Category Archives: Free Speech

State Senate passes bill protecting students' free speech The News Tribune Joe Fain, the sponsor of the measure, called it an important bill that reasserts the value of journalism by ensuring that student journalists at the high school and college level "have the types of free speech protections that we Americans have always ... and more »

Excerpt from:
State Senate passes bill protecting students' free speech - The News Tribune

President Donald Trump's war on the news media violates the spirit of the free press. How far can he go before he violates the letter of the First Amendment? Case in point: the exclusion of CNN, the New York Times, Politico and other media outlets from a White House press briefing on Friday. It violates the basic constitutional ideal that the government can't discriminate among various speakers on the basis of their viewpoints. Under existing case law, however, the exclusion probably doesn't violate the Constitution because the news outlets remain free to speak despite losing a degree of access.

To see why the White House's actions were so constitutionally pernicious, begin with the U.S. Supreme Court's modern interpretation of the First Amendment. The core concept is that the government can't target certain ideas because of the perspective that they embody. The court calls this "viewpoint discrimination." And it's considered so serious a violation of free speech that it applies in areas that traditionally were considered exempt from the First Amendment, such as obscenity and libel.

If the goal of the First Amendment is to facilitate a free marketplace of ideas, viewpoint discrimination puts the government's thumb on the scale to the benefit of some ideas and the detriment of others. It makes the marketplace unfree.

If you prefer to think of the purpose of free speech as facilitating political participation by all citizens, viewpoint discrimination is equally wrong. Instead of allowing all ideas to contend to produce the political truth that will guide policy, viewpoint discrimination favors those with certain political ideas over others who disagree.

Plainly, then, the exclusion of some news media from Friday's off-camera "gaggle" with press secretary Sean Spicer violates the ideal that the government should preserve viewpoint neutrality. The whole point of excluding those news organizations was to punish them for expressing ideas Trump doesn't like and to favor alternative organizations the president prefers.

The exclusion comes close to violating existing First Amendment law. Certainly the government couldn't condition the exercise of a First Amendment right on a news organization's viewpoint. If reporters are allowed to participate in certain conversations and therefore report firsthand on them only if they take the government line, that could be construed as an unconstitutional condition on their speech.

Another way that the exclusion could be seen to violate existing doctrine is if the press gaggle is understood as a government-created forum for conversation with a White House representative. In such a "limited public forum," the government can choose the subject matter. But it's flatly prohibited from discriminating against certain participants on the basis of their viewpoints.

The counterargument to both approaches would be that the excluded organizations aren't being prohibited from saying whatever they want. They're just being denied access. And there's no constitutional right to a private audience with a government official, even an official spokesman.

For example, the president certainly can choose among various possible interviewers and can lawfully consider the interviewer's viewpoint in making that decision.

A court applying current doctrine might well adopt this narrow conception of the informal press gaggle. But that approach shows the limits of interpreting the First Amendment in the light of past practice when the president is devoted to finding new ways to limit the press.

In practice, blocking access for some organizations while providing preferred access for others is intended precisely to affect what the excluded organizations say. If you're in the room, you can report on what was said directly, without quoting another source.

What's more, the news organizations aren't passive recipients of whatever the spokesperson happens to say. The gaggle is a dialogue in which the questions might matter as much as the answers.

In that sense, the reporters participating in the gaggle aren't just passively listening. They're actively speaking. Limiting attendance to preferred news organizations is deeply in conflict with principle of viewpoint discrimination.

The Trump administration might think it's being cute by limiting press access without directly prohibiting speech. But a president who says he loves the First Amendment should be held to the standard of loving its values, not just its technical rules as currently interpreted.

The courts should be open to a broader interpretation of the First Amendment to fit the new challenges of the moment. If they aren't, the freedom of the press runs the risk of becoming obsolete.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of constitutional and international law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

See the article here:
Trump's love-hate relationship with free speech | National ... - Kankakee Daily Journal

On Wednesday, a British member of the European Parliament expressed his support for a measure that would allow the presiding officer of the body to effectively "kill" a speech they consider "racist" or "xenophobic."

Mike Rowe on How to Battle Unemployment & the Skills Gap

'Educate the President': Dem Rep Bringing DREAMer to Trump Speech

'You Don't Know!': Tucker and Bill Nye Clash on Climate Change

Tucker Carlson asked Labour MEP Richard Corbett what formal "standards" are in place to decide which expressions of free speech can be curtailed.

Corbett said the measure prohibits the use of "racist terms and xenophobic language." Any speech considered such will be cut short and "purged" from live and archived television, he explained.

Carlson called the move "quite draconian" and "Orwellian."

Corbett said it would protect against a member prospectively unfurling a banner demanding Jewish people be killed, but Carlson pressed further on what official standard the Parliament had set.

Corbett said a "variety of views" can be expressed, underlining that the Parliament's speaker, who is in control of the rule, is elected by members "across the [political] spectrum."

"Did anybody acknowledge that this is a totalitarian measure?" Carlson asked.

Corbett assured him that the rule would not be imposed "willy-nilly."

"Free speech continues to die a sad death on the continent that created it," Carlson remarked.

'I'm Worried About Your Leadership': Tucker Battles CT Mayor on Illegal Immigration

'Why Not Ban Pens & Keyboards?': Tucker Battles Student Over Whiteboard Ban

'We're Not Standing in the Way': CT Gov, Tucker Spar Over Illegal Immigration

Read the rest here:
Tucker Battles Member of EU Parliament Who Supports Free Speech 'Kill Switch' - Fox News Insider

MLive.com

GVSU settles federal lawsuit, revises free speech rules WOODTV.com GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) Grand Valley State University says it has reached an agreement with a group of students who were suing the university, saying it unfairly restricted free speech on campus. Attorneys for Turning Point USA filed the federal ... GVSU reaches settlement with student group alleging it restricted free speechMLive.com Grand Valley State agrees to settle lawsuit over free speechDetroit Free Press all 4 news articles »

Read this article:
GVSU settles federal lawsuit, revises free speech rules - WOODTV.com

LOS ANGELES, Calif. Numerous empty seats pepperedthe large lecture hall. Multiple students strolled into class late while others trickled out early. That was the scene on a recent Wednesday nightas lecturer Keith Fink taught his popular class on free speech at the public university.

While there areplenty of seats available for many more students to take the class, more than 40 students have been blocked from this popular UCLA course.

The courses lecture hall holds nearly 300 seats, but just 200 of the 241 students who tried to sign up for the class were enrolled. Thats left more than three dozen students shut out of a course taught by a professor focused onteaching students the value of the First Amendment.

Such is the situation in Finks Communication Studies 167: Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus.

The class made headlines recently after Fink, a conservative who openly criticizes campus administrators during his classes for what he contends is their violation of students free speech rights, claimed his department is keeping students who are attempting to add the course from enrolling init because of politicalbias.

The chair of the department says its aboutmaintaining reasonable class sizes across the major.

Finks not buying it.

This is nuts. They are penalizing the students to get at me, hesaid.

I believe my role is to test students beliefs theyre holding at a young age, to probe the reasons for their belief, to criticize views they may have, to expose them to other views. Thats my role, Fink told The College Fix.

The labor and employment lawyer added his job as a professor is not to tell [students] how to think. Its to make them think.

The Free Speech course, which Fink has taught for nine years, focuses on how the First Amendment, case law, state statutes, and federal statutes affect students and teachers ability to express themselves both on and off campuses, per the syllabus.

(Pictured: Empty seats in class students seek to enroll in)

Course readings in part include a textbook written by Fink as well as case law. Class topics touch on harassment issues, speech codes, campus protests, the rights of student publications and due process rights, among others.

The course, held on Wednesday nights, delves into controversial, timely campus issues. For instance, a list of nearly two dozen discussion topics on the syllabus includes questions such as Should teachers provide trigger warnings before [discussing] a topic that some find sensitive? and Can students be punished for burning the American flag?

Fink, a former college debate champion, employs the Socratic Method in his teaching, guiding discussion and pushing students on the topic at hand.

And during a recent class, he wasnt shy about offering his own opinions. However, he also encouraged students multiple times to do their own fact checking and research.

Fink also isnt afraid to voice his opinions in class about issues at UCLA. During the Feb. 22 class attended by The College Fix, Fink questioned the mission of the universitys division of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.

I think its more exclusion for people who have conservative views or perhaps Jewish views, but Ill let you guys make that conclusion, Fink said.

During class, Fink read aloud a CrossCheck written last spring by Jerry Kang, UCLAs Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Kang alleged that posters posted on UCLAs campus by conservative activist David Horowitz accused the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine of being murderers and terrorists.

Fink disagreed with Kangs allegation and his description that the posters were hostile.

Hostile posters. What does that mean hostile? Why are they hostile? [Its] political advocacy and who cares if theyre hostile, Finksaid.

He also focused on the language Kang used as he read the CrossCheck post line by line.

I have a big problem with the wording because I believe youre being threatened, he told his students.

Class discussion later pivoted to a recent controversial cartoon published in UCLAs student newspaper, the Daily Bruin, that included Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The newspaper later apologized for running the cartoon after some found it anti-semitic.

Fink told the class he thinks the newspaper shouldve have published the cartoon without an apology, but questioned the universitys lack of response given Kangs post on Horowitzs posters.

So, if I dont see a rebuke, I just put two and two together theres some kind of viewpoint discrimination going on here, he said. Somebody has to give me another explanation. Why isnt there a whisper that theres a problem here?

A UCLA grad himself, Fink (pictured) said his own intellectual training at the school came from his involvement in debate where his coach pushed him on both sides of the issue.

That notion of pushing both sides of an issue is something higher education has lost, Finksaid.

It has lost the marketplace of ideas because theres only one stream of thought thats acceptable. And yes, teachers will not provide a balance, he told The College Fix in an interview.

As for the fight regarding his class size, Fink said the UCLA administration is giving him a complete runaround.

Kerri Johnson, his department chair, previously told The Fix the enrollment situation is based on ensuring reasonable class sizes across the major.

Fink, whos taught more than 200 students in the past, said Johnsons statement doesnt hold merit.

Wheres the problem? I havent voiced a problem. [My Teaching Assistant] hasnt voiced a problem. Prior assessments, there was no problem, he said.

MORE: UCLA students step on U.S. flag in protest of Bruin Republicans event

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Nathan Rubbelke is a staff reporter for The College Fix with a specialty on investigative and enterprise reporting. He has also held editorial positions at The Commercial Review daily newspaper in Portland, Indiana, as well as atThe Washington Examiner, Red Alert Politics and St. Louis Public Radio.Rubbelke graduated from Saint Louis University, where he majored in political science and sociology.

See the original post:
An inside look at the 'Free Speech' class UCLA blocked students ... - The College Fix

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to be a champion of free speech. Ironically, he entirely misunderstands the purpose and meaning of free speech. His argument that the general public has violated his right to free speech is wrong, both historically and practically.

Free speech does not grant the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, or yell bomb in an airport when there is no bomb. This is an opinion held by the Supreme Court of the United States and anyone with a shred of common sense. Such actions do nothing but elicit panic and public distress.

Much of the rhetoric put out by Yiannopoulos is no different. It has little to no basis in fact, misinforming the public. For example, he once likened rape culture to Harry Potter, saying that they are both fantasy. Lies like this can potentially weaken the public initiatives taken in the past several years to fight rape culture. As a result, his lie may contribute to continued sexual violence. His extensive lies fan the flames of radical and inflammatory factions within our country, creating panic when there should be none.

The truly ironic element of Yiannopoulos argument is that free speech is about the relationship between the government and the people. The government has in no way infringed upon his right to free speech. The TV stations that have prevented him from going on their shows are private companies, not government entities. The universities that will not allow him to speak are academic institutions, once again not the government. No one is preventing Milo from speaking entirely but merely refusing to allow him to use a specific university or network as a platform. Universities and TV networks have every right to do this.

Furthermore, just as Yiannopoulos believes that he can say whatever he wants, people have the right to say whatever they want back to him. It is preposterous for him to promote such blatant lies and deceit and not expect to be called out for it. The right to free speech protects an individual from government censorship. It does not protect an individual from backlash and consequences for inflammatory remarks.

Ryan Steinberg is a freshman majoring in political science.

Featured image courtesy Flickr user Hindi Pro.

Here is the original post:
Milo Yiannopoulos is not the champion of free speech that he claims to be - The Miami Hurricane

For Keaton Law, a freshman political science and history major from Lilburn, free speech is more than a political theory. Its personal.

Last October, Law made it his personal mission to have a sidewalk preacher removed from the Tate Student Center Plaza, after the priest reportedly told passing students they were sinners and whores.

I dont think thats acceptable, said Law in a 2016 interview with The Red & Black. We shouldnt be subjected to that kind of verbal abuse all day.

Today, Law still stands by his position that speech zones on campus should be restricted. However, a new bill introduced to the Georgia House aims to do just the opposite.

On Feb. 24, Rep. Buzz Brockway (R-Lawrenceville) introduced House Bill 471 as a proposition to expand free speech zones to encompass any generally accessible outdoor areas of university campuses.

The only areas on campus where students may engage in protests, speeches or peaceful assemblies are the Memorial Hall Plaza and Tate Student Center Plaza.

These areas, often referred to as free speech zones, encourage a reservation at least 48 hours in advance through Associate Dean of Students. They are available for the purpose of expression between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. University faculty members also have the responsibility to regulate the time, place and manner of expression, according to the University of Georgia Policy of Freedom of Expression.

The zones and regulations, however, may soon see a drastic change in the public university system of all Georgia schools, should this bill pass.

For some students, such as MaKayla King, a freshman dietetics major from Oneida, Tennessee, and president of the Turning Point chapter at UGA, this bill will bring positive revisions to UGAs current policy.

Thats the kind of thing were working for, King said.

Im hoping we can eventually do away with these free speech zones all together, King said.

Turning Point is a new student-activist organization on campus which advocates the importance of fiscal responsibility, free markets and limited government.

King said her organization has played a role in this potential expansion of speech zones through awareness campaigns and educating students on their current speech rights at UGA.

Josh Horne, vice president of Turning Point and freshman biochemistry major from Marietta, said the organization believes the purpose of the university is not to limit free speech but to encourage discussion and promote growth of ideas.

Since taxpayer dollars are funding this university in a large part, anyone should be able to say what they think, Horne said. If our money is going towards the university, then were supporting the university and they should support our right to be able to express what we think.

A public safety policy

Though the bill may seem like a crucial step for organizations such as Turning Point, students such as Law believe expanding free speech zones is a step in the wrong direction.

Law said he believes larger free speech areas on campus would encourage more hate speech.

Law said rather than expanding the free speech zones like the bill suggests, a more concrete, modernized version of the rules and regulations [of free speech] would be better.

We need to outline what hate speech is and be aware that people are allowed to come on campus and say whatever they want and that has the potential of being hateful, he said. Thats what causes a major distraction to what this university is all about.

Journalism professor John Soloski, on the other hand, supports the potential revisions to the Policy of Freedom of Expression because he believes students should be able to practice free speech anywhere.

Anything protecting students First Amendment rights is positive and adds to the marketplace of ideas, Soloski said. I dont believe in free speech zones and see them as counter to what a university is about.

Soloski said it is important to remember the role the university plays in students permitted execution of free speech.

We ought to be encouraging speech and not restricting it. Soloski said.

Other faculty members said though the bill is relevant, they didnt think there would be a notable change on campus right away, should the bill pass.

My guess is that most people dont know that they arent able to have free speech except on certain areas, said political science professor Michael Lynch. The university telling people they are not allowed to have free speech should be a concern to most students, yet theres not many students talking about it.

Lynch also said hes unsure what the bill will actually do in practice, considering the provisions present in the original policy will still be included.

Some of these provisions include students protection against harassment and bullying as well as restrictions against hateful organizations forming on campus.

Other restrictions will still include the universitys responsibility of providing their discretion to appropriate time, place and manner of expression.

Understandably, the university wants to balance public safety with students ability to publicize their political views, Lynch said.

Room for improvement

Political science professor Teena Wilhelm said its important to independently evaluate the current conduct of UGAs speech policies through organizations such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE has given UGA a green freedom of expression rating.

A green rating, as defined by FIRE, is given when a college or universitys policies do not seriously imperil speech.

This rating suggests in comparison with colleges across the nation, UGA is not lacking free speech protection on campus. However, Wilhelm said she believed there is still room for improvement.

The issue that I could see is that the regulation of speech on other areas of campus is still somewhat subjective with the time, place and manner restrictions, Wilhelm said. Since the bill opens up other places on campus for speech to happen, I suppose it opens to the door for more regulation or more challenge to regulation.

Soloski also voiced his concerns for the bill if it were to pass in its current form.

The bill states alongside the free speech zone expansion, there will also be a repeal of the requirement for students to pay activity fees.

No public institution of higher education in this state shall require any student to pay any student activity fee as a condition of matriculation, the bill states.

The issue with the bill Soloski is most concerned with is the potential repercussions which could surface from the limitation of student fees.

I am uncertain the bill [will do] this, Soloski said. But if the bill limits fees being used to support student organizations, this could indirectly limit speech.

Soloski said the elimination of students requirement to pay student fees for organizations on campus could do more than just limit free speech.

My concern is that this could be used to, in effect, defund and possibly help to stifle or eliminate student groups that do not have funds themselves to maintain their organization, Soloski said. Indirectly, this could put out of business worthy student organizations that rely largely on mandatory student fees to support themselves.

Without student organizations having the means to support themselves, the occurrence of free speech by students on campus could be significantly affected.

However, Soloski said the current UGA Policy of Freedom of Expression is already limiting to students free speech possibilities and First Amendment rights with its inclusion of free speech zones.

I do believe that restrictions on student speech, such as free speech zones, are contrary to what a university stands for, he said.

The regulations set in place by the policy, outlining the time, manner and place restrictions set by the university, are also seen as problematic to many for the limitations they set in place as well.

Details of these regulations may be subject to change, provided the bill passes and results in lasting revisions to UGAs Policy of Freedom of Expression.

If passed, this bill will be the second revision in less than three years to the policy, the first taking place in 2015 following a lawsuit against the university.

This lawsuit, gaining the most traction in 2015, resulted from the Young Americans for Liberty suing UGA for restricting free speech and demonstrations to just two areas which comprise less than one percent of campus.

The revision eliminated the requirement for a permit from the Dean of Students prior to a demonstration and enacted the 48-hour reservation policy in its place.

The revised policy also states spontaneous activities with less than ten people participating are allowed anywhere on campus.

If the crowd grows to be larger than ten, campus police must be notified.

Though revisions to the Policy of Freedom of Expression are still only a possibility at the time, students and faculty remain split in their support and predictions of what the bill could do for students if passed.

The campus and its protections really exist for the student body, Wilhelm said. So given the recent events concerning speech on college campuses, I suppose [this bills propositions] are not too surprising.

Currently, HB 471 is in the Georgia House. The bill will need to be voted out of the House by crossover day, Friday, March 2, in order to be considered by Gov. Nathan Deal.

View original post here:
Making space for speech: Georgia house bill seeks to expand free speech zones on college campuses - Red and Black

(Francisco Kjolseth | Tribune file photo) Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, pushed through the House a bill recognizing and bolstering free-speech rights on the campuses of Utah's public colleges and universities.

ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY (1)

HB54 A bill promoting freedom of campus speech won unanimous approval Tuesday in the Utah House and now heads to the Senate.

Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, has said that HB54 was created to address limits on speech on certain campuses.

Coleman said the bill affirms that college campuses are traditional public forums for speech and that "the institution may maintain a reasonable time, place or manner of restrictions on expression, but everything else is free."

Outdoor areas of public colleges and universities are reserved for free speech and an institution may not prohibit it so long as the speakers' conduct is lawful, under the bill. It also recognizes a cause of legal action if free-speech rights are violated.

Visit link:
House OKs free-speech on campus bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Parts of a 2015 statement from the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents supporting the open exchange of ideas on campus including those considered offensive would become state law under a proposal in Gov. Scott Walkers budget.

The budget provision would write into statute, often word for word, large chunks of the Regents statement, which was written with help from a group of UW professors and inspired by free speech controversies at other universities.

The measure comes as conservative lawmakers in Wisconsin and across the country criticize university policies and student protests against controversial speakers on campus, and propose legislation they say is meant to protect free speech.

But its unclear what practical impact Walkers proposal would have at UW institutions.

Still, the governors executive budget includes $10,000 for any administration costs to update UWs policies as a result of the free speech law, said Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Walker.

UW System spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis did not say what policy changes the budget provision could require, saying it was not something the UW System requested.

We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature on this topic, Marquis said.

The Regents statement, which the board approved at its December 2015 meeting, was described at the time as UW officials reaffirming their commitment to free speech.

Using nearly identical language from the Regents statement, Walkers budget says UW institutions shall guarantee all members of the Systems community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.

While people may have conflicting opinions, 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 proposal reads in another passage taken from the Regents statement.

Donald Downs, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of political science and constitutional law who helped write the statement, said in 2015 that it could provide protections for professors or others accused of making controversial statements, and also had a very significant symbolic effect.

Former Regent Jose Vsquez, one of two board members who voted against the statement, said it seemed to him like a solution in search of a problem.

I havent heard from anyone saying Were not being allowed to express ourselves at UW institutions, Vsquez said in 2015.

See the original post:
Scott Walker's budget would turn University of Wisconsin free speech statement into law - Madison.com

The Orange County Schools Board of Education, faced with public demands Monday that it ban the Confederate flag from school grounds, essentially punted.

That wasnt a bad idea.

The flag controversy -- far from unique to Orange County or its schools -- raises sensitive issues of racism, hate speech -- and free speech.

We understand the flag is an abrasive symbol that to many evokes generations of white supremacy and enslavement and mistreatment of African-Americans.

On the other hand, when official bodies decree what symbolic speech is permitted and what is proscribed, the slope is slippery indeed.

The board said it would establish an equity committee to advise it on the flag and the issues it raises.

We understand that improvement is an ongoing process and we are committed to collaborating with our community to support the health and well-being of all students, board chairman Stephen Halkiotis said.

That collaboration might not be easy. Finding the right path through such sensitive issues seldom is.

Perhaps the committee and the board can view this if not as a teachable moment at least an opportunity to ponder the difficulties of honoring free speech in a time of societal discord.

We tend to look to the American Civil Liberties Union in this sphere. The organization has a staunch belief in the broadest construction of permitted speech, and argues persuasively that the most important speech to defend can be that we find most disagreeable.

A couple years ago, the ACLU raised some eyebrows when it praised the South Carolina legislatures decision to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol while at the same time criticizing Texas for not allowing a Confederate flag as an option in the states specialty license program.

Those license messages are designed and paid by individuals, and are not messages of the state, Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project wrote in the Washington Post in July 2015.

If the schools were hoisting the Confederate flag, that would be government speech which government could (and should in this case) renounce.

But private speech? The government cant stop you from taping up your bumper sticker or rabble-rousing from your soapbox, whether your message is a peace sign, battle hymn, swastika or heart, Rowland wrote. Your individual liberty to speak, unconstrained by government, is at the heart of both the First Amendment and our American tradition of protest and freedom.

We hope the school boards committee has a full and spirited discussion, but that those words are on their minds.

View original post here:
Free speech isn't easy - Durham Herald Sun