Category Archives: Free Speech

The mayor of Portland, Ore., is calling for a "Trump free speech rally" to be canceled after a man directing anti-Muslim rhetoric at two women fatally stabbed two men and injured a third this weekend, according toThe Associated Press.

Mayor Ted Wheeler (D) said he's worried that attendees of the proposed rally and other similar events could "peddle a message of hatred," the AP reported.

A Facebook page for the rally said speakers will include Kyle Chapman, who describes himself as an American nationalist and is an ardent President Trump supporter.

A federal permit has been given for the rally on Saturday, but the government hasn't yet issued a permit for an event planned for June 10, according to the AP.

"There will be speakers exercising their free speech, live music, flags, and an uplifting experience to bring back strength and courage to those who believe in freedom," according to the Facebook event page for Saturday's rally.

Read the original:
Portland mayor wants 'Trump free speech' rally canceled after attack - The Hill

Two members of the Berkeley College Republicans hold signs while an anti-facist group speaks about Ann Coulter's canceled speech at the University of California, Berkeley, April 26, 2017. (Photo: Jim Wilson / The New York Times)

Why doesn't this site have ads? In order to maintain our integrity, Truthout doesn't accept any advertising money. Help us keep it this way -- make a donation to support our independent journalism.

Last weekend, while Vice-President and former Indiana governor Mike Pence was giving thecommencement address at Notre Dame University, over 100 studentswalked outin protest over his anti-LGBTQ and anti-refugee policy positions. Pence used this opportunity to give a 15-minute lecture about free speech on campuses, condemning what he calls "speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, administration-sanctioned political correctness -- all of which amounts to nothing less than suppression of the freedom of speech." In contrast, he extolled the virtues of civility, open debate, the pursuit of knowledge, and the free exchange of ideas. Pence's arguments, which sound lofty and noble, conceal as much as they reveal about the role of free speech in educational contexts today.

Also see: The Home of Free Speech: A Critical Perspective on UC Berkeley's Coalition With the Far-Right

Much has been written in the past several months about dramatic conflicts at universities, especially those between protesters and high-profile far right figures likeAnn Coulter,Milo Yiannopoulos, andRichard Spencer, bringing the issue of student activism and free speech to the forefront. While the recent focus has been on these so-called "alt right" celebrities and the growing role of groups like theYoung America's Foundation(YAF), there is a much longer history of conservative speakers being invited to campuses under the banner of free speech. Here I examine the groundwork laid by theFederalist Society, a long-standing legal organization which has been sending reactionary speakers to universities for nearly 40 years. Drawing connections between arguments used by liberal proponents of free speech and the rhetoric of the alt right, I examine how the free speech and open debate arguments being used today to defend the hateful messages of far right speakers have been established over a long period and need to be explored in the context of rising fascism, white supremacy, and extreme social inequality. From this perspective, the comments of Pence (himself anaffiliate of the Federalists) take on a deeper and more ominous meaning.

The Federalist Society

Outside the legal profession, most people know very little about the Federalist Society, a group that has been called "quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in the country."[1]As the political right gains traction under the Trump administration, it is worth exploring the mission and history of this group, which has played a critical role in the conservative shift of law and politics over the past 35 years. One of the ways the Society has spread its ideas and found new members is through its long-standing debate program, in which far right attorneys are sent to speak at law schools. According to their latestannual report, the Federalists spent $2.5M on student debates and hosted 1,100 events at law schools across the country in 2016 alone.

The Federalist Society was founded in 1980 by law students and faculty who felt alienated by the allegedly liberal atmosphere of law schools. Since then, the organization has been enormously successful in translating its ideas into law and policy, and has done so while remaining mostly outside the attention of media and the general public. In their recent book,The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back From Liberals,Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin show how unrestricted funding provided by billionaires like the Koch brothers and John Olin has allowed the Federalists to promote extremely conservative legal positions which privilege private property rights, criticize government interventions in social and economic problems, and target the rights of women, immigrants, people of color, and gay and trans individuals and communities.

Since its founding, the Society has grown exponentially. From four law school chapters in 1982, it has expanded to over 60,000 members in its 300+ student, lawyer, faculty, and alumni divisions.[2]However, not all "members" pay dues and the organization's claims that they have active chapters at every law school are exaggerated. Regardless of actual numbers, the ideas of the Federalists have spread rapidly through members' prolific publications, presentations, and influential public positions. With an annual budget ranging from $10-15M, the Federalists have developed a powerful network of think tanks, law firms, faculty, judges, and politicians.[3]

The Federalist Society has been extremely successful in getting its members into powerful positions while keeping its influence out of public view. Those unfamiliar with the Society may be surprised to learn that its members are represented at every level of government and the judiciary, including four current Supreme Court justices (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and most recently,Neil Gorsuch). Every Federal Judge appointed by Presidents Bush (Jr. and Sr.) was a member of the Society or of an approved affiliate of the organization, and every Republican administration since Reagan has included prominent Society members.[4]This trend continues and has become even more pronounced with the Trump administration. During his election campaign, Trump promised that all of his judicial nominees would be"picked by the Federalist Society"and since becoming President he has consulted with both the Federalists and conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation in making lists to fill the120+ currently vacant federal court positions.

Federalist Society members arguethat they do not have a specific "agenda" and that there is nothing clandestine or nefarious about their organization. Indeed, the Society is very public about its mission, its focus on ideas, and its commitment to speaking openly about conservative legal perspectives. Furthermore, given its alliance of libertarians, economic conservatives, social conservatives, and Christians, it is true that the Federalists cannot be said to be an ideological monolith. In fact, the organization itself does not lobby or take public policy positions, but rather relies on its individual members and allied organizations to pursue goals such as rolling back affirmative action and identity-based discrimination laws, contesting government regulation of the economy and environment, removing access to legal remedies for workers and consumers, expanding state support for religious institutions, opposing abortion, protecting private property, challenging protections for immigrants, and limiting the size of the federal government. The overall impact of these various (sometimes disparate) positions is to provide advantages to the already wealthy, while leaving the rest of society poorer and increasingly disenfranchised. Although the Society presents itself as simply an intellectual forum, in reality it holds an immense amount of power and influence.

Free Speech and Its Discontents

For decades, the Federalist Society has sponsored debates at law school campuses in which their members argue the various positions described above. Organizing debates is a key strategy of the Society, which allows it to present itself as offering a dialogue of perspectives in order to provide a platform for what is often dehumanizing and far right rhetoric. In recent years, the Federalists have organized events featuring right luminaries such as John Yoo (author of the "torture memos"), Ryan Anderson (Fellow at the Heritage Foundation whocalls gay rights "make believe" and defends conversion therapy), Roger Clegg (President of the Center for Equal Opportunity who argues that affirmative action discriminates against whites), Ilya Shapiro (Fellow at the CATO Institute who claims that corporate donations to political campaigns arenot a problem), and Edward Whelan (President of theEthics and Public Policy Centerand proponent of the controversial "Bathroom Bill" in North Carolina, who argues that transgender activism has producedlegal absurdities).

During this time of controversy on campuses over the place of free speech within current political struggles, the role of the Federalist Society provides an example of how the conservative movement successfully legitimizes itself and spreads its message. Despite the conservative atmosphere of almost all law schools, and the current far-right influence in politics more generally, law student members of the Federalist Society still claim to feel silenced within the"liberal" context of their schools. Student groups and administrators invite far-right speakers under the banner of free speech, viewpoint diversity, and healthy debate, and portray challenges to or dissent against these speakers as attacks on the First Amendment (rather than seeing the protests themselves as protected forms of speech). While the Federalist Society does at least offer other perspectives by framing their events as debates, events sponsored by groups like YAF and College Republicans have increasingly been inviting provocative far right speakers theNew York Timeshas described as "edgier, more in-your-face and sometimes even mean-spirited."

Competing perspectives on free speech across the spectrum of the left are worth examining at this fraught political moment. One popular approach, exemplified by our allies at theACLU, argues that even hateful speech is constitutionally protected. From this perspective, speech that attacks individuals and groups based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation is both legal and defendable. The ACLU and many liberal-minded people assume that allowing all speech under any circumstances will ensure that the best ideas win out and that it is ideal to have even potentially dangerous ideas out in the open where they can be challenged. They question attempts by universities to adopt codes and policies prohibiting hate speech, arguing that this well-intentioned response is incorrect and akin to censorship. Rather than restrict the right to use racist, sexist, transphobic, ableist, or other such speech on campuses, the ACLU recommends an educational approach that offers less intolerant viewpoints from which individuals can choose. A final important argument from this perspective points out that the limiting of speech on one end of the political spectrum can produce limitations on any speech found to be controversial, and will inevitably lead to greater restrictions on the other end.

This approach may seem logical and commonsense to many, and this line has certainly beentaken up by the far right, who complain that the failure to include conservative views alongside liberal perspectives is a violation of free speech. On university campuses, reactionary student groups and their supporters draw on First Amendment arguments to promote agendas that are openly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, and ableist. They claim that any resistance from the administration or the student body to these hateful ideologies is in violation of legally protected speech, and even ostensibly progressive universities have given in to this pressure by monitoring and censoring opposition. Extreme right fascist and white nationalist groups outside of universities also rely on the discourse of free speech to claim their views are valid and protected. While complaining about the "politically correct snowflakes" on the left, these far right speakers and their supporters actively cultivate their status as victims by attacking the vulnerable through their hateful speech and then claiming persecution when challenged.

From the commonsense liberal approach described above, the best way to address these kinds of speakers would be to let them express their views so others can decide if they agree or not. If all sides are debated openly, advocates of this perspective contend, the best one will obviously succeed. However, far right conservative and fascist ideology is not simply based on logical and reasonable arguments; rather, these movements depend on the irrational mobilization of hate, fear, and anger against some of the most marginalized and vulnerable populations. Offering them an open forum and vigorously defending their right to promote harmful speech confers legitimacy on their positions as being equally as acceptable as any other.

Another problem with the liberal free speech model is that is does not take into account the asymmetry of different positions and the reality of unequal power relations. Arguments about free speech rarely address the significant imbalances in power that exist between, for example, a wealthy white speaker with the backing of a multi-million dollar organization and members of the populations affected by their words (i.e. immigrants, people of color, queer and trans people, low-wage workers, etc.). What are lost in the abstract notion of free speech are the rights of those who do not have the connections or wealth to equally participate in public discourse. The "marketplace of ideas" is like any other marketplace; those with the most resources dominate.

Finally, the trend of students and local community members protesting reactionary speakers at universities has led to outcry about the "intolerant left" violating the free speech of the far right. But those who are so determined to protect the free speech of fascists, white supremacists, and other hate groups should be equally as concerned with protecting the right of dissidents to protest these viewpoints. While giving a speech attacking individuals and groups based on their race, sexuality, or immigration status is considered legal and acceptable by universities, the protests of those who find these viewpoints reprehensible are often censured or punished by the same institutions. It should give us pause that recentmodel legislationto protect "free speech" on campuses and to discipline those who protest controversial speakers comes from conservative think tanks The Heritage Foundation, The Goldwater Institute, and The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Strategic Interventions

Since the 1980s, when the Federalist Society began sending extremely conservative speakers to law schools, concerned law students and faculty have responded in various ways. In 2001, theAmerican Constitution Societywas formed to help counter-balance the effect of the Federalists in law schools. The ACS position aligns with the general liberal perspective described above and held by the ACLU. By taking part in the Society's debates, and regularly co-sponsoring them, they hope to provide other, less harmful perspectives. NLG faculty members have also taken part in these exchanges, although Guild members are generally more cautious about participating in debates that are framed in biased or oppressive ways. While there are advantages to debating conservative speakers head on, this approach also comes with the danger of legitimizing or validating the terms of the debate. However, taking part and challenging the framing of the debate itself can be a politically useful strategy under some circumstances. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the reality that Federalist Society speakers have access to resources that make it far easier for them to have a platform than many ACS or NLG speakers. While the Federalists can afford to pay for travel, expenses, and honorariums for their spokespeople, many progressive speakers have to turn down speaking engagements for lack of funds.

Federalist Society speakers have often been met with protests from law student groups like the NLG, OutLaws, and If/When/How. Challenges to reactionary speakers have included putting up flyers with information about the speakers and their background, circulating petitions to have the event cancelled, organizing counter-events and speakers, writing op-ed pieces for campus and local publications, sending students to the event with a list of critical questions, and protesting outside or within the event by walking out or holding signs. University administration responses to these kinds of interventions have often been to stifle the protest, although these activities also fall under the banner of protected speech. Law students report having their fliers removed from the campus, being threatened with disciplinary sanctions, or even being told that protesting will lead to negative evaluations on the Character and Fitness Exam required for the bar. While the rights of dissenting students are suppressed, the ability of far right speakers to disseminate hateful rhetoric is protected through claims of the right to free speech.

These are only some strategies for confronting harmful speech in educational settings. While liberal advocates are quick to invoke First Amendment arguments to allow all speech, there are other considerations to take into account as well, such as: Who is able and allowed to speak, under what conditions and with what consequences? What voices are silenced and what forms of dissent are possible (or not)? Universities can use free speech principles to justify invitations to xenophobic and hate-mongering speakers, but not inviting or funding these people is not necessarily a violation of their free speech, especially when they have many other platforms for getting their message out. Private schools, for example, are not bound by the First Amendment in the same ways as public schools, and can therefore make policies about hate speech that limit invitations and/or funding to reactionary speakers and groups. When the views of speakers are actually dangerous to other people, universities should consider the implications and balance the need for a diversity of viewpoints with the consequences of invalidating the humanity or rights of entire groups of already disadvantaged people.

[1]Jerry M. Landay, "The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law,"Washington Monthly, March 2000.

[2]For more information, see theFederalist Society website. Background information can be found at fed-soc.org/aboutus/page/our-background.

[3]Michael Avery and Danielle McLaughlin,The Federalist Society: How Conservatives Took the Law Back From Liberals(Vanderbilt University Press, 2016).

[4]Ralph G. Neas, "The Federalist Society from Obscurity to Power: The Right Wing Lawyers Who Are Shaping the Bush Administration's Decisions on Legal Policies and Judicial Nominations," Report of the People for the American Way Foundation, 2001. Available at: http://files.pfaw.org/uploads/2017/01/federalist-society-report.pdf.

View post:
Free Speech on Campus: A Critical Analysis - Truth-Out

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler speaks with citizens at the Hollywoodvigil.

Bradley W.Parks/OPB

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has urgedthe federal government to revoke a permit fora free speech rally and to refuse a permit for an anti-Muslim march planned for Portland in earlyJune.

Wheeler made the request in light of a gruesome stabbing on a MAX light-rail train Friday, May 26. Two men died and another was seriously injured when they intervened to defend two teenage girls from a mans bigotedtirade.

In a series of posts on Twitter, Wheeler said the events should becanceled.

Our City is mourning, the mayor wrote, our communitys anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficultsituation.

TheTrump Free Speech Rally is scheduled for Sunday, June 4. Its billed on Facebook as an uplifting experienceto bring back strength and courage to those who believe infreedom.

The rally is set to be held at the Terry D. Schrunk Plaza directly across from Portland City Hall. The site is managed by the U.S. General Services Administration, which issues permits for its use.

The other event is called the March Against Sharia, a nationwide anti-Muslim demonstration organized by ACT For America, which calls itself the NRA of national security. It is scheduled for June 10, also at SchrunkPlaza.

In addition to requesting action from the federal government, Wheeler said his office is reaching out to event coordinators to cancel thedemonstrations.

I urge them to ask their supporters to stay away from Portland, Wheeler wrote. There is never a place for bigotry orhatred in our community, and especially notnow.

It was not immediately clear whether permits have been issued for thedemonstrations.

Wheeler said the city of Portland will not issue permits for eitherevent.

Jeremy Joseph Christian, the man accused of murder in the MAX stabbings, attended a similar far-right rally on April 29 called a March for Free Speech in East Portland. Police confiscated a baseball bat Christian took to the rally. He frequently used the n-word and salutedHitler.

Christian has posted offensive material and anti-Muslim rhetoric on social media, said Heidi Beirich, with the Southern Poverty LawCenter.

This guy was definitely expressing anti-Semitic and pro-Hitler material, anti-Muslim rants as well, Beirich told OPB. We have sadly seen far too much violence from people who espouse theseideas.

Wheeler also called on other state and local agencies to back him up in thisrequest.

I am calling on every elected leader in Oregon, every legal agency, every level of law enforcement to stand with me in preventing another tragedy, hesaid.

The ACLU of Oregon responded to the mayors statement, saying in a series of tweets the city cannot shut down speech we disagreewith.

The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period, the ACLUwrote. It continued, If we allow the government to shut down speech for some, we all will pay the price down theline.

See the original post here:
Portland Mayor Calls For Shutdown Of 'Trump Free Speech,' Anti-Muslim Rallies - OPB News

By John Rice-Cameron

In February, rioters rampaged through Berkeleys campus, setting fire to private property, hurling firebombs at police, and assaulting various individuals. The violence prompted UC Berkeley to cancel a talk from Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editor.

Free speech is in danger on college campuses across our country. Too often, students shelter themselves from opinions with which they disagree, claiming that the espousal of these ideas makes them feel unsafe.

In recent months, no student organization has fought more gallantly on the front-lines of this battle than the Berkeley College Republicans. The universitys cancellation of conservative firebrand Ann Coulters appearance at Berkeley marked the third time that the school buckled to violent threats and intimidation against Berkeley College Republicans (BCR) and its guest speakers. I interviewed Troy Worden, President of Berkeley College Republicans, to get his thoughts on the aforementioned events and on the state of free speech on college campuses.

Worden placed part of the blame on an extremely hostile campus environment. He recounted how several members of their organization were called names, spat at, threatened and attacked.

Unfortunately it was not only students, but also the university who contributed to the silencing of free speech at Berkeley. Worden claimed the university pulled the plug on these events due to mere threats of violence. This prompted them to place arbitrary restrictions on BCR events, making these events [virtually] impossible. The university was intent on making sure that BCR could not go host a high-profile speaker, by not permitting high-profile speakers after 3PM on campus, making it exceedingly difficult for many students to attend due to their class schedules. Worse still, the university was hesitant to condemn the violent threats of protesters. It took UC Berkeley six months to denounce the riots that led to the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event.

Worden accused professors of being directly responsible for the violence that has lately been directed at conservatives and conservative speakers on campuses. Since the 2016 presidential election, Worden noted, we have seen professors and teachers go out of their way in class making death threats against the President and try to get the university or school to punish students who record them. Furthermore, Worden discussed how radical professors have, for decades, perpetuated the idea that America is an evil white supremacist nation, and [more recently] that Donald Trump epitomizes that white supremacist representation. Professors cannot make such inflammatory claims and not expect people to react violently. While radicals have long enjoyed an outsized presence in academia, professors inciting violence is a disturbing development.

Worden provided further insight into the mindset of campus radicals, explaining how their tactics and attitudes have changed since the beginning of President Trumps term. In separating todays so-called Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) from the civil rights leaders of the past, Worden argued that we now see untrained, young individuals resort to violent protest to advance their goals. While activists have resorted to violent protests in the past, with the 1960s anti-war protests as an example, this behavior by todays SJWs reflects what Worden called, a fundamental misunderstanding of history. He recounted how other peaceful forms of civil disobedience were successful because civil rights leaderswere proud and believed in the justice they are fighting for. However, many of the the violent, so-called anti-fascist activists of today are not willing to show their face[s] in public, a reflection of cowardice. To explain the heightened aggression on campuses, Worden hypothesized that because college students overwhelmingly dislike President Trump, radicals feel emboldened: a phenomenon that manifests itself in the recent torrent of physical assaults, death threats, and destruction of private property.

Worden concluded by exploring what conservatives can do to shatter the monopoly on intellectual discourse which many leftists believe they are entitled to: Do not be silenced when the university cancels your event, do not be intimidated, the minute you cave in, the minute you dont make the infringements a big deal, you lose. According to Worden, College Republicans have the ability to lead the new free speech movement. If leftists at Berkeley were the champions of free speech in the 1970s, then conservatives at Berkeley have certainly taken on their mantle.

University administrators should no longer yield to those who seek to withhold freedom of speech from anyone. Universities can only fulfill their roles as intellectually open institutions if they respect everybodys right to be heard. The treatment of Berkeley College Republicans by the school administration, students, and outside agitators should disturb people of all political persuasions. If universities continue to cave to the demands of so-called anti-fascists, the persistent debasement of free speech will create an intellectually repressive environment reminiscent of true fascism.

Continue reading here:
Not Backing Down at Berkeley: Free Speech Under Siege - Stanford Review

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

If you dare question the (il)liberal orthodoxy, youre a pariah. And an adjunct professor at UCLA is in danger of becoming another victim.

Keith Fink has taught classes on free speech, contemporary issues, and entertainment law at UCLA for a decade. A lawyer by trade, Fink went on Fox News Channels Tucker Carlson Tonight show earlier in May to discuss the schools attempt tofire him in a star chamber review meeting that excluded him and his representatives.

The administration doesnt like what I have to say, Fink told the Los Angeles Daily News. I also support students basic rights to due process and the school doesnt like that. I show the students how their rights are violated. I dont believe in trigger warnings. I dont walk on eggshells. I dont believe in safe spaces. I run against that current.

The current at UCLA, as well as at most American colleges, is to stifle free speech or anything that runs contrary to the politically correct dogma now practiced on many campuses. Last June an appearanceby former Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos at the school was canceled after protesters blocked the entrance at the beginning, followed by a bomb threat. Another Milo event at UCLA earlier this yearwas also scuttled after the school claimed that it could not provide adequate security.

Fink is now undergoing a review process that he said probably willlead to his dismissal, since hes not a tenured professor at UCLA. His plight has drawn the attention of his students, who held a rally on campus Friday with signs saying free speech is under attack and keep your agenda out of our classroom to support him.

UCLA officials issued a statement Friday with regard to Finks employment, claiming that (t)he content of his courses has never been curtailed. UCLAs process for reviewing instructors is comprehensive and fair, and he has been afforded the full due process considerations mandated by the collective bargaining agreement.

Fink teaches in the Communications Studies Department, which happens to be the same one that your humble correspondent taught nearly20 years ago as a teaching assistant while a graduate student at UCLA. I taught several communications classes on journalism, and one time was asked to givea lecture for an adjunct professor who needed the day off.

Before deliveringmy presentation in front of about 300 students, I carefully reviewed the course material and couldnt help but laugh at the boilerplate liberal talking points about the state of journalism. The most galling item was the claim that the media establishment had an overwhelmingly conservative bias keep in mind that this was at a time whenFox News was in its infancy and the Internet was still being invented by Al Gore.

I ripped apart that lecture and instead gave a talk on the medias liberal bias, backed by my own experience as an actual practicing journalist (as opposed to most professors who teach in communications, including the one I was subbing for). Near the end, I held a no-holds-barred Q&A session and gladly answered each and every question. My presentation was received very well, with a number of students commending me for a refreshing and eye-opening discourse afterward.

Needless to say, I was not asked back for more.

That might be the fate awaiting Fink at UCLA as well since he clearly holds a view on free speech thats no longer acceptable in academia.

That would be a shame, said Mick Mathis, a senior at UCLA who attended Fridays rally.

This is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, Mathis told the Daily News. And its not a marketplace of ideas if theyre trying to get rid of somebody with a contradictory viewpoint.

Follow Samuel Chi on Twitter @ThePlayoffGuru.

The rest is here:
Free Speech Under Siege at UCLA as Conservative Professor Tries to Save Job - Breitbart News

We at the ACLU are often criticized for our unyielding defense of free speech rights. Even our closest allies complain when we defend the free speech rights of Klansmen and assorted other racists, misogynists, online haters, fake news creators, and other toxic speakers. In particular, we hear that such defenses of free speech rights serve not to protect the weak but to protect the powerful in their attacks on the vulnerable.

Recently Ive been re-reading Taylor Branchs Pulitzer Prize-winning book Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, a history of the civil rights movement with a focus on the life of Martin Luther King. Id forgotten what a fantastic telling of the civil rights story it and its two sequels are. But also, rereading the story in light of my work at the ACLU, Ive been struck by the injustice not only of segregation, separate but equal, and the deprivation of voting rights, but the key role that egregious violations of free speech rights played in Southern officials opposition to the movement. Its a reminder that when you mess with First Amendment rights, its ultimately the weak and powerless who lose out the most, even when those rights do sometimes protect the powerful.

All across the segregated South, many thousands of Black Americans went to jail protesting segregation and many of those who went to prison did so on the grounds that they were violating injunctions against protesting and assorted other unconstitutional restrictions on speech.

A key chapter in the movement, for example, was the Albany Movement of 1961 and 1962 in Albany, Georgia. At one point, when a group of prominent Black citizens went to pray for justice on the steps of city hall there, they were arrested. For praying. Several months later, Martin Luther King himself was also arrested in Albany for praying outside city hall for an end to segregation.

A year later, when the focus of the movement had shifted to Birmingham, Sheriff Bull Connor obtained an injunction from a compliant state judge ordering 133 specific people, including movement leaders, not to engage in parading, demonstrating, boycotting, trespassing and picketing, or even conduct customarily known as kneel-ins in churches. It was Kings violation of this injunction that landed him in prison for the stint during which he wrote the famous Letter From a Birmingham Jail.

In 1962, Robert Moses, the fearless and zen-like civil rights hero who circulated across Alabama and Mississippi trying to register Blacks to vote, was handing out leaflets in Sunflower, Mississippi, announcing a voter registration drive. He was arrested by police on the charge of distributing literature without a permit.

In February 1963, a suspicious fire destroyed several black businesses in Greenwood, Mississippi. When one local activist named Sam Block speculated that the fire was a bungled act of arson aimed at the SNCC offices next door, he was arrested by Greenwood police for statements calculated to breach the peace.

Later that year, John Lewis the man now serving in Congress whom President Trump slammed as All talk, talk, talk no action or results was arrested in Selma, Alabama, for carrying a sign outside the courthouse that read One Man/One Vote.

In all these cases and many others like them, the violations of First Amendment rights were so flagrant that they would be laughable were they not such deadly serious business for the men and women risking their lives confronting segregation. Official defenders of segregation seemed to feel the need to keep up a pretense of legality by wrapping their arrests in a justification of injunctions or patently unconstitutional charges like distributing literature without a permit.

When activists were arrested for such things, civil rights groups often appealed to the Justice Department, headed by JFKs brother Robert, but the political interests of the Kennedy Administration were for the whole thing to just go away. After all, Kennedy was elected by a Democratic coalition of White southerners, northern liberals, and Blacks that civil rights split wide open. The Kennedys didnt want their popularity to collapse in the South, and they didnt want to put their fellow Democrats the Southern governors in a bad position with federal intervention.

As a result, civil rights activists claims about the unconstitutional suppression of their speech had to wind their way through the court system largely without DOJ assistance. Because few southern judges were willing to uphold the First Amendment rights of Black Americans, it often fell to federal courts to uphold their rights, and that took time, during which charges could hang over activists.

In one famous case, a group of King supporters ran an ad in The New York Times appealing for donations for the civil rights cause. Among other things, the ad criticized the police in Montgomery, Alabama although it contained several inaccuracies. In response, Montgomery police commissioner L.B. Sullivan filed a defamation lawsuit against top civil rights leaders, including Ralph Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth. This was part of a larger effort by Southern officials to use libel law to squelch press coverage of the civil rights movement. When Alabama courts ruled in favor of Sullivan, officials began to seize personal property including automobiles and family land from the civil rights leaders, driving several of them to move out of the South, including Shuttlesworth, who left his Alabama church to move to Cincinnati. The case hung over the activists (and the New York Times) for years until the Supreme Court finally dismissed Sullivans claims in the landmark 1964 free speech case New York Times v. Sullivan.

The illegitimate nature of the charges that were thrown at many civil rights activists has echoes today in the vague, catch-all charges like disturbing the peace that police often abusively levy against protesters and others that anger a police officer in one way or another. It also has echoes in the attempts of some in state legislatures to criminalize dissent in new and creative ways.

When the authorities are allowed to get away with such things, the people who pay most sharply are the people who are out in the streets, trying to push their country to become a better, more just place. Its easy to think of the civil rights movement as a campaign against segregation, which it certainly was, but it was also a campaign for the full spectrum of rights, including freedom of expression. (And lets not forget that civil rights activists privacy rights were of course also violated, most famously by the FBI with its wiretaps of not only of Martin Luther King but of other activists, too.) There was a reason it was called a rights movement.

As my colleague Lee Rowland recently pointed out, our free speech rights are indivisible, with civil rights leaders speech protected by the courts, for example, based on rulings protecting the speech of racists speaking at KKK rallies. If we dont stand up for the First Amendment when racist speech is censored, it is the weak, the powerless, minorities, and those who seek change who will be hurt most in the end.

As Ive argued before, it is in times of political turmoil and conflict when our civil liberties really get tested when angry people who want to change the world hit the streets in protest, and others, such as police officers and other officials, feel contempt and hatred for those doing the protesting. The Sixties was one of those times. Were arguably in the middle of another one. If we are, many protesters will have even more cause to be glad that our First Amendment rights are as solidly established as they are and to hope they remain that way.

See original here:
Civil Rights Movement Is a Reminder That Free Speech Is There to Protect the Weak - ACLU (blog)

I shook the alleged killer's filthy hand 28 days ago. Mine feels tainted now, as though I somehow sanctioned his reported act, though I was only trying to get some information out of him.

He had just marched through Montavilla Park chanting "nigger" and throwing fascist salutes, wearing an American Revolutionary War flag like a cape.

It was this act that sparked the first moment of chaos at the "free speech" rally on April 29 in Montavilla Park, which then proceeded down 82nd Avenue, a miserable replacement for a neighborhood parade canceled due to the threat of political violence. The man in the flag cape was quickly swarmed by scrawny young antifa kids, then by officers from the Portland Police Bureau.

After the scrum dispersed, I stood by watching while police searched his backpack. They seemed to know that, prior to the march, he had posted a Facebook message threatening to "shoot to kill POLICE if they ATTEMPT DISARM" anyone openly carrying a firearm to the rally.

Jeremy Christian at a free speech rally in Portland last month. (Joe Riedl)

"Any guns in there?" an officer asked.

"Just comic books," he said. He was a big fan.

"I think that guy is mentally ill," one of the officers confided.

Almost certainly. Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, who was arrested yesterday on suspicion of killing two men who tried to protect two dark-skinned women wearing hijabs from his racist abuse, is also a notorious racist from North Portland who networked with other racists when he wasn't doing time (and, presumably, when he was).

When he extended his hand, I noticed the Nordic rune tattoos on his forearm. On his Facebook page, amid rants against organized religion and memes poking fun at Jews sentenced to die in the Nazi concentration camps, were other posts revealing his crazed "Misanthropic Nihilist" philosophy.

Christian expressed support for "Sanders/Stein 2017which some will certainly seize upon as a distraction. And it is a distraction, because the main current of Christian's ravings, online and off, was race hatred. "I want a job in Norway cutting off the heads of people that Circumcize Babies," he wrote.

On a fake news story showing Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab: "I'll knock that Hijab off her faster than you can say Burka in Pig Latin if she steps in Rip City."

He called President Donald Trump the antichrist, but meant it as a compliment.

Jeremy Christian (left, with backpack) at a free speech rally in Portland last month. (Joe Riedl)

"If Donald Trump is the Next Hitler then I am joining his SS to put an end to Monotheist Question. All Zionist Jews, All Christians who do not follow Christ's teaching of Love, Charity, and Forgiveness And All Jihadi Muslims are going to Madagascar or the Ovens/FEMA Camps!!! Does this make me a fascist!!!"

And so on: "If you support Israel for Zionist homeland for Jews then you should also support Cascadia as a White homeland for whites only racists"

"I'm not Anti-Semitic. I'm Anti-Zionist and Anti-Monotheist."

Christian also has a disturbing track record of criminal activity, includingas The Oregonian reported this morninga North Portland robbery in 2002 that ended when police shot him in the face.

When I caught up with him at the 82nd Avenue march last month, Christian said he was there to support "free speech" and demanded to know which side I was on. "Or are you one of these guys that tries to pretend you're neutral?" he said.

I knew I was on whatever side he wasn't, but I just kept my mouth shut and let him talk. I didn't get much information out of Christian, or his friend, an older guy from the suburbs who was missing a few teeth, wearing dusty black leather biker gear, who refused to give his name because he was "too known."

The organizer of the march, Vancouver's Joey Gibson of the "Patriot Prayer" group that has invited more racist and anti-Semitic speakers to a June 4 rally in downtown Portland, disavowed any association with Christian.

But I got the distinct impression that Christian and his skittish friend had come to the rally with a larger crew.

Portland Police mug shot of Jeremy Christian.

As we spoke on the curb, I saw them signal to a fat man with the shaved head who was driving a yellow pickup truck flying a "Blue Lives Matter" flag off the back. The truck proceeded to circle the area as the right-wing marchers traded insults with antifa while marching down the city's immigrant main street.

Some reports will emphasize Christian's criminal record and his mental illness, just as early reports stressed the "random" nature of the double murder he is alleged to have committed yesterday, but it would be negligent not to investigate the possibility that Christian committed a premeditated hate crime, and that others may have known of his intention or encouraged him in the act.

The targets of his hate may have been broadMuslims, Jews, feminists, liberals, policebut there's no doubt Christian had announced his intention to kill.

Excerpt from:
The Man Accused of MAX Double Murder Is a Portland White Supremacist Who Delivered Nazi Salutes and Racial ... - Willamette Week

Students and supporters of a UCLA adjunct professor are protesting what they say is pressure the university is putting on him because of his outspoken conservative politics.

Keith Fink, a lawyer, has taught classes on free speech, contemporary issues, entertainment law and other subjects at UCLA for 10 years. He and student supporters said he may be dismissed from the school because administrators disagree with his views and practices, such as holding seminars on students rights and interviews he gave on Foxs Tucker Carlson Tonight about his charge that UCLA is blocking students from taking his popular free speech course.

The administration doesnt like what I have to say, Fink said by phone Friday. I also support students basic rights to due process and the school doesnt like that. ... I show the students how their rights are violated. ... I dont believe in trigger warnings. I dont walk on eggshells. I dont believe in safe spaces. I run against that current.

Fink, an adjunct professor at the university, said a recent shift in the leadership of the Communication Studies department, where he teaches, has led to pressure on him. He is undergoing a review process that he said could result in his dismissal and which UCLA said is routine for lecturers who have completed 18 quarters of teaching at the school. Fink said he didnt accept a salary in his first years of teaching at UCLA, which is why, administrators told him, the review is taking place now rather than several years ago.

About 25 students and supporters, carrying signs saying Free speech is under attack and Keep your agenda out of our classroom, gathered Friday on campus before bringing a list of demands to Laura Gmez, interim dean of UCLA College Division of Social Sciences which oversees the Communication Studies department, who wasnt in her office when they delivered their list. Among the demands: that Fink be allowed to keep teaching and that the school implement curriculums that increase intellectual tolerance on campus.

Mick Mathis, a senior at UCLA, said pressure on Fink is about curtailing free speech.

This is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, and its not a marketplace of ideas if theyre trying to get rid of somebody with a contradictory viewpoint, Mathis said.

RELATED STORY: Student sues Pierce College over tiny free speech zone

Requests for comment sent to Gmez and to Kerri Johnson, dean of the Communication Studies department, werent returned by deadline Friday.

But university officials issued a statement in response to questions about whether Finks employment at UCLA is under consideration:

Advertisement

The content of his courses has never been curtailed, and as a lecturer, Mr. Fink is protected by a collective bargaining agreement between UCLA and the American Federation of Teachers, the union to which he belongs as a lecturer. UCLAs process for reviewing instructors is comprehensive and fair, as well as respectful of the privacy normally accorded to personnel procedures. His current review is in-progress, and he has been afforded the full due process considerations mandated by the collective bargaining agreement and that every lecturer undergoing this review receives, said the statement sent by UCLA spokeswoman Rebecca Kendall.

Cynthia Truhan, a UCLA alumna and volunteer at the school, said she came to the protest Friday out of concern that the situation reflects a chilling of free speech at a public school.

As an alumni, I am highly disturbed, because now in our own backyard is a firm example of what is happening across the nation, which I feel is a silencing of free speech of any divergent opinion that varies from the base of that particular university, Truhan said.

Fink and students said that a popular class he teaches, Race, Sex & Politics: Free Speech on Campus, has consistently had more students who want to attend than spots available, yet the school has effectively reduced the class size to around 200 through a cap on enrollment and by moving it to a smaller classroom. Fink said he was allowed nearly 300 seats for past sessions of the class.

RELATED STORY: Occidental College to investigate vandalism of 9/11 memorial

Fink, an alumnus of UCLA, said he is outspoken in his political viewpoints. Asked if he has ever used a racial slur in his class, as a student alleged in one news report, Fink said he has only in the context of discussing free speech.

N-----, c--- ... Of course! I teach harassment. You have to use those words in discussions with students about what constitutes a hostile environment, he said. Its all contextual. That infuriates me, the insinuation that Im using racial epithets, out of context.

Go here to see the original:
UCLA students say 'free speech is under attack' and a conservative ... - LA Daily News

On todays homepage, Frederick Hess and Grant Addison have a piece arguing that while state-level legislation is necessary to confront the campus free-speech crisis, such bills are insufficient remedies by themselves and can even be abused by administrators if their application is not carefully monitored. Taking off from the recent passage of a campus free-speech bill in Tennessee, Hess and Addison point out that weak-kneed administrators may refuse to enforce discipline and may apply it unfairly when they do. Hess and Addison conclude that after Tennessee-style free speech bills are passed: the next challenge is to monitor whether campuses honor these protections, find ways to challenge the culture and blind spots of university leaders, and ask what more might be done to ensure that campuses are bastions of free inquiry and not hothouses for ideological thugs.

These are important points. It needs to be said, however, that the campus free speech bill recently passed in Tennessee is not, as Hess and Addison claim, chiefly based on the Goldwater proposal. Hess and Addison cite a report from Chronicle of Higher Education which treats the Tennessee bill as one of many broadly based on the model legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute. Yet while the Goldwater proposal may have had some influence on the Tennessee bill, that legislation is in fact quite different overall from the Goldwater model.

In particular, the Tennessee bill lacks critical provisions from the Goldwater model that press administrators to enforce sanctions on students who shout-down visiting speakers, and that set up an oversight system to ensure that such discipline is neither shirked, on the one hand, nor abused and misapplied, on the other.

Of course I agree with Hess and Addison that legislation by itself is only a first step. Even if a bill closely based on the Goldwater model should pass, administrators would have to be monitored, and the broader cultural problems that lay behind the campus free speech crisis would need to be addressed. I merely note that the Goldwater proposal was crafted with these larger concerns in mind. In fact, I pointed out yesterday on the Corner that the Tennessee bill and several others currently being considered lack the Goldwater models enforcement and oversight mechanisms, and that this is a problem.

The full Goldwater model includes a provision that mandates suspension for any student twice found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others. This is designed to prevent administrators from repeatedly handing out meaningless slaps on the wrist. At the same time, the Goldwater model establishes an oversight system based, not in the administration, but in state university boards of trustees. A trustee committee must submit an annual report on the administrative handling of discipline to the public, the trustees, the Governor, and the legislature.

Since the trustees have the power to replace the universitys leading administrator, and the legislature holds the power of the purse, a negative report could have serious consequences for administrators who shirk or abuse the disciplinary powers set out by the new law.

Trustees will be more inclined to criticize administrators in some states than in others. But in states where trustees whitewash bad administrative decisions, the annual oversight report can serve to focus public criticism of both administrators and trustees. In general, the Goldwater models annual report is designed to draw trustees and the public more fully into the oversight process. Of course this vindicates Hesss and Addisons point about the need for public to stay watchful lest administrators shirk or abuse their powers. My point is simply that the Goldwater model anticipates this need and includes mechanisms to encourage it. The Tennessee bill cited by Hess and Addison, however, lacks these mechanisms precisely because it is not closely based on the Goldwater proposal.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

See the original post:
Tennessee Free Speech Bill Not Primarily Goldwater Based - National Review

In May, Tennessee enacted Senate Bill 723, the Campus Free Speech Protection Act. The law is based on model legislation drafted by the Goldwater Institute and has been hailed as the nations most comprehensive protection for campus speech by FIREs Robert Shibley. Similar legislation has been proposed in statehouses across the nation. The bill promises to end overbroad speech codes, ludicrously named free-speech zones, and other assaults on the First Amendment. The statute is an important victory, yet lawmakers and like-minded allies need to recognize that it is only a start. To see why, its useful to remember the hypocritical and selective manner in which college officials wield their existing policies.

Case in point: This month, Paul Griffiths, a professor of Catholic theology at Duke Divinity School, resigned after facing backlash and formal punishment for criticizing university-sponsored racial-sensitivity training. In response to a faculty-wide e-mail strongly urging participation in the two-day Racial Equity Institute, Griffiths decried such events as anti-intellectual and wrote to his colleagues:

I exhort you not to attend this training....Itll be, I predict with confidence, intellectually flaccid: Therell be bromides, clichs, and amen-corner rah-rahs in plenty. When (if) it gets beyond that, its illiberal roots and totalitarian tendencies will show.

The divinity schools dean, Elaine Heath, deemed Griffithss statement inappropriate and implied that his response had been hatefully motivated, declaring, The use of mass emails to express racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry is offensive and unacceptable. After Griffiths refused to meet with her unless a trusted colleague could witness their conversation, Heath barred him from faculty meetings and promised that he would face further consequences. Meanwhile, the professor who issued the initial invitation filed an official complaint of harassment against Griffiths for the use of racist and/or sexist speech in such a way as to constitute a hostile workplace. Griffiths ultimately felt compelled to resign from the university.

Griffithss tale presents a remarkably different picture from the way administrators addressed concerns about faculty bigotry and harassment a decade ago, when three white members of Dukes mens lacrosse team were falsely accused of raping an African-American stripper. In that instance, less than a week after allegations became public, Duke professor Houston Baker penned an open letter demanding the immediate expulsion of the entire lacrosse team not just the three players who were accused (and ultimately cleared). There was also the infamous Group of 88 ad, in which 88 Duke professors issued a public statement that ran in the school newspaper. Entitled What Does a Social Disaster Sound Like?, the ad was paid for by the universitys African-American Studies program and claimed to be endorsed by three academic departments and 13 academic programs (although none of the departments voted on endorsement). The professors declared that the disaster represented by these (ultimately exonerated) students would not end with what the police say or the court decides. At no point, not even after the accusations were proven to be a fabrication, did Duke administrators take any action against these faculty members for violating the campuss commitment to combating intolerance and promoting a safe learning environment.

More familiar to most readers will be the contretemps that played out at Middlebury College earlier this spring, when our colleague Charles Murray was invited to speak. There, a violent crowd prevented Murray from delivering his address and then assaulted him and his hosts, ultimately hospitalizing a Middlebury professor. Forty-six days after the fact, Middlebury finally announced that its investigation had identified more than 70 individuals it believes may be subject to disciplinary procedures.

It all sounds promising enough but what did the discipline actually amount to? Middleburys student newspaper reported that most students were given an especially modest form of probation in which they have a letter placed in their file that will be removed at the end of the semester. Since Middleburys spring semester ended on May 15, all those students had to do was behave for a few weeks and the whole thing went away. Meanwhile, 19 students received an additional two semesters of probation. That was it. The college acknowledged that not a single student was suspended, kicked off campus, or otherwise visited with any meaningful consequences.

In the moments before Murray spoke, video captured Bill Burger, a Middlebury official, jovially playing the part of stern administrator. To student cheers, Burger announced, Youre going to love this next part before reading a perfunctory statement about Middleburys rules on audience conduct. Burger closes by informing the students that continued disruption may result in college discipline, up to and including suspension and is met with whoops of approval from the students. As Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, pointed out in The Federalist, Burgers lines were excerpted from Middleburys official statement on Demonstrations and Protests, but curiously omitted a few key points including this: Disruption may also result in arrest and criminal charges such as disorderly conduct or trespass. In short, Middlebury officials felt no obligation to take their own norms and policies seriously, or to mete out the appropriate consequences to those who violated them.

Some of the most glaring instances of institutional hypocrisy have played out in the University of California system, which encourages students to anonymously report any observed behavior that might include expressions of bias or hate speech, or create a hostile climate. As Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor and influential blogger, chronicled in the Washington Post, UC administrators have taught that actions that can create a hostile climate on campus include such statements as America is the land of opportunity and I believe that the most qualified person should get the job.

Despite the systems commitment to creating a welcoming environment for all, no disciplinary action has yet been taken against student protesters who shouted down Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald during her recent visit to campus. While shouting Bulls**t! Bulls**t! at a guest speaker may not be an expression of bias, it certainly violated UCLAs Principles of Community and True Bruin Respect civility policy and would seem to create a hostile climate. Stephen Bainbridge, another UCLA law professor, pointed out the hypocrisy of the whole situation on his blog (with copious links providing examples):

If the shoe had been on the other foot, and a conservative mob had shut down a progressive speaker, there would have been crying sessions, CrossCheck Live discussions, official campus statements of support, creation of a hate-speech database, and probably police intervention.

Bainbridge puts his finger on the crux of the matter, illustrating why Tennessees necessary and important Campus Free Speech Protection Act is only a start. Policies securing free speech need to be enforced, and they need to be enforced in a serious and evenhanded manner. Unfortunately, todays supine administrators have given no indication that they are up to that task yet they are the ones charged by states with breathing life into these new directives. Worse, the record gives reason to fear that campus officials may find ways to apply these new protections in troubling ways that subvert their intent. That means that the next challenge is to monitor whether campuses honor these protections, find ways to change the culture and blind spots of university leaders, and ask what more might be done to ensure that campuses are bastions of free inquiry and not hothouses for ideological thugs.

Frederick M. Hess is the director of education-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Grant Addison is a research assistant at AEI.

Read more from the original source:
College Free-Speech Laws: Necessary but Not Sufficient | National ... - National Review