Category Archives: Free Speech

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones, free speech cages, and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner but not content of expression.[citation needed]

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[3] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.[4]

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.[citation needed]

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta, Georgia set up a "designated protest zone"[5] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage."[6] "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.[7]

Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two "free speech booths" were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[8]

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. "The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged".[9] In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that "It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits... But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights."[10]

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a "protest pen" or "Boston's Camp X-Ray".[11] "Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs."[12] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: "One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.".[13] However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14]

Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places building vestibules, parking garages, or vans and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE DO not CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained some for nearly two days."[15] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, "For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election".[13]

Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[16][3] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[17][18] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to "willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in ... any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting" has also been invoked.[19][20]

Civil liberties advocates argue that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[21] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[21] The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[17][22]

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[18] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[18]

The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. "The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July."[23]

In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.

The Secret Service denies targeting the President's political opponents. "Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations," said one Secret Service spokesman.[24]

"These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"[18][25] District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"[16]

At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away. He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. "Bursey said that he asked the policeman if 'it was the content of my sign,' and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.'"[18] However, the prosecution, led by James Strom Thurmond Jr., disputes Bursey's version of events.[26] Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.[18] Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine.[18] After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.[27] In his ruling, Marchant found that "this is not to say that the Secret Service's power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area which was an issue in this case as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area."[27]

Marchant's ruling however, was criticized for three reasons:

In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ACORN v. Secret Service, representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). "The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March [2004] after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones."[29] Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ACORN v. Philadelphia, charged that the Philadelphia Police Department, on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters "further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters. A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Stefan Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders."[21][30] However, the court found the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case and dismissed it.[31]

The Secret Service says it does establish 'public viewing areas' to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech. 'Absolutely not,' said Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the agency created to protect the president. 'The Secret Service makes no distinction on the purpose, message or intent of any individual or group.' Civil libertarians dispute that. They cite a Corpus Christi, Texas, couple, Jeff and Nicole Rank, as an example. The two were arrested at a Bush campaign event in Charleston, West Virginia, on July 4, 2004, when they refused to take off anti-Bush shirts. Their shirts read, 'Love America, Hate Bush'... The ACLU found 17 cases since March 2001 in which protesters were removed during events where the president or vice president appeared. And lawyers say it's an increasing trend.[32]

The article is slightly mistaken about the contents of the shirts. While Nicole Rank's shirt did say "Love America, Hate Bush", Jeff Rank's shirt said "Regime change starts at home."[33]

The incident occurred several months after the Secret Service's pledge in ACORN v. Secret Service not to discriminate against protesters. "The charges against the Ranks were ultimately dismissed in court and the mayor and city council publicly apologized for the arrest. City officials also said that local law enforcement was acting at the request of Secret Service."[34] ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen pointed out that "The Secret Service has promised to not curtail the right to dissent at presidential appearances, and yet we are still hearing stories of people being blocked from engaging in lawful protest," said Hansen. "It is time for the Secret Service to stop making empty promises."[34] The Ranks subsequently filed a lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, against Deputy Assistant to the President Gregory Jenkins and the Secret Service. "The lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, is seeking unspecified damages as well as a declaration that the actions leading to the removal of the Ranks from the Capitol grounds were unconstitutional."[34] In August 2007, the Ranks settled their lawsuit against the Federal Government. The government paid them $80,000, but made no admission of wrongdoing.[35] The Ranks' case against Gregory Jenkins is still pending in the District of Columbia.[36]

As a result of ACLU subpoenas during the discovery in the Rank lawsuit, the ACLU obtained the White House's previously-classified presidential advance manual.[37] The manual gives people organizing presidential visits specific advice for preventing or obstructing protests. "There are several ways the advance person" the person organizing the presidential visit "can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route. The formation of 'rally squads' is a common way to prepare for demonstrators... The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform... As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."[37]

The use of free speech zones on university campuses is controversial. Many universities created on-campus free speech zones during the 1960s and 1970s, during which protests on-campus (especially against the Vietnam War) were common. Generally, the requirements are that the university is given advance notice and that they are held in locations that do not disrupt classes.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that non-disruptive speech is permitted in public schools. However, this does not apply to private universities. In September 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down the free speech zone policy at Texas Tech University. "According to the opinion of the court, campus areas such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other areas are designated as public forums, regardless of whether the university has chosen to officially designate the areas as such. The university may open more of the campus as public forums for its students, but it cannot designate fewer areas... Not all places within the boundaries of the campus are public forums, according to Cummings' opinion. The court declared the university's policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums".[38]

In 2007, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a survey of 346 colleges and Universities in the United States.[39] Of those institutions, 259 (75%) maintain policies that "both clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech."

In December 2005, the College Libertarians at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro staged a protest outside the University's designated protest zones. The specific intent of the protest was to provoke just such a charge, in order to "provoke the system into action into a critical review of what's going on."[40] Two students, Allison Jaynes and Robert Sinnott, were brought up on charges under the student code of conduct of "violation of respect",[41] for refusing to move when told to do so by a university official.[40] The university subsequently dropped honor code charges against the students.[40] "University officials said the history of the free-speech zones is not known. 'It predated just about everybody here," said Lucien 'Skip' Capone III, the university attorney. The policy may be a holdover from the Vietnam War and civil rights era, he said.'"[40]

A number of colleges and universities have revised or revoked free speech zone policies in the last decade, including: Tufts University,[42]Appalachian State University,[42] and West Virginia University.[42][43] In August, 2006, Penn State University revised its seven-year-old rules restricting the rights of students to protest. "In effect, the whole campus is now a 'free-speech zone.'"[44]

Controversies have also occurred at the University of Southern California,[45]Indiana University,[46] the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,[47] and Brigham Young University.[48][49]

At Marquette University, philosophy department chairman James South ordered graduate student Stuart Ditsler to remove an unattributed Dave Barry quote from the door to the office that Ditsler shared with three other teaching assistants, calling the quote patently offensive. (The quote was: "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.") South claimed that the University's free-speech zone rules required Ditsler to take it down. University spokeswoman Brigid O'Brien Miller stated that it was "a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom."[50][51] Ultimately, the quote was allowed to remain, albeit with attribution.[52]

For example, the Louisiana State University Free Speech Alley (or Free Speech Plaza) was utilized in November 2015 when Louisiana gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards was publicly endorsed by former opponent and republican Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne.[53] The Consuming Fire Fellowship, a church located in rural Woodville, Mississippi, often sends members to convene at the universities free speech alley to preach their views of Christianity. The members have often been met with strong resistance and resentment by the student body.[54][55] Ivan Imes, a retired engineer who holds "Jesus Talks" for students at the university, said in an interview, "Give the church a break. The don't understand love. They don't understand forgiveness."[56]

As of March 2017[update], four states had passed legislation outlawing public colleges and universities from establishing free speech zones. The first state to do so was Virginia in 2014,[57] followed by Missouri in 2015,[58]Arizona in 2016,[59] and Kentucky in 2017.[60]

Designated protest areas were established during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Summit in Ottawa, Canada. Although use of the areas was voluntary and not surrounded by fences, some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them "protest pens."[61]

During the 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, over 10,000 protesters were present. Wan Chai Sports Ground and Wan Chai Cargo Handling Basin were designated as protest zones. Police wielded sticks, used gas grenades and shot rubber bullets at some of the protesters. They arrested 910 people, 14 were charged, but none were convicted.

Three protest parks were designated in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympics, at the suggestion of the IOC. All 77 applications to protest there had been withdrawn or denied, and no protests took place. Four persons who applied to protest were arrested or sentenced to reeducation.[62][63]

In the Philippines, designated free speech zones are called freedom parks.

Here is the original post:
Free speech zone - Wikipedia

The Jerusalem Post

After long silence, ADL defends Linda Sarsour's right to free speech The Jerusalem Post As has been our mission for over a century, ADL will stand up against the defamation of the Jewish people and for equal justice for all, which includes robust protections for free speech in our society, the organization concluded. But, we will not ... Right wing free speech activist supports Palestinian-American speaker despite assumption she 'hates America'Raw Story Linda Sarsour selected as CUNY graduation speaker sparks outcryWashington Times MILO and Pamela Geller Protest Sharia-Advocate Linda Sarsour in NYCBreitbart News Heat Street -Middle East Eye -Algemeiner all 17 news articles »

Visit link:
After long silence, ADL defends Linda Sarsour's right to free speech - The Jerusalem Post

Stanleys important post on the free-speech provision enacted in Louisiana shows how out of touch I am. My first reaction, upon reading the part about how a second offense for shutting down a speaker mandates a one-year suspension or expulsion, was that the law needs a provision along the lines of: The mandate of a one-year suspension or expulsion penalty for a second offense should not be construed to preclude imposition of those penalties for a first offense.

To my mind, an essential purpose of the university (if the universities we now have can still be thought essential) is the free exchange of ideas, very much including ideas that students may find disagreeable or noxious. If that exchange is prevented in the university, then the university is not worth having there being plenty of ways to access and learn important information in the 21st century without attending a college campus.

We are dealing with young people, of course. Having been one, I can attest that there are many foolish things done that might warrant discipline short of suspension or expulsion. But we are talking here about behavior that undermines the core educational mission and, in many instances, does so through behavior that violates criminal laws against assault and damaging property. I dont question the proposition that there could be extenuating circumstances in the rare individual case that might warrant less severe penalties. But it seems to me that preventing scholars and other experts from engaging with students should presumptively result in suspension or expulsion.

Alas, as Stanley explains, the biggest hurdle the model Goldwater legislation faces is the mandatory penalty for a second offense. I guess Im old school when it comes to school, but I think thats nuts.

Read this article:
Is Free Speech So Diminished That Only Recidivists Should Be Punished? - National Review

In the realm of political odd couples, state Sen. Jim Nielsen of Gerber and aspiring public interest lawyer Nicolas Tomas may be among the oddest. Tomas, a 26-year-old Democrat, is a promoter of the vegan lifestyle. Nielsen, a 72-year-old Republican, is a cattleman and dairyman by trade.

The unlikely duo found common cause in pushing back against what they see as a climate of restricted free speech on college campuses. Two years ago, Tomas sued Cal Poly Pomona for preventing him from distributing pro-vegan leaflets outside of the free speech zone a 144-square-foot area designated for such activities. Now, Nielsen is carrying a bill to dismantle the use of these zones on public campuses.

The growing number of lawsuits aimed at knocking down speech limits on campus along with recent high-profile cancellations of controversial speakers such as Ann Coulter at UC Berkeley because of safety concerns has sparked a raucous public debate over how the 1st Amendment is practiced at colleges and universities.

And California legislators, particularly Republicans, have responded with proposals to hem in the ability of schools to regulate where and how students share their views.

The motivation is just to ensure there truly is free speech on our campuses in California, Nielsen said.

Nielsen said it was a great irony that California, the birthplace of the free speech movement at UC Berkeley in the 1960s, is now facing scrutiny over how students can express themselves on campus.

Ann Coulter, free speech and UC Berkeley: How a talk became a political bombshell

But todays debate is a natural product of our polarized political landscape, said Kevin Baker, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

Its understandable that people react very strongly to ideas and speech that they find offensive frankly, that a lot of people find offensive, Baker said.

Still, he added, weve learned through history that the best response to speech that we don't agree with is more speech and more education.

The proposed measures tackle the issue of campus speech in different ways. Nielsens bill would reaffirm that outdoor spaces on campus are public forums. Institutions would only be able to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech, such as barring demonstrations with bullhorns in front of the library during finals week. School policies would also need to allow for spontaneous assembly and distribution of literature, so students can react to breaking news events.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) is carrying the Campus Free Speech Act, which would bar school administrators from disinviting speakers and establish disciplinary action for anyone who infringes on the free speech right of others.

Under the proposal, youre not allowed to just disinvite people because theyre controversial, Melendez said. You cant have mob rule.

Recent incidents have primarily been focused on figures from the political right Coulter at UC Berkeley or former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolous at UC Davis but Melendez said the cause should not be seen exclusively as a conservative one.

Today it's one type of speaker who is getting pushback from college campuses, she said. But 10 years from now, it could be quite the opposite. That's the danger of not dealing with this right now.

Joe Cohn, legislative director at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the Coulter and Yiannopolous incidents brought attention publicly in a way that both legislators and the general public can no longer ignore that something is happening on college campuses with regard to how free speech is valued and it isnt positive.

But proponents of Nielsens bill recognize that Coulter and Yiannopolous may not be the most sympathetic figures for free speech to the largely liberal California Legislature.

Democrats view it as bigoted speech, Tomas said. In his conversations with lawmakers, he said he tries to make a distinction between those controversial examples and less high-profile forms of speech restrictions, such as the clampdown on his distribution of pamphlets.

Scenarios such as the Coulter and Yiannopolous brouhahas are also more difficult to address in legislation. The prospect of large counter-demonstrations, with the potential for violence, presents knotty considerations for officials who must balance civil liberties with maintaining campus safety.

Instead of tackling the thorny question of regulating controversial invited speakers, Cohns nonprofit group has focused on college policies that limit expressive activities such as protests or pamphleteering to certain geographic zones on campus areas that can sometimes be small or hard to access. Other policies require students to get advance permission or permits.

Free speech zones would be the lowest hanging fruit that would have huge impact on students free speech rights across the board, Cohn said.

Such zones have prompted a spate of lawsuits. Tomas suit against Cal Poly Pomona was settled for $35,000. Earlier this month, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian group, sued on behalf of an anti-abortion group at Fresno State, after a teacher said the students chalk messages ran afoul of the schools speech zone policy.

The universitys president, Joseph Castro, said that policy had been overturned two years ago.

The universitys policy is clear: free speech on campus is not limited to a free speech zone or any other narrowly tailored area, Castro said in a statement.

But with individual UC, CSU and community college campuses determining their own policies, Cohn said there was a need for legislators to send a message to administrators that overly restrictive policies run afoul of the 1st Amendment.

After successfully pushing bills in Colorado, Virginia and several other states, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is now sponsoring Nielsens bill.

The legislation would effectively put an end to the practice of free speech zones. UC and the chancellor of California Community Colleges havent taken positions on the measure; CSU is working with Nielsen on wording tweaks.

The bill, SB 472, sailed through two policy committees with unanimous support. But a possible hitch looms: UC has estimated that enforcing the measure could add millions of dollars of costs for administrative, security and legal fees.

The potentially high price qualifies the measure for the suspense file, in which the fates of all bills pegged with a fiscal impact are decided in one hearing scheduled in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday without the typical roll call vote. The bills backers worry its suspense file status could enable lawmakers to quietly kill the proposal.

There's a natural impulse to vote for motherhood and apple pie and free speech, said Baker of the ACLU. Bills can die without a vote against them on the suspense [file].

Cohn scoffed at UCs cost estimates, noting that many courts have ruled against campus free speech zones as violating the 1st Amendment.

The idea that the bill will add costs to the state is silly on its face, he said. They already have this same liability and same legal obligation, regardless or not if the bill passes.

If the bill advances, Tomas said, he plans to continue traveling to Sacramento to lobby for Nielsens measure.

I find it really great to team up with the cattle rancher, he said. It really symbolizes the issue. Free speech at its finest is two people disagreeing with each other and saying, Let's discuss it.

melanie.mason@latimes.com

Follow @melmason on Twitter for the latest on California politics.

Pierce College student files 'free speech zone' lawsuit

Cal Poly Pomona reaches settlement with student over free speech rights

Updates from Sacramento

Here is the original post:
Frustrated with campus discourse limits, California Republicans take on 'free speech zones' - Los Angeles Times

A Republican-backed proposal to establish a center for freedom of speech at University of Wisconsin, Madison is being mocked by liberals as a GOP safe space.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos introduced his proposal for the creation of a Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership during a Tuesday press conference attended by Republican Governor Scott Walker, saying his goal for the center is to ensure we have diversity of thought on college campuses.

"Having a center on campus that is dedicated to maximizing free speech should not be controversial.

[RELATED: Students, faculty demand OCC get Republicans out of our face]

Far too often, we feel like theres only one legitimate viewpoint on campus. This is just going to ensure we have diversity of thought, Vos explained, according to the Associated Press.

He also preemptively dismissed concerns that the center will become a conservative think tank, though he did express hope that it might offset some of the liberal thinking on the infamously left-leaning campus.

Vos elaborated that the proposed centerwhich is named after a former Republican governor of the statewould have no agenda other than to promote maximum free speech, which was nonetheless enough to prompt fears among some Wisconsin Democrats that it would serve to undermine their policy agenda.

According to The Wisconsin State Journal, Democratic Rep. Gordon Hintz quickly identified that risk, attesting that Gov. Thompson had relied on input on legislation from the schools existing La Follette School of Public Affairs and that the new center would undermine the political messaging currently being pushed from university campuses.

If you dont like the science and you dont like the data and you dont like the truth, you have to create an academic institution that meets their version of the truth, Hintz stated. Its directly aimed at combating whats coming out of our universities right now.

[RELATED: UCLA restricts enrollments in popular free-speech course]

One Wisconsin Now, a liberal interest group, blasted the proposed center in a tweet as the Institute for GOP Safe Spaces, while the organizations executive director called it an attempt at bullying students, faculty, and administrators through the dissemination of Republican propaganda on campus.

There is no doubt [that] right-wing foundations, corporations, and millionaire Republicans will finance what taxpayers dont get stuck paying, Scot Ross told the AP, referencing the $3 million in state funds that have been requested to kick start the project.

The center still requires approval from the states Republican-controlled legislature, leaving some students concerned that criticism could yet torpedo the proposal.

"Having a center on campus that is dedicated to maximizing free speech should not be controversial, Cahleel Copus, campus coordinator for the UW Students for Liberty chapter, told Campus Reform. Time and time again, we have seen coercive tactics used by the predatory left, including rioting and physical blockades, which to me shows that many students are not interested in engaging in opposing ideas.

[RELATED: Prof: College campuses are not free speech areas]

[The university] and the state legislature are taking great steps towards counteracting this culture by creating avenues for free expression (like the Tommy Thompson Center) as well as proposing a bill that would mandate each school discuss with incoming students the value of free exchange, he added. This center gives myself, along with many of the other right-of-center students, hope that Wisconsin is recognizing the importance of the First Amendment, especially on college campuses."

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @AGockowski

See the original post:
Liberals mock UW free speech center as 'GOP safe space' - Campus Reform

Video of Yang Shuping's commencement speech at the University of Maryland, May 21, sparked criticism in China, prompting Shuping to issue an apology. (University of Maryland)

BEIJING When Yang Shuping spoke Sunday of her eternal gratitude to the University of Maryland for teaching her about free speech and showing her that her voice mattered, she may not have realized just how much it mattered.

A video of her eight-minute address at her commencement ceremony at the university went viral in China, attracting 50 million views and provoking hundreds of thousands of critical comments by Chinese netizens the following day. Even the Peoples Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, weighed in, reporting on a crescendo of criticism of Yang for bolstering negative Chinese stereotypes.

Accused by nationalist netizens of flattering the United States and belittling China, Yang was forced to make an apology Monday.

People often ask me: Why did you come to the University of Maryland? she said in her speech. I always answer: Fresh air.

[Chinas scary lesson to the world: Censoring the Internet works]

I grew up in a city in China where I had to wear a face mask every time I went outside, otherwise I might get sick. However, the moment I inhaled and exhaled outside the airport, I felt free, she said, referring to her arrival in the United States.

I would soon feel another kind of fresh air for which I will be forever grateful. The fresh air of free speech. Democracy and free speech should not be taken for granted. Democracy and freedom are the fresh air that is worth fighting for.

She spoke of the awakening of her burning desire to tell political stories after she first saw actors openly discussing racism, sexism and politics in Twilight; Los Angeles, a play by Anna Deavere Smith about the 1992 riots in that city. Before watching the play, Yang said, she was convinced that only authorities could define the truth.

Yang majored in psychology and theater, leaving China five years ago. But the country she left behind is one where the only permitted truth is that defined by the Communist Party and where dissenting voices are silenced. Online, leading liberal commentators have been largely cowed, and nationalists dominate the debate on social media, many actively encouraged by the authorities. They swiftly rounded on Yang.

[Eleven countries signed a letter slamming China for torturing lawyers. The U.S. did not.]

China does not need a traitor like you. Just stay in the US and breathe your fresh air. No matter how bad China is, and even though you are speaking of your personal opinion, as a student representative, it is irresponsible of you to paint an inadequate picture of China, said @Mengmengadezhican.

Another popular comment expressed disappointment in U.S. universities, suggesting without any apparent irony that Yang should not have been allowed to make the remarks.

Are speeches made there not examined for evaluation of their potential impact before being given to the public? the commentator wrote.

Our motherland has done so much to make us stand up among Western countries, but what have you done? We have been working so hard to eliminate the stereotypes the West has put on us, but what are you doing? Dont let me meet you in the United States; I am afraid I could not stop myself from going up and smacking you in the face.

[Chinas president takes campaign for ideological purity into universities, schools]

The authorities delicate sensitivities also appeared to be hurt, with the Kunming city government posting Mondaynight on social mediathat the air in the city was more than likely to be sweet and fresh.

ByTuesdayafternoon in China, the home address of Yang's family had been shared widely in the commentary sections of local media websites, on Chinese social media posts and even in replies to her social media posts. Chinas normally hyperactive censors apparently found no need to suppress that information.

However, some Chinese said Yang was merely speaking the truth.

You don't need to apologize. The meaning of studying abroad is to discover the differences and drawbacks of ones own country. If you only believe your country is the greatest, then what is the point of going abroad? You are speaking about your true feelings, and this is normal. Itis not normal to attack normal behavior like this, wrote @Lijiayu in a reply that received 250 likes.

Others were critical not of Yang's comments but of the venue in which she chose to make them.

This kid is too naive. How can you forget the Chinese rule about how to talk once you get to the United States? Just lie or make empty talk instead of telling the truth. Only this will be beneficial for you in China. Now you cannot come back to China, @Labixiaoxin said.

The Chinese Student and Scholar Association (CSSA) at the University of Maryland, a student body loyal to the Communist Party, quickly produced a video posting pictures of blue skies in their home towns in China, titled Proud of China UMD.

An anonymous organizer of the campaign against Yang told the Peoples Daily Onlinethat the campaign was meant to show that overseas Chinese students have never forgotten our motherland or who we are.

Insulting the motherland to grab attention is intolerable. The universitys support for such slandering speech is not only ill-considered, but also raises suspicion about other motives, a former president of the CSSA, Zhu Lihan, told the Global Times,a nationalist tabloid.

According to the Institute of International Education, 328,547 Chinese students studied in U.S. universities in 2015-2016, a more than fivefold increase from a decade ago. Some argue that student bodies like the CSSA are manipulated by the Communist Party to put pressure on students not to criticize Chinese authorities.

In March, Chinese students and alumni at the University of California at San Diego opposed the schools invitation to the Dalai Lama to speak at itscommencement ceremony, threatening tough measures to resolutely resist the schools unreasonable behavior.

But student groups have also tried to defend Chinese students against racially motivated attacks. In February, Chinese students at Columbia University made a video explaining the meaning of their Chinese names after an incident of vandalism.

The University of Maryland released astatementMondaysaying it proudly supports Yangs right to share her views and her unique perspectives.

To be an informed global citizen, it is critical to hear different viewpoints, it wrote, also including a link to Yangs apology on her personal social media page.

I love my country and home town and I'm proud of its prosperity, she wrote in the apology, which has been reposted more than 60,000 times.

I hope to make contributions to it using what I have learned overseas. The speech was just to share my experiences overseas, and I had no intentions of belittling my country and home town. I am deeply sorry and hope for forgiveness.

Read more:

27 years later, China to release the final prisoner from Tiananmen Square protests

China sentences activist lawyer to 12 years as relentless crackdown continues

Read more:
A Chinese student praised the 'fresh air of free speech' at a US college. Then came the backlash. - Washington Post

URBANA With controversial speakers running into opposition at colleges across the country, including the University of Illinois, free speech and campus culture will be front and center at a UI retreat in July.

President Tim Killeen said Monday the agenda for the UI Board of Trustees' annual retreat will include an in-depth look at the topic and several others that "are on everybody's radar screen right now."

Just last week, the UI's Carl Woese Institute for Genomic Biology dropped plans for a talk by Nobel Laureate James Watson, who co-discovered the structure of DNA but has been castigated by fellow scientists for his discredited views on race and intelligence.

Watson had initially reached out to the UI institute to give a "narrowly focused scientific talk" about his cancer research in conjunction with a planned visit to a colleague's lab, according to institute Director Gene Robinson.

But other faculty at the institute objected because of Watson's history of racist and sexist comments, and the lecture was dropped. No date had yet been set.

Killeen, who talked with The News-Gazette before a faculty meeting Monday, said that neither he nor Chancellor Robert Jones was involved in the decision, which transpired fairly quickly. He said he appreciated the concerns about Watson's views but added, "I think we've got to be very careful, this university, to make sure that we really are open to free expression."

This situation was somewhat distinct from incidents at other campuses, where protesters have shouted down controversial political speakers or prevented them from appearing.

"This is an icon of science who is close to being 90 years old who is talking about a scientific presentation," Killeen said.

Organizers felt that "the science presentation would have been difficult to manage" because of the controversy surrounding Watson's other views, Killeen said.

"I think you have to recognize that we're a university for all. But I can respect some of the rationale that was brought to the table," he said.

He said he wasn't "in the loop" for the decision, but added that he dislikes "disinvitations."

"I'm a fervent believer in the First Amendment," he said. "There are going to be lots of different conversations about lots of issues that we ought to be exposing our students to, and of course, the best approach to speech that you disagree with is to provide speech that makes your case effectively, maybe in a different setting. But we've got to do that in a respectful way.

"I think this is another of those issues," he said.

Killeen said he has invited several national speakers to the retreat to address three topics: campus culture and freedom of expression; immigration policies and globalization; and civic engagement, not just voting and political participation but "how we perform our land-grant mission."

"We want an authentic University of Illinois voice in all of the above," he said.

Over the past several months, the university has been examining a range of issues in terms of mitigating potential risk, including student safety, free speech and assembly, and how to deal with "self-inflicted problems that might pop up out of nowhere, so we're best prepared for these kinds of things," he said.

See the original post here:
Free speech on agenda for UI trustees' retreat in July - Champaign/Urbana News-Gazette

No fascists in Berkeley! shouts the young woman intent on closing down a meeting of Trump supporters, a handful of her Republican classmates.

Such scenes have become commonplace on campus.What goes into that denial of free speech?

As a lifelong academic, Im perplexed and pained.After all, this is so against all the obvious lessons that have been given students about free speech: that speech you disagree with, or find distasteful, or even abhorrent, is permissible, and has as much right to exist as your own speech, which someone else may disagree with or find distasteful or abhorrent.

Surely this has been drummed into them since they learned about the First Amendment and its importance in a democratic society. So how can these protesters so blatantly ignore what must be considered Free Speech 101, The Basic Message?

Here are a few possibilities.

They never got the free speech idea, or they knew it and ignored it, or were unaware of how it applied to them. The phenomenon of knowing something but not applying it to yourself is all too familiar.Or they know it but have been confused by the recent injection of the concept of hate speech into matters of free speech. Suddenly there is this other kind of speech that is not acceptable. It became easy for a protester to proclaim, Hate speech is not free speech!

But I see a much stronger, more emotional component at work in college protesters.

There is an almost sensual surrender to the feeling that We Too Are Victims, persecuted for being righteous. The sense of victimhood leads inevitably to anger, and even outrage, however self-defined that condition may be.

Add to this the excitement of the protest, its drama, and they become freedom fighters in their own eyes, battling evil.

Are these feelings sincere and genuine? I think they are: We feel what were allowed to feel, sanctioned to feel, encouraged to feel.

Outrage is something that people are frequently urged to experience, and therefore want to feel, and so feel.

Are you angry, sir? asks the reporter of someone who suffered at the hands of, say, clumsy bureaucracy or an inflated hospital bill. And of course the person answers, You bet I am, and feels a righteous anger swelling in his or her chest.

Changes in what we feel are fairly easy to trace from decade to decade. At a given point, we learned about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and learned that we were greatly bothered by cigarette smoke: A heretofore small annoyance became major discomfort. Or a sexist comment went from being just annoying to giving serious offense.

Sincerity has little to with it. We were sincere both times.

Our feelings are more malleable than we know. We are subject to the prevailing sentiment of our time and place, of other people, of fashion and feelings rise and fall with time and place. Just as one set of circumstances might kindle certain feelings in one culture and different ones in another, so one period of time can ignite feelings different from another time.

Knowing this might restrain your own emotional reaction to protesters though would hopefully still allow you, and us, to tell them once again about the beauties of free speech.

Manfred Wolf is a retired professor from San Francisco State University, and the author, most recently, of Survival in Paradise: Sketches from a Refugee Life in Curacao. He wrote this for The Mercury News.

The rest is here:
Opinion: What is behind the denial of free speech on campuses - The Mercury News

GUEST: Rahul Mahajan is the author of two books on the Iraq war: Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond and The New Crusade: Americas War on Terrorism. He is also a PhD student in sociology at the University of Wisconsin and the US Foreign Policy and Empire Correspondent for Rising Up.

BACKGROUND: After more than a 100 days in office, Donald Trump has finally left the country. Over the weekend he embarked on a multi-nation trip starting with Saudi Arabia, then heading to Israel. After that he will make stops in Belgium, Italy, and the Vatican.

It was strange that Trump's first foreign stop was Saudi Arabia, given his overt hostility to Islam and Muslims. Stranger still was Trump's announced formation of the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, which is to be housed in Saudi Arabia. He also announced a partnership between the US and Saudi Arabia called the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Saudi Arabia has long been linked to the financing of anti-US extremist groups. Trump also boasted of a major $110 billion arms deal with the Saudis, continuing his predecessor Obama's legacy.

And, coinciding with his trip was a joint Saudi-UAE $100 million donation to a center for women's empowerment that Ivanka Trump helped to start. Trump had excoriated Hillary Clinton for her foundation's acceptance of Saudi donations.

View original post here:
Trump's Saudi Arabia Speech Filled With Contradictions - Free Speech TV

Published: 1 day ago.

Protests against Syrian refugees broke out in multiple states in 2015 and 2016, but the Obama administration doubled down on placement, particularlyin California, Michigan, Ohio, Arizona and Massachusetts. Refugee resettlement has continued under President Trump but at a slower pace compared to the Obama administration.

A Muslim gas-station attendant in Troy, Michigan, faces charges of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct after he allegedly groped a woman who asked for his assistance with a credit-card reader.

And thats just part of the story that some see as an outgrowth of the rapidly changing culture in Michigan. Others say free speech the right to criticize Islamic is being squelched in the wake of the arrests last month of two Detroit-area doctors for the horrific crimes of female genital mutilation.

Abdelnasser Mohamed, 25, allegedly assaulted a woman customer while working as a clerk at the Mobil Gas Station in Troy, Michigan, on May 4, 2017. Photo/Troy Police Department

Abdelnasser Mohamed, 25, was the clerk on duty at the Mobil Station at 25 E. 14 Mile Road in Troy when, at about 8:45 p.m. on May 4, he was asked for assistance by a female customer having trouble with the card reader. She reported to police that Mohamed touched her in the groin area and told her he would help her with the machine in return for a sexual favor. She escaped and called 911. He was arraigned May 5 and granted a $10,000 bond, then released on a 10-percent surety.

WND contacted Troy Police Department Wednesday and asked for the suspects immigration status and was told the city does not ask for such information.

I do not know his status. He was not asked, not that Im aware of. We dont ask people their immigration status. We ask other questions, such as place of birth, Sgt. Megan Lehman of Troy Police Department told WND.

She told WND she would look up the suspects file and call back with his place of birth.

The booking card is not in a place I can assess it through the computer Ill have to pull the hard copy, she said, agreeing to do so and call back with the information.

She never called back despite repeated phone messages.

Mohamed was described by multiple Michigan newspapers as simply a Detroit man or a male employee with apparently no inquiries into his immigration status or country of origin.

The name Abdelnasser means conqueror or victorious in Arabic and is common among Muslim families in Syria and the Palestinian territories, Arabic speakers told WND.

Michigan has been consistently among the top three or four states for receiving Syrian refugees, and Troy is the No. 1destination city for Syrians arriving weekly in the state.

Since the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011, nearly 2,200 Syrian refugees have been distributed throughout Michigan, with Troy getting 657, followed by 481 sent to Clinton Township, 387 to Dearborn, 147 to Ann Arbor and 130 to Battle Creek, according to the U.S. State Departments Refugee Processing Center. Detroit received 20 and nearby Hamtramck 43.

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, doing business as Samaritas, has a processing office in Troy, from which it distributes refugees into both Oakland and Macomb counties. Many have been temporarily held in a hotel in Sterling Heights owned by a CAIR-connected businessman that has been nicknamed Hotel Damascus, as WND has previously reported.

The gas-station incident is just one of several unsettling events in Michigan of late.

The local Alma newspaper, the Sun, cited the Southern Poverty Law Centers list of hate groups for its story berating Secure Michigan, and then SPLC returned the favor by using the Suns article to blister Secure Michigan on Twitter.

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR] instigated the charges of hate and intolerance against the Detroit firefighter who is a captain in the department and pressured the city to suspend and investigate him.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged April 13, 2017, in Detroit with mutilating the genitalia of girls ages of 6 to 8.

Michigan also isthe first state in which a doctor has been charged with the barbaric, Third-World practice of female genital mutilation. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, a Muslim physician from West India, was charged in April, followed by the arrest of a male Muslim doctor, Fakhruddin Attar, and his wife on the same charges just days later. The doctors imam, who leads a Farmington Hills mosque, fled to India on a one-way plane ticket on April 10, the Detroit News reported.

All of this activity has kept the Michigan chapter of CAIR busy, defending or deflecting attention away from Islam.

Those Michigan residents who say things deemed inappropriate by CAIR and the SPLC have been quickly rebuked and publicly shamed with the cooperation in many cases of the Michigan media.

But the Michigan media, in its incessant quoting of CAIR-Michigan Director Dawud Walid, refuses to point out that CAIR has been identified by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 terrorism-financing trial prosecuted against the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas, Texas, which was caught funneling money to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Nor is the Michigan media fazed by Walids own radical leanings.

According to the Gatestone Institute, CAIRs Dawud Walid cemented his position as a preacher of hate and radicalism. He has already become known to many Muslims as an extreme figure, who bullies anyone who disagrees with him, maligns dissidents, harasses gay Muslims, and foments anti-American sentiments.

Dawud Walid heads up the Michigan chapter of Council on American-Islamic Relations or CAIR

The SPLC was evencited by the Obama administration as a group that reflexively labels people with whom it disagrees as bigoted haters. The SPLC once tried to label Dr. Ben Carson as an extremist because his views on marriage didnt line up with those of the SPLC.

Some believe CAIR and the SPLC along with their Democratic allies are drawing the battle lines in Michigan in preparation for an important election next year in which the Democrats are hoping to elect the nations first Muslim governor, Dr. Abdul el-Sayed, the former health director for the city of Detroit.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed with wife Sarah.

El-Sayed is actively campaigning on the platform of making Michigan a sanctuary state that welcomes refugees from Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and throughout the Third World.

Dick Manasseri, a spokesman for the group that had its presentation raided by students from Alma College in tiny Alma, Michigan, said if the SPLC is tweeting about a group as small as his, it will go after anyone who publicly provides a message that disagrees with the SPLC-CAIR agenda of open borders and favored treatment for Islam.

Manasseri said he wont be deterred by the radical elements trying to shut him and his organization down.

Im making a presentation again tomorrow night, he said. To me, the new normal is actually scary. This whole notion of not enforcing the law or a sanctuary city not asking the right questions is scary. SPLC actually tweeted the little local newspaper. Theyre really reaching to have to deal with us. SPLC is a full-time, professional, fully-staffed organization with a radical agenda.

Manasseri believes the Catholic Church will also play a role in whether working-class Democrats fall in line for el-Sayed in Michigans 2018 gubernatorial election.

The whole state needs to get up to speed on this and get ready for Dr. Abdul. The message needs to get out, he said. One Catholic voter at a time. Because theyre going to be encouraged heavily, because he is Obama II as best we can tell.

More:
Assaults on women, free speech in 'Michiganistan' - WND.com