Category Archives: Free Speech

Gov. Asa Hutchinson put his veto pen to good use last week against a bill that could deny free speech in Arkansas.

The governor vetoed the bill on Thursday. Lawmakers recessed the 2017 regular session of the Legislature earlier in the week and plan to return in early May, when they may consider overriding any gubernatorial vetoes before formally adjourning the regular session.

They also expect a special session to address changes in the state Medicaid program.

That business may be serious enough to keep them from backtracking to otherwise settled issues before adjournment of the regular session. But they may try to override this veto or any other the governor might make.

Senate Bill 550 should not be revived. It would criminalize mass picketing, which is defined in the law as people assembling in the use of pickets or demonstrations at or near a business, school or private facility.

It aimed to punish anyone who obstructs access to a place of employment or to public infrastructure or private property.

Unlawful mass picketing would have been a Class A misdemeanor, subject to potentially heavy civil fines.

The bill's sponsor, Sen. Trent Garner, R-El Dorado, interestingly cited the blockage of a street in Fayetteville as example of why the state needed this law.

"This is a problem happening nationwide and I want to address it on the front end here in the state of Arkansas," said Garner.

Fayetteville does have a long history of public protest on all manner of issues. So do other places in Arkansas, but the Fayetteville experience stands out. Vigils against pending executions in the state are planned here and the city has in recent months seen demonstrations on behalf of women's rights and in protest of President Trump's travel ban and his plans to build a border wall, among others.

In the 1960s, the city famously held competing, simultaneous marches by people for and against the Vietnam War.

Back then, there were arrests of some demonstrators who blocked city streets, but most demonstrations these days aren't so rowdy.

They're generally heart-felt by participants and appropriately policed to allow people to express themselves publicly.

Protests are simply part of the fabric of this community and, indeed, of the state and nation.

That's why the ACLU of Arkansas was quick to note during legislative debate about the bill that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to speak and assemble.

Gov. Hutchinson recognized as much when he said in his veto message that Senate Bill 550's vague language would have a "chilling effect on free speech and the right to assemble."

The governor said Garner's goal of ensuring public safety is "admirable" but found the bill's restriction of free speech unacceptable.

Both houses of the General Assembly passed the bill, with the Senate initially approving the measure 22-6 and the House 58-21. An amended version of the bill narrowly won a 18-8 vote in the Senate to send the bill to the governor.

Some senators obviously had some second thoughts about the legislation and Gov. Hutchinson did them all a favor in vetoing it.

This bill came from a first-term senator who represents Union County and parts of five more in the most southern reaches of Arkansas. He's an attorney and a decorated Special Forces and Green Beret veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan.

The freshman lawmaker was likely recruited to handle the legislation that Rita Sklar, the ACLU Arkansas executive director, called "un-American."

Similar bills to curb protesting have been pushed in other states with varying success and more can be expected, given increasing public interest in protesting national issues.

Garner's bill was hardly the only legislation introduced this session to damage First Amendment rights in Arkansas, but it was the first to get -- and deserve -- the governor's veto.

By the way, for those who might recognize Garner's name, he was also the Senate sponsor of the infamous House Bill 1249, the concealed-carry bill that state Rep. Charlie Collins, R-Fayetteville, introduced and got passed into law.

Yes, that's the one that would have allowed qualified permit-holders to carry handguns into Razorback Stadium as well as other sports venues.

It was in Garner's hands that Collins' original bill to grant concealed-carry authority to college faculty and staff got expanded to allow any qualifying 21-year-old to carry a concealed gun just about anywhere on campus, in bars and public buildings and, most notably, to sporting events.

Its passage proved such a source of embarrassment and concern that lawmakers quickly amended the bill to ban guns at games.

Unfortunately, other provisions of what is now Act 562, permitting concealed carry in a lot of new places, including college campuses, remain.

Commentary on 04/09/2017

See original here:
Brenda Blagg: Protecting free speech - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Should your university be able to punish you for a Facebook post? Even kick you out?

The U.S. Supreme Court denied requests this week to hear a case that had the potential to set a major legal precedent on students rights to free speech off-campus, including on social media.

This lets a lower courts decision stand and you may not like it.

The case involves a Minnesota nursing student who was kicked out of his program for comments he made on social media, according to the Student Press Law Center.

In 2012, Craig Keefe, a one-time student at Central Lakes Colleges Brainerd nursing school published Facebook posts complaining about group work partners, alcohol and another student who he suspected had made a complaint against him.

In one of the Facebook posts, according to the amicus brief filed by the First Amendment groups, Keefe called the classmate he suspected of having reported him a stupid bitch. Another post contained a joke about whiskey and anger management.

Keefe was just one semester away from graduating from the Brainerd nursing program when he was called into a meeting with school administrators and expelled for his social media posts. Officials claimed Keefe had violated student conduct standards.

In a lawsuit filed in a U.S. District Court following his expulsion, Keefe said that he wanted to be reinstated in the nursing program and sought damages from defendants, including the colleges president and vice president among other university officials.

The U.S. district court dismissed Keefes case against the university. He appealed to the Eighth Circuit court, which upheld the universitys decision to expel Keefe.

Free speech groups werent pleased with the Eighth Circuit Courts decision. But now that decision stands.

Before the Supreme Court decided not to hear Keefe v. Adams case, free speech groups had urged the Supreme Court to restrict colleges from punishing students for off-campus speech and social media posts they deem unprofessional.

Frank LoMonte, director of the Student Press Law Center, said in a statement that the decision limits the freedoms of college students:

Even a middle-school student is entitled to First Amendment protection unless her speech substantially disrupts school operations, and the Eighth Circuits misguided decision has left college students with lesser free-speech protections than 12-year-olds.

Whats more, the SPLC says, the cases outcome could have a chilling effect on student journalism because school administrators could use the case to justify censoring student publications stories that dont reflect well on the school.

Students arent particularly keen on colleges having the right to punish students for their posts on social media.

If I have a free speech zone on campus, why cant I have a free speech zone off campus? asks Kandace Washington, a student at Winthrop University. Washington added that if colleges tried to punish students according to student conduct policies for their social media postings that administrators wouldnt have time to do anything else.

Mary Jordan Miller, a senior at Winthrop, believes universities should take an educational approach to disciplining students depending on the situation. I think if they are going to be punishing them, it doesnt need to be punitive, it needs to be showing them why thats problematic and helping them to grow going forward, Miller told USA TODAY College.

Colleges and students have struggled over social media posts in the past. In 2015, for example, Texas Christian University suspended (but later lifted the suspension) of a student for posts he made on social media about Muslims and protests in Baltimore. And in 2016, a University of Oklahoma student was suspended for social media posts targeting black University of Pennsylvania students.

Ryan Brooks is a Winthrop University student and a USA TODAY College correspondent.

Link:
This court case leaves college students with 'lesser free-speech protections than 12-year-olds' - USA TODAY

Photo of UCLA students at Israeli independence day that accompanied piece in New York Times on BDS. (Photo: Monica Almeida/New York Times)

Theres a lot of writing these days about the Left being oversensitive crybabies that cant handle free speech. Students shutting down racists like Milo Yiannopoulos and Charles Murray at the University of California Berkeley and Middlebury in Vermont made headlines in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, and Fox News.

At the same time, liberals are also quick to (rightly) point their fingers at the Trump administrations authoritarian tendencies from threatening journalists with meritless libel suits to banning them from White House press conferences.

But liberal institutions have hardly been open to those who challenge established orthodoxies. While universities often decry protests by their own students, theyve shown an uncanny openness to certain outside third parties influencing hiring decisions and classroom curricula.

Radhika Sainath

During all the Milo campus riot talk, who remembered UC Berkeleys suspension of a one-unit ethnic studies course on Palestine last semester? The student-instructor, twenty-two-year-old Paul Hadweh, had spent months preparing the course syllabus, going through all the right channels to get the course approved, only to find out from a friend watching Israel Channel 10 that his class was under scrutiny and Israeli government officials had covertly intervened. A few hours later he was informed by his faculty adviser that the course had been summarily suspended. Twenty-six students were left scampering to make up the unit weeks into the semester.

UC Berkeley chancellor Nicholas Dirks declared that the course, Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis, espoused a single political viewpoint and appeared to offer a forum for political organizing. His statement echoed the complaints of pro-Israel advocacy groups, forty-three of which had written to Dirks calling the course partisan and political indoctrination, and even raised McCarthyite alarms, accusing Paul of being an active member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

A week later, after public outcry, the university reinstated the class.

What happened at Berkeley, though not unique, is particularly ironic given the schools iconic status as the birthplace of the free-speech movement. Californias flagship university prides itself on being a democratic institution, and thus allows students to propose, and teach, as Paul did, one-unit courses on subjects theyre interested in. Such Democratic Action at Cal (DeCal) courses include classes onPokmon,Harry Potter,The Hunger Games, andGame of Thrones as well as more serious topics such as Marxism and its Discontents, Helping the Navajo Rebuild, CopWatch, Film Making for Activists,and Human Trafficking Prevention. As one might imagine, the Marxism courserequires readings by Karl Marx, Lenin, and Gramsci all Marxists with no corresponding readings by Milton Friedman andFriedrich Hayek.Similarly, the Trafficking course contains no pro-trafficking viewpoints, and the Navajo Nation course objective is for students to not only learn about the issues surrounding the Navajo Nationbut actually do something about it!

Paulsreading list, in contrast, includedwritings by Palestinian and Israeli scholars such as Saree Makdisi, Ilan Pappe, the late Edward Said, and Eyal Weizman, as well as selections from the United NationssGoldstone Report (2009) and testimony from Israeli soldiers who fought in Gaza. The lecture scheduled for September 13 the day the class was suspended was on Anti-Semitism, Nationalism, Imperialism and Colonialism in the Late Nineteenthand Early TwentiethCentury.

Oddly, Chancellor Dirks is a colonial studies scholar whose seminal work includesThe Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain, which many a nineteenth-century Brit might have argued espouses a single political viewpoint and offers a forum for political organizing.His other work includesCastes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, nothing if not putting Indias contemporary caste politics in historical perspective.

Paul and his adviser, UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, were called into the office of Carla Hesse, the executive dean of the College of Letters and Sciences, the week after the summary suspension to discuss the course. Theywere questionedabout a poster used to advertise the class, and asked why it didnt say Israel on it. (It did.) They were alsoaskedwhether the course description and syllabus had a particular political agenda and what the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be. Dr Bazian explained that studying settler-colonialism doesnt constitute a political agenda and that Paul shouldnt need to have a solution in mind to contemplate an alternative to the status quo. Ultimately, the suspension was rescinded, without any changes to the course content. Paul was relieved as were his students, who had unanimously signed anopen letterdemanding the course be reinstated.

Sadly, the special scrutiny on Paul and his course was not unusual under Obama, and promises to be less unusual under Trump, as we saw at last weekslovefest between Trumps ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, and an anti-BDS conference organized by a number of the groups that called for the suspension of the Berkeley course and applauded arecent decisionby Fordham University to deny club status to a Students for Justice in Palestine group because the group would lead to polarization.

In spring 2015, the AMCHA Initiative, which organized the campaign against Pauls class, and applauded Fordhams decision, similarlycalledfor the elimination of a student-led UC Riverside literature course on Palestinian Voices. The university was forced to launch an investigation and ultimately determined that the class was fully protected under the UCs course content and academic freedom policies. Though the course went forward, the student instructor was subjected to weeks of Islamophobic and misogynist cyberbullying.

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), also a signatory to the letter against Pauls class, has likewise complained about courses it disagrees with. In spring 2015, itthreatenedColumbia University with legal action if it allowed a teachers workshop by law professorKatherine Franketitled Citizenship and Nationality in Israel/Palestine to go forward, declaring that it was one-sided, riddled with anti-Israel bias and inaccurate . . . since there is presently no country called Palestine. The letter also accused Professor Franke of antisemitism for her public support of using boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) to pressure Israel into complying with international law. The workshop proceeded as planned.

The ZOAs record goes on. In 2011, the organizationfileda Title VI complaint with the Department of Educations (DOE) Office for Civil Rights arguing that a Rutgers University event featuring a Holocaust survivor and a Nakba survivor created a hostile environment for Jewish students, andwroteto Northeastern University in 2013 complaining of one-sided course readings hostile to Israel. Its fourteen-page letter to the City University of New York (CUNY) last February urging the banning of SJP chapters for alleged antisemitic actions sparked a six-month independent investigation by a former federal judge and prosecutor. All of these attacks failed. The DOEthrew outthe Title VI complaint, and the CUNY investigationfoundthat SJP was not responsible for any antisemitic incident, and that the tendency to blame SJP ... is a mistake.

Again, these attempts at censorship garnered little of the attention we see when a few college students protest, interrupt, or shut down talks by neo-Nazis and racists.

The First Amendment protects the right to free expression from government interference, whether that expression be Marxist or anti-Zionist.Cases like Pauls are precisely why the Supreme Court warned against anticommunist loyalty oaths in its 1967 decisionKeyishian v. Board of Regents of University of New York.In that case, professors at the State University of New York sued after they were notified that if they failed to sign a certificate swearing that they were not communist, they would be dismissed. In holding that the oath was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court noted:

The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident . . . To impose any straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.

When close family members saw the news about Pauls course, they told him he was putting the family in danger. He received a barrage of media inquiries asking whether he was attempting to indoctrinate his peers with antisemitic thinking. The story was covered in Russian, Turkish, Emirati, Israeli, Palestinian, Latin American, and American outlets. He couldnt sleep. He became physically ill and was overwhelmed by anxiety as he worried for his familys safety while he balanced his coursework, fought to reinstate his course, and worked to clear his name.

Its particularly disconcerting that Berkeley informed powerful Israel advocacy groups that Pauls class had been suspended, ostensibly for failing to follow proper procedures, before contacting Paul or anyone in the layers of faculty oversight that had approved the course in the first place.

Such censorship attempts have the potential to cause a tremendous chilling effect on campus debate on Israel/Palestine and alienate Palestinian students and Muslim students in an increased climate of fear.

Students and citizenry should of course feel free to debate scholarship, analyze research, and question underlying theories taught in college classes. But when powerful groups call for scrutiny of classroom discussion that appears to challenge the status quo, colleges should tread carefully.

Theres a lot oftalkthese days on how student-led calls for trigger warnings and against microaggressions may be affecting classroom discussion. A recentarticledescribed a Syracuse University professors decision to disinvite a filmmaker because she (wrongly) speculated the film would be protested by the BDS faction as the chilling effect of political correctness.

But idiosyncratic decisions made by individuals are not comparable to systematic decisions made by powerful institutional actors pressured by states and donors. In looking at issues of free speech and academic freedom, its important to note the difference between individuals responding to the free speech of other members of the academic community, and the free speech of the academic community responding to pressures from big donors and the state.

Its critical for us all to make that distinction clear, and recognize that the actions of institutional actors have much broader implications than the actions of individual students or professors inside the university. And its time that universities recognize that in order to pursue their function as spaces for free intellectual inquiry, they cant succumb to the political pressures of multi-million-dollar suppression industries.

This post was originally published here on April 6, 2017, by Jacobin.

View post:
The real free speech threat - Mondoweiss

Ken Livingstone, suspended from Labour for claiming that Hitler supported Zionism. Photograph: Lauren Hurley/PA Wire

Whatever motivated Ken Livingstone to play the Hitler card in a bizarre, unprompted and unwanted attempt to defend Naz Shah, justifications on the basis of alleged historical accuracy (Letters, 6 April) miss the point that the context and purpose of such remarks need to be taken into account.

It is difficult to see them as anything other than another way of saying that Zionism equals Nazism, an equation that is not only offensive to many Jews and others who resolutely oppose Israels policies, but also undermines the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinian people. It would have been difficult for members of Labours national constitutional committee to have reached any conclusion other than that the party had been brought into disrepute, though the sanction has proved controversial.

In this respect, the party might usefully learn from the practices of bodies dealing with professional standards. In the case of doctors, for example, a tribunal will consider a series of factors including remorse, insight and risk of repetition in deciding between suspension and erasure from the medical register. It is also axiomatic that the reputation of the profession as a whole is more important than the interests of any individual doctor.

Given the pressing need for a credibleLabour party to challenge Tory hegemony, it would be a sub-Shakespearian but necessary outcome of continued due process if Livingstone, who has indeed done the state some service, proves through persistent lack of insight to have effectively written his own political obituary. Dr Anthony Isaacs London

It is not as a Jewish Labour party member but as a historian that I am offended by Ken Livingstones views on Hitler and Zionism. Livingstone has a feeble grasp of this history and his repeated claims tobe merely speaking the historical truth compound his original error.

To claim that Hitler was supporting Zionism travesties the fact that Zionists aspired to create a Jewish state in Palestine, while Hitler was committed only to achieving the wholesale removal of Jews from Germany. Some German Zionists were prepared to negotiate with the Nazis in pursuit of their objective, but Hitlers own interest in Palestine waspurely opportunistic.

Nazi thinking was based on the premise that a resettled German-Jewish population in Palestine would remain under the firm rule of the colonial power, Britain. In this vision, German Jews in Palestine, far from achieving the statehood to which Zionists aspired, would live in a kind of controlled reservation policed by the British.

To the extent that a Jewish state nevertheless seemed likely to emerge in time and threaten to provide a new basis for the global Jewish conspiracy, Hitlers interest in a Palestinian solution cooled. Why these simple factsescape Livingstone and his defenders is beyond me. Jane Caplan Professor emeritus of modern European history, University of Oxford

The Guardian accuses Labour of having forgotten a fundamental principle in not expelling Ken Livingstone (Editorial, 6 April). I suggest that it is the Guardian that has forgotten an even more fundamental principle: free speech.

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, the paper waxed lyrical about free speech, quoting the maxim I do not agree with what you have to say, but Ill defend to the death your right to say it (8 January 2015).

Yet with Livingstone it joins in the witch-hunt. Your editorial invents the principle that the motives of those claiming to be victims of racism can never be queried. So when Ulster loyalists, Afrikaners or Israelis claim that they are victims of racism, we must nod our heads accordingly? The British empire repeatedly claimed the mantle of the oppressed. The Zionist movement has repeatedly used the false allegation of antisemitism to defame its opponents, including Jewish anti-Zionists.

British Jews do not speak with one voice. The suggestion that it is only a matter of decorum that people distinguish between Jews and Zionism is outrageous. The only people who use the two terms interchangeably are Zionists and antisemites. Livingstone is accused of a grotesque misreading of history because he asserted that Hitler supported Zionism. This is a historical fact attested to by historians such as Lucy Dawidowicz, Francis Nicosia and David Cesarani. It has nothing to do with antisemitism. Tony Greenstein Brighton

I have struggled to understand the fury and vituperation heaped on Ken Livingstone. Two facts are clear: Livingstone is not a Holocaust denier; and he nowhere alleges that Zionists were complicit in the plans to exterminate the Jews.

It is hardly surprising that Zionists had contact with the Hitler regime. Theyhad extensive contacts with many European governments and groups during the interwar years to promote support for a Jewish state in Palestine. Members of the British royal family and the aristocracy admired Hitler and the Nazi regime but we do not accuse them of complicity in the Holocaust.

So what is Livingstones crime? Is it that he is a long-term supporter of Palestinian rights? Is it that he dared to voice criticism of Zionism? There is no doubt that branches of the Zionist movement were quite ruthless in their violent struggle, razing and displacing Arab villages, murdering Arab and British citizens through terrorist outrages. After the end of the first world war a detailed Zionist plan for the establishment of a Jewish state explicitly committed to respecting the rights and property of all citizens, whether Jewish, Arab or Christian. How does this square with an Israeli state that flouts international law and creates and extends illegal settlements?

The conclusion that I deduce from your editorial and Suzanne Moores piece (Labour is weak and immoral, 6 April) is that you will not defend free speech and that any support for Palestinian human rights or criticism of Zionism will be judged to be antisemitic. Ron Walton Penarth, South Glamorgan

Thanks to David Baddiel for clarifying the problem at the heart of the current Livingstone antisemitism controversy (No sympathy, no compassion, 7 April). Baddiel says that the statement Hitler supported Zionism is not a fact, but an interpretation. I would go further, and say that it can be both of these things simultaneously, depending on the perspectives of those making the claim or assertion. Its exactly the same with every theological argument, in my experience. Consider the phrase: Christis risen! Father Alec Mitchell Manchester

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Link:
Free speech and historical accuracy in the Livingstone affair - The Guardian

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch left no doubt that he is an excellent and qualified nominee and should be confirmed as the next associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Judge Gorsuchs answers to the committees questions demonstrated a deep understanding of the law and respect for the Constitution and the role of judges. The same cannot be said for many of the senators who questioned him.

Of course, this line of questioning was expected. Progressive activists, outside groups, and politicians have vigorously campaigned to demonize and suppress political speech in the years following Citizens United.

Whitehouse cloaked his assault on free speech under the guise of disclosure using the political bogeyman of so-called dark money.

In one particularly telling exchange, Gorsuch correctly explained that disclosure laws threaten freedom of speecha long-recognized principle in constitutional law. He cited the 1958 NAACP v. Alabama case, where the Ku Klux Klan supported attorney general of Alabama subpoenaed the NAACP for membership and supporter information. An action clearly intended to intimidate the NAACP and its supporters and stop its civil rights activity in Alabama.

The Supreme Court recognized that seeking membership and supporter information about organizations engaged in political advocacy was akin to asking members of a particular religion to wear identifying armbands and that such activity was offensive to the First Amendment.

Unwilling to accept that principle based on the Constitution and precedent, Whitehouse argued that chilling the First Amendment in favor of disclosure is a value he supports.

Clearly Whitehouse thinks his personal value of disclosure trumps the Constitution.

Judge Gorsuch did not base his answers on his personal values. Instead, he stuck to the Constitution and precedent. Exactly what a judge should do when performing his duties as a judge.

When judges do otherwise, the law means nothing.

Later in the exchange, Whitehouse asked Gorsuch why an advocacy group was now spending dark money to promote his confirmation to the court after doing the same to oppose President Obamas nominee Merrick Garland.

Whitehouse was clearly upset that he could not get at the identity of those who funded the advocacy with which he disagreed. He called on Gorsuch to demand that the group in question identify its donors, but Gorsuch did not fall for this trap.

That is because, unlike the senator and some of his colleagues, Gorsuch understands the role of judges and respects the importance of the First Amendment as a safeguard of our democracy.

The right to speak about the political issues of the day and the right to do so anonymously is a fundamental element of the freedoms of speech and association, the very core of the First Amendment.

Our founders understood this too.

The Federalist Papers were written by a group of authors only known as Publius. It wasnt until decades later that Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison were revealed as authors.

These influential papers were aimed at public persuasion in support of ratifying the Constitution, and they served their purpose. The anonymous authorship of The Federalist Papers allowed the message to stand alone on intellectual grounds and be debated on its merits, rather than devolving into a sideshow of personal character attacks.

Would Whitehouse condemn Publius as a secretive dark money front group?

Rather than confront and debate an idea, Whitehouse is focused on identifying those who support itwhy?

Given his anger over the issue, one wonders if retaliation is what the senator has in mind for those donors who fund speech he does not likeinvestigations, fines, jail, armbands?

Whitehouse wants to add to the already vast and complex regulatory regime currently restricting political speech under both federal and state law.

These regulations are burdensome to comply with at even the smallest financial levels, creating huge barriers to participation for average groups or individuals who simply want to speak on issues of public concern.

Of course, that is exactly the goal of politicians like Whitehouse and the radical progressive groups who argue for disclosure to combat the made-up threat of so-called dark money.

No one likes being criticized, and often those in power seek to quell dissent. And those who cannot compete in the arena of ideas can only win when they remove their competitors from the arena. If you can identify your enemies, you can intimidate and attack them personally rather than confront their ideas.

George III would have surely liked to know the identity of all those pesky patriots agitating for independence in 1776.

Our founders were keenly aware of the importance of the right to speak freely and enshrined it in the First Amendment. A robust and vigorous democratic republic is what they gave us. As Benjamin Franklin once observed, those who would overthrow the liberty of a nation, must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Our Constitution protects the liberty of our nation. If we are to retain that liberty, we must reject the values of Whitehouse and his ilk in favor of the Constitution.

It was clear from the confirmation hearings and his record, that Gorsuch will decide cases as the facts and the law dictate rather than basing decisions on his, or anyone elses, personal values.

That is precisely the role of a judge and Gorsuch understands this. Unfortunately, Whitehouse and many of his colleagues dont.

That is why the Senate should confirm Judge Gorsuch as next associate justice of the Supreme Court.

David Warrington is the chairman of Americas Foundation for Law and Liberty (@LawLiberty) and is a partner at the national law firm of LeClairRyan and leader of the firms political law practice.

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

Here is the original post:
Do Democrats oppose Gorsuch because they hate free speech? (Yes.) - The Hill (blog)

Forbes

Who's Violating Campus Free Speech? Follow The Money Forbes Two alarming developments on America's campuses point to the need for and the means through which the new administration in Washington might restore the First Amendment at America's public colleges and universities. First, in November 2015, as racial ...

Continue reading here:
Who's Violating Campus Free Speech? Follow The Money - Forbes

This month, the rulers of Pakistan stepped up a campaign against blasphemy, frightening news from an Islamic nation where insulting the official religion is a capital crime.

From an American perspective, this would merely be another, distant nations horror if it werent for one aspect of the story.

As part of the crackdown, Pakistani leaders have asked executives of Facebook and Twitter to help them help root out people who post blasphemous material on social media sites from anywhere in the world.

In response, Facebook said in mid-March that it planned to send a team to Pakistan to discuss the governments request. Really?

And this week, Pakistans interior ministry claimed Facebooks administrators have been blocking and removing blasphemous content from the site. Really?!

Its heartening to read that Facebook said in a statement that, in considering government requests, it keeps in mind the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users.

However, the situation calls for stronger assurance that Facebook will do its part to defend the basic human values of free thought and free expression.

Its understood that social networking companies have a complicated challenge in dealing with an array of cultures and standards of freedom in countries all over the world.

But Facebook and Twitter or any American company facing pressure such as this from Pakistani leaders must bluntly refuse to cooperate in any way with a repressive regimes efforts to forcibly squelch free expression and dissent, even if their refusal means having access to their sites blocked in those countries.

As Michael De Dora, the main representative to the United Nations from the nonprofit Center for Inquiry, said: We do not want to see the people of Pakistan cut off from such a powerful and far-reaching platform as Facebook. But we hope Facebook makes clear that it will not compromise its users safety or freedom through disclosure.

Pakistan is, sadly, far from the only country that doesnt understand the right to free speech that most Americans take for granted.

The Pew Research Center found last year that, as of 2014, 26 percent of the worlds countries and territories had laws or policies against blasphemy (that is, showing a lack of reverence for a god or sacred thing), and 13 percent had laws or policies against apostasy (the renunciation of a religion), the offenses calling for everything from fines to execution. Such laws are most common in the Middle East and North Africa.

But Pakistans policies, and its leaders rhetoric, are worse than most. According to unofficial tallies, since 1990 at least 68 people have been killed there over allegations of blasphemy, including a provincial governor shot dead six years ago by a police guard who accused him of blasphemy after he defended a Christian woman who insulted the Prophet Muhammad; and currently about 40 people are on death row or serving life sentences for blasphemy. Last week, three bloggers were arrested on blasphemy charges.

In Pakistan, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif calls blasphemy an unpardonable offense.

Here, the unpardonable offense would be failing to push back against such backward thinking. Facebook and Twitter should help to lead the push.

Orange County Register

Read the rest here:
Other viewpoints: Facebook should defend free speech - The Columbus Dispatch

It only took 15 minutes for Free Speech Bus to clash with counter-demonstrations in Center City on Saturday, April 1. Before the bus could fully circled City Hall, a crowd of more than 100 protesters quickly blocked traffic in the roundabout as a form of resistance.

The message reads loud and clear on the side of the orange bus: Its Biology: Boys are boys and always will be. Girls are girls and always will be. You cant change sex. Respect all. Generic boy and girl symbols with XY and XX chromosomes accompany the message.

Protesters with transgender rights messages shut down Market Street momentarily on Saturday. Photo: Danielle Corcione/Philly Weekly

Funded by the National Organization for Marriage, the International Organization for the Family, and the conservative activist site CitizenGo, the vehicle is on a national tour to voice opposition against same-sex marriage and transgender rights, with recent stops in Boston, New Haven, Conn., and New York City.

The Advocate reports the bus was vandalizedwhile parked outside the United Nations headquarters on March 23. Just more than a month ago, a similar bus with a Spanish-language message was banned in Madrid, Spain.

Around noon on Saturday, the bus interrupted a pop-up love party centering transgender voices, particularly those of color, led by the citys Office of LGBT Affairs. The ceremony ended with a raising of the transgender flag, which consists of five horizontal stripes including two light blue, two pink and one white in the center.

The event went amazing, we had music and dancing, explains Amber Hikes, the new executive director of the Office of LGBT Affairs. We were celebrating each other and the community and having the solidarity thats provided in that space.

The lineup featured the chair of the Mayors Commission on LGBT Affairs, Sharron Cooks; poet and spoken word artist Sam Marks; Deja Lynn Alvavez of the LGBTQ Home for Hope and Mayor's Commission on LGBT Affairs; attorney running for Court of Common Pleas judge Henry Sias; and the ACLU of Pennsylvania Transgender Advocate Coordinator Naiymah Sanchez.

Police keep protesters at a distance from the Free Speech Bus as it circles City Hall. Photo: Danielle Corcione/Philly Weekly

Additionally, Cooks is the first transgender person to chair a city commission in Philadelphia. She became the first Black transgender woman to serve as a state delegate at a national convention last year, but has served the community for many years through Equality PA, the Liberty City Democratic Club, the Williams Way LGBT Center and her own consulting business.

Within the community, theres a lot conversation lately about intersectionality, so its understanding our community is incredibly diverse in terms of race, gender, orientation, age and class, Hikes adds. Bringing everyone to the table to celebrate each other, this event was a perfect reflection of that.

Another recent accomplishment is City Council recently passed a resolution to declare March 31 as a citywide Transgender Day of Visibility. The resolutions text honored the eight trans Black women who were murdered in the United States this year: Mesha Caldwell, Jaquarius Holland, Ciara McElveen, Chyna Gibson, Keke Collier, JoJo Striker, Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow and Alphonza Watson. Councilwoman Helen Gym, who co-sponsored the bill, attended the rally in solidarity.

TWITTER: @DECORCIONE

See the article here:
'Free Speech Bus' meets free speech bus in downtown Philly - PW-Philadelphia Weekly

An attack on free speech

Susan Shamels letter requesting that the Concord Monitor limit the free speech of some of its readers was alarming (Monitor letters, March 27).

The topic of Shamels letter doesnt matter. What does matter is that some people like Shamel believe that their opinion and supporting facts matter so much that any opposing opinion does not deserve the same free speech rights.

At the same time I am sure Shamel would protest against restrictions on human rights in other countries, like Russia, she wants to restrict such human rights here in the United States and actually endorses the method of censorship used by the Los Angeles Times. The speech restriction Shamel supports has proven to be the first step in controlling and subverting human rights and is directly in line with the theories put forth by Karl Marx.

Many problems we are seeing today, including university students refusing to listen or participate in reasoned conversation, arise from this form of arrogance. I didnt serve for more than 25 years in our military so people could decide whose speech is acceptable and whose speech must be censored. Although I may adamantly oppose the viewpoints of many who speak out today, it is a basic human right to express viewpoints in a civilized manner.

I find it disgusting that people are willing to chip away at this basic human right because they believe their opinions are superior to those they wish to silence.

J. Brandon Giuda

Chichester

More:
Letter: An attack on free speech - Concord Monitor

On Thursday, the Supreme Courtruled in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman that imposing restrictions on how merchants inform buyers about the prices they charge triggers First Amendment scrutiny. This would seem to be an obvious conclusion, but the decision is an important, although limited, victory for those who want to convey honest information to their customers, and for those who have a right to receive that information.

The case dealt with New York Business Law 518, which prohibits merchants from imposing a surcharge on customers who use credit cards, but allows for a cash discount. To put it simply: the law allows stores to advertise discounts for paying cash, but makes ita crimeto advertise an economically equivalent surcharge for paying with plastic.

Expressions Hair Design, along with several other merchants, sued the state, arguing that the law was vague and a violation of their First Amendment right to convey information to their customers. The federal district court agreed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision. The circuit courts ruling held that the First Amendment wasnt implicated because the law didnt regulate speech but merely regulated prices. The Supreme Court granted review to determine two issues: The threshold question of whether the law regulated speech rather than conduct and, if so, whether the law violated the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority of the Court, held that the New York law was not only a price regulation dealing with conduct, but also a speech regulation: What the law does regulate is how sellers may communicate their prices. As he explained:

A merchant who wants to charge $10 for cash and $10.30 for credit may not convey that price any way he pleases. He is not free to say $10, with a 3% credit card surcharge or $10, plus $0.30 for credit because both of those displays identify a single sticker price$10that is less than the amount credit card users will be charged. Instead, if the merchant wishes to post a single sticker price, he must display $10.30 as his sticker price. Accordingly, while we agree with the Court of Appeals that 518 regulates a relationship between a sticker price and the price charged to credit card users, we cannot accept its conclusion that 518 is nothing more than a mine-run price regulation. In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, Section 518 regulates speech.

While this part of the Courts decision is an important victory for free speech, the Court also held that the law was not vague and did not decide whether the speech restriction amounted to a First Amendment violation under the commercial speech doctrine. In what has become a theme, the Court made a point of ruling as narrowly as possible and remanded the case to the Second Circuit to make that hard balls-and-strikes call that John Roberts discussed at his confirmation hearing. This means the merchants will have to continue to fight for their rights in the lower court.

Although the judgment remanding the case to the circuit court was unanimous, Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Breyer continued his disheartening plea for the Court to adopt a rational-basis-type test when dealing with certain commercial speech (meaning the government wins). As Cato pointed out in our amicus brief, however, this approach has no foundation in First Amendment law. All restrictions based on content of speech should be subject to exacting scrutiny. Justice Sotomayor wrote a longer concurrence, arguing that because of the complexity of the case, the Court should have sought the input of the New York Court of Appeals (New Yorks highest state court) to get a clearer picture of what the statute actually does.

Ultimately, while the victory was small, the Court chose to recognize the law for what it wasa restriction of the merchants ability to tell their customers the truth. Only time will tell whether the Second Circuit will now do the right thing and rule that the restriction violates the First Amendment.

Link:
An Important but Limited Victory for Free Speech - Cato Institute (blog)