Category Archives: Free Speech

Gay journalist Chadwick Moore who recently came out as a conservative spoke at Portland State University in a speech that drew protests and prompted Moore to boldly engage demonstrators who heckled him.

The speech, The Joys of Being an Infidel: Challenging Orthodoxy and Standing Up for Free Speech in America, drew roughly 60 students and community members, including about a dozen student protesters.

They held signs declaring No sympathy for alt-right trash and Destroy your local fascist, and at times disrupted the speech with verbal outbursts. Moore responded in sometimes feisty rebuttals as the two sides clashed.

Moore entered the national spotlight after coming out as a conservative in an op-ed in the New York Post in February that detailed the intense backlash and hatred he received from his once beloved and supportive gay community for writing a feature on Milo Yiannopoulos for Out magazine.

If you dare to question liberal stances or make an effort toward understanding why conservatives think the way they do, you are a traitor, Moore wrote in his coming out piece. It can seem like liberals are actually against free speech if it fails to conform with the way they think. And I dont want to be a part of that club anymore.

Now, as an emerging defender of free speech, he finds himself a target.

The Joys of Being an Infidel

In opening his Portland State speech on April 28, he alluded to its title with an Islamic greeting: As-Salaam-Alaikum, he said. Thats how they say it in France.

The event was organized by Freethinkers of PSU, a nonpartisan classical liberal and humanist student group.

Blake Horner, one of the leaders in Freethinkers of PSU, said that some protest was expected given that dozens of flyers promoting the event had been vandalized or torn down during the preceding week.

It seems that many people at PSU were motivated to halt public knowledge of this event, Horner said. We were also confronted by someone who was determined to intimidate us.

On the day of the speech, messages plastered on the groups display case called Moore a fascist defender.

Moore reserved strong criticism for PSUs Queer Resource Center at the beginning of his speech. He pointed out what he perceived as the centers political bias for refusing Freethinkers request to place a flyer in its space while socialist promotional material is displayed on its windows.

Here I am, a public gay person who was working for the two largest gay magazines in the world as their top investigative journalist, and they cant put that up there because they dont like my politics, Moore said. Maybe the Queer Resource Center should rebrand itself as something less misleading.

Moore suggested the center call itself the Ministry of Propaganda or the Im with Her Memorial Museum and Gift Shop, referring to Hillary Clintons failed 2016 presidential bid. The audience burst out in laughter.

Moore later read from a power and privilege training document he received from a PSU student. He criticized the training material, which defined white people, heterosexuals and English-speaking people, among other groups, as agents of oppression due to their privilege.

After addressing the training materials arguments point-by-point with counter facts and statistics, Moore ripped up the document.

Anyone who gets this in a future class, this is what you have to do to it, he said. Sign up for a new class.

We can punch you too

Protesters began to heckle and disrupt Moore further in his speech as he continued to ridicule social justice activism and the political far-left.

Can you not wait until the Q&A and be polite? Moore responded as the interruptions continued. Why dont you shut up and have respect for your fellow students?

Later, an audience member called out the rude behavior of some protesters. Stop being homophobic, let the gay man talk! he shouted. Youre stifling gay speech.

Moore carried on with his lecture but about midway through another student yelled at him from the middle of the room.

I am black, I am disabled, Im a woman, she shouted. After a back-and-forth, Moore invited her to speak during the Q&A. The student stormed out of the room and pounded on the window with her fists.

Girl, theres still time, we can punch you too, a student shouted to Moore after he mocked the disrupters low energy. Sorry, not a threat, she said after the audience gasped. Some students in the audience recognized her as a candidate for student government.

1 in 5 gay Americans are conservative

Moore closed his speech by reading part of a letter he received by a gay man who thanked him for coming out in his New York Post op-ed.

This touched me so much and I cried a little because I was thinking about how much the gay community has meant to me my entire life, Moore said.

Citing a Gallup survey that estimates 1 in 5 gay Americans are conservative, Moore shifted his ire to queer resource centers across the country.

If you decide to shun a huge percentage of your community simply because they might not agree with your political views youre denying people a chance to true happiness of living authentically, he said.

During the Q&A, audience members used the opportunity to express support, criticism or gratitude for Moores partisan views.

I was one of those people who wrote you a message when you came out, said a young woman in the audience. I want to personally thank you for being as loud as you are because youre speaking up for people like me.

Later on, one of the protesters who earlier held a Black Lives Matter sign asked Moore about his views on racial matters.

You talk about how you feel like you dont have free speech in some places, she said. Are you also fighting then for the free speech of black gay Americans?

Puzzled by the question, Moore asked her to clarify.

Knowing people who side with the right-side they tend to be racist, she said.

Moore stated that he supports free speech full stop.

Why would I not want black people to have a voice? he asked. I want everyone to have a voice. More speech is more speech.

Freethinkers

After answering questions for about 40 minutes, Moore thanked the audience and some of the protesters for voicing their dissent in a respectful manner.

Several attendees expressed their gratitude to event organizers for hosting the event.

I was impressed by Chadwick standing up to these bullies and speaking his mind, said Mykle Curton, a self-identified leftist who graduated from PSU in 2013. Just because I disagree with him on politics doesnt mean I cant like and support him. I agree with him about his rejection of identity politics. They argue that you can lump people into groups and generalize their experiences and beliefs.

Marko Balogh, a student leader of the Freethinkers, expressed concern that the event was too politically polarizing and didnt further the mission of the organization.

While I think free speechincluding the freedom to offendis an absolutely vital component of an intellectually healthy society, I dont think the excessively combative demeanor of the speaker was helpful, he said. If we are going to reduce political polarization and make our society better for everyone, we have to approach politics from a charitable and well-meaning mindset.

Balogh said he hopes future events organized by Freethinkers would encourage conversations in which all sides of the issues are considered wholeheartedly.

Editors note: Andy Ngo was involved in organizing this event.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

PHOTO CREDITS: Main, Twitter screenshot; Top, Collin Berend; Bottom, Andy Ngo

About the Author

Andy Ngo is a graduate student in political science at Portland State University. His academic interests include political Islam and secularism in the Middle East and North Africa. He can be reached at ango@pdx.edu.

See more here:
Students protest gay conservative speaker as he defends free speech at Portland State - The College Fix

The recent cancellation of an appearance by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley resulted in confrontations between protestors. Its the latest in a series of heated disputes that have taken place involving controversial speakers on campus.

One of us is a researcher of higher education legal issues (Neal) and one is a senior administrator in higher education (Brandi). Together, were interested in how institutions facilitate free speech while also supporting students.

From our different perspectives, we see two closely connected questions arise: What legal rules must colleges and universities follow when it comes to speech on campus? And what principles and educational values should guide university actions concerning free speech?

Key legal standards

When it comes to the legal requirements for free speech on campus, a key initial consideration is whether an institution is public or private.

Public colleges and universities, as governmental institutions, are obligated to uphold First Amendment protections for free speech. In contrast, private institutions may choose to adopt speech policies similar to their public counterparts, but they arent subject to constitutional speech requirements. California proves a notable exception: State law requires private secular colleges and universities to follow First Amendment standards in relation to students.

For those colleges that are subject to constitutional speech rules, what does this mean?

For starters, an institution does not have to make all places on campus, such as offices or libraries, available to speakers or protesters. Universities may also provide less campus access to individuals unaffiliated with the institution, thus potentially limiting the presence on campus of activists or protesters who are not official members of the university community.

Regardless of these limitations on free speech, once an institution categorizes a campus space as accessible for students or permits its use for a specific purpose such as musical or theatrical performances campus officials must not favor particular views or messages in granting access.

Some campus areas, such as plazas or courtyards, either by tradition or designation, constitute open places for speech and expression, including for the general public. Colleges and universities may impose reasonable rules to regulate the use of these kinds of open campus forums (e.g., restrictions on the length of the event, blocking roadways or the use of amplification devices). However, a guiding First Amendment principle is that institutions cannot impose restrictions based on the content of a speakers message.

Free speech zones

A central point of conflict over student speech and activism involves rules at some institutions that restrict student speech and related activities (such as protests, distributing fliers or petition gathering) to specified areas or zones on campus.

Students have argued that such free speech zones are overly restrictive and violate the First Amendment. For instance, a community college student in Los Angeles alleges in a current lawsuit that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S Constitution only in a designated free speech zone. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona and Colorado (as of this April) have legislation that prohibits public institutions from enforcing such zones. At least six other states are considering similar laws.

In our view, legislative and litigation efforts may curtail the use of designated free speech zones for students in much of public higher education. In the meantime, increasing resistance could be enough to prompt many institutions to voluntarily end their use.

Beyond legal requirements

While legal compliance is certainly an important factor in shaping policy and practice around free speech, campus leaders should perhaps have a different consideration foremost on their minds: namely, the institutional mission of education.

Most students arrive on our nations campuses to acquire a degree, discover who they are and determine what they want to be. Students grow in myriad ways cognitively, morally and psychosocially while in college.

This personal development cannot fully take place without exposure to opposing views. To that end, students should be encouraged to express themselves civilly, listen to critiques of their ideas and think deeply about their convictions. Then, in response, students can express themselves again in light of new and opposing ideas.

This process of engagement, productive discourse and critical reflection can create tension and conflict for many. The reality is that protected free speech is not always viewed as good or productive speech by all members of the campus community.

However, rather than labeling students as fragile snowflakes or pressuring institutions to punish students who wish to challenge campus speakers, in our view, theres a better approach: Why not take seriously students objections to controversial speakers support them and engage with them on how to reconcile their concerns and institutional commitments to free speech?

Free speech issues on campus are often messy and can make both students and campus officials uneasy. But discomfort also presents an opportunity for growth. We believe that educational institutions have a responsibility to foster debate and to help students gain experience in processing and responding to messages they find objectionable.

And so, when controversies arise, campus officials at times stretching their own comfort zones around issues of student speech and activism can embrace the educational opportunities they present.

Neal H. Hutchens, Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi and Brandi Hephner LaBanc, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, University of Mississippi

Read the original:
Can we talk about free speech on campus? - Salon

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The traditional belief that free speech and unfettered debate underpin a free society is wounded and dying among many in this country. This is particularly true among the students and faculties at the nations elite colleges and universities and within the ranks of the leftist progressives who dominate todays Democratic Party. Those righteously convinced that they and they alone possess the truth and that all who oppose them are evil rather than simply wrong are in the saddle and working to consign everyone else to the outer darkness.

There have always been those on both the left and right who would shut down others with opposing viewpoints. Until recently, they lurked on the edges of the ideological spectrum, rebuffed by mainstream conservatives and liberals alike committed to the belief that free speech and open discussion along with a willingness to tolerate the views of those with whom one disagree are key to the survival of a free society. But that is changing.

In the mid-60s as a conservative activist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, I was invited to debate our involvement in Vietnam with a popular campus leftist before an audience of something like 600 of our fellow students and faculty. I spoke first and when I was finished, my opponent took the microphone to raucous applause. He turned a hostile eye to me, declared that he wouldnt dignify anything I had said with a response, but wanted to assure those present that come the revolution, I would be among the first lined up against a wall to be shot. That didnt surprise me, as I knew him to be an angry extremist, but the standing ovation he received gave me pause.

That took place in what today must seem like the golden age of campus tolerance. Professor Donald Downs teaches at Madison and recently observed that free speech and tolerance are in far more trouble today on our campuses than they were back then. Things, he concludes in an article published by the Martin Center, are much worse than in the past. Todays suppression, Mr. Downs writes, differs from the previous era in three key respects: It is more passionate and aggressive; it is more student-initiated and driven; and it extends the reach of censorship more deeply into everyday campus life and the life of the mind.

The problem today is that the radicals of the 60s, righteously convinced that their opponents must be silenced, have risen to positions of power and influence in the academy, the media and politics. I got to speak then; those with diverse views no longer get that right on our campuses, and increasingly within major parts of the larger society.

Speakers with whom those who dominate our universities disagree are driven away by angry mobs lest the unenlightened be influenced or tainted by what they have to say or the microaggression inherent in their very presence on campus. The chairman of the Democratic Party informs the faithful that there is no room for them in the party of their fathers and grandfathers if they harbor any politically incorrect moral qualms about abortion, and campaigns are waged against media pundits, corporate executives and even scientists who refuse to tow the politically correct party line.

Scientists who question climate change face career-ending attacks from the faithful followers of the sainted Al Gore because they dont accept the fictional consensus used as a rhetorical gavel to silence them. Now the same kinds of attacks are being made on social scientists who suggest that contrary to what we are supposed to believe, there is empirical evidence to suggest that there is such a thing as voter fraud in this country.

At Wisconsin and elsewhere, however, legislators are beginning to demand that college and university administrators take action against those who would suppress dissent. Wisconsin State Rep. Jesse Kremer recently introduced the Wisconsin Campus Free Speech Act, patterned on model legislation developed by Arizonas Goldwater Institute, to protect free speech for all points of view on the states campuses. His bill has won the support of the Badger States Gov. Scott Walker, who summed up the case for action with the observation, To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions. But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think thats wrong.

Its also dangerous if one is a believer in a free democratic society and an informed citizenry.

David A. Keene is editor at large at The Washington Times.

See the rest here:
Campus free speech must be protected - Washington Times

Its hard to imagine what attracted a handful of teenagers in the liberal, highly educated Bay Area town of Albany to the ugliness of racism. But something did, and theyre paying for it with suspensions (and in one case, possibly, expulsion) that will stay on their records, as well as the contempt of most of their fellow students.

The contempt they fully deserve and had better be prepared to live with (though there also are claims that students acted violently toward them, and that cant be allowed either). The suspensions, which are being contested in a lawsuit brought by their parents, are a murkier matter.

If all they were doing, via their private accounts on Instagram, was expressing racist beliefs and liking what others were saying, they are entitled to do so without official repercussions from their school. Students, like adults, are protected under the 1st Amendment and may express even highly offensive opinions freely.

The situation doesnt look that simple, though. According to some news reports, there might have been two Instagram offenses, and at least one of them involved images that clearly went beyond political expression: photos of students from the teenagers school all female and all but one a person of color with nooses drawn around their necks, as well as a similar image of the schools girls basketball coach, who is African American. Some of the photos reportedly were shown alongside images of apes.

Making the distinction between such scenarios pure expression of belief vs. threatening, bullying online treatment of specific students and faculty is critical to reconciling students recognized free-speech rights with the limits the courts have rightly set on behavior that disrupts school, even if it doesnt take place on campus.

One of the lawyers representing the troublemakers likened what they did to a group of students hanging out together while one drew an offensive sketch. Not quite. Just because they were in their own homes, using private accounts, doesnt necessarily mean their actions were entirely private; there were other students reading their posts (and obviously enough social media followers for an uninvolved student to bring this to school officials attention). Nor is privacy the only issue involved. While the students would have had every right to show up in support of a white nationalist rally, in a public place, they would not have the right to shout threats toward their classmates.

The 1st Amendment offers great freedom to students, as it does to adults, but not the freedom to bully or make others on campus feel threatened.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

See more here:
Does free speech allow students to post racist images of their classmates online? - Los Angeles Times

Chinas market economy with socialist characteristics rose from the ashes of Mao Zedongs failed experiments with central planning. Under that repressive regime, private enterprise was outlawed and individuals become wards of the state. When Deng Xiaoping became Chinas paramount leader, he abandoned Maos class struggle as the centerpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and embarked on economic liberalization. There was hope that greater freedom in trading goods and services would also lead to a freer market in ideas.

That hope was dashed when troops cracked down on protesters in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Dengs famous Southern Tour in 1992 resumed economic reformand China has become the worlds largest trading nationbut protectionism in the market for ideas remains intact. Under President Xi Jinping, who advocates globalization but has cracked down on the free flow of information, China has become less free.

In the just released World Press Freedom Index, published by Paris-based Reporters sans Frontires (RSF), China is ranked 176 out of 180 countries, just a few notches above North Koreaand President Xi is referred to as the planets leading censor and press freedom predator. In preparation for the 19th CCP Congress later this year, there has been an uptick in the war on free speech.

Without notice, in January the Beijing Municipal Cyberspace Administration shut down the internet of the Unirule Institute of Economics, one of Chinas leading free-market think tanks, co-founded by Mao Yushi, a strong critic of the one-party state and the lack of a free market in ideas. Without access to the global flow of ideas, Unirules work has been all but cut off. Other internet sites have been shut down and Chinas cyber bullies have gone after virtual private networks (VPNs) that allow users to circumvent the Great Firewall.

Beginning on June 1, new rules governing the news content permitted on various internet platforms will be implemented, and editors will be subject to stronger oversight by the state and the Party. Cyber security law is intended to ensure that the CCPs overriding objective of stability and order is realized. Yet that goal conflicts with the creation of a dynamic civil society and with innovation and globalization.

Xi Jinping, in his belief that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom, fails to understand a basic tenet of liberalismnamely, that individual freedom is the source of an emergent order. That idea was known in China long before it was stated by Adam Smith in 1776. In the 6th century BC, Lao Tzu explained that when the ruler leaves people alone (the principle of noninterference or wu wei), people are spontaneously transformed and increase their wealth. They do so through voluntary market exchanges under a just rule of law.

China has allowed greater economic freedom, which has enabled millions of individuals to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, but the CCPs monopoly on power has prevented a corresponding expansion in freedom of the presseven though Article 35 of the PRC Constitution states that Citizens enjoy freedom of speech.

Top-down control of ideas must eventually clash with bottom-up economic reform. China cannot become a global financial center, like Hong Kong, without the free flow of information. Insulating the political elite from the competition of ideas is not a recipe for long-run prosperity and peace. As Liu Junning, an independent scholar in Beijing, has noted, Whether China will be a constructive partner or an emerging threat will depend on the fate of liberalism in China.

The Western liberal ideas that President Xi and the CCP reject place the individual before the state and see the state as the protector of individual rights, including free speech. A just rule of law is designed to limit the power of government and enhance individual freedom. By expanding marketsboth in goods and ideassuch an institutional arrangement increases the range of choices open to people, which is the true measure of development.

If China is to become a beacon for globalization and free trade, as President Xi advocated at the Davos World Economic Forum, there will have to be movement toward a free market in ideas. China cant continue to be near the bottom in terms of freedom of the press and speech without losing ground in the information age.

Continued here:
China's War on Free Speech - Cato Institute (blog)

Vice Media co-founder and conservative speaker Gavin McInnes reads a speech written by Ann Coulter to a crowd during a conservative rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 27. Coulter canceled a planned appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, saying she had lost the backing of the groups that had sponsored her talk. Josh Edelson /AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Vice Media co-founder and conservative speaker Gavin McInnes reads a speech written by Ann Coulter to a crowd during a conservative rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 27. Coulter canceled a planned appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, saying she had lost the backing of the groups that had sponsored her talk.

On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.

It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.

In other cases as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week the event is called off.

Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.

The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.

Attorney Jim Manley, who co-wrote the bill, says the institutional neutrality provision serves as a reminder to public universities that they are funded by taxpayers, who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with. He says the other provisions are important because the students who have engaged in these protests have not been adequately disciplined by universities.

"We think those are incredibly important because what we've seen is that universities haven't really taken this seriously and discipline students who engage in these sorts of belligerent protests that are designed not to present an alternative viewpoint, but to shut down the speaker," Manley says.

In a Wall Street Journal column, Stanford University professor Peter Berkowitz echoes this point by arguing universities are slow to shut down these protests because they often want to protect minority groups who may be offended by a provocative speaker.

"The yawning gap between universities' role as citadels of free inquiry and the ugly reality of campus censorship is often the fault of administrators who share the progressive belief that universities must restrict speech to protect the sensitivities of minorities and women," Berkowitz writes. "They often capitulate to the loudest and angriest demonstrators just to get controversies off the front page."

The goal of this model bill is to protect free speech on campus broadly, Manley says, so it provides protections for both invited speakers and students who want to protest. He says the discipline provisions work by shutting down those activities that are designed to prevent an exchange of ideas.

"If I started yelling every time you asked a question, that wouldn't be a very good way to have a conversation," Manley says. "And that's basically what's happening with these shout-downs and violent protests on campus, and those are the sorts of things that our bill goes after and tries to prevent."

North Carolina is one of the states considering a campus free speech bill, but state Rep. Verla Insko, a Democrat, criticized the legislation as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right."

Manley says the legislature's job is to protect constitutional rights, which is what this bill is designed to do. He argues collaboration between legislatures and universities is needed to protect free speech on campus.

"Even if the university is a doing a fine job today, that doesn't mean that there's no role for the legislature to play here," he says. "And if the university is truly committed to protecting free expression, then it should be a collaborative exercise between the legislature and the university to create a piece of legislation that works for everybody."

Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus, and Manley says this is possible because hate speech is not well-defined in the law.

"The point of having free speech protection in the Constitution is to protect unpopular ideas," Manley says. "We don't need the First Amendment for ideas that everybody agrees with. We need to protect minority views, even if those views are repugnant to most people, and maybe especially if those views are repugnant."

Read the original:
States Consider Legislation To Protect Free Speech On Campus - NPR

Steve Post, Guest columnist 7:29 p.m. ET May 5, 2017

Steve Post(Photo: Steve Post)

I could certainly offer some personal political perspective on the current milieu where opposing voices are shouted down, where riots are threatened to block speakers whose words constitute hate, and where some would need healing from even hearing anothers viewsor safe spaces to avoid them altogether. Americans were thought-leaders on an increasingly endangered liberty free speech and sober voices, even some on the Left, lament this state of affairs.

To be sure, the battle has been hard fought, and many have given their lives or livelihood in defense of this and our other considerable freedoms. And, as these freedoms seem to be waning in part, we recognize the potential for our own expense as we try to practice them as weve become accustomed ask the bakers, florists and photographers who have discovered that their religious convictions are read as bias and hate, and have paid for it.

American Christians are right to continue to fight for these liberties and against the erosion of the values which hold them in place. That said, it is not a biblical right for believers to be unaccosted in speaking their mind, whether speaking against God or for Him.

In Numbers 16 is the story of Korah, who led a rebellion with 250 other familial heads against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. As the Lords chosen leaders, Moses and Aaron stood in the gap between the Lord and the people. Suffice to say, God didnt look kindly on this attempted usurpation. Even after the Lord showed his displeasure by having the Earth swallow Korah and his clan, and sent out fire to the clans of the 250, the Israelites murmured against Moses for he killed the Lords people. Moses and Aaron interceded to mitigate Gods further response.

On the other hand, the New Testament is full of examples of speaking for God as Hes directed. Jesus whole missionary bent was to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God. He declared His obedience thusly: For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandmentwhat to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life (John 12:49-50a).

Jesus directed the Apostles to do likewise, saying you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8) They were ultimately commanded to share the Good News of His person and work all that He taught and all that he did (Matthew 28:19-20).

The cost of speaking for God in this way, for both Jesus and his Apostles, was similar to that of speaking against God temporally speaking, it cost them their lives. Jesus words were twisted to fit the narrative of those whom he upset with his claims and accusations, but He ultimately gave away his life in service to the Truth.

Likewise, ten of the eleven remaining Apostles (after Judas left) died for their proclamation of the Truth about Jesus Christ, as did Paul for his free speech in sharing the gospel a fate far better than if he had not (1 Corinthians 9:16). So, while we biblically follow the governing authorities (that is, obeying them as long as they dont command what God forbids or forbid what He commands see Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2), we can feel free as Americans to fight for the liberties others have won for us, but we should understand that we, like those in many other countries, may suffer consequences, and pay dearly for our free speech.

Steve Post is a Tallahassee resident, armchair theologian, and past local ministry lay leader. Contact him at sepost7678@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.tdo.com/2peNRI5

Visit link:
Free speech isn't free - Tallahassee.com

If you were wondering why young Americans are less enthralled with the idea of free speech than their elders, look no further than this weeks appalling conviction of Desiree Fairooz.

Fairooz is a 61-year-old woman from Bluemont, Va., and an activist with Code Pink, the antiwar group well-known for its theatrical protests.

During the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions, our current attorney general, Fairooz was sitting in the hearing when she heard something she felt was ridiculous: an assertion from Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., that Sessions had a track record of treating all Americans equally under the law.

Fairooz was right about one thing the assertion is ridiculous. Sessions, who was considered too racist in the 1980s to be elected to a federal judgeship, has a well-documented history of discrimination.

So she did what plenty of Americans who believe in the idea that they have a right to free speech might have done: She laughed.

Officers came over and pulled her out of the hearing, and the Justice Deparment now under the purview of the apparently thin-skinned Sessions decided to prosecute her.

They won, too: Fairooz was convicted of disorderly and disruptive conduct and parading or demonstrating on Capitol grounds.

For laughing.

Theres been a lot of smug, self-righteous chatter about free speech for Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter in the Bay Area lately. Im not buying it, and Im not the only one.

Forty percent of people age 18-34 believe the government should be able to censor offensive speech toward minorities, a larger proportion than any other age group.

These young people dont feel this way because theyre fragile or delicate far from it. Its because they grew up in a society that expects them to cede the floor to racists and hatemongers, while accepting violent pushback against activists on the other end of the spectrum.

While Baby Boomers are lecturing them about tolerance for hateful speech and misrepresenting the history of Berkeleys Free Speech Movement, young people are thinking about the Occupy protesters who were pepper-sprayed by police at UC Davis.

Theyre thinking about the hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters tossed in jail for demonstrating against police brutality.

Now, theyll be thinking of Desiree Fairooz.

If free speech applies only to some Americans, its hardly free.

When I point this out, some (comfortable, reasonable) people like to tell me that free speech is a must in a liberal society. They tell me it ensures a marketplace of ideas from which people can pick the strongest ones. The assumption, of course, is that people will inevitably pick the best ones.

That assumptions based on an Enlightenment-era idea about the rationality of human beings. It makes my heart swell with nostalgia.

Look, kids, we used to imagine everyone had a fair chance in the marketplace! We used to believe people would make rational judgments!

The marketplace doesnt mean much to a generation facing staggering levels of student debt and a society mired in wealth and income economic inequalities.

For this generation, its an easy leap to recognize that the marketplace of ideas is unequal, too. Todays public squares are owned by businesses, and Facebook and Twitter can do whatever theyd like with your free speech. What those platforms certainly dont seem to be doing is much to drown out the trolls and abusers who plague outspoken women and people of color in particular.

As for the inevitability of rational judgment, its past time to put that old chestnut to rest.

If you believe in science, you may be aware of the growing body of research about the profound limitations of the human mind to successfully integrate facts contrary to our long-held belief systems. (If you dont believe in science, well, this might be why.)

Usually, people are swayed not by facts but by our emotions and our social group. Which brings me back to our current debate around free speech.

Its easy to believe in free speech if youve always had a platform for your own. Its easy to talk about speech as a universal right if youve never been dragged to jail for your laughter or your protest. Its also easy to tolerate hateful speakers if their vitriol isnt directed at you.

The younger generation more diverse and more disadvantaged than their parents is less interested in free speech because they see its benefits accruing only to those who want to do them harm. I understand where theyre coming from.

Personally, I believe that free speech is a right worth having and protecting. But like all rights, free speech needs to have equal worth for everyone. At the moment, it doesnt.

Sadly, the reason it doesnt is quite simple: Far too many Americans believe our countrys less-enlightened values of prejudice, greed and power are more important right now. A country where Desiree Fairooz can be convicted for laughing at a lie is a country where young people quickly learn whose rights have worth and whose do not.

Caille Millner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: cmillner@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @caillemillner

See the article here:
Free speech is a joke when laughing is a crime - San Francisco Chronicle

BELLE PLAINE, Minn. A veterans memorial park in Belle Plaine will soon include a satanic monument among its tributes, as an unintended consequence of a free-speech debate.

The city of Belle Plaine, about 45 miles southwest of the Twin Cities, is allowing the monument in its Veterans Memorial Park after the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue over another statue that features a soldier praying over a grave marked with a cross. The cross was removed once the issue was raised, but more than 100 residents rallied to put it back.

City Administrator Mike Votca said the city knew it had to include everyone, so it created a free speech area for all as long as the tributes honor veterans.

The memorial from the Satanic Temple in Salem, Mass., features a black cube with inverted pentagrams, a soldiers helmet and a plaque honoring veterans who died in battle.

Doug Mesner is founder of the Satanic Temple and its nonprofit group Reason Alliance. He said the group doesnt worship Satan, but is a nontheistic religious group.

Its certainly better to preserve the First Amendment than to preserve your notions of religious supremacy on public grounds. Thats certainly not what America was founded on and certainly not what our soldiers fought for, he said.

Some residents of this town of about 6,700 felt the citys initial decision to remove the cross was an insult to veterans who sacrificed their lives, and they accused groups like the Satanic Temple of preying on small towns. For nearly a month, protesters occupied the park daily and put their own handmade crosses in the ground.

The residents feel a sense of duty, Andy Parrish, a Belle Plaine resident who led the effort to restore the cross, said at a city council meeting. Our veterans defended us and its our duty to defend them.

While some residents arent fans of the satanic memorial, Parrish said everyone understood something like that was a possibility.

Its more annoying than it is offensive, he said.

See the article here:
MN town set up 'free speech' vets tribute area and got a satanic monument - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

News & Observer

NCCU, UNCG get high marks for free speech efforts News & Observer Two UNC system campuses have revamped their policies and earned higher ratings by a free speech watchdog organization. N.C. Central University and UNC Greensboro were given a green light, the highest designation, according to the ... and more »

More:
NCCU, UNCG get high marks for free speech efforts - News & Observer