Category Archives: Free Speech

I was interested in the article in Wednesdays Star-Tribune on Sen. Anthony Bouchards reaction to students English project on concealed carry at the University of Wyoming. It seems the senator was upset with their research. The article goes on to say he threatened to fire the professor and end funding for the program. I hope this is not true.

Free speech at the University of Wyoming has had good times and bad. In April 1970, I was a student who marched to the flagpole on Prexys Pasture to protest the killing of four students at Kent State. There were a few hundred of us students at that time around the flagpole. The state police were called out. It took the Laramie police to broker a deal with the state police and the protesters to allow the overnight protest with the agreement to disband in the morning. The ability of the Laramie police to broker a standoff allowed for a nonviolent de-escalation and a peaceful resolution to free speech.

The peaceful resolution to the Carbon Sink sculpture on display outside Old Main in 2012 did not have the same positive outcome for free speech. The discussion of global warming around the sculpture irritated Wyomings energy industry. The industry contributes greatly financially to our university. Yet using that influence to silence thought or expression of art to stimulate discourse is dangerous. The sculpture was quietly removed during the spring of 2012. Currently, there is a rise of strong dictatorial leaders in the world (Sisi of Egypt, Erdogan of Turkey) who squelch free speech. We should not emulate such tyrants.

I was appalled at the rioting at the University California at Berkeley, when the Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos tried to speak on campus about alt-right white nationalist views. I deplore his message and bigoted views yet support his freedom to speak. I learned at a young age living in Chicago about free speech when the National Socialist Party of American (American Nazi party) wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois, in the summer of 1977 and wear their swastika armbands. Skokie at that time had the largest population of Jewish Holocaust survivors outside Israel. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the swastika was a form of free speech; thus, they could march with their symbols.

William Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground, was first denied the opportunity of speaking at the University of Wyoming in 2010 because of his 1960s militant past. Yet a judge declared the refusal by the university to allow him to speak was an obstruction of his fffreedom of speech. He spoke, and we all survived. Now, conservative pundit Ann Coulter has been denied by the University of California at Berkeley to speak on campus due to security concerns. I dont subscribe to her political philosophy, but I do support her right to speak. We cant allow extremists on the left or right to prevent free exchange of ideas.

Our greatest asset as a nation that separates us from all others is our ability to speak freely. Most importantly, our universities need to be spaces where our creativity grows, invents, develops and innovates for the future of our country and world. Fareed Zakaria, CNN news commentator and author of The Post-American World, commented about our American system of education. He stated that when he came to America from India to attend Harvard University, that this was his first experience at truly learning, having his thoughts challenged and exposed to widely differing views. The American system of learning is what makes it stand out from all other countries. This is because we embrace and protect our freedom of speech. To suppress speech, as I have shown above, only inhibits our growth as a country and a free society. There is room for dissenting opinions.

Bill Lee is a 1973 graduate from the University of Wyoming in social work. He worked and coached for 37 years as a school social worker in Lander.

Read more:
Lee: Free speech is good for us all - Casper Star-Tribune Online

Idaho Statesman

Free speech advocates rush to oppose Idaho's ag-gag law in 9th Circuit appeal Idaho Statesman Twelve groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals contending that the so-called ag-gag law, which was struck down by an Idaho judge, violates the right to free speech. A hearing is scheduled next month on the ...

Go here to read the rest:
Free speech advocates rush to oppose Idaho's ag-gag law in 9th Circuit appeal - Idaho Statesman

The University of California at Berkeley has spent the weekentangled in controversy after it cancelled a speech by conservative provocateur Ann Coulter, then reversed course Thursday and announced it would allow her to talk on campus early next month.

The decision to prohibit a speaker at any public university would have triggered criticism,butat Berkeley a symbol of campus free speech in America it meant much more.

On a December evening in 1964, 1,000 students marched into the BerkleysSproul Hall and sat down. The protesters were inspired by the Free Speech Movement, a group demanding, among other things, that the university stop restricting political activity on campus.

The studentsslept, sang, studied and talked until after 3 a.m., when the chancellor showed up and demanded that they leave, according to news accounts. A few did, but most stayed. Then things turned violent.

An Army of law officers broke up a massive sit-in occupation, reported the Associated Press, which described limply defiant protesters being dragged down the stairs on their backs and shoved into police vans. Cries of police brutality rose from demonstration supporters watching outside.

But university President Clark Kerr had lost his patience with the activists, declaring in a statement that the Free Speech Movement had become an instrument of anarchy.

By morning, police had arrested 796 students.

The school would later relent to the pressure,loosening its rules against political activity on campus andmaking Sproul Hall a place for opendiscussion.

The sit-in was one demonstration among several between 1964 and 1965 including a Vietnam War protest that drew thousands of people thatforeveraltered activism at U.S. colleges.

It was the beginning of a seismic shift in American culture, the San Francisco Chronicle wrote on the 50-year anniversary in 2014, noting that the energy the FSM unleashed spread through campuses across the country, with protests and takeovers everywhere from San Francisco State to the University of Michigan to Columbia and abroad.

Modern conservatives, including Coulter, are aware of Berkeleys history and haveseized upon it. Even before the school decided to let her speak on campus in early May, Coulterhad promised to go ahead with her speech.

What are they going to do? Arrest me? she said Wednesday on the Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight.

The fear among Berkeley officials stemmed from the upheaval that exploded on campus in February, when violent protests forceduniversity police to cancel a speech byanother right-wing firebrand, Milo Yiannopoulos. People set fires,chuckedrocks and tossed Molotov cocktails.

On Tuesday night, white nationalist Richard Spencer spokeat Auburn University in Alabama, and protests turned violent there, too, leading to three arrests. Convinced that his racist message would appeal to students weary of politically correct campus culture,Spencer had promised last year to begin giving speechesat universities around the country.

Auburn had attempted to bar his appearance, but U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins wouldnt allow it, writing: Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment.

Amid the Berkeley tumult Thursday, Spencer was asked whether he intended to visit that campus, too.

No immediate plans, he wrote in a text. But I feel like I have to now.

Read more Retropolis:

Hitlers mother was the only person he genuinely loved. Cancer killed her decades before he became a monster.

Their pain was unparalleled: How slaves helped build the White House, the Capitol and other iconic symbols of democracy

She was attacked 50 years ago for being a woman in the Boston Marathon. This week she ran it again at 70.

Assassins!A Confederate spy was accused of helping kill Abraham Lincoln. Then he vanished.

See original here:
Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them. - Washington Post

Few organizations have been more engaged in fighting President Donald Trumps attacks on civil liberties and civil rights than the ACLU. But its important to remember that political candidates including Donald Trump have constitutional rights, too.

A judge recently held that Donald Trump may have committed incitement when, at a campaign rally in Kentucky last year, he called on his audience to eject protesters who were subsequently manhandled by the crowd. While its a closer case than most, I dont think those words can clear the high bar for what constitutes incitement.

The case arises from a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville. A video from the event shows a Black woman surrounded by a sea of shouting white faces contorted by fury. Trump yells, Get em outta here! Get out! He adds, with notably less enthusiasm, Dont hurt em. The woman is shoved, screamed at, and spun like a top by a multitude of Trump loyalists. Its a truly scary sight.

The woman, Kashiya Nwanguma, and two other attendeeswho were similarly ejected from the Louisville rallyhave filed a lawsuit over the incident. They assert claims of assault and battery against several of the rallys attendees, and anyone who physically abused them should absolutely be held liable. But the plaintiffs also sued Trump, alleging that his speech incited the other defendants to act violently. They pointed to a history of violence at Trumps rallies and his prior assurances that hed cover the legal fees of his supporters who roughed up protesters.

There is no question that Trumps decision to use his bully pulpit to actually bully protesters and to rile up his crowds against them is morally despicable. But legally, deciding whether what happened in that crowded theater rises to the level of incitement is a trickier task.

This month, a federal judge in Kentucky allowed the case to proceed on the grounds that Trump may have engaged in incitement to riot at that rally. (Notably, he allowed the case on two theories both intentional and negligent incitement more on that below.)

The decision is troubling from a civil liberties perspective, no matter what you think of Trump or of his policies. Many of our strongest First Amendment protections come from cases in which the government tried to punish individuals for advocating illegal activity.

Incitement charges have been used to jail anti-war protestors, labor picketers, Communists, and civil rights activists. Over time, the Supreme Court learned from these mistakes and adopted a very speech-protective test to determine when incitement has taken place. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court ruled that the First Amendment permits liability for incitement only when speech is intended and likely to cause imminent and serious lawlessness. Its a high bar for a reason, and Trumps conduct at the rally didnt meet it.

A brief tour through the history of Supreme Court incitement cases shows how the very same First Amendment rules that protect racist speech also protect civil rights advocates. The Brandenburg test is named after Clarence Brandenburg, an avowed racist convicted for holding an Ohio KKK rally in the late 1960s. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction, despite the rallys talk of revengeance against Jews and Black people, and held that abstract advocacy of force was protected speech that did not amount to incitement.

A few years later, in a short opinion relying entirely on Brandenburg, the court struck down another state conviction this timeof an anti-war protester who a cop overheard yelling, Well take the fucking streets later. The court again held that advocacy of generic illegal action was not incitement.

And perhaps the high water mark for incitement law is NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, in which the court upheld civil rights icon Charles Evers right to deliver emotionally charged rhetoric at a 1966 rally. Evers was advocating that a crowd of supporters boycott racist, white-owned businesses, and during his passionate speech, he promised that well break the damn neck of anyone who broke the boycott. Citing Brandenburg once again, the court held that there was no evidence that Evers authorized, ratified, or directly threatened acts of violence even if he suggested such violence might be justified.

So the history of modern incitement jurisprudence begins with a KKK leaders free speech rights and extends to a Vietnam War protester and a great civil rights icon. There can hardly be a better illustration that our free speech rights are truly indivisible. And they sprang, battle-born, from the tumult of the civil rights era and apply to racists and civil rights advocates alike.

The stringent Brandenburg test is designed to ensure breathing room for the messy, chaotic, ad hominem, passionate, and even racist speech that may be part of the American political conversation. For that reason, the Supreme Courts signposts for incitement consist of cases upholding free speech rights in the face of overzealous prosecutions. So we know what the Supreme Court thinks incitement isnt more than we know what they think it is.

From a lawyers point of view, there is something fascinating about Donald Trump: he appears determined to make us dust off our law books and reexamine basic constitutional precepts. Now its incitements turn.

***

So we have a theater, a frenzied crowd, an assault on a vulnerable person, and a demagogue. Why doesnt this qualify as incitement?

First, the notion of negligent incitement is plainly unconstitutional, and, under Brandenburg, a contradiction in terms. Negligent conduct is careless conduct, not intentional conduct. The law makes it clear that if Trump did not intentionally advocate violence, he cannot be held liable for incitement.

Even setting negligence aside, however, the facts we have also dont add up to intentional incitement. Start with the words themselves: Get em outta here. As my colleague Rachel Goodman and I have previously written, the First Amendment does not entitle you to protest at a politicians privately run rally. So by protesting in Louisville, Nwanguma and her two co-plaintiffs were subject to lawful removal. Therefore, Trumps words do not explicitly refer to any unlawful action he had a right to tell them to leave. And remember that Trump added, from the lectern, Dont hurt em. At face value, this doesnt appear to pass that high bar for incitement. Indeed, Trump explicitly disavowed violence.

But the plaintiffs did a good job marshaling their facts, which is what makes this such a close case. Since incitement is in part about state of mind, the fact that Trump previously shared his hope that people knock the crap outta protesters and offered to pay the legal fees of those who did has real relevance. And interestingly, the judge cited the words uttered right after Get em outta here: Trump added, I cant say go get em or Ill get in trouble. The judge held that this was Trumps way of conveying, with a wink and nod, a desire for violence to his supporters.

The final inquiry is whether Trumps words were actually likely to incite violence. Put another way, would a reasonable person have heard Get em outta here as code for violently assault those protesters? Last week, one of the individual defendants in this case actually countersued Trump, arguing that if hes found liable for assault, Trump should pay his legal fees as the president does appear to have promised. So we have one listener who claims violence was what Trump wanted. (Of course, this argument would conveniently relieve him of responsibility for his own conduct.)

But the First Amendment requires that we focus fault on those who act, rather than on those who merely speak, absent extraordinary circumstances. We need to be extremely wary of granting government the power to shut down a speaker because of the power of her words. We need to ensure a world where Charles Evers can get heated and where street activists can sharply criticize the police, without worrying that someone in the audience will hurt someone and then try to blame the speaker.

Some people have cheered the judges ruling in this case perhaps gratified that Trumps ugly campaign is finally getting some comeuppance. Its certainly understandable why reasonable people could see those Trump rallies as racist, sexist powder kegs. I know that many Americans fear were slipping into fascism, and see the violent euphoria that has sometimes emerged at Trump rallies as a harbinger of a moment from which our democracy wont return. I worry, too.

But if we really want to protect against that moment, we cannot do it by weakening our commitment to constitutional values. So many of the high water marks of the First Amendment were etched during the civil rights era. It is never a good time to alter the law so that more speech can be punished. Political speech should qualify as incitement only if it is unequivocally and inherently a request for violent and unlawful action.

Get em out just doesnt meet that bar.

Go here to read the rest:
Donald Trump Has Free Speech Rights, Too | American Civil ... - ACLU (blog)

5605146

Former Canadian House of Commons Speaker and Conservative leadership candidate Andrew Scheer wants the federal government to stop funding universities that wont protect free speech.

Under Scheers proposed policy, announced Wednesday, public colleges and universities would be required to provide a written commitment to advancing and protecting free speech when applying for grant applications from federally-funded organizations.

He says his objective is not more bureaucracy.

I would instruct the minister to work with these bodies and come up with an easy way to test for it. I imagine in the early days it would be as simple as responding to complaints, Scheer told the National Post.

Academic institutions would be required to to demonstrate their resolve to deal effectively with forces opposed to free speech on campus, whether that means cutting off funding to student unions or providing adequate security.

I do believe the university does have a responsibility to step in and prevent small rabble-rousing groups from having an impact, said Scheer.

Campuses are no longer the bastions of free speech that they once were, says Scheer. Calling it a troubling trend, he says political correctness shuts down controversial events, withdraws invitations to speakers and bans activities or clubs.

Scheer cites recent examples that include a pro-life group being silenced at Wilfrid Laurier University; a McGill University campus newspaper that shuts out any articles with a positive portrayal of Israel and the ongoing student protests that rock academia every time University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson talks about his opposition to gender-neutral speech.

There are a lot of people who come to campus who say things that are outrageous. And I vehemently disagree with them. That I find offensive. Professors or guest speakers who say terrible things about everything from Christianity to capitalism, Scheer said.

I just dont go to them. Its as simple as that. And it doesnt bother me. It doesnt keep me up at night. It doesnt make me want to go and tip a car over.

Peterson has galvanized public opinion with his criticism of gender neutral pronouns that he says justify the illusion of people pretending to be something other than male or female. The professor, who for the first time this month was denied a research grant, is also an opponent of the Liberal governments Bill C-16, a so-called gender discrimination bill that many critics, Sheer among them, say will deal another blow to free speech in Canada.

The bill is reaching the final stages of Parliamentary approval and will ambiguously ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity or orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the criminal code.

Scheer voted against C-16 and says Petersons right to free speech is just one reason to fight political correctness on campus.

People can disagree with him. People can refute his points, and stand up for what they believe in. But what bothers me is this sense of shutting out any kind of dissent on certain issues. I believe that Canada is a mature enough country that we can have these debates, Scheer said.

Follow David on Twitter

Link:
Conservative Leadership Candidate Wants Universities To Protect Free Speech - Daily Caller

By Matthew Burns

Raleigh, N.C. A bill to "restore and preserve campus free speech" throughout the University of North Carolina system failed in a House committee on Wednesday amid concerns that it would do more to infringe on free speech than it would to protect it.

Calling the state's infamous Speaker Ban in the 1960s a mistake, Reps. Chris Millis, R-Pender, and Jonathan Jordan, R-Ashe, the sponsors of House Bill 527, said UNC campuses should be open to all ideas, even those that some students and faculty find objectionable.

"Intellectual diversity is extremely important," Millis told members of the House Committee on Education - Universities. "That's what we should be fostering."

Jordan, whose district includes Appalachian State University, decried the use of so-called "free expression zones" on campus, saying the entire campus should be a free expression zone.

Tom Shanahan, general counsel for the UNC system, said the Board of Governors and individual campuses already have free speech policies in effect that extend into such areas as codes of conduct for students and rental agreements for campus facilities. Controversial speakers frequently appear on campuses without any problem, he said, so there is no need for legislation setting up more policies.

"What's wrong with verifying that our constitutional rights are protected?" Millis asked, noting that there are currently no guarantees other than "trusting administrators" that campuses remain true to free speech policies.

Millis couldn't cite any event that prompted the bill, but he noted that the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit that defends free speech rights in academia, found that only UNC-Chapel Hill has policies that don't infringe on speech, while four UNC campuses clearly restrict free speech and the other 11 have policies that could be interpreted to infringe on speech. He didn't identify the four campuses given a "red light" rating by the group.

House Bill 527 also would allow people who believe their speech rights have been violated to sue, even if they were disrupting a class, speaking event or meeting, Shanahan said, meaning UNC campuses would have to spend money defending such lawsuits.

"This is no longer First Amendment law; it's its own statute," he said, noting it could raise many questions in state courts.

Lawmakers expressed doubts about a provision requiring campuses to remain neutral on "public policy controversies of the day" and not require students or faculty to take a position on such issues. Rep. Verla Insko, D-Orange, asked whether that would, for example, prevent a university center from publishing a study on climate change.

Steven Walker, general counsel for Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, who backed the bill, said the measure wouldn't affect faculty academic freedom, only a university's ability to tell a professor what he or she can or cannot say publicly.

Susanna Birdsong, policy counsel for the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the legislation was written too broadly and "risks chilling the activity it purports to protect."

"The answer is more speech, not government restrictions," Birdsong told lawmakers.

The committee deadlocked 6-6 on the measure, effectively killing it for the session.

Continue reading here:
UNC free speech bill silenced in House committee :: WRAL.com - WRAL.com

5599391

The Constitution protects the rights of every American, including free speech, with the understanding that some limits can be placed on your conduct if it infringes on the rights of another American.

Your right to free speech cannot include yelling fire in a crowded theater to start a deadly stampede. Freedom of expression does not mean you have a right to give a KKK speech while burning a KKK cross on the property of a black family.

The First Amendment does not give you the right to follow a campaign volunteer into private homes, and use a powerful blow horn to shout over them when they try to speak in support of their political candidate.

And yet, thats what is happening. Special interests with lots of money have been using their free speech to shout over and drown out the speech of other Americans. They have been using the 1976 Buckley v Valeo decision to virtually eliminate your free speech, arguing that the Constitution guarantees the unlimited use of money as speech even when it overrides the free speech of individual citizens.

If 57 billionaires and the biggest corporations, unions and special interests choose the only candidates the rest of us are allowed to consider for high office just as the British Empire told Americans who our King and State Governors were prior to the Revolution then the free speech of those special interests is quashing the true free speech of hundreds of millions of Americans.

We need to rescue the First Amendment rights of Americans from a growing Oligarchy. The nations Founders based our Republic on the balance of interests to be argued for through competing free speech. Allowing unlimited and secret or veiled campaign contributions to be used as a giant blow horn actually destroys the free speech of individuals that our Constitution should protect. Likewise, intimidation and ostracization of anyone who disagrees with a powerful group shuts down free speech.

Even if we accept the idea that money is somehow speech, free speech is not unlimited. You cant shout fire in a crowded theater. Therefore money sent to or spent by shady third-party groups for political attack ads can certainly be limited, because they infringe on the free speech rights of individual American citizens.

As a conservative who wants to drain the swamp of secret political money being traded for our tax dollars, Ive wrestled with the best approach for fixing this crisis.

At Take Back Our Republic, we encourage the discussion of conservative approaches to campaign finance reform that fall within current Constitutional decisions; but powerful lobbyists trading secret contributions for our tax dollars can only be dislodged via: 1) a Supreme Court decision, 2) an Article V Convention, or 3) a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Id love to see the Supreme Court or an Article V Convention address these issues, but I do worry that either could bring along many unintended consequences (e.g. groups with a broad liberal agenda tried to stop Judge Neil Gorsuch for other reasons, and Ive seen some of my 21 political conventions go in unintended directions).

After much soul-searching over the past year, that leads me to believe a 28th Amendment is the cleanest way to address a specific clarification to one of the greatest documents ever created by man the US Constitution.

To date, 18 of our United States have asked Congress for a Constitutional amendment that would allow limits on political spending where appropriate and let us take our government back from those who give big transaction money in other words, trading millions in contributions for billions of your taxpayer dollars.

Hundreds of local governments, all across the country, have voted to do the same. Large and small, conservative and liberal the governments closest to the people have endorsed changing the federal Constitution to balance the funding of elections. Homer, Alaska; Tucson, Arizona; Atlanta, Georgia; Dubuque, Iowa; Missoula, Montana; Derry, New Hampshire; Austin, Texas the list goes on and on and on. At last count, more than 700 different municipalities have voted in favor of amending the Constitution.

Our campaign last year focused in South Dakota, where a majority of voters approved the Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act after it was added to the ballot by initiative petition. The Act would have balanced the system by encouraging small donations by average voters, and also requiring those groups giving politicians unlimited secret gifts to disclose their gifts, so voters would at least know who was trying to trade political gifts for millions in state taxpayer funded contracts. No one was shocked when, almost immediately after voters approved the Act, Legislators called an emergency session to throw out the will of the people and keep their secret and unlimited gifts coming.

When I ran a nationwide faith-based vote turnout for Bush 2000, reaching out to 14 million conservative Christians and Catholics, anyone who was motivated by ideology and willing to make phone calls, knock on doors or pass out literature at events knew they were exercising their free speech to actually elect a President. Certainly grassroots progressives were turning out voters in similar ways, but we all felt part of a vibrant Democracy and most Americans liked at least one if not both candidates.

Since then, I have watched grassroots activists replaced by gambling and entertainment money that shares none of their values, and anonymous attack ads drown out the average citizen.

We need a solution that restores the balance of speech needed for our Republic to exist. We need reasonable limits and disclosure to prevent the political-industrial complex from reinventing the Oligarchy or Monarchy of old. I am all for a Supreme Court case or Article V convention, if either of those avenues could restore the free speech rights of American citizens, but the appeal for the 28th Amendment seems the most direct path to victory.

Take Back Our Republic is leading the conservative movement for campaign finance reform. We are a growing, grassroots group made up of people from all around the nation, from a wide variety of backgrounds and economic circumstances. We are united by the belief that our political system has been corrupted by special interest spending and restoring citizens rights to be heard by their elected officials is the first step toward returning our government to the people.

John Pudner is a former conservative political consultant, best known for helping Dave Brat unseat US House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014 using grassroots action rather than campaign money. He is also the former editor of Breitbart Sports.Take Back Our Republic now has chapters in 37 states.

Link:
When "Free Speech" By Special Interests Tramples On The Rights ... - Daily Caller

A conservative-championed campus free speech bill will get its first substantial debate in the N.C. General Assembly this week.

Members of a House education committee are scheduled to consider House Bill 527 Wednesday afternoon, draft legislation pushed by Republicans in recent years to curtail demonstrations against conservative speeches on college campuses.

The bill requires neutrality from UNC universities and, notably, prohibits campus protests that, according to the draft,infringe upon the rights of others to engage in or listen to expressive activity.

The GOP-sponsored bill comes at the behest of Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, who announced his intentions to urge such reforms this February.Such legislation has the backing of right-wing pundits who say conservative speakers have been harassed on generally left-leaning college campus, but its likely to earn the scrutiny of groups like the ACLU.

Anyone who feels as if their rights are violated would have the right to sue the university for damages and court costs under the GOP bill.

The GOP legislation also creates a so-called Committee on Free Expression, which would include 11 members of the Republican-controlled UNC Board of Governors. That committee would prepare annual reports detailing:

A description of any barriers to or disruptions of free expression within the constituent institutions.

A description of the administrative handling and discipline relating to these disruptions or barriers.

A description of substantial difficulties, controversies, or successes in maintaining a posture of administrative and institutional neutrality with regard to political or social issues.

Any assessments, criticisms, commendations, or recommendations the Committee sees fit to include.

Furthermore, campus orientation would be required to include a lesson on campus free speech as well.

Officials with the ACLU of N.C. told Policy Watch they are tracking the legislation closely.

The constitutional right to free expression and assembly is fundamental to our democracy, ACLU-N.C. Policy Director Sarah Gillooly said in a statement Wednesday. Proposals to enshrine those rights into state law must be clear and precise. We look forward to discussing the bill with lawmakers in the days to come.

See the original post here:
NC lawmakers to take up GOP-championed campus free speech bill - The Progressive Pulse

BERKELEY, Calif. The American far right alt-right figures, antigovernment movement leaders, and a conglomeration of conspiracists and extremists ranging from anti-feminists to nativists, all angrily voicing their support for Donald Trump came here Saturday itching for a fight. They found it.

On social media, the organizers and supporters called it the Next Battle of Berkeley, a chance to gain revenge for an earlier event on the University of California campus that they believed had infringed on conservatives free speech rights: In February, a scheduled appearance by alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was shut down by rock-throwing antifascist protesters.

So when several hundred of them gathered at a downtown park for a Free Speech event Saturday most from out of town, many from all around the country they came prepared to do battle with the same black-clad protesters, many of them wearing helmets, pads, and face masks of their own. The result was an inevitable free-for-all, with organized phalanxes on both sides lining up, occasionally erupting into fistfights, and then breaking down in a series of running melees that ran up Center Street into the heart of downtown.

By the days end, 11people were injured and six hospitalized. Police arrested 21 people on a variety of charges.

The rally had drawn wide attention among various right-wing factions leading up to the event. Perhaps the most noteworthy of them were the Oath Keepers, the antigovernment Patriot movement group closely associated with the Bundy standoff and various far-right conspiracist activities.

Stewart Rhodes addresses the crowd Saturday.

Were going [to Berkeley] because people are having their rights violated, Oath Keepers president Steward Rhodes told a North Carolina gathering the week before. So it could be argued that with the full support of the local politicians, thugs in the streets are beating people up and suppressing their rights to free speech and assembly. It could be argued that California is in a state of insurrection.

Various alt-right figures also became involved. Kyle Chapman, an Alameda County man who has gained recent notoriety as Based Stickman, the stick-and-shield-wielding defender of right-wing speech, came and was reportedly arrested. Canadian Lauren Southern, an alt-right pundit who came to notoriety by denying the existence of rape culture and by demonizing minorities, arrived wearing a helmet boasting a MAGA (Make America Great Again) sticker.

Nathan Damigo, a leader in the white-nationalist 'Identity Evropa' movement, taunts protesters.

Nathan Damigo, one of the key figures in the student-oriented white-nationalist Identity Evropa organization, was not only present, but acted as a provocateur throughout much of the day, egging on protesters and leading a group of young white men with fascy haircuts in confrontations on the street. Damigo was videotaped sucker-punching a young woman in black who was embroiled in the street brawls.

The rally was scheduled to begin at noon, but by 11 a.m. both sides were out in force, and the right-wing speakers, including Southern and Rhodes, began addressing the crowd from a tree-covered portion of the park. Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters gathered, separated from the Patriots by orange police cordons, enforced by some 250 officers. By around noon, the protesters began to march around the park.

Groups of right-wing activists formed lines to prevent black-clad antifascists from entering their space, even as the protest moved around the east end of the park and then congealed on Center Street, on its west side. It was there that the police cordons finally started breaking down, the two sides were milling as a mob, and fights began to break out. Objects ranging from plastic bottles to large rock to bagels were flying through the air. A trash bin was rolled down the street, and several bins of garbage were set afire.

The Pepe banners came out early and often.

Banners came out, including some featuring Pepe the Frog, the notorious alt-right mascot. One sign featured the anti-Semitic meme, Goyim Know.

Eventually, the mass of people moved a half-block to the intersection of Center and Milvia streets, where the two sides again faced off for the better part of an hour. Insults were shouted and chanted, threats were made, skirmishes erupted. Both sides appeared to be evenly matched.

That mob broke up when someone lit a large smoke bomb that obscured everyones vision for several minutes. In the fog, melees began breaking out, several of them running east up Center. Eventually the mob moved up the block to the intersection of Center with Shattuck, the main downtown boulevard.

The right-wing militants appeared to be attempting to head toward the Cal-Berkeley campus a few blocks further east, but the protesters stiffened their resistance and prevented them from getting much further beyond Shattuck. As participants began drifting away, the combatants remained mostly within a small half-block on Shattuck. Eventually, an organized phalanx of police moved in and broke up the crowd, and most participants went home.

Afterward, the alt-right was exultant, claiming victory: Chapman claimed that Berkeley got sacked, while the rallys original organizers, a far-right group called the Proud Boys, boasted: Today was an enormous victory! I could not be more proud or grateful for every one who attended the event! This was the turning point!

Post-election pro-Trump rallies in late February held around the country similarly provoked scenes of mob violence.

Visit link:
Far Right Descends On Berkeley For 'Free Speech' And Planned Violence - Southern Poverty Law Center

MADISON, Wis. While it might not be the wisest decision, its generally not illegal to call a cop an asshole. Its one of those First Amendment things.

PRICE OF SPEECH? Hammond, Wis., resident Tony Endres found himself in a legal battle over what is protected speech and what is disorderly conduct.

But perhaps free speech need not apply in the northwest Wisconsin village of Hammond, where resident and local government critic Tony Endres found himself in trouble with the law for exercising his First Amendment rights.

In August 2015, Endres was out for a motorcycle ride when he said he waved at a police officer in his neighborhood. The police officer brusquely turned away, Endres said. Offended, Endres shouted out the offensive moniker.

I came back that evening and another officer on duty at the time pulled into my driveway. He told me there was a complaint filed against me and I was going to be charged with disorderly conduct because of my statement. I said I didnt do anything wrong, Endres said.

Nothing seemed to come of the incident at the time.

Weeks later, Endres received a personal advertisement letter from an enterprising local attorney asking whether Endres would like legal representation. For what? Endres was confused. The attorney in a review of online court records had discovered that Endres had been charged. But Endres said he was never served, either in person or by letter.

To Endres, the charge was retaliatory.

He had long been an outspoken critic of Hammond Police Chief Rick Coltrain, at one point accusing the law enforcement official of fraud. Endres provided documents and photographic evidence to support his allegation that Coltrains car was parked in front of his home while the chiefs time cards noted that he was on the clock and on the job. Endres also obtained phone records through an open records request that showed Coltrain placing a call from his cabin in Siren while his time cards said he was on the job.

In a decision that involved a recusal by one of Coltrains allies, the Hammond Police and Review Board cleared the chief of any wrong-doing. Endres said it was small-town cronyism at its worst. Coltrain was stealing money from the taxpayers, Endres testified at the board meeting.

His citizen activism did not play well with local law enforcement and the pro-chief members of the Hammond Village Board.

In closed session, a board member threatened Endres, according to the resident.

He said hed shoot me in the head, and Id be in a body bag, Endres said. A fellow board member resigned over the incident. Endres filed a complaint with the district attorneys office, but the DA did not file any charges.

Village Board President Tony Bibeau did not return a request for comment. The chief said he needed to consult the village attorney before responding.

Dan Orr, the police officer who filed the original complaint against Endres, claimed that he was afraid for the safety of his family because of the actions of Tony Endres. Orr, who previously worked on the Hammond police force but was employed with an area law enforcement agency at the time, noted Endres hateful posts on his Facebook site and that he carries a concealed gun. Endres Facebook posts are highly critical of police and local government officials, like so many other social media sites. And Wisconsin, like every other state, has a concealed carry law.

Endres said he had to go to court over a half dozen times in fighting the disorderly conduct charge. At the final appearance the judge asked him if he wanted to say anything to the court.

I said, I havent broken any laws. Its not illegal to swear in public. The (assistant) DA interrupts and says, Thats not for a judge to decide, thats for a jury, Endres said.

Frustrated and feeling like he would receive no justice in a provincial place controlled by corrupt government officials and their law enforcement allies, Endres said he was tired of the whole mess. He gave up his free speech fight and paid the $250 fine, entering a no-contest plea.

They were dragging it out and dragging it out, he said. The assistant DA insisted on taking it to trial.

They beat me down, I admit it, he said. I didnt want to take the chance of going to trial with of all the corruption all the way through the county.

Instead, Endres fought back at the polls. He ran for village board trustee in this months election. He lost.

But the citizen activist hasnt quieted his campaign against what he claims is ongoing bad behavior by small town government leaders.

I want to expose their behavior, Endres said. I want people to know whats going on in our local government. People need to watch the police. Dont be afraid of the police or the government. They serve us, not the other way around.

Read more here:
Not-so-free speech: Don't call a cop an 'a-hole' in Hammond, Wisconsin - Watchdog.org