Category Archives: Free Speech

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. However, what are the boundaries of free speech? In the current political milieu, the protection of free speech appears to have an amorphous and wide expanse when it comes to sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and xenophobic rants on many social media platforms and college campuses.

The recent Knight Foundation survey polled high schoolers view on the First Amendment; it found that Boys and white students are less inclined than girls and students of color to agree with the statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Whos protected by free speech calls into question what the First Amendment to the Constitution means when it states, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

On Nov. 20, Cambridge Community Television held a panel discussion tackling the question titled Civil Discussion in an Uncivilized World: Are there limits to the First Amendment? Ceasar L. McDowell, professor of the practice of civic design at MIT, and Jim Braude of WGBHs Greater Boston and Boston Public Radio were the panelists.

Susan Fleischmann, executive director of CCTV, who was once a First Amendment absolutist, wanted a discussion on the topic because, under the present administration, hate speech appears to protect the offenders.

For over 30 years, CCTV has proudly served as a First Amendment forum from our community, and I have defended speech that has been personally very challenging. However, the needle has dramatically moved, stated Fleischmann.

Both McDowell and Braude agreed that today, no one would dispute that there has been a steady decline in public civil discourse. People who traffic in hate speech appear to have boundless ways of disseminating their vitriol. When challenged, they push back at their opponents contesting First Amendment protection of free speech.

McDowell shared with the audience that he struggles with where are the limits of what we can say to each other, particularly with technology. Many, like McDowell, feel that social media (sites like Facebook and Twitter) are not doing enough to counter hate and violent speech. McDowell acknowledges that people have the right to express their views and need venues to do so, but he wants to know what it means to give voice in public spaces. In other words, is ones right to free speech limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it?

For example, McDowell shared a recent incident he experienced on a crowded train from Harvard Square to Kendall Square. Two white guys on the Red Line were deliberately talking loud, spewing sexist and xenophobic epithets. McDowell wondered if the guys had a right to speak like that on a train where people didnt choose to be in that space for that sort of speech. The incident highlighted for McDowell the need for civil conversations in public spaces that uphold a sense of responsibility to each other and the greater society. However, in todays divisive climate, We are a right space society, McDowell told the audience (meaning protected by the First Amendment), and not a responsibility space society.

Braude advised that before you query how people use their speech in the public sphere, you have to ask, How does everyone get the right to speak?" In other words, how does society democratize voices in the public sphere to create a level playing field, where no voice is drowned out by louder ones due to social capital, political influence, money or bullying.

Social media, on the one hand, have democratized voices, especially marginalized voices in society due to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and political affiliations to name a few. On the other hand, social media has created a neo-tribalism where people connect only with those of similar views. The adverse outcomes have been the dissemination of hateful language, deliberate misinformation and a deepening disconnection from one another and society all protected by anonymity.

Both panelists are proponents of anti-anonymity on social media. Its a controversial and censored stance because opponents contest anti-anonymity limits free speech, whereas proponents argue it enforces a greater responsibility to own your words.

The lack of a civic education contributes in part to the breakdown of our body politic. McDowell suggested an antidote to the microaggressions we see on social media are micro-inclusions where institutions and community spaces, like CCTV, have people come together and talk about their rights and duties of citizenship.

In thanking the panelists and audience, Fleischmann stated: I think this conversation illustrated the dangers of backing down from a principled support of free speech, as well as the need for us to all take responsibility, not only for ourselves as speakers, but as witnesses who cannot sit idly by.

I agree with Fleischmann.

As someone who intersects multiple identities and is the target of various forms of anonymous hate speech, its exhausting to bear the weight of a bigots tongue solely.

Cambridge resident Rev. Irene Monroe is a Huffington Post blogger and a syndicated religion columnist. Monroe also does a weekly Monday segment called All Revd Up on WGBH, a Boston member station of National Public Radio.

Read the original post:
FAITH IN ACTION COLUMN: Whos free speech protecting these days? - Wicked Local Cambridge

MOSCOW For years, nonprofit organizations in Russia have contended with a law branding them as foreign agents if they took money from abroad, presenting fines and bureaucratic hurdles that sometimes pushed those groups to shut down.

Now, individuals who publish anything online and get paid from foreign sources will face the same legal obstacles.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Monday signed into law several legal amendments that will require individuals to register as foreign agents if they publish printed, audio, audiovisual, or other reports and materials and receive money from foreign governments, foreign organizations, or even simply from foreign citizens.

Russian lawmakers passed the amendments to Russias legal code in recent weeks despite opposition from activists, public figures, and international critics, who argued that the new restrictions will further stifle free speech. Russians generally dont face outright censorship online, but they increasingly fear legal consequences for posting anti-government messages.

The law would represent a disproportionate interference in the freedom of expression and media freedom, Harlem Dsir, the representative on freedom of the media for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said in a statement last month. It may have a considerable chilling effect on journalists, as well as on bloggers, experts, or other individuals publishing information, particularly online.

The lawmakers said they were responding to foreign agent laws in other countries, pointing to the case of Maria Butina, the Russian gun-rights activist deported from the United States in October after being convicted of conspiring to act as an agent of a foreign government.

Like many of Russias laws restricting freedom of expression, the new amendments appear likely to be applied selectively in order to serve as a deterrent. A lawmaker who helped draft the law, Vasily Piskarev, said he expected the amendments to apply to a small circle of individuals.

But in theory, any Russian who is paid by foreign news organizations, or simply posts on social media while receiving money from abroad, could be forced to register under the new law. Compliance would require stating publicly that one is a foreign agent and filing financial reports with the government.

Foreign organizations like the MacArthur Foundation have shuttered their offices in Russia in recent years in response to the foreign agent law. Some Russian organizations that get foreign funding, like the human rights group Memorial, have faced hefty fines for noncompliance for instance, for failing to spell out their foreign agent status in an Instagram account.

The new amendments targeting individuals could apply to someone who posts on Facebook and receives income from a rental apartment in Minsk, a Memorial lawyer, Marina Agaltsova, said in a column about the law. It creates, she went on, limitless possibilities for interpretation.

Continued here:
In Russia, an Updated Law With New Restrictions on Freedom of Speech - The New York Times

December 2, 2019 The First Amendment Coalition is pleased to announce the California Reporting Project is the recipient of the 2019 Free Speech & Open Government Award, given in recognition of the projects groundbreaking statewide campaign to bring to light records of police misconduct.

The project, an unprecedented collaboration of competing newsrooms, started as a cooperative effort between the Bay Area News Group/Southern California News Group, Capital Public Radio, Investigative Studios (of UC Berkeleys Investigative Reporting Project), KPCC/LAist, KQED and the Los Angeles Times to submit requests for records under Californias new police transparency law, Senate Bill 1421, and to share results. The initiative quickly grew, and now includes more than 40 newsrooms that have produced more than 125 original stories, detailing police use-of-force and instances of misconduct.

Representatives of the project will be recognized on Thursday at a ceremony at the California Press Foundations Annual Winter Meeting in San Francisco. The award comes with a $1,000 prize.

For the project, journalists submitted hundreds of California Public Records Act requests and have obtained files from approximately 2,000 cases of police misconduct and serious use of force. And the work is ongoing, with the cooperating newsrooms continuing to produce essential accountability journalism.

The California Reporting Project represents a truly groundbreaking approach to journalism and transparency in the public interest, said FAC Executive Director David Snyder. Unafraid to knock down the walls that traditionally separate competing journalists, this group did an immense public service to California and to all members of the public, who gained so much from the creative and aggressive approach the Project embodies.

Read more about the California Reporting Project and the resulting news coverageSB 1421, the new police transparency law, faced numerous obstacles. It was the subject of opposition, first in the California Legislature and then in the courts, where police labor unions and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sought to weaken it.*

FAC received numerous nominations this year for work that advanced the publics right to know about police misconduct records. While the California Reporting Project was the clear choice for FACs 2019 award, the Award Committee felt compelled to also recognize several worthy nominees for their steadfast efforts on SB 1421 and related matters.

Specifically, the committee recognizes tireless and creative work of attorney Tenaya Rodewald, special counsel at the Sheppard Mullin law firm. Ms. Rodewald served as lead counsel in statewide litigation to enforce SB 1421. Representing FAC and several media coalitions, Ms. Rodewald was the principal author of many of the key legal arguments that vindicated the publics right to know.

The committee also recognizes students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, who under the leadership of Bay Area News Group investigative reporter Thomas Peele worked through numerous police misconduct cases as part of the California Reporting Project.

Advertisement

Finally, the committee recognizes state Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who authored the measure that undid decades of secrecy over records related to use-of-force, official dishonesty affecting officers work, and records of sustained findings of certain kinds of sexual misconduct.

*The First Amendment Coalition has been and continues to be involved in the legal fight in support of SB 1421, including by joining California Reporting Project partner KQED in a lawsuit against Attorney General Xavier Becerras office over its refusal to release SB 1421 records. However, FAC is not a participant in the journalistic accomplishments for which this award is being given.

The First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit organization based in San Rafael, Calif., that fights for free speech, government transparency and the publics right to know. Join our fight today andbecome a member (its free).

Read more:
California Reporting Project Named the Recipient of FAC's Free Speech & Open Government Award - YubaNet

San Diego State University launched a new bias reporting system, but packaged it as part of a larger community communication effort, including a website dedicated to "free speech."

In addition to being launched alongside a tool that encourages the reporting of "incidents of bias," the "free speech" website focuses in large part on reserving the rights of the university to restrict the "time, place, and manner" of speech. The site for the university's new "inclusive reporting system" encourages students to report "instances that promote our campus commitment, as well as those that fall short."

Packaged alongside the reporting system was the launch of the university's "free speech" website, including a statement about the school's commitment "to providing both the space and the conditions that encourage open and free exchange."

"Negative incident examples" cited by the university include things like "proselytizing on campus," and posting fliers that "contain messages of bias." Students are asked to report these incidents via a web portal. From there, the incidents will be reviewed by a board with members from various departments, including the University Police and the Division of Diversity and Innovation. This board will then decide whether or not "further review and action" needs to be taken in regard to each report.

[RELATED: Ky. bill would make every zone a 'free speech zone']

In addition to asking about the race of the individual filing the report, the incident report form also prompts the user to select their gender, offering 12 options, including not only "transgender," but also "genderqueer," "agender," "two spirit," and "gender fluid."

Packaged alongside the reporting system was the launch of the university's "free speech" website, including a statement about the school's commitment "to providing both the space and the conditions that encourage open and free exchange."

"Both resources were developed and launched collaboratively with SDSU divisions and departments after a community call namely from students and faculty to provide clear and easily accessible information, policies and resources related to free expression and campus activities," the university stated in a dual announcement.

A section of the website labeled "learn," tells students that "The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. The amendment guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government."

Immediately after synthesizing its version of the First Amendment, the university goes on to detail its right to maintain "reasonable regulations" surrounding free speech on campus.

All organizations, whether recognized student groups or not, are required to submit an application for a permit before tabling anywhere on campus. Applications from recognized student groups must be submitted two weeks before the desired date of tabling. The policy also requires that permission to table be given by the university 48 hours in advance of the scheduled tabling.

[RELATED: University promised to get rid of free speech area policy SIXTEEN years ago, so why is it still on the books?]

The university uses atriage system for permit applications. Different types of events fit into different "tiers." "Simple tabling" efforts by student groups are classified within the first tier, and as such are subject to the time constraints previously noted. The policy is unclear about the classification for "simple tabling" for off-campus groups but is clear that the first is reserved for affiliated groups. Permits for second-tier events must be applied for a full month before the desired date. Other tiers have even longer wait periods, as much as four months in some cases.

The same policy notes that "SDSU reserves the right to deny permitting to any organization that is not affiliated with the University.

The new website also features a free speechFAQ section, which again directs students to the policy that details these regulations, characterizing them as reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions.

Follow the author of this article on Twitter: @celinedryan

Read the original:
SDSU touts 'free speech' credentials...and new 'bias' reporting tool - Campus Reform

Georgia State is a safe place for free speech so long as you hold positions popular with campus administration. This was the message sent by Georgia State prior to, during and after the recent visit of Created Equal, the pro-life organization of which I am vice president.

As documented by The Signal, days before we arrived for pro-life outreach to students, the university issued a campus-wide email suggesting our opinions would be offensive, hurtful, mean-spirited and hateful.

This presented a wildly inaccurate picture of our team poisoning the well by bracing students for a false stereotype. Indeed, as video evidence shows, we are often on the receiving end of hate-fueled verbal and physical attacks.

The frustration of our speech escalated during the event to outright protest when Senior Director of Psychological and Health Services Dr. Jill Lee-Barber held and handed out No Hate at State signs next to our display.

Lee-Barber insisted this was not related to our display, but her colleague proved this false. Holding one of the No Hate at State signs, Dr. Mikyta Daugherty, associate director of Clinical Services, stationed herself squarely in front of our display, obscuring the image of an aborted fetus and refusing to move. She denied her role as an administrative official.

All of this was captured on video.

Afterward, we called on Georgia State to apologize for the interference with our free speech. In response, a Georgia State spokesperson said that the aforementioned email referring to hateful speech was a standard email sent every fall as a general notice about possible upcoming events.

But this is specious. The email was issued more than two months into the semester just prior to our event, and begins with In the next week Clearly, this was sent in relation to our event.

Further, Georgia State claimed that the content of the campus-wide email is standard language posted on the Dean of Students website. But this is demonstrably false. An investigation of the site reveals no such reference to hateful or mean-spirited speech.

Georgia State is weaving a web of falsehoods to obscure their frustration of our speech. And no comment has been made by administrators regarding Daugherty or Lee-Barbers actions.

Tragically, our experience is not unique. Afterward, a member of Georgia States faculty and staff, insisting on anonymity for reasons which are evident, wrote us the following: I work at GSU and I am truly scared for my job if I speak up on campus. Free speech for faculty and staff does not exist at public universities if you are pro-life or dont agree with the liberal and leftist narrative. I cannot afford to lose my job and so choose to stay silent.

This suppression of speech from individuals with pro-life views is an affront to higher education.

Georgia State needs more than policies which feign obeisance to the First Amendment. The administration needs not only to apologize to Created Equal but to take decisive action to assure that frustration of speech from individuals with unpopular opinions will not be permitted on the campus.

Seth Drayer

Vice President, Created Equal

Read the original post:
Letter to the Editor: Created Equal VP responds to free speech at Georgia State - The Signal

The Randi Rhodes Show delivers smart, forward, free-thinking, entertaining, liberal news and opinion that challenge the status quo and amplifies free speech. For ten years in a row, Randi was the number one progressive talk radio show host in America. After more than two decades of working for corporate radio, Randi decided to strike out on her own.

This move allows Randi to deliver her message with no strings attached. Randi is a spot-on broad-minded journalist and broadcaster who knows the difference between a demagogue and a statesman. Dedicated to social justice, Randi puts her reputation on the line for the truth. Committed to the journalistic standards that corporate media often ignores, The Randi Rhodes Show takes enormous pride in bringing the power of knowledge to her viewers.

Randi says things that make the establishment uncomfortable. She has been hunted and punished by both the liberal establishment and the right-wing lunatics. The press has referred to her as abusive, hectoring, cocksure, a Goddess, an insatiable mind, the only proven model for how liberal talk might compete nationally, and a barroom preacher.

Knowledge is Power. So Get Some.

Watch The Randi Rhodes Show( freespeech.org/show/the-randi-rhodes-show) every weekday at 3 pm ET on Free Speech TV & catch up with clips from the program down below!

Adam Schiff Randi Rhodes The Randi Rhodes Show Trump Impeachment

Read this article:
Republicans Push To Call Adam Schiff To Testify In This Week's Hearings - Free Speech TV

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki met with60 Minutesreporter Lesley Stahl to discuss the sites attempt at policing controversial content while maintaining an open platform. Social media sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have come under scrutiny for allowing misinformation to be promoted on their platforms.

YouTube attempts to guard against videos that promote hate and violence, but the site also polices political ads that are blatant lies. Politicians are always accusing their opponents of lying, said Wojcicki. That said, it's not OK to have technically manipulated content that would be misleading.

YouTube has made major efforts to try and curb controversial content, including 10,000 employees who sole purpose is to locate and flag misinformation, according to Wojcicki. But the process can be daunting because more than 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute.

To make matters worse, hate groups are constantly adjusting their content and using hidden imagery or codewords so it is harder to detect. For every area we work with experts, and we know all the hand signals, the messaging, the flags, the songs, and so, there's quite a lot of context that goes into every single video to be able to understand what are they really trying to say with this video, said Wojcicki.

While some people are glad that YouTube is trying to curb harmful content, others like Fox News contributor Dan Bongino do not like the policing. While this episode aired, he tweeted, Make absolutely NO MISTAKE, the 60 Minutes piece on YouTube tonight is nothing more than a push by liberal activists to silence conservatives through corporate pressure. Liberals, and their media pals, DESPISE free speech.

YouTube maintains, however, that it is working diligently to maintain an open platform for everyone. You can go too far and that can become censorship, said Wojcicki, And so we have been working really hard to figure out what's the right way to balance responsibility with freedom of speech.

60 Minutesairs Sundays at 7 p.m. onCBS.

Watch as Michael Moore admits that President Donald Trump was right about rigged political system:

Read more from Yahoo Entertainment:

Tell us what you think! Hit us up onTwitter,Facebook, orInstagram, or leave your comments below. And check out our host, Kylie Mar, onTwitter,Facebook, orInstagram.

Want daily pop culture news delivered to your inbox?Sign up here for Yahoo Entertainment & Lifestyle's newsletter.

See the article here:
YouTube CEO on censoring content: 'Balance responsibility with freedom of speech' - Yahoo Celebrity

Over the last few weeks, several congressional committees have debated the future of free speech online.

Since 1996, internet platforms hosted speech by users thanks to the protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law holds individuals responsible for what they post online and it has enabled American companies to provide the worlds most cutting-edge technology in communication, business and entertainment. Removing Section 230 protections would threaten Americas global Internet and innovation leadership, cripple Internet small businesses, hurt investment in many Internet start-ups and trample our principle of free speech.

In about two dozen words, the law states: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. With that clear safeguard, Section 230 establishes the core, commonsense principle that responsibility for online speech lies with the speaker, not the host. It ensures the survival of the internet economy and creates the cornerstone of online free expression we enjoy today.

Without this unique provision in American law, an Internet platform could be held directly liable for any material posted by any user so there would be far less legitimate expression posted. This American framework is why U.S. online platforms are global leaders.

Without Section 230, platforms that moderate content could be held civilly liable for sponsoring the content that they allow to be posted. So they would have to choose between refusing to moderate any expression no matter how false or offensive or being far more restrictive in what they allow to be posted.

Critics argue Section 230 mainly protects big tech companies. Some politicians have even been pushing to [remove] the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that would certify political neutrality. But the real casualties of any Section 230 amendments wouldnt be companies of scale; they would be Internet users, whose freedom of speech would be radically curtailed.

Rather than limit all expression, some politicians would impose instead a political test to [remove] the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that would certify political neutrality. Some even suggest Section 230 be revised to allow the FCC or FTC to oversee online speech. By essentially letting political appointees decide what online speech is appropriate under vague definitions and standards, we would be cultivating an environment of suppression eerily similar to Chinas, where online expression is subject to government approval and whim.

This is not the American way. Aside from the potential for severe political abuse, the problem with this and similar approaches is that legitimate users would be punished by the loss of entire legitimate platforms. Beyond the countless individuals who benefit every day, Section 230 empowers marginalized groups to speak out powerfully without fear of censorship. It is hard to imagine the #MeToo or #BlackLivesMatter movements succeeding without this laws protections. The right to freely exchange ideas has helped make us the most innovative and free country in the world.

Weakening this law would promote allow an unprecedented level of online censorship, whether through new legal caution or a new regulatory mandate. In fact, to put this in perspective: Anyone who has ever forwarded an email, a picture, or any political speech has been protected by Section 230.

Consider a world without Section 230 protections. Large companies could find the massive resources to scour and filter their platforms of any potentially controversial content. Startups and small businesses, however, could not. Instead, these upstarts would be deluged by opportunistic lawsuits from all corners of the Internet. Small business would quickly go bankrupt, start-ups would not launch, and investors wouldnt invest. Americas vibrant culture of innovation would grow dim.

Further, a non-Section 230 world would mean internet platforms may choose not to moderate any third-party content at all. Currently, Section 230 ensures that internet platforms can perform the essential work of moderating harmful content without facing liability. Removing those protections would disincentivize platforms from removing content, allowing free reign to violent extremists, Nazis and other repugnant actors.

Section 230 is a uniquely American law. It has promoted free expression, enabled our global innovation leadership, and stoked our dynamic start-up ecosystem. Because of Section 230, startups can launch without massive lawsuits, Internet sites can host third-party reviews and individuals can communicate freely across global platforms.

Lawmakers should oppose any legislation that would chip away at this law and jeopardize the future of Americas vibrant, competitive internet economy. If you agree and value the irreplaceable value of free online speech, tell your lawmakers to protect your free expression rights online.

Michael Petricone is senior vice president of government affairs for the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

Visit link:
Why dismantling Section 230 would shatter free speech and innovation | TheHill - The Hill

It has been said that principles only mean something when you stick by them when they are inconvenient. Its true. People often make exceptions for themselves, leaving massive inconsistencies in assessing their adherence to their principles. The most famous right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, the right to free speech, is the best example of a principle selectively defended.

There are, however, many misconceptions about what free speech means and what it does not mean.

Free speech must be an absolute and unadulterated right, with the only exceptions being those constitutionally backed and reaffirmed by Supreme Court precedent. These exceptions include things like yelling Fire! in a crowded theater or Bomb! at an airport. Unadulterated free speech also does not mean the right to threaten violence against others or insinuate harm.

While it does not mean the right to put others in danger with ones words, it does mean being able to espouse beliefs and say things that are upsetting, gratuitous or overtly disagreeable. If you take it away every time someone does something bad with it, it is not a right.

Hate speech is a category of speech expressing prejudice against certain groups. While prosecuted cases of hate speech generally include threats, society must be careful. A broad definition of hate speech serves only to censor arbitrarily and unfurls a slippery slope since the threshold of what constitutes hate speech is nebulous.

Additionally, symbolic speech, actions meant to convey a particular message without explicit verbal communication, also ought to be safeguarded. Several landmark Supreme Court cases, fortunately, all secure judicial precedent is protecting symbolic speech.

Why is free speech so important? Because it grants protection to groups who need it. Free speech was not embodied in the Constitution to protect racists when telling immigrants to go back home, although free speech does protect that. Free speech is manifested in the countrys most important doctrine to protect opposition to the government, minority groups and the media, who holds power accountable.

This means that it is the marginalized who suffer from silenced speech, not the privileged.

But liberals and conservatives alike are discriminatory when it comes to defending free speech. Conservatives have frighteningly advocated punishment for controversial football athlete Colin Kaepernick, stronger libel laws and flag-burning bans. Liberals have similarly pushed hate speech law and promulgated political correctness.

While fears of social media censorship of conservatives are likely overblown, it does raise a legitimate question about whether social media organizations are so influential as a forum for public discussion that banning someone may constitute censorship? Its complicated, and the jury is still out on that one.

However, it is imperative to delineate infringements on freedom of speech. It doesnt much matter if people are shunned or exist as social pariahs for using the n-word or denying the Holocaust. Ethics of public shaming aside, the First Amendment does not protect an individual from societal condemnation for the beliefs he or she espouses. Still, it does protect him or her from being stripped of their opportunity to do it.

But regulating free speech is the slipperiest slope to government-backed censorship same with controlling what the media can and cannot say. Suing for libel is difficult, as John Oliver recently demonstrated extravagantly in his show Last Week Tonight. It should remain as difficult as it currently is, if not harder due to SLAPP lawsuits lawsuits that aim not to succeed in court but to exhaust the defendant of his or her resources by dragging out a litigious hell.

France is perhaps the best example of a country wherein excessively outlawing certain types of expression has bred problems. France has become so comfortable in restricting speech; it has achieved bans on wearing certain religious symbols. It has also criminalized some rather poor opinions, but this only normalizes government restrictions to free speech, even if these laws are legislated with good intent.

Former President Barack Obama once said, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. This is the correct attitude to adopt.

Freedom certainly has a price tag. It means demanding tolerance of many unsavory opinions. Some may seem like they are working tirelessly to reveal an exigency of controlling speech. Still, it is essential to remember that the neo-Nazi can spout nauseating beliefs due to a right everyone ultimately benefits from. That is a hill everyone should be prepared to die on.

Andrew is a sophomore in LAS.

[emailprotected]

See the rest here:
Protection of free speech must remain resolute - Daily Illini

The Hechinger Report is a national nonprofit newsroom that reports on one topic: education. Sign up for our weekly newsletters to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox.

Indiana University in Bloomington Indiana. Students at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana demanded that officials fire professor Eric Rasmusen, after he posted racist, sexist and homophobic opinions to social media earlier this month. Photo: Don & Melinda Crawford/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

If your professor at a public university regularly tweets out articles like Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably you would probably be confused as to why he taught students. If, after class, you read tweets by the same professor saying that black students are generally inferior academically to white students and that members of the LBGTQ community only want marriage rights to get spousal fringe benefits from the government, you might find fault with your professors boss for not firing the prejudiced chauvinist.

We should expect students, faculty and staff members with a modicum of dignity to call for that professors ouster. No student should be subjected to a professor who moonlights as a bigot. However, what may not be tolerated in other workplaces sometimes gets a free pass in colleges and universities, which adhere robustly to the value of free speech.

Free speech is tied to academic freedom the autonomy to teach and research ideas without the consequence of retaliation. The quality of a professors ideas is enhanced when scholarship isnt tethered to profits, political motives and/or the propaganda of hate groups. Colleges defend professors rights to pursue controversial topics of discussion such as climate change, police brutality, charter schools and pornography. University professors conduct clinical trials and other experiments in which the integrity of that work demands free speech.

Yet as noble as that sounds, higher educations loyalty to free speech can also protect chauvinists like Indiana University Bloomington professor Eric Rasmusen, who posted the bigoted tweets about women and others using his private social media accounts. Rasmusen understandably has come under fire for a history of racist, sexist and homophobic social media posts.

Protecting core principles matters but so does leadership. As the presence of hate groups spreads on campus, reflecting the growing diversity of beliefs in society, its important that university leaders properly balance free speech and academic freedom with facts, inclusion and social cohesion. A person who believes in the illogical notion that women, black and gay people are inferior to white men has as much a place in an institution of learning as a person who believes pigs can fly but the bigot is far more dangerous. How university administrators (and leaders in general) address past and present discrimination influences the kind of world we will live in in the future.

Related: HBCUs are leading centers of education why are they treated as second-class citizens?

Rasmusens boss, Lauren Robel, provost at Indiana University Bloomington, sets a fine example of the leadership we need. As absurd as it may seem, firing Rasmusen would compromise the pillars of higher education: free speech and academic freedom. However, Robel has done everything within her power to confront the discrimination that erodes basic values of truth, democracy and community. Robel is allowing students enrolled in Rasmusens class to transfer into another section. Students can also get out of taking a required course from Rasmusen. In addition, Robel will require Rasmusen to grade assignments without knowing the identities of the students in the class, an attempt to buffer against the biases he laid bare on Twitter.

Compare Robels actions to those of another university leader in the same state, and youll see why leadership is so important. In response to a students question on how to improve the campus for minority students, Purdue University President Mitch Daniels, a former governor of Indiana, touted an initiative to bring more inner-city students to campus. Daniels also said, I will be recruiting one of the rarest creatures in America: a leading, I mean a really leading African American scholar.

Students immediately took offense.

Creatures? said DYan Berry, president of the Black Student Union. Come on. Referring to African American scholars as rare creatures sounds right out of Rasmusens Twitter feed.

Responding to the backlash, Daniels explained he was referring to extraordinarily rare talent and told the Journal and Courier, part of the USA Today network, I never felt so misunderstood before.

Related: Students take their future into their own hands on climate change activism

To be clear, there are extraordinarily talented black scholars in many fields; predominately white higher education leaders simply dont hire and invest in black professors development in the same way as their white peers, resulting in their underrepresentation. Protected professors dont see the value in proactively championing diversity and inclusion. The beauty of Robels actions is that she showed how good leaders can work within systems to correct glaring problems. Its an approach Daniels should emulate.

According to the Journal and Couriers analysis of Purdues published diversity numbers, 8.3 percent (161 of 1,931) of tenured or tenure-track professors in 2018 were recorded as underrepresented minorities. In 2013, when Daniels started his tenure at Purdue, that stat was 6.3 percent (117 of 1,849).

Those numbers are moving in the right direction, but they still warrant scrutiny from concerned students, faculty and staff. Black, Latino, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and American Indian faculty make up 4 percent, 3 percent, 11 percent, and less than 1 percent of full-time professors in degree-granting postsecondary institutions.

We desperately need academic leadership that can stand up for whats right and stand up to white supremacists and white supremacy. Just last week, CNN reported five incidents of hate that occurred across the country. At the University of Georgia, someone drew swastikas on a whiteboard on the door of a Jewish womans dorm room. Another swastika was carved into a door of an Iowa State dormitory, and racist stickers and posters appeared around campus. Racist graffiti was found at the University of Syracuse during a two-week run of incidents of hate-driven harassment. At the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, a thread of a racist post from a private SnapChat account became public, setting off a firestorm of concern on campus. And a noose was hung in the common area of a dormitory. Lets hope that university leaders on these campuses address their issues as Robel did, because a lack of leadership is how we got here.

Related: As Republicans stress political fiction over facts, students math and reading scores fall

Academics dont have to tweet out bigotry to make their beliefs known. Colleges curricula and admissions policies do the talking on their behalf. For most of the twentieth century, Asians, Blacks, Latinos/Latinas and Native Americans were excluded or restricted from the academic offerings and leadership positions in most colleges and universities. People of color who were allowed on campus were insignificant in number or primarily relegated to service, housekeeping or grounds positions. If you want to learn more about racist customs of fraternities and sororities, including the tradition of wearing blackface, just thumb through a campus yearbook.

When campuses begin to value black and brown lives, youll see the presence of authors of color throughout course syllabi as well as more than a token handful of people of color in the student body and faculty. Youll see administrators commitments to affirmative action codified in policy and funding allocations dedicated to creating a positive racial climate. Over time, actions like these will seed the kind of campus where bigotry is cut off at the root and publicly condemned when it isnt.

Academic freedom and bigotry cant coexist on campus. Robel has demonstrated one way to tackle bigots who falsely claim the mantle of free speech. Now we need a new generation of college and university leaders to stand up for the values that create an inclusive learning environment for all.

This story free speech on campus was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechingers newsletter.

Join us today.

Read more:
We must not allow bigots to hide behind free speech on campus - The Hechinger Report