the size of any of the departments courses until she could review them individually.

Given that he had only one teaching assistant, 200 students was already more than ideal, Ms. Johnson said, adding that she wasnt involved in the decision to move his spring-quarter course to a different room.

In the meantime, starting during the winter term, Mr. Fink was subject to a review that all lecturers go through after theyve taught for 18 quarters. Faculty members who pass the review which involves an evaluation and a vote by their departments tenure-stream faculty members, and a final decision by the colleges dean are promoted to "continuing lecturer."

Mr. Fink had concerns about the process from the beginning. He said he had been asked to provide a list of people he believed should be excluded from the process because they couldnt objectively evaluate his teaching. He named Ms. Gmez and Ms. Johnson, his own chair, because they had tried "to arbitrarily reduce my class size." He added that Ms. Johnson disliked him and his political views.

He also named Mr. Bryant, the vice chair, as well as several other administrators and "all faculty members" in eight departments and programs across the university, including the departments of African-American studies, Asian-American studies, and gender studies.

The list was advisory, not binding, Ms. Johnson said. Also, she said, she didnt learn of Mr. Finks political affiliation until after she had decided not to increase the course size. Mr. Fink then wrote her an email saying he felt he was being targeted because of his conservative views. "Ive never told him what my politics are," she said.

He's never come to any meeting or any function that we've ever had. Nobody knows him.

Mr. Bryant sat in on Mr. Finks campus free-speech course nevertheless and wrote an evaluation. "I didnt want to write the letter," the professor said, "but a lot of people said no" to the task.

The evaluation "was riddled with lies and misrepresentations," according to Mr. Fink. He said Mr. Bryant had taken issue with his decision to single out particular students, saying that doing so created an unwelcoming learning environment.

Mr. Fink provided The Chronicle with declarations from two students in which they said they had developed close relationships with the faculty member and had no problem being identified one as a member of the campus Republican club, the other as a reporter and columnist for the student newspaper.

But thats not why the class was unwelcoming, Mr. Bryant said. "He makes students uncomfortable to talk because hes pretty aggressive back to them" if he disagrees with their point of view, he said. And Mr. Finks use of the discussion-based Socratic method in a large lecture hall "doesnt really work," Mr. Bryant said.

He was pushing his own views harder than I think he should.

"I believe Mr. Fink clearly has a right to express those views, especially in a class on the topic of free speech," he wrote in the evaluation, "but as a teaching technique, I feel like the more he belabors his points about UCLA in particular, the more he undermines his credibility and objectivity as an instructor."

Mr. Fink acknowledged that his provocative style might feel intimidating to some students. "But a university shouldnt be a safe space," he said.

Student evaluations of the free-speech course Mr. Fink taught this year provided by Andrew Litt, a recent UCLA School of Law graduate who served as Mr. Finks teaching assistant for two years and worked in his law firm mostly paint a picture of Mr. Fink as an engaging teacher and his course as stimulating and interesting.

This class was the best class I have taken at UCLA.

The departments final report, provided by Mr. Litt, stated that the review "skewed toward a favorable view of Mr. Finks teaching effectiveness," but said faculty members had raised concerns "about the climate fostered within the classroom" and the rigor of his assessments.

He's a good speaker, but that's not all it takes.

Ultimately, the nine voting faculty members deadlocked: Three voted to promote him to continuing lecturer, three voted not to, and three abstained. Ms. Gmez, the interim dean, then declined to promote him.

"The bar is incredibly high," Ms. Johnson said of the review. There is another lecturer in the department who is well qualified to teach a course on campus free speech and may do so in the future, she added.

Mr. Litt didnt believe the review process had been fair: "If you look at his record within the department, its very difficult, if not impossible, to make credible arguments that hes not excellent."

Mr. Fink said he may teach at another institution in the future, but in the meantime he is working with the universitys faculty union to file a grievance. He also plans to establish a nonprofit group that will provide free legal services to UCLA students and professors who feel their rights have been violated.

The spat illustrates what Mr. Fink describes as an intolerant culture at the university. "UCLA pays lip service to the notions of academic freedom and viewpoint diversity," he said, "but theres an implied understanding among the schools leaders that this really only applies if your views align with theirs."

That message has spread thanks to a steady stream of reports by Campus Reform, which has chronicled each step of the saga. A sample of the eight articles the website has published about Mr. Finks situation includes "UCLA still targeting conservative profs free speech course," "Conservative prof subject to biased review committee," and now "UCLA fires Fink with little explanation."

UCLAs administrators said the outrage is much ado about nothing. Mr. Finks case was "handled by the book," Mr. Bryant countered, and his views were not an issue. "My personal opinion about free speech is actually similar to his," he said.

"He just cant believe that people would not think hes an excellent teacher based on the reviews of students," Mr. Bryant added. "Theres more to it than what the students think."

Sarah Brown writes about a range of higher-education topics, including sexual assault, race on campus, and Greek life. Follow her on Twitter @Brown_e_Points, or email her at sarah.brown@chronicle.com.

Read more:
Why Did a UCLA Instructor With a Popular Free-Speech Course ... - The Chronicle of Higher Education

By Susan Corke and Emma Bernstein

In a blow to free speech, German lawmakers today passed a bill requiring social media companies to remove illegal content, including hate speech. Sites with more than two million users could face fines of up to 50 million.

Over the last two years, as Germany has welcomed more a million refugees, the debate over migration has played out on social media, and there has been an increase in racist and anti-refugee comments. And with elections coming up in September, German lawmakers are increasingly concerned with the role of social media in the electoral process, although this bill will not take effect till October.

The bill requires social media companies to remove obviously illegal content within 24 hours. (Companies have seven days to deal with more ambiguous content.) Because of the threat of hefty fines and quick timeline for removal, social media companies would be incentivized to remove content first, then review later. Add this dynamic to the lack of appeals process afforded by social media companies, and it becomes likely that legal content would be wrongfully removed. This is a threat to free expression.

Facebook has argued that its not its job to be carrying out state responsibilitiesand its correct. Governments shouldnt ask, much less require, private companies to make determinations about the legality of content.

Although Justice Minister Heiko Maas supports the bill and believes it will deter acts of hate both on and offline, eight out of ten experts who testified at hearing for the bill in late June, argued that the bill was technically unconstitutional and would,not withstand constitutional scrutiny.The U.N. Special Rapportuer on Freedom of Expression,David Kaye, believes that the vague and ambiguous language of the bill could force companies to remove content before it could be legally deemed hate speech.

Finally, efforts by the German government to silence those who propagate hate could give other more repressive regimes the idea that censorship is acceptable and might lead to the silencing of dissent. Human rights advocates in countries such as Turkey, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan have made this very point. Many countries view Germany as a leader in the fight against extremism and for human rights, especially with their recent welcoming of refugees. It is for this reason that Germanys social media law might set a disturbing precedent as regimes cite it to try to justify similar-but-worse restrictions of free speech.

In order to remain a champion for human rights and basic human freedoms, the German government should combat online hate speech in a way that does not create opportunities for repressing free expression and emboldening repressive regimes.

Go here to read the rest:
German Lawmakers Pass Restriction on Free Speech - Human Rights First (blog)

Attempts to stifle or censor free speech in the United States are constant. The latest comes from the Republican governor of Arizona.

This week state legislators approved a bill that would protect the free speech rights of journalism students. Members of both the Arizona House and Senate felt it was unfair and inappropriate for the journalists to be penalized for what they write or say.

The legislation would have forbidden school officials from restricting the distribution of media and imposing disciplinary measures in retribution for critical content.

Nationwide, conservative and Christian students complain their speech and ideas are often suppressed by liberal professors and administrators. On some campuses (Berkley) leftists have turned to violence to impose their politically correct thought and speech on students.

Surprising is that a conservative Republican governor would back away from his earlier commitments to protect free speech. Governor Doug Ducey vetoed the legislation saying the bill would, "create unintended consequences, especially on high school campuses where adult supervision and mentoring is most important."

Governor Ducey is up for re-election soon. He may feel the need to garner more support from Arizonans who feel journalists and members of the media are going too far in their reporting.

What do Arizona journalism students and others think of the governor's veto and the effort to suppress free speech rights on campus?

The Global Lane got the inside scoop from Campus Reform's Hannah Scherlacher Take a look:

Many on the American leftand some on the political right try to silence speech they deem offensive. But how we respond to speech is totally subjective. For example: when someone takes the Lord's name in vain, I am offended, yet many people don't seem to blink an eye when people utter such words.

Sure, we live in a time of fake newsDonald Trump will give you many examples of untruthful media reports about him. But some are true, and while the president may find some remarks offensive, the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to speak our minds.

If our speech offends, we'll be criticized and may lose our job, or damage our reputation.

If our words are untruthful, we may face a lawsuit for libel or slander.

If our speech incites people to acts of violence, we may get arrested.

Yes, there are consequences to free speech, but in America we have the right to speak openly and freely and then we let the chips fall where they may. That right should not be denied anyoneincluding journalists--whether in the public square, at high schools, or on college campuses.

Link: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9363

Here is the original post:
Free Speech Right Under Fire in Arizona | CBN News - CBN.com - CBN News

Dive Brief:

Administrators and school leaders can often be caught in a difficult and politically fraught position, as campus issues about controversial speakers can quickly become political battles playing out on a national level. College freshmen are reportedly more politicized than in previous decades, reflecting the public at large. Administrators must be cautious of how lawmakers wield political power, as their suggestions could provoke unintended consequences.

State legislatures across the country have considered bills purportedly promoting free speech, but it becomes difficult in determining when an individual is no longer protesting a speaker they deem to be offensive or inflammatory, and when that protestor is encroaching on the free expression of that speaker and the free assembly of their audience. Most of the legislation touts the right to assemble and the right to protest, but political remarks have been leaning in the defense of the former. College presidents and administrators must also be cautious, as the audience they must satisfy is not only the general public, but students on campus many of whom might be among the crowds that would protest a speaker seen as inflammatory. The partisan lines drawn between typically conservative speakers and liberal protesters make it an even more difficult needle to thread for administrators, as the external nastiness of the nations partisan debates increasingly encroaches on these questions.

Top image credit: Getty Images

More:
Campus 'free speech' bill rejected by Louisiana governor - Education Dive

Attempts to stifle or censor free speech in the United States are constant. The latest comes from the Republican governor of Arizona.

This week state legislators approved a bill that would protect the free speech rights of journalism students. Members of both the Arizona House and Senate felt it was unfair and inappropriate for the journalists to be penalized for what they write or say.

The legislation would have forbidden school officials from restricting the distribution of media and imposing disciplinary measures in retribution for critical content.

Nationwide, conservative and Christian students complain their speech and ideas are often suppressed by liberal professors and administrators. On some campuses (Berkley) leftists have turned to violence to impose their politically correct thought and speech on students.

Surprising is that a conservative Republican governor would back away from his earlier commitments to protect free speech. Governor Doug Ducey vetoed the legislation saying the bill would, "create unintended consequences, especially on high school campuses where adult supervision and mentoring is most important."

Governor Ducey is up for re-election soon. He may feel the need to garner more support from Arizonans who feel journalists and members of the media are going too far in their reporting.

What do Arizona journalism students and others think of the governor's veto and the effort to suppress free speech rights on campus?

The Global Lane got the inside scoop from Campus Reform's Hannah Scherlacher Take a look:

Many on the American leftand some on the political right try to silence speech they deem offensive. But how we respond to speech is totally subjective. For example: when someone takes the Lord's name in vain, I am offended, yet many people don't seem to blink an eye when people utter such words.

Sure, we live in a time of fake newsDonald Trump will give you many examples of untruthful media reports about him. But some are true, and while the president may find some remarks offensive, the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to speak our minds.

If our speech offends, we'll be criticized and may lose our job, or damage our reputation.

If our words are untruthful, we may face a lawsuit for libel or slander.

If our speech incites people to acts of violence, we may get arrested.

Yes, there are consequences to free speech, but in America we have the right to speak openly and freely and then we let the chips fall where they may. That right should not be denied anyoneincluding journalists--whether in the public square, at high schools, or on college campuses.

Link: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9363

Originally posted here:
Free Speech Right Under Fire in Arizona - CBN News

German lawmakers approved a bill on Friday aimed at cracking down on hate speech on social networks, which critics say could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

The measure approved is designed to enforce the country's existing limits on speech, including the long-standing ban on Holocaust denial. Among other things, it would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content within a week, including defamatory "fake news."

"Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins," said Justice Minister Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill.

Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by over 300 percent in the last two years.

Social media platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter have become a battleground for angry debates about Germany's recent influx of more than 1 million refugees, with authorities struggling to keep up with the flood of criminal complaints.

Maas claimed that 14 months of discussion with major social media companies had made no significant progress. Last week, lawmakers from his Social Democratic Party and Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right Union bloc agreed a number of amendments to give companies more time to check whether posts that are flagged to them are illegal, delegate the vetting process to a third party and ensure that users whose comments are removed can appeal the decision.

But human rights experts and the companies affected warn that the law risks privatizing the process of censorship and could have a chilling effect on free speech.

"This law as it stands now will not improve efforts to tackle this important societal problem," Facebook said in a statement.

"We feel that the lack of scrutiny and consultation do not do justice to the importance of the subject. We will continue to do everything we can to ensure safety for the people on our platform," the company said, noting that it is hiring 3,000 additional staff on top of 4,500 already working to review posts.

Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5 million euros for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesn't meet requirements.

Social networks also have to publish a report every six months detailing how many complaints they received and how they dealt with them.

Among those cheering the law was Germany's main Jewish organization, which called it a "strong instrument against hate speech in social networks."

Germany has long had a law criminalizing Holocaust denial a response to the country's Nazi-era history of allowing racist ideas to become genocidal policy.

"Jews are exposed to anti-Semitic hatred in social networks on a daily basis," the Central Council of Jews said. "Since all voluntary agreements with platform operators produced almost no result, this law is the logical consequence to effectively limit hate speech."

The nationalist Alternative for Germany party, which has frequently been accused of whipping up sentiments against immigrants and minorities, said it is considering challenging the law in Germany's highest court.

David Rising contributed to this report.

Visit link:
Germany passes law against online hate speech - ABC News

The free speech opponents at the University of California, Berkeley, are under fire for impeding on their conservative students First Amendment rights.

Young Americas Foundation took action against Berkeley with a lawsuit, partnering with the Berkeley College Republicans, on the grounds that university restricted conservative speakers. The Berkeley College Republicans were forced to cancel speaking engagements for conservatives on multiple occasions, most notably David Horowitz and Ann Coulter, both of which the lawsuit highlighted. Preceding the unnecessary cancellations, the Berkeley College Republicans faced roadblocks in scheduling the events from the institution. University officials put bizarre rules in place for the conservative speakers, such as requiring the speakers to give their presentation at 3:00 p.m., which is prime class time. The lawsuit had some scathing words for Berkeley:

...By imposing an unconstitutionally vague policy concerning so-called high-profilespeakers, and selectively applying that impermissibly vague policy to burden or ban speaking engagements involving the expression of conservative viewpoints, Defendants have deprived YAF and BCR of their constitutional rights to free speech, due process, and equal protection. Accordingly, YAF and BCR seek temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from continuing to muzzle Plaintiffs constitutionally-protected speech, and to enjoin the Defendants transparent attempts to stifle political discourse at UC Berkeley

The university responded by claiming that they are viewpoint neutral, despite the fact that all evidence is stacked against them. The institution has no issue bringing liberals to speak on campus, such as Maria Echaveste, a former aid in the Clinton Administration, and Vicente Fox Quesada, the former president of Mexico.

The spokesman for Young Americas Foundation, Spencer Brown, called out Berkeley for the universitys delusional view of their own conservative suppression in a statement:

This weak attempt by the University of California, Berkeley to brush off their egregious free speech violations is staggering but unfortunately unsurprising given their demonstrated pattern of suppressing the First Amendment rights of conservatives on campus, he said.

The University of California at Berkeley is notorious for hatred of conservative voices, despite being coined the"birthplace of free speech". Young Americas Foundation, the Berkeley College Republicans and conservatives across the country, seem to be unwilling to back down from exposing Berkeleys bias, and holding the university, a supposed institute for learning, accountable to inclusion.

Brutal: Democratic 2018 Hopes Get Another Punch To The Gut From Left-Leaning Think Tank

Latest: Former Doctor Returns to Bronx Hospital to Go on Shooting Rampage;UPDATE: Shooter Dead

Read more:
YAF Doubles Down On Berkeley's Liberal Bias With Free Speech Lawsuit - Townhall

Actions are different from words, and words are not violence. This is the position of the free speech absolutist.

Though it's tempting to assume American newsrooms are made up entirely of free-speech hardliners after all, freedom of speech is enshrined specifically in this country's founding documents that would be assuming too much.

As this week has shown, there are a number of media personalities who believe President Trump's ugly press criticisms may be responsible for any future acts of violence against journalists.

"What I worry about more than anything else is that there are people in the country [who] are going to hear over and over again from the president, that the reporters [and] journalists are enemies of the state," Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffery Goldberg said this week during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

He added, "And someone, God forbid, but someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then, I know where the fault lies. We're heading in that direction and it's quite frightening."

Goldberg's concerns are shared by more than just a few in the press.

CNN's Clarissa Ward suggested elsewhere this week that Trump's newsroom criticisms may embolden people abroad to attack, and possibly murder, foreign correspondents.

"[A]t what point does this become dangerous? And I'm not just talking about dangerous in terms of tearing at the social fabric, I'm talking about dangerous as in a journalist gets hurt, because I can tell you working overseas in war zones, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all-out declaration of war on the media," she said during a panel discussion.

She added in a question directed at CNN's Chris Cillizza, "If I'm getting it in the neck, Chris, I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible, Chris?"

Cillizza, who lives and works in that notoriously dangerous war zone known as Washington, D.C., responded, "I don't want to say we're past that point."

Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem begged to differ, saying, "We are past that point."

"I think it is already dangerous what the Trump administration is doing, which is Brian's point," Cillizza agreed.

Just to be clear, everyone on that media panel is an American. There was not even the slightest pushback against the idea that words spoken by one party are responsible for actions of another.

Words matter, of course, as there is a great deal of power in what our leaders say. Words can elevate, and they can diminish. Words cannot, however, be held responsible for the wrongdoings of others.

If we argue that rhetoric is to blame for certain acts of violence, then shouldn't the natural conclusion to that line of thinking be that certain types of speech ought to be banned or regulated so as to protect against possible future harm? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to regulate this type of speech if it is indeed responsible for violence caused to others? This is all rubbish, of course, as the speech-can-kill line requires that one subordinate personal responsibility to external factors not directly involved in specific actions. It frees the criminal from the crime.

This is the sort of thinking one would expect from underdeveloped college students, not professional journalists.

American media benefit enormously from the free speech protections included in the U.S. Constitution. Let's show our appreciation by not attributing the terrible actions of others to our freedom to speak freely.

More here:
You're not helping free speech when you suggest Trump is going to get journalists hurt - Washington Examiner