Category Archives: Free Speech

Willamette Week

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech ... Willamette Week Protesters marched into the airport, marched through baggage claim and had a sit-in outside the departures gate. Related: Demonstrators Throng Into Portland ... Oregon Local News - Port says future PDX protests require permit ...Portland Tribune Portland Airport Protests Lead To Free Speech Zone Being ... - PatchPatch.com PDX cracks down on roving protests; permits needed | OregonLive ...OregonLive.com kgw.com all 6 news articles »

See the rest here:
Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech ... - Willamette Week

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jae Alexis Lee, Trans Woman, Technology Enthusiast, Martial Arts Instructor, long time manager, on Quora:

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?This is a distortion of reality that's popular in some social circles and it really, really bugs me. Let meexplain, we'll start with the basics: Harassment isn't okay. We good with that? I hope so because if not there's no hope for the rest of this conversation. Harassment isn't okay.

What constitutes harassment? Well, lots of things. Anyone who's ever been a manager for a sufficiently large corporation has probably sat through at least one mandatory training session about what the company considers harassment, what the law considers harassment, and what they're expected to do about it. We'll skip the minutia and leave it at high, high-level concepts for now: Harassment can include physical behavior (inappropriate touching, hitting, etc.), verbal behavior (teasing, lewd comments, etc.) and direct actions (work assignments, dismissals or threats of termination, etc.) Got it? 1,000 foot level.

Let's descend a bit to talk about verbal harassment. Some things would be considered harassment regardless of the gender, ethnicity, religion or orientation of the target. If I make a point of loudly addressing one of my staff as "Dumb F***" and pile onto that with abusive language every time I give them instructions both in private or publicly, that's not okay. (All right, I'm wandering into hostile work environment land a little bit, but hang with me, we're not going to get sucked into that level of minutia here.) If that member of my staff quits and files for unemployment, I promise you, I'm going to have a hard time explaining my behavior to a judge on that.

Some forms of verbal harassment are unique to traditionally oppressed groups. Racial slurs, sexist remarks, religious slurs. We've got a list of things that as an employer, it's not okay to call your employees. If those employees complain and we keep doing it anyway, that's explicitly not okay.

So, now we're looking at trans people, a historically oppressed minority that studies have demonstrated face significant rates of harassment and discrimination. Like many other groups, there are collections of slurs and methods of being verbally abusive that are specific to the group. In areas where we talk about gender identity being a protected class, using trans-specific verbally abusive language would be forbidden in the same contexts that using racial slurs would be prohibited or making lewd sexual comments would be forbidden.

Still with me? Good. When it comes to trans people, in addition to slurs like shemale and tranny, denying a trans person's identity can constitute harassment. Terms commonly used in the trans community are misgendering (referring to a person with incorrect pronouns, or other gendered parts of speech), and deadnaming (using a trans person's pre-transition name.) Same as using racial slurs or making lewd sexual comments, this kind of behavior can have significant negative impact to the person on the receiving end of it.

So, Jae, what you're telling me is that if I screw up and call a trans man 'she' it's the same thing as if I asked my receptionist to show me her tits?

I get this a lot. No, not that exact question, but the idea that people are afraid that screwing up will get them in legal trouble.

This isn't about verbal stumbles. In general, when we're talking about non-discrimination legislation that creates protection for gender identity what we're doing is placing behavior that is explicitly anti-trans on the same level as behavior that is specifically anti-any other protected class.

Verbal stumbles happen, we all know that. Show of hands from everyone who's never said she when they meant to say he? Who's never opened their mouth to mention a person by name only to have the wrong name come out? It happens, and in general, we make a quick comment/apology about it, and then we move on.

There's no reason to feel like a law that protects trans people would be different in application. In any legal case we're going to be looking at severity (saying 'show me your tits or you're fired' is on a different level than calling someone the 'company slut' where it can be overheard, both are bad, one is worse), there's going to be an examination of frequency, of intent, and of circumstances.

When you dig into harassment in the workplace, you learn that there's a whole lot of gray. We can't write laws that spell out every word that can or can't be used, or every phrase or how often people can or can't say something. Instead, we have a framework of guidelines that the justice system can use to assess the situation.

So, I get that Jae, but... are you saying this is just for employers and employees?

No, not at all. Looking at from a corporate perspective is easy for me because I've been in management for so long, but it's also an approachable lens for a broad swath of people because most of us have had jobs at one point or another.

This sort of thing applies to a large number of relationships where there is an institutional power differential. It applies from employer to employee where we talk about things regarding hostile workplaces, harassment and a host of other employment related things. It also applies when we're talking about how law enforcement treats suspects. In investigations of bias and excessive force, the use of slurs on the part of the LEO can be employed as part of proving that an officer acted inappropriately due to bias. We look at this in relationships between teachers and students, especially in instances where there is a reason to suspect that grading which may be subjective has been unfair towards minority students, or that classroom environments were too hostile for students to be able to engage and learn. We talk about this in the contexts of landlords and tenants, business owners and clients and on and on and on.

Fundamentally, harassment and discrimination are issues we face in the modern world. We have laws to address these things because harassment and discrimination aren't okay. Legislation that adds gender identity to the list of protected classes aren't enforcing an Orwellian form of thought control on the population, but they recognize that trans people are frequently targeted for harassment and discrimination. Some laws make explicit note that misgendering and deadnaming are specific methods by which people harass and make transgender people feel unwelcome or unsafe.

But Jae, what about free speech?

You still have freedom of expression, as much as you ever did. It hasn't gone away. Want to call me a delusional dude on your blog? Go for it, knock yourself out. Want to demand you have the right to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce? Be my guest. It isn't an issue until you do so in a way that is specifically harmful to another person. If you're my boss, and you call me 'he' or 'it' every time you talk about me at work, then you're going to get a complaint from me letting you know that I'm not okay with it. I'm going to copy HR on the complaint, and if it keeps happening then things escalate as appropriate for the situation (that may mean internal escalations to my boss's boss, that might entail talking to an employment attorney, again, situational.)

Speech has consequences, and in general, our rights stop when our method of exercising them hurts other people. You're welcome to say or think whatever you want, but in some situations, there are things you shouldn't say because of the harm it will cause and if you do cause damage with what you say then you may be held accountable for the harm you caused.

That's what this is about. Not about Orwellian thought police, not about an out of control radical left, but about recognizing that the trans population is a minority that faces significant harassment and discrimination. That harassment and discrimination aren't okay, and that deliberately misgendering or deadnaming a trans person may be a form of verbal abuse that would be actionable under appropriate laws regarding specific forms of verbal abuse.

Got it? Good, now go be nice to each other, class dismissed.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Excerpt from:
When Free Speech Turns Into Harassment, It Isn't Okay or Legal - Huffington Post

Free speech for all, not just some Washington Times While it is laughable to imagine Governor Moonbeam cutting state funds over the denial of free speech to anyone to the right of over-the-edge left, any other old-fashioned liberals out there ought to support the threat of the cutting of federal funds ...

Continued here:
Free speech for all, not just some - Washington Times

New York Times

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley New York Times BERKELEY, Calif. Fires burned in the cradle of free speech. Furious at a lecture organized on campus, demonstrators wearing ninja-like outfits smashed windows, threw rocks at the police and stormed a building. The speech? The university called it off. The No Free Speech Movement at BerkeleyLos Angeles Times Free speech takes a hit in BerkeleySan Francisco Chronicle UC Berkeley riot tests free speech, incites funding threat from TrumpThe Mercury News The Seattle Times -Daily Caller -U.S. News & World Report -UC Berkeley all 845 news articles »

Follow this link:
A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley - New York Times

I support free speech but.. That is a worrying statement to hear from anyone that lives in a Liberal Western Democracy like Canadas.

I support free speech but. always means theres some kind of speech the person speaking, would like to see shut down.

And the problem with that is, where do you stop?

If you trust the current government to restrict speech you dont like, what about the next government led by that leader you hate or that party you cant stand.

Would you be comfortable handing over the ability to criminalize speech?

And yet, from people rioting to shut down civil discourse on campuses to calls for advertising bans and having the government police Twitter or Facebook for mean posts and fake news, this is a worrying time for free speech.

- Riots - Fake News - Twitter police - Ad bans - Political targeting

Watch as I go through each of the ways free speech is under attack in the current environment.

Doesnt it remind you all of 1984?

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression its all taken for granted but as we have seen in the past with issues like Section 13 of the Human Rights Act - the hurt feelings on the internet section, many people, including elected officials are more than happy to let freedom of speech be curtailed for the latest fashionable idea.

The answer however should always be no.

Originally posted here:
5 ways free speech is under attack - The Rebel

Glenn Harlan Reynolds Published 6:04 a.m. ET Feb. 6, 2017 | Updated 59 minutes ago

A University of California Berkeley spokesman says a small group turned protests violent, as Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak. The spokesman added that it's not a proud day for the Berkeley campus. (Feb. 2) AP

Protesters at the University of California-Berkeley on Feb. 1, 2017.(Photo: Elijah Nouvelage, Getty Images)

They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs.And they were right!

At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech cancelled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows, and started fires.Protesters threw commercial fireworks at police.

According to CNN:The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed byCNN affiliate KGO. . . . As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protestersmoved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.No arrests were made throughout the night.

According to CNN, the protests caused over $100,000 in damage.

Yiannopoulous wasnt the only victim of silencing efforts.At Marquette University, conservative speaker Ben Shapiro faced efforts by Marquette university employees to silence him.

The Young Americas Foundation obtained Facebook comments by Chrissy Nelson, a program assistant for Marquettes Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, encouraging people at the behest of one of the directors of diversity to reserve all the seats for the hall and then not show up.The purpose of this was to take a seat away from someone who actually would go.

USA TODAY

Trump is playing with the press: Glenn Reynolds

USA TODAY

Trump loves making enemies and that's a problem: Column

So students who wanted to hear a speaker with alternative views would find themselves unable to get a seat, because a university employee had made fake reservations.All, apparently, in the name of diversity.

Likewise, when conservative Gavin MacInnes (a founder of Vice.com) appeared to speak at New York University, he was met by an angry mob that forced him to cut his talk short, while a woman who identified herself as an NYU professor urged police, whom she said were protecting the Nazis by keeping the crowd away from MacInnes and his entourage, to "kick their ass instead of protecting them.

This stuff all looks terrible so bad that Democrat operative Robert Reich was reduced to blaming outside agitators for the violence, a trope that, as law professor Ann Althouse noted, has unfortunate resonance with the Jim Crow era. And President Trump even tweeted that Berkeley should lose federal funding for its inability to ensure free speech rights for everyone on its campus.

Well, the rioters may or may not have been Berkeley students as Althouse notes, since they were wearing masks, theres really no way Reich could tell but I think its safe to say that the rioting happened because they thought they could get away with it. (And with no arrests, I guess they did.) Likewise, I think that the staffers at Marquette didnt entertain any thought that what they were doing might get them punished.(Nor, as far as I can tell, have they been).

Thats because there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior.This double standard is of a piece with many campusesopenly taking sides over the election, treating Trumps win like a terrorist attack, while investigating Trump supporters for racist allegations only to find no evidence that they had done anything except say Make America Great Again, as Babson College, a small school in Massachusetts, did.And as CNN's Marc Lamont Hill acknowledged, right-wing rioters are absent on college campuses.

USA TODAY

Sen. Barrasso: EPA needs Scott Pruitt

POLICING THE USA:Alook atrace, justice, media

Whether or not Berkeley loses its federal funding over the Milo riots (and it wont), I think its time for action to address this double standard.First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers.It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech.In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

Second, perhaps its time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus.Many states (including California) already have laws banning discrimination in hiring and firing based on political viewpoints.Perhaps we need a federal civil rights law providing that colleges that receive federal funds (which is pretty much all of them) can lose those funds if they discriminate against students because of their political views.

Some colleges may complain that this is federal interference in their internal affairs, but given the limited resistance theyve mounted to intrusive Title IX regulations, it will be hard to take such complaints seriously.Americas colleges and universities have a free speech problem. Its appropriate for the federal government to take action to protect the civil rights of those affected.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, aUniversity of Tennesseelaw professor and the author ofThe New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY'sBoard of Contributors.

You can readdiverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers ontheOpinion front page,on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter.To submit a letter, comment or column, check oursubmission guidelines.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2kExx5p

Read the original here:
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds - USA TODAY

Besides the Why-Cant-We-All-Just-Get-Along cry going up the poop, Wednesday it again went up in flames.

Recap: Right-winger Milo Yiannopoulos. Greek-born Brit. Breitbart News editor. Gay. Bounced off Twitter for his supervillain anti-political correctness.

His last weeks invite by Republican students at U of California, Berkeley, resulted in police, protests, violence, demonstrations, pepper spray, flames, arrests, objects thrown, bodies in lockdown. Security blocked some, faculty blocked others.

Some authors pulled their submissions when Simon & Schuster bought his book outline for $250,000.

E pluribus unum. One-for-all-all-for-one. Land of the Free speech, Home of the Driven.

New news: His book title is Dangerous. Theres a co-writer. Pushing this dialogue himself, he personally made the rounds of publishers. As we speak its being minutely examined by lawyers. No photographs.

Inching through wall-to-wall editors, the size of its first printing is not yet decided, although Simon & Schuster is known for publishing political works. The copy price? Around $25.

Called racist, acknowledged provocateur, controversial, its all his ideas. He writes of his sexuality, free speech, why campuses cant have dialogue with those who dont agree, and why full-on war could be coming to a head. He asks why those who disagree get trashed inside Starbucks. He asks why people lack a right to their own opinion.

Oddly, Threshold, an S&S subprint, published a campaign-time book about Donald Trump. And Hillary is now grinding out a volume of personal essays. Pubdate, this fall. Publisher? Simon & Schuster.

Glenn Close, who lives the high life in Sunset Boulevard, gets a high-life opening Thursday. Black tie ... Neil Diamonds 50th anny tour starts April 7. He once razzberryd playing NY. Over it now, hell do the Garden on June 15 and 17 ... Armand Assante getting a ready? Hoboken International Film Festival award. Hoboken, an international Film Festival? Must be Newark means crossing the border ... Conan plays the Apollo in November. Another Festival. Comedy Festival.

J.K. Simmons, Oscar winner for Damien Chazelles Whiplash, hired for his musical La La Land while still filming Whiplash ... Foodies: Grocery man Stew Leonard and WNBC vegetable man Produce Pete sharing Beach Cafe fries Rich Russians shop Cartiers small neighborhood branches, not its iconic main store. They do not want to be seen or photographed there. Ask not what you can do for your country nor how I know this. I know it.

Broadway Records (two Grammy noms this year) releasing newcomer Tyces Hero. Songs by Jim Steinman, who wrote Meat Loafs 1977 album Bat Out of Hell, which sold 43 million albums The Founder, about salesman Kroc making burger joint McDonalds into a mega moneymaker, is confounding Hollywood kvetchers: Michael Keatons terrific. Story terrific. Why no nomination?

The Emotionary is Penguins new Eden Sher/Julia Wertz nonexisting words for existing feelings. Like: To predict a worst outcome mix catastrophe and extrapolate for castrapolate. Happiness and apprehensive begets happrihensive. And pretending to get something finally after someones repeated it nine times? Feignderstand. Its a fun read.

Handsome starting-out lawyer on the dating scene: One chick said: Opposites make good marriages. So I want a guy with money.'

Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

See the original post:
The war on free speech is alive and well - Page Six

84 LumberDid you see the Super Bowl ad about Mexican avocados? The Coke commercial? Budweiser's mini-bio of its immigrant founder? Was corporate America trolling Donald Trump with ads that celebrated free trade, diversity, and immigration? Or were they just selling products to people perhaps more sensitive to gleaning political messages than they have been before? Do you want the government to decide that?

Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week, when the Budweiser ad hit the news cycle. Fox initially rejected one ad from a lumber company that featured a long journey to a border wall, and a big beautiful door, although the beginning of the ad, from Lumber 84, did airthe whole thing was put online. Nevertheless, there was no paucity of ads from which viewers gleaned political messages. And that's a good thingdespite the heated rhetoric against Citizens United and corporate speech rights during the 2016 election, the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they're inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations. Free expression is a crucial component of a free society and a healthy democracy, and sustains a marketplace of ideas. The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculousit shouldn't have to take a character like Trump to head the government for people to realize that; there have been enough examples of what supposedly well-intended regulations have done.

Tonight's ads reflected the American populationcompanies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won't get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people. The inevitable complaints, even the boycotts, are part of that too, and it's all part of a process of self-regulating speech, where ideas, ideally, rise and fall on their merits, where individuals get to argue about the meaning of things instead of having government decide. Only through open discussions, unfettered by the coercions of a government inevitably interested in protecting itself and its narrow interests, can better ideas develop and thrive.

Both Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, who courageously stood up against Citizens United, which ruled in favor of free speech that was critical of her, have abysmal records on free speech. But perhaps 2017 will make more free speech fans out of people sometimes too quick to take their leaders' words on it.

See the original post here:
Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations - Reason (blog)

I wrote last week about the importance of the model bill drafted by the Goldwater Institute the Campus Free Speech Act. In my latest Forbes article, I elaborate on the problem and why state legislators must take action.

Free speech is far too important to leave to the campus crowd of administrators, faculty, and zealous students who are little inclined to stand up for free speech. Mostly, anti-speech views rule that is to say, speech is tolerated only if it aligns perfectly with progressive ideology. Since campus officials have shown that they cannot be entrusted with the crucial task of justifying and defending free speech, its time for state lawmakers to step in. Sure, the academic elite will howl that such legislation interferes in their domain, but public colleges and universities are not theirs to run.

Let us hope that legislators who want to restore the First Amendment and its values on our campuses introduce the model bill in each state. It certainly wont pass everywhere, but the debate will be enlightening.

Continue reading here:
The Campus Free Speech Act Is Desperately Needed - National Review

BERKELEY UCBerkeley has been long heralded as the birthplace of the countrys free speech movement. But after violent protests this week forced the school to cancel the scheduled appearance of alt-right icon Milo Yiannopoulos, some are wondering if Berkeley is where free speech is hitting a roadblock.

After the protest on Wednesday evening by more than 1,500 demonstrators outside the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union began to turn violent, instigated in part by what campus officials described as outsiders, the event was called off. On Thursday, the Berkeley College Republicans, who had hosted Yannopoulos appearance, summed up their disappointment this way:

The Free Speech Movement is dead, the group said in a statement posted on its website. Last night, the Berkeley College Republicans constitutional right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs seeking to cancel Milo Yiannopoulos tour. Their success is a defeat for civilized society and the free exchange of ideas on college campuses across America.

var _ndnq = _ndnq || []; _ndnq.push();

The group thanked the campus police and university administration for doing all they could to ensure the safety of everyone involved. It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place.

While the rest of the world may see student protesters as the ones behind the violence, campus officials on Thursday said non-students had hijacked what otherwise would have been a peaceful protest. And they referred pointedly to the fact that the Berkeley campus has been and will remain a bastion of protected speech, no matter what part of the ideological landscape its practitioners may inhabit.

We are proud of our history and legacy as the home of the Free Speech Movement, UC spokesman Dan Mogulof said Thursday. While we have made clear our belief that the inflaming rhetoric and provocations of Mr. Yiannopoulos were in marked opposition to the basic values of the university, we respected his right to come to campus and speak once he was invited to do so by a legitimate student group.

Mogulof said the violent protesters had waged an assault not simply on the physical campus, but on the free-speech ideals enshrined at UC Berkeley, which stands for and helps to maintain and nurture open inquiry and an inclusive civil society, the bedrock of a genuinely democratic nation. We are now, and will remain in the future, completely committed to Free Speech as essential to our educational mission and a vital component of our identity at UC Berkeley.

Berkeley MayorJesse Arreguin, a Cal graduate, also weighed in, saying in a statement that the free-speech traditions dont stop at the campus border, and he blasted the violent protesters for their actions.

I represent a city that stands united for community, for inclusion, and for a peaceful dialogue about the issues, and that stands united against bigotry, united against fear mongering, and united against violence towards anyone, said the mayor. For our community to be a beacon of light in these dark times, we must display our values of inclusion, keep each other and our community safe, embrace our right to peacefully assemble, and show the rest of the country our values in both speech and in action.

Some who were on hand for the protest were conflicted upset that the universitys actions were a black eye for free speech, but recognizing that the level of violence erupting outside the venue dictated at the last minute that the event be stopped.

The Free Speech Movement started here and now we cant let certain people speak? said UC Berkeley student Danny Phan. Thats kind of hypocritical. In a way, I see the schools decision as going against free speech, but I also think they were justified in cancelling the speech because I was there and saw the people wearing masks burning things and smashing windows. If theyd let the speech go on, it would have gotten a lot worse.

Phan wondered whether the schools real mistake was not in shutting the event down but in not being properly prepared for trouble. While free speech has taken a hit here, I dont think its dead, said the political-science major. The next time, though, the school should be better prepared. It was these third-party actors, not us students, who sabotaged everything.

The university knewfor weeks that Yiannopoulos appearance could prompt violent protests that could in turn threaten the schools long tradition of facilitating free speech at every turn. In a statement last week, Chancellor Nicholas Dirks wrote that the concerns around the upcoming visit of a controversial speaker to campus make it necessary for us to reaffirm our collective commitment to free expression, calling the university a site of open inquiry and learning.

Referring to Berkeleys commitment to free speech, he said the school has gone so far as to defend in court the constitutional rights of students of all political persuasions to engage in unpopular expression on campus.

And that expression, he wrote, would include Yiannopoulos, whom Dirks called a troll and provocateur who uses odious behavior in part to entertain, but also to deflect any serious engagement with ideas. He has been widely and rightly condemned for engaging in hate speech.

Dirk said last week that the school was working closely with police to prepare, to ensure the event goes as planned, and to provide for the safety and security of those who attend, as well as those who will choose to protest Yiannopouloss appearance in a lawful manner.

On Thursday, school officials did not respond to questions about those preparations and whether officials had failed to properly protect free speech on campus by having enough police officers on hand to prevent violence from interfering with the speech.

In a statement, campus police officials said the appearance by Yiannopoulos was cancelled amid violence, destruction of property, and out of concern for public safety.

Of paramount importance this evening was the campuss commitmentto ensure the safety and security of those attending the event, the speaker, those who came to engage in lawful protest, as well as members of the public and the Berkeley campus community, the police said.

The release described fires that were deliberately set, one outside the campus Amazon outlet; Molotov cocktails that caused generator-powered spotlights to catch fire; commercial-grade fireworks thrown at police officers; barricades pushed into windows and skirmishes within the crowd were among the evenings violent acts.

Alan Schlosser, Senior Counsel with the ACLU of Northern California, said that without knowing precisely what sort of public-safety threats prompted Cal police to act it was difficult to assess their decision. But he said the university has a clear obligation to provide controversial speakers the right to speak and not to cave in to threats or disruptions, say, by hecklers.

In this case, he said, the university knew beforehand about the threats and did not give in to them by cancelling the speech in advance. And it does seem that the actions last night went beyond simply being threats of disruption. If people there opposed to the speaker created a truly dangerous situation, then the university was within its rights to cancel the speech.

No speaker has an absolute right to speak if the protests triggered cause an imminent danger to people, said Schlosser. I just dont know if things last night reached that point.

Staff writers Rick Hurd and Katy Murphy also contributed to this story.

Here is the original post:
UC Berkeley riot raises questions about free speech - The Mercury News