Category Archives: Free Speech

University of Wisconsin students who repeatedly disrupt campus speakers or presentations could be suspended or expelled under a Republican-backed bill the state Assembly passed Wednesday.

The measure, approved on a 61-36 vote Wednesday night with no Democrats in support, is the latest salvo in the national push among some conservatives to crack down on disruptions they say is quelling free speech on liberal college campuses. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters, while other students have complained about free expression fanning hate speech.

Democrats, who didn't have the votes to stop the bill in the Assembly, blasted it as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech.

"It basically gags and bags the First Amendment," said Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison.

Republican backers told reporters that the bill would protect speech from those who repeatedly try to quash it.

"We have to lay down some groundwork here and we have to create a behavioral shift so everyone can be heard and has the right to express their views," said the measure's sponsor Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer.

The proposal must still pass the GOP-controlled Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Walker has voiced support for it.

"To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions," he said in an April interview with WISN-TV. "But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."

The proposal comes in the wake of incidents on college campuses across the country in which protests or threats marred conservative presentations.

Fights broke out at New York University in February after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist. That same month there were protests at the University of California-Berkley ahead of an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. That school canceled an April speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter due to security concerns. And in November, UW-Madison students shouted down former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Under the Wisconsin bill, two complaints about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another's freedom of expression would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. UW institutions would have to remain neutral on public controversies and the Board of Regents would have to report annually to legislators about incidents.

"You're hoping to neuter the university from having any stance on things," said Democratic Rep. Cory Mason.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

Democrats argue that the measure could open the door to partisan operatives attending speeches and filing complaints against students to get them thrown out of school.

"We are returning, when we do this, to the witch hunt era of Joe McCarthy," said Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler, referring to the former U.S. senator from Wisconsin who made it his mission in the 1950s to identify Communists.

The only group registered in support of the measure is Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization. Opponents include a group representing faculty on the flagship UW-Madison campus, the labor union representing UW employees and the League of Women Voters.

Here is the original post:
Wisconsin Assembly passes college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Jon Ossoff, a novice Democratic candidate who ran for election in Georgia's 6th District on Tuesday, earned the dubious distinction of presiding over the most expensive failure in congressional election history.

His campaign burned through $22.5 million, most of it from outside Georgia, which is more than the combined amount spent by both major-party candidates in any previous House race. Ossoff's victorious opponent, Republican Karen Handel, spent a modest $3.2 million.

This greater than 6-to-1 advantage for Ossoff was narrowed considerably by spending by outside groups. In all, spending for Ossoff amounted to $30.5 million, as compared with $21.4 million for Handel.

Perhaps this narrower gap was on Ossoff's mind when, as he sank to a humiliating defeat, he denounced the proliferation of money in politics.

Either way, it takes gall for the biggest congressional spender ever to try to take the high ground on this issue. Ossoff said, "The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money." In an election day interview on NPR, he added, "There have been super PACs in Washington who have been putting up tens of millions of dollars of attack ads in air for months now."

The money in question wasn't anonymous, for parties PACs and super PACs must report their donors, but set that aside. Let's also set aside the fact that Ossoff led outside spending during the runoff, between the April 18 jungle primary and the June 20 finale. Let us charitably also set aside the fact that the Democrat's opinion is self-serving hypocrisy.

Instead, let's focus on the more important fact that Americans have a constitutional right to express themselves on political issues and that in the modern world this expression takes the form of mass media campaigns. Democrats seem unanimously to disagree with this right.

Ever since they were toppled from power in Washington in the early 1990s after nearly two generations of near hegemony, Democrats have been trying to limit free political speech by regulating the tools of its delivery.

In response to the Supreme Court's repeatedly vindicating this treasured First Amendment right, not just with Citizens United but also by striking down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in earlier decisions, Senate Democrats voted in 2014 to weaken the First Amendment guarantee of free political speech. The constitutional amendment that every single Democrat present on the floor voted to pass would have explicitly empowered both Congress and state legislatures to pass laws abridging the freedom of political speech for the first time in this nation's history.

Last year, Democratic Federal Election Commissioners went even further in their war on the First Amendment by attacking the freedom of the press, again in the name of campaign finance regulation. They tried unsuccessfully to prevent newspapers with more than 5 percent foreign ownership (this would include The New York Times) to endorse candidates.

They also tried to punish Fox News for its editorial decision about how to stage a summer 2015 GOP primary debate. At issue was the network's last-minute choice to hold a separate "undercard" debate for minor candidates, in order to avoid an unwatchable forum that included 16 or 17 candidates on the same stage. FEC Democrats tried to construe this editorial decision as an illegal in-kind corporate campaign contribution to the candidates who participated.

These efforts show that the party of the Left represents a clear and present danger to the First Amendment. It is the equivalent in government, but an even greater threat than the hecklers' veto over conservative speakers now being exercised by radical leftists at college campuses around the country.

The increasing hostility of leftists and their party toward the First Amendment may not have played a large role in the Democrats' several recent losses. But it is misplaced in any event. As various and ideologically diverse large-dollar donors have learned the hard way everyone from Sheldon Adelson to Tom Steyer one cannot just buy elections, hard as one tries.

More importantly, the loss of an election is no excuse for limiting others' constitutional rights, no matter how worthy of office the deluded young Ossoff believes himself to be.

Read the original:
If you want to restrict free speech, you can Ossoff - Washington Examiner

Linfield College administrators have forced a Young Americans for Liberty group to cancel a free speech event over a cartoon frog.

Staff at the university labeled participants white supremacists after one of them drew a picture of Pepe the Frog, the popular meme thats been unfairly maligned as a hate symbol by Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the mainstream media.

The libertarian group set up a table on campus to promote their organization, and planned to sponsor a series of free speech events planned at college, which is in Oregon.

According to Reason, Kiefer Smith, vice president of the chapter, brought an inflatable free speech ball for participants to write and draw pictures on.

The majority of the things written on there were uplifting things, not political, not inflammatory at all, he said.

Typical examples were said to include youre awesome and have a nice day.

When one participant drew Pepe, the group came under attack by other students on campus, and involved the administration in their complaints.

Immediately we were deemed alt-right, said Smith, who says that YAL were even accused of being white supremacists over the drawing.

Reason states that the Linfield Advisory Committee on Diversity responded to the drawing by inviting the group to a free speech forum, where they were supposed to hold an hour-long discussion on the freedom of expression, but the event turned into a four-hour condemnation of the group.

Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt, a professor of English and gender studies coordinator accused the group of being funded by alt-right dark money.

Following the forum, the school administration canceled the planned free speech events that YAL was sponsoring, including a talk hosted by University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson on ethics and free speech.

Peterson has come under fire from the progressive left for speaking out against the enforcement of gender-neutral preferred pronouns like ze/hir and xe/xir.

The campus faculty, including Dean of Faculty Dawn Nowacki, took aim at YAL in the campus newspaper, where they falsely described the libertarians as alt-right.

These efforts are a lot more subtle, wrote Nowacki. Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step-by-step process, people do not become part of the alt-right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

The Young Americans for Liberty went ahead with their free speech event at an off-campus site, where they received a turn-out of over 400 attendeesdouble the number they were expecting.

The banned lecture also received around 90,000 views on YouTube.

This colleges efforts to suppress free speech backfired spectacularly.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

More:
Pepe the Frog Drawing Forces Free Speech Event Cancellation at Linfield College - Heat Street

Some musicians might have just shrugged at this point and changed their name to something innocuous (" ... and here they are ... from Portland, Oregon ... THE PLANTS!")

The decision has led some so-called anti-PC crusaders to claim vindication, calling the ruling a mighty blow against those who believe that institutions have not just the right, but the responsibility to provide protections against hateful speech. They're wrongly using a case of a specific victory to make a general -- and ultimately, untenable -- claim.

Yes, the Lanham Act is archaic and poorly written. The definition of "scandalous, immoral or disparaging" is subjective to the point of absurdity, and government institutions should be extremely wary of being put in the position of determining the meaning and application of any of these adjectives. What's a "scandal" in an era where we wake up cringing at presidential tweets every morning? Whose standards should be used to define "immoral"? And especially, what constitutes "disparaging" when the user of a term is also its typical target?

The fact is, the context in which Tam and his bandmates are using Slant, as a conscious commentary on its legacy of harm, as a way of reclaiming it from that legacy, is not scandalous, nor immoral, nor disparaging. Yes, it challenges those who hear it, demanding awareness of the term's ugly roots and history. But the band is perfectly willing to provide the resources needed to share in that awareness. It's what they do: The band goes out of its way to play college campus and Asian-American festival gigs and is deeply involved in supporting and promoting social justice-related causes.

Blanket rejection of the dirty laundry in our history is cultural erasure. Refusal to acknowledge that it's dirty, by claiming that all speech is the same, regardless of who's speaking and with what intent, is tantamount to declaring open season on marginalized groups and individuals. All Tam has ever asked is for the Patent and Trademark Organization to bring a "culturally competent" approach to their decision-making, and frankly, that's what we should ask of every government institution.

The bottom line: Freedom of expression and protection of the oppressed can coexist, if people take the example set by The Slants and do the work to defend them both.

Go here to read the rest:
The Slants show full meaning of free speech (opinion) - CNN.com - CNN

|

Posted: Jun 22, 2017 12:01 AM

The Charlotte Observer recently ran an editorial, which seeks to intentionally misinform the public about HB527 a bill to restore free speech on campuses in the UNC system. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: The editors who wrote this piece are not confused about what HB527 says. They are intentionally misrepresenting what it says because they oppose free speech. Thats a bold statement, which I intend to back by reprinting the worst parts of their editorial followed by my own observations:

"(T)he move by North Carolina and a handful of other states to enact laws that enhance punishment for students who disrupt speeches is a solution that would be worse than the problem. Despite what happened to (Ann) Coulter and the likes of Tom Tancredo over his immigration views, UNC Wilmington Professor Mike Adams and his conservatism, and Spike Lee, who faced death and bomb threats when he spoke in North Carolina years ago, free speech is well-protected on college campuses. The proposed law, which passed the House in Raleigh late last week, may end up undercutting some forms of free expression to purportedly enhance the protection of other forms."

The editors have managed to put three unsupported assertions into the same paragraph. They twice assert that HB527 may hurt free speech but they dont tell us how. As bad as that is, it pales by comparison to the utterly absurd assertion that free speech is well-protected on college campuses. Such nonsense is on a par with saying that due process is well protected in North Korea. If the editors really believed that they would need to be hospitalized for severe intellectual hernia. But they dont really believe that. In fact, no one believes that. The question is not whether there is a free speech crisis on our campuses. The question is whether it is a problem. The answer to that question depends upon two factors: 1) Your politics and 2) Your character.

If you are a conservative or an honest liberal you know there is a free speech problem on college campuses. Obviously, there are no conservatives or honest liberals working on the editorial board of The Charlotte Observer.

"There has to be space for Coulter, despite her ugly rhetoric, which included saying Muslim countries needed to be invaded, their leaders killed and Muslims forced to convert to Christianity after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There also has to be room for students and others to confront her as long as violence and other threats are not used. Coulter has the right to make audiences uncomfortable, and those audiences have the right to make her uncomfortable, too."

That last paragraph was written as if the editors did not even read HB527. Of course, we know that they did read it but they are just misrepresenting what it says. Furthermore, the paragraph has no relevance to the HB527 debate unless, of course, the bill purports to provide a constitutional right of comfort for conservatives like Coulter while denying a corresponding right to those who confront her.

The plain language of HB527 says, It is not the proper role of any constituent institution to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. In other words, HB527 nullifies campus speech codes that purport to create a constitutional right to comfort - and it protects potentially offensive speech on a viewpoint neutral basis. Thus, the editors use feigned support of a specific provision of HB527 as a reason to oppose HB527. This is Soviet style journalism.

"Critics of House Bill 527, also called Restore/preserve campus free speech, rightly note that it is based on model legislation from a conservative think tank and is overly vague, leaving too much room for abuse. Who gets to define how disruptive is too disruptive? Some of the countrys most important and effective social movements have involved in-your-face activists disrupting meals while sitting at segregated lunch counters, disrupting the flow of traffic, disrupting speeches on campus and elsewhere."

There are two dangerous admissions in this paragraph. 1) The editors admit that their real reason for opposing HB527 is that it came from conservatives. According to the editors, free speech is not a problem on campuses. But if there was one the editors couldnt let conservatives solve it because that would deprive them of the ability to depict conservatives as the real enemies of free speech. 2) The editors actually equate lying down in the middle of a public road and blocking the flow of traffic with protected speech. It must hurt to be this intellectually constipated. Nothing more need be said.

"There are already plenty of laws against violence and trespassing, as well as court-based remedies for those who have been wrongly silenced. (Adams sued and won when he was denied a promotion.) Colleges and universities everywhere have conduct codes that deal with unruly students."

The Adams won and so can you argument is simply hysterical. The editors do not mention that it took me seven years and over a million dollars in attorney fees to win in federal court. Nor do they mention that before I went to court I was already a campus free speech activist connected with the best First Amendment attorneys in America. The average student does not have my connections or my resources. In fact, none of them do.

Furthermore, by claiming that conduct codes are a solution (to the free speech problem they already denied) the editors show their deep ignorance of university policy. Codes such as UNCWs disorderly conduct policy have been used as weapons against free speech.

Case in point: In 2015, a UNCW student faced expulsion for sending a single campus email referring to UNCW administrators as punk asses. While crude, this is constitutionally protected speech. Fortunately, the student contacted me asking for assistance. I called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education who came in and saved the day by defending the student and getting the charges dropped.

Obviously, the disorderly conduct code was there to protect university administrators from being offended. HB527 does away with that. Under the new bill, students cant be prosecuted for offending government agents with their speech. They can only be prosecuted for disrupting the speech of other citizens simply because they were offended. This distinction is so simple that even a newspaper editor could understand it.

"The solution isnt another ill-advised law; its better education about why free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and a more robust adherence not only to the letter of the First Amendment, but its spirit."

This is more intentional deception by the editors. HB527 states that, All constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina shall include in freshman orientation programs a section describing the policies regarding free expression consistent with this Article. In other words, HB527 educates incoming freshman about proper respect for free speech as well as the universitys refusal to tolerate those who obstruct it.

These editors are not confused. They are in bed with corrupt administrators and rioting progressives. They have no journalistic integrity.

Trump Ponders Solar Panels on Border Wall

Read the rest here:
When A Free Press Opposes Free Speech - Townhall

Harvards decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says

For many, it's a dream come true. Acceptance into the oldest institution of higher education in the United States, Harvard.

But for at least 10 incoming freshmen, the dream was dashed after they were caught participating in an exchange of images, or 'memes', in a private Facebook messaging group.

Many of the posts were described as racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic. Some mocked sexual assault or violence.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY REPORTEDLY PULLS 10 STUDENT OFFERS OVER ONLINE COMMENTS

The prestigious school rescinded admission, a move Harvard's own professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, described as over-punishment and draconian.

"Harvard is a private university, technically not bound by the First Amendment, but since I got to Harvard 53 years ago, Harvard has committed itself to following the First Amendment and I think this violates the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment," said Dershowitz.

Harvard officials declined Fox News request for an interview, stating: "We do not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants."

However, the school reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission for many reasons, including student behavior that "brings into question their honesty, maturity, or moral character."

THINK BEFORE YOU POST: ADMISSIONS EXPERTS' SOCIAL MEDIA TIPS

Rachel Blankstein, the co-founder of Spark Admissions, a Massachusetts-based consulting business that helps students gain admission to top U.S. colleges and universities, said Harvard's move did not shock her.

"They also have a highly selective admissions process in which they're looking for students with strong moral character," said Blankstein. "It's really not about free speech, it's about character."

Blankstein noted that all elite institutions have a code of conduct, adding "I would not be surprised if other schools would have made the same decision."

Harvard's call may well serve as a cautionary tale for hopeful college applicants and those who have already gained admittance.

"My first day teaching students both at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, I warn them about the social media, Dershowitz said. I warn them about putting things on Facebook that will come back to haunt them and they just don't seem to get it."

Molly Line joined Fox News Channel as a Boston-based correspondent in January 2006.

See original here:
Harvard's decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says - Fox News

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings this week on legal issues related to campus free speech. On Tuesday, the panel delved into incidents that took place at the University of California, Berkeleywhere students have lit fires and ravaged their own campus in order to avoid hearing from right-leaning speakers like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who hails from California where the worst incidents have happened, seemed unable to fully grasp the idea that there is no hecklers veto on speech.

No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is, you should find a way to accommodate it? Feinstein asked those called to testify. They included several First Amendment scholars and students who had been muzzled by their own colleges for inviting controversial speakers.

Feinstein went on to suggest that it was nearly impossible to expect students to embrace a full, diverse spectrum of opinion, and handle their disagreements like the mature, educated adults they are.

No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance, the university has to be prepared to handle it. Its the problem for the university, she went on.Youre making the argument that a speaker that might fulminate a big problem should never be refused.

She claimed that a university could stop a conservative speaker from taking the stage just to protect students general welfare.

I think particularly in view of the divisions within this nation at this time which are extraordinary from my experience, I think we all have to protect the general welfare too. And I appreciate free speech but its another thing to agitate, its another thing to foment, and its another thing to attack.

Constitutional scholar and law professor Eugene Volokh, was forced to explain, slowly and in terms Feinstein could understand, that its the governments responsibility to protect Constitutional guarantees of free speech. A simple difference of ideas is not fomenting an attackstudents have a choice on how to behave.

If they cant control themselves, and serious measures are required, the problem is endemicand its not the speakers problem.

If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speech, whether its universities or otherwise, then yes, indeed, we are in a very bad position, Volokh told Feinstein.

He went on to lecture Feinstein that First Amendment considerations should be paramount, correcting her idea that a university can step in to stop a speaker merely to protect the student body from unrest.

The potential for violence, Volokh said, cannot be enough to justify suppression of those they tried to suppress.

More:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein Defends Campus Fascists Instead of Free ... - Heat Street

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the court struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from visiting social-networking websites that allow minors to become members of those websites or to create personal web pages. This would include sites like Facebook, Twitter, WebMD and The New York Times online locations visited regularly by billions of people.

One of those people was Lester Gerard Packingham, who was prosecuted under the law after he posted a Facebook message in 2010 giving thanks for the dismissal of a parking ticket. Mr. Packingham had been convicted eight years earlier for having sex with a minor. The state did not argue that he had used Facebook or any other site to seek out sex with minors or for any illegal activity at all; the fact that hed visited a prohibited site as a registered sex offender was enough to convict him.

The justices rightly reversed the State Supreme Courts decision upholding that conviction. States have a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion for the majority, but the law went far beyond what was needed to achieve that goal barring access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.

GERRYMANDERING On Monday the court also agreed to hear a case involving partisan gerrymandering, or the skewed drawing of legislative district lines to benefit one political party. The courts decision, which would be issued in the first half of 2018, could transform American politics.

The case comes from Wisconsin, where Republicans won control of the state government in 2010, just in time to draw new maps following the decennial census. They were extremely efficient: In 2012, Republican assembly candidates received less than half the statewide vote and yet won 60 of 99 assembly seats. They took even more seats in 2014, while winning just a bare majority of the vote.

This distortion of the voters will is one of the oldest and dirtiest practices in American politics, and while both major parties are guilty of it, the benefits over the past decade have flowed overwhelmingly to Republicans.

The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering could in theory become so extreme that it violates the Constitution, but it has never settled on who should make that determination or on what standards to use.

In the meantime, because the court voted to stay the lower-court decision ordering Wisconsin to redraw its district lines before the 2018 elections, the states Republican-friendly maps are likely to remain for at least one more cycle. The stay also raises doubts about whether a majority believes the court should ever resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. If not, voters will remain at the mercy of self-interested politicians, with no help in sight.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this editorial appears in print on June 20, 2017, on Page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech at The Supreme Court.

See original here:
Free Speech at the Supreme Court - New York Times

Fox News

Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues Inside Higher Ed Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized the decision making of campus administrators in a hearing Tuesday but didn't suggest any new federal responses to issues of free speech on college campuses. Although Congress has examined free ... Wisconsin Assembly to vote on campus free speechMinneapolis Star Tribune When your First Amendment rights offend me: Senators considers free speech on campusFort Worth Star Telegram College students testify: Free speech under assault on campusesFox News all 34 news articles »

More:
Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues - Inside Higher Ed

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders Wall Street Journal (subscription) Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders. A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age.A hard case that makes good First Amendment law in the internet age. June 20, 2017 7:09 p.m. ET ... and more »

See the article here:
Free Speech for Sex OffendersFree Speech for Sex Offenders - Wall Street Journal (subscription)