Category Archives: Free Speech

Three years ago, the Supreme Court handed an Asian rock band named the Slants an unimaginable win when it proclaimed, in Matal v. Tam, that it was unconstitutional for the law to ban trademarks that were disparaging. In celebrating the bands victory, the lead singer Simon Tam declared the case a win for all marginalized groups, asserting: It cant be a win for free speech if some people benefit and others dont.

Despite his optimism for free speech, Mr. Tam could not have been more wrong about the meaning of his victory. Although the court had ruled in Mr. Tams favor, Matal v. Tams outcome obliterated the decades-long legal challenge to the Washington Redskins trademark, which was first filed by a group led by the Cheyenne and Muscogee Creek activist and scholar Suzan Shown Harjo and later a team of Native American plaintiffs led by Amanda Blackhorse. Perhaps most telling was the reaction of Dan Snyder, the owner of a certain Washington football team, who the same day issued a statement in response to the courts ruling on the Tam case: I am THRILLED! Hail to the Redskins. In response to Matal v. Tam, Ms. Blackhorse defiantly insisted, It may have killed our case, but it hasnt killed our movement.

We now know that Ms. Blackhorse was right. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests sweeping the nation and the world, brands are swiftly taking account of the harmful stereotypes they once inflicted. In the last few days, Quaker Oats, the owner of the 131-year-old brand of Aunt Jemima, announced it would change the product name in an effort to make progress toward racial equality. The brand had long capitalized on a romantic view of antebellum American slavery, even going so far as to hire an actual former slave to impersonate the character of Aunt Jemima at the 1893 Chicago Worlds Fair (marking the first time a living person was hired to impersonate a trademark).

Just days after Quakers announcement, the Mars corporation followed suit, announcing that its Uncle Bens rice products would similarly evolve in light of recent events. Even Mrs. Butterworths pancake syrup, its bottle embodying a racist caricature of the shape of a black woman, is undertaking a complete brand and package review.

Companies are clearly trying to correct Americas painful history of advertising, which for generations has trafficked in racial stereotypes to sell products. Momentum away from racial branding has been growing for decades. In 2005, the National Collegiate Athletic Association announced that it would prohibit its members from displaying hostile and abusive racial-ethnic-national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at its championships, producing a wave of logo retirements at schools across the country. In 2018, Major League Baseball announced that the Cleveland Indians would finally stop using its Native American Chief Wahoo caricature on items for display on the field. (Although it continues to retain its logo for use on items for sale in its souvenir shop.) And in April, the Land OLakes company finally phased out the use of an illustration of a Native American woman, adorned in a feather headband, from their products.

What do these changes suggest about America, and more specifically, American marketing? To both of us, one an expert in Native American law and the other a trademark law professor, they suggest the onslaught of a dramatically shifting landscape for racialized brands in the future. Brands can no longer stand apart from social movements and activism. In order to succeed, they have to personify change to be the change through rebranding themselves, or risk serious criticism.

Its no wonder, then, why Mr. Snyder and the Washington team received scathing responses to their tone-deaf participation in Blackout Tuesday in support of racial equality while continuing to amplify the Redskins name. Even the mayor of Washington, Muriel Bowser, has joined in a chorus of politicians, athletes and activists to demand a name change, pointing out that, among other things, it presents an obstacle to building a new stadium in the teams home city.

Like most owners of racial brands, Mr. Snyder has continued to insist that the name is not intended to offend and that it actually honors Native people. But this assertion cannot be disentangled from the larger history of Native American land dispossession, in which European newcomers idealized a myth of a fearless, primitive warrior, using it to justify war, removal and even genocide. With Natives pushed out of the way, non-Indians were free not only to take Indian lands but also to appropriate Native culture and identity. In Playing Indian, the historian Phil Deloria of Harvard traces the way in which settlers appropriated Native culture and identity for centuries as part of their own identity formation. Generations of Americans have grown up playing cowboys and Indians, usurping Native culture as their own, through sports mascots and countless other romantic narratives of Manifest Destiny.

But while Black Lives Matter has had success in retiring African-American stereotypes and brands, Native American brands face an uncertain outcome. Appropriations of racialized stereotypes of Native people are still big business, inextricably linked to the cultural and territorial history of dispossession. Last year, Dior introduced an ad campaign featuring its new Sauvage perfume, which it described as an authentic journey deep into the Native American soul in a sacred, founding and secular territory. (The company pulled the ad in response to outrage.) Other brands have gone even further into this fraught racial terrain, such as, for example, Urban Outfitters in the early 2010s with its Navajo products including panties and flasks. (In another case, a company produced Crazy Horse Malt Liquor, even though the revered leader denounced alcohol consumption; the company eventually settled a lawsuit filed by his descendants.) All too familiar commercial products produced by non-Native companies such as the Apache Helicopter, Jeep Cherokee and Yakima Bike Racks abound in the commercial marketplace.

We may dismiss these examples as thoughtless advertising mishaps. But, in aggregate, they are more than that. As Simon Tam pointed out three years ago, a victory is incomplete if some marginalized groups win and others lose. But perhaps Black Lives Matter can accomplish what the Tam opinion failed to do. The country and, indeed, the world is demanding a rejection of overt symbols of racism and expecting something better from our leaders, our educators and yes, even our sports teams.

There is no ambiguity here, Mr. Snyder. It is time to change the name.

Angela R. Riley is a professor of law and director of the Native Nations Law and Policy Center at UCLA. Sonia K. Katyal is a Haas distinguished chair at the University of California Berkeley School of Law and a co-director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read the original:
Aunt Jemima Is Gone, Time to End Other Racist Branding - The New York Times

Nearly 300 students from LSU and Southern University joined together for a "rally for unity" at LSU's Free Speech Alley on Friday, June 12, 2020 to sit and listen to each other about their experiences at each school, and to reconcile tensions between the predominantly white university and the historically black university.

You can view photos from the rally in our gallery below.

Story: 'We matter': LSU and Southern University students find common ground in Friday unity rally

Myron Smothers speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU basketball coaching staff, from left, Bill Armstrong, Will Wade and Tasmin Mitchell attend a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather and listen as Anthony Kenney speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members listen as Alacia Brew speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Alacia Brew speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Daria Coleman sings the Black National Anthem during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

A woman records the crowd as community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU professor David Stamps speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather as they listen to Myron Smothers speak during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU professor David Stamps speaks as community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Metro-councilwoman and mayor-president candidate Tara Wicker attends a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather and listen to Stewart Lockett as he speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Stewart Lockett speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Close Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!

Your notification has been saved.

There was a problem saving your notification.

{{description}}

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Close Followed notifications

Go here to read the rest:
Photos: At 'rally for unity,' hundreds of LSU, Southern students sit, listen to reconcile tensions - The Advocate

Living in a society plagued by racism and injustice, many people across the world have taken to social media and their communities, protesting to voice their opinions of violence and injustices being committed.

Although freedom of speech and assembly is granted to all in the United States Constitution, there are things non-citizens should be aware of as they advocate for a better society to protect themselves against unintended immigration consequences.

Today, our lives and beliefs are on display for all to see, nearly everyone owns a smartphone and information is often shared through Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. For those afforded the privilege of U.S. citizenship, clicking post or share will not impact their status as citizens. However, for non-citizens, pressing a button could potentially jeopardize their immigration plans.

Since March 31, 2019, the Department of State has requested additional information about the social media accounts of both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants, including the applicants username on numerous social medial platforms. It has become increasingly important for non-citizens to responsibly manage their social media presence.

So, what does responsibly manage their social media presence mean? Generally, just keep in mind that social media accounts may be reviewed by US government officials for visa applications or before granting immigration benefits.

For example, a non-citizen alluding to marijuana use in an Instagram post, even in a state in which marijuana is legal, could face inadmissibility issues, as previously discussed by my colleague, Elizabeth Van Arkel. This does not mean that non-citizens should refrain from using social media, as even the lack of social media presence may raise flags with immigration officers, but it is important to remember that social media content will be subject to review by immigration officers who hold immense discretion in adjudicating most visa applications.

If you have questions or concerns about whether your social media content poses immigration concerns, contact an immigration attorney.

While the right to assemble is also protected by the Constitution, in the last week, protestors have still been subject to arrests. Whether or not the arrest is supported by evidence or the law, and regardless of whether an arrest results in a conviction, non-citizens can face severe immigration consequences. Non-citizens without any immigration status, meaning they are undocumented, could be placed in removal proceedings, potentially leading to deportation. Even for those with some type of immigration status, including lawful permanent residents, arrest and/or criminal charges can create serious immigration consequences.

If you are arrested while protesting and charged criminally, you should ask to speak to a criminal defense attorney and discuss your immigration status with them or ask that they contact an immigration attorney. If you are arrested, even if you are not charged, you should also speak to an immigration attorney. You are not required to discuss your immigration status with anyone other than your attorney.

At Davis Brown, we advocate for equity and denounce racism. We support and encourage the expression of free speech and the freedom of assembly rights afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We recognize and champion immigrants who advocate for the betterment of a county that has not yet accepted them as its own. And we want to help our clients achieve their immigration goals.

Go here to read the rest:
Exercising Free Speech Through Social Media and Assembly While Also Protecting Your Immigration Plans - JD Supra

Two weeks ago, if youd asked what American institution was most intolerant of dissenting opinion, preoccupied with promoting radical ideology, and prone to erupting into disruptive temper tantrums, the answer would have been easy. Now its not so clearthe hysteria on college campuses has spread to Americas newsrooms.

Over the weekend, the opinion page editor of The New York Times, James Bennet, resigned under pressure, and another opinion editor, Jim Dao, was reassigned to the newsroom.

Their offense was soliciting and publishing an op-ed by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton last week on invoking the Insurrection Act. After recent protests in over 700 cities, polling showed a majority of Americans, including nearly 4 in 10 African Americans, were amenable to using the military to restore order.

Whatever you think of the need for the Insurrection Act, which was last used during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Cottons op-ed had undeniable news value. That didnt matter to the more than 1,000 employees of the Times who signed a letter objecting to the Cotton op-ed.

Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger, was the message that upset Times employees spread across Twitter.

According to Times media columnist Ben Smith, thepapers union advisedthe employeesto make their complaint a workplace safety issue to prevent retribution by management, but its no coincidence their argument dovetails with the illiberal rhetoric emanating from college campuses.

Ironically, three years ago, Bennetpublished an op-edby an academic making the suspect argument that some kinds of offensive speech are literally a form of violence.

And much like campuses, the Times is now on record saying its staff is to be treated like young students who must be coddled and protected from ideas they dont like. Katie Kingsbury, who was made acting editorial page editor following Bennets resignation, has already sent a note to staff indulging their sensitivities.

Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photosyou name itthat gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately,she wrote.

That statement came after the virtual walkout of 300 employees last weekdemanding approval of opinion pieces by the papers diverse staffbefore publication.

Giving every employee a veto over what appears on the opinion page is not a recipe for fostering the kind of intellectually robust debates necessary to sustain democracyespecially when those same employees are intolerant of ideas firmly in the mainstream.

Even though Times employees seized on the revelation that Bennet failed to personally read the op-ed before publication, theres simply not much of an argument that the Times failed to uphold editorial standards with the Cotton op-ed. By all appearances, the Times management is hostage to an impetuous mob enforcing a political orthodoxy.

The lengthy andargumentative editors noteappended to Cottons op-ed cites no meaningful factual concerns, and instead accuses the piece of being needlessly harsh and says it should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny.

But on Friday, the same day the paper tacked the editors note onto Cottons op-ed, the paper published a columncalling Cotton fascistin the headline.

On Saturday, the paperpublished an op-edencouraging readers totext all their family membersand tell them you wont visit or speak to them until they either make financial contributions to support black lives or protest in the streets during a pandemic.

To recap, Cotton is a fascist for an argument most of the country supports, but theres still no editors note explaining why the paper published apiece by a representative of the Talibanin February.

Cotton is needlessly harsh, but the paper published aDonald Trump assassination fantasyin 2018. Cottons op-ed needed the highest level of scrutiny, but somehow a piece urging people to tear their own families apart with accusatory political blackmail was unobjectionable.

Then, for good measure, in the Times article on Bennets resignation, the papermischaracterized Cottons op-edas saying the senator was calling for the use of military force against peaceful protesters. The Times then stealth-edited the articlewithout making a factual correction.

It would be reassuring to think that the Times has an institutional culture that is uniquely politicized. However, the last week has been defined by a wide cross-section of journalists acting completely unhinged.

Saturday was the anniversary of D-Day, and NPR national correspondentMara Liasson declaredthe famous battle was the Biggest [A]ntifa rally in history. Antifa, the black-clad gutter punks and Marxist-anarchist revolutionaries, have been denounced by FBI Director Christopher Wray for bringing violence to the recent protests.

The anti-fascist bona fides of the recent protests are also in doubt. The national World War II memorial in Washington was defaced in the protests last week, and the mobs in London spray-painted racist across a statue of Winston Churchill. (If Churchill is racist, someone might want to tell the vandals about the guy he saved us from.)

Given this context, its staggering that a top NPR reporter equates the heroes of Normandy with some two-bit anarchist thugs,declared journalist Andrew Sullivan. Speaking of Sullivan, he made it clear New York magazine would not publish his regular column last weekleading tomuch speculation he was being censoredfor wrongthink.

Bari Weiss, perhaps the only New York Times employee to publicly oppose the Times editorial putsch, endured vicious personal attacksfor speaking out. This culminated in Daily Beast editor Goldie Taylor asking a Slate journalist why he hadnt hit Weiss in the face. (Taylordeleted the tweet.)

For its part, Slate told its readers violence is an important tool for protesters. Over the weekend, a Washington Post columnist, Karen Attiah, put up a tweet asking people to directly give her money for reparations. (She alsodeleted her tweet.)

When a top editor at Business Insidertold its employeeslast week that giving money to bail funds to support the recent protests would damage the publications credibility, the staff revoltednever mind that at least some of that money is going to people arrested for destructive acts that undermined the message of the peaceful protesters.

Naturally, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan blessed the Business Insider staffers uprising. She did thisin the same columnwhere she argued against publishing Cottons op-ed with a tendentious comparison to publishing the denialist views of, say, Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre.

The New York Times isnt even the only major paper that forced out prominent editors over the weekend. Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, resigned days after the paper ran the headline Buildings Matter, Too, which the staff found offensive.

It didnt matter that the point of the column was that buildings matter precisely becauseblack lives matterthe urban decay that results from rioting is going to hurt Americas vulnerable African Americans.

Despite the fact Wischnowski had doubled the number of minorities on the papers editorial staff in the last four years, there was no forgiveness for three supposedly ill-chosen words.

No doubt the media establishment feels like its undergoing an anti-liberal ideological purification reminiscent of Chinas Cultural Revolution. While this may cement power for activist factions within newsrooms, it also legitimizes and empowers conservatives who are openly waging war on the media establishment.

This entire episode could not have gone better for Tom Cotton if he wrote the script himself,concedes New York magazines Olivia Nuzzi. Cotton is a Trumpian populist with presidential ambitions. Being able to take credit for The New York Times self-immolation is quite a feather in his cap.

Meanwhile, lots of serious people arent responding to this crisis of legitimacy by clamoring for media reform. Theyre more worried about which needed American institution will go crazy next.

Remember all those commentators and journalists who smugly informed us that the Woke craziness and suppression of campus speech was being overhyped and it was just a few overzealous students?asks Brookings Institution fellow and Atlantic writer Shadi Hamid. Theyll never admit theyre wrong. But they were very, very wrong.

Originally published by RealClearPolitics

Read the original here:
US Newsrooms Enlist in the Campus War on Free Speech - Daily Signal

Police brutality is a serious issue in the United States one which must be resolved in light of George Floyds horrifying murder and the violence used against those protesting its prosecution. The Emory College Republicans are committed to supporting positive community engagement and upholding fundamental principles of democracy, of which free speech and freedom of the press are foundational. We stand with the protestors in their demands for reform, and we look forward to discussing practical solutions in an upcoming panel sponsored by the Student Government Association, College Council and Bridge Emory.

On May 31, several student organizations penned an open letter addressed to several Emory administrators. The letter raises concerns over several University policies, including demands of continued funding for the office of Belonging and Community Justice (BCJ), expansion of protesting rights and increased training for Emory Police Department officers. The authors have asked all members of the Emory community to sign their names onto the letter in support. As the leaders of Emory College Republicans, we are reluctant to become signatories because we have serious reservations regarding, not the spirit of the letter, but a specific policy demand made therein. We believe that the proposed additions to Section 8.14.5.5 of the Universitys Open Expression Policy present a clear and present danger to free expression on campus.

We understand and support the need of black students on campus to have access to resources and programming opportunities. As strong advocates for the freedoms of speech and assembly, we also support the request to amend Section 8.14.7.3 of the Open Expression Policy. Having more than one official determine the conclusion of a student protest will help ensure that students voices are not unnecessarily silenced. Minority students face a very specific set of challenges on campus and we support policy aimed at mitigating these difficulties. That said, when such actions impede free speech, as they do in the proposed amendment to Section 8.14.5.5, we feel obligated to voice our concerns.

Section 8.14.5.5 of the Universitys Open Expression Policy lists violations of other policies that relate to open expression These include, but are not limited to, violations of federal, state or local law, interference with the general operations of the University and other guidelines that may be influenced by open expression. The letter requests that administrators amend Section 8.14.5.5 of the Open Expression Policy to curb the dangers of threats to deny education based on religion, race, sex, gender or sexual orientation. While we acknowledge this may make students feel more comfortable on campus, we also believe that these guidelines may, in some cases, harm student discourse. Higher education has value precisely as a setting in which students can face and learn from unfamiliar opinions. Confronting ones own beliefs is an essential aspect of an intellectually fruitful environment and is a necessary step one must take to become an active participant in campus dialogues. Stifling such challenging voices not only prevents the community from objecting to their assertions but also allows these individuals to face no social retribution for their prejudiced beliefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which advocates for the civil rights of police brutality victims, stands united with us against restrictions of free expression. As its page on campus speech states, where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech not less is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values. Ceding the power to punish speech to an institution that minority groups, as is evident in the aforementioned letter, believe to be ignorant of their needs could not possibly result in greater respect for free expression. We share the concerns regarding administrators abilities to resolve issues in an unbiased manner and, as such, we naturally oppose such expansion of administrative power. While we are genuinely empathetic to the feelings of alienation held by many students at Emory, allowing the University to arbitrarily censor speech it deems to be hateful under the vague guidelines provided in the letters request to amend Section 8.14.5.5 is not the answer. It would not only fail to assuage these feelings but also unjustly silence students voices.

Our goals are similar to those espoused in the letter promoting student safety and increasing student body engagement with the community but we are concerned that its approach to doing so will stymie meaningful dialogue. The place for controversial or even provocative arguments is in the classroom and in community demonstration, not ambiguously-phrased restrictions on speech. The University robustly protects political dialogue, yet has shown itself entirely willing to investigate and punish bad actors who intend only harm, such as occurred following anti-semitic vandalism at the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity in 2014. We support many parts of the letter, including continued funding for BCJ, expansion of protesting rights and increased training for Emory Police Department officers, but we are deeply concerned that proposed regulations of student speech and activism will suppress dialogue on a campus that has shown unique respect for student voices.

Jasmine Jaffe (22C), Sean Anderson (22B), Robert Schmad (23C), David Gaviria (23C) and Davis Van Inwegen (22C) are members of the executive board of the Emory College Republicans.

See more here:
Student Letter to Admin Well-Intentioned but Stifles Free Speech - The Emory Wheel

A professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has recently sparked outrage with his words on Twitter, the latest educator to draw a rebuke from his own school.

Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at UNCW, said people who wear masks in public look like "fools," has called North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper a "fascist"(among other criticisms) for Cooper's response to the coronavirus pandemic, labeled women's studies a "nonessential major" and pushed for the separation of states from the county.

That was just in May.

Of the shutdowns caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Adams tweeted, This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina."

He ended the tweet with "Massa Cooper, let my people go!

This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina.

Massa Cooper, let my people go!

His tweets sparked several Change.org petitions with thousands of signatures calling for Adams' removal from the university,andUNCW issued a statement calling Adams tweets vile.

Still, Adams has his job, UNCW confirmed to USA TODAY. Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The university invoked the First Amendment in its statement, but added, These comments may be protected, but that is not an excuse for how vile they are. We stand firmly against these and all other expressions of hatred. We cannot and will not ignore them. The university is reviewing all options in terms of addressing the matter.

Personal opinions, not in the classroom

As it turns out, there arent many options for the university, according to First Amendment experts.

Adams isn't the first professor to generate backlash with tweets, either.

Last year, Indiana University didn't fire a professor whose tweets were called "vile and stupid" by the university's provost.Eric Rasmusen is still an IU professor, and he's still tweeting.

There are a few ways a professor can express his or her own opinions with protection from the First Amendment, Clay Calvert of theMarion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida told USA TODAY.

Even though his specific comments are racist and offensive, the larger subject matter is a matter of public concern, Calvert said, referring to Adams. Therefore, he is going to have some First Amendment protection, but its not unlimited.

Because Adams used his personal Twitter account, he has more First Amendment rights, Calvert said.

The first thing youd have to ask is, is the public employee speaking in his official job capacity or role? If so, then the First Amendment speech rights are very limited," Calvert said, adding, "If he had made a comment like that in the classroom, then the only way it would be protected would be if it was germane to the subject matter.

When you write the university asking them to fire me dont forget to leave a mailing address so I can send you a box of panty liners.

Calvert said the university could fire Adams a stronger statement than just condemning the tweets, he said.

"But the repercussions would be a lawsuit that (the university) would have to defend," Calvert said.

The Wilmington Star-Newsreported Adams has already sued UNCW once. In 2007, Adams filed a lawsuit saying he was denied a promotion when he spoke about his views, violating his First Amendment rights, the newspaper reported. After a court ruled in favor of Adams, UNCW appealed, then eventually settled the case.

Comments that reflect 'actual bias'

David Hudson Jr., a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum Institute, said a professors right to free speech is strong. Citizens, however, have the right to retain their own beliefs, he said.

Now, if those comments do reflect actual bias perpetrated against students, or the professor is violating generally applicable principles and discriminating against students specifically, thats another issue," Hudson said.

He added, "But, the First Amendment imposes pretty strict limitations on universities attempting to punish professors for controversial speech. After all, thats the point of the First Amendment its designed to protect offensive, obnoxious or even repugnant speech. The Supreme Court has termed that a bedrock principle of the First Amendment."

Read the original post:
A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - MetroWest Daily News

It's not that you were at a protest that is the problem. It's what you did or said that could be considered discriminatory or hate speech. Posts are the same.

GREENSBORO, N.C. If you're at a protest or if you posted something about a protest, could your employer fire you? The answer is yes and no on both counts.

Attorney Nicole Patino of the Law Offices of Fred T. Hamlet explains, If you are engaging in a lawful activity, depending on where you work, it's unlikely you could be terminated. However, if you are protesting and engaging in hate speech or your work for a public agency and it appears you can't perform your duties in an impartial manner, that may be a reason your employment could be terminated.

Protesting is a lawful activity. But if your sign or your words or your actions at the protest can be seen as discriminatory, hate speech -- your employer could fire you.

Now, what about if you're not even there at the protest, youre just commenting on it? You're in good company. I looked at just one protest story on the WFMY News 2 Facebook page and there are at least 850 comments. Aren't you allowed to say what you want? Don't you have free speech?

For public sector employees, you have free speech protections. If you work for local, state, or federal government, you have some protections. But those of us who work for a private employer, we dont really get to say whatever we want to. Free speech is great, but your employer has a business interest as well.

How often people get fired over social media posts? Regularly. The most common reason for firing someone over a post is because they call in sick or say their child has something for school and then theyre posting theyre at the beach or a concert or a game that has nothing to do with the reason you said you would need to be away from work. Now your boss has evidence.

Read more:
Can you be fired for being at a protest or posting about it on social media? - WFMYNews2.com

The city of Leeds, the country and the global population have called for a united front to tackle inequality to ensure everyone is treated the same and offered the same opportunities no matter what the colour of their skin.

Our city is home to more than 170 different ethnic groups with more than 104 languages spoken. It also takes great pride in being named a City of Sanctuary.

And rooted at the heart of this is the endeavour to make Leeds a safe haven for anyone who needs its protection.

Discrimination has been thrust into the spotlight in recent weeks as the city of Leeds, the country and the global population have called for a united front to tackle inequality to ensure everyone is treated the same and offered the same opportunities no matter what the colour of their skin.

As a trusted and respected publisher, the Yorkshire Evening Post is proud to take a stand against racism and discrimination.

And over the last few weeks we have been determined as a title to use our platform and position in the city to call out the scourge of discrimination for what it is.

Thursdays front page featured the story of a Leeds mum who faced abuse after she simply displayed a Black Lives Matters poster in her window. But the incredible response from her local community who rallied around her encapsulates that show of solidarity that is needed right now.

A poignant line read: I have a dream that the nation will be friendly and free, racism will stop and people will be judged for their personality and not their skin colour.

The innocent voice of a child speaks loudly it demonstrates maturity beyond their years.

Our team covered the Black Lives Matter protest, and will continue to do so, and at the start of the week we reported on the mindless vandalism of the Queen Victoria statue in Hyde Park.

And it is our intention to continue to confront the issue of discrimination head on and give it the prominence it deserves on our website and column inches in print.

But we have been appalled to see some of the disgusting racist comments to our coverage on social media platforms they are from a minority but their venomous words reverberate loudly.

Yet again this very title and its reporting team continues to come under attack from trolls on social media channels who are using this as an opportunity to spew racist bile rather than engage meaningfully in the debate to be part of the solution.

And, as the tweets and Facebook posts continue to be shared and reposted, the venom is simply spreading.

The worrying power of social media and its reach simply exacerbates this further.

Our journalists have been forced to delete, hide and rigorously monitor these comments as we continue to shine a spotlight on the movement and facilitate debate over what should be done to tackle the issue of racism in modern day Leeds.

Yet platforms, like Facebook, must also play their part in supporting publishers to deal with the onslaught of offensive comments. We cannot do this on our own.

The level of abuse by a vocal minority would not be tolerated and accepted on our citys streets.

So why should this be any different in the vacuum that is social media?

We dont want to shy away from this we take our responsibility as a trusted local news publisher seriously.

We believe in free speech and we should have the right to protect that.

Free speech is the cornerstone of any democracy.

Freedom of speech, when used in the right way, can be so powerful that it implements change.

Free speech also drives meaningful debate and enables communities to tackle challenges head on.

However, with free speech comes responsibility and as such should not be used as an excuse to incite hatred.

We certainly would not want to see free speech stifled and were not calling for a blanket ban on commenting on stories.

But when freedom of speech is used to freely spew hatred then we know we have a real problem and the vitriol on social media has to end.

Our city is facing two very different challenges: one is Covid-19 and the other is discrimination.

Both of these are destroying lives.

But, in order for Leeds to beat this, we have to be united without using social media to spread the venom further.

Read more:
Why free speech must not be used as an excuse for hatred - Laura Collins, YEP Editor - Yorkshire Evening Post

I was born into the ancient Christian community in Egypt during a time of great social change, but I was also an American in my heart long before I ever became a citizen. Why did I and why do countless others around the world dream of coming to America?

I grew up during Egypts Nasser regime, which encouraged an atmosphere of hostility toward Christians. President Gamal Abdel Nasser clamped down on churches and Christian organizations and enacted laws restricting the rights of Christians.

For example, NO new churches could be built without the permission of the head of state. No evangelism or missionary work was permitted outside church walls. Some of these laws are still enforced today.

LEE EDWARDS: GEORGE FLOYD UNREST AND THE 1968 RIOTS WHAT WE CAN LEARN, HOW WE MOVE FORWARD

Nasser increased the number of informants to the point that you never knew who might be a government spy. In businesses, in schools and on the street, everyone was afraid to say anything critical of the government. Even at home, people spoke in whispers fearing an informant might overhear.

As a young man, I went to libraries and checked out books on American freedom and ideals. I was fascinated mesmerized by the freedoms Americans enjoyed. I was especially drawn to ideas such as freedom of speech andreligion. At the same time, I worried that someone at the library might report to the government the kinds of books I was checking out. Yet I couldnt stop reading and dreaming of America.

In 1977, I realized my dream and moved to the United States; in 1984, I achieved my goal of becoming a citizen. When I first arrived here, I was dismayed to see how many Americans had so little regard for their own history and the blessings of freedom they enjoyed. Im afraid this is even more true today.

I knew the difference. I had just left a repressive socialist dictatorship, so I had a perspective on American freedoms many native-born Americans didnt.

People who had lived in America all their lives didnt understand what a privilege it was to live here and to be free to speak their minds, to vote and to openly share their faith. Far too many Americans took freedom for granted. Having grown up underIslamo-socialist totalitarianism, thats something Ill never do.

America attracts immigrants because America offers liberty. I am living proof that the American dream is an achievable one.

Why dont people dream of finding a better life in Venezuela? Or Iran? Or North Korea? Because there is neither freedom nor economic opportunity, the great byproduct of freedom, in those countries.

America attracts immigrants because America offers liberty. I am living proof that the American dream is an achievable one.

One foundational American freedom is the ability to speak the truth without fear of punishment or arrest. At one time, that freedom was a fact of American life, as fixed and unassailable as Mount Rushmore.

Today, that freedom is under assault as never before.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The death of freedom always begins with the abolition of truth and suppression of those that speak it.It is hypocrisy for any person or group todemand their own right to free speech even as they trample on the First Amendment rights of others. Free speech creates a marketplace for ideas, not an excuse to shame or to bully those who think differently than you.

As an Egyptian American, I understand better than most that many people of color in America want to be who they are without wearing it on their sleeve. As I watch the unrest gripping America right now, I remind my church, my congregation, my friends and my family that every person is made in the image of God and that that truth is entirely reconcilable with the American Dream.

All men are created equal by God. Our founding fathers knew this and built a strong, free nation abounding with opportunity for all. I am distressed that some Americans may be treated differently because of skin color, but I am also distressed that some limit their own opportunities by believing the lie that the color of their skin determines their worth.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

I take comfort in two things: first, that every human is made in the image of God and second, that I live in this great country which continues to perfect its union. America has never claimed to be perfect, but has a history of working to improve itself, albeit sometimes with much difficulty and through moments of national pain.

I still believe in the American dream, which is as strong today as it has ever been for any American, whatever their race or ethnicity.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY MICHAEL YOUSSEF

See the rest here:
Michael Youssef: American dream Even amid the turmoil this immigrant believes. Here's why - Home - WSFX

Amendment 1 to the US Constitution grants all freedom of speech ... and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, it fails to define or require responsible speech. The issue of responsible speech is left to individuals to determine.

Satire and humor are often claimed as defenses for irresponsible or offensive speech. But, lets try to put some clarity around what constitutes irresponsible speech. When satire or humor punches up at government or authority it can be a brilliant and apt way of expressing grievances against those in authority when they abuse their power.

However, when satire or humor punches down, it becomes a bullying tactic. So, what results from such punching down, the granting of the right to offend using the defense of freedom of speech?

First, irresponsible speech generates conflict. When one perceives they have been unjustly insulted it often results in those insulted feeling victims of a lack of respect. When someone feels they are not respected, they may seek redress through revenge rather than mere objection. We can see the impact of this often in protests turning violent such as are happening now. Unless you believe conflict is a desirable method to redress grievances, conflict as response to irresponsible speech is unwelcome.

Second, irresponsible speech diverts us from our responsibilities. Increasingly shrill insistence on free-speech rights to indulge in insulting and bullying speech, creates a distraction from our very real and pressing responsibilities. Can we think of any examples of this at present?

Finally, it diminishes our souls and our culture. Free speech absolutisms insistence on the right to offend, to say any moronic, insane, untrue thing creates a culture in which little is dear or sacred, and the distinction of truth from lies becomes so blurred that reality itself becomes an illusion.

None of this is a call for censorship. What I wish is for all, in particular those in positions of authority, to take personal responsibility for moderation and minding our mouths and mouthpieces.

We have a right to expect a responsible use of the right of free speech for us to continue to enjoy that right.

We can expect the big kids, those with power, not to throw their buckets of sand into the eyes of the little guys, then insist it is their right to do so, rather than exercise their responsibility to maintain peace and harmony in the sandbox.

Continued here:
Speech comes with responsibility | Opinion | herald-zeitung.com - Herald Zeitung