Category Archives: Free Speech

Florida Republican Rep. Francis Rooney, a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, suggested Tuesday night that members may consider restricting funds from universities that limit free speech rights on campus.

I think there is a bill out there to not fund the University of California at Berkeley for what they did. And I think its certainly worth considering just like the idea of not funding sanctuary cities, Rooney said on Patriot Tonight on SiriusXMs Patriot channel.

Rooney went on to say, Its certainly worth considering cutting back funds federal funds to schools that dont believe enough in our Constitution and our free speech to defend it.

Following violence early in the yearthat broke out on the campus of UC Berkeley because of protests against libertarian provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, President Donald Trump tweeted, If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

California Democrats lashed out at the president for his tweet. California Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, whosedistrict includes Berkeleys campus, said in a statement:

Berkeley has a proud history of dissent and students were fully within their rights to protest peacefully. However, I am disappointed by the unacceptable acts of violence last night which were counterproductive and dangerous, she said. President Donald Trump cannot bully our university into silence. Simply put, President Trumps empty threat to cut funding from UC Berkeley is an abuse of power.

Rooney, however, believes such legislation would have support in the House.

I think there would be a lot of people that would want to do that and I think theres a couple of bills in place, he said.

Follow Kerry on Twitter

See the original post:
Republican Rep Floats Cutting Funding From Schools That Limit Free Speech - The Daily Caller

Afirst amendment institute sent a letter to President Trump demanding he unblock all people hes blocked on Twitter or face legal action.

The Knight First Amendment Institute, which sent the letter, argues that the President, by blocking his critics, has violated the First Amendment rights of those people.

In a letter sent [yesterday] to President Trump, the Knight First Amendment Institute asked the President to unblock the Twitter accounts of individuals denied access to his account after they criticized or disagreed with him, or face legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of the blocked individuals, the Institutes press release read.

According to the Institute, Trumps Twitter account is a designated public forum and therefore subjected to the constitutionalfree speech guarantees that prohibits the government from silencing people in public places due to their views.

The Knight Institute asked the President to unblock its clients, or to direct his subordinates to do so, the release added.

Multiple people have recently taken to Twitter toannounce that they were blocked by the President on Twitter. A Jimmy Kimmel Live! comedy writer, Bess Kalb, wasblocked by Trump because, according to him, she hurt his feelings. (Most likely its due to her lame jokes.)

Some users have suggested the comedy writer contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and sue Trump for violating The Presidential Records Act whichguarantees the public have access to Trumps public records, in this case they mean his Twitter feed.

The Institute documented another case where a person was blocked by Trump. A Twitter user named @@AynRandPaulRyan was blocked after tweeting at Trump a gifof the Pope lookinggloomy.

Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institutes executive director, claimed This is a context in which the Constitution precludes the President from making up his own rules.

Though the architects of the Constitution surely didnt contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable. Having opened this forum to all comers, the President cant exclude people from it merely because he dislikes what theyre saying.

Senior litigator at the Institute, Katie Fallow, meanwhile, said that When new communications platforms are developed, core First Amendment principles cannot be left behind.

The First Amendment disallows the President from blocking critics on Twitter just as it disallows mayors from ejecting critics from town halls.

Some First Amendmentexperts, however, werent sure theres a case to be made that the President must unblock the blocked users.Neil Richards, a professor at Washington Universitys law school, specializing in First Amendment theory, told WIREDthat The question of whether the Presidents Twitter feed is a public forum is a more complicated question.

The law here is famously muddled, because its trying to prevent the government from discriminating against people who speak on public streets and parks, but its trying to fight the urge to make everything a public forum.

Follow this link:
Free Speech Group Threatens to Sue Trump if he Doesn't Unblock Blocked Twitter Users - Heat Street

Hundreds of supporters of US President Donald Trump converged on Terry D. Schrunk Plaza for an event billed as a Trump Free Speech rally. They were slightly outnumbered by a mixed assemblage of counterprotesters across the street who viewed the free speech rally as an implicit endorsement of racism given its close timing to the racially charged stabbing.

(Photo: CNN)

The groups were separated by a wall of officers, heavily armed and wearing protective body armor, from local and federal police agencies.

Police dispersing crowd of anti-Alt Right demonstrators today in Portland. (Photo: CNN)

What began as a tense exchange of name-calling and profane insults took a turn when counterdemonstrators began throwing glass bottles, bricks and balloons of foul-smelling liquid at officers, Portland police said. Officers used pepper spray to push back the counterdemonstrators and closed the park where they had gathered, threatening to arrest anyone who remained.

Portland police did not indicate which side those arrested belonged to. CNN crews on the scene observed that most of the arrests were concentrated in the area of counterdemonstrators.

Three of the 14 arrested were given citations by federal officers and released, according to a statement from the Portland police department.

Of the other 11, most face charges of disorderly conduct, police said. Other charges against various protesters included carrying a concealed weapon, interfering with a peace officer and harassment, the police statement said.

Arraignments are scheduled for Friday in Multnomah County Court.

The rallies came in the wake of the stabbing deaths on May 26 of Ricky Best, 53, and Taliesin Namkai-Meche, 23, as they tried to defend two Muslim women from what police described as a barrage of hate speech.

Suspect Jeremy Joseph Christian raised the free speech issue in his arraignment last week.

Get out if you dont like free speech! he shouted as he entered the courtroom on Tuesday. You call it terrorism; I call it patriotism. Die.

Concerns raised early on

Tensions continued to build in Portland as the incident turned the city into the latest battleground over free speech and race relations in the Trump era.

We hope and pray that both sides try to keep in mind that in the big picture it might be easy to forget with all the emotions running high that we all have the same basic needs, Portland resident Margie Fletcher told CNN before Sundays rallies.

Her son, Micah, was wounded during the train attack as he and the others tried to intervene in what Portland police called hate speech toward a variety of ethnicities and religions directed at two women on the commuter rain.

Christian faces charges including two counts of aggravated murder, attempted murder, two counts of second-degree intimidation and being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon, police say.

Signs of animosity among the groups holding rallies began to emerge last week in online forums. The tensions put police on high alert and prompted the mayor to call on the federal government to revoke the event organized by a group called Patriot Prayer. Terry D. Schrunk Plaza is federal property where guns are barred.

Im a strong supporter of the First Amendment no matter what the views are that are being expressed, Mayor Ted Wheeler told HLN on Friday, but given the timing of this rally, I believed we had a case to make about the threats to public safety.

Federal officials declined the request, saying there was no legal basis to revoke the permit.

Protester: A vote for Trump not hate speech

Wheeler also called on protest organizer Joey Gibson to postpone the event. Gibson told CNN the event was planned before the stabbings and that Patriot Prayer had nothing to with Christian, the defendant. It was, he said, about taking a stand for President Trump and free speech in a liberal part of the country.

He said his group is not racist or alt-right and it should not be held responsible for the actions of counterdemonstrators, many of whom identified as anti-fascists.

Anti-facists have become a recurring presence at events testing the limits of free speech. They were blamed for riots that led to the cancellation of conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos scheduled talk at The University of California, Berkeley, and have shown up at events featuring Ann Coulter.

They tend to equate such events with fascism and Nazis, messaging that was evident in signs declaring No more Nazis.

On each side Sunday, protesters carried signs reflecting a variety of causes. Counterdemonstrators chanted expletive-ridden slogans denouncing Trump. They carried signs proclaiming Supporters of Trump are traitors to America and Freedom ends where harm begins.

Across the street, Trump supporters waved Make America Great Again signs and wore the corresponding red hats.

In addition to the arrests, a large pickup truck flying two large American flags cruised past hundreds of anti-fascist protesters and honked its horn. Several people in the group ran up to the truck and ripped out the flags, bringing them into the crowd as others applauded. Others threw multiple large water bottles, sticks and other projectiles at the truck, which then sped away.

One Trump supporter said she was marching in support of free speech after the mayors attempt to silence the Patriot Prayer event. Another wearing a Police Lives Matter T-shirt said she wanted to reverse the lies surrounding Trump supporters.

Just because we voted for Trump doesnt equal hate speech, Debbie Sluder said.

Read the original here:
14 arrested as protesters clash at 'Free Speech' rally in Portland - FOX31 Denver

Do you remember the first person to greet you when you went to college? A Resident Assistant? Orientation guide? Whomever it was, chances are they were an employee of the student life office, an office on campuses ideally designed to enhance your outside-of-the-classroom college experience.

Every college or university has dedicated staff to this office to help with campus organizations, housing, events, and/or orientation. The mission is ideally well intentioned, but recent incidents have led me to question the actions of these offices.

When a campus security officer approached Jeff and his fellow Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) members, they did not take it lightly. You need to move to the bridge, the officer told the Bunker Hill students. Jeff and his friends continued to distribute copies of the Constitution and refused to let their right to free speech be stifled. The following week, the students received a formal notice from the University claiming that they violated the Code of Conduct.

As of Tuesday this week, both the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) have notified the college about their unconstitutional speech codes and ordered them to change the codes or expect litigation in their near future.

Unfortunately, Jeff is not the only student to face these unruly policies enforced by politicized administrators. At Los Angeles Pierce Community College District, YAL student Kevin Shaw was distributing pocket Constitutions to garner support for his club to become officially recognized by the University. Because Kevin was not inside of his Universitys free speech area, he was asked to leave campus unless he obtained a permit from the administration.

Interestingly enough, the Los Angeles Pierce College publishes its free speech regulations on the back of the permit, but the only way to know a permit is by obtaining a permit in the first place at the student life office. A prime example of how out of touch, and dysfunctional these offices dedicated to enhancing the student experience have become.

Yet out of touch administrators are not a new fad sweeping college campuses. What has developed is the heightened malevolence from campus leaders towards the First Amendment.

At Kellogg Community College, three YAL students were arrested for simply asking students questions that rural students may not know how to say no to. . . because they grew up without Internet. The students were asking Kellogg Community College students if they wanted a copy of the Constitution and if they liked liberty.

Administrators from the Student Life office at Kellogg Community College told the students that if they wanted to engage in this type of activity they would need permission from the college and would need to be inside the designated free speech zone. The students told the administration that they would not go to the free speech zone because Kellogg Community College is a public college, and therefore, the entire campus is a free speech zone.

Administrators then threatened students with arrest. The students stood their ground, unaffected by the threats. Students were then hauled off campus by multiple campus police officers and spent the night in jail. Since then, the students have filed a civil lawsuit in Federal Court.

These lawsuits are providing real results for free speech across college campuses, and Young Americans for Liberty is leading the fight by restoring rights to over 544,000 students nation wide.

This past fall Brittany Mirelez won her lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community College District, home to 250,000 students. Brittany was told by bureaucrats that she needed to obtain a permit before using the Universitys designated free speech zone.

Not only was she told she had to be inside the free speech zone, but she had to first obtain permission from the university student life office to use the free speech zone.

A common trend in all of these instances of egregious behavior on the part of the public colleges, is the student life office. The once epicenter for guidance and assistance for students, this office has now become the ubiquitous roadblock for free speech on many campuses.

What we need is for the student life offices to remember their original, which is enhancing students campus experience and helping to provide innovative events on campus, and move away from a custodial obligation.

Universities are meant to be a bastion of free speech, where students engage in unfettered free expression on campus. This dangerous move towards a nanny-state on college campuses facilitated through student life offices does nothing but shield students from the real world and differing viewpoints that they will face post-graduation.

Cliff Maloney Jr. is the President at Young Americans for Liberty where he oversees YALs 50 state operation with over 900 YAL chapters nationwide. YALs mission is to identify, educate, train, and mobilize youth activists committed to winning on principle.

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

See the original post here:
Universities must stop stifling free speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

Jeremy Christian, right, seen during a Patriot Prayer, allegedly stabbed three men, two fatally, in Portland last month. During a subsequent courtroom appearance, he exclaimed: "Free speech or die, Portland. You call it terrorism I call it patriotism." John Rudoff/AP hide caption

Jeremy Christian, right, seen during a Patriot Prayer, allegedly stabbed three men, two fatally, in Portland last month. During a subsequent courtroom appearance, he exclaimed: "Free speech or die, Portland. You call it terrorism I call it patriotism."

Alt-right. White nationalist. Free speech. Hate speech.

A number of labels involving the far right have been tossed about once again after a white supremacist allegedly stabbed three people who tried to keep him from shouting at two teenage girls, one wearing a hijab, on the Portland metro.

Fearing trouble because emotions are running high, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler asked the federal government to revoke a permit for a "Trump Free Speech Rally" on Sunday, describing the organizers as "alt-right." But a rally organizer rejected that characterization, insisting he didn't even know precisely what the phrase meant. Left-wing groups also are planning rallies this weekend.

Here's a look at some of the phrases being used to describe the people involved, and what's behind them:

Alt-Right/White Nationalist

White supremacist Jeremy Christian, who has been charged with two counts of aggravated murder, attempted murder and intimidation in the second degree, began his courtroom appearance last week shouting about free speech. "Free speech or die, Portland. You call it terrorism I call it patriotism," Christian shouted. "If you don't like free speech get the f*** out of my country."

So what exactly was Christian ranting about? Was it nonsensical ravings or something more an exclamation of his political ideology? Was he saying he allegedly stabbed the three men, two of them fatally, because he believed they were interfering with his right to speak to the young women?

Understanding the language of the far right is a good place to start. There's plenty of disagreement and debate about what language to use to describe far right politics and the groups that operate there.

These days, the labels white nationalist and alt-right have become ubiquitous. Radical right and ultra-right are older terms from the 1950s and 60s, and other terms include paleo-conservative, the militia movement, identity movement, American fascists, national socialists, neo-Nazis. But according to Mark Potok, a leader at the Southern Poverty Law Center for the last two decades, essentially these groups can be broken down into two main categories those who focus primarily on issues of race and those who focus primarily on conspiracy theories. One idea that courses through nearly all of them is the belief that healthy societies are dependent on racial, ethnic and cultural purity that for the white race, diversity is the path to political and cultural extinction.

The thinking is that each racial/ethnic group should get their own country, but the USA (and Europe) is for white, European, Christian culture. It's why language like Christian's "get out of my country" is prevalent among the far right.

This supremacist vision is what separates alternative right/white nationalists from others on the political spectrum. It's an enormous leap ideologically from mainstream conservatism and the main reason why alt-right membership remains relatively low. Where does the term alt-right come from? Paleo-conservative philosopher Paul Grottfried first used the phrase in 2008 but white nationalist Richard Spencer ran with it and helped make alt-right ubiquitous.

Spencer is a new face of the extreme right movement. Well educated at the Universities of Virginia, Chicago and Duke, he is a world away from old images of the Ku Klux Klan. According to Pete Simi, professor of Sociology at Chapman University ant the co-author of the book American Swastika: Inside the White Power Movement's Hidden Spaces of Hate, the term alt-right was a successful attempt by Spencer to rebrand himself and his followers as something fresh, young and smart for a new generation.

Among its allies, the alt-right embraces President Trump advisor and former Breitbart editor Steve Bannon. Bannon has called the site a "platform for the alt-right."

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

Free Speech has grown into a major issue for both mainstream conservatives and the alt-right. For mainstream conservatives, the belief that the left is more intolerant of dissent than the right is evidenced by the protests against right-wing speakers on college campuses.

White nationalists believe their First Amendment rights go further: that they should have the freedom to say whatever they like and not suffer consequences for example, getting fired from their job for posting something hateful on Facebook.

The alt-right has developed its own language and symbols on the Internet. Parentheses around a person's name means they are Jewish. "Cuckservative" is a particularly ugly racist and derogatory term describing establishment Republicans who aren't considered conservative enough.

Professor Simi says a key feature of white nationalist belief is seeing themselves as victims. "We're not the haters, we're the victims of white genocide," Simi says, describing the alt-right mindset. Marginalized, oppressed, and fighting an uphill battle against the powers that be, they view themselves as noble, courageous, even heroic warriors.

"Patriot" or Terrorist?

A second category of the extreme right in the American militia movement, which can be characterized by its belief in conspiracy theories. On his Facebook page, Christian praised Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, "May all the Gods Bless Timothy McVeigh a TRUE PATRIOT!!!"

Former SPLC director Potok said the movement's fundamental idea is that the federal government is involved in a conspiracy against its people's liberties. The imposition of martial law will be followed by the forced confiscation of guns and Potok explains that in the end, the U.S. government will be forced into a one world government, the so-called "New World Order" that will be run to serve the global elite. Elements of these conspiracy theories recently made a prominent appearance in Texas in 2015 during an armed forces military exercise, which stoked fear among some worried Texans that President Obama was about to use Special Forces soldiers to confiscate guns and round up resisters. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott responded by ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor the Special Forces soldiers while they trained in Texas.

Martin Kaste contributed to this story.

Go here to see the original:
Alt-Right, White Nationalist, Free Speech: The Far Right's Language Explained - NPR

What If Anything Should The Feds Do To Protect Campus Free Speech? Forbes Since the federal government heavily subsidizes most of our colleges and universities through grants and loans, is it too much to expect that the officials who run them would take steps to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty members?

See more here:
What If Anything Should The Feds Do To Protect Campus Free Speech? - Forbes

There is certainly no shortage of examples of progressive attempts to silence unacceptable political speech. From Charles Murray to Ann Coulter to David Horowitz, the Left has upped its game when it comes to censoring, and in some cases even silencing, its political opponents. Some Yale students have even gone so far as to petition for a repeal of the First Amendment in its entirety.

Nobody, however, has done more to reveal the true nature of modern progressives illiberalism than Fresno State professor Gregory Thatcher. Thanks to cell-phone video and a timely complaint filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, Thatchers utter contempt for contrary political thought was exposed after he directed students to scrub pro-life messages that had been scrawled on campus sidewalks by the Fresno State chapter of Students for Life. This sort of mentality is endemic in American academia and increasingly in society at large.

A month prior to the incident, Students for Life e-mailed the appropriate authorities at the University, asking for permission to move forward with their chalking plans. Their request made clear that the plan would aim to convey different facts about development in the womb and celebrat[e] pregnant and parenting students hard work as they pursued their education with messages such as Support Pregnant and Parenting Students, Pregnant on Campus Initiative, and Know Your Title IX Rights. Ultimately, Fresno States Event Review Committee approved the request, just as it had approved many other similar requests in the past.

Pursuant to the approval, the students proceeded to chalk a sidewalk near Fresno States library on the morning of May 2. The messages included provocative statements such as love them both, choose life, save the baby humans, and unborn lives matter.

As seen in the video, after Students for Life chalked around three dozen of these hate-filled messages, students who admitted they had been deputized by Thatcher began scrubbing the sidewalk. Professor Thatcher then came rushing out to the pro-life students, demanding they put an end to the messages and directing them to an unidentified free-speech area. After the pro-life students informed him that they had received university approval for their activities, Thatcher himself began scrubbing, and told the students, You had permission to put it down....I have permission to get rid of it....This is our part of free speech. As if that werent enough, Thatcher concluded by emphasizing that college campuses are not free-speech areas.

Let that sink in for a moment: College campuses are not free-speech areas. If Thatchers right about that, its only because he and his progressive ilk have succeeded in perverting the sacred academic mission of free and open inquiry beyond recognition. Thankfully, they dont seem to have thus succeeded at Fresno State, which in the wake of the incident reaffirmed its policy that freedom of expression is allowed in all outdoor spaces on campus, essentially throwing Thatcher under the bus.

More important than the incidents specifics are what it reveals about the mindset of progressives such as Thatcher. Not only did he think he had the duty to erase messages he deemed offensive, he deputized students as censors to more efficiently fulfill that duty. Instead of encouraging pro-choice students to write their own messages alongside the pro-lifers, as would have been entirely appropriate, Thatcher exhorted his young charges to erase the pro-life messages and then chalk pro-choice ones in their place. Instead of engaging in a war of ideas, progressive such as Thatcher demand that contrary views must be silenced, lest innocent snowflake students be triggered by such provocative messages as, A person is a person, no matter how small. (Who knew Dr. Seuss could be so upsetting?)

Of equal importance is Thatchers distorted view of the powers that the First Amendment bestowson a political opponent. Though there is no more sacred a right then ones ability to express a political message, that right does not empower one to silence political messages one does not agree with. The Supreme Courts jurisprudence on the question of a hecklers veto is mixed, but as the ADFs complaint notes, Thatchers actions censored the content and viewpoint of Plaintiffs expression. (Fresno State appears to concur, noting that those disagreeing with the students message have a right to their own speech, but they do not have the right to erase or stifle someone elses speech under the guise of their own right to free speech.)

Thatchers mindset is, unfortunately, far from unique. On campuses across the country, the same illiberal attitude toward disagreeable speech is growing, and the broader public must take notice. As Nebraska senator Ben Sasse put it at a recent Federalist Society event, The idea that any American could think the First Amendment might go too far means that we as a people havent done the first things of teaching it.

We as Americans can and must do better to protect the vibrant and free exchange of ideas.

READ MORE: Liberal Bullies Threaten Free Speech Potemkin Universities: Breaking Faith with a Legacy of Free Inquiry The Roots of Campus Progressivisms Madness

Jake Curtis is an associate counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Libertys Center for Competitive Federalism.

More:
The Campus Speech Police Come to Fresno State - National Review

A few weeks ago Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature put forward a bill that would expel any student at a state university who disrupted or prevented speeches on campus. After the courage that Gov. Scott Walker and other Republicans displayed in the face of unrelenting protests in 2011, it is no surprise that they have the cojones to stand up to the little fascists that dominate our colleges and universities.

Now GOP lawmakers in Washington State are considering revoking $24 million in funding to Evergreen State College after the campus administration there supported the thuggish antics of left-wing students.

It is good to see some Republican legislators finally taking action to defend free speech on college and university campuses. But it is far from enough.

There have been plenty of opportunities for Republicans to take advantage of the threats to free speech on college and university campuses. For example, after protesters at Berkeley shut down Milo Yiannopouloss scheduled speech, President Trump signaled that he was ready to take action. (A useful summary of the violence may be found here.)

He tweeted:

Back in early May, the University of Arizona introduced a plan to pay students $10 an hour to be social justice advocates, whose responsibilities would include reporting bias incidents to the administration. The university faced a backlash from conservatives on the Internet, but that only resulted in administrators deciding to change the job title. Nor did it stop UCLA from going forward with a similar plan.

And the response of Republican legislators in D.C. and Arizona to all of this?

Crickets.

It is hard to understand their apathy. Taking legislative action to stop what is happening on colleges and universities would be good for the nation and good for the Republican Party.

It is clear that colleges and universities represent one of the greatest threats to free speech in the United States. From shutting down Milo and Ann Coulter to violence directed at Charles Murray, to the Antifa, to speech codes and sensitivity training, the totalitarian left is increasingly running the show at our institutions of higher education. If Congress and state legislatures were to start cutting off funding to those schools that violated free speech, it would be the first step in turning those institutions into beacons of open discussion and debate.

It would almost certainly boost the GOP. Fighting for freedom of speech and against university elites would not only help Republicans with their base, it could attract moderates who are horrified at the intolerance on display in places like Berkeley, Arizona, Evergreen, and Middlebury. Fighting university fascists certainly wouldnt hurt Republicans. University towns are not, after all, magnets for GOP voters. For example, Pima County, where the University of Arizona is located, voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump 54 percent to 40 percent. Overall, Arizona went for Trump, 49 percent to 45 percent.

It seems like a safe win-win for Republicans, so why arent they making a big issue out of this? The only reason that makes any sense is Republican lawmakers dont want loud, obnoxious social justice snowflakes showing up to protest at their legislative offices.

Is the GOP really that feckless? It is easy to fear that such a question is rhetorical.

Read more:
Colleges, free speech, and GOP fecklessness - Canada Free Press

Writing in the New York Times recently, Montana governor Steve Bullock sounded awfully proud of his legacy of shutting down privacy rights and chilling free speech. Now that the special election for the U.S. House seat is over and the eyes of the world might linger on Montana for a moment, I thought now would be a good time to discuss one particularly insidious product of the governors legacy: the DISCLOSE Act.

The law, which the governor cites warmly as a tool for fighting the corrupting influence of money in politics, is in practice little more than a way to guarantee that politicians, who already have the loudest microphone, can shut down opposing viewpoints and make it harder for citizens to hold lawmakers accountable. The truth is no easier to find when the powerful have the only microphone.

Signed into law by Bullock in 2015, the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections) Act limits electioneering communications within two months of the start of voting and requires non-profits to register their donors personal information with the government if the organization has the audacity to engage in issue advocacy too close to an election, specifically if that advocacy mentions a politician. Thats right, politicians dont want criticism, and they are trying to stop independent criticism using this law.

Donors to Montanas rich and diverse collection of non-profit civic organizations should have a reasonable expectation of privacy and should be able to voice their opinions on issues important to the state, free of intimidation, harassment, or fear of retribution from politicians or their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, many potential donors see the threat to their livelihoods posed by criticizing the politically powerful and decide that participating in the political process is not worth the risk. That kind of suppression of speech stifles the debate and makes us all worse off.

Governor Bullock paints a picture of his campaign to end dark money as a holy crusade to reverse the effects of the much-maligned (and widely misrepresented) Citizens United case. In reality, the push to force the release of private information was nothing more than a personal crusade to sidestep election-year criticism from Montanans who differ from the governor on the issues.

Its like Hollywood stars deciding who can review their movies, or pro athletes deciding who can write about them on the sports pages.

The governor, of course, did not impose this draconian restriction of liberty on his own. He had help. Montana and other states considering similar measures must come to terms with a harsh reality: In politics, it is often the politicians vs. the rest of us, and the DISCLOSE Act puts a thumb on the scales of power, as the well-connected cheer.

Why does this matter? Because laws that require the public disclosure of donors private information chill free speech, as those who wish to support organizations that hold government accountable are exposed to threats of violence. The New York Civil Liberties Union is fighting a similar disclosure law in that state, where its members have been subjected to vandalism and death threats.

And these laws dont work anyway. Study after study has shown that such restrictions do not result in less corruption or a more satisfied electorate. So, were losing freedom and gaining nothing.

Ever since the landmark Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), non-profits have had the right to protect their donors privacy, and with good reason. The racist politicians challenging the NAACPs heroic work were not interested in canvassing the neighborhood. They wanted to put the organization out of business. They wanted names and addresses for nefarious reasons. The Supreme Court stood fast against such intimidation.

Individuals should not have to fear violent reprisals for exercising their First Amendment rights, in segregation-era Alabama or in the Montana of today. That Governor Bullock takes pride in his crusade against free speech should be unnerving for all Americans who value free speech and freedom of association.

David Herbst is state director of the Montana chapter of Americans for Prosperity.

Excerpt from:
In Montana, an Election Law Chills Free Speech and Privacy Rights - National Review

PORTLAND, Ore. -- The suspect charged charged in the fatal stabbings of two Portland men who tried to stop his anti-Muslim tirade against two teenage girls was deeply concerned with his First-Amendment right to speech that others often regarded as hateful, a review of court documents and social media postings shows.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, who has spent much of his adulthood behind bars, littered social media with posts about his hatred of just about everything and everyone. He made death threats against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and ranted when Facebook deleted an update it regarded as anti-Semitic.

"There is no feeling like being muzzled. Cut out your tongue," he wrote in one post.

After years of spewing anger, prosecutors say, Christian acted on his fury last month aboard a light-rail train. He's accused of screaming anti-Muslim insults at the girls, ages 16 and 17, and then slitting the throats of three men who went to their defense. Two of the men died, and a third was seriously wounded.

Christian continued screaming about free speech in the back of a patrol car, according to court documents. "Get stabbed in your neck if you hate free speech," he is quoted as saying. "I can die in prison a happy man."

The 35-year-old has not yet entered a plea, and neither his court-appointed defense attorney nor relatives or acquaintances returned messages from The Associated Press. In a statement, his family apologized and expressed horror at the May 26 killings.

A review of court documents and social media postings paints a picture of a man who hardened as he spent years in prison. The violence and anger he marshaled against prison guards appeared to morph into a disciplined rage at the world upon his release as he struggled to find a job and a purpose.

After years of disciplinary infractions and self-imposed hunger strikes, Christian found himself selling comic books on the street, where he was once mistaken for a homeless person. He grew increasingly angry that people he met didn't want to talk about his views.

"In my Portland you can have a serious conversation about Politics Spirituality or Philosophy without being interrupted and informed you aren't being PC," he wrote shortly after being released from his most recent stint in federal prison. "Where I come from PC people are in Protective Custody where they belong so they don't get killed."

Christian grew up with several older brothers in north Portland, obtained his GED and attended some community college. He was a prolific writer both in and out of prison, and he penned a poem at age 18 titled "Prayers for Death."

His first encounter with the legal system came two years later when he was arrested on felony charges for robbing a corner market.

Christian had ridden his bike to the convenience store near his parents' home, donned a black ski mask and pulled a handgun on the market's owner. The owner recognized him as a neighborhood kid and at first thought it was a joke, according to an article in The Oregonian at the time.

He took about $1,000 in cash and cigarettes, then handcuffed the owner's wrists to a pole before leaving. A police officer spotted Christian on his bike, gave chase and shot at him three times, hitting him once just under the right eye.

Christian pleaded guilty to robbery and kidnapping and was sentenced to eight years in prison.

During his incarceration, Christian spent time in five Oregon prisons and, according to his own Facebook posts, was frequently in trouble for disciplinary infractions.

On one occasion, he lost 30 pounds in two weeks while on a hunger strike and refused to move to the medical ward. He talked back during roll call so he could get written up and insulted the staff during disciplinary hearings, he wrote.

Just two months after his release in September 2010, Christian was in trouble again -- this time with the federal government.

He pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a stolen revolver, was sentenced to time served and placed under supervision. While under supervision, Christian struggled to get his feet under him.

In 2013, he messaged with a former prison friend and expressed despair that he couldn't find a job. He was going to tattoo "unemployable sociopath" on his forehead, he said, or flee to Brazil. The friend encouraged him to get a job as a dishwasher instead and to find a girlfriend who could help him stay straight.

"Crazy talk. I'd be giving up my freedom either way," Christian wrote back. "Reading books in a single cell is just as pleasurable."

A few months later, he was arrested on a post-prison supervision violation and sentenced to federal prison, then released in May 2014.

He did more fasting and took up a crusade against circumcision. He joined a Facebook group for his middle school and reached out to old friends. Christian planned a barbecue with them at a local park but was rejected after he posted offensive comments on a group message board and insisted it was free speech.

"Jeremy dude you are ruining this whole experience for everyone," one childhood friend wrote.

In April, he was videotaped at a pro-Trump rally holding a baseball bat and making the Nazi salute while wearing a metal chain and the American flag around his neck. Police confiscated the bat and hovered nearby as counterprotesters surrounded Christian and pushed him away.

Two weeks later, Christian posted a video of the rally. In the background, a woman can be heard calling him "the dude who wrote all that crazy, ranting weird stuff."

Christian seems to approve: "That's me, the Lizard King," he wrote. "Nobody likes me."

A Section on 06/05/2017

Read more:
Suspect focused on free speech - NWAOnline