Category Archives: Free Speech

Editor, The Transcript:

I see where our Christian Right junior U.S. senator is complaining that churches cant engage in political activity. Well, they can, of course, if theyre willing to forfeit their tax-exempt status. Thats part of the time-honored separation of church and state.

Lankford, R-Okla., even labels his position as the Free Speech Fairness Act. But long-standing federal law, the Johnson Act of 1954, prohibits nonprofits and religious organizations from politicking.

Pandering to religious voters, President Trump supports the idea of removing this prohibition, but allowing churches and other nonprofits to enter the political arena would, in effect, provide a taxpayer subsidy to all sorts of controversial organizations.

I suspect most us would not want a devil-worshiping group to spend tax-free money to proselytize its views. Or, to follow Trumps position, allowing certain unpopular religious groups (e.g., Muslims) to promote their views with tax-exempt funds. The separation of church and state has served this nation well over our history. As the old saying goes, Dont fix it if it aint broke. So, back off, Senator. Youre messing with a vital part of our constitutional heritage.

DAVID MORGAN

Norman

More here:
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Free Speech Fairness Act doesn't fix anything - Norman Transcript

Not sure my next book will be Free Speech Is Not Enough, but Im thinking about it. Can the world really be ready for a Not Enough series? Or should this idea be Left Behind? (Classical reference there. . .)

Conservatives are making a big strategic mistake to repair behind the principle of free speech in response to the kind of suppression of speech weve seen like Charles Murray at Middlebury, Milo at Berkeley, etc. Put simply, todays ill-liberal left doesnt believe in free speech any more. To the contrary, they are openly contemptuous of the idea of free speech, and have an entire theory to justify suppressing speech in the name of justice.

But lets start with the superficial defects of the free speech redoubt. The left says America, and any defender of America, is racist, sexist, imperialistic, homophobic, transphobic, glutenphobic, and probably phobicphobic before long. To respond primarily with an appeal to free speech to is concede the premise of the left. Are we really sayingYes, I demand my right to free speech to defend racism, sexism, etc. . .? Lame.

The right response to demands for censorship of speech is to challenge the leftist narrative, and its underlying theory, directly. The left believes that the idea of free speech itself is a tool of oppression, which is why the left has no respect for the idea of free inquiry. This is not new at all; it is merely a revival of Herbert Marcuses doctrines from the 1960s. As Marcuse wrote back then, [T]he restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions. . . .

One person who gets this clearly is Stephen Carter of Yale Law School. He has a very good column up at Bloomberg News this week on The Ideology Behind Intolerant College Students. Worth reading the whole thing, but heres the best part:

I want to say a word about the ideology of downshouting. Students who try to shut down debate are not junior Nazis or proto-Stalins. If they were, I would be content to say that their antics will wind up on the proverbial ash heap of history. Alas, the downshouters represent something more insidious. They are, I am sorry to say, Marcusians. A half-century-old contagion has returned.

The German-born Herbert Marcuse was a brilliant and controversial philosopher whose writing became almost a sacred text for new-left intellectuals of the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays, his best-known work is the essay Repressive Tolerance. There he sets out the argument that the downshouters are putting into practice.

For Marcuse, the fact that liberal democracies made tolerance an absolute virtue posed a problem. If society includes two groups, one powerful and one weak, then tolerating the ideas of both will mean that the voice and influence of the strong will always be greater. To treat the arguments of both sides with equal respect mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society. That is why, for Marcuse, tolerance is antithetical to genuine democracy and thus repressive.

He proposes that we practice what he calls a liberating or discriminating tolerance. He is quite clear about what he means: tolerance against movements from the Right, and tolerance of movements from the Left. Otherwise the majority, even if deluded by false consciousness, will always beat back efforts at necessary change. The only way to build a subversive majority, he writes, is to refuse to give ear to those on the wrong side. The wrong is specified only in part, but Marcuse has in mind particularly capitalism and inequality.

Opening the minds of the majority by pressing one message and burdening another may require apparently undemocratic means. But the forces of power are so entrenched that to do otherwise to tolerate the intolerable is to leave authority in the hands of those who will deny equality to the workers and to minorities. That is why tolerance, unless it discriminates, will always be repressive.

Marcuse is quite clear that the academy must also swallow the tough medicine he prescribes: Here, too, in the education of those who are not yet maturely integrated, in the mind of the young, the ground for liberating tolerance is still to be created.

Todays campus downshouters, whether they have read Marcuse or not, have plainly undertaken his project. Probably they believe that their protests will genuinely hasten a better world.They are mistaken.Their theory possesses the same weakness as his. They presume to know the truth, to know it with such certainty that they are comfortable indeed enthusiastic at the notion of shutting down debate on the propositions they hold dear.

A nice piece of work by Prof. Carter.

The rest is here:
Free Speech Is Not Enough - Power Line (blog)

Photo: Lisa Rathke /Associated Press

Middlebury College students turn their backs to author Charles Murray during his lecture March 2 in Middlebury, Vt. Later, the protest took on a more ominous tone.

Middlebury College students turn their backs to author Charles Murray during his lecture March 2 in Middlebury, Vt. Later, the protest took on a more ominous tone.

The start of something? An assault on free speech at Middlebury

At Middlebury College this month, Charles Murray needed a safe space literally.

In a significant escalation of the campus speech wars, protesters hooted down the conservative scholar in a lecture hall and then roughed up a Middlebury faculty member escorting him to a car.

The Middlebury administration commendably tried to do the right thing and stand by Murrays right to be heard but was overwhelmed by a yowling mob with all the manners and intellectual openness of a gang of British soccer hooligans.

If campus protests of speech begin to more routinely slide into violence, Middlebury will be remembered as a watershed.

First, there was the target. Charles Murray is controversial mainly for his book The Bell Curve, about IQ but he is one of the most significant social scientists of our age. He is employed by the prestigious conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute, and his books are highly influential and widely reviewed. His latest, which was to be the topic of his Middlebury talk, is Coming Apart, a best-selling account of the struggles of the white working class that illuminated some of the social forces behind the rise of Donald Trump.

No one is bound to accept any of Murrays ideas, but they are inarguably worth engaging. He exists in a different universe from Milo Yiannopoulos, the alt-right provocateur infamous for saying or doing anything to get infamous. That Middlebury protesters cant tell the difference between the two shows that their endeavor to know or understand nothing outside their comfort zone has been a smashing success.

Second, there was the venue. No one has ever mistaken Middlebury, a small Vermont liberal arts college founded by Congregationalists, for Berkeley. It doesnt have a reputation as a hotbed and training ground for rabble-rousers, and yet it has given us one of the most appalling episodes of anti-speech thuggery in recent memory. If it can happen at Middlebury, it can happen anywhere.

Finally, there was the violence. The students who brought in Murray framed the evening as an invitation to argue and asked professor Allison Stanger, a Democrat in good standing, to serve as Murrays interlocutor. When chanting students commandeered the lecture hall, Stanger and Murray repaired to another room for a live-streamed discussion. Protesters found the room, pounded on the windows and pulled fire alarms. When Murray and Stanger exited at the end of the live-stream and headed for their getaway car, protesters shoved and grabbed Stanger, who later went to the hospital, and pounded on the car and tried to obstruct it.

Stanger wrote afterward that she feared for my life. And for what offense? Talking to someone who thinks differently from the average Middlebury faculty member or student.

Political correctness has been a phenomenon on campuses since the 1980s but now has become much more feral. The root of the phenomenon is the idea that unwelcome speech is tantamount to a physical threat against offended listeners. Shutting down a speaker and literally running him off campus is, from this warped perspective, an entirely justifiable action.

Of course, speech doesnt threaten anyone. The appropriate response to an erroneous argument is counterargument. And the free exchange of ideas always allows for the possibility that someone will actually learn something.

If campuses arent to sink further into the miasma of illiberalism, administrators will have to actively fight the tide of suppression. Its not enough to say the right things about free speech; they have to punish thuggish student agitators. Otherwise, college campuses may become increasingly unsafe spaces for anyone departing from a coercive orthodoxy.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

Original post:
The start of something? An assault on free speech at Middlebury - mySanAntonio.com

Last week when one of my students caught sight of me approaching on a campus walk, he pulled out his smartphone to show me a picture he had taken. Look at this, he said, disgusted, it was in the Liberal Arts building. The picture showed a hand-lettered sign, hung over an atrium railing, that read, No free speech for fascists.

Because I care intensely about free speech, especially in a university, and more especially still in my university, I was sorry and angry to see the sign. It pained me that shutting down the opinions of others, even fascists, should be publicly advocated.

I tore it down, my student said.

Good for you, said I.

Was I right to say that? Was my student right to tear down the sign? I dont think so. Im ashamed of it now.

The lights came on for me when I told a colleague about the incident a couple of days later. Something in his tone when he asked, He tore it down? gave me pause.

For the first time, I questioned the act. I saw myself in a contradiction. The sign had urged silencing fascists. I hold fascism to be contemptible and wrong, but I believe fascists should be allowed to express their mistaken ideas as freely as anyone else. And that sign was attacking freedom of expression. The signs message was wrong.

But the sign was expression. And my student had silenced it. And I had approved. We were both wrong to do so.

Free expression is so important that we must tolerate even the expression of opposition to free expression. The proper response to bad speech is better speech, not shutting it down.

So what should my student have done? Next to that sign that read, No free speech for fascists, he should have posted another with an arrow toward the first, saying, Free speech for all, even those who are wrong, like fascists and the person who posted this sign.

Link:
Yes, free speech for fascists a confession - Learn Liberty (blog)

Starting in the '70s, the General Social Survey has periodically asked Americans if they think someone should have a right to give a racist speech in their community. John Sides has charted the responses over at The Washington Post, dividing the people surveyed into four groups: Americans aged 18 to 25 who have had at least some college education, Americans aged 18 to 25 with no college education, older Americans with at least some college education, and older Americans with no college education. The results are striking:

Washington Post

The first thing you'll probably notice is that the percentage of the college-age crowd supporting the racist's freedom of speech has decreased dramatically over those four decades. Another thing you'll notice is that the college kids aren't leading the way so much as they're converging with the non-college crew. But what really leaps out for me is when most of the drop happened. For the people who are actually on campus, the big plunge ended in the late '80s. Things then flattened for a while, sliding slightly but not severely in the 1990s; the decline didn't accelerate again until the 21st century.

This flies in the face of folk memory, which tends to treat the '90s as the first age of political correctness. But it's probably better to remember that period as a time of backlash against political correctness. That first big wave of "P.C. Kids Gone Mad!" stories that hit the national press in 1990 wasn't a sign that pro-censorship sentiments were taking off; it was a sign that more people were resisting those sentiments. When there's a backlash against some social force, many people assume that force is surging, just because they didn't really notice it before. That doesn't mean it's actually on the rise.

But that's not all that happened in the '90s. Sides also charts the percentage of Americans in each group who support free speech for communists. Here the decline in the college crowd isn't as severethe share supporting the communist's rights is well north of 50 percentbut there's still a noticeable drop at the beginning, followed by a flattening in the '90s and then a resumption in the post-9/11 era:

Washington Post

So the fall-off in campus tolerance for controversial speech doesn't just affect the right. The good news here is the trend among those 26-and-uppers. The ones with a college education didn't see any decline, and the ones without a college education have actually grown steadily more tolerant. (A third chart, which I won't repost here but you can find in Sides' article, shows a similar jump in the number of non-college-educated older Americans willing to back the free-speech rights of an atheist.)

The biggest question for me, looking at those data, is why the decline in collegiate civil libertarianism resumed after the '90s. One possible factor: The further you get into the 21st century, the more college-age people there are who don't remember the '80s. Backlashes fade with memory.

Excerpt from:
Where Have All the Free Speech Fans Gone? - Reason (blog)

The final report from the Committee on University Discipline for Disruptive Conduct (CUDDC) was released on Tuesday, detailing several recommended changes to the way the University handles protests, event disruptions, and related disciplinary cases.

Among the reports recommendations are proposals to implement Deans-on-Call specifically trained to respond to disruptive conduct, make more efforts to publicize rules and punishments regarding disruptions, and to create a system by which protests would be authorized in advance.

The report lists framing principles, including a statement that argues that [d]isruptive conduct may itself be a form of speech, but that does not mean that it is a protected form of speech. Like other forms of civil disobedience, disruptive conduct may lead to disciplinary consequences for those engaged in such conduct. Other listed principles for the report include affirmations of the Universitys commitment to creating a welcoming and inclusive campus climate and to an approach to free speech centered around individual expression by members of the community and upheld by the Universitys administrative authority.

The reports recommendations are divided into five sections covering different aspects of University responses to disruptive conduct. One of these sections proposes that the All-University Disciplinary System be replaced by a new central process with a five-member panel of three faculty, one student, and one University staff member presiding over individual disciplinary conduct cases. The report also suggests that information about audience rules and Dean-on-Call and UCPD roles for speaking events, as well as consequences for disruptions, should be included in the Student Manual and posted on a new University website.

One of the reports sections recommends that the University change its policies toward disruptive conduct by people who are not affiliated with the University, who are able to attend many University events but cannot be handled as easily as students or faculty under existing guidelines. In the future, according to the recommendations, [w]hen appropriate, unaffiliated individuals who engage in disruptive conduct can be barred from all or part of the University permanently or for discrete periods under standards and processes set forth in the Universitys No Trespass (Ban) Policy.

The report recommends revising the University statute that defines disruptive conduct to highlight that disciplinary actions can be taken against individuals who act as part of a group. The new statute would also note that individuals could face punishment for involvement in multiple obstructive incidents over a length of time, because [p]ersistent and serial conduct may in the aggregate rise to the level of disruptive conduct even if a single instance of such conduct does not.

The CUDCC was created in June of 2016 following a charge by Provost Daniel Diermeier to review and suggest modifications to the existing All-University Disciplinary System, which was first implemented in 1970. The committees charge noted that the current system is inefficient and, as a result, rarely used. In recent years, the University has seen an increased frequency of protests at events featuring invited speakers, including former Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez and Trump staffer Corey Lewandowski.

Read more here:
Disruptive Protest Report Suggests Creation of Free Speech Deans ... - The Chicago Maroon

Some opponents of Rep. Scott Taylor are crying foul that the Virginia Beach Republican is blocking their comments on his personal Facebook page.

Its true that some peoples comments or postings are removed, but Taylor is well within his rights to do so, his political director, Scott Weldon, said Wednesday. Democrats arent allowed to rabble-rouse on the legislators personal page, Weldon said.

However, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said Wednesday that Taylor may be violating the Constitutions First Amendment protection of free speech.

Taylor and Weldon, who have conferred with House of Representatives administrators, disagree. They argue that constituents have many other ways, including another Facebook site, to speak to the lawmaker.

The dispute, sparked by some members of local groups formed to oppose President Donald Trumps administration, centers on one of Taylors two Facebook pages.

He has removed several comments that he or Weldon decided were disagreeable from Taylors self-described unofficial political page that he started almost a decade ago.

However, they say no public comments are removed unless they are deemed abusive or profane from his official Congressman Scott Taylor page that was set up after he took office in January but wasnt used until three weeks ago.

Beach resident Kimberly Anne Tucker, who oversees the anti-Trump Indivisible 757 Facebook group, said Taylor is wrongly blocking critics or those he disagrees with from posting on his personal page.

Its a venue for constituents in the 2nd Congressional District to reach their representative, said Tucker, who led protest chants at Taylors town hall forums two weeks ago.

My major concern is accessibility, said Tucker, who contacted the ACLU seeking assistance. It was not our understanding that it was a personal Facebook page because he had been holding town halls, doing surveys.

Taylor said his personal page is not a platform for his opponents to have free rein to speak out to its more than 55,000 followers. The page has been used regularly by Taylor and his supporters for election or legislative information, comments and news reports, as well as for offering live and recorded video of his town halls.

Every campaign in this nation does that. We have that discretion, he said. If you want to be able to come on my unofficial Facebook and troll it say bad things and be offensive or abusive I dont think so.

Taylor notes that his relatively new official page, which has just under 200 followers, does not remove comments as long as they dont violate his standards for abuse or profanity. He said comments that offer different political views are not removed.

Claire Guthrie Gastaaga, executive director of the states ACLU, said Taylors personal page can be viewed as a protected limited public forum that constituents use to reach their congressional representative.

Its no different than a city council meeting, she said.

I think there are some pretty significant questions raised about whether hes engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment in a limited public forum, Gastaaga said. He was using the Facebook page as a place to meet his constituents and engage them. It means you cannot discriminate based on the content of the speech.

Taylor argues there is no free-speech restriction because all of his constituents can reach him or his staff by many mediums including Facebook, email, traditional mail, telephone or a visit to his office.

He acknowledged his decision to remove comments that he dislikes can upset opponents.

Its the members discretion, and then of course you have to deal with your constituency, he said.

The Congressional Research Service advised federal legislators in an October report that they can have non-official social media accounts, such as campaign or personal accounts separate from their official web pages. Those non-official accounts cant use government resources.

Weldon, who said he is paid by Taylors campaign to be its part-time political director in addition to his full-time congressional job as Taylors communications director, noted he works on the unofficial page only while away from his government duties.

Here is the original post:
Rep. Taylor defends booting opponents off Facebook page; critics claim free speech rights violated - Virginian-Pilot

Desperation tactics to shut down discussion of the Israeli regime's mega-crimes reach new heights of absurdity

A fake anti-semitism campaign masterminded by the usual Zio suspects, their Israel lobby colleagues and their stooges in the corridors of power, continues to sweep across UK universities and our political parties, especially shambolic and rudderless Labour.

The University of Central Lancashire cancelled an event due to be held last month entitled Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions organised by the Universitys Friends of Palestine Society. The University said it would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances new definition of what constitutes anti-semitism and would therefore be unlawful. The event went ahead, off campus, at the premises of a local voluntary organisation.

Exeter University banned students from staging a re-enactment called Mock Checkpoint, in which some dressed up as Israeli occupation soldiers while others acted the part of Palestinians trying to go about their daily lives. The event was approved by the students guild but banned for safety and security reasons less than 48 hours before it was due to take place. An appeal was rejected.

At Leeds former British ambassador Craig Murray was asked by the trustees of the University Union to provide details of what he was going to say in his talk Palestine/Israel: A Unitary Secular State or a Bantustan Solution just 24 hours before he was due to speak. Craig reluctantly gave them an outline to allow the lecture to go ahead. He writes in his blog: I have just been told by Leeds University Union I will not be allowed to speak unless I submit what I am going to say for pre-vetting.

I am truly appalled that such a gross restriction on freedom of speech should be imposed anywhere, let alone in a university where intellectual debate is meant to be an essential part of the learning experience. I really do not recognise todays United Kingdom as the same society I grew up in. The common understanding that the values of a liberal democracy are the foundation of society appears to have evaporated.

Also at Leeds the student Palestine Solidarity Group was refused permission to mount a visual demonstration outside the Leeds Student Union Building or to have a stall inside.

At Liverpool Professor Michael Lavalette was contacted the day before he was due to speak with a demand that he sign the Universitys risk assessment for the event. This included reading the controversial IHRA definition of anti-semitism and agreeing with it. He emailed his response in which he carefully avoided mention of the dodgy definition and the meeting went ahead.

The University of Manchester allowed a series of talks marking Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to go ahead, but only after several meetings and imposing strict conditions which the organisers called unheard of. other societies and groups do not face the same problems. University authorities, however, vetoed the students choice of academic to chair an IAW event on BDS over concerns about her neutrality, and other speakers had to acknowledge the British government-endorsed definition of anti-semitism.

Meanwhile some reports say that a conference with the title International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism to be held at University College Cork at the end of this month has been cancelled thanks to pressure from Zionist groups. StandWithUs Israel, in cahoots with Irish4Israel, claim the University has been persuaded to impose added security stipulations and other limitations that amount to a de-facto cancelling of this hateful event. But these are desperation tactics. Checking with the organisers Im told the event is 100% going ahead. The Irish, it seems, are not as easily pushed around as the English. The conference, if you remember, was chased away from Southampton University two years ago by a similar campaign against free speech. The official reason, as usual, was security concerns.

Now comes the scandal of the 26 year-old Exeter student, noted for her work on anti-racism, being smeared by the Zionist Inquisition for her Pro-Palestinian activism.

She is accused of having tweeted two years ago: If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist. So what? As everyone and his dog knows, or ought to know, the Palestinians are perfectly entitled, under international law, to take up arms and resist a brutal illegal occupier. As Malaka Mohammed herself says:

It may appear as a radical statement that could raise serious concerns at both the University of Exeter and its Students Guild. However, it is my honest belief, and as I will attempt to explain, these kind of statements by Palestinians in general, and me in this instance, are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonize and dehumanize Palestinians. This is done by using the emotive dog whistle by Israeli descriptors of terrorist and terrorism whenever referring to the Arab population. Palestinians who throw stones in response to Israeli soldiers invading their villages are labelled violent thugs, rioters and terrorists. Palestinians who non-violently protest the illegal occupation are portrayed as violent individuals who terrorize Israeli Jews. Practically any Palestinian who resists the Israeli occupation and its plethora of human rights violations, war crimes and serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law is stigmatized in this way.

After reading that, I dropped the Vice-Chancellor a line:

Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor University of Exeter

Dear Sir Steve,

Im writing as a graduate of Exeter University with fond memories of the place, and because Im shocked to see its good name besmirched by ludicrous accusations linking Palestinian PhD student Malaka Mohammed (aka Shwaikh) to anti-semitism and supporting terrorism.

As an acknowledged international relations specialist you will know the score regarding Israels decades-long illegal occupation of the Palestinians homeland and its brutal subjugation and merciless dispossession of the Palestinian people. You will also, I imagine, understand who the true terrorists and anti-semites are.

Lest we forget, the US defines terrorism as an activity that

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and

(ii) appears to be intended

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

And the US has used this definition to terrorise and degrade individuals, groups and countries it doesnt happen to like.

Ironically its a definition that fits the US administration itself and the thuggish Israeli regime like a glove.

I sincerely hope that amidst the flurry of investigations going on you will take steps to ensure that plucky Ms Mohammed/Schwaikh ceases to be victimised by tiresome Zionist Inquisitors and is allowed to get on with her studies, and from now on free speech prevails across the beautiful Exeter campus.

Sir Steve is said to earn 400,000 a year according to this report. Perhaps he and many other university bosses need rousing from their plumptious comfort zone.

Im with Craig Murray on this. I too dont recognise our society today as the same one I grew up in. Who had the impudence to change our values regarding free speech?

Stuart Littlewoods book Radio Free Palestine, with Foreword by Jeff Halper, can now be read on the internet by visiting radiofreepalestine.org.uk. Read other articles by Stuart.

This article was posted on Thursday, March 9th, 2017 at 8:08am and is filed under BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement), Censorship, Freedom of Expression/Speech, Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Narrative, Propaganda, United Kingdom, Zionism.

See the article here:
Who had the Impudence to Change our Values Regarding Free Speech? - Dissident Voice

Alarmed by the announcement of a scheduled campus appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, the right-wing provocateur who has built a lucrative brand on inflammatory speech, a group of UC Berkeley faculty wroteChancellor Nicholas Dirks in early January to urge him to call it off.

A demonstrator in the crowd at UC Davis, where Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak in mid-January

Although we object strenuously to Yiannopouloss views he advocates white supremacy, transphobia and misogyny it is rather his harmful conduct to which we call attention in asking for the cancellation of this event, read the first of two letters from faculty members. The letters were eventually signed by more than 100 Berkeley faculty.

As one example of what they termed incitement, harassment and defamation, the signers cited a December event at the University of Milwaukee where Yiannopoulos spoke in his public lecture about a transgender student at the university in derogatory ways, going so far as to project a picture of this student during his lecture, one that was simultaneously broadcast on the Breitbart website.

Such actions, they concluded, are protected neither by free speech nor by academic freedom. For this reason, the university should not provide a platform for such harassment.

Nils Gilman, associate chancellor and Dirks chief of staff, replied with the administrations position.

While we realize (and regret) that the presence of certain speakers is very likely to upset some members of our campus community, Gilman wrote, the U.S. Constitution, and thus university policy, prevent campus administration from barring invited speakers from campus based on the viewpoints those speakers may express Our Constitution does not permit the university to engage in prior restraint of a speaker out of fear that he might engage in even hateful verbal attacks.

Whether you lean pro, con or somewhere in-between, such questions have special resonance at UC Berkeley, where the Free Speech Movement was born in 1964. A group of FSM veterans has come out in favor of Yiannopouloss right to speak, and the Facebook page of the Berkeley College Republicans the campus group sponsoring his appearance touts what it calls the new free speech movement.

Yiannopolous, a British, avowedly gay crusader against political correctness, regularly targets Muslims, immigrants, women, liberals and others perceived to be enemies of the alt-right a formerly fringe movement associated with white supremacy and Stephen Bannon, a key strategist for Donald Trump with troll-like rhetoric tailored to outrage, antagonize and offend.

He was permanently banned from Twitter for his part in a racist campaign of abuse toward actress Leslie Jones.

Some of his campus events have been canceled college Republicans at UC Davis recently scrubbed his talk in the face of protests and security concerns and one protester was shot by a supporter when Yiannopoulos spoke at the University of Washington.

His sold-out event at UC Berkeley is set for Wednesday, Feb. 1, at 8 p.m. in the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Unions Pauley Ballroom.

In an op-ed in the Daily Cal, a dozen Free Speech Movement veterans including Lynne Hollander Savio, Marios widow labeled Yiannopoulos a bigot, but urged students opposed to his views to express their opposition nonviolently,in ways that do not prevent such speakers from making or completing their remarks.

His modus operandi, they wrote, is to bait students of color, transgender students and anyone to the left of Donald Trump in the hopes of sparking a speaking ban or physical altercation so he can pose as a free speech martyr. His campus events are one long publicity stunt designed to present himself as a kind of hip, far right, youth folk hero sort of Hitler Youth with cool sunglasses.

With that in mind, they argued, Banning him just plays into his hands politically, which is one reason why we were glad to see the UC administration refuse to adopt such a ban.

Pieter Sittler, an officer with Berkeley College Republicans, explained via email that the group invited Yiannopoulos because we believe there exists a dearth of intellectual diversity on this campus, adding that conservative thought is actively repressed.

By inviting Yiannopoulos, Sittler said, BCR is simply holding true to Berkeleys motto, Fiat Lux, thus enlightening our peers to thought that deviates from the liberal status quo. We acknowledge that Milo is controversial, but he voraciously defends speech on campus and is an important voice to include in the broader political dialogue.

And Dirks, in a message to the campus community last week, said the administration had clearly communicated to the BCR that we regard Yiannopouloss act as at odds with the values of this campus, and had emphasized to them that with their autonomy and independence comes a moral responsibility for the consequences of their words, actions, events and invitations and those of their guest.

Nonetheless, he reiterated the legal basis for the decision to let the event proceed, and quoted UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman, who wrote that universities support free speech and condemn censorship for two reasons to ensure that positive, helpful, illuminating messages can circulate widely, and to expose hateful or dangerous ideas that, if never engaged or rebutted, would gain traction in the darker corners of our society. Hate speech is like mold: Its enemies are bright light and fresh air.

This admonition, added Dirks, may be more important in our current political moment than ever.

Continued here:
Free speech? Hate speech? Or both? | Berkeley News

As protests flare on campuses nationwide, the University of Maine System is moving forward with a new free speech policy that affirms constitutionally protected speech, calls for civility and gives the university room to prohibit speech if it crosses into harassment or threats.

The timing is critically important, system trustee chairman Sam Collins said Wednesday, referring to violent protests that broke out days ago at Middlebury College in Vermont, after students shouted down a controversial speaker. Last month, riots broke out at University of California Berkeley in connection with a speech by a provocateur and conservative activist.

Closer to home, the University of Southern Maine recently hosted a speaker on immigration that drew protesters, but remained civil.

Collins and other members of the UMS trustees executive committee met Wednesday to discuss the new policy, saying it would help the system navigate sensitive free speech issues, while making clear that students do not have the right to shout down a speaker.

(D)emands for civility and mutual respect will not be used to justify restricting the discussion or expression of ideas or speech that may be disagreeable or even offensive to some members of the University community, the policy reads in part. Free speech is not absolute, and one persons claim to exercise his or her right to free speech may not be used to deny another persons right to free speech.

The policy defends constitutionally protected speech, and reads: There shall be no restriction at any System institutions on these fundamental rights, although the University may prohibit speech that violates the law, defames specific individuals, genuinely threatens or harasses others, or violates privacy or confidentiality requirements or interests.

The policy is based in part on the findings of the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, and the model language suggested by that committee.

This is a very positive thing, said Samantha Harris, a vice president at the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that defends student and faculty rights on campus and urged campuses to adopt the Chicago language. Its heartening to see a public institution affirm their beliefs.

Seventeen colleges have adopted the Chicago language so far, Harris said.

The new policy will be voted on by the full board of trustees at its April meeting.

Noel K. Gallagher can be reached at 791-6387 or at:

[emailprotected]

Twitter: noelinmaine

View post:
UMaine System pushes ahead with free speech policy - Press Herald