Category Archives: Free Speech

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

Sen. Tim Neville

We are experiencing a new era in our nation, one characterized by polarity, equally unpopular opinions, and designated free speech zones. A recent poll found 77 percent of Americans perceive the nation as divided, I suspect that number is climbing. Nowhere are the tensions as pointed as on college campuses.

In this time of a great lack of mutual understanding, we can choose our communities, our news, our schools, and all too often we find ourselves living in a bubble of our own creation. While I am an ardent proponent of all the choices a free-market society allows us, we cannot permit our choices to permanently shield us from anything we do not like.

In times like these, I recall my own experiences growing up in an uncertain world. Often, my opinions were unpopular, but it was the resulting debates and friendly challenges that helped me learn, grow and determine my core values. It is with those counterbalances in mind that I bring Senate Bill 17-062 to protect Colorado students' constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech. I want today's youth to find the folks who challenge them and cherish those differences instead of shrinking from them.

Traditionally, universities are bastions of free speech and the open exchange of ideas. College students and faculty across the nation catalyzed countless movements, pushing back against the status quo and demanding change at times when change was unthinkable. Few people voiced their opinions louder than students, championing diversity of thought and wide array of backgrounds, beliefs, and visions for our future. Recently, however universities struggle with thoughtful debate, and instead put forth a litany of criteria for students to exercise their rights to speech, the most egregious of which requires students to limit their opinions to "free speech zones." These zones are contrary to the very missions of universities.

Once we limit free speech to a zone, we indicate to our students that free speech does not exist anywhere beyond that zone. Is that the message we want to send to future generations about our nation's core values?

It is possible to promote safety, high standards for education, and free speech rights simultaneously. I understand that maintaining the integrity and sanctity of education and keeping every student safe will always be a chief concern for universities. To that end, my bill allows these institutions the right to reasonable restrictions. Demonstrations which disrupt the primary mission of an undisturbed education or pose a threat to the safety of others may be curtailed when appropriate. Instead of shutting down debate, it is imperative that institutions offer ample alternative channels for communications of the student's messages so that views and expressions dissimilar to the universities are given the opportunity free speech deserves.

Elected officials have a duty to citizens, an obligation to ensure that their liberties remain intact. The state Legislature has a responsibility to strengthen our constitutional rights whenever possible, regardless of its political expediency. Indeed, how much we value the right to free speech is put to the test when we disagree with the speaker the most. When one of us is denied our First Amendment rights we are all denied, and free expression of all ideas, popular or not, must be safeguarded without interpretation or subjectivity. If we can have this strong dialogue and exchange in the public square, it bodes well for our nation's future.

We send our kids to colleges and universities with the hope that they learn to challenge themselves, to grow and develop those skills that will see them through as tomorrow's leaders who will continue to champion the core principles of our nation. We have to continue to teach our children that in order to be free, they must also be brave.

Please follow Senate Bill 17-062 as it progresses from the Senate to the House and share your support with your representatives.

Sen. Tim Neville is a Republican legislator from Jefferson County, representing Senate District 16.

Read more here:
Tim Neville: Free speech should not be zoned - Longmont Times-Call

Angry protests Wednesday night at UC Berkeley forced the cancellation of a talk by conservative firebrand and Donald Trump supporterMilo Yiannopoulos on Wednesday.

That sparked criticism from President Trump, who said on Twitter: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

Trumps tweet heightens a debate already roiling the University of California over free speech, hate speech and what to do aboutYiannopoulos.

Heres a look at the free speech issues and what we know about how vulnerable funding could be:

Yiannopoulos campus talks have generated protests and anger from students and faculty, but top UC officials have generally said they believe he has a right to speak.

Less than a month before the events in Berkeley, protesters at UC Davis prevented him from speaking on their campus.

Some in the university said both cancellations were a blow to free speech and thatYiannopoulos should be allowed to be heard, no matter how offensive his views are.

Opponents of Yiannopoulos say he is a provocateur who has no place on campus.

At Berkeley, a letter by adozen faculty members argued that his talk could be canceled on the grounds that his actions which they called harassment, slander, defamation and hate speech violated UC Berkeleys code of conduct.

UC President Janet Napolitanoand the Board of Regents have advocated fighting offensive speech with more speech rather than censorship. This concept was included in Principles AgainstIntoleranceapproved by UC regents last year as guidelinesfor the 10-campus system. Campus administrators are counseling a similar approach to those urging a ban on Yiannopoulos.

Some free-speech advocates have cited cases similar toYiannopoulos.

Berkeley allowed African American student organizations to sponsor a 2012 campus visit by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has been widely accused of anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia.

The UC president at the time, Mark Yudof, denounced Farrakhans message, but defended his right to speak.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof on Thursday condemned this weeksviolence and said that campus officials went to"extraordinarylengths" over weeks of planningto helpthe Berkeley College Republicans prepare for the event.

"We thoroughly condemn the violence and lawless behavior, and we deeply regret that the actions of a few trampled on the 1st Amendment rights of others," he said.

Very dependent.

The UCs total budget generally runs well over $20 billion, but several billion of that comes directly from the federal government.

Federal funds are the universitys single most important source of support for research, generating $2.8 billion and accounting for nearly 51% of all university research expenditures in 2013-14,according to a UC report.While UC researchers receive support from virtually all federal agencies, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are the two largest sponsors, accounting for nearly 80% of UCs federal research contract and grant awards.

UC, for example, manages the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which gets more than $700 million in federal funds, that report said.

Its hard to know whether Trumps tweet was actually suggesting a policy change or simply commenting on the protests at Berkeley.

But it would likely be hard to segregate much of federal funding from just one university given that it involves programs that provide money to many different institutions and activities.

As for federal student aid, UC got more than $1.6 billion in 2014. The UCs medical facilities got $2.8 billion in federal money.

Yiannopoulos, 32, writes for Breitbart News a popular website among the far right and he is an avowed supporter of President Trump. Hes also a flamboyant provocateur who has been denounced for propagating racism, misogyny and anti-Islam views, but hestyles himself a champion of free speech.

This summer, he gained notoriety for encouraginga barrage of harassment against Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones, which prompted Twitter to ban him from the social media platform.

Controversy, unrest and, occasionally, violence has followed his speaking tour at colleges across the U.S., for which Berkeley was to be the final event. Last month, aman was shot outside aUniversity of Washingtonhallwhere Yiannopouloswas scheduled to speak.

At theUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukeerecently, according to atranscript of his remarks that appeared on the Breitbart website, he mocked a transgender student by name for filing a Title IX complaint about bathroom access. He also said:

Black Lives Matteris the ultimate divisive movement.

If white privilege is a thing, why are people working so hard to be black? All of the award shows and cultural events favor black culture.

Man up is a big no-no for liberals, intent on eliminating masculinity from our culture. Toxic masculinity and rape culture and all the other idiotic things they like to say in their war against men.

Wednesdays decision by Berkeley officials is the second time in two weeks thatrowdy protests have forced the cancellation of one of his lectures.UC Davisalso canceled one of his speeches last month.

The cancellation of his talk at UC Davis sparked debate about the limits of free speech and hate speech.Davis College Republicans decided it was unsafe to continue the eventafter a large number of protesters blocked access to the venue, according to a release from the school.

UC Davis interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter said he was deeply disappointed by the protests and the cancellation and said he worriedthat outside groups are using college campuses to trigger conflicts intended for the national stage.

I get very, very alarmed with folks who don't treat [freedom of speech] for the treasure that it is, he said two weeks ago.

So far, the UC system has resisted calls to cancel Yiannopoulos talks. At noon, just hours before Wednesdays event, Berkeley administrators issued a statement saying they were committed to tolerance as well as free speech.

In the weeks before Yiannopoulos planned Berkeley appearance, administrators received hundreds of letters from faculty, students and others demanding they bar him from speaking.

ALSO

Trump suggests cutting funds to UC Berkeley after protests force speech cancellation

'So far I couldn't be happier.' Red California backs Trump, sees protests as overreaction

'I can see the fear': multicultural Los Angeles senses a different world under Trump

UPDATES:

1:15 p.m.: The story hasbeen updated with remarksYiannopoulosmade in Wisconsin in December.

9a.m.: This story has been updated with comments from a UC Berkeley spokesman.

This article was originally published at 8:05 a.m.

Read the original post:
It's a free speech clash as Milo Yiannopoulos is shut down at ...

In recent years, a rise in verbal abuse and violence directed at people of color, lesbians and gay men, and other historically persecuted groups has plagued the United States. Among the settings of these expressions of intolerance are college and university campuses, where bias incidents have occurred sporadically since the mid-1980s. Outrage, indignation and demands for change have greeted such incidents -- understandably, given the lack of racial and social diversity among students, faculty and administrators on most campuses.

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech -- not less -- is the best revenge. This is particularly true at universities, whose mission is to facilitate learning through open debate and study, and to enlighten. Speech codes are not the way to go on campuses, where all views are entitled to be heard, explored, supported or refuted. Besides, when hate is out in the open, people can see the problem. Then they can organize effectively to counter bad attitudes, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance.

College administrators may find speech codes attractive as a quick fix, but as one critic put it: "Verbal purity is not social change." Codes that punish bigoted speech treat only the symptom: The problem itself is bigotry. The ACLU believes that instead of opting for gestures that only appear to cure the disease, universities have to do the hard work of recruitment to increase faculty and student diversity; counseling to raise awareness about bigotry and its history, and changing curricula to institutionalize more inclusive approaches to all subject matter.

A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.

The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."

A: Not so. Only a handful of the several thousand cases litigated by the national ACLU and its affiliates every year involves offensive speech. Most of the litigation, advocacy and public education work we do preserves or advances the constitutional rights of ordinary people. But it's important to understand that the fraction of our work that does involve people who've engaged in bigoted and hurtful speech is very important:

Defending First Amendment rights for the enemies of civil liberties and civil rights means defending it for you and me.

A: The U.S. Supreme Court did rule in 1942, in a case calledChaplinsky v. New Hampshire, that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to "fighting words," and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if "by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Say, a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the "fighting words" doctrine for racial harassment.

Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn't found the "fighting words" doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn't meet the narrow criteria stated above. Ignoring that history, the folks who advocate campus speech codes try to stretch the doctrine's application to fit words or symbols that cause discomfort, offense or emotional pain.

A: Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they're worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place -- say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn't protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon, or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone's lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm.

In its 1992 decision inR.A.V. v. St. Paul, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based on their symbolism, which the ordinance said makes many people feel "anger, alarm or resentment." Instead of prosecuting the cross-burner for the content of his act, the city government could have rightfully tried him under criminal trespass and/or harassment laws.

The Supreme Court has ruled that symbolic expression, whether swastikas, burning crosses or, for that matter, peace signs, is protected by the First Amendment because it's "closely akin to 'pure speech.'" That phrase comes from a landmark 1969 decision in which the Court held that public school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. And in another landmark ruling, in 1989, the Court upheld the right of an individual to burn the American flag in public as a symbolic expression of disagreement with government policies.

A: Historically, defamation laws or codes have proven ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst. For one thing, depending on how they're interpreted and enforced, they can actually work against the interests of the people they were ostensibly created to protect. Why? Because the ultimate power to decide what speech is offensive and to whom rests with the authorities -- the government or a college administration -- not with those who are the alleged victims of hate speech.

In Great Britain, for example, a Racial Relations Act was adopted in 1965 to outlaw racist defamation. But throughout its existence, the Act has largely been used to persecute activists of color, trade unionists and anti-nuclear protesters, while the racists -- often white members of Parliament -- have gone unpunished.

Similarly, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, white students in 20 cases charged black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a black student for using the term "white trash" in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989 and, to date, the ACLU has brought successful legal challenges against speech codes at the Universities of Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin.

These examples demonstrate that speech codes don't really serve the interests of persecuted groups. The First Amendment does. As one African American educator observed: "I have always felt as a minority person that we have to protect the rights of all because if we infringe on the rights of any persons, we'll be next."

A: Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country; it is not the problem itself. Everybody, when they come to college, brings with them the values, biases and assumptions they learned while growing up in society, so it's unrealistic to think that punishing speech is going to rid campuses of the attitudes that gave rise to the speech in the first place. Banning bigoted speech won't end bigotry, even if it might chill some of the crudest expressions. The mindset that produced the speech lives on and may even reassert itself in more virulent forms.

Speech codes, by simply deterring students from saying out loud what they will continue to think in private, merely drive biases underground where they can't be addressed. In 1990, when Brown University expelled a student for shouting racist epithets one night on the campus, the institution accomplished nothing in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of racist ideas.

A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.

The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.

Several universities have initiated policies that both support free speech and counter discriminatory conduct. Arizona State, for example, formed a "Campus Environment Team" that acts as an education, information and referral service. The team of specially trained faculty, students and administrators works to foster an environment in which discriminatory harassment is less likely to occur, while also safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech.

A: The ACLU believes that the best way to combat hate speech on campus is through an educational approach that includes counter-speech, workshops on bigotry and its role in American and world history, and real -- not superficial -- institutional change.

Universities are obligated to create an environment that fosters tolerance and mutual respect among members of the campus community, an environment in which all students can exercise their right to participate fully in campus life without being discriminated against. Campus administrators on the highest level should, therefore,

ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser stated, in a speech at the City College of New York: "There is no clash between the constitutional right of free speech and equality. Both are crucial to society. Universities ought to stop restricting speech and start teaching."

Read the original:
Hate Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties Union

Admirably clear, . . . wise, up-to-the-minute and wide-ranging. . . . Free Speech encourages us to take a breath, look hard at the facts, and see how well-tried liberal principles can be applied and defended in daunting new circumstances.Edmund Fawcett, New York Times Book Review

A major piece of cultural analysis, sane, witty and urgently important.Timothy Garton Ash exemplifies the robust civility he recommends as an antidote to the pervasive unhappiness, nervousness and incoherence around freedom of speech, rightly seeing the basic challenge as how we create a cultural and moral climate in which proper public argument is possible and human dignity affirmed.--Rowan Williams, Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and former Archbishop of Canterbury

Timothy Garton Ash aspires to articulate norms that should govern freedom of communication in a transnational world. His work is original and inspiring. Free Speech is an unfailingly eloquent and learned book that delights as well as instructs.--Robert Post, Dean and Sol & Lillian Goldman Professor of Law, Yale Law School

"A thorough and well-argued contribution to the quest for global free speech norms."Kirkus Reviews

"There are still countless people risking their lives to defend free speech and struggling to makelonely voices heard in corners around the world where voices are hard to hear. Let us hope that this book will bring confidence and hope to this world-as-city. I believe it will exert great influence.--Murong Xuecun, author of Leave Me Alone: A Novel of Chengdu

"Garton Ash impresses with fact-filled, ideas-rich discussion that is routinely absorbing and illuminating."Malcolm Forbes, The American Interest

"Particularly timely. . . . Garton Ash argues forcefully that . . . there is an increasing need for freer speech . . . A powerful, comprehensive book."Economist

Timothy Garton Ash rises to the task of directing us how to live civilly in our connected diversity.John Lloyd, Financial Times

Free Speech is a resource, a weapon, an encyclopedia of anecdote, example and exemplum that reaches toward battling restrictions on expression with mountains of data, new ideas, liberating ideas.Diane Roberts, Prospect

Illuminating and thought-provoking. . . . [Garton Ashs] larger project is not merely to defend freedom of expression, but to promote civil, dispassionate discourse, within and across cultures, even about the most divisive and emotive subjects.Faramerz Dabhoiwala, The Guardian

"Timothy Garton Ashs new book Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World is a rare thing: a worthwhile contribution to a debate without two developed sides. Ash does an excellent job laying out the theoretical and practical bases for the western liberal positions on free speech."Malcolm Harris, New Republic

"An informative and bracing defense of free speech liberalism in the Internet age . . . In a world where free speech can never be taken for granted, Garton Ashs free speech liberalism is a good place to start any discussion"David Luban, New York Review of Books

See the article here:
Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World ...

Donald Trump's remarks according to a draft obtained by POLITICO Thursday afternoon.

By POLITICO Staff

07/21/16 06:21 PM EDT

Remarks as prepared for delivery according to a draft obtained by POLITICO Thursday afternoon.

Friends, delegates and fellow Americans: I humbly and gratefully accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Story Continued Below

Together, we will lead our party back to the White House, and we will lead our country back to safety, prosperity, and peace. We will be a country of generosity and warmth. But we will also be a country of law and order.

Our Convention occurs at a moment of crisis for our nation. The attacks on our police, and the terrorism in our cities, threaten our very way of life. Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.

Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims.

I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th 2017, safety will be restored.

The most basic duty of government is to defend the lives of its own citizens. Any government that fails to do so is a government unworthy to lead.

It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation.

I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore.

So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths the Democrats are holding their convention next week.

But here, at our convention, there will be no lies. We will honor the American people with the truth, and nothing else.

These are the facts:

Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this Administrations rollback of criminal enforcement.

Homicides last year increased by 17% in Americas fifty largest cities. Thats the largest increase in 25 years. In our nations capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60% in nearby Baltimore.

In the Presidents hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And more than 3,600 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office.

The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50% compared to this point last year. Nearly 180,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records, ordered deported from our country, are tonight roaming free to threaten peaceful citizens.

The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015. They are being released by the tens of thousands into our communities with no regard for the impact on public safety or resources.

One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years-old, and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 Grade Point Average. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law.

Ive met Sarahs beautiful family. But to this Administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasnt worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders. What about our economy?

Again, I will tell you the plain facts that have been edited out of your nightly news and your morning newspaper: Nearly Four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58% of African American youth are not employed. 2 million more Latinos are in poverty today than when the President took his oath of office less than eight years ago. Another 14 million people have left the workforce entirely.

Household incomes are down more than $4,000 since the year 2000. Our manufacturing trade deficit has reached an all-time high nearly $800 billion in a single year. The budget is no better.

President Obama has doubled our national debt to more than $19 trillion, and growing. Yet, what do we have to show for it? Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are in Third World condition, and forty-three million Americans are on food stamps.

Now let us consider the state of affairs abroad.

Not only have our citizens endured domestic disaster, but they have lived through one international humiliation after another. We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint.

This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran $150 billion and gave us nothing it will go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. Another humiliation came when president Obama drew a red line in Syria and the whole world knew it meant nothing.

In Libya, our consulate the symbol of American prestige around the globe was brought down in flames. America is far less safe and the world is far less stable than when Obama made the decision to put Hillary Clinton in charge of Americas foreign policy.

I am certain it is a decision he truly regrets. Her bad instincts and her bad judgment something pointed out by Bernie Sanders are what caused the disasters unfolding today. Lets review the record. In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map.

Libya was cooperating. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was under control. After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region, and the world. Libya is in ruins, and our Ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos.

Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After fifteen years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.

This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness.

But Hillary Clintons legacy does not have to be Americas legacy. The problems we face now poverty and violence at home, war and destruction abroad will last only as long as we continue relying on the same politicians who created them. A change in leadership is required to change these outcomes. Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America.

The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents, is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017.

The American People will come first once again. My plan will begin with safety at home which means safe neighborhoods, secure borders, and protection from terrorism. There can be no prosperity without law and order. On the economy, I will outline reforms to add millions of new jobs and trillions in new wealth that can be used to rebuild America.

A number of these reforms that I will outline tonight will be opposed by some of our nations most powerful special interests. That is because these interests have rigged our political and economic system for their exclusive benefit.

Big business, elite media and major donors are lining up behind the campaign of my opponent because they know she will keep our rigged system in place. They are throwing money at her because they have total control over everything she does. She is their puppet, and they pull the strings.

That is why Hillary Clintons message is that things will never change. My message is that things have to change and they have to change right now. Every day I wake up determined to deliver for the people I have met all across this nation that have been neglected, ignored, and abandoned.

I have visited the laid-off factory workers, and the communities crushed by our horrible and unfair trade deals. These are the forgotten men and women of our country. People who work hard but no longer have a voice.

I AM YOUR VOICE.

I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sympathy for leaders who fail their citizens.

When innocent people suffer, because our political system lacks the will, or the courage, or the basic decency to enforce our laws or worse still, has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash I am not able to look the other way.

And when a Secretary of State illegally stores her emails on a private server, deletes 33,000 of them so the authorities cant see her crime, puts our country at risk, lies about it in every different form and faces no consequence I know that corruption has reached a level like never before.

When the FBI Director says that the Secretary of State was extremely careless and negligent, in handling our classified secrets, I also know that these terms are minor compared to what she actually did. They were just used to save her from facing justice for her terrible crimes.

In fact, her single greatest accomplishment may be committing such an egregious crime and getting away with it especially when others have paid so dearly. When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading access and favors to special interests and foreign powers I know the time for action has come.

I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people that cannot defend themselves. Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. I have seen firsthand how the system is rigged against our citizens, just like it was rigged against Bernie Sanders he never had a chance.

But his supporters will join our movement, because we will fix his biggest issue: trade. Millions of Democrats will join our movement because we are going to fix the system so it works for all Americans. In this cause, I am proud to have at my side the next Vice President of the United States: Governor Mike Pence of Indiana.

We will bring the same economic success to America that Mike brought to Indiana. He is a man of character and accomplishment. He is the right man for the job. The first task for our new Administration will be to liberate our citizens from the crime and terrorism and lawlessness that threatens their communities.

America was shocked to its core when our police officers in Dallas were brutally executed. In the days after Dallas, we have seen continued threats and violence against our law enforcement officials. Law officers have been shot or killed in recent days in Georgia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan and Tennessee.

On Sunday, more police were gunned down in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Three were killed, and four were badly injured. An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans. I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order our country.

I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done. In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate. The irresponsible rhetoric of our President, who has used the pulpit of the presidency to divide us by race and color, has made America a more dangerous environment for everyone.

This Administration has failed Americas inner cities. Its failed them on education. Its failed them on jobs. Its failed them on crime. Its failed them at every level.

When I am President, I will work to ensure that all of our kids are treated equally, and protected equally.

Every action I take, I will ask myself: does this make life better for young Americans in Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Ferguson who have as much of a right to live out their dreams as any other child America?

To make life safe in America, we must also address the growing threats we face from outside America: we are going to defeat the barbarians of ISIS. Once again, France is the victim of brutal Islamic terrorism.

Men, women and children viciously mowed down. Lives ruined. Families ripped apart. A nation in mourning.

The damage and devastation that can be inflicted by Islamic radicals has been over and over at the World Trade Center, at an office party in San Bernardino, at the Boston Marathon, and a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Florida, 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist. This time, the terrorist targeted our LGBT community. As your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBT citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. To protect us from terrorism, we need to focus on three things.

We must have the best intelligence gathering operation in the world. We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Instead, we must work with all of our allies who share our goal of destroying ISIS and stamping out Islamic terror.

This includes working with our greatest ally in the region, the State of Israel. Lastly, we must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.

My opponent has called for a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country under President Obama. She proposes this despite the fact that theres no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.

Anyone who endorses violence, hatred or oppression is not welcome in our country and never will be.

Decades of record immigration have produced lower wages and higher unemployment for our citizens, especially for African-American and Latino workers. We are going to have an immigration system that works, but one that works for the American people.

On Monday, we heard from three parents whose children were killed by illegal immigrants Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw. They are just three brave representatives of many thousands. Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more deeply than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our border.

These families have no special interests to represent them. There are no demonstrators to protest on their behalf. My opponent will never meet with them, or share in their pain. Instead, my opponent wants Sanctuary Cities. But where was sanctuary for Kate Steinle? Where was Sanctuary for the children of Mary Ann, Sabine and Jamiel? Where was sanctuary for all the other Americans who have been so brutally murdered, and who have suffered so horribly?

These wounded American families have been alone. But they are alone no longer. Tonight, this candidate and this whole nation stand in their corner to support them, to send them our love, and to pledge in their honor that we will save countless more families from suffering the same awful fate.

We are going to build a great border wall to stop illegal immigration, to stop the gangs and the violence, and to stop the drugs from pouring into our communities. I have been honored to receive the endorsement of Americas Border Patrol Agents, and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful immigration system.

By ending catch-and-release on the border, we will stop the cycle of human smuggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down. Peace will be restored. By enforcing the rules for the millions who overstay their visas, our laws will finally receive the respect they deserve.

Tonight, I want every American whose demands for immigration security have been denied and every politician who has denied them to listen very closely to the words I am about to say.

On January 21st of 2017, the day after I take the oath of office, Americans will finally wake up in a country where the laws of the United States are enforced. We are going to be considerate and compassionate to everyone.

But my greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. My plan is the exact opposite of the radical and dangerous immigration policy of Hillary Clinton. Americans want relief from uncontrolled immigration. Communities want relief.

Yet Hillary Clinton is proposing mass amnesty, mass immigration, and mass lawlessness. Her plan will overwhelm your schools and hospitals, further reduce your jobs and wages, and make it harder for recent immigrants to escape from poverty.

I have a different vision for our workers. It begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects our jobs and stands up to countries that cheat. Its been a signature message of my campaign from day one, and it will be a signature feature of my presidency from the moment I take the oath of office.

I have made billions of dollars in business making deals now Im going to make our country rich again. I am going to turn our bad trade agreements into great ones. America has lost nearly-one third of its manufacturing jobs since 1997, following the enactment of disastrous trade deals supported by Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember, it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA, one of the worst economic deals ever made by our country.

Never again.

I am going to bring our jobs back to Ohio and to America and I am not going to let companies move to other countries, firing their employees along the way, without consequences.

My opponent, on the other hand, has supported virtually every trade agreement that has been destroying our middle class. She supported NAFTA, and she supported Chinas entrance into the World Trade Organization another one of her husbands colossal mistakes.

She supported the job killing trade deal with South Korea. She has supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will not only destroy our manufacturing, but it will make America subject to the rulings of foreign governments. I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers, or that diminishes our freedom and independence. Instead, I will make individual deals with individual countries.

No longer will we enter into these massive deals, with many countries, that are thousands of pages long and which no one from our country even reads or understands. We are going to enforce all trade violations, including through the use of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats.

This includes stopping Chinas outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation. Our horrible trade agreements with China and many others, will be totally renegotiated. That includes renegotiating NAFTA to get a much better deal for America and well walk away if we dont get the deal that we want. We are going to start building and making things again.

Next comes the reform of our tax laws, regulations and energy rules. While Hillary Clinton plans a massive tax increase, I have proposed the largest tax reduction of any candidate who has declared for the presidential race this year Democrat or Republican. Middle-income Americans will experience profound relief, and taxes will be simplified for everyone.

America is one of the highest-taxed nations in the world. Reducing taxes will cause new companies and new jobs to come roaring back into our country. Then we are going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job-killers of them all. Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy. This will produce more than $20 trillion in job creating economic activity over the next four decades.

My opponent, on the other hand, wants to put the great miners and steel workers of our country out of work that will never happen when I am President. With these new economic policies, trillions of dollars will start flowing into our country.

This new wealth will improve the quality of life for all Americans We will build the roads, highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, and the railways of tomorrow. This, in turn, will create millions more jobs. We will rescue kids from failing schools by helping their parents send them to a safe school of their choice.

My opponent would rather protect education bureaucrats than serve American children. We will repeal and replace disastrous Obamacare. You will be able to choose your own doctor again. And we will fix TSA at the airports! We will completely rebuild our depleted military, and the countries that we protect, at a massive loss, will be asked to pay their fair share.

We will take care of our great Veterans like they have never been taken care of before. My opponent dismissed the VA scandal as being not widespread one more sign of how out of touch she really is. We are going to ask every Department Head in government to provide a list of wasteful spending projects that we can eliminate in my first 100 days. The politicians have talked about it, Im going to do it. We are also going to appoint justices to the United States Supreme Court who will uphold our laws and our Constitution.

The replacement for Justice Scalia will be a person of similar views and principles. This will be one of the most important issues decided by this election. My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment. I, on the other hand, received the early and strong endorsement of the National Rifle Association and will protect the right of all Americans to keep their families safe.

At this moment, I would like to thank the evangelical community who have been so good to me and so supportive. You have so much to contribute to our politics, yet our laws prevent you from speaking your minds from your own pulpits.

An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson, many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.

I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and protect free speech for all Americans. We can accomplish these great things, and so much else all we need to do is start believing in ourselves and in our country again. It is time to show the whole world that America Is Back bigger, and better and stronger than ever before.

In this journey, I'm so lucky to have at my side my wife Melania and my wonderful children, Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, and Barron: you will always be my greatest source of pride and joy. My Dad, Fred Trump, was the smartest and hardest working man I ever knew. I wonder sometimes what hed say if he were here to see this tonight.

Its because of him that I learned, from my youngest age, to respect the dignity of work and the dignity of working people. He was a guy most comfortable in the company of bricklayers, carpenters, and electricians and I have a lot of that in me also. Then theres my mother, Mary. She was strong, but also warm and fair-minded. She was a truly great mother. She was also one of the most honest and charitable people I have ever known, and a great judge of character.

To my sisters Mary Anne and Elizabeth, my brother Robert and my late brother Fred, I will always give you my love you are most special to me. I have loved my life in business.

But now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country to go to work for all of you. Its time to deliver a victory for the American people. But to do that, we must break free from the petty politics of the past.

America is a nation of believers, dreamers, and strivers that is being led by a group of censors, critics, and cynics.

Remember: all of the people telling you that you cant have the country you want, are the same people telling you that I wouldnt be standing here tonight. No longer can we rely on those elites in media, and politics, who will say anything to keep a rigged system in place.

Instead, we must choose to Believe In America. History is watching us now.

More:
Full text: Donald Trump 2016 RNC draft speech transcript ...

So glad to have found [FSTV] because theres nothing else out there telling us whats really going on. - Rita

I'm watching RING OF FIRE ...That and all your other shows arethe best things on TV!! - John

I am so excited that I found your station flipping through the channels ... Keep up the good work. - Susan

Thom Hartmann is one of my heroes. - John

The Most informative and honest news station on American TV. No B.S. and great documentaries. - Kevin

[FSTV] is the best channel on tv. - Patricia

Most of us seek out media that tell us what we already believe to be true. Free Speech TV actually helps us think. - Alice

I want to thank Mike Papantonio for his wit and razor-sharp intellect, Amy Goodman for the highest standards of journalism... - Gail/Michigan

(Stephanie Miller) is why I started watching. Now watch Democracy Now! and Hartmann as well. - Deborah/Texas

"Free Speech TV is the best source of information that nobody knows about. We need to spread the word and educate the people." - Lorelei S.

"A little known TV station that offers an alternative viewpoint to the usual propaganda of network and cable news." - Ron S.

FSTV is the source. I'm greatful for the access these last four months. - Philadelphia, PA.

See original here:
Free Speech TV

NEWS

April 18, 2013

The positions The Sun's writers have taken recently with regard to free expression have not fulfilled its higher calling to support these paramount values. First, the essential theme of the Sun's April 3 article about Towson University and the white student union ("Towson U. fights back against negative attention") was that the university needed to apologize for not interfering with the attempts of certain students to form a white student union. But the university should have been commended, not condemned, for taking a principled stand in allowing unpopular speech, weak-kneed though its support may have been.

NEWS

September 27, 2012

The article, "Free speech clash grips U.N. " (Sept. 25) could also apply to the recent lecture at the Baltimore Council for Foreign Affairs (BCFA), where its president, Frank Burd, caved into pressure from pro-Israel groups and would not allow questions concerning the Middle East during a lecture by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer. Even though the topic was China, Mr. Burd was evidently afraid that the professor's comments critical of Israel and U.S. policy favoring Israel would offend some of his audience so he limited discussion solely to China, something that he had never done before.

NEWS

March 6, 2011

More than anything else, the debacle regarding Westboro Baptist proves how once-powerless people can steer the media to convey their message. Through the prism of modern media we share both very enriching, positive story lines (the Chilean miners) and negative, satanic campaigns (Westboro Baptist Church). While we may detest the way some choose to manipulate media to spread their messages to the masses, we still hold freedom of speech to be one of the most fundamental and necessary building blocks of our great society.

NEWS

April 13, 2013

As a Johns Hopkins University alumna, I am deeply disappointed in the school's decision to chide Dr. Benjamin Carson to the point that he has stepped down from delivering the commencement address to the graduating class ("Dr. Ben Carson steps down as speaker at Hopkins graduation," April 11). A university, especially one with Hopkins' vaunted reputation, should stand for the value of free speech in the marketplace of ideas and the respect for diversity that are the hallmarks of a free and civil society.

NEWS

February 14, 2014

As a fellow Marylander, former teacher, and mother of a college student, I wish to thank Professor Melani McAlister for her intelligent and thoughtful commentary on protecting academic freedom (" Maryland bills would stifle academic freedom," Feb. 12). I have been following this issue closely and was pleased to see a piece that not only laid out the facts of this important debate but highlighted how serious a threat the bills being considered in Annapolis (and the U.S. Congress) are to what the "Free State" and the Unites States are supposed to stand for. What kind of message are our legislators sending to students and to all citizens if their response to the exercise of free speech is to punish those who engage in it?

NEWS

By Jonah Goldberg | September 24, 2012

"No One Murdered Because Of This Image. " That was a recent headline from The Onion, the often hilarious parody newspaper. The image in question is really not appropriate to describe with any specificity in a family newspaper. It's quite simply disgusting. And, suffice it to say, it leaves nothing to the imagination. Four of "the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity," according to The Onion, and yet "no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday.

Read more:
Articles about Free Speech - tribunedigital-baltimoresun

Free Speech TV (FSTV) is a tax-exempt, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization funded entirely through individual donations and grants from foundations. We pride ourselves on being independent from billionaires, corporations, and governments, in that we receive no corporate underwriting or government support and thus are not subject to their influence. Our tax ID number is 51-0173482. To make a donation by mail, please send your check or money order to: Free Speech TV, P.O. Box 44099, Denver, CO 80201. If you have any questions check out our donation help page or contact Heather by calling 303-542-4813 or emailing heather(at)freespeech.org.

To leave a comment, compliment, or any input, please contact the comment line at 888-378-8855 and leave a message.

Add items to your shopping cart.

867

$ 5 to The Jason Mckain "...

$ 5 to The Jason Mckain "...

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development...

$ 5 to The Jason Mckain "...

$ 5 to The Jason Mckain "Giant Slayer" Fellowship

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development director and friend Jason O McKain. He was affectionately nicknamed "Giant Slayer," because he was fearless in standing up to and calling out giant corporations. Please help FSTV raise $50,000 to fund the next 5 years of "Giant Slayers."

868

$10 to the Jason McKain "...

$10 to the Jason McKain "...

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development...

$10 to the Jason McKain "...

$10 to the Jason McKain "Giant Slayer" Fellowship

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development director and friend Jason O McKain. He was affectionately nicknamed "Giant Slayer," because he was fearless in standing up to and calling out giant corporations. Please help FSTV raise $50,000 to fund the next 5 years of "Giant Slayers."

869

$25 to the Jason McKain "...

$25 to the Jason McKain "...

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development...

$25 to the Jason McKain "...

$25 to the Jason McKain "Giant Slayer" Fellowship

On June 14, 2015, Free Speech TV tragically lost our beloved development director and friend Jason O McKain. He was affectionately nicknamed "Giant Slayer," because he was fearless in standing up to and calling out giant corporations. Please help FSTV raise $50,000 to fund the next 5 years of "Giant Slayers."

Original post:
FSTV Store | Free Speech TV

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gores Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate action are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

The following is the statement of the Competitive Enterprise Institute;

CEI Fights Subpoena to Silence Debate on Climate Change

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organizations materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.

CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group, said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.

The subpoena requests a decades worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEIs work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.

On March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change. Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself AGs United for Clean Power, will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members climate policy agenda.

CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI is being represented in this matter by attorneys Andrew M. Grossman and David B. Rivkin, Jr., who recently founded the Free Speech in Science Project to defend First Amendment rights against government abuses.

Source: https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change

The text of the subpoena is here.

Here is a response from Bloomberg, which frequently takes a pro climate action position;

Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, a decades worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEIs work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information.

My first reaction to this news was Um, wut? CEI has long denied humans role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. Its a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the laws the law.

(I pause to note, in the interests of full disclosure, that before we met, my husband briefly worked for CEI as a junior employee. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)

Speaking of the law, why on earth is CEI getting subpoenaed? The attorney general, Claude Earl Walker, explains: We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent market where consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and from whom. If ExxonMobil has tried to cloud their judgment, we are determined to hold the company accountable.

That wasnt much of an explanation. It doesnt mention any law that ExxonMobil may have broken. It is also borderline delusional, if Walker believes that ExxonMobils statements or non-statements about climate change during the period 1997 to 2007 appreciably affected consumer propensity to stop at a Mobil station, rather than tootling down the road to Shell or Chevron, or giving up their car in favor of walking to work.

Prosecutors know the damage they can do even when they dont have a leg to stand on. The threat of investigation can coerce settlements even in weak cases.

Read more: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming

In my opinion, this hysterical executive overreach will be the downfall of the climate alarmist movement in America, just as outrage at the excesses of the McCarthy era brought an end to that dark period of American history.

You dont have to be a climate skeptic, to recognise that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.

More than anything, this authoritarian, un-American attempt to silence dissent betrays the weakness of those perpetrating this attack on the CEI. In a Republic, people who have a compelling case to offer, dont have to intimidate their political opponents into silence, to win the argument.

Like Loading...

.

More:
Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming ...