Category Archives: Free Speech

n=_*0vxl6"m $A'c9# $eYo%=3lIkBD}77 x*~|yWUYwe7t^kv1YM,d^OxwWRo'[R3fMPV( 7cPjI*,"%i/^x{{i~j{R^!:}7U#z~pr[^%xRoA!v@?]n~nVk4"jbe c*o|1jQDBWw_-DZl:/i DtA)9zcG,&HJU!UGE Hg X-reL-5!(WyhMyAC[ o5tX k4(w!|uHxpT6H6lQuzHdrFhBObbZh7<*j6DYt%*):zLmTtT*]h%OU&./_uZ-Brt*n.J.b)]/%#wX&oWz| VO7d,:?0I!jSB`,[P/2;mPR1mZ~y.R3bXEw(y]Zu{mLvuW[D4;{Z>)-(/$|iz1sjwX6,Jp2PB)%i(1b(/T,}5;|J?^7 5;]{w I6 >[^,'d-?chl!,I%'1R_rN4 %Ar0L(>2@ >W_fEDf142I8QUg4HPU(9I(**dDDP$F$YyT3FN@1BD*4R<+GfqG9!_6`F*%HS^HT(LQ(S4H/aYMb 8$"hNCJB` )cYl&an= 'Qb$+ E# 8/UA 0M"L"L#"ExsKKYg` QaaE,ec.j|ut@dE->2*1)MyTYX80W,KYE' ,b*B[EY^F"'(qa4NbA0Le^aq&9UETp@)'RaF879dcH6zvvjH.H3EaH@a!$1,,OR)b3u2C+`!I}4`Fj#H,B|dc:> p&7rsWo+uq|;Zt o;gM!-Rlfv" _|7BJm%x|ZnW{k{[8[hM[E9J(z,N5jhmpdxo0%`lJn<"g9"HQ}sDIpsw_6(i+^uCu$=H>Nx)Y_j^krf?egNx=kukgAu+-e 3}9"CGloqs8X7dAi;9+=z9.ABx,^%=K>M1G0<8b^y"g~]/8w xXqQf4y=&g^w|>;lS /+Tbx4@UU{lt={v# #CN'7W=Ow'wZoqtv]YcneO'c!Bh8K;cidhDvczn+W5~iP@+'Zn0[$m' AAq {<3&I5&ho@m_MZ$bEB&} g]bZ=*ZmJw ]R0<]6W>YY>fY8:C9xe+C^Q|!J*u:tP7`ybO#'(@f8|9.N3K/z$fe^RvkIdvs3J"V;06'r`~C8!q*Uk4H^^TuS99 azW)ag3aHWzeUH9 qcNx54]- YH88RYWKV@mIlq41 3qh0: dS'i<9cn{+6pCXl4#Yi[dxQ|o:h02_42biA$JgzI5NU n0W+8MED6)Q[[I&5%o+IFW 2O^Tx@5O]>W3e&+V)vNbQ$?j4mpF8$ q%.f`x8%/,yu=Mp/BH_3.a,0-o<47%GT{V^Zp5^ATS]C (hlafnN_V$=tIh)li< Uto F@6ZSz;E4f~c{H)~nD%/j1tr&~9{Yg2 K _*NnEI ?aYd -du8p1Va6!b^lzVmOHQ`$?i/TP-e;:u0N8FA,K ah]&DP&xi4O ;*'_gIzC2&j7b:N/ M$EK}6_>,x ^{(vK&o 3.1W6seZCPFwgJhbb4x4xnoJkr3,*nu`)uj8p!^ZG;1~ms0A7o{zf2pa9tTx+q%{f6/7oI jGe[QWUteNY9v 2qxRE[|DH>", [DeY>DS)oS'4e4:d.xlHc(4YW1}8l)U|$jP}5*aHhN )Ja:pl."@UD{{>i7e|b ?U9XnmzoGi$zaGizt7-Jm`-"nHn ZEn{hgT`Ef?Ui>M;0E2(Ik@; k '96w_](&q i{mUSgdja_<9uFiCO}+~l!*,ybe,By3[qgk{sZm#G]mn;9x X3>qUw,I0n(l:i(&3-Cg v#Vn54w"ic$V3$pp:_0N1H6'e>xP'h&^55X::/fp;1nP$Cg%AQAx5+vqwl}Qx{:/V(.H_rNB!1z3<[h33ZGu?Q(1V{HB:C=4Q/pZ.I.SJZUY2,8M2f4RF@* vyF*7REuF/ gj==MwUt+0YJtp#lLt?.k]ulAprsX1@S Vj&01nF(yT2Ux&`8 )/Iy_0^nwOxl5wKuJ p1^ a8L9n1u.!a;Dp+F1v,ae#V|srsZ7!fl?Lv-x3ehFc@88ixFb!Wo3Z>7t{(Q1]-SXMl!D41j!&wloGi(1V[A0ncR"X Iir%3!Iwh]]1JV7.Z, `gd5s;}9Nbyb aSXID'qiCPgW$f'!5*o!(OF0 Z Z5uK@o6e,i#s8}`4|QK%~TiGPZX`,Qwn0..$-5d;7*C) ]01.4k!v60F=z4 a,8lf!vc-lr]H5u[v:{F)!UM,W^Nd "4/8vU'3;cG*fikE{+Rdba(@#TZ2+g=1"1[r dzit4*!6&Su4=:)Ps Z])zQT(0Tpc~=]pt~-n3H__~@$&"B>xtXFd?OOc.O%4:2iB&ss_.+J 9j( le q2%#[BcjwG4y9&q0%_;*`, !V~hH BjFyKfRL7=pP5yM;6Q&M$>+EQ3!jd% &]TGfu_|B05*},6j@Kk,"_V 6Rp]F1eSY43^7/4h!l-L)m>WDh8)hHT}JY|N7)*XE6MIPf(cP"a27DP" tgd[+6+!`S3#KqRnk@$C '2 r9TP .Z XN<2 Ui/]=8Ok`?'J.remkE 3rQB;=lz)y0#Jc'Bs#dh;)2 b!XY}xcD+AZ""o A^~ 7y^M_9 $#*G+6U>JOf6vZt&XPi 0`+g3vZz-?FC27qyq JUPhHlo6IIW4PA7?ln[[6!9i]Wqq1u(>n Ix]XOq)Xts S!v i9EqPI]K$=Jv5|6A4:!}a%i{N]uQPd/q(1:^?`@v1>W?'ojW*t>1{;Fh]C =~~lYf=l/U~. _< R G^Ikq.XM8!Eg^N/rv&A2Y,6S%1Uk]1bF)$$4CR|{p[^h%nFq}4A=6E,gde }J; Th%Fl5BD?xD`&EZ(!pBP(Tkz@N q4EOh>=&L]Ri0Q*W[ -]Ekc0rTGx'!zt5,kH)GP'D1CW5Tn"Z>MB8c_/k?yeZ@^E%SQd92s<{Qz(T$tMLleLDag9BB

Go here to read the rest:
Young people and free speech - The Economist (blog)

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

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 notions they once rejected such 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 at 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.

U. of C. Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U. of C. was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U. of C. students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Related articles:

This, dear white people, is how to look like a snowflake

What the Constitution says about impeachment

Trump is looking like a very weak autocrat wannabe

Trump's White House is falling apart

More here:
Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago - Chicago Tribune

VIDEOS: NEW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE CHANCELLOR BEVERLY DAVENPORTBeverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work | 1:25

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

1 of 3

UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor, Beverly Davenport, at a reception during his last week as chancellor on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2017. Rachel Ohm/News Sentinel

2 of 3

Beverly J. Davenport, interim president at the University of Cincinnati, speaking in an open forum with faculty and students at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center on campus Monday, Nov. 7, 2016. Davenport is the second candidate to visit UTK. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

3 of 3

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work

Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor

Chancellor candidate Beverly Davenport speaking at open forum at UTK

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)Buy Photo

In her first interview on the University of Tennessee's Knoxville campus, new Chancellor Beverly Davenport said she doesn't think the state needs a law protecting free speech on college campuses and suggested she would work to reinstatefunding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.

Davenport, who took office Wednesday as the first female chancellor at UT, also touched on the search for a new athletic director, outsourcing of facilities management jobs and Title IX issues in a wide-ranging discussion with members of the media Wednesday morning.

Davenport, 62, takes over from Chancellor Emeritus Jimmy Cheek, who is moving to a tenured faculty position in the College of Education, Health and Human Sciences. With a $585,000 base salary, Davenport will earn more than her predecessor.

She isinheriting a wide range of issues and said she has "a lot of listening to do" in her first few weeks on campus.

Among the most recent is a bill proposed by state lawmakers last week that aims toprotect free speech on campusafter a Breitbart News editor whose planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, spurred violent protests that promptedcollege officials there to cancel the event.

Rep. Martin Daniel, R- Knoxville, a sponsor of the bill, said last week the legislation is "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

Davenport, who has a background in communications and comes to UT from the University of Cincinnati, where she most recently served as interim president, said she is a First Amendment advocateand proponent of free speech on campus, but doesn't see the need for a bill.

"It's a constitutional right. I don't think we need a bill," Davenport said.

She's also expected to work with state lawmakers when it comes to funding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.Last year the state diverted more than $400,000 away from the office after conflicts with lawmakers over Sex Weekevents and a post on the office's website promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advising against Christmas-themed holiday parties.

When asked by a reporter Wednesday whether that money, which was diverted to pay for scholarships for minority students, would be redirected, Davenport said "there will be funding."

"I will only be on a campus where every student is supported and made to feel welcome and important and safe," she said. "I wouldn't be on a campus if I wasn't committed to and wouldn't find revenue to support the programs that serve all of our students."

She also said communicatingwith state lawmakers is one area where universities, in general, need to improve.

"We say this when Im among administrators at national meetings, we say this all the time: 'We havent constructed our narrative very well. We havent told our story well enough,'" Davenport said."The burden is on us. The responsibility is on us to make that argument, to tell that story."

On the search for a new athletic director, Davenport said the university is "moving really quickly" but no firm timeline is in place for filling the post. She would not comment when asked to disclose the names of specific candidates.

"I have no doubt she'll make a great decision," said Lady Vols coach Holly Warlick."I think she's going to take her time. Do I want an AD yesterday? Yeah. But I think she's going to do her homework. She's going to do her due diligence. I think she's going to try to get the best fit here. I respect that. I want her to do that. We've got to get it right."

In an interview last week, Davenport also talked about the importance of education on Title IX issues, especially given that UT in July settled a $2.48 million lawsuit accusing the university of fostering a "sexually hostile environment" and mishandling allegations of sexual assault on campus, especially allegations made against athletes.

She reiteratedWednesday that Title IX and campus sexual assaults arethe issue that "probably keeps me up at night more so than any other issue that I deal with."

Davenport cited a meeting with Gov. Bill Haslam during her interview process as one thing that attracted her to Tennessee, but said she needs to research more his proposal to outsource facilities management on public college campuses. She said she would consider options for UT to opt out of the outsourcing proposal but "its certainly one of those topics I need to know more about."

An avid Twitter user, Davenport also expressed her excitement to be on campus Wednesday morning on Twitter and said it's one way Tennesseans both on and off campus can keep in touch with her - though it's not the only way.

"I will be outin as many places as I can be every day," Davenport said."I want them to know me some other way than through a Tweet, too. I will be out there.I will be visible."

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2ljVv5J

Continued here:
Davenport talks free speech, diversity, AD search on first day - Knoxville News Sentinel

Thursday, February 16, 2017

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times. | Ajani Stewart/The Cougar

In the wake of protests in Berkeley, California, and the ensuing support for silencing speakers deemed upsetting by the left, we all should step back and reflect upon the idea that has made our society truly and classically liberal.

Free speech is more than a mere law; it is a defining principle of our society. It is not merely one among many competing values. Properly understood, it is a foundational value that supports all else that is good in our culture.

We hold this truth to be self-evident: that free expression, the foundation of a liberty-loving society, is granted to us by our creator and cannot be justly restricted by the institutions of man.

Those who believe government grants us our rights fail to comprehend this essential feature of the American tradition. If government grants us free expression, then it has the ability to constrict it by requiring that it be exercised in the proper place with proper consent.

I do not hold to that idea and neither should you.

The moment we give individuals the authority to decide where and when you can express your views, we relinquish the power to freely dissent. Being at liberty to do so is not merely a concoction to benefit the few; it protects us all no matter our race, religion or ideology. It provides universal benefit, and we must never lose sight of that basic truth.

In his immortal treatise On Liberty, John Stuart Mill described the virtues of free expression.

He said: He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. And further, The particular evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human racethose who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Even if a suppressed opinion may be erroneous, it often contains a kernel of truth. Since no view is ever perfectly formed, by the battle of wits we elucidate the unknown.This argument is not about law, but rather a personal responsibility to engage with those whom we disagree.

Any restriction on the expression of an opinion reduces the total knowledge of humanity and immorally robs from history the conclusions of our frank and honest debates.

The problem with confronting free speech with forceful demands that it be stopped is not that it runs counter to law the Constitution constrains only the government from such action, not individuals. The problem is that those actions trample the principle of liberty that a pluralistic society must cherish.

Rather than shout down speakers, we should hear them out (or not youre not required to listen) and then counter speech we find disagreeable with our own. If you truly believe your views are correct and important then you should use every opportunity to persuade others rather than banish dissent.

Shutting down discussion is merely a self-gratifying exercise rather than one of academic courage.The corollary to this notion is that any restriction on the locations where free expression can be conducted similarly constricts the voices of those who wish to be heard.

The only difference is that, where speech is restricted to designated places, the coercive force is exerted by administrators and police rather than by a mob. Free Speech Zones are, therefore, an aberration which have no place in a university setting.

Rather than talk about what areas of campus should be Free Speech Zones, an understanding of the rationale and importance of free speech should cause us to flip the argument around. Instead of designating a few areas as places where we allow the exercise of liberty, we should consider all of campus to be a place of free expression barring only the few requirements necessary for the functioning of the University.

For example, it would not be possible for a professor to teach if people were to protest inside her classroom.

By looking at the entire campus as a Free Speech Zone as the starting point, and only then limiting the few necessities, we make a statement of our values: We will no longer aspire to the bare minimum of the law but rather to the maximum of our principles.

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times, and everywhere that does not diminish the ability of the school to perform its functions.

I urge our beloved University to similarly codify its own commitment to fostering dialogue, free expression and open inquiry by all students, faculty, staff and guests. The University of Chicago described the importance of and its commitment to this value in its Statement on Principles of Free Expression.

It is high time we make a similar pledge.

In Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeissaid: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

History senior Matthew Wiltshire is thepresident of College Republicans at the University of Houston. History senior Michael Anderson is the chapter president and Texas state chair of Young Americans for Liberty. Both can be reached at [emailprotected]

Tags: free speech, University of Houston

The Super Bowl is coming to Houston: what do you think?

Total Voters: 200

View post:
Guest column: free speech is essential to American liberty - The Daily Cougar

I have never been the biggest fan of Nick Cannon, and it has nothing to do with his leading role in the Rocky of marching band moviesDrumlineit is simply I have never quite understood what he brings to the table. One of the biggest ironies on network TV is that Cannon has been the main presenter for eight seasons of Americas Got Talent since he is bereft of any discernible skill.

It seems his judgment isnt much better. In what can only be described as a hissy fit at being reminded of his contractual obligations by NBC, he has quit the show. Spinning the tale to his advantage, Cannon is championing himself as a new guardian of free speech and a martyr of the overbearing corporate machine who has paid him a small fortune for simply grinning like a Cheshire Cat. All of this makes very little sense, for Cannon is hardly to AGT what Seacrest was to American Idol.So, what prompted a person in such a weak bargaining position to act in such a rash manner and bite the hand that is feeding him?

All of this arose out of a series of jokes that Cannon told on a standup comedy special of Showtime, which centered upon the basic theme that NBC does not like black people. I know that there are eyebrows now being raised, first and foremost that Cannon was paid to perform comedymore onthat laterbut what on earth prompted Cannon to take public potshots at his long term employer?

Maybe it is that Cannon possesses the subtle turn of phrase of Louis C.K. so the world could see the intelligence wrapped up in his prose? Not the case. Alternatively, is it his Chris Rock-like charisma, which permits a blistering social commentary without breeding animosity? Also absent. There is always the possibility that Cannon is one of those rare specimens, like Mel Brooks, who is just funny. Unlikely, but being fair to the man, he may have hidden depths so lets analyze the offending gags.

Exhibit A: I grew up like a real n****r. All that stuff. But I honestly believe, once I started doingAmericas Got Talent, they took my real n****r card. They did! Because then like these type of people started showing up to my shows.

Exhibit B: I cant do the real n****r stuff no more, because then theyll put me on TMZ.

Exhibit C: Thats what NBC is gonna stand for tonight: N****** better come on, cuz n****** be cussin, so n****** be careful.

If one were to think this was a one-off, a misjudged, unrehearsed routine that went awry, Cannon, dispelling any specter of doubt, told Howard Sterns show If they fire me fromAGTfor the things Ive said Ican sue them and create a whole new controversyNBC hates black people!'

There is one continuing theme throughout, which demonstrates Cannons wish to share a deeply held resentment at how he is made to present himself. Similarly, there is a common thread in the exhibits: that Cannon, or his writers, are just not funnyso NBC has a plausible defense to the accusation of not being able to take a joke.

Instead of firing Cannon, NBC simply reminded him of the fairly standard clause in most entertainment contracts that talent should not do anything which might disparage the brand of their employer. To put it into context, one would not expect that Michael Jordan would joke about shoddy workmanship of Nike sneakers or that an actress would speak badly of the studio that produced her latest film. This is not just basic common sense that should obviate the need of a contractual clause, but also elementary law.

Now comes every lawyers nightmare, when dealing with clients. Rather than taking the hint, saying thank you for not firing me and shutting up, Cannon took umbrage. He threw his toys out of the pram at being told to comport himself and adhere to basic standards, like any other employee of the company and declared that he was quitting the show. Moreover, Cannon seems to be laying blame, not upon his own stupidity, but at the feet of others in his Facebook post.Maybe it was my mistake for signing the contract in the first place, in which I will take full responsibility and have already taken action to restructure my own team of advisors. This is double speak for getting rid of his legal team.

While Cannon wishes to turn this debacle into questions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is neither. The First Amendment should not be used as a smokescreen for disparaging and denigrating language in breach of contract, especially when a person has profited from such words by accepting fees for the comedy special. For Cannon to attempt invoke the language of Dr. Martin Luther King as justification for his ill-thought actions and manipulate a self-destructive path, born out of celebrity, over privilege and over payment into a wider race issue, detracts from the genuine problems that currently exist.

The Exhibits above, while not exemplars of comedic genius, do evidence that there is a tension within Cannon between his identity and his previous role. With such baggage and behavior, even TMZ would doubtless demand a strong non-disparagement clause before going down the precarious path of hiring Cannon.

Robert Garson is Managing Partner of Garson, Sgal, Steinmetz, Fladgate LLP, an intellectual property and international litigation firm in New York, and a leading representative of corporate whistleblowers. He is also a barrister qualified in England and concentrates on IP and First Amendment matters.

More:
Free Speech Is No Defense for Nick Cannon's Rant on NBC - Observer

Iowa State University violated the free speech of a student group that advocates for marijuana legalization by barring it from using the schools logo, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Monday.

The ISU chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, NORML, sued the college in 2014 after administrators refused to let the group print T-shirts depicting the universitys logo alongside a pot leaf. A District Court decided in the groups favor last year, and a federal appeals panel voted 3-0 this week to uphold that ruling.

University administrators violated the student groups First Amendment right to free speech by using the schools trademark policy to prevent NORML ISU from printing the apparel, the appeals panel agreed.

NORML ISU is one of roughly 800 student groups officially recognized by campus administrators, and advocates locally for the legalization of marijuana, according to court documents. Upon being profiled on the cover of the Des Moines Register in late 2012, however, the group suddenly found itself facing scrutiny in the form of what two courts have since equated as unconstitutional discrimination.

The groups former president, Josh Montgomery, told the Register in October 2012 that NORML ISU has gotten nothing but support from the university, according to the cover story.

He even got approval from the licensing office to make a NORML T-shirt with the ISU logo; the red shirt features Cy the Cardinal on the front and a pot leaf on the back, the article acknowledged.

The story quickly caused concern among campus officials, according to correspondence uncovered during litigation. Subsequent attempts to reorder the previously approved NORML ISU T-shirts were rejected by the universitys trademark office, and the school updated trademark policies in January 2013 to prohibit designs that suggest promotion of unlawful activity, including illegal drug use.

But NORML ISUs use of the cannabis leaf does not violate ISUs trademark policies because the organization advocates for reform to marijuana laws, not the illegal use of marijuana, the Eighth Circuit ruled Monday.

The state engages in viewpoint discrimination when the rationale for its regulation of speech is the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker, the appeals court wrote. Defendants actions and statements show that the unique scrutiny they imposed on NORML ISUs trademark applications was motivated by viewpoint discrimination.

Im most excited about the ruling being unanimous, former NORML ISU President Paul Gerlich told the Register following Mondays ruling. That shows how we were clearly in the right from the start.

University officials acknowledged the ruling but were not certain if theyd appeal further, ISU spokesman John McCarroll told the newspaper.

Read this article:
University violated campus group's free speech by prohibiting pro-marijuana shirt: Appeals court - Washington Times

With free speech under so much fire from so many directions lately, its encouraging to see Virginia lawmakers sponsoring bills to protect it.

One measure, sponsored by Del. Terry Kilgore, R-Gate City, would extend legal protection against spurious lawsuits to both political speech and to consumer reviews of the sort that have grown popular on websites such as Yelp.

The bill takes aim at SLAPP cases, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. A perfect example occurred in Richmond a couple of years ago when Style Weekly published a letter from parents criticizing a school principals performance. The principal sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Consumers also have found themselves staring down the barrel of a lawsuit after posting critical commercial reviews.

The measure would not protect people against defamation, and it shouldnt. But it would ensure that people can express their honest views in the public square without having to worry they will be bankrupted by legal fees for doing so.

The second measure, from our own Del. Steve Landes, R-Weyers Cave, and 19 co-patrons, is a shot over the bow of public colleges and universities.

It stipulates: Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

Believe it or not, some in higher education actually think this is a bad idea.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, who teaches media studies at the University of Virginia, says there is a moral panic in America that free speech is under assault at universities, but its absolutely not true.

Wrong. It absolutely is true. The evidenceof such an assault is pervasive and overwhelming. Denying it requires the sort of willful refusal to face facts that climate-change skeptics often exhibit.

The fact that most of the criticism appears to be coming from the left is telling.

Liberals have done their level best to squelch the free speech of far-right activists and conservatives at public college campuses across the country in recent years. They have a right to protest and in many cases, The News Virginian has supported those protests, having found the views of many on the extreme right abhorrent (we dont much like the views of many on the extreme left, either, but thats for another day.) But intimidating and physically denying anyone the right to peacefully express their views, no matter how objectionable, is in itself objectionable and cannot be justified.

Marcus Messner, who teaches about media at VCU, also claims the problem is fictitious because students there express themselves on a broad variety of topics every day.

Good for VCU. But the point is irrelevant. Just because students at VCU hold forth does not mean there is no effort to squelch free expression elsewhere. One might as well argue that since the vast majority of police officers treat most black men well, no black man ever experiences police brutality.

Landes bill is a narrow casting of the First Amendment for Virginias public institutions. The mere fact that it is meeting resistance shows how very badly it is needed.

Adapted from The Richmond Times-Dispatch

Go here to read the rest:
EDITORIAL: Free speech on campus - The Daily Progress

The First Amendment does not always protect civil servants from reprisal. (Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

Recent internal memos on how and when federal employees can speak their minds has left those frustrated by President Trump in murky waters, according to advocates.

For climate scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or rogue members of the National Park Service, this uncertainty around their ability to speak without fear of reprisal is causing confusion and despair as the Trump administration assumes control and attempts to assert its version of the facts, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a watchdog group that represents civil servants at agencies like the EPA.

"There will be a number of instances where people are speaking their minds and the rules aren't all that clear," said PEER Director Jeff Ruch, who counsels government employees about their rights. "And you have a chief executive who is somewhat thin-skinned, and that may trickle down through his appointees," who could punish employees for actions perceived as dissent.

Ruch said there seems to be a "level of mutual mistrust" between civil servants who staff federal agencies as nonpartisan workers and President Trump, who promised on the campaign trail to gut agencies like the EPA, and announced a hiring freeze for many agencies shortly after taking office.

"The hiring freeze was not an economic measure but an effort to drain the swamp, as if [federal employees] are a malignant force and, if you can bleed them off, then government will be better," Ruch said. "And a lot of this could be offensive to some of these career civil servants."

Some civil servants have dared to challenge Trump. Since the National Park Service's Twitter account was temporarily shuttered after it questioned White House statements on the size of the crowd at Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, dozens of "alternative" federal agency accounts (such as AltEPA and AltFDA) have opened and amassed followings that rival their official counterparts.

These accounts identify with the anti-Trump resistance, and are unofficial. Many make it clear that tweets and posts are not coming from government employees in their official capacity, if from government employees at all. Ruch said PEER has been fielding questions from operators of these alternative accounts, which often challenge Trump's public statements and draw attention to the latest climate science.

Agency employees who speak out against Trump are treading on difficult ground, particularly since federal civil servants have limited rights to free speech in the workplace. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect public employees for statements made while acting in their official capacity, making it risky to speak out against a new administration that has been openly hostile to the media and anyone else who challenges its narrative.

Moreover, the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast majority of federal employees from participating in certain political activities on the job, including advocating for and against political candidates. Trump has filed 2020 campaign paperwork and is considered a political candidate. This means that federal employees are prohibited from speaking for or against his reelection in their official capacity, according to a memo circulated by the US Office of Special Counsel last week.

Ruch said making a statement as simple as, "This is a disaster, we've got to get rid of this guy," around the water cooler at a federal office could apparently cost a federal employee their job.

Federal employees do have First Amendment rights as private citizens, but that doesn't protect them in the workplace. Not too long after the White House's snafu with the National Park Service's Twitter account, the EPA sent out an agency-wide memo advising employees about the difference between addressing the public as an EPA employee and in their "individual personal capacity."

The memo urges employees not to refer to their agency title, such as "inspector" or "climate scientist," when writing, speaking or making social media posts in their personal capacity, and not to make such statements from EPA computers:

If you feel you must refer to your EPA position or title, then the prudential advice is to do so as one of several biographical details with EPA not having any undue prominence. You should be clear you are expressing an individual personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of the Agency.

Ruch said it's unclear exactly what EPA employees would have to reveal about themselves to make sure their official status as an agency scientist or attorney is not "unduly prominent" compared to, say, their educational background or volunteer positions.

"Federal employees who depart from the official talking points enter murky waters," Ruch said. "Unlike White House staff, who are merely counseled about clear ethics violations, public employees trying to educate the public about the consequences of Trump initiatives may be targeted for discipline or removal."

Ruch said the Trump administration could use this ambiguity to target dissent in its ranks, and purge critics of Trump's policy directives for making statements that would otherwise be considered "borderline and marginal." This looming threat is almost certainly having a chilling effect, especially at agencies that deal with hot-button issues like climate change and immigration.

"Sean Spicer said, 'Get with the program or get out'," Ruch said.

Still, this did not keep EPA workers in Chicago from attending a February 6 rally opposing Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee to head the agency, and speaking against him from their standpoint as employees.

Ruch said it was unclear if these employees were breaking ethics rules. The recent memos suggest that federal agencies would rather their employees not say anything to the public at all. However, despite all of this uncertainty over what federal employees can and can't say in a nation under Trump, resistance to Trump at federal agencies continues.

"Besides social media, organizations like PEER, federal unions and even professional scientific societies will increasingly become channels for public employee free speech," Ruch said. "Times have changed -- both the public and public employees are demanding more candor and have less tolerance for censorship than ever before."

See the original post:
Free Speech Restrictions Leave Federal Workers Anxious About Challenging Trump - Truth-Out

As a practical proposition if I enjoy normal life expectancy, this case will consume the bulk of my remaining time on earth. In the event that I dont, the thuggish Mann will come after my family, as has happened to my late friend Andrew Breitbarts children.

This is how well-known political commentator Mark Steyn recently summed up his opinion about the libel suit filed against him by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, which is expected to be set for trial soon.

I did not seek this battle. But I will not shirk the fight, and I will prevail, Steyn predicted in a recent blog.

Remarks made by Rand Simberg, a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in 2012 were the genesis of the Mann suit. Simberg referred to Mann as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. Sandusky was a coach with the Penn State universitys football team who had been convicted of child molestation. The university has been roundly condemned for neglect in allowing Sanduskys antics to continue for so long.

This hyperbolic statement of comparing the Sandusky case to Manns was an effort to lambast Penn State for clearing Mann of accusations of scientific misconduct. Apparently, since Penn States administration had failed to rid itself of Sandusky, Simberg was saying that the exoneration of Mann by that same university was suspect.

Political commentator Steyn said as much, declaring in National Review magazine that any investigation by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

This was no doubt a strong comment by Steyn, but it was an opinion, and an opinion, regardless of how harsh it is, about a public figure is held to be protected speech press, under the First Amendment, according to the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York v. Sullivan.

Mann is most famous for his development of the so-called hockey stick image to illustrate his assertion that global temperatures have spiked over the last century, a spike Mann and others attribute mostly to human activity in the industrial age.

After Mann responded by suing CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Steyn for defamation, the defendants all asked that the lawsuit be dismissed on the grounds that their remarks were constitutionally protected free speech. The original trial judge allowed Manns suit to continue. Judge Natalia Combs Greene even argued that Manns defamation suit was likely to succeed. She said, To call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud.

Surprisingly, the D.C. Court of Appeals declined to dismiss. Judge Vanessa Ruiz spoke for the three-judge panel when she wrote, Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming. That the challenged statements were made as part of such debates provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards.

Despite these words, which would seem to have favored the defendants, Judge Ruiz then concluded, But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.

The D.C. appellate court said, in remanding the case back to the district court for trial, Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.

Steyn, in an article for National Reviews online blog, The Corner, cited Simbergs analogy of the Mann and Sandusky cases. Im referring to another cover-up and whitewash that occurred [at Penn State] two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps its time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much weve also learned about his and others hockey-stick deceptions since.

Then, Steyn added the biting words that precipitated Manns retaliatory lawsuit: Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in service of politicized science that could have dire consequences for the nation and planet.

Steyn did note, Not sure Id have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point, adding that Manns hockey-stick graphic was used to advance the fraudulent climate-change thesis, and that Mann was the ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. (Editorial note: This is typical of Steyns wit, using tree-ring, instead of three-ring. Of course, animal-rights activists, the close cousins of the radical environmentalists, have now succeeded in shutting down the largest of the circuses).

While National Review has recently been dismissed as a defendant in this particular case, leaving Steyn and Simberg as the defendants, Dr. Judith Curry had previously filed a very interesting amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court brief on the side of National Review and the individual defendants. An amicus curiae brief is often filed in high-profile cases by parties who, while not actual litigants in the case, have a strong interest in the cases outcome.

Dr. Curry recently announced she was leaving academia due to the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming. She had challenged some of the assertions of the advocates of the climate change theory, and Mann had responded by calling her three books and nearly two hundred scholarly articles a meager contribution to science and stating she played a particularly pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign [by] laundering standard denier talking points but appearing to grant them greater authority courtesy of the academic positions she has held.

In short, Mann dismissed Currys work as boilerplate climate change denial drivel.

A comparison of anyone to a convicted child molester, as was done by Simberg, even though a reasonable person could see that it was simply a hyperbolic statement, is certainly a harsh statement. But the use of the expression of climate change denier to scientists like Curry is even stronger. As despicable as the analogy to the sexual molestation of little boys is, the denier label used so freely by the climate change crowed, including Mann, conjures up a comparison to the denial of the Holocaust the systematic murder of millions in Hitlers gas chambers.

For his part, Mann has repeatedly attacked those who disagree with him on this issue as peddling pure scientific fraud, and fraudulent denial of climate change, and even taking corporate payoff for knowingly lying about the threat climate change posed to humanity.

The Curry brief noted, As it relates to this case, Dr. Curry has been critical of Appelle Michael Manns methodological approach to climate science and the conclusions he has reached. Dr. Curry has experienced personal and professional attacks from Dr. Mann for her criticism of his work. Dr. Mann has a pattern of attacking those who disagree with him and this case is another in a long line of tactics to silence debate over the science of global warming.

Dr. Curry said that she has tried to understand Michael Manns perspective in suing so many people, while at the same time so freely throwing insults at others and even defaming other scientists. My understanding is this. Michael Mann does not seem to understand the difference between criticizing a scientific argument versus smearing a scientist.

The amicus brief of Dr. Curry highlighted its concern about allowing such a lawsuit to continue. If Dr. Mann and others like him who use libel laws to silence critics are allowed to prevail, those who use normal scientific debate will find themselves disadvantaged in the marketplace of ideas.

This is why libel suits involving public figures such as Mann are required to overcome significant hurdles in order to succeed. The plaintiff in a libel suit must prove not only that the statements found offensive are false, the plaintiff must additionally prove to a jury by clear and convincing evidence (a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence of most civil actions, and closer to the beyond reasonable doubt requirement of criminal cases) that the defendant knew the statement was false. And the statement must have been made with actual malice, or a desire to cause damage. (For example, writing that a football player won the Heisman Trophy would not be libelous, even if the writer knew that was not true, because such a statement is not damaging and no intent to cause harm exists).

Finally, a plaintiff must show that some actual damage was caused to his reputation.

Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, explained the dangers of making it too easy for public figures to win such lawsuits. It threatens to make it too easy for public figures to file lawsuits against their critics, and, as a consequence, threatens to chill robust political debate.

Adler also expressed concern over the reasoning of the appellate court, when it held that, because Penn State had investigated and then exonerated Mann of doctoring scientific evidence to support his thesis of global warming, Simberg and Steyn cannot then criticize that investigation. It cannot be that once some official body has conducted an investigation of an individuals conduct, that further criticism of that individual, including criticism that expressly questions the thoroughness or accuracy of the investigatory body, is off limits.

This would preclude criticism of a judicial processes that exonerated individuals found not guilty, Adler notes.

Nor is it consistent with existing First Amendment doctrine to suggest that hyperbolic accusations of bad faith or dishonesty against public figures involved in policy debates is actionable, Adler added. In other words, the opinions expressed by Steyn and Simberg were just that opinions.

Even the threat of a libel suit is often enough to inhibit the free expression of honest political opinions, because of the potential enormous costs of litigation. Winning in a successful defense, but nevertheless out thousands of dollars, does not make one feel much like a winner. As one federal court once put it in the context of controversies in the field of science (and applicable in other fields, as well), More papers, more discussions, better data, and more satisfactory models not larger awards of damages mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.

See the original post here:
Climate Lawsuit Threatens Free Speech - The New American

Jim Funk still remembers when a Gainesville police officer grabbed his arms and escorted him away.

It was an event that shocked and scared Funk but also sparked a discussion about free speech and assembly in Gainesville. His run-in proved to Funk that the cityhas work to do toensure free speech to all its citizens.

That kind of disturbed me that something like that would happen, Funk said.

Funks run-in happened in November at Artwalk, a monthly event held in downtown Gainesville, while he was gathering petitions for medical marijuana. Funksaid he was approached by police officers and the events coordinatorand was told he couldnt gather signaturesbecause he wasnt affiliated with a reserved booth.

Funk said he could gather signatures because the event was on a public street. After debating the issue for a while, police said Funk caused a scene an accusation Funk denies and he was carried out. Though Funkbelieves it was an isolated incident, he still feels he was treated with injustice and that his speech was limited.

They basically can assault someone in public whos an old man not doing anything, and they can get away with it, Funk said.

The discussion about free speech has mainly been ledby Gainesville resident James Thompson, an acquaintance of Funk. Shortly after Funks incident, Thompson emailed Gainesville City Commissioners and Mayor Lauren Poe. He has since been in touch with members of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs, city commissioners and city lawyers.

Poe said he firmly stands behind free speech in Gainesville, and wants to ensure it remains protected.

We dont want anything that would create a chilling effect on people practicing their free speech, Poe said.

Thompson received a list of court cases supporting Gainesvilles law from a city lawyer, David Schwartz. In response, Thompson went through each case and pointed out why it didnt apply.

At the time of his initial complaint, the Citys Administrative Procedure 34 said more than two canvassers contacting a single member of the public could be restricted, along with profanity and actions designed to gather crowds. Since then, the city manager updated the procedure to 34-A, which struck down those restrictions. However, a procedure only affects how city staff operatesinternally, and is not city law.

The current ordinance, which hasnt been updated, still has language limiting more than two canvassers from contacting a single member of the public at any time, Thompson said. It is found in Chapter 19, article 2, under peddlers and canvassers.This means people gathering petitions or passing out information might be unable to do so in a group.

That law is pretty egregious, and really a bad liability situation in my opinion, Thompson said. You basically dont need to make laws to limit free speech. We have a constitution, we have a set of practices, we have a set of rules. You cant create free speech zones, thats unconstitutional.

Thompson said limiting free speech makes sense when its a public safety concern, but that doesnt apply to Gainesville.

We all think of Gainesville as this perfect liberal open-minded town, but the fact is, you know, when people hold events even in public streets they have grand expectations about what they can do to limit others, and thats not the case, Thompson said.

Initially, Thompson planned to let the issue sit until the city took care of other dated laws on the books. The city hired Municipal Code Corporation in December to review existing laws. After the laws are reviewed, a recommendation will be made to the commission. The process should wrap up in two to three months, said Gainesville Clerk of the Commission Kurt Lannon.

Poe said he thinks it is too early to see if the code will be changed.The commission will wait until they receive a recommendation from the group.

This is why we wanted to hire an outside person, so we wouldnt crowd the view with our own personal biases and assumptions, Poe said.

With the election of President Donald Trump and subsequent national protests, Thompson said free speech in Gainesville needs to be protected now more than ever. He thinks making changes to the laws around assembly cannot wait.

I thought its very important for Gainesville to have this stuff cleared up before anything bad happens, to basically state that Gainesville is going to stand by the First Amendment and stand by its citizens, Thompson said.

Though Thompson considers himself liberal, he said it doesnt matter what the protests are for.

Thats exactly the time when we are supposed to protect free speech, is when it makes us uncomfortable and when it is unwelcome[d], Thompson said. In fact, it doesnt matter what these people are petitioning or assembling for, they should be allowed to do what theyre allowed to do with their rights.

Read more:
Gainesville Resident Fights To Protect Free Speech - WUFT