Category Archives: Free Speech

According to a report by theOlympian, free speech activists and a group of Olympia community members who defend the colleges actions against Professor Bret Weinstein have both scheduled rallies that will take place this week.

A rally set for Wednesday called Olympia Stands with Evergreen will take place in downtown Olympia.Organizers claim that they want to remind lawmakers that the local community stands with Evergreen State College, despite the recent chaos that has captured the attention of the national press.

This peaceful rally is intended to A) Send the message to the people at Evergreen that the greater Olympia community loves and supports them and that we abhor the disgusting threats they are receiving, and B) Make the statement that the Olympia community loves and supports this college, which some conservative politicians are trying to strip of its federal funding.

The rally is being organized by Evergreengraduate Mark Alford, who claims that the campus needs protection after white supremacist posters and graffiti were widely posted on campus and a phoned-in threat shut down the campus for two days.

A second rally, scheduled for Thursday and titled Free Speech Evergreen State College, will be held on Evergreens campus. Organizer Joey Gibson claims that the event should serve as a wake-up call for the Evergreen community.

Evergreen State College: you guys need to wake up, Gibson said. You dont understand what the real world is like. And you need to understand how lucky you are. You are at a university, getting an education. You dont have to be running around complaining and screaming and acting like victims.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Continued here:
Free Speech Activists and SJWs Plan Rallies over Evergreen State College Chaos - Breitbart News

Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvards president, told graduating seniors last month that the institutions theory of education requires students to be "fearless in face of argument or challenge or even verbal insult."

Suppose youre an incoming freshman at Harvard University, which in April reportedly rescinded admissions offers for the fall term to 10 students who had posted racist and obscene memes over the internet. Will the controversy make you more or less likely to speak your mind when you get to campus?

I think we all know the answer. And thats what troubles me about Harvards decision, which will fuel an already-tense atmosphere of censorship at colleges across the country.

Second, there is no constitutional issue here. The First Amendment bars the government not private institutions from restricting free speech. So Harvard has the legal right to retract admissions offers from the people who trafficked in these images. Whats more, Harvard, like many colleges, has a policy that acceptance may be withdrawn if the prospective student engages in, among other things, morally compromising behavior.

But that doesnt mean it was right to rescind the offers. By rejecting the offending students, the university reinforced the idea that students shouldnt offend one another. And thats inimical to free exchange and expression, which Harvard claims to prize over everything else.

Offense is always in eyes of the beholder. I don't want a university administrator making that judgment for us. Do you?

Yet the decision to turn away the 10 admitted students communicates exactly the opposite: Students should be afraid very afraid when confronted with controversial or offensive material, especially if it concerns the thorny question of diversity on campus. And instead of taking risks, they should keep their mouths shut.

Students hear that message, loud and clear. In a 2016 survey of over 3,000 undergraduates, more than half agreed that the climate on campus prevents some people from "saying things that might offend others."

More than two-thirds of the students seemed OK with that, favoring restrictions on racist and offensive speech. And its hard to blame them. Bewildered by the ever-mounting charges of "microaggression" and other forms of racial offense on campus, they want clear directives on whats truly offensive and what isnt. But who will determine that?

The students arent sure, of course, so they err on the side of caution. And the longer theyre on campus, the more cautious they become. In a 2010 study asking students whether it was "safe to hold unpopular positions on college campuses," 40 percent of freshmen "strongly" agreed, but just 30 percent of seniors strongly agreed, suggesting that college makes them warier than they were when they arrived.

Many people possibly, most people on campuses think thats all right: If youre harboring offensive ideas, you should be reluctant to express them. But theyre wrong, as Harvards own declarations remind us. Look again at President Fausts commencement address, which encouraged "unfettered debate" even in the face of insults. We wont get that if were always looking over our shoulders, wondering whom we are insulting.

That doesnt mean we should turn a blind eye to racism and other forms of bigotry, of course. The memes that the admitted Harvard students circulated were vile beyond measure, and they deserved every piece of condemnation that they received.

But the students didnt deserve to have their admission rescinded, which opens the door for all kinds of censorship in the future. Over the past few years, for example, some students opposing Israel have produced disgustingly anti-Semitic imagery: Stars of David dripping with blood, for example, or superimposed upon swastikas.

So if a Palestinian student was admitted to Harvard and was found to have circulated one of these images, would the same people who praised the university for turning away the 10 offending students also demand that the Palestinians admission be revoked? I doubt it. Offense is always in eyes of the beholder. I dont want a university administrator making that judgment for us. Do you?

And when that administrator is also someone who claims to support free speech over everything else, weve entered the theater of the absurd. The best reply to bad speech is always more speech, not less. Thats a lesson we all have to learn, over and over again, until we know it by heart.

Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author, with Emily Robertson, of The Case for Contention: Teaching Controversial Issues in American Schools (2017, University of Chicago Press).

Read more:
Free Speech Loses Ground as Harvard Retracts Offers to Admitted Students - The Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Felice Gelman 3:57 p.m. ET June 13, 2017

Westchester Board of Legislators' proposed resolution directly misstates the aims of the BDS movement. BDS is a campaign directed against the repressive and colonialist policies of the Israeli government, not against the Jewish people, says Felice Gelman. Wochit

A 2016 rally outside Gov. Andrew Cuomo's New York City office advocated for the The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.(Photo: SUBMITTED/Andrew Courtney)

Westchester County legislators have been discussing and are likely soon to vote on a resolution condemning the Palestinian-led international movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions directed against the Israeli government. The boycott movement, known by the shorthand BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) is aimed to protest the denial of basic humans rights to the Palestinians under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, to the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel but decidedly second class citizens, and to the Palestinian diaspora dispossessed from their homes and land in 1948 and 1967 and living all around the world.

Board of Legislators Chairman Mike Kaplowitz, D-Somers(Photo: David McKay Wilson/The Journal News)

What does this have to do with the Westchester County Legislature you might ask? County Legislator Ken Jenkins began the controversy. He proposed, in a resolution since withdrawn, that anyone doing business with Westchester County would have to sign a statement affirming that they did not support BDS. In this resolution, many heard echoes of the McCarthyism of the 1950s, when teachers, people doing business with the government and others were forced to sign statements that they were not and never had been members of the Communist Party. The resolution theLegislature is now considering sponsored by legislators Mike Kaplowitz and Jim Maisano condemns the use of boycott in general as a tactic that threatens the sovereignty and security of allies and trade partners," condemns the international BDS movement and claims that BDS seeks to undermine Israel and malign the Jewish people.

County Legislator Jim Maisano(Photo: File photo)

First, the resolution directly misstates the aims of the BDS movement. Contrary to much propaganda, the BDS movement does not call for an end to the state of Israel and it is not anti-Semitic. The BDS campaign for Palestinian rights has the support of many American Jews and explicitly disavows anti-Semitism. It is a campaign directed against the repressive and colonialist policies of the Israeli government, not against the Jewish people. The Palestinians boycott campaign calls for a boycott of Israeli companies benefiting from the military occupation, and an academic and cultural boycott of institutions complicit in supporting the occupation. It seeks an end to the military occupation, equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and recognition of the rights of dispossessed Palestinians to return to their property.

It does not malign the Jewish people. Accusations of anti-Semitism should not to be tossed around lightly by our elected officials. Anti-Semitism is a real problem one that has been given new momentum by the Trump campaigns willingness to accept the support of well-known white nationalist anti-Semites.

A 2016 march in support of the BDS movement heads to Gov. Andrew Cuomo's Mount Kisco house.(Photo: SUBMITTED/Andrew Courtney)

Second, our legislators seem unaware of the crucial role that the non-violent tactic of boycott has played in human rights struggles. Did any of our legislators support the boycott of South Africas apartheid regime? South Africa was and is an ally of the U.S. and the boycott was a major contributor to the end of apartheid and the liberation of the black majority of that country. Boycotting the apartheid regime made the U.S. a better ally of the South African people.

Did any of our legislators more recently support the boycott of North Carolina endorsed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo that protested that states laws discriminating against transgender people?

This is hardly the time for legislators to be trying to chill free speech and to limit political engagement. The Kaplowitz-Maisano resolution aims to demonize the BDS movement and it levels false accusations against that campaign and its supporters. The purpose is for the county Legislature to put its thumb on the scale and chill dissent. Resolutions like this undermine First Amendment protections. Further, they stifle the open exchange of ideas that could help resolve the tragic conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Why, in an era when progressives have doubled down on protest and political engagement has our county Legislature decided they must attack free speech and a global human rights campaign? Its what has been called the Palestine exception to free speech. In other words, when it comes to Israel/Palestine, our political principles are suspended.

In the age of Trump, our legislators should stand up and cherish political engagement, free speech and dissent. It is what our democracy is made of. This very undemocratic resolution should be defeated.

The BDS movement has the support of Westchester social justice organizations WESPAC, Jewish Voice for Peace and Concerned Families of Westchester.

The writer, a Tarrytown resident,is member of WESPAC Foundation.

Read or Share this story: http://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/2017/06/13/view-why-would-county-legislators-abridge-free-speech-rights/390071001/

See the rest here:
Westchester could demonize BDS movement, chill free speech: View - The Journal News | LoHud.com

Wisconsin legislation to protect free speech on college campuses would force the states university system to discipline students who disrupt speakers. Opponents warn that the bill will silence those who protest harmful speakers.

Wisconsin state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) introduced the Campus Free Speech Act last month to ensure that free speech is not only welcome, but encouraged throughout Wisconsin academia.

In recent decades, attacks on free expression have become commonplace and in-vogue at institutions where ideals and truths should be challenged the American university, Kremer said in a statement. This most recent degradation has been at the behest of the leftist elite who promote their own progressive, opinionated beliefs as gospel while touting a bumper sticker slogan of coexist.

The Campus Free Speech Act would require any student who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others to attend a disciplinary hearing. Any student that has more than one hearing would be suspended for at least one semester or expelled.

The bill comes after free speech has become an issue on college campuses across the country. In February, protests at the University of California-Berkeley turned violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak.

In November, UW-Madison students also interrupted former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, who was speaking out against safe spaces on college campuses.

After that protest, the Wisconsin Assembly approved the Campus Free Speech Act with an 8-6 vote, sending it to the Assembly floor. All six Democrats voted against the bill, warning it would stifle free speech relating to the research and scientific pursuits of the facility.

Democrats questioned the bills neutrality clause, which states that universities must remain neutral and not take action on the public policy controversies of the day.

During a committee hearing on May 11, Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) questioned if the bill would allow a professor to correct a student that was arguing the Biblical theory that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Read more

The earth is 6,000 years old, Kremer stated, according to the Cap Times. Thats a fact.

But, Kremer said the bill stays out of the classroom and would only be intended to deal with students who disrupt speakers.

However, Kremer said that any student who felt they were unable to express their opinions in class could bring their complaints to the Council on Free Expression, an oversight board created in the bill.

The council on free expression would submit annual reports to the Board of Regents, the governor and the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, detailing any disruptions of free expression that occurred throughout the institution.

How are we to be taken seriously as an institution of higher learning and research if our professors can be called before a Council on Free Expression to defend their teaching of geology? said Dave Vanness, an associate professor of population health sciences, according to the Cap Times.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), one of the sponsors of the bill, said the biggest debate is going to be around global warming.

A lot of people think its settled science and an awful lot of people think it isnt, Vos said, according to the Cap Times. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.

Vos wrote an article in 2016, where he complained that a large number of the guest speakers invited to speak at UW-Milwaukee were easily identifiable as being liberal. He challenged the UW system to find more ways to ensure that all perspectives, including conservative ones, are present in the classroom.

Many Democrats questioned whether the bill was necessary at all, since the UW system already has policies that deal with protests.

State Rep. Dana Wachs (D-Eau Claire) called the bill a substantial overreach for a problem that frankly does not exist.

Instead of supporting free speech for all students, the authors of this bill have created a broad, vague proposal that could chill speech and ultimately silence those who want to respectfully share their beliefs on an issue, Wachs said in a statement.

Continued here:
Wisconsin 'Campus Free Speech Act' risks stifling free speech ... - RT

David Redl, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, promised to work with stakeholders to identify underutilized government spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial use and said U.S. interests in the multistakeholder ICANN internet body would continue to be represented 'vigorously.'

Redl's commentscame duringhis nomination hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last week, a hearing thatwas overshadowed by another Hill hearing on the same dayfired FBI director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Redl's hearing lacked fireworks.

Redl is former senior staffer on the House Energy & Commerce committee, whose former boss, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the committee, was instrumental in the legislation to free up broadcast spectrum for commercial wireless.

Redlsaid a core mission of NTIA, the White House's chief telecom policy advisor as well, is to balance the need for spectrum for government to meet its needs, like protecting the country, with the need for added commercial spectrum. He said he was committed to working with the FCC to prioritize 5G.

Redl said his experience was in looking for bipartisan solutions to telecom issues and "focusing on things we could agree on."

He said he would commit to some things he hoped would find similar bipartisan agreement: (1) balance the government's need for spectrum with that of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum users; (2) try to improve access to broadband for all Americans; (3) work to advance the digital economy; and (4) work to advance the internet as an engine of free speech, the free market and economic opportunity.

Asked by Commerce chair Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) how he would balance those, Redl said NTIA had a process in place, including a policy and planning group he hoped to work with, as well as the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (ARAC), to try tofind synergies and efficiencies.

Redl was asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)whether he thought the Obama Administration's decision to allow the contract for domain naming and numbering conventions oversight to lapse in the interests of migrating it to a multistakeholder model was a "wise and prudent" one.

Redl cited the debate but said the reality is "this is the situation we are in." Walden and other Republicans had concerns that the multistakeholder model was an opportunity for some bad actors to get new power over the internet.

Redl said the administration supports the multistakeholder model but said he also would be a vigorous representative of the U.S. before ICANN.

Cruz was not satisfied, asking the question again about the wisdom and prudence of the administration finding itself in the position it was in thanks to the last administration. Redl said that once the decision was made to move to that model and end the contract, it would have been hard to "put the genie back in the bottle."

He said he had tried to protect the U.S. interest throughout that process, and that given the changes made to the accountability process, the country was in a position to protect those interests.

Asked about broadband infrastructure in rural areas, Redl committed to allocating capital "efficiently."

Redl likely didn't hurt his chances of a warm welcome at his new digs by telling the senators that NTIA staffers were the "unsung heroes" of the digital economy.

Read this article:
Redl Commits to Internet as 'Engine of Free Speech' - Broadcasting & Cable

James Nani Times Herald-Record @JamesNani845

MIDDLETOWN - A federal judge hasruled that there areenough questions to warrant a trial onwhether the Middletown school boardand superintendentrestricted free speech at a contentious school board meeting in 2010.

Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, denied a motion on Tuesday by Middletown School District Superintendent Ken Eastwood for summary judgment inthe First Amendment claim.

The long-running lawsuit that's dogged Eastwood was brought in April 2010 by Francis Hoefer.

In March 2010, Hoefer, who lived inOswego at the time, tried to speak at Middletowns meeting but was cut off by board President Will Geiger.

Hoefer was removed from the building and handcuffed by Middletown police.

Hoefer had come to air complaints about Eastwood, dating back to the time when Eastwood was in charge of Oswegos schools.

Hoefer, a former Oswego school board member, filed the lawsuit regarding that ejection, naming three parties Geiger, Eastwood and the Middletown district.

He's represented by Goshen civil rights attorney Michael Sussman.

Hoefer said his civil rights were violated, including the right to free speech.

The parties came pretty close to a settlement at one point. Geiger and the board signed it, but Eastwood refused because he had a defamation suit against Hoefer.

Hoefer had put his comments in an online blog post soon after the 2010 board meeting.

Eastwood sued Hoefer for defamation in state court, won,and last year a state appellate court upheld the decision that Hoefer defamed him in part ofthat statement.

In Ramos' June 6 opinion, he saidcourtsmust construe facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in motions for summary judgment.

"Based on the facts before the court, a reasonable fact finder could determine that Eastwood engaged in a viewpoint-based prior restraint by suppressing statements that were critical of him while conversely allowing statements that praised him," Ramos wrote.

Ramos also ruled that just because Hoefer was able to publish his statement in a blog post after the meeting "does not do away with the fact that his intended speech was chilled, indeed frozen, at the board meeting."

Finally, Ramos found that Eastwood doesn't have immunity. A defense attorney has appealed the opinion on the immunity grounds.

In an email, Sussman said the trial will begin on July 7 and called the order "a stirring affirmation of the First Amendment."

The case will now likely go to trial, Eastwood said.

"Settlements are for when you think you've done something wrong," Eastwood said.

"I didn't do anything wrong, so I'm not going to roll over and take it."

jnani@th-record.com

Here is the original post:
Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case - Times Herald-Record

Comedians typically dont like to publicly condemn other comedians. But that principle was challenged over the past week after Bill Maher casually dropped the n-word on his HBO show Real Time.

Asked about the backlash last week on The View, Kevin Hart said he doesnt believe Maher is a racist, but should have known the consequences of using the word. It was stupid, he added. Maher discovered those consequences as people began calling for him to be fired and on Friday night both Michael Eric Dyson and Ice Cube took him to the woodshed, so to speak, for his transgression.

It took about 10 seconds for the topic to come up once again on Mondays episode of The View, when The Daily Shows Trevor Noah joined the hosts. It seems like its a dangerous time to be a comedian right now, Joy Behar said, citing not only Maher, but also Kathy Griffin, who was let go by CNN for her anti-Donald Trump stunt, and Stephen Colbert, who faced his own backlash for joking about the president.

You know what, to be honest with you, I think its good, Noah said. I genuinely think its good. I wont lie, as a comedian, I look back and I go, there are things I said that I shouldnt have been saying. Were progressing, were moving forward. Theres things that we said about women that we shouldnt have been saying.

Thats one way to look at it, Behar said, in clear disagreement with Noahs point of view.

Noah was speaking from experience. When he was hired to replace Jon Stewart in 2015, he found his Twitter history subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny with reporters digging up and highlighting any joke from his past that could be construed as sexist, anti-Semitic or just generally offensive.

If you look at what youre trying to do as a comedian, essentially what Im trying to do, is Im trying to move forward, Im trying to think progressively, Im trying to push the boundaries, Noah added on The View. I remember a time when I loved making fat jokes, because I thought, oh, look at this, this is edgy. But it wasnt.

Noah made a distinction between censorship and backlash, asking, Shouldnt there be consequences for free speech?

There should not be consequences for free speech, Whoopi Goldberg countered. People dont have to like what you say, but there should not be consequences.

In America, Noah said he finds that people conflate free speech as consequence free, but coming from South Africa, a country where the government could come after you for something you say, he sees a clear difference. You are free to say what you like, somebody may still punch you, though. Thats a consequence.

Losing your job can also be a consequence, one that Kathy Griffin, and subsequently Reza Aslan, suffered at the hands of CNN. But not, so far at least, one that Bill Maher has been dealt by HBO.

Read this article:
Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has 'Consequences' - Daily Beast

Redemmas.org

President Trump has spent the last several months keeping his campaign promises. From the ongoing push to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the numerous executive orders targeting immigration, abortion care funding, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies, the Trump administration has not eased up.

Many have voiced outrage over the turn the country has suddenly taken, as direct action is one of the few methods of dissent still intact. However, Assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, recently faced death threats after FOX News aired a segment from a commencement address at Hampshire College.

A leading organizer and scholar on Black politics and racial inequality, Taylor is the author of the critically acclaimed book; #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. She spoke on a number of topics, including the growing threat of the Trump administration. From the terror-inducing raids in the communities of undocumented immigrants; to his disparaging of refugees in search of freedom and respite; he has empowered an attorney general who embraces and promulgates policies that have already been proven to have had a devastating impact on Black families and communities.

Taylor called the President a racist sexist megalomaniac and stated that Donald Trump has fulfilled the promises of a campaign organized and built upon racism, corporatism, and militarism. While the speech received backlash after being featured on a number of conservative platforms, including during, conservative news anchor, Glenn Becks The Blaze, it is far from the first time the African American professor has spoken out about the injustices that marginalized communities face. In a statement released on Facebook through the Haymarket Books page, Taylor stated that she was cancelling appearances to various universities due to ongoing threats against her and her familys safety, Since last Friday, I have received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails. Some of these emails have contained specific threats of violence, including murder.

While there has been a long history of white institutions silencing black academics, it seems that the increasing popularity of alt-right movements has encouraged censorship from outside influences as well. Taylor has claimed that the segment on FOX was framed as an anti-POTUS tirade that was meant to incite violent intimidation from the right-wing viewers, Fox did not run this story because it was news, but to incite and unleash the mob-like mentality of its fringe audience, anticipating that they would respond with a deluge of hate-filled emails or worse. The threat of violence, whether it is implied or acted on, is intended to intimidate and to silence.

Similar incidents around the country have featured the same type of censorship patterns towards women activists and political voices. In Iowa, Democratic candidate Kim Weaver abandoned the race against Republican Congressman Steve King (IA). Weaver cited alarming acts of intimidation, including death threats and stated that her safety and personal health had become a growing concern.

Across the country, in New York City, Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour faced death threats before she even had a chance to get on stage. While her speech ended up being well received at the New York City commencement ceremony, the discourse surrounding her in the weeks leading up to the delivery was hostile, with messages like A good Arab is a dead Arab and Youre getting two bullets in your head being sent to Sarsour on an hourly basis.

The white nationalist movement has long used acts of violence and intimidation to manipulate public discourse. In the past the Klan played a critical role in preventing people from reaching the election polls, and harbored their extensive social network to control facets of the media. Nevertheless, the rise in the mob mentality of cyber-bullying has become a frequent tactic of the Republican partyand provides tools for doing harm to their ideological opponents.

This may seem to some to be ironic, given the anger and outrage that emerged when activist shut down Milo Yiannopoulos was forced to cancel his visit to the University of California/Berkeley after anti-fascist activists caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus in protest. Yiannopoulos however, had threatened to out undocumented and Trans students during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Such potential for harm is a far cry from Taylors voice of dissent towards an existing government that has enacted several harmful policies in a matter of months. One speaker demands non-violent liberation and the other uses their platform to doxx, and thus endanger, local students.

It seems there are clear patterns to the way in which conservatives chose who they target; women, and specifically women of color, are frequently in the crosshairs of attacks from the right. These individuals are often spammed with misogynistic comments, intertwined with a threat of sexual and/or physical violence. For black and brown women, Like Taylor and Sarsour, these threats are also frequently coded with racism and Islamophobia. It makes it possible for white nationalist to masquerade their attacks as part free speech campaign as opposed to confronting the reality of the hate speech they utilize to enact violence.

While free speech is often lauded as one of the main talking points of the right, they remain surprisingly silent when it comes to the rights and liberties of marginalized voices. As long as womens dissent poses a threat to the predominantly white-male dominated GOP, then they will feel the need to retaliate towards any potential threat. This is a status quo that Taylor directly challenges: this system is led by a billionaire president and a Congress composed mostly of white men who are millionaires, Despite the setbacks, the fight against the alt-right and their methods of censorship continue. The brilliant women of the movement will continue to be at the front lines.

***When reached out to for comment Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor stated that they are not doing interviews at this time***

Excerpt from:
Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech - People's World

Police detain hundreds of demonstrators on suspicion of disorderly conduct during a protest on June 4, 2017, in Portland, Oregon. A protest dubbed Trump Free Speech by organizers was met by a large contingent of counter-demonstrators who viewed the protest as a promotion of racism. (Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

When I asked students to explore the rules governing speech in the student manual, I realized campuses actually have no free speech, just more or lessregulatedspeech.

For two consecutive semesters, my students wrote letters to the colleges dean and its attorney. The administrators then discussed them with the students directly. Before long, two instances transformed the conversations from hypothetical, to practical.

In the first instance, a group of students spoke out against racist comments on the social media site Yik Yak. They countered with Black Yak, paper-covered bulletin boards on which students voiced their responses to the objectionable posts. The colleges president endorsed Black Yak as a college protest that reveals discomfiting realities while promoting free speech, dialogue and community. Other students, however, called for censorship of Yik Yak and punishment of the racist posts anonymous authors.

Secondly, some students alleged that a fraternity brothers Halloween costume was racist, as he put his blonde hair in corn rows and wore an orange jump suit typically worn by prison inmates. Student leaders organized a forum for students on both sides of the costume question to address hate speech, cultural appropriation and racism on campus.

Some of my seminar students argued the best response to the Yik Yak comments and to the seemingly inappropriate Halloween costumes was dialogue and education, not campus adjudication. Others argued that free speech concerns overlooked ways the marketplace of ideas was already unequal, such as hostile comments that reinforced marginalization by silencing some students.

My students decided to dispose of platitudes about free speech and scrutinize the schools policy about speech. Disciplinary hearings are confidential, therefore so are the rulings, but the students learned details of the colleges speech code that intrigued them. They wanted to know how the college enforces these codes.

Students learned that unlike state-run institutions, private colleges are not required to adhere to the First Amendment and can regulate speech on campus in a variety of ways. Nonetheless, the colleges student code espouses free expression in the form of careful and reasoned criticism of data and opinion offered in any course, which drew student criticism because it was muted. Why was the endorsement of free speech conditional?

Speech codes in the college life manual require students to understand federal civil rights laws, mainly Title IX, which emphasizes violence domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking but also covers speech. Harassment, the manual stipulates, includes advertisements or postings of offensive, indecent or abusive material of a sexual nature.

My students read the 1999 decision in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, and knew the Supreme Courts standards for defining a hostile environment:plaintiff must show harassment that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institutions resources and opportunities. Our schools speech codes do not mention severe, pervasive or objectively offensive.

My students found the college life manual does not refer to racial harassment or Title VI, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color and national origin at institutions receiving federal assistance. One student argued for a revised manual to include a similar approach to racial harassment as it does to sexual harassment.

The manuals vague language forbids conduct unbecoming of a Franklin and Marshall student. This phrase bothered students. They didnt know what it meant. The manual defines conduct unbecoming as conduct that threatens, instills fear, or infringes upon the rights, dignity and integrity of any person. Students rightly noted threaten and instills fear were struck down as too broad in a 1989 court decision regarding hate speech regulation at public universities Doe v. University of Michigan.

Our college manual gives administrators the flexibility to punish hate speech as conduct unbecoming, but racial harassment is absent from the student code. The dean defended conduct unbecoming, telling students the term is defined and interpreted by the campus community. However, the studentsassessed how regulation of speech actually worked on campus andwanted to see changes made to revise the speech codes and have students serve on the student misconduct panel.

As questions of free speech continue to arise on college campuses around the country, its time to move beyond rallying slogans and choosing sides. The campus speech controversies are more complicated than being for or against free speech. Students, faculty and administrators need to know the rules governing campus speech on their campus, including where the policies get it right and where they go wrong, and where they are outdated compared to recent judicial standards. This kind of engagement leads to meaningful change in how speech is regulated on campus.

M. Alison Kibler, professor of American Studies and Womens, Gender & Sexuality Studies, is chair of American Studies at Franklin & Marshall College. Her most recent book, Censoring Racial Ridicule: Irish, Jewish and African American Struggles Over Race and Representation, 1890-1930, examines race-based censorship.

M. Alison Kibler is a member of the USA TODAY College contributor network.

See the article here:
Want to solve this 'free speech' debate on college campuses? Look to the handbook. - USA TODAY College

Anne Arundel residents who attend County Council meetings are barred from carrying balloons, signs and banners in the legislative chambers. They're restricted to two minutes of testimony on a particular topic. And they can be removed from public meetings for disorderly behavior.

But when it comes to the content of their speech, how much can the government limit?

The question came to a head at last week's council meeting, when several citizens who had come to testify on an anti-racism resolution were told they could not talk about Councilman Michael Peroutka's former membership in a pro-secession group.

The decision, by Council Chairman John Grasso, R-Glen Burnie, sparked an immediate uproar. More than once, the chambers erupted into a shouting match between Grasso and citizens who disagreed with his ruling.

Grasso justified his stance by pointing to the council's rules of procedure, which include a section, 4-106, that prohibits "personal, defamatory or profane remarks" during meetings.

"We are here to talk about resolutions that Councilman (Pete) Smith put in and attacking other councilmen is not going to be permitted," he said. "If you want to talk about councilmen, you can do it on your own time, but not here."

Audience members countered that the comments were truthful and relevant to the broader conversation condemning racism.

Peroutka, R-Millersville, was criticized during the 2014 election cycle for his involvement with the League of the South, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

During the campaign, a 2012 video surfaced that showed him asking the crowd at a League of the South event to stand for the national anthem. He then played "Dixie," a song celebrating the South that became the anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War. Peroutka later said the clip had been taken out of context.

In October 2014, Peroutka announced he had left the league because he disagreed with statements members made in opposition to interracial marriage. At the time, he said he had no problem with the group and still supported its stances on self-government and preserving Southern heritage.

Along with the rest of the council, he voted in favor of last week's anti-racism resolution.

Yasemin Jamison, who first broached the topic of Peroutka's League of the South links, said her intention was to ask the councilman "to publicly say the League of the South is a racist organization and apologize for his membership."

"He could have said, 'No, I refuse to do that.' That's his prerogative, that's his right," said Jamison, who is a constituent of Peroutka's and a founder of the progressive group Anne Arundel County Indivisible. "I did not defame anybody; I did not say anything negative about my Councilman Peroutka. This is my testimony and it is a fact that he was a member of the League of the South."

William Rowel, who also attended the meeting, defended Jamison when Grasso told her she couldn't talk about the League of the South.

In Anne Arundel County, he said in an interview a few days after the meeting, "you have policymakers with informed constituents."

"If anything, you would champion that; you would say, this is great, people know what's going on in their communities, in their county and they want access to it," Rowel said. "The fact that they would discourage that, that they would shame people for doing it it's wrong. There's really no other way of looking at it."

Jamison said she is considering taking legal action against the council for restricting her speech.

Grasso said he stands by his decision to bar the topic.

"They were leading into a personal attack and the speaker will not address personal attacks towards the body; that's the bottom line," he said. "It wasn't on the subject matter."

Grasso said he shut down League of the South remarks in an attempt to keep order and decorum in his chambers.

"That meeting had clear rules in my eyes," he said. "What my opinion is and what others think might be different, but I was voted the chairman ... I'm in charge of keeping the meeting moving. It's my opinion that counts, and if they don't agree, they can run for office."

Limitations

The law does allow for some restrictions to be placed on speech in government settings, though they must be narrowly tailored. County Council meetings fall under the category of a "designated public forum," created by the government to allow citizens to express themselves to public officials.

The council has for years limited individual testimony to two minutes. In 2013, council members amended their rules of procedure to ban visual displays in the chambers, to prohibit "personal, defamatory or profane remarks" or "loud, threatening and abusive language" and to require speakers to give their name, address and any organizational affiliations before testifying. Grasso voted against the changes at the time.

The rules give the council chair permission to remove anyone who violates them and to clear the entire chambers in order to restore order.

Residents have challenged those limitations in the past. A Glen Burnie woman was removed from a council meeting in 2012 after she went over the time limit for testimony.

Many of the limitations are practical, said Councilman Jerry Walker, R-Crofton, who was council chair when the rules were updated in 2013.

"We banned posters because they would block people's line of sight," he said. As for testimony, he added, "it's supposed to be on the resolution."

As tensions rose during last week's meeting, Councilman Chris Trumbauer, D-Annapolis, asked Grasso to read the rules in an effort to calm the room.

Trumbauer said he believes the rules are "somewhat open to interpretation."

"Free speech means you can say whatever you want and not be penalized for that," he said, but "we have rules because we have to conduct business."

In designated public forums, "the government has the right to restrict what is being said, based on the purpose of the forum," said Eric Easton, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

But officials have to be careful not to bar certain topics based on politics, he said: "What they can't do is limit the conversation to believers of one side only in a controversy. Any restrictions on public speech have to be viewpoint-neutral."

It's common for legislative bodies to make rules against personal attacks, Easton added, but "the problem comes in: is this nothing but a personal attack or is it germane to the subject?"

In the case of discussion surrounding the anti-racism resolution, if the public's comments "were on that subject, they at least have an arguable case that maybe their rights were being restricted," he said.

In the view of Mark Graber, a professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Grasso's decision to bar testimony on Peroutka's past was "a very, very clear violation of the First Amendment."

Graber held a First Amendment workshop for Anne Arundel County Indivisible members and others before the start of last week's council meeting.

He said an example of a personal comment would be calling a councilman "ugly."

In contrast, Graber said, testifiers "spoke on relevant topics."

And, several pointed out at the meeting and afterward, remarks about Peroutka's past League of the South membership cannot be defamatory if they are truthful.

It is particularly difficult for public officials to argue they have been defamed. In the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, the Supreme Court ruled that an official has to prove a person acted with "actual malice," meaning they knew a statement was false or they acted with reckless disregard of the truth when they uttered the alleged slander.

"This was a comment of, 'You belong to the following groups,'" Graber said. "You're a public official; the groups you belong to are a matter of public interest."

The county's Office of Law did not return a request for comment.

Without a ruling from a judge, there's not much citizens can do to challenge Grasso's interpretation, Easton said.

"The one interesting thing about the First Amendment is you're never sure until a court rules on the exact facts that you have," he said.

See the original post:
Sparring over testimony leads to free speech debate - Capital Gazette - CapitalGazette.com