Category Archives: Free Speech

This is another win for Ben Shapiro and Young Americas Foundation.

The Daily Caller reported:

California University Embraces Free Speech After Threatened With Lawsuit

A university has updated its free speech policies following a lawsuit filed by a conservative speaker whose event was almost cancelled at the school.

Ben Shapiro, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire and his partner organization, Young Americas Foundation, sued California State University, Los Angeles, after a virtual riot broke out at his scheduled speaking engagement. Shapiro was met by a mob of violent protesters who had blocked entrances to the event, physically attacked attendees, and blocked entrances to the speech, according to The Daily Wire.

Shapiro and Young Americas Foundation dismissed the lawsuit after the school made some changes to its free speech policies, as noted in The Daily Signal.

California State University, Los Angeles, pledged to not impose any fees, including security fees, based upon the viewpoint of the speech at future events. The school also pledged to not unilaterally refuse to schedule or cancel any scheduled event based upon the viewpoint of the speech that is to take place, adding that it will enforce terms of its Administrative Policy on Time, Place, and Manner of Free Expression P007 in a viewpoint-neutral manner, as reported by Young Americas Foundation.

Continued here:
CSULA Embraces Free Speech After Threat of Lawsuit - legal Insurrection (blog)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Bills are being introduced in state legislatures around the country in an attempt to curb the increasing restrictions being placed on political speech at state-funded campuses.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

College should be a place where all opinions, popular or not, should be able to be freely expressed, Texas State Representative Briscoe Cain argued. Students have the right to free speech and HB 2527 will help protect the constitutional rights of students and student organizations.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walkers recent budget proposal includes a $10,000 allocation that would go towards academic freedom initiatives in the University of Wisconsin system.

It is not the proper role of the board or any institution or college campus to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive, the Wisconsin legislation states. The board and each institution and college campus has a responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberationbut also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

Several other states have proposed legislation that would protect free speech rights at public universities. Those states include North Carolina, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about education and social justice for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

See the original post:
Legislation Proposed in Four States to Protect Free Speech at Public Universities - Breitbart News

MANILA, Philippines The US State Department in a report said President RodrigoDutertespublic attacks against critics of his policies had a chilling effect on free speech.

In its annual human rights report released on its website Friday, the US State Department said that individuals could criticize the government publicly or privately and even discuss matters of general public interest. However,Dutertespublic attacks on individuals and international bodies who have criticized his policies had a chilling effect on free speech and expression.

The US State Department cited as an exampleDutertes public accusations against Sen. Leila De Lima. The accusations were already thrown even before a formal government investigations occurred.

It said that the Department of Justice (DOJ) only launched a probe after the president claimed De Lima received benefits from the drug trade during her term as commissioner of human rights and justice secretary. Due to this, the US State Department questioned the timeliness of Dutertes claims against De Lima.

Dutertes allegations came at the same time that De Lima began hearings into alleged extrajudicial killings in the governments anti-drug campaign as chairperson of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human rights, the report read.

The report also cited that De Lima was ousted as the chairperson of the Senate committee after she called as a witness self-confessed hitman Edgar Matobato to testify regardingDutertes direct involvement in alleged extrajudicial killings during his tenure as Davao City mayor. It noted that the senator was replaced by someone considered as Dutertes ally, Sen. Richard Gordon.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

Last October, however, Gordon denied that he is an ally of Duterte.

Why do you keep on saying Im an ally of the president? Am I PDP-laban (ruling political party)? Am I? Gordon was quoted by reports.

The US State Department said that when Gordon led the hearings into drug-related killings, he concluded that there was no proof that Duterte had personal involvement in extrajudicial killings. It added that as of November 21, the DOJ continued to investigate De Limas alleged ties to illegal narcotics but has not found sufficient evidence to file a criminal indictment.

De Lima, nevertheless, was recently detained. She was accused by the DOJ of violating Section 5 (sale) in relation to Section 3 (jj trading), Section 26 (b) and Section 28 or the criminal liability of government officials and employees underthe Republic Act 9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for allegedly allowing the proliferation of the drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison during her stint as justice secretary.

Like De Lima, the US State Department report noted that journalists also faced harassment and threats of violence, including from politicians and government authorities critical of their reporting. It cited that in April 2016,Duterte, then a presidential candidate, threatened that journalists could be assassinated if they were corrupt.

In April then candidate Duterte drew widespread criticism after he told the media that journalists should enjoy no special protections and could be 'assassinated' if they were 'corrupt' and took money from politicians. Human rights NGOs frequently criticized the government for failing to protect journalists, the report read.

The US State Department added that several journalists reported an uptick in online threats, including threats of violence and harassment, in response to articles posted online that were critical of the government.

Journalists critical of the government reported that they did not yet feel that threats to their personal safety were credible but they were concerned about losing access to the president and presidential palace if they were seen as overly critical, it said.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2016demonstrate the United States unwavering commitment to advancing liberty, human dignity and global prosperity.

Read the original:
Duterte public attacks has chilling effect on free speech US State Department - Philippine Star

ANTI-FREE SPEECH: Leftist Middlebury College students turned their backs and shouted down political scientist and Bell Curve author Dr. Charles Murray on Thursday.

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. Anti-free speech students fromMiddlebury College disrupted a planned lecture by guest speaker,political scientist andauthor Charles Murray in the McCullough StudentCenter on Thursday.

The event, which included severaldark-masked, bandit-like student protestors, descended quicklyintoarowdyeffortto preventthe Harvard- and MIT-educated speakerfrom discussing his book, Coming Apart. The student protest effort succeeded.

Murrayis affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He also is the co-authorofthe1994 book The Bell Curve, an study ofrace and intelligence.

On campus, Murrays appearance was being castas adisplay of academic free speech versus shutting down what protesting students called hate speech.

Before Murrayappeared on stage,William Burger, thecolleges vice president of communications, told students about the colleges rules of conduct for First Amendment protests. He noted that failing to follow the rules couldresult in reprimands includingacademic dismissal.

Middlebury College President Laurie Pattonofferedher reasons for allowing thefree and open discussionbya researcher she did not personally agree with. I would regret it terribly if my presence here is read to be something that it is not an endorsement of Mr. Murrays research and writings, she said.

Students booed Patton wholeft the stage visiblyshaken.

Free speech?

The loud,sustainedprotest inside the auditorium included manystudents turning their backs on Murray when hewalked on stage.

With their backs to Murray, students heldup posters with hand-scrawled protest slogans such as White Supremacy is the Enemy and Race is a Construct and F Eugenics.

Many in the Middlebury audience shouted, Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away! in unison. One protestor in the audience shouted Yiannopoulos! referring to former Breitbart Newscommentator Milo Yiannopoulos, andperhaps the violent University of California, Berkeley protest against him in February.

Chanting continued for nearly 30 minutes until Murray wasescorted offstageby Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics at the college. Asecurity guard and student membersof the American Enterprise Institute astudent-runcampus club whicharranged the authors appearance also escorted Murray.

When Stanger returned on stage and took the podium microphone, she said, Well have a great dialog if youd let us continue, but youre not going to let us speak. Brothers and sisters, namaste.

Murraywas usheredto an undisclosed room on campus to deliver hislecture via live stream video. However, whenalarge video projection screen was lowered for audience viewing and the live streaming began,loud protesting continued, making it impossible for audience members to hear Murray and moderator Stanger.

Most people know Murray for The Bell Curve. Butthe speakerwas invited to Middlebury to discuss Coming Apart, a more recent bookabout the moral decline of white America and the growingeconomicdivide.

Many student voices

Saanvi Khambatta,a senior studyingeconomics, came to the event tolearn aboutMurrays intellectual thought process.

I wanted to see a different perspective, she told Watchdog. Charles Murray does not have the credentials,but he does influence a lot of people in our nation. I disagree with his ideas but I feel like I should know about his ideas to challenge me intellectually.

Anna May Walker, a sophomore English major, was appalled by the behavior of fellow students.

Silencing Charles Murray is another example of two wrongs not making a right. Let him speak andengage intellectually, she said.Sure, I would have preferred him not to have been invited to campus,but hes here and now were guilty. Were people unwilling to hear the voices of others despitedemanding our own voices be heard.

Walker said she fearsthat students who stand for free speech at the college will face intimidation and retribution.

I know in saying these words I jeopardize myself in many ways.I will face the wrath of this community that we clearly see here today. It frightens me. This? This was not the answer, she said.

The real world beyond this campus cant be controlled and shut downwith shouted sentences. If Murrays ideas arent legitimate, then we shouldprove it by discussion, not shouting. We are undermining theauthenticity of this institution with this whole process.

Stanger reportedly was violently assaultedduring the event and was treated at nearby Porter Hospital. Fire alarms wereset offandseveral campus electronic devices were disrupted. Burger said some students identified by staff members will be punished for interrupting the event.

Lou Varricchio is the bureau chief for Vermont Watchdog. You can contact him [emailprotected]

The rest is here:
Middlebury College students shout down speaker in display against free speech - Watchdog.org

Rustavi2 staff members, supporters and prominent public figures, including Georgias first lady, Maka Chichua (left), gathered outside the studios of the television network on March 3. (Screenshot of Rustavi2 report).

The following is a partner post fromEurasiaNet.orgwritten by Giorgi Lomsadze.Republished with permission.

Journalists at Georgias last major opposition broadcasting company are digging in and refusing to comply with a court order altering the outlets ownership structure. Doing so, they say, would sound the death knell for independent media in the country.

Defiant supporters pitched tents outside the studios of the television channel Rustavi2, forming a human shield in front of the building in response to a March 2 Supreme Court decision to return ownership of the broadcaster to businessman Kibar Khalvashi. We will continue our work and we are staying on the air, said Rustavi2s General Director Nika Gvaramia, who was flanked by the companys news crews as he spoke.

The governing party, the Georgian Dream, has long criticized Rustavi2 as a hyperpartisan outlet, supportive of Georgias self-exiled ex-president Mikheil Saakashvili. But Rustavi2 also has been a must-watch for its critical coverage of the Georgian Dreams performance. The station may now be headed toward a standoff with law enforcement officials, given that it has mobilized opposition political parties, civil society groups and prominent public figures to defy execution of the court verdict.

The Supreme Court on March 2 rejected the companys appeal of an earlier verdict to reinstate Khalvashi as majority owner. The company and its supporters allege that the Georgian Dream party and its founder, oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, influenced the Supreme Courts decision in order to bring the recalcitrant channel to heel. Government officials deny meddling in the case, insisting that the ownership dispute is strictly commercial in nature.

However, Georgias leading human rights watchdogs and freedom of information advocacy groups joined forces in criticizing the Supreme Courts judgment and earlier verdicts by lower courts, describing the decisions as legally dubious. All three instances of judicial proceedings, as well as the final result, do not meet the requirement of independent court decision-making, and strengthen our doubts about the governments crude interference, several of Georgias most prominent civil society groups, including Transparency International Georgia, said in a joint statement.

The United States Embassy in Tbilisi said that it views with concern the Supreme Courts decision that could effectively limit the access to opposition voices to Georgian broadcast media. Similar concerns were voiced by international media freedom watchdogs like Freedom House.

Rustav2s chief, Gvaramia, said that he and his staff are eager to buy the company back from Khalvashi an offer the businessman was quick to decline. He said such a buyout could land the station back in the hands of self-exiled ex-president Mikhail (Misha) Saakashvili. So long as there is a Misha menace, I am not selling the TV company, Khalvashi said.

The businessman claims that he was improperly strong-armed by then-president Saakashvili to relinquish his majority stake in Rustavi2 in 2006. Gvaramia served as a minister of justice and, later, headed the Education Ministry during Saakashvilis administration. Leaked phone conversations last year suggested that Gvaramia and Saakashvili maintain close contact, including engaging in strategy sessions to stave off what they describe as a government takeover of Rustavi2.

Many media analysts charge that the court decision could mark the final act in an assiduous campaign carried out by the Georgian Dream to neutralize mass medias watchdog function. Initially, during the early days of its rule, the Georgian Dream was credited with breaking the Saakashvili-era governments control of the national airwaves, which were at that time dominated by three news channels: Rustavi2, Imedi and Public TV. But observers say that the Georgian Dream later carried out its own takeover of television news broadcasts, via which the vast majority of Georgians obtain information about the doings of the government.

We have seen the [Georgian Dream] government slowly but surely moving to usurp the media space, focusing primarily on television, said Nino Danelia, a media studies professor at Tbilisi-based Ilia Chavchavadze University.

Imedi TV dropped two major current-affairs talk shows in 2015 amid claims of government pressure. The network moved to absorb a small, mostly free-wheeling station, Maestro, and then merged with GDS, a station owned by billionaire Ivanishvilis son, Bera. Imedi TV now leans toward celebrity gossip and infotainment, and is largely government-friendly. In February, Public TV announced controversial plans to suspend political talk shows citing the need to upgrade both the equipment and content.

Rustavi2 has been seen as the last holdout operating beyond the influence of Georgian Dream officials. One opposition group, the Republican Party, went so as far as to warn in a March 3 statement that the court ruling on Rustavi2 marks a pivotal moment in Georgias post-Soviet experience, in which a pluralistic system is giving way to the formation of an authoritarian regime.

The Georgian Dream already has full control of other democratic institutions, like the executive government, the parliament and, as weve seen, the judiciary, so full submission of the news media is its goal now, Danelia said.

The Georgian Dream and Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili refuted those allegations and called for the courts decision to be respected. The government will spare no efforts to protect the freedom of the media in the country, the prime ministers office said in a statement.

The dispute over Rustavi2s ownership dates back to the Saakashvili era, when the company went through byzantine, reportedly government-orchestrated, ownership changes. Founded in 1994 in the town of Rustavi, about a 20-minute drive outside of Tbilisi, Rustavi2 gained popularity for broadcasting exposes on corruption and stagnation during the administration of the late president, Eduard Shevardnadze. Eventually becoming the nations most watched news channel, Rustavi2 played an instrumental role in catalyzing the Rose Revolution, which brought Saakashvili to power.

Two of the companys original founders, entrepreneurs Davit Dvali and Jarji Akimidze, claimed they were robbed of the station by the Saakashvili government in 2004. Khalvashi was then seen as one of the governments many hand-picked favorites to take over Rustavi2, but he too was allegedly forced to sell his stake under duress after a falling-out with the government.

Khalvashi and the two original founders became unlikely allies in the current ownership dispute, with the businessman promising to give half of his shares to Dvali and Akimidze should the court reinstate him as the channels majority owner. Following the Supreme Courts decision, though, Khalvashi appeared to back away from that promise.

With the court decision in place, many media observers and opposition leaders are painting a dark future for free speech in Georgia. Gvaramia said that what was ultimately at stake was whether free speech will exist in Georgia, whether democracy will have a chance in Georgia, [and] whether Georgia will become a part of the Euro-Atlantic space.

Other observers remain guardedly optimistic that the government will be unable to control the flow of information. No Georgian government has won a battle with the media, said Danelia, the media studies professor. It may take a long time, but ultimately the government will lose.

Link:
With Key TV Station Takeover, Is Free Speech in Georgia at Stake? - Global Voices Online

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Public safety officials notified the student organizers of the event that they would be required to fork over nearly $600 in additional security fees if they wanted to proceed with the event as planned.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Rubin recently starred in a popular online video for Prager University in which he explained his move away from the American political left and towards classical liberalism.

Administrators told the events organizers that Rubins controversial history may present security issues and that two armed guards trained in dealing with potential disruptions or protests would be required in order for the event to proceed.

Breitbart News has covered the topic of security-fee censorship extensively. On more than one occasion, students planning to host former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos were hit with last-minute security fees that made it nearly impossible for the events to take place as scheduled.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about education and social justice for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

See more here:
USC Shuts Down Scheduled Event with Free Speech Advocate ... - Breitbart News

5513833

A university has updated its free speech policies following a lawsuit filed by a conservative speaker whose event was almost cancelled at the school.

Ben Shapiro, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire and his partner organization, Young Americas Foundation, sued California State University, Los Angeles, after a virtual riot broke out at his scheduled speaking engagement. Shapiro was met by a mob of violent protesters who had blocked entrances to the event, physically attacked attendees, and blocked entrances to the speech, according to The Daily Wire.

Shapiro and Young Americas Foundation dismissed the lawsuit after the school made some changes to its free speech policies, as noted in The Daily Signal.

California State University, Los Angeles, pledged to not impose any fees, including security fees, based upon the viewpoint of the speech at future events. The school also pledged to not unilaterally refuse to schedule or cancel any scheduled event based upon the viewpoint of the speech that is to take place, adding that it will enforce terms of its Administrative Policy on Time, Place, and Manner of Free Expression P007 in a viewpoint-neutral manner, as reported by Young Americas Foundation.

While CSULA changed its policies to be more conducive to free speech, other universities restrict opinions deemed controversial, sometimes prohibiting various speakers from addressing students on campus. (RELATED: Study: Over 90% Of UK Colleges Censor Speech)

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Originally posted here:
California University Embraces Free Speech After Threatened With Lawsuit - Daily Caller

Congress should cut the budget of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Doing so will help the economy and protect civil liberties. As CEI and others have noted, the EEOCs actions have often discouraged hiring and undermined free speech.

Under the Obama administration, the EEOC sued employers for using hiring criteria required by state law, demanding that they violate health and safety codes. It even pressured employers to hire felons as armed guards. The EEOC sued companies that quite reasonably refuse to employ truck drivers with a history of heavy drinking, even though companies that hire them will be sued under state personal-injury laws when they have an accident. The EEOC has also used costly lawsuits to pressure businesses into hiring or rehiring incompetent employees. In 2011, a hotel chain had to pay $132,500 for dismissing an autistic clerk who did not do his job properly, in order to get the EEOC to dismiss its lawsuit. In 2012, a caf owner had to pay thousands of dollars for not selecting a hearing- and speech-impaired employee for a customer-service position that the employee was unqualified for.

The EEOC has also been criticized by free speech advocates and legal scholars. In 2016, the EEOC was criticized for ordering a racial harassment investigation simply because an agency employee repeatedly wore a cap with the Gadsden flag on it.

Since the EEOC is an independent agency (it currently has three Democratic commissioners and only one Republican commissioner), this problem will likely persist even under the new administration. Last month, the EEOC angered free-speech advocates by using an erroneous definition of religious harassment to force an agency to pay over $20,000 to a lawyer and Labor Department employee because a supervisor used the word Hebrew slave to describe himself.

The EEOC sometimes exhibits contempt for the very laws it administers. The EEOC was found guilty of systematic, illegal, reverse discrimination in Jurgens v. Thomas (1982), which it continued to illegally engage in for years, even after being ordered to stop.(See Terry v. Gallegos, 926 F.Supp. 679 (W.D. Tenn. 1996)). EEOC officials have also frequently committed sexual misconduct. (See, e.g., Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (3rd Cir.1994)). The Washington Post reported in 2009 that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nations workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees.

Given the EEOCs contempt for the law, and its attacks on free speech, its budget should be cut substantially. Budget cuts would effectively force EEOC staff to focus more on their core area of activityprocessing valid federal employee claimsrather than suing private employers (which costs more and can lead to a loss before a federal court), or stretching the law to overturn agency rulings. There are many overlapping legal remedies for discrimination and federal employee dismissal, so a smaller EEOC budget need not lead to valid harassment and discrimination claims going unaddressed. Most discrimination victims already sue without help from the EEOC.

In the long term, Congress should consider structural reforms to the agency itself, such as those proposed by law school professor and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights member Gail Heriot, which would streamline its mandate to focus solely on federal employees.

The rest is here:
Congress Should Rein in Free Speech Violations with Budget Cuts ... - Competitive Enterprise Institute (blog)

Rustavi2 staff members, supporters and prominent public figures, including Georgias first lady, Maka Chichua (left), gathered outside the studios of the television network on March 3. (Screenshot of Rustavi2 report)

Journalists at Georgias last major opposition broadcasting company are digging in and refusing to comply with a court order altering the outlets ownership structure. Doing so, they say, would sound the death knell for independent media in the country. Defiant supporters pitched tents outside the studios of the television channel Rustavi2, forming a human shield in front of the building in response to a March 2 Supreme Court decision to return ownership of the broadcaster to businessman Kibar Khalvashi. We will continue our work and we are staying on the air, said Rustavi2s General Director Nika Gvaramia, who was flanked by the companys news crews as he spoke. The governing party, the Georgian Dream, has long criticized Rustavi2 as a hyperpartisan outlet, supportive of Georgias self-exiled ex-president Mikheil Saakashvili. But Rustavi2 also has been a must-watch for its critical coverage of the Georgian Dreams performance. The station may now be headed toward a standoff with law enforcement officials, given that it has mobilized opposition political parties, civil society groups and prominent public figures to defy execution of the court verdict. The Supreme Court on March 2 rejected the companys appeal of an earlier verdict to reinstate Khalvashi as majority owner. The company and its supporters allege that the Georgian Dream party and its founder, oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, influenced the Supreme Courts decision in order to bring the recalcitrant channel to heel. Government officials deny meddling in the case, insisting that the ownership dispute is strictly commercial in nature. However, Georgias leading human rights watchdogs and freedom of information advocacy groups joined forces in criticizing the Supreme Courts judgment and earlier verdicts by lower courts, describing the decisions as legally dubious. All three instances of judicial proceedings, as well as the final result, do not meet the requirement of independent court decision-making, and strengthen our doubts about the governments crude interference, several of Georgias most prominent civil society groups, including Transparency International Georgia, said in a joint statement. The United States Embassy in Tbilisi said that it views with concern the Supreme Courts decision that could effectively limit the access to opposition voices to Georgian broadcast media. Similar concerns were voiced by international media freedom watchdogs like Freedom House. Rustav2s chief, Gvaramia, said that he and his staff are eager to buy the company back from Khalvashi an offer the businessman was quick to decline. He said such a buyout could land the station back in the hands of self-exiled ex-president Mikhail (Misha) Saakashvili. So long as there is a Misha menace, I am not selling the TV company, Khalvashi said. The businessman claims that he was improperly strong-armed by then-president Saakashvili to relinquish his majority stake in Rustavi2 in 2006. Gvaramia served as a minister of justice and, later, headed the Education Ministry during Saakashvilis administration. Leaked phone conversations last year suggested that Gvaramia and Saakashvili maintain close contact, including engaging in strategy sessions to stave off what they describe as a government takeover of Rustavi2. Many media analysts charge that the court decision could mark the final act in an assiduous campaign carried out by the Georgian Dream to neutralize mass medias watchdog function. Initially, during the early days of its rule, the Georgian Dream was credited with breaking the Saakashvili-era governments control of the national airwaves, which were at that time dominated by three news channels: Rustavi2, Imedi and Public TV. But observers say that the Georgian Dream later carried out its own takeover of television news broadcasts, via which the vast majority of Georgians obtain information about the doings of the government. We have seen the [Georgian Dream] government slowly but surely moving to usurp the media space, focusing primarily on television, said Nino Danelia, a media studies professor at Tbilisi-based Ilia Chavchavadze University. Imedi TV dropped two major current-affairs talk shows in 2015 amid claims of government pressure. The network moved to absorb a small, mostly free-wheeling station, Maestro, and then merged with GDS, a station owned by billionaire Ivanishvilis son, Bera. Imedi TV now leans toward celebrity gossip and infotainment, and is largely government-friendly. In February, Public TV announced controversial plans to suspend political talk shows citing the need to upgrade both the equipment and content. Rustavi2 has been seen as the last holdout operating beyond the influence of Georgian Dream officials. One opposition group, the Republican Party, went so as far as to warn in a March 3 statement that the court ruling on Rustavi2 marks a pivotal moment in Georgias post-Soviet experience, in which a pluralistic system is giving way to the formation of an authoritarian regime. The Georgian Dream already has full control of other democratic institutions, like the executive government, the parliament and, as weve seen, the judiciary, so full submission of the news media is its goal now, Danelia said. The Georgian Dream and Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili refuted those allegations and called for the courts decision to be respected. The government will spare no efforts to protect the freedom of the media in the country, the prime ministers office said in a statement. The dispute over Rustavi2s ownership dates back to the Saakashvili era, when the company went through byzantine, reportedly government-orchestrated, ownership changes. Founded in 1994 in the town of Rustavi, about a 20-minute drive outside of Tbilisi, Rustavi2 gained popularity for broadcasting exposes on corruption and stagnation during the administration of the late president, Eduard Shevardnadze. Eventually becoming the nations most watched news channel, Rustavi2 played an instrumental role in catalyzing the Rose Revolution, which brought Saakashvili to power. Two of the companys original founders, entrepreneurs Davit Dvali and Jarji Akimidze, claimed they were robbed of the station by the Saakashvili government in 2004. Khalvashi was then seen as one of the governments many hand-picked favorites to take over Rustavi2, but he too was allegedly forced to sell his stake under duress after a falling-out with the government. Khalvashi and the two original founders became unlikely allies in the current ownership dispute, with the businessman promising to give half of his shares to Dvali and Akimidze should the court reinstate him as the channels majority owner. Following the Supreme Courts decision, though, Khalvashi appeared to back away from that promise. With the court decision in place, many media observers and opposition leaders are painting a dark future for free speech in Georgia. Gvaramia said that what was ultimately at stake was whether free speech will exist in Georgia, whether democracy will have a chance in Georgia, [and] whether Georgia will become a part of the Euro-Atlantic space. Other observers remain guardedly optimistic that the government will be unable to control the flow of information. No Georgian government has won a battle with the media, said Danelia, the media studies professor. It may take a long time, but ultimately the government will lose.

Editor's note:

Go here to see the original:
Georgia: With TV Station Takeover, Is Free Speech at Stake? - EurasiaNet

Wichita 4:11 p.m. CT March 3, 2017

Texas A&M University-Kingsville students walk the up and down the pavilion between classes Thursday, the university has had it highest enrollment ever this year.(Photo: ToddYates/Caller-Times File)

Our nation's institutions of higher learning are supposed to be repositories of knowledge, enriched by the free flow of information and competition of ideas, but they are increasingly failing in this mission. Sadly, college campuses, which tend to embrace liberal ideologies, including tolerance, oftentimes are among the most intolerant of opposing views, as evidenced by the imposition of speech codes and enforcement of "free speech zones," which limit what can be said and where it can be expressed.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes that it "has received an increasing number of reports that colleges and universities are inviting students to anonymously report offensive, yet constitutionally protected, speech to administrators and law enforcement through so-called 'Bias Response Teams.'" More than 230 schools have formed such teams, which oftentimes operate under broad definitions of "bias," and create "a chilling effect on campus expression," FIRE reports. Tensions have reached a boiling point on many campuses, as illustrated by several recent examples in California. Orange Coast College suspended a student for recording a professor's anti-Trump rant, before backing down after a national outcry. At UCLA, conservative communications instructor Keith Fink is accusing his department of political discrimination after suffering reductions in his class size and the rejection of his permission-to-enroll forms, which allow students to enroll in a class with the instructor's permission, under a new department head with reportedly very left-leaning ideals. Only 200 of the 241 students who attempted to enroll in Fink's course were admitted, even though the classroom has a capacity of 293. Ironically, the subject of the argument is Fink's popular "Sex, Politics and Race: Free Speech on Campus" course.

Sometimes, attempts to stifle speech even get violent. A Cal State Fullerton instructor was suspended for allegedly striking a student from the College Republicans, who were staging a counterprotest of students rallying against President Donald Trump's policies. And then there was the violent protest that forced the cancellation of controversial conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos' planned event at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago.

But there is a bit of a silver lining as well. Just about a week prior to the UC Berkeley riot, a rowdy crowd forced the cancellation of another Yiannopoulos talk at UC Davis. In response, interim Chancellor Ralph Hextor announced that he is forming a work group of students, faculty and staff to recommend policies to ensure that even the most polemical speakers can have their voices heard on campus. "When we prevent words from being delivered or heard, we are trampling on the First Amendment," Hextor stated recently. "Even when a speaker's message is deeply offensive to certain groups, the right to convey the message and the right to hear it are protected." Quite so. Moreover, there is no place for speech codes and free speech zones on college campuses - or anywhere else. After all, as FIRE senior program officer Adam Steinbaugh wrote in a recent Washington Examiner column, "How will students be able to defend their rights in the legislature or the courts if debating them in the classroom is to be discouraged?"

The Orange County Register (Santa Ana, Calif.)

Read or Share this story: http://wtrne.ws/2lnQSZw

Continued here:
Troubling times for free speech on campus - Times Record News