Category Archives: Free Speech

The events at Ramjas College in Delhi University, the ensuing protests and the vicious trolling of a girl student Gurmehar Kaur, which saw Union minister Kiren Rijiju criticise Kaur rather than take on the trolls, all misconceive and truncate the right to freedom of speech.

True, the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on this freedom, on grounds of sovereignty and national integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Free speech is not meant only for those who agree with a dominant view; it matters most when it comes to unpopular, minority views. If those who disagree with such views unleash violence, and create a threat to public order, what should the state do? Some Delhi policemen present when Ramjas College students were allegedly attacked by ABVP activists, who sensed a threat to Indian nationalism from a speaker, chose to take off their name tags and beat up Ramjas students.

Minus such blatant partisanship, if the state merely used the public order proviso to gag the minority opinion, that would still fall short of defending the right to freedom of expression. That would only be an invitation for people to stage violence to muzzle opinion they disagree with. The countrys courts are the final arbiters of when a restriction on free speech is warranted, but in a technical sense. It is the lived practice of democracy with citizens actively defending free speech, even of the kind they disagree with that will give substance to this and other fundamental rights.

In this light, it is welcome that many students, teachers and others have come out against violent suppression of free speech and lent support to Gurmehar Kaur, including senior minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Read more:
The right and wrong of free speech - Economic Times (blog)

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.

Niemller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. His crime was speaking out against Adolf Hitler. This should open everyones eyes in the current political climate, both nationally and on campus. While it is easy to dismiss people who disagree, I reassert the importance of open dialogue in any free society.

A trend I see both nationally and on campus is the tendency to want to shut down any opposing views without open debate or dialogue. This is happening regardless of party affiliation or political beliefs, and it is important to recognize hypocrisy where it exists. We have attacks coming from both sides a president who calls out mainstream media sources as fake news (more recently very fake news), and those same sources who complain about being labeled fake news, calling out other news outlets for being fake news.

Conservative, liberal student organizations denounce alt-right movementIn a moment ofunity on the University of Wisconsin campus, student organizations from both the liberal and conservative camps have Read

The problem isnot in determining which news sources are more accurate though it is the responsibility of news sources to deliver the truth. But the problem is giving authority to one person or organization to determine and decide for everyone what is true and what is not. By controlling what is true, you are essentially controlling reality. It is inherently dangerous to allow one person or media outlet to decide for everyone what is fact. Therefore, it is vital to allow all news organizations to exist, to have a voice and to be treated with respect.

If you disagree with something, your first reaction should not be to dismiss it or attack its credibility. You should instead engage in open dialogue and allow the best ideas to win. This shouldnt be a problem, because if you really believe your ideas are the best, then you should have no reservations towarddebating opposing viewpoints rather than dismissing them before any dialogue can occur. Only through free and open dialogue do the best ideas emerge, which is of utmost importance to the preservation of our republic and experiment of self-government.

Keeping in mind how important open dialogue is for creating a culture that produces the best ideas, I would like to look at some recent controversies on the University of Wisconsincampus. For months, our own campus has been a remarkable battleground for the future of free speech. From the visitof conservative speaker Ben Shapiro to the decision to offer a class entitled The Problem of Whiteness, this campus can and will determine whether true, open dialogue is acceptable and desirable. I argue it must be.

Why The Problem of Whiteness is an essential class at the University of WisconsinThe Problem with Whiteness is not that every single white person is racist. The Problem with Whiteness is that in Read

The time is now to choose free speech. What this means is it is OKto bring in Ben Shapiro just as it is equally OKto protest him. It is OKto offer a class called The Problem of Whiteness, and it is equally OKto question the contents and message of such a class. It is important all voices have a say.

Further, this is important: Just because you say something, doesnt mean you are free from criticism, disagreement and debate. This is what a true free and open society looks like, and it will foster the best ideas. If you say something, I must be able to respond, you must be able to respond back and so on. At a university as exceptional as UW, we have the opportunity to help each other grow, debate ideas and come up with new solutions to the worlds problems. If someone questions your belief or idea it should not be personal, but rather an invitation and opportunity for everyone to learn and grow.

In photos: Conservative speaker Ben Shapiro draws protest, police presenceThe current political divisiveness playing out on the national stage reared its head on campus Wednesday when conservative speaker and Read

Both the governor and the chancellor have recently weighed in on the necessity to create a campus culture that encourages the free and open flow of ideas. Gov. Scott Walker is proposing a law in the 2017-2019 executive budget to codify the states commitment to academic freedom. In it, he proposes the UW Board of Regents and each college campus shall guarantee all members of the systems community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn.

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.

Transcript: The Badger Herald sits down with Chancellor Rebecca BlankThe Badger Herald sat down with University of Wisconsin Chancellor Rebecca Blank on Dec. 2 to discuss a range of Read

Members of the systems community are free to criticize and contest views expressed on campus as well as speakers who are invited to express their views, but they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.

The board and each institution and college campus has a responsibility not only to promote a lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it.

UW Chancellor Rebecca Blank seems to also be committed to protecting speech of all forms. In a statement written in January, she said, Ive always thought that universities greatest value to society is that they are places where any idea is thinkable and debatable even ideas that shock and insult. A universitys commitment to academic freedom and free speech is a commitment that allows all ideas to be presented and discussed.

Both the governor and chancellors commitment to free and open dialogue on campus are very encouraging. As a university, we must continue to create an environment where all people and viewpoints are welcome. We must protect everyones right to speech and to hold whatever beliefs they may have. We must allow any speaker, and we must allow any protest. Perhaps even more importantly, we must strive to debate ideas, look for the pros and cons of every viewpoint, challenge each other to look at things from many different perspectives and then come together with a broader understanding of truth.

Its time to return to the story of Niemller. He refused to speak up for other people, and when he needed someone to speak up for him, there was no one. This relates very well to free speech. Dismissing or shutting down anyones speech must be viewed as shutting down everyones speech, even your own. Instead of silencing other people, we should be ready and willing to debate ideas. We should question other peoples views, critique and debate.

If we disagree, we should not dismiss their views, but we should explain why we disagree, what we believe and why. Only then, in a culture of free-flowing ideas, can the best ideas emerge. As a university and as a culture at large, lets live up to the great reputation and history of UW. Through open dialogue and debate, we can change and challenge minds to become the best we can be, and in the process, change the world.

Austin Booth ([emailprotected]) is a sophomorestudying political science.

Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) is an organization on campus that advocates for the protection of civil liberties, free markets and fiscal responsibility. Feel free to reach out to us and attend our meetings. Find us on social media.

See the rest here:
Our choice is free speech or no speech at all - The Badger Herald

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks about free speech as an issue on college campuses and in national politics on Monday, Feb. 27, 2017 at the University of Tennessee. Rachel Ohm/ News Sentinel.

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, speaks at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)Buy Photo

A free speech forum at the University of Tennessee on Monday touched on First Amendment issues as they have affected the university over the past year, including a controversial tweet made last fallby a professor of law.

"Free speech is one of the most important topics in America today," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and the moderator of Monday's forum at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy. "On campus we're seeing dramatic debates about the boundaries between dignity and freeexpression online. We're seeing debates about whether presidents should be tweeting and whether members of Congress should respond. The boundaries of free speech have never been more contested."

The forum also comes as Tennessee lawmakers earlier this month proposed a bill to ensure free speech on Tennessee campuses after the controversial speeches of a former Breitbart News editor spurred protests at colleges around the country.

Two students, two faculty members and an administrator made up a panel that weighed in Monday on various issues related to free speech as they have appeared on the University of Tennessee campus.

Melissa Shivers, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of Tennessee, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

The discussion mostly focused on a controversial tweet made last fall by Glenn Reynolds, a UT law professor andcontributing columnist for USA TODAY and the News Sentinel, whourged motorists to run over demonstrators blocking traffic in Charlotte, N.C.; and a letter to the editor that appeared in the student newspaper, The Daily Beacon, last spring that took issue with the idea of "safe spaces" on campus.

Barry Hawkins, a UT senior who penned the letter to the editor and a member of Monday's panel, said during the course of the discussion that he hasn't seen any recent barriers to free speech on campus, and faculty and administrators on the panel also said the issue is one that is taken seriously with an emphasis placed on the importance of free speech on campus.

One faculty member not on the panel, however, did express concerns Monday about a lecture scheduled to take place Tuesday at UT's Alumni Memorial Building entitled "How Killing Black Children is an American Tradition."

Mary McAlpin, a professor of French and member of the Faculty Affairs Committee in the Faculty Senate, said during a question-and-answer portion of Monday's forum that she was concerned that funding from three of the four departments sponsoring the lecture had been pulled because the title was "too provocative."

Amy Blakely, assistant director of media and internal relations for the University of Tennessee, said she "was not sure about the specifics of the funding" but that the lecture would still be held as planned Tuesday.

"The challenges are difficult; the lines are hard to draw," Rosen said during opening remarks Monday. "I know how this campus, like campuses around the country is struggling with these issues, but we can unite around them. We can be inspired and take solace in the beautiful tradition that speech is a natural right and our democracy is stronger if we have confidence that bad speech will be driven out by good speech."

Brittany Moore, president of UT Black Law Students Association, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2mxs4eG

Read more:
UT forum discusses free speech on campus - Knoxville News Sentinel

Feb. 27, 2017, 4:35 p.m.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday against the state for continuing to demand the removal of a blog post that listed the home addresses of legislators who voted for California's newest gun control measures.

The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of one of the groups members, who is listed in the lawsuit under the pseudonym Publius and writes a blog called The Real Write Winger.

Last year, the blog published the names, home addresses and homephone numbers of 40 legislators who voted for a package of gun control measures in June, saying the lawmakers decided to make you a criminal if you dont abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry.

The Web hosting company WordPresstook the post down after it received a letter from Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg saying the information putelected officials at grave risk, and citing state law barring the release of such information.

Chief U.S.District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in Fresno issued an order Monday granting the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the 1st Amendment civil rights lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs are likely to succeed ontheir claims that the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

We are delighted that Judge ONeill saw the statute and the States enforcement of it for exactly what it was: an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, said coalition president Brandon Combs.

Read more here:
Gun rights activists win round in free-speech court case against state of California - Los Angeles Times

Georgetown University received a dubious distinction last Wednesday after landing on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Educations list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech.

For a university that has, in the past two years, hosted speakers of every ilk and creed, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and feminism skeptic Christina Hoff Sommers to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, this categorization seems hyperbolic. Georgetowns Speech and Expression Policy contains provisions that allow any student group to host an event or peacefully protest for demonstrators.

Regardless of if the university deserves the distinction of FIREs worst of the worst list for campus free speech policy, the report spotlights how the ambiguities in the Speech and Expression Policy are sometimes liable to misinterpretation and confusion by administrators and students alike.

According to the report, the ranking is largely predicated by an incident in September 2015, in which the Georgetown University Law Centers Office of Student Life prevented a group of law students from campaigning for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign on campus. The university claimed that its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization precluded the universitys engagement in partisan political activity, but later acknowledged in a February 2016 letter to a congressional subcommittee that the GULC had applied an overly cautious interpretation of the legal requirements governing the use of university resources.

Similarly, another incident cited by FIREs list also stemmed from a misunderstanding, after the Georgetown University Police Department removed condom envelopes from the doors of students volunteering for H*yas for Choice after reportedly mistaking them for vandalism.

These events in the past year do not represent insidious, systemic attempts by the university to muzzle free speech and expression on campus. Rather, the incidents cited by FIRE to justify its ranking all arise from the vague and obscure language of an otherwise permissive and accepting policy.

For instance, even after issuing a swift revision of its policy that clearly permits students to table for campaigns, GULC expressly prohibited the use of university-sponsored resources, including Georgetowns phone system, email lists, computer networks or servers, or postal service, for partisan political campaign activity. But as FIRE points out, other university resources including classrooms, bulletin boards and even campus Wi-Fi are absent from the policy, leaving it to the universitys discretion as to how to enforce expression policy.

These ambiguities persist on the main campus, where confusion abounds among students and administration about the regulation of free speech. In 2014, GUPD removed students tabling for H*yas for Choice in Healy Circle outside a Right to Life event because H*yas for Choice strayed outside the confines of Red Squares designated free speech zone, despite Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson reassuring the group in a Jan. 16, 2014 free speech forum that it was not confined to the area.

The conflicting reports from campus law enforcement, administration and students about free speech rights demonstrate that although the university remains committed to free expression and the exchange of ideas, the exact provisions of the policy remain subject to interpretation. This is easily remediable through the consolidation of a definitive Bill of Rights for student free speech, with specific language about space and resources that administrators can show to students who violate the terms, or, alternately, students can point to when disputing their right to expression.

Despite FIREs ranking, Georgetown will demonstrate its commitment to free speech this week by hosting two contentious speakers, Nonie Darwish and Asra Nomani, who proclaim inflammatory views about radical Islam. At the same time, Georgetowns Bridge Initiative will host a conversation on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism with Rabbi Rachel Gartner and Imam Yahya Hendi. This campus climate is a far cry from FIREs ranking Georgetown as a repressive university for free speech. But in order to assure this continued commitment, the university needs to clearly delineate its expectations regarding free speech for both students and campus officials.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

See the article here:
EDITORIAL: Clarify Free Speech Policy - Georgetown University The Hoya

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In 1964, Berkeley student Mario Savio addressed his peers in a speech about the importance of the free and open discussion on college campuses. In his address, Savio argued that the university must return to its intended function where students are invited to explore all ideas both radical and mainstream freely and without fear of social or academic repercussion.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Its been said, that you know weve been revolutionaries, and all this sort of thing uh in a way thats true. Weve gone back to a traditional view of the university. The traditional view of the university is a community of scholars of faculty and students get together who um you know, with complete honesty who bring the hard light of free inquiry to bear upon important matters in the sciences but also in the social sciences the question of just what ought to be not just what is.

Before discovering the work that the Berkeley free speech activists did under Savio in the 1960s, MILO inspired me to write a manifesto for college students who, in 2016, desired a similar return to form for American universities. Interestingly, a lot of the language in my manifesto echoed the sentiment offered by Savio over 50 years ago.

Savio directly called for a return to the universitys original function; a place where scholars of all political persuasions can come together and participate in freeinquiry. In my early 2016 rally cry to my conservative and libertarian peers, I argued for something very similar.

The tides are changing on the American college campus. Authoritarian administrators and faculty members and pearl-clutching campus social justice warriors are finally being challenged bya new brand of radicals poised to reclaim the American university and return it to its original function and purpose: expanding young minds.

When I first learned about Savio, I felt an instant connection to him. Aside from being 22-year-old champions of free speech and intellectual freedom on our campuses, Savio and I are both of Sicilian-American ancestry. We also both put in time as altar servers at our local Catholic churches. Despite our similarities, Savio and I diverge when it comes to personalpolitics except when it comes to free speech.

Saviojoined the socialist party as a symbolic rejection of the two-party system thatdominated the politics of not only the country but also the University of California in the 1960s. But despite our ideological differences, Savio and I sought something very similar for our campuses the return of the university to a place where students and faculty of all political persuasions are encouraged and feel welcome in expressing themselves without fear of social or academic repercussion.

Tonight, fires blazed across the same parts of the University of California, Berkeley campus from which Savio once addressed his fellow students. Attendees were attacked and left bleeding by mask-wearing thugs. Windows were smashed. A girl was pepper-sprayed.

By responding to MILOs call for no restrictions on the content of speech as Savio did so many years ago with riots and violence, the Berkeley socialists of 2017 that participated in the riots have betrayed the efforts ofthose that came before them.

Tonight, Fox 10 Phoenix anchor John Hook, during a live broadcast of the Berkeley riots, argued that MILO made his point without saying a word.

Now more than ever, we need to listen to Savios impassioned plea for a return to a university thatvalues a diversity of perspectives, keeping in mind that, tonight, some of the students who follow in the tradition of socialistic activism at UC Berkeley burned the ground on which he once spoke in the demand that the university censor speech that they found objectionable.

Tonight, Berkeley betrayed the free speech movement for which the institution is famous. The university has much work to do if it is to protect the legacy of Mario Savio and reclaim the values espoused by the Free Speech Movement of some 50 years ago.

For the rioters, engaging with MILOs call for open discussion and intellectual freedomon college campuses wouldnt be a bad start.

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

Originally posted here:
The Night Berkeley Betrayed The Free Speech Movement - Breitbart

The campus of the University of ChicagoLonely PlanetGetty Images/Lonely Planet Images

In grade school, I learned that debate is defined as "a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something."

Such open discourse was historically encouraged on our college campuses. Universities exemplified intellectual discussion and debate in America. No one voiced their opinions louder than students, professors and administrators. They pushed societys limits by admitting women and people of color, and by encouraging diversity of thought amongst the college community . Historically, young people flocked to universities to learn more about the world around them, to encounter people from different backgrounds, to expand their minds and to form their own opinions.

Unfortunately, things have changed. Recently on college campuses, our open discourse has been threatened, particularly when discussing politics.

While the current presidential election represents polarizing wings of both the Democratic and Republican parties, we should be able to openly debate their policies and the direction in which they plan to take our country if elected. We should be able to discuss the abuse of power within our government and the consistent violations of our Bill of Rights. We should be able to participate in the free market of ideas. But our students are being silenced.

University campuses are now home to a plethora of speech restrictions. From sidewalk-sized free-speech zones to the criminalization of microaggressions , Americas college campuses look and feel a lot more like an authoritarian dictatorship than they do the academic hubs of the modern free world. When rolling an inflated free-speech ball around campus, students at the University of Delaware were halted by campus police for their activities. A Young Americans for Liberty leader at Fairmont State University in West Virginia was confronted by security when he was attempting to speak with other students about the ideas he believes in. A man at Clemson University was barred from praying on campus because he was outside of the free-speech zone. And a student at Blinn College in Texas abolished her campus free-speech zone in a lawsuit after administrators demanded she seek special permission to advocate for self-defense.

How have we let this happen in America, the land of the free?

Its because of what our universities have taught a generation of Americans: If you dont agree with someone, are uncomfortable with an idea, or dont find a joke funny, then their speech must be suppressed. Especially if they dont politically agree with you.

Instead of actually debating ideas that span topics from the conventional to the taboo, a generation of American students dont engage, they just get enraged . In doing so, many students believe that they have a right to literally shut other people up . This is not only a threat to the First Amendment, but also to American democracy.

In their manifestation, safe spaces and free-speech zones at public universities enable prejudice against unfavorable ideologies. Guised as progressive measures to ensure inclusion, these often unconstitutional policies exclude new and competing ideas, and are antithetical to a free academia. In excluding different ideologies, supposedly progressive campus speech codes do one thing: prevent the progression of ideas. Restrictive campus speech codes are, in fact, regressive.

With over 750 chapters nationwide at Young Americans for Liberty, we are fighting against public universities that stifle free speech. We've launched the national Fight for Free Speech campaign to reform unconstitutional speech codes and abolish these so-called free-speech zones on college campuses. By hosting events such as large free speech balls, YAL chapters across the country are petitioning their campuses to adopt the University of Chicago's principles on freedom of expression the hallmark of campus speech policies. Our members have geared up with First Amendment organizations to ensure that their free speech rights on campus are protected.

America is a land rooted in the ideas of a free society: the freedom to be who you are, to speak your mind and to innovate. By silencing our students and young people, we have started down a slippery slope. It is up to us to fight back to ensure that our First Amendment rights remain protectednot just on college campuses, but everywhere in America.

More:
College Campuses Have No Right to Limit Free Speech | Time.com

John Bonifaz, Co-Founder and President

John Bonifaz is the Co-Founder and President of Free Speech For People. Mr. Bonifaz previously served as the Executive Director and then General Counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute, an organization he founded in 1994, and as the Legal Director of Voter Action, a national election integrity organization. Mr. Bonifaz has been at the forefront of key voting rights battles in the country for more than two decades: pioneering a series of court challenges, applying political equality principles, that have helped to redefine the campaign finance question as a basic voting rights issue of our time; initiating and leading a legal strategy for revisiting Buckley v. Valeo in the courts;leading the fight in the federal courts in Ohio for a recount of the 2004 presidential vote in that state; and prevailing in federal court in Pennsylvania on the eve of the 2008 election to ensure that Pennsylvania voters would receive emergency paper ballots when they faced long lines caused by voting machine breakdowns. In addition to his work in the field of voting rights and democracy advocacy, Mr. Bonifaz has also served as co-counsel in international human rights and environmental litigation, including litigation to hold the Chevron-Texaco oil company accountable for its widespread destruction of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Mr. Bonifaz is a 1992 cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School and a 1999 recipient of a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship.Back to top.

Oske Buckley is the Director of Administration and Finance for Free Speech For People. Ms. Buckley has served as the Administrative Assistant for Voter Action. Prior to joining Voter Action, Ms. Buckley worked as the Development Associate and Administrative Associate for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, where she managed the organizations donor database, engaged in event planning, coordinated and supervised volunteers, and carried out numerous administrative responsibilities. Ms. Buckley received her BA from Hendrix College in 2005 and MPA from Evergreen State College in 2013.Back to top.

Steve Cobble is the Senior Political Advisor for Free Speech For People. Mr Cobble is also an Assistant Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Mr. Cobble is a longtime activist on both voting and campaign finance reform issues. He is a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and Progressive Democrats of America, and has written for The Nation, HuffingtonPost, TomPaine.com, The Progressive, and many other magazines and newspapers. Mr. Cobble is a former Political Director and speechwriter for the National Rainbow Coalition, served as the National Delegate Coordinator for Jackson for President 88, and directed the Keep Hope Alive PAC. He has worked on electoral campaigns at every level from state legislature to mayor to Congress to Senate, and has had a serious role in seven presidential campaigns, from McGovern to Kucinich. Mr. Cobble once directed the Arca Foundation, served as a Fellow at Harvards Institute of Politics, and conducted election training workshops for the African National Congress in South Africa in 1991.Back to top.

Edward Erikson is a Communications Consultant for Free Speech For People. He is the Founder and President of Erikson Communications Group. Mr. Erikson specializes in the integration of social, earned and paid media across all platforms in order to tell stories, engage people and advance issues. He has been featured in CNN, Politico, Huffington Post, TechPresident, Bill Moyers and other outlets. He has taught courses in Political Theory, American Political Thought, Media and Politics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and was the recipient of the 2012/2013 Distinguished Teaching Award. He received his MA in Communication, Culture and Technology from Georgetown University.Back to top.

Ron Fein is the Legal Director for Free Speech For People.Mr. Fein previously served as Assistant Regional Counsel in the United States Environmental Protection Agencys New England office, where he received the EPAs National Gold Medal for Exceptional Service, the National Notable Achievement Award, and several other awards.Mr. Fein supervised the offices Clean Air Act practice and won several major cases, including a first-in-nation air quality permit for an offshore wind farm and a nationally recognized settlement requiring a power plant to virtually eliminate its use of a local river.Mr. Fein previously clerked for the Honorable Kermit Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Honorable Douglas Woodlock of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He has also worked as an independent consultant to non-profits, as deputy campaign manager of a congressional campaign, and in software development, for which he was awarded nine patents.Mr. Fein graduated Order of the Coif from Stanford Law School and summa cum laude from Harvard College.Back to top.

Jasmine Gomez is the 2016-18 Democracy Honors Fellow at Free Speech For People.

Ms. Gomez, a graduate from the Boston University Law School, served on the Journal of Science and Technology Law and has written about potential state responses to corporate Big Data surveillance. She has held a number of leadership roles at the law school, including as Co-President of the Latin American Law Student Association, Vice President of the American Constitution Society, Co-Chair for the First-Year Advisory Program at BU, and Networking Chair for OutLaw. During her leadership positions, Jasmine helped create, facilitate, and host at least 30 events at the law school and around the city of Boston. She also received the Emerging Leader Award from the Black Law Students Association.

While in law school, Jasmine interned at the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice and the National Consumer Law Center, and has done pro bono work for the Mississippi Center for Justice and several Boston public schools. At the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, located in Harvard Law School, Jasmine researched and critiqued a variety of legal and policy issues that cause harm to communities of color. She examined prosecutorial misconduct and Title VI enforcement, worked on a team to create a robust website that connects nonprofits working on anti-racism work around the country, and worked with other organizations to create the first Massachusetts state-wide conference on criminal justice reform: Massachusetts and the Carceral State.Back to top.

Bri Holmes serves as Free Speech For Peoples Digital Media Strategist. She brings with her several years worth of digital campaign experience, as well as a background in producing a variety of multimedia content. She worked on President Obamas 2012 reelection campaign and with local elections, labor unions, a nonprofit biotech, the Aspen Institute and a public radio station. Ms. Holmes is driven by the ability of technology to activate and inspire new movements, and its potential to cross party lines and bring a new awareness to long standing issues. She is focused on the crossroads of social media, the arts and political action. Ms. Holmes received her BA from UC Davis in 2011.Back to top.

Brenna Kupferman is the Development Directorfor Free Speech For People. Previously, Ms. Kupferman held the position of Director of Development at GoodWeave, International. Prior to her time at GoodWeave, she spent more than 13 years at ActionAid USA, including as Director of Development, developing the organizations fundraising for work in the US and around the globe. Her development work has focused primarily on foundations and major gifts, and overall strategic planning. Ms. Kupferman received her BA from Bennington College and holds a University Certificate in Teaching English as a Second Language from Akron University.Back to top.

Aspen Webster is the Administrative and Development Assistant for Free Speech for People. Ms. Webster has worked in a variety of nonprofit organizations in operations, development, and programmatic capacities. She served as the Operations Manager for the National Network of Abortion Funds in Boston, MA, where she was responsible for database management, administrative duties, and event planning. Ms. Webster is dedicated to creating a just and equitable society through legal and community efforts. She graduated summa cum laude with a BA from Tufts University in 2011. Back to top.

Comments are closed.

Read more:
Free Speech For People Staff - Free Speech for People

A survey of U.S. political science professors a month into Donald Trumps presidency shows that fraud-free elections tops a list of 19 principles as most essential to democracy, as do free speech and a free press.

Political scientists at Dartmouth College, the University of Rochester and Yale University collaborated on the survey as part of an initiative they called Bright Line Watch. They wanted to get the experts reading on the status of democratic practices and potential threats to American democracy.

Dartmouth professor John Carey said the groups motivation was impatience with many news articles saying the sky is falling with regard to the status of American democracy since Trumps victory. He added: What were doing is not motivated by a partisan agenda; its really an intellectual agenda.

Participants were asked to rank principles on how important they are for a democratic government, and then rate them on how well they describe the United States now. Clean elections and equal voting rights were ranked as high priorities for democracy.

One principle, that elections be free from foreign influence, was regarded by the vast majority as essential or important. But less than half thought the U.S. mostly or fully meets this standard, and a number said they werent sure if it did. The results probably speak to how new and unsettling the prospect of foreign interference is for many political scientists, said Yale University professor Susan Stokes, who co-organized the survey.

My own hunch is that anxiety about this issue is related not just to reporting that there was Russian influence (in the November presidential election), but also to reports of the insidious nature of that influence that it was carried out in a highly clandestine manner through hacking, and that its true nature may never be revealed, she said.

U.S. agencies, including the FBI, have been probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three congressional committees are conducting separate investigations into the issue, including contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign and administration.

The principle of all votes having equal impact on election results ranked low on the priority list for democracy, probably reflecting long-standing institutions of electoral exclusion and wide socioeconomics inequalities that have been matters of concern for many years, the study said.

Rated as least essential is that politicians campaign without criticism of their opponents loyalty or patriotism.

The group surveyed 9,820 professors at 511 U.S. institutions by email Feb. 13 through 19, and received 1,571 responses. The survey sample was compiled from a list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 meeting of the American Political Science Association conference.

See the article here:
Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy - Concord Monitor

Charlotte Observer

Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' Charlotte Observer Many on the right hailed Milo as one of the few brave enough to defend free speech and speak uncomfortable truths. After his speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, he was invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action ... The limits of promoting 'free speech'The State A lesson for Milo Yiannopoulos in what free speech really meansThe Globe and Mail Milo outs the fair-weather friends of free speechSacramento Bee The Student Life -cuindependent -The Sydney Morning Herald all 213 news articles »

More:
Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' - Charlotte Observer