Category Archives: Free Speech

A universitys fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even most members to be offensive, unwise or immoral or wrongheaded The quote is from the University of Chicagos Committee of Freedom of Expression, in response to campus groups demanding an apology from a speaker who used a term deemed offensive in reference to transgender people.

In another well-known episode, University of Oklahoma expelled students caught singing a patently racist fraternity song. In both cases, campus free speech was a central issue.

Notwithstanding commitments to free speech, universities have by both law and policy made strong commitments to equal opportunity. In addition to nondiscrimination in admissions and access to programs and facilities, universities are required to provide an atmosphere free of hostility and intimidation. Protected classes are a lengthy and growing list. Basic civil rights law covers race, religion, national origin, creed and sex. Additional categories include age, disability, Vietnam-era veteran status and members of the LGBT community.

Most universities are strongly committed to free speech, nondiscrimination and inclusivity. Yet the tension when the two clash is and should be a front-burner issue.

I began my 2015 classes by writing the words Je suis on the board. Students in all classes finished the sentence with Charlie. Few approve of the tasteless and offensive satire of Charlie Hebdo, but in the West there was an overwhelming feeling to defend to the death their right to say these things. Then by chance on Martin Luther King Day in America, authorities in Dresden, Germany, forbade a march against what the group called the Islamization of Europe. Freedom of speech is more limited in other countries. Dresden authorities acted within German law and Charlie Hebdo has been summoned into French courts for a number of works illegally offending religion in violation of French law. No country has stronger traditions of free speech than the United States.

All know that free speech law begins with Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech The First Amendment applies to Congress but the 14th Amendment extends this to the state action in addition to the federal government. The words are absolute but exceptions are recognized. Free speech is a freedom from government. It does not apply to actions by private organizations. In the university context, a private institution has substantial room to clamp down on speech deemed by authority to be offensive or out of place. Public institutions are an arm of the state so constitutional rules apply. Within this, though, universities have an educational mission and in that context some limitation for speech that is disruptive behavior.

Private universities, however, are subject to federal civil rights laws so rules and procedures implemented to comply with these laws bring these campuses under the umbrella of the First Amendment. We will examine the tension between free speech and equal opportunity and look at how our traditions of free speech come together with the desire and law to provide equal opportunity.

Coming out of this is a related issue of due process. Both civil rights laws and the recent Campus Sexual Avoidance Elimination Act of Congress seek to protect all from sexual violence. But what are the rights of the accused who face expulsion and a lifetime record as a sexual offender although they have not been convicted of any act in a court of law? Constitutional rights of those accused of crimes do not apply to campus judicial procedures but there must be due process.

Carson Varner is a professor of finance, insurance and law at Illinois State University.

Read the original:
Varner: Free speech vs. equal opportunity - Bloomington Pantagraph

Typical behavior of the neoconservatives is to suppress First Amendment free speech rights, right to assemble, voting rights and a litany of other rights, when it applies to others who do not agree with them.

The El Pueblo History Museum drama is a prime example. Two self-appointed Catchers in the Rye decide they are the arbiters of what constitutes free speech. The Chicano group or any other group that rented the museum has every right to express their political views as they see fit. The objections of state Rep. Clarice Navarro, R-Pueblo, and Brian Mater have no legal standing.

The effigy of a Donald Trump pinata is free speech. Pinatas are made to be broken. So when the Trump pinata was struck and broken, that was offensive to Navarro and Mater. If the pinata effigy would have been of Hillary Clinton, you would not have heard a peep out of them.

The definition of effigy is a sculpture or model of a person, animal or object. The crucifix Jesus nailed to the cross is an effigy. There have been numerous times when a prayer group, a Mass or benediction have been held with a large crucifix or other effigy present at the museum and other publicly owned buildings.

The First Amendment free speech clause, does not differentiate between repudiation or adulation:

The Orwellian big sister and her mini-me are now monitoring the situation; so are the righteous citizens of Pueblo and the American Civil Liberties Union.

No apologies are needed from Museum Director Dawn DiPrince. Wake up. Its free speech.

Frank Peralta

Pueblo

More here:
It's free speech - Pueblo Chieftain

New York Times

A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety New York Times As the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held on Thursday in striking down the key parts of the law, this is an obvious violation of the First Amendment, which generally prohibits restrictions on speech based on what's being said. It ...

See the original post:
A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety - New York Times

Bill Maher sat down with Milo Yiannopoulos on Friday's Real Time to talk free speech, religion and the controversy surrounding the self-proclaimed internet troll.

In explaining why, despite the uproar surrounding the Breitbart editor, Yiannopoulos was invited to the show, Maher said, "I think you're colossally wrong on a number of things if I banned everyone from my show who I thought was colossally wrong, I'd be talking to myself."

Maher who at one point compared Yiannopoulos to Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character and Yiannopoulos also discussed what they have in common: Their belief in free speech and the fact they've both been banned from the University of California. "We have both been disbarred at Berkeley," Maher said before Yiannopoulos interjected, "Much more dramatically, I'd just like to say. They just disinvited you. I had riots. People got beaten up."

After making disparaging remarks about Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer and how they've become the face of the Democratic party, Yiannopoulos admitted, "I like to think of myself as a virtuous troll."

Yiannopoulos' appearance on Real Time was so controversial that guest Jeremy Scahill, who was booked on Friday's episode, dropped out because Maher offered Yiannopoulos "a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign."

In a statement following Scahill's cancellation, Maher said, "Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims and he might be nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night."

On Real Time Friday, Maher and Yiannopoulos briefly touched on Scahill's absence. "Stop taking the bait, liberals. The fact that they all freaked out about this little impish British fag," Maher told the audience.

Maher then read some borderline racist, troll-esque jokes from the mouth of Joan Rivers, a comedian who was universally revered despite her predilection for provocative, offensive humor.

However, the conversation or debate never really found its footing, as each question Maher asked resulted in a meandering Yiannopoulos response that forced Maher to reposition and bring up something new, resulting in another unanswered question. Just when Maher stumbled on Yiannopoulos' most paradoxical position his unabashed love of Donald Trump the 10-minute interview concluded before the audience could get an explanation.

Yiannopoulos also took part in the "Overtime" segment where he butted heads with panelist Larry Wilmore over transgender rights:

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

More here:
See Bill Maher, Milo Yiannopoulos Talk Free Speech, Trolling on 'Real Time' - RollingStone.com

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

On Fridays broadcast of HBOs Real Time,Breitbart News Editor Milo Yiannopoulos argued that wanting people to be able to be, do, and say whatever they want to is a conservative position, and The Democrats are the party of Lena Dunham.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Milo said, [I]ts interesting that the radical gay editorials saying interesting, provocative things about gays are now being published by Breitbart, and I dont think really that you can call trump a traditional conservative. Hes not that Republican.

He added, All I care about his free speech and free expression. I want people to be able to be, do, and say anything. These days, youre right, thats a conservative position. Thats a conservative position now, free speech.

Milo further argued that most of the left has gone off the deep end, and The Democrats are the party of Lena Dunham. These people are mental, hideous people. The more that America sees of Lena Dunham, the fewer folks the Democrat Party is ever going to get.

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Read more from the original source:
Milo: Free Speech and Expression Are Conservative Positions, Dems 'Are the Party of Lena Dunham' - Breitbart News

Adrian Sifuentez writes on a large beach ball Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017 at UNM's Smith Plaza. The ball was titled a "Free Speech" ball intended to let people express their free speech rights by writing whatever they please.

Hello gorgeous world was written in massive curly letters on a free speech beach ball in Smith Plaza Wednesday afternoon.

The inflatable beach ball standing taller than some students was brought to Smth Plaza by the UNM chapter of Young Americans for Liberty as a way to remind students of the importance of free speech, and to create dialogues between different-minded groups, according to YAL President Jess Ceron.

We thought it would be a good idea to come out here and talk to them about how we dont support one side of free speech, we support all sides, Ceron said. So anyone and everyone can write whatever they want on this ball. No one is gonna get in trouble for saying it.

Every semester the group does a free speech event, and this is the second time theyve used a beach ball, she said.

This way it makes it fun, rather than if I was to sit here for 30 minutes and say, Let me tell you about free speech. Youd doze off. But with this you can write whatever you want, Ceron said. No ones going to get mad. People arent going to judge you for what you wrote.

Typically student groups holding events outside, in the SUB or in a classroom reserve the space for free, and are asked to do so at least two business days before the event is scheduled to take place so that the space reservation can be approved.

Ceron said YAL intentionally didnt go through that process because they dont believe student organizations should have their free speech limited by space reservations. She said space reservations make holding events difficult because of the time it takes to reserve spaces and wait for a confirmation.

We just dont think that there should be zones where were allowed to do things, especially if were not hurting anyone, she said. And then they could shoot us down, like what if they didnt like the idea of free speech? Thats kind of not fair to students, because

that is our right.

Ceron said she had issues reserving space for a dodgeball event last semester. Student activities would not approve the event because of safety concerns, a reason that Ceron said she understood.

They shot me down for many reasons where I was like, I guess we cant do this event, she said. And I was like, No thats not fair, so I came out and did it without permission. They didnt shoot me down. They didnt say anything.

Ceron said she didnt think events should be denied unless theyve happened before and already been a safety hazard.

YAL has experience with events not coming together, as they originally invited Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, but had to disinvite him and pass the speaker off to the College Republicans, she said.

Milo himself has shown partisanship, and Young Americans for Liberty is not a partisan organization, member Bryan Cusack said. Due to the nature of its tax exemption status it cannot support anyone that supports a candidate.

The group received a lot of messages over initially inviting the controversial Breitbart writer Yiannopoulos they later transferred official hosting duties to UNM College Republicans most of which they didnt respond to, he said.

Most of the criticisms, we just let them go because they were using ad hominem attacks on us, Cusack said. They were using a lot of logical fallacies against us trying to dehumanize the group. Essentially they were playing identity politics.

Ceron said the free speech beach ball was especially important now because the group wants to clarify that everyone can say anything, and they dont have to be nice.

We had a girl who just failed her stats test and she said Forget stats, and wrote it on there, she said.

Officially the group is opposed to hate speech policies, Cusack said.

We just advocate free speech in general, which means the abolishment of hate speech policies, because some of them are written to censor free speech. I could technically say hate speech, but at that point its still free speech, but its just offensive, he said.

The beach ball eventually became adorned with all kinds of messages, some political, some more lighthearted. Just some of the scrawled comments: RIP Harambe, There are only 2 genders and Love each other.

If you really dont want to hear the other side, its totally fine, Ceron said. I just think if you gave your personal opinion on a subject then you should be able to hear it too.

Cathy Cook is a news reporter at the Daily Lobo. She can be reached at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @Cathy_Daily.

See the article here:
UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball - UNM Daily Lobo

Dixie altered its policies as a result of the lawsuit, but Coleman said there is a need to preserve spontaneous acts of constitutionally protected expression.

"Their rights were denied by the institution," Coleman said of the Dixie State University students. "If that would have been our standard, we wouldn't be a country."

Marina Lowe, legislative counsel for the ACLU of Utah, spoke in support of the bill. Diversity of thought is a key component of higher education, she said.

"I can think of no more appropriate place to really be affirming the right of speakers to speak than on a college campus," Lowe said.

Spencer Jenkins, assistant commissioner of public affairs for the Utah System of Higher Education, said Utah's colleges and universities have worked to update their free speech policies. He did not speak against the bill, but cautioned lawmakers that the portions dealing with litigation increases the liability of public campuses and, by extension, the state of Utah.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a vote of 11-0. It will now go before the full House for consideration.

View post:
House panel gives unanimous support to campus free speech bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes Wall Street Journal (subscription) Letter writer Gary Hartzell makes an interesting statement in his Should Politics From the Pulpit Be Banned? (Letters, Feb. 10). His letter defending the 1954 Johnson Amendment that authorizes tax-exempt status for religious organizations only so ...

Original post:
Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Anthony Behar/ZUMA Press/NewscomPresident Donald Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to ideas they once rejectedsuch as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California, Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited. Steve Chapman explains what happened next.

View this article.

See the article here:
Corey Lewandowski and Free Speech: New at Reason - Reason (blog)

The Quakers have an elegant turn of phrase for humanity's common link to the divine: There is that of God in everyone.

The belief is at the core of many of the testimonies of the Society of Friends: honesty, equality, simplicity, peace, integrity, stewardship. All are one in the spirit. With that connection in mind, you treat all, and even the very environment around you, with dignity and respect. Do unto others, in other words.

It's an ideal, something to aspire to, like all core religious philosophies. Being human, on any given day people will fall short. And blessed are the transgressions that occur in private, for they allow you to kick your own butt. Err publicly, though, or just be perceived as doing so, and you get to experience another common link among humans: That of the judge in everyone.

In the eyes of some, Craig Sellers has lately fallen short. Quite publicly.

Sellers is head of Friends' Central, a 172-year-old Quaker school in Wynnewood. Its vision: To awaken courage and intellect - and peacefully transform the world.

But what the school community was recently awakened to was news that a speaking invitation to a Swarthmore College professor had been rescinded.

Sa'ed Atshan is a professor of peace and conflict resolution studies. An advocate of LGBT rights in the Middle East. A Palestinian Quaker. And - most critical to the canceled talk - someone with ties to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. BDS bills itself as a Palestinian rights movement but is considered by many as both anti-Semitic and committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. The movement is also famous for shutting down anything resembling pro-Israel speech on college campuses.

With members of the Friends' Central community raising concerns, Sellers has called for a "pause" on speakers coming in to discuss the Mideast.

Don't judge him too harshly. He's caught between the highest of religious, education, and civic ideals and an issue involving a decades-long life and death struggle on which there is no discernible compromise. And maybe the wrong step here means the annual fund drive is a little less flush.

Somewhere in that cauldron, Sellers now must help his community discern the way forward, while setting the example, with each step, that there is that of God in everyone. Even within those who might, in the most heated of moments, effectively mask their claim on the divinity.

If this school were an anomaly, there might be more room to single it out and bewail this affront to free speech. But it's hardly alone in struggling with how best to discuss, debate, or flat-out fight over, seemingly intractable issues. And it's certainly not the only place where who gets to speak is every bit as contested as what gets said.

Look at higher education, where, every spring, proud parents receive their invitations to the college commencements of their graduates. And just as reliably come disinvitations to speakers whose views upset some constituency on campus. In addition, as Conor Friedersdorf described it in the Atlantic last year, "free speech on campus is threatened from a dozen directions. It is threatened by police spies, overzealous administrators, and students who are intolerant of dissent. It is threatened by activists agitating for speech codes and sanctions for professors or classmates who disagree with them. It is threatened by people . . . who shut down events to prevent people from speaking."

Newsrooms are not immune to these struggles. The unconventional candidate who often brought out the worst in his primary and general election rivals is having a similar effect on those who cover him. During the campaign, some in the journalism community called for abandoning objectivity to thwart what they saw as a threat to decency and democracy. And - despite much excellent work - no doubt some readers and viewers chuckled and thought: What objectivity? Plenty of those same people are now taking their business elsewhere over what they consider unfair coverage of the new administration and its supporters.

Such tensions prompted a recent town-hall meeting at the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times reported that the Journal editor defended his paper's coverage to the staff, some of whom worried about being too pro-administration; suggested other newsrooms had discarded objectivity; and invited those who wanted a more confrontational approach on President Trump to seek employment elsewhere. Also there, an editor on the newspaper's opinion pages has been forced out, with the Atlantic calling the move "a victory for the pro-Trump faction on the editorial staff." He is not the industry's only such casualty.

In the frenzied political moment, some see in these battles the stirrings of fascism. Nonsense. Americans disagree, they challenge each other, constantly. Even, one would hope, on campuses and in newsrooms. But they needn't despise each other, or show disdain for other viewpoints. And they don't have to blow every complaint - or tweet - out of proportion. Follow Sellers' example and take a pause. Commit to treating others with dignity and respect. Recommit to the values of the institution being served.

These are ideals. No one expects perfection. But without a solid foundation to stand on, it's tough to weather the inevitable storms of criticism or judgment.

Kevin Ferris is the Inquirer commentary editor. kf@phillynews.com @ferrisk3

Inquirer Editorial: Let Friends Central students hear from an Israeli and a Palestinian Feb 16 - 12:07 PM

Friends' Central alumni ask school to reinvite Palestinian speaker, reinstate teachers Feb 15 - 3:57 PM

DN editorial: Friends' Central lacks integrity in shunning controversial speaker Feb 14 - 8:32 PM

Commentary: Friends' Central wrong to cancel speaker Feb 14 - 8:55 AM

Friends' Central School suspends teachers over Palestinian speaker Feb 13 - 5:05 PM

Friends' Central students protest cancellation of Palestinian speaker Feb 10 - 4:35 PM

Published: February 16, 2017 3:09 PM EST The Philadelphia Inquirer

Read the original here:
Ferris: Friends' Central not alone in fighting free-speech battles - Philly.com