Category Archives: Free Speech

Thom Hartmann did the math on what America could afford if we started taxing billionaires.

What would you do if we started taxing billionaires? Would you be able to access healthcare or go to school should colleges be funded?

#MoreFromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comments about Government politics. Whether Liberal or Conservative, Thom speaks with special guests and callers from all over the globe about the topics that matter.

Full episodes of The TH Program air on Free Speech TV every weekday

Monday- Friday 12pm-3pm ET

Missed an episode? Check out Thom on FSTV VOD anytime or visit freespeech.org/show/the-thom-hartman-program for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change. As the alternative to television networks owned by billionaires, governments, and corporations, our network amplifies underrepresented voices and those working on the front lines of social, economic and environmental justice.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku and online at freespeech.org

Billionaires College Education Healthcare Taxes The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

Read the original post:
What Could The US Afford If Billionaires Are Taxed? - Free Speech TV

A mark of internal inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst

The University of Pennsylvania lost its coveted green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education this fall, after the civil liberties group noticed a pair of policies that undermine free speech on campus.

But its still publicly portraying itself as a green-light school and FIRE isnt happy about it.

In a blog post Friday, FIRE rebuked the Ivy League university for its response to a letter from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.

Last month ACTA warned the university that its downgrading by FIRE should be an alarm bell that causes the campus to commit to a better culture of free speech and inquiry. Penn was already on the ropes with both ACTA and FIRE for its sanctions against law professor Amy Wax, an outspoken conservative.

As is increasingly common for universities called out for infringements of academic freedom and free speech, Penn responded in a perfunctory one-page letter. The university is aware of the yellow light rating, wrote Associate Vice President Lizann Boyle Rode, but it is not related to Penns Open Expression policies or practices, which continue to receive a green light rating from FIRE.

The yellow-light rating, however, applies to Penn as a whole, as well as to the two policies on sexual harassment that formed the basis of FIREs downgrade. It applies to schools with at least one ambiguous policy that too easily encourages administrative abuse and arbitrary application.

FIRE warned Penn in January that its 13-year green-light rating was at risk because of those two policies, which use a subjective standard to determine sexual harassment: whether verbal speech has the effect of creating an offensive environment. The university never responded, according to FIRE. (Useful to know: Penn is on the same street as FIRE in Philadelphia.)

Civil liberties group asks by The College Fix on Scribd

Penns response [to ACTA] misrepresents, in two critical ways, what the universitys yellow light rating means, Samantha Harris, vice president for procedural advocacy at FIRE, wrote Friday. Given that Penn may be responding along these lines to anyone who expresses concern over FIREs decision to revoke its green light rating, we felt it was important to set the record straight.

Maintaining policies that threaten speech while proclaiming a stated commitment to free expression is not a badge of honor, Harris wrote, but a mark of internal inconsistency at best and hypocrisy at worst:

If Penn had wanted to continue to ensure its policies protected academic freedom, it would have responded to FIREs concerns and revised its speech codes. As it stands, Penn maintains sexual harassment policies that pose a direct threat to academic freedom just witness the number of faculty around the country who are disciplinedfor germane classroom speechunder overly broad sexual harassment policieslike Penns.

Penns Boyle Rode also falsely characterizes FIREs speech code ratings as encompassing practices, when in fact they only evaluate written policies, Harris continued.

The university cannot avoid scrutiny of its speech codes and its practices by hiding behind its open expression policies, which only serve as a reminder of how far Penn has fallen.

Read the blog post, ACTAs letter and Penns response.

MORE: Penn throws away stellar free speech rating its maintained for 13 years

IMAGE: Voyagerix/Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read the original post:
University of Pennsylvania is misrepresenting its speech code rating from advocacy group - The College Fix

Since this is our last issue of 2019, I had written a light-hearted, end-of-year column that was all set to go to the printer until, that is, an accumulation of hot news items got in the way.

The column was a breezy reflection on the value of dreams. Now all I can dream about is that well have a week quiet enough to publish it. For now, we must deal with the business at hand an avalanche of news, mostly bad, some historic.

Im writing this column early in the morning in the lobby of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem (with a little white cat swirling beneath my chair), having just participated in a four-day Strategic Dialogue between Israeli leaders and officials from Australia and the U.K.

Guess what people were asking me about at the closing gala? Yup, a certain synagogue incident in Beverly Hills. A potential future prime minister, Gideon Saar, had just delivered a candid address, and people couldnt stop talking about the ransacking of a sanctuary in Beverly Hills. Maybe it was the ZIP code.

A few days earlier, we were abuzz about the midnight deadline that had just passed in Israel triggering an unprecedented third election in 12 months. The next day, we were consumed with the election results in the U.K., which are paving the way for Great Britains historic divorce from the European Union.

In the meantime, other news items were intruding, like the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in the House of Representatives, for only the third time in U.S. history.

Maybe instinctively, thats why I stuck with the free speech cover because Eisgrubers ideal discourse is needed now more than ever.

And did I mention the latest deadly attack against Jews, this one in Jersey City, and the presidents controversial executive order to combat BDS and anti-Semitism? Oh, and I almost forgot: The festival of Hanukkah is coming up!

In the middle of this news tornado, I was still working on a cover story I had planned for several weeks on one of my favorite topics: The state of free speech in America.

So, I had a decision to make: Should I bump the free speech cover for one on the killings in Jersey City? Or the presidential impeachment? Or Brexit and the fall of the anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn? Or Trumps controversial executive order? Or the impossible stalemate in Israel? Or the attack at Nessah Synagogue?

While the free speech issue is timeless, the others are timely. Which should go first?

Maybe its because of my intense jet lag, but, as you can see, I decided to stick with the cover story on free speech and deal with the hot issues inside the paper.

For one thing, free speech is the foundation of a free society, not to mention the foundation of my profession, journalism.

But theres something else: Free speech has become timely. Thats because it has come under assault, especially on college campuses, from activists who focus on its microaggression side effects rather than its fundamental value.

In these chaotic times, we need the freedom to rise up against the forces of hate, the wisdom to engage with dignity those with whom we disagree, and the curiosity and humility to constantly search for the truth.

These sentiments should not be casually dismissed by free speech junkies like yours truly. As I write in the story: Our world is changing. As an evolving society, we are becoming more inclusive and sensitive to peoples feelings of alienation. Inclusivity is giving free speech a run for its money.

The thrust of the story is on the innovative thinking of one man in the eye of the storm Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber.

Eisgruber is a man of deep thought, empathy and cautious optimism. He argues that a vigorous free speech can coexist with a noble value like inclusivity. He threads the needle by reframing the free speech debate around truth-seeking, and seeing universities as truth-seeking institutions.

Under this unifying ideal, Eisgruber marries two seemingly opposite values. Indeed, as I write: If the ideal revolves around the search for truth, the greater the inclusion of different voices, the deeper and broader that search will be.

I encourage you to read the entire story. It is based on a remarkable keynote address Eisgruber delivered recently at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, titled Contested Civility: Free Speech and Inclusivity on Campus.

I call the address remarkable because it aspires to a higher level of discourse that honors intellectual rigor and human dignity in equal measure.

Maybe instinctively, thats why I stuck with the free speech cover because Eisgrubers ideal discourse is needed now more than ever.

In these chaotic times, we need the freedom to rise up against the forces of hate, the wisdom to engage with dignity those with whom we disagree, and the curiosity and humility to constantly search for the truth.

If one considers that ideal a ray of light, well, maybe this was a Hanukkah cover story after all.

Happy Hanukkah.

Go here to read the rest:
When the News Gets in the Way - Jewish Journal

Its some welcome good news in higher ed

In writing a simple essay, U.C. Davis professor Abigail Thompson probably did not imagine she would generate controversy of such depth and breadth. The mathematics professor recently authored an article for the journal of the American Mathematical Society in which she argued against the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring. This convention, which asks teachers to outline how theyve supported diverse academia in the past and how theyll support it in the future, amount to little more than a political test as a screen for job applicants.

Thompsons perfectly defensible argument generated a sadly predictable response from much of academia. One professor, Chad Topaz of Williams College, has been prominent in leading a substantial revolt against Thompson, urging people to publicly shame her university and vowing to steer his graduate students and fellow academics away from U.C. Davis. Hundreds of professors signed a letter deeming Thompsons argument dangerous, which of course it is plainly not; slightly more than 600 faculty have signed that petition.

Thankfully its not all fire and doomsaying. A backlash to the backlash arose in the past week, with numerous professors publicly defendingThompsonnot necessarily her argument against diversity pablum, but rather in support of the principle that important issues should be openly discussed in a respectful manner. That letter has been signed by over 750 academics, proving that, even in these increasingly unbalanced times, not all is lost at the academy.

An hysterical, quasi-terrorist response to a simple argument is not, of course, respectful; its the stuff of catty teenage pettiness, the sort of thing designed to shut down any sort of debate before it begins. Thats the point: Many activists and faculty members in higher education are not interested in having thoughtful, interesting discussions, theyre interested in ritually destroying anyone who offends them and sending a warning to anyone who might consider offending them. Abigail Thompson made a fine, reasonable argument; whether or not you disagree with it, theres no point in acting like shes some sort of modern-day Nazi. Thank goodness more than a few professors still understand that.

MORE: Hundreds of academics sign letter in support of prof who criticized diversity statements

IMAGE: Robert Kneschke / Shutterstock.com

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See the rest here:
In a debate over 'diversity statements' in mathematics, free speech is winning - The College Fix

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) A NATO expert and Middlebury College political science professor is at the center of a free speech flap. He was supposed to go to Denmark to speak at a conference about NATO. But instead, he's in Vermont dealing with a political firestorm. Our Cat Viglienzoni sat down with him to find out what happened.

"I should be in Copenhagen this minute, but I'm not," Stan Sloan said.

Instead, NATO expert and Middlebury College political science professor Stan Sloan is fielding a social media firestorm. It was sparked when he posted over the weekend on Twitter that he had been disinvited from speaking at a NATO anniversary conference in Denmark because he was critical of President Donald Trump. Sloan said the Atlantic Council of Denmark told him U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands-- an avid supporter of the president-- had insisted on it.

Stan Sloan: Then the next morning, the Atlantic Council of Denmark canceled this meeting altogether.Reporter Cat Viglienzoni: Why did they cancel the whole thing?Stan Sloan: Because they wanted to make a statement about freedom of speech.

Sloan says he's been doing this for 50 years and has always been willing to criticize an administration's policies, Republican or Democrat.

"This has never happened to me before where an embassy actually decided that because I had a different perspective on NATO and the president, that they would keep me off the program," Sloan said.

He insists his planned program wasn't political. He says he planned to make some critical comments about the president but in the context of talking about threats to NATO values. And he said recent incidents at NATO, like when world leaders were perceived to be making fun of the president, show Europeans don't see the U.S. as a strong leader right now.

"It has totally undermined the credibility of American leadership, political position in Europe has been devastated," Sloan said.

This flap hasn't been without some upswing. He's been getting attention from major media outlets. He says he's already gotten new offers to speak-- in Denmark and elsewhere-- after the new year, ones he probably wouldn't have gotten without this unexpected surge in publicity.

"There are some bright sides," Sloan said.

And he says he's already planning on incorporating lessons from this experience into his next course at Middlebury College on American power.

"I was always willing to be critical of whatever administration was in power if I thought it was appropriate," he said.

Sloan has put his full presentation online and has tweeted about the incident several times this week. One tweet says: "I apologize to staffers at the embassy, many of whom I assume would like to hear my views and might even agree with them. I feel sorry for them having to work for an ambassador representing a president that has so little respect for their dedication and important missions."

WCAX News reached out to the U.S. embassy in Copenhagen this afternoon for their response. We had not yet heard back when this story was published. But in a statement on Twitter Sunday, the embassy said it supports the freedom of speech. And said, "Mr. Stanley Sloan's proposed last-minute inclusion in the program by @AtlantDK did not follow the same deliberative process of joint decision-making and agreement that we followed when recruiting all other speakers."

Originally posted here:
Middlebury College scholar barred from conference in free speech flap - WCAX

Sonali Kolhatkar speaks with Matthew Hoh, a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For Peace, and World Beyond War. In 2009 he resigned his position with the State Department in Afghanistan in protest of the escalation of the war thereby the Obama administration.

For three years the Washington Post fought a legal battle to obtain documents of hundreds of interviews with experts and government officials about the USs longest war, still being fought in Afghanistan. The interviews were conducted by a little known watchdog group called the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

Analyzing the documents in great detail, journalist Craig Whitlock and his colleagues published a multi-part story they called the Afghanistan Papers. The expos confirms what critics had been asserting for nearly 2 decades: that there is no clearly defined goal or endpoint to the war to help determine when to stop fighting and that our efforts have been futile at best, and deeply destructive at worst. It also shows that officials have been lying about the war for years and that our billions of dollars spent have little to show for it.

Afghanistan Papers Craig Whitlock Expose Facts Free Speech TV Obama Administration Rising Up with Sonali Sonali Kolhatkar Veterans for Peace Washington Post World Beyond War

Go here to see the original:
What the Afghanistan Papers Reveal About the Longest War - Free Speech TV

Jigsaw has six projects it's currently working on to help activists and journalists protect their freedom of speech. They include technology to prevent hacking and to detect disinformation campaigns.

Jigsaw, formerly known as Google Ideas, and previously under the purview of Google, is an incubator within Alphabet that builds technology to tackle some of the toughest global security challenges facing the world today. The majority of Jigsaws current projects are focused on addressing threats to free speech and protecting journalists.

Dan Keyserling, COO of Jigsaw, says its more important than ever that [they] build things that can help journalists and platforms detect when media has been manipulated. Keyserling and the Jigsaw team are hoping these projects will play in a part in doing just that.

Google has met with news organizations around the world who suffer crippling digital attacks when they publish something controversial or that questions powerful institutions. Project Shield uses Googles infrastructure to protect independent news sites from distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), a type of digital attack that exploits thousands or even millions of computers to overwhelm a websites servers and take it offline.

For the activists that Google has met with, theyve learned that having their password stolen can be devastating. Password Alert is a Chrome extension that alerts you if a website is trying to steal your password. For most of us, stolen passwords can be a nuisance or result in the theft of sensitive information, but for journalists and activists who work in sensitive environments, the consequences can be far more severe.

One of the easiest ways to silence someone online is a distributed denial of service attack (DDoS). But its difficult to solve a problem you cant see. Digital Attack Map visualizes the most powerful DDoS attacks happening in the world right now, using data from our partner Arbor Networks. DDoS attacks sometimes relate directly to events in the real world such as conflicts or political disputes.

One of the greatest threats to free expression is censorship you cant see. Unfiltered.News maps what important news stories might not be covered in your country, using the Google News corpus to allow internet users to discover which stories are being covered in certain locations, how different countries cover stories differently, and how issue coverage changes over time.

Journalists need safe access to information to research issues, communicate with sources, and report the news. Outline makes it easy for news organizations to set up a virtual private network (VPN) on their own server. This gives news organizations the power to provide anyone in their organization safer access to the internet and keep their communications private.

DNS manipulation is one of the most common forms of online censorship, used to block access to news sites, information portals, social media platforms and communication apps. Intra is an Android app that protects against DNS manipulation, making it easy to access blocked websites and apps and get safer access to the internet.

Jon Henshaw

Jon is the founder and Managing Editor of Coywolf. He has over 25 years of experience in web development, SaaS, internet strategy, digital marketing, and entrepreneurship. Follow

Original post:
Alphabet is quietly fighting attacks on free speech through its Jigsaw incubator - Coywolf News

BUDAPEST The applause was still going strong after an evening performance at Jozsef Katona Theater in Budapest this week when one of the actors, his shirt and face covered in stage blood, turned to the audience with a request. He asked the theatergoers to gather and pose for a photograph with the cast, hands held up in protest.

The demonstration was an act of defiance against moves by Prime Minister Viktor Orbans government to tighten its control over the performing arts by changing the way theaters receive state funding, a significant source of income.

Although the measures, enacted by Parliament on Wednesday, did not hand as much direct control to the government as documents leaked to the news media last week had suggested, the move sent a chill through the Hungarian arts scene. Shows of discontent similar to that at the Katona Theater took place in other playhouses around Budapest, the capital.

When we defend the freedom of theaters today, we defend the citys freedom, Budapests mayor, Gergely Karacsony, an environmentalist who is backed by an opposition alliance, said on Monday at a rally against the law.

The change comes as Mr. Orbans government has become increasingly authoritarian and eroded democratic institutions. It has widened its control over the news media and education, and has given allies roles in overseeing the countrys cultural institutions. And after winning a third term last year, Mr. Orban set the tone for a battle over the arts, saying, We must embed the political system in a cultural era.

Budapest will be particularly affected by the new funding rules, because it hosts most of Hungarys high-profile theaters including the Katona, where the handling of a sexual misconduct scandal has complicated its relationship with Mr. Orbans government.

Hungarys government spending on culture is among the highest in Europe as a share of economic output the Katona received about $2.4 million from the state this year, more than the money it took in from the city of Budapest, private donors and ticket sales combined.

Many see the new measures as the product of a power struggle between the government and local authorities that has broken out since Mr. Orbans Fidesz party was defeated in a mayoral race in the capital and in several other cities in October.

The changes shift the responsibility of funding city-operated theaters onto city authorities, with financial support from the central government available only if certain conditions are met, including approval over the naming of directors.

That has prompted fears among many in the Hungarian arts scene which has a strong theatrical tradition and has been a pillar of free speech even under Communism that artistic freedom is at risk.

The government department in charge of culture dismissed the fears about a threat to artistic integrity as opposition agitation based on fake news, saying in a statement that the changes would ensure that public money is used transparently, with clear responsibilities attached to it.

Yet lawmakers allowed no public consultation on the legal changes, which were presented just days before the parliamentary vote.

The Hungarian Theatrical Society a representative body led by Attila Vidnyanszky, the head of the National Theater who supports Mr. Orbans government welcomed the measures, though it said in a statement that future agreements should not allow state interference in the artistic work of theaters.

Like other theaters, the Jozsef Katona has regularly staged works that reflect on societal issues, including in the waning years of Communism.

Some of its plays have been seen as critical of populism, including a recent staging of On the Royal Road: The Burgher King, a play about President Trump written by the Nobel laureate Elfriede Jelinek. A 2017 staging of Alexander Pushkins Boris Godunov, about a powerful regent and czar of Russia, was taken by some to be a representation of Mr. Orban.

The production after which the protest photo was taken this week, Bertolt Brechts The Caucasian Chalk Circle, is a parable of justice involving two womens struggle for the custody of a child. Its director, Kriszta Szekely, said the venue was a type of critical theater that reacts to the present.

She dismissed the notion, often repeated in government-friendly news outlets, that works there were politically motivated. My shows are about what goes on with people, with their emotions and their lives, Ms. Szekely said.

But a recent sexual misconduct scandal at the Katona has complicated the theaters dealings with the government. Last month, the theater fired Peter Gothar, a prominent director and longtime collaborator, after accusations surfaced that he had sexually abused two co-workers.

The initial, vague statement from the theater did not name either the accused or the two alleged victims. A day later, Mr. Gothar admitted one instance of misconduct against a woman a sequence of events that unleashed a storm of questions and criticism, especially from government-friendly news outlets, even though the theaters artistic director later said that their intention had been to protect the privacy of those involved.

The theaters handling of the case has led some to express concern that it has provided ammunition for the government to justify greater oversight of theaters.

One prominent lawmaker from Mr. Orbans party, Mate Kocsis, wrote on Facebook that the Gothar-style harassing theaters demand money from the government while blocking insight into their affairs and, at times, conceal criminal acts for years.

But Andrea Tompa, a writer and theater critic, said that such sentiment did a disservice to the problem of sexual misconduct, which should not be used as a political tool.

Society here is not prepared to discuss a case like this in its own political and social dimension, she said. Instead, it becomes a tool for something else.

Read more here:
Theaters in Hungary Feel the Chill of Viktor Orbans Culture War - The New York Times

OPINION:ACT leader David Seymour has proposed a new law to force universities to allow freedom of expression on campus.

It follows Massey University refusing permission for Don Brash to speak at the Manawat campus last year and this year a feminist with controversial views about transgender women, which have seen her banned from Twitter.

Seymour's bill says universities could have their funding revoked if they stop events or speakers.

Massey University has a code of practice for external speakers which allows it to impose conditions on an event or refuse the event if it believes it may cause "physical, reputational and mental harm".

It seems a debate about the merits of allowing complete intellectual freedom to say whatever you want, versus drawing lines to prevent the worst excesses of charlatans, liars and spin doctors. With the devil being in the detail of what should or shouldn't be allowed.

For instance should government funded universities be allowed to abandon science and fact and push religious theories with no valid foundation? Do you think people should be able to incite hatred and violence against certain ethnic or religious groups? What about those who knowingly promote debunked nonsense specifically to spread disinformation and muddy debate so they can manipulate people?

So where to do you stand on this?

An MP from each side of the house gives their views.

Stuart SmithNational MPKaikura

RICKY WILSON/STUFF

Kaikoura MP Stuart Smith

Freedom of speech is an essential building block to any functioning democracy.

Not only does it allow people to convey their views but also for people to hear other's speak.

READ MORE:* Universities get a lesson in democratic freedom* The delicate balance of free speech v hate speech* Liberal Left a howling contradiction* Massey University bans Don Brash from speaking

The exchanging and contesting of ideas can create change and allow for society to progress. Recent news of universities cancelling or preventing certain people from speaking on their campuses is concerning given our strong need to protect free speech.

People should be free toexpress their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or even wrong.

Being open to debate allows sunshine on the arguments so that we can make our own decisions. A person may say things that make people uncomfortable or be controversial, but in a free society, ideas that people may disagree with should be discussed and debated rather than censored.

Freedom of speech in a democracy means having to tolerate the expression of diverse views. It also works both ways people are entitled to voice their views and others are entitled to criticise those views.

Today however, it seems people prefer to attack the controversial views of others they don't agree with rather than engaging and challenging their ideas through robust debate.

Even universities, who are tasked with the development and preparation of the minds of our future workforce, are preventing certain people speaking on their campuses for fear of the mental harm or negative media coverage these speakers may cause.

While universities are entitled to protect their private interests, they should be upholding their main values of advancing knowledge through freedom of thought, debate and scientific rigour.

There will always be people who offend others. Students shouldn't necessarily be protected from these people but rather exposed to them to challenge their ideas and allow them to develop personally.

However with free speech comes responsibility. As such, there are some things that are never acceptable in our society. We already have laws in place to protect people from expression that violates the law, falsely defames a specific individual or constitutes a genuine threat or harassment.

If we were to change these laws then it cannot be a rushed process as we need to get it right and ensure all potential consequences of such laws that may impact our right to free speech are considered.

PriyancaRadhakrishnanLabour List MP based in Maungakiekie

HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES

Labour MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). However, freedom of speech is subject to limits.

Freedom of speech is not speech free from consequences.

For example, according to the Human Rights Act, it is unlawful for anyone to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any group of persons on the ground of the colour, race or their ethnic origins.

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molineux were granted visas to visit New Zealand and speak. That was because they met the requirements set by Immigration New Zealand.

However, it was made very clear that their race baiting and misogyny were not welcome here. I'm proud of the response of Auckland Live and Gabrielle Mullins who refused to provide a platform for hate speech in Aotearoa because those sorts of view cause harm.

Universities have an important role as the critic and conscience of our society. They are also responsible for the health and safety of students and staff.

Universities are independent and that means they can and should perform their role without political interference. That means universities must decide when specific views threaten the wellbeing of people in their campus communities.

Massey University's decision to refuse permission for Don Brash to speak at the Manawat campus may not have been the decision I would have made. However, the university rightly had the autonomy to make that decision.

ROSS GIBLIN/STUFF

ACT's David Seymour.

As Education Minister Chris Hipkins said in response to this, universities should have a very high threshold for free speech and robust debate. However, to threaten the university's funding would be an infringement of its autonomy.

This government has always supported free speech, even when we haven't agreed with the things people were saying. Allowing speech that is divisive is not an endorsement of the content of such speech, but an acknowledgement of their right for people to hold different opinions.

We recognise that sometimes freedom of expression can pose some serious risks, so we will not stop universities from being able to judge for themselves whether on the odd occasion that risk is too great.

Ideally, I would like us to be a society where we're free to air our views but refrain from speech that is likely to incite hate. Ultimately, each of us has the power to stand up and have our voices heard when we hear something we disagree with or opinions that are likely to provoke hate and violence.

Go here to see the original:
Should universities be allowed to curb free speech? - Stuff.co.nz

Bronx: In response to Voicers Keith Biesiada, Peter Young and Joan Cavalluzzi: I was hoping for feedback on my letter about President Trump, and you did not disappoint. It appears, however, your bias and animosity have clouded your judgment and understanding. You apparently have little, if any, concept, or perhaps no concern, of the postmodern culture we live in, and how it has devolved to a state of decadence and moral turpitude. Nowhere in the original letter did I ever express any conviction that Trump was a paragon of virtue; his past has proven he is not. But there is such a thing as redemption, and I believe he is the vessel, and his message as a candidate was that he would lead the effort to restore the values and principles of this great nation. Might I suggest that you familiarize yourselves with what Trump has accomplished thus far especially in regard to religious liberty, the pro-life agenda, conscience rights, and freedom of speech. He may have angered and upset his detractors with a socially conservative agenda, but for certain has not disappointed his supporters. Bob Pascarella

Excerpt from:
Readers sound off on legal weed, free speech and the SOTA program - New York Daily News