Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

When I was starting my academic career at the UKs Open University (OU), feminism was against the determinism of biological sex as the defining force in identity. The malleable influences of gender and culture were emphasised instead.

So it seems odd that gender-critical feminists such as Jo Phoenix now insist on its primacy. But there are reasons for this apparent reversal. And even if colleagues dont agree with them, harassment, victimisation and discrimination ought not to be their reaction.

As transgender activism has gained momentum, cisgender women have become increasingly concerned about womens and girls safety in spaces such as toilets and workplaces. Over decades, women have fought against toxic masculinity and sexual harassment. They have united around the common experiences of biological women: menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth and menopause. And they fear that highly publicised incidents, such as the male rapist placed in a Scottish womens prison after self-identifying as female, are just the tip of the iceberg.

But people who identify as transgender have compelling human rights too. A 2022 Canadian study found that transgender adolescents were 7.6 times more likely to attempt suicide than their cisgender peers. Transgender youth disproportionately suffer from bullying, loneliness and mental health problems, including self-harming, anxiety and rejection. People with transgender identities arent taking a cheap ticket away from normal life.

Adopting only that second human rights position, numerous OU faculty made Phoenixs life so difficult that she felt compelled to resign a hostile environment from which the university was criticised for failing to protect her in an employment tribunal ruling last month.

Womens and transgender rights are just one spiky cultural controversy in our educational institutions. Whether its islamophobia v antisemitism, immigration v national identity, or religious freedom v homophobia and patriarchal oppression, we are being drawn into conflicts that seem almost irreconcilable. And it isnt just the OU that is finding it hard to navigate such terrain. In my opinion, most universities are responding in utterly dysfunctional ways.

Two-thirds of US higher education institutions, for example, now offer anti-bias training. Yet an extensive reviewhas concluded that such training doesnt reduce bias, alter behaviour or change the workplace. Indeed, it often increases bias by dividing people into binaries of those who are unarguably privileged and those who are unambiguously oppressed.

For example, all those with white privilege even those who grew up in poverty are set against all BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of colour), including wealthy political leaders or royalty. This is despite the fact that, in the UK alone, 3 million people are mixed raceand self-reported rates of discriminationare also high among people who are Irish, Jewish and Roma/Travellers.

Heterosexual identities are also contrasted with LGBTQ+ identities, yet UK youngsters who are bisexual feel marginalised by both gay and heterosexual communities.Setting people against each other in these mutually exclusive ways is a zero-sum game.

In response, some academics oppose cancel culture with freedom of speech. The problem, though, is not just that free speech can permit hateful views to be aired. The libertarian stance simply allows clashing positions to coexist. It doesnt offer ways to bring peoples perspectives and rights closer together in a democratic intellectual community.

There is a better way than condoning a cacophony of views. That is to replace a framework of individual human rights, pursued at the expense of anyone elses rights, with what is known as competing human rights.

A place to start is the Canadian province of Ontarios Human Rights Code. This aims to encourage people to show dignity and respect for one another and to share responsibility for finding agreeable solutions. It also rejects power imbalances and hierarchies of human rights, advocating mutual and maximal recognition of interests, rights and obligations.

How would this help Phoenix and her critics? It would bring them together in facilitated dialogue, guided by protocols that ensure active listening. Rights and risks would be addressed on both sides. Clear ground rules would be set, such as civility, empathy, humility, forgiveness, rationality and practicality. It might even encourage transgender students and scholars to work together withgender-critical peers on common projects that create mutual understanding.

Practical solutions could be sought, such as better all-gender toilets. All students and faculty would exercise their rights to choose and display their own pronouns without pressuring everyone else into posting theirs. Misplaced pronouns and misjudged attributions of identity would lead to sincere apologies and swift corrections rather than protracted and punitive inquisitions. Course materials would include readings on competing perspectives.

Cancel culture must stop. But nor can we have a free-for-all, where the loudest voice or most powerful lobby prevails. Instead of demeaning and destroying each others human rights, a competing human rights framework will allow us to expand our humanity together.

Andy Hargreaves is honorary professor at Swansea University, research professor at Boston College and visiting professor at the University of Ottawa. His co-authored book with Dennis Shirley is The Age of Identity: who do our kids think they are and how do we help them belong?

Read more:
There is a way out of cancel culture but it's not free speech - Times Higher Education

The Watsonville City Council made the right choice Tuesday when it voted to endat least for nowpublic participation by Zoom.

In October, both that body of elected leaders and the Capitola City Council were subjected to a series of hateful, expletive-filled racist comments from people who hid behind the anonymity of the teleconferencing platform during their public meetings.

While freedom of speech is one of the most sacred rights we as Americans possess, it is common sense that this right must be weighed against our right to not be victimized by bullies. As the old adage goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.

Watsonville City Attorney Samantha Zutler told the council that public comment can be stopped under two circumstances: when it is so disruptive that it hinders their ability to conduct business, and when it falls outside the citys subject matter jurisdiction.

The so-called Zoom bomb comments fell under both those categories, and I appreciated the citys decision to shut down its Zoom option until Tuesdays meeting.

It was also pointed out by Councilman Casey Clark that the council has the right to enforce its rules of decorum for in-person participants, an option I have seen employed at a handful of public meetings.

This typically happens when a crowd gets so disruptive that the council or board cannot hear, or when they refuse to obey a fire marshals order to leave.

Watsonville Mayor Vanessa Quiroz-Carter said during Tuesdays meeting that hate speech is protected, and as a journalist with a passion for the First Amendment and a vested interest in the idea of Freedom of Speech, I agree wholeheartedly.

But that is separate from whether such speech should be allowed wherever one might wish to utter it.

If in the future the city finds a platform with a kill switch to stop hate speech in its tracks, then by all means they should bring it back.

Yes, we as adults, and elected leaders in particular should have thick skin and be able to weather slings and arrows from those who would speak against us.

Still, giving elected leaders the tools to shut down hate speechto be used sparingly and in extreme situations to be sureis essential to making sure that they can do the work we need them to do.

More here:
Editor's take: Limiting hate speech not a First Amendment violation - The Pajaronian

A proposal that allocates $150,000 to the Colorado Attorney General's Office to study the spread of "misinformation" or "disinformation" online sparked a spirited debate about the parameters of free speech, what role the government should play in counteracting it, and questions about the legislation's price tag, given the state's tight budget.

UnderSenate Bill 084, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced on Thursday by a vote of 3-2, the state's attorney general would be responsible for establishing initiatives promoting "respectful engagement and discourse" and developing ways to facilitate "productive and honest conversations regarding state and nationwide issues to help people find common ground."

The attorney general would also be tasked with conducting a study on how the internet and other media channels are used to share and spread "misinformation." The office would be required to present the study's findings to the legislative body by March 1, 2025, and lawmakers would decide whether to pursue legislation based on those findings.

During discussions, Colorado Springs Republican Bob Gardner and Committee Chair Sen. Julie Gonzales, D- Denver, both expressed worries about the bill's price tag $150,000.

"I think in the context of some of the fiscal challenges that our state is navigating, in terms of the appropriation to this bill, I may have concerns," Gonzales said.

Ultimately, Gonzales said she agrees with the policy and voted with her two fellow Democrats to move the bill to the appropriations panel. The judiciary committee's two Republicans voted against the bill.

In outlining the need for the study, bill sponsor Sen. Lisa Cutter, a Democrat from Evergreen, said that "foreign entities have come into the U.S. and worked really hard to divide us through perpetuating deliberate disinformation."

"I believe deeply in the First Amendment and its protections for individuals to be able to speak their minds and I've run several bills along those lines, so it's something I value greatly," she said. "But what we're concerned with in this bill is studying what effects this widely perpetuated misinformation and effects they're having on our social media and our discourse."

Cutter defined"misinformation" as unintentionally false or inaccurate information, while "disinformation" is deliberately intended to mislead.

While Cutter maintained that the bill's intent is not to infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights, several witnesses speaking in opposition said that it would.

"This bill is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and the right to free speech," said Amanda Monk of Yuma County. "Freedom of speech is a foundation of a self-governing nation. Ideas that go unopposed by differing opinions become weak and ineffective instead of being strengthened by competing ideas. If speech is stifled and muted, a society quickly loses its ability to resolve its problems."

Marla Fernandez, a paralegal who specializes Constitutional law, echoed Monk's apprehensions, calling the bill "an assault on our freedom of speech and expression."

"While the intentions behind the bill may seem noble, the implications are far-reaching and dangerous," she said. "It seeks to dictate what information is permissible, what opinions are acceptable, and what conversations are appropriate. Such heavy-handed government intervention has no place in a society governed by the rule of law."

Erin Meschke, a Boulder resident, added that the bill is redundant.

"I think it is imperative that we not fund more studies on things we kind of already know the answers to," she said.

Gardner also suggested the study is unnecessary.

"I pick up the Wall Street Journal every day and I'd be hard-pressed to not find something in there every day about (efforts to combat misinformation)," he said."Don't we already have a good deal of information and aren't there numerous organizations out there studying everything in this bill such that our efforts might be redundant?"

Jeffrey Riester, a representative of the Department of Law, which supports the bill, acknowledged Gardner's worriesbut said that, unlike the research already being conducted at a national level, this study would specifically focus on Colorado. He also said the bill gives no additional authority to the attorney general, nor does it grant the office the right to determine what constitutes "misinformation" and "disinformation."

"This is meant to protect the very rights that people are concerned will be infringed upon," he said. "The study may come back and say Colorado has no authority to do anything."

"The hope is that this will give us resources to take this review of a very serious and complicated subject, come back and present a framework of what that all means, and potentially show you all a pathway to how to address this issue that is affecting everyone on all sides of the aisle," he said.

Andrew Barton of Colorado Common Cause, who supports the measure,said his organization has conducted an independent analysis of social media posts and that the study revealed an increasing prevalence of "misinformation" about candidates for office, election processes, and the validity of the country's voting system.

"Our democratic institutions only work when we can all engage with them accurately and honestly," Barton said. "Because of the threat of misinformation and disinformation, it's imperative that data around how such information is spread through online media sources can be gathered and examined so the legislature can develop data-driven solutions that help build understanding and trust within our political systems."

The panel amended the bill to remove the word "curriculum" to clarify that the legislation does not affect the education system. Cutter said that rather than a "curriculum," the attorney general would put together more of a "resource bank" with helpful tools.

See original here:
Colorado bill tasking attorney general to study online 'misinformation' sparks First Amendment debate - coloradopolitics.com

Its that time of year again time for the first spring showers, a forecasting groundhog, flowers and chocolates, king cake, and an annual skewering of Americas worst censors. Each year, FIRE names and shames the worst-of-the-worst silencers, bowdlerizers, and steamrollers of free speech.

This year, weve included five free speech villains whose chilling misdeeds happened off of college campuses. Thelist belowincludes people guilty of many forms of censorshipincluding raiding a small-town newspaper, punishing a middle schooler for wearing eye black at a football game, canceling students and professors for their views on the Israel-Hamas war, and retroactively censoring famous authors without their consent. The 13th annual Lifetime Censorship Award went to Harvard University, a university as censorial as it is famous.

Read on for full descriptions, in no particular order, of these censors attempts to turn America into the land of the silenced and home of the afraid.

San Diego middle school gives itself a black eye by punishing a student for wearing eye black.

Any sports fan knows its common for athletes to wear eye black black paint or grease applied under the eyes. For some players, its functional, reducing glare from the sun or stadium lights. For others, like superstarsBryce Harper andJalen Hurts who liberally smear it on like warpaint its about the look.

Last October, a Muirlands Middle School student, whose initials are J.A., adopted that look to show school spirit at a football game. He wore eye black throughout the game without incident. But a week later, J.A.s principalsuspended him for two days and banned him from future athletic events for wearing blackface.

Wait, what?

There was noblackface. J.A.s eye black had no racial connotations he was just emulating the way many athletes generously apply it under their eyes.

Whats next? The school suspending a student for wearing a charcoal face mask in an Instagram selfie?

J.A. appealed his suspension, and FIRE sent aletter in support. The bottom line is that J.A.s face paint is constitutionally protected expression. There is no evidence it substantially disrupted school activities.

But after reviewing the play, the school district let the ruling on the field stand.

Now, with the help ofDhillon Law Group, J.A.s family issuing. But there was a simple way for the school to avoid this challenge flag in the first place: Dont violate the First Amendment by misrepresenting students expression and then punishing them for it.

Feeling threatened by a small-town newspaper and its 98-year-old co-owner, police raid the papers headquarters, attacking the First Amendment in the process.

Apolice raid against a local newspaper sounds like a story out of Putins Russia but it happened in theheart of Kansas.

The Marion, Kansas police, with the help of a magistrate judge (andmaybe even state-level officials), cobbled together a search warrant to invade the offices of the family-owned Marion County Record. Why? They didnt like that the newspaper had dirt on a political ally not to mention the papers investigations into allegations of misconduct bythe police chief himself.

They seized computers. They ripped a reporters cell phone out of her hand. They even rummaged around the home of the 98-year-old co-owner of the paper, ignoring her protests. The next day, following the shock of the raid, shepassed away.

Thats a tragedy. The raid was an assault on press freedom that would make our Founders blood boil. And it should make your blood boil too. No matter your views on the state of todays press, when public officials attack just one newspapers freedom, they show their contempt for everyones freedom.

Rightly, the Marion Countypolice chief resigned after leading this shameful attack on the First Amendment. FIRE will continue to stand up to government bullies who try to turn journalism into a crime.

Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science tells doctor to shut up or toe the party line.

Can doctors offer a second opinion? Not according to Mayo Clinic College of Medical Science, which punished medical professor Michael Joyner for sharing his expertise and research.

Joyner is arenowned academic whose commentary on COVID-19, public health, and sex differences in sports performance you can read inCNN,The New York Times, and numerous other media outlets over his 36 years at the Mayo Clinic. For speaking in his personal capacity about these issues, Mayo Clinicsuspendedhim for failing to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging and reflecting poorly on Mayo Clinics brand and reputation.

The college alsodemanded he discuss approved topics only and stick to prescribed messaging and vet each individual media request through Public Affairs. In other words, Joyner can speak the words administrators put into his mouth or not speak at all.

Yet the collegepromises its faculty robust academic freedom and freedom of expression rights essential to medical professionals expected to share their expertise even when it is difficult or unpopular. Despite this commitment, Mayo Clinic leadership put its business interests above the freedom necessary for scientific innovation and sound medical advice, to the detriment of doctors and patients alike.

For sacrificing scientific integrity in a vain attempt to maintain its brand, Mayo Clinic rightfullyearned condemnation from the medical community. For gagging a prominent academic merely because administrators didnt like what he had to say, the collegeearned alawsuit by Joyner and a spot on this list.

Legislators and publishers bravely protect American people from dangerous childrens authors Mark Twain, Roald Dahl, and R.L. Stine.

If theres one thing the left and right can agree on, its that some books are beyond the pale.

Legislators across the country drafted a number of vague, overbroad policies to remove or limit access to books they believe are inappropriate. And whilethere are important considerations regarding what constitutes a book ban and how curation works in public versus private libraries, many of the legislative actions crossed the line into First Amendment violations.

TexasREADER Act, for example, required book vendors to rate books they sell to school libraries based on vague criteria surrounding what constitutes sexually explicit material, effectively turning booksellers into censors. Thankfully, the U.S. Court of Appealsblocked enforcement of the legislation, noting that the law was an example of unconstitutional compelled speech.

Meanwhile, other would-be censors took a different approach. In addition to the usual protests over books like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, we also saw a number of publishers memory-hole so-called problematic content from the works of authors likeRoald Dahl andR.L. Stinein new editions throughsensitivity reading. FIRE spoke out in these incidents and in the case of Roald Dahl, contributed to public pressure that made some publishersreconsider completely phasing out the authors original language.

Whatever the censors methods, the motives behind these actions are the same: to remove, revise, or restrict booksthey deem inappropriate for others to read. Both from a constitutional and a cultural standpoint, FIRE stands against such censorial behavior and when it violates the First Amendment, we respond.

While San Francisco State investigates history professor for teaching history, its students make speaker flee for her safety for talking about womanhood.

San Francisco State University administrators were busy investigating ahistory professor for displaying ahistorical image in ahistory lesson when all hell broke loose during a speaking event on campus, ending in protesters shouting, chasing down, and cornering an Olympic athlete.

Last spring, SFSUs censors dove headfirst into a months-long investigation of professor Mazair Behrooz after he displayed an image of the Prophet Muhammad in a class lesson about the history of the Islamic worldbetween 500 and 1700. FIREwrote to SFSU warning that its chilling investigationran afoul of the schools constitutional obligations.

While administrators were tied up violating Behroozs academic freedom rights, students took censorship into their own hands when former Olympic swimmer Riley Gaines came to campus to share her opinions about womens sports and gender identities. Students and protesters screamed, chanted, stomped, and interrupted her speech, then accosted her as police officers attempted to escort her out. The officers were unable to do so safely until hours later.

FIREwrote to SFSUurging it to investigate the response of the administration and police, and SFSU responded by confirming it was investigating the disruption and claiming it was committed to free speech.

The school was not so quick to backtrack with Behrooz, and it continued its investigation through the end of the summer.

For dragging out its chilling investigation and censorship of a history professor forteaching historyand allowing its students to run roughshod over each others free speech rights, SFSU handily won a place on this list.

In the wake of the Israel-Hamas conflict, hypocritical college admins enjoy a censorship frenzy.

Universities across the country havealmost as many administrators on staff as there are students on campus. What do they all do? Well, they definitely dont protect free speech.

In the wake of Hamas Oct. 7 attack on Israel, as campuses roiled with protests, demonstrations, and controversies over speech, administrators enthusiastically engaged in censorship.

The University of Southern California prohibited professorJohn Strauss from teaching on campus after he called pro-Palestinian protestors ignorant and Hamas murderers.FIRE wrote to USC calling for the university to rescind its punishment of Strauss for his speech which is protected underUSCs policies.

Brandeis University unrecognized its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine due topro-Hamas comments made by the national SJP organization.FIRE sent a letter reminding Brandeis that denying student group recognition based on viewpoint, speech, or fear of disruption violates free speech principles. FIRE sentanother letter on November 17 escalating our concerns and calling on Brandeis to restore SJPs recognition.

This turmoil was exacerbated by thehypocritical testimony of Liz Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, respectively before Congress. Magill and Gay in particular made remarks that were correct but deeply unsatisfying given their respective universities terrible track records on campus speech which put them in the bottom two spots inFIREs 2024 College Free Speech Rankings.

As FIREsNico Perrinowrote in response to the controversy, administrators should defend free speech in all cases. No hypocrisy. No double standards.

California Community Colleges stamp out racism by labeling everyone racist.

No one can rightly force another person to pledge allegiance to the flag, but in California, community college professors are required to profess allegiance to state-mandated views on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In April, California Community Colleges imposeddraconian regulations forcing more than 54,000 professors to teach and promote politicized conceptions of DEI. The mandated viewincludes the anti-racist opinion that persons that say they are not a racist are in denial or that color-blindness that is, treating individuals as equally as possible, without regard to race, culture, or ethnicity only perpetuates existing racial inequities and denies systematic racism.

Professors, who once assigned readings presenting different perspectives on racial issues to invite classroom discussion and debate are now altering their curriculum to avoid perspectives contrary to the state-mandated viewpoint. Other professors are left wondering how to incorporate DEI concepts into their chemistry curriculum to comply with the new rules.

Whether professors satisfy the states ideological requirements has real career consequences. Faculty performance and tenure are now evaluated based on professors demonstrated commitment to and promotion of the state of Californias official views.

FIREwarned California that the regulations are unconstitutional, but the state chancellor dismissed our concerns, asserting that professors lack any individual right to academic freedom to express views contrary to those mandated by the community college system.

In August, FIRE filed alawsuit on behalf of six California community college professors to halt the new regulations. That lawsuit is pending in federal district court.

TAMU admins endorse censorship by text message and ban drag.

The Texas A&M System had a chilly 2023.

When board members found out that the university was hiring Kathleen McElroy a former New York Times editor to lead its journalism program, thetext messages started flying. One board member complained that the Times was biased and progressive leaning, another said the purpose of us starting a journalism program is to get journalists with conservative values into the market. That goal bled over into a broader plan to control the liberal nature of faculty in the arts and sciences. The brouhaha ultimately saw the universitys president resign and cost the university a cool million to settle the dispute.

A similar situation emerged when professor Joy Alonzo, an expert on the opioid crisis, criticized Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick during a lecture. An offended student in the class was the daughter of a state official. Within two hours, Chancellor John Sharp wastexting with Patrick and his chief of staff, assuring them that Alonzo was placed on administrative leave pending investigation re firing her. shud [sic] be finished by end of week. That promise didnt ultimately pan out, but Alonzo was suspended for two weeks.

While Sharps fingerprints were all over the Alonzo affair, he wouldnt lift a finger tostop censorship. After an LGBTQ+ student organization planned an on-campus charity drag show, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler banned drag shows. Wendlerargued that drag performances are sexist, and said he would not permit them even when the law of the land appears to require it. After the studentssued, Wendler changed his tune, claiming that drag shows arent performances at all, so they arent protected by the First Amendment. Still, he stood by the ban, and FIRE will keep fighting against it.

Taylor Swift wouldnt change anything, anything, anything about New York. We disagree.

New York has a problematic pattern of censorship.

After a school shooting in 2018, the Empire State launched a crusade against the National Rifle Association by threatening companies that did business with the NRA. FIREurged the Supreme Court to hold New York accountable for its unconstitutional pressure campaign.

Shortly after another shooting in Buffalo in 2022, the state enacted a law requiringsocial media networks to address hateful speech i.e. fully protected speech that the state doesnt like. FIREsued, and the lawsuit persuaded a federal judge to prohibit the state from enforcing its law because it could have a profound chilling effect.

But in the face of yet another tragedy the recent attacks in Israel New York ignored the courts order,sending investigation letters to FIREs client Rumble and other social media networks demanding that they disclose their policies for removing speech related to the conflict. FIREfiled a motion urging the judge to enforce his preliminary injunction order.

Making matters worse, New York Gov. Katy Hochul got in on the action. She sent an ill-advisedletter to thepresidents of all colleges and universities in New York, both public and private, demanding that they discipline students for calling for the genocide of any group of people and promised aggressive enforcement action against any institution failing to do so. This would stifle political debate and blatantly violate the First Amendment.

New York must stop using tragedies as opportunities for censorship.

Florida isnt where woke goes to die its where the First Amendment goes to retire.

In Florida, officials have performative censorship down to an art whether on campus or on stage.

Take drag. As anti-drag bills became this years legislative fad, Florida joined the ranks of governments cracking down on drag performances. State officials dispatched undercover officers to monitor performances of A Drag Queen Christmas. Those undercover agentsreported in records obtained by FIRE that there were provocative outfits, but no lewd acts. That didnt stop Floridas officials from going after the theaters liquor license anyway. Not content to be left out, Floridas legislature then passed a law of its own targeting drag performances a law soonput on ice by a federal court.

The same chilling charade plays out on campus. In the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, the chancellor of Floridas universitiesdemanded university officials ban Students for Justice in Palestine chapters, threatening adverse employment actions and suspensions for school officials. But when the university leaders, citing the possibility of personal liability for violating students First Amendment rights, balked and the student groups sued, that will to censor evaporated. Soon, Florida meeklytold a federal judge that the formal memo was little more than a suggestion an open letter and it had no real plans to follow through.

Not only did Floridas university presidents have issues with censorship in 2023, but Floridas 28 college presidents started the year by unanimouslypledging to enforce Floridas Stop WOKE Act evenafter a federal court said the positively dystopian law violated the First Amendment in higher education. FIRE ischallenging the Stop WOKE Act in court.

Harvard is Americas worst college for free speech. Its recent attempt to silence The New York Post shows why.

Harvard University came indead last on this yearsCollege Free Speech Rankings achieving a worst-ever score. When asked about Harvards abysmal ranking during her congressional testimony in December, then-Harvard President Claudine Gaysaid she didnt think the ranking was an accurate representation of Harvards respect for free speech. But all one needs to do to understand Harvardsdisrespect for free speech is look at its record of censorship.

Only a few weeks before Gays testimony, Harvard hiredself-advertised media assassins tothreaten the New York Post with a defamation lawsuit and immense damages if the paper published a story alleging Gay plagiarized some of her scholarship. So much for placing a high priority on freedom of speech or freedom of the press for that matter. Gay resigned on Jan. 2, after more than 40 allegations of plagiarism came to light.

Long before Harvard threatened news outlets with litigation for their reporting, it punished faculty and students for their speech. School administratorsdrove out lecturer Carole Hooven for arguing that biological sex is real. Itrescinded a fellowship for former Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth over his purported anti-Israel bias. It effectivelyfired an economics professor for an op-ed he published in India. Itcanceleda professors course on policing following student uproar. Itfired professor Ronald Sullivan from his deanship after students protested his role on Harvey Weinsteins criminal defense team. It bizarrelydemanded students take down a Nicki Minaj flag because the community could find it offensive. And the listgoes on.

Even outside speakers invited to campus arent safe from Harvards censorial glare. In 2022, feminist philosopher Devin Buckley wasdisinvited from an English department colloquium because of her views on sex and gender. Her talk was supposed to be on the separate topic of British romanticism.

Harvard students clearly feel the chill. Students report low administrative support for free speech and low comfort expressing ideas, placing the school near the bottom of FIREsCollege Free Speech Rankings in both individual categories. Unfortunately, Harvard students themselves may also contribute to the problem. If the efforts to oust Sullivan and cancel the policing class arent evidence enough, an alarming 30% of Harvard students think using violence to stop a campus speech isacceptable in at least some circumstances.

For its long track record of censorship, Harvard is receiving FIREsLifetime Censorship Award. It joins Georgetown University, Yale University, Syracuse University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and DePaul University in receiving this honor. Its past time Harvard truly commits to its ostensible truth-seeking mission and the principles of free speech and academic freedom that make it possible. But that may be wishful thinking, the triumph of hope over experience.

View original post here:
10 Worst Censors: 2024 | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

Universities have long been esteemed as bastions of free speech, where ideas and debates are encouraged and fostered. However, recent events point to a growing trend of censorship within these institutions. Harvard University, one of the most prestigious universities globally, has been listed as one of the 10 worst censors of 2024. The university has been accused of threatening the New York Post with a defamation lawsuit over accurate stories about its leadership. This action has earned Harvard a Lifetime Censorship Award from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

The Lifetime Censorship Award is given to institutions or individuals demonstrating a consistent disregard for free speech and expression. Harvard University has been awarded the sixth Lifetime Censorship Award by FIRE for their record of censorship. This includes threatening defamation lawsuits, driving out faculty, rescinding fellowships, and canceling courses. The university received the lowest ranking in the College Free Speech Rankings for disrespecting free speech.

Multiple incidents of censorship at Harvard University have come to light. The university has been accused of punishing faculty and students for their speech. Notably, lecturer Carole Hooven was driven out for arguing that biological sex is real. A fellowship for former Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth was rescinded. An economics professor was effectively fired for an op-ed, and a professors course on policing was canceled following student uproar. Additionally, professor Ronald Sullivan was fired from his deanship, students were demanded to take down a Nicki Minaj flag, and a feminist philosopher was disinvited from an English department colloquium because of her views on sex and gender.

Harvards actions have far-reaching impacts on freedom of speech and journalism. By threatening the New York Post with a defamation lawsuit, the university has not only censored the newspaper but also set a dangerous precedent for other institutions. This could potentially stifle investigative journalism and discourage journalists from reporting on controversial topics. The universitys actions also send a chilling message to its students and faculty that dissenting views will not be tolerated.

Harvards Lifetime Censorship Award is not an isolated incident. FIRE has released its annual list of Americas 10 Worst Censors, including college presidents testifying about antisemitism on campus, Brandeis University unrecognizing its chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, and off-campus offenders. The list also includes people and institutions guilty of many forms of censorship, including raiding a small-town newspaper, punishing a middle schooler for wearing eye black at a football game, and canceling students and professors for their views on the Israel-Hamas war.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that fosters creativity, innovation, and social progress. Universities, in particular, should be safe havens for free and open discussions. The recent trend of censorship at Harvard University and other institutions is concerning. It not only infringes on individual rights but also poses a threat to journalism and the free flow of ideas. It is incumbent upon all stakeholders institutions, faculty, students, and the public to challenge and resist such trends that threaten the very essence of academia and a democratic society.

See the rest here:
Harvard University's Lifetime Censorship Award: Impact on Freedom of Speech and Journalism - Medriva

As the longtime head of documentary films at HBO, and then MTV, Sheila Nevins has won 32 individual primetime Emmys more than anyone else. She also earned four Peabody Awards, and has had a hand in more than two dozen Academy Award-winning documentaries. She made her directorial debut last year with The ABCs of Book Banning , which follows the recent push by conservative states and school districts to ban books about race and gender identity on campuses. Its also been nominated for best documentary short film at this years Oscars. Nevins tells KCRW that this topic hadnt been explored in documentary form before, plus she felt an urgency to tell this story, which she began during an election year. It was a political issue, not something that could wait because it was really about freedom of speech. It was affecting the smallest citizens in America, and they would one day be the voting population. She argues that the country was depriving children of the happiness of difference and the allowance of difference by stripping shelves of books about racial diversity and sexual preferences. If it was a book about two penguin daddies, it was off the shelf. If it was a book about an ambitious girl, it was pulled off the shelf. If it was about the fun of being in drag or being a drag queen, it was pulled off the shelf. Nevins points out that these banned books are age-appropriate. We're not giving books about how to deal with your menstruation to a 4-year-old girl. And we're not giving a 14- or 15-year-old girl a book about penguins. What particularly inspired Nevins was a 2023 video of 100-year-old Grace Lynn telling the Martin School Board in Florida that they couldnt take such books away from kids. She was motivating in a number of ways. We asked her to be in our film. And she was talking to a school board, which gave me the MO for the film. Nevins says she purposely centered her film on children because she believes some of the best documentaries are about the smallest experiences regular people have. You don't have to be famous to be an activist. You can be a regular person and you don't have to be young. And you might just as well be old. Because if you can move, you can fight. And if you can talk and you can think, you can try to make the world a better place. Nevins says that at first, she thought the book bans were limited to Florida, then discovered they were happening in school districts in more than 40 states. If you can afford it, you can go on Amazon and buy your book. It's not banned from America. But it's banned to people who maybe cannot afford to do those things and who need to read these books in public libraries and in school libraries. I mean, that's where it begins. Nevins film includes interviews with public school kids, whom she calls the littlest victims of these kinds of bannings. They want to know about their bodies. They want to know about racial difference. They want to know about world wars. They want to know about sexual preferences. Their uncle, their brother, their neighbor is gay, is trans. They want to understand that this world incorporates all this difference, Nevins says. They want to read these books. You cant take away reading. It's freedom of speech. It's the First Amendment.

See the original post:
Reading is freedom of speech, says 'ABCs of Book Banning' director - KCRW's This...Is Interesting - Podcast en iVoox - iVoox

Bill Paquette is a staple at the Killeen City Council meetings. Nearly every Tuesday, he sits in the front row before the dais and listens to what happens in the council meeting. He said he has been doing this for 7 years.

Last week, the Killeen resident wrote a letter to the editor in the Herald praising the City Council and Mayor Debbie Nash-King for the job they were doing.

As far as Im concerned, our current City Council is the best Ive seen in the years that Ive attended meetings, wrote Paquette, at 65-year-old retiree.

But Paquette also decried some of what he perceived as individuals berating the council and mayor during the meetings.

Some national organizations, and the Killeen mayor, say harassment toward local government officials has increased in recent years.

Many local officials indicated an uptick in harassment, threats and violence over the course of their time in office, but this behavior has dramatically worsened since the start of the pandemic, according to a report from the National League of Cities. City officials find themselves having to walk a balance between freedom of speech and harassment.

Paquette said he has signed up to talk about this issue at Tuesdays council meeting, specifically mentioned Michael Fornino and former Councilwoman Mellisa Brown as being people who disrupt the council meeting.

But Brown and Fornino both believe they are simply exercising their freedom of speech and some council members appear to agree with them.

Paquette said he witnessed Fornino shouting at City Manager Kent Cagle from across the parking lot after a meeting a couple of weeks ago.

Totally uncalled for, Paquette said. If he was in school, he would be a school bully and thats what he was.

Fornino, who has sarcastically referred to council members as kings and queens, often verbally attacks Cagle during meetings. He has sent emails to the Herald saying he asked Cagle to meet with him and accusing the city manager of making a false accusation that he threatened his family.

Paquette said he had conversations with Fornino about his conduct during the meeting.

I told him when youre calm and collected and you address the council, you actually make a lot of sense, Paquette said.

He said Fornino told him that nobody would listen unless he talks like that.

Fornino played a big part in an incident involving former Councilman Ken Wilkerson in April after he connected the councilman to a shooting at Fort Cavazos. Moments later, during the meeting, Wilkerson left the dais and followed Fornino to the back of the legislative chamber and confronted him while police and others tried to keep them separated.

Wilkerson resigned weeks later for different reasons, he said,

Fornino, contacted last week, said it isnt wrong for him to get riled up during public comments.

Why shouldnt I get riled up? Its suddenly a crime or a sin to challenge government when they are clearly ... blatantly in the wrong? he said in an email Friday. Ive tried polite. Gets nowhere. Present information and evidence on things, and our Council does nothing. The fact that I dont simply comply and genuflect seems to upset the desired status quo.

He confirmed that he did yell things at Cagle a few weeks ago. He claims Cagle wont engage with him in an official context because of an alleged threat against his family members by Fornino something which Fornino strongly denies.

He said if the threat actually happened, the Killeen Police Department wouldve been involved.

He also mentioned an incident last month where he said Nash-King called over police to stand in front of the dais after Fornino started shouting at Councilman Jose Segarra, the mayor and Cagle.

Resident Michael Fornino is blocked by Killeen police after berating several council members, the mayor and the city manager at a recent meeting.

That same night, Fornino cursed at the council in Italian during a public comment portion of the meeting.

Fornino is adamant he has never crossed a line, and said all of his words to Killeen leaders have been within his free speech rights. However, there are limits, he said.

There are limits to free speech. If anyone got up at the podium calling for violence, destruction, etc. absolutely not allowed or covered by 1st Amendment. Everything else is protected under the 1st Amendment, which supersedes any little ordinance, rule, or memo hung on the fridge in the break room at City Hall, Fornino said.

Paquette also criticized Brown, who speaks during public comments at almost every council meeting.

Brown doesnt typically name call and is generally more reserved, but Paquette said she likes to hear the sound of her own voice and has no regard for anyone else.

And shes been removed not once but twice. She would say the last one doesnt count because shes allowed back in, Paquette said. They need to stay removed otherwise theyre not going to learn from their experience.

Brown was removed in May for shouting during the meeting. However, she was later allowed to return. She was arrested in 2018 for allegedly disrupting a meeting.

Brown, in an email to the Herald Thursday, acknowledged that she was arrested once and asked to leave a meeting another time. When she was arrested, she said the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence that she was disrupting the meeting.

In both cases I was questioning freedom of speech and special treatment toward some individuals and hostility toward others, Brown said.

Civil discourse is a part of the legislative process and is protected speech. Negative comments should be welcomed. If we only hear the positive, how do we improve? Brown said. People wouldnt be hostile if they didnt feel as though they were being silenced. When the government refuses to listen to the engaged, they end up getting the voices of the enraged.

She also said disruptive comments are a matter of perception, arguing that it could also be disruptive to hit the gavel and interrupt people while speaking.

If people are intimidated by words, perhaps they dont need to be in a public position where they should expect to be presented with criticism, opposing views, and negativity, Brown said. I dont think theres a current balance in freedom of speech and harassment. I think freedom of speech is being stifled, and any attempted intimidation is coming from the dais.

Gary Bubba Purser has been at the forefront of some exchanges during City Council meetings, especially ones that affect local developers, as he is one himself.

Purser has made negative comments toward the city staff and made perceived attempts to bully them regarding developer fees.

Gary "Bubba" Purser talks building inspection fees at Tuesday's council meeting.

We never paid these, Purser said at one meeting. And they couldnt tell me (what they were), and these are your engineering people along with your consultant.

But Paquette said he thinks Purser was mellow about it.

He said he believes Councilman Jose Segarra dispelled the notion of having a bias because of his real estate background when he refused, once, to allow Purser to have additional time at the podium.

Other times, however, Purser was allowed to continue to speak.

Purser, whose family has been building homes in Killeen for generations and has been closely linked to local government for decades, made it a point in at least one recent meeting that hes never contributed to the election campaigns of the current council.

During a public comment period of one meeting, he pointed at each council member, saying hes never given them money.

At another meeting, he left the podium laughing after the council failed to give me more than the allotted four minutes to speak on a subject.

Purser could not be reached for comment.

According to a 2021 report from the National League of Cities, 87% of surveyed local officials have seen increased harassment against local officials in the past few years while 81% of officials have themselves been targeted for harassment, threats or violence.

Personal attacks. Physical assaults. Cyberbullying directed at themselves their children and families all while having to manage multiple crises in their communities this is what it means to be a public servant in 2021, Clarence E. Anthony, NLC CEO and executive director, said in a news release. Its too easy to forget that our local leaders are also human. Along with their titles of mayor, councilmember, or commissioner they are also parent, friend, neighbor, and so much more.

Much of that harassment is occurring on social media, NLC said.

The Herald sent the following questions to the council and mayor to get their take on the behavior of Fornino, Brown and Purser at meetings:

Do you believe that some people speaking before the council are creating an intimidating environment?

Specifically, do you think the public comments during council meetings from Michael Fornino, Gary Purser Jr. and Mellisa Brown hurt or help local government in Killeen? Please explain.

Fornino and Purser have both been in public comment periods where they appeared to attack peoples character, either directly or indirectly. Do you see the same thing and what, if anything, can be done about it?

Do Forninos, Pursers and Browns constant conflicts with the council affect the image of Killeen? How so?

What is the balance between freedom of speech and harassment, bigotry etc.? When do you think the City Council should put its foot down?

Do you think Fornino, Purser and Brown with their actions, words and behavior at council meetings discourage others from participating in local government?

Here is how Killeens elected leaders answered:

Mayor Nash-King said in an email to the Herald that freedom of speech did not give citizens the right to harass, intimidate or create a threatening atmosphere during council meetings.

I can understand if a resident questions a council members voting record, the staff presentation, or the budget, but creating a toxic environment for residents attending the meeting by yelling, screaming, and disobeying the protocol to be escorted out of a council meeting for a political stunt is an embarrassment to the city, Nash-King said. This behavior also deters residents from attending council meetings and partnerships with potential businesses.

She said she and two council members have spoken with the city manager, legal and Police Chief Pedro Lopez on how to create a safer environment for individuals attending meetings because the attacks have escalated from the council chamber to social media outlets, emails, phone calls, and voicemails.

Councilman Riakos Adams acknowledged in an email that there were emotionally charged comments during council meetings that people might find intimidating.

However, its essential to remember the importance of preserving the democratic process and allowing all voices to be heard, Adams said. While I may not always agree with every comment made, I believe in the fundamental right of all our citizens to voice their opinions. The health of our local government in Killeen and everywhere else relies on diverse viewpoints and robust discussions. That said, a collaborative and respectful environment benefits the decision-making process and is supposed to foster trust among the community.

He said if there are comments that amount to personal attacks, they should be approached with an open-minded response and corrective measures if necessary.

Local government thrives on the participation of its residents. I would like to see more involvement, Adams said. It is a concern if any actions or words discourage people from engaging. We should always strive to ensure that council meetings are seen as inclusive and open to everyone, irrespective of their views. We should not allow anyone to monopolize discussions and make others feel their opinions are of no consequence or not heard.

Segarra said in an email that he does not believe that people speaking before the council necessarily brings about an intimidating environment.

This is because individuals often bring their unique interpretations and observations to the issues being discussed, and their level of passion for expressing their opinions may vary, Segarra said. This diversity in perspectives is actually a valuable aspect of council meetings, as it can lead to the emergence of different viewpoints and robust discussions.

He said depending on the types of comments, speakers can either have beneficial or detrimental effects on local government.

Its crucial to know that people can get very emotional when talking about certain topics. This understanding is important for keeping things open and democratic, Segarra said. To make sure theres a balance between free speech and respectful discussions, the city council lets people speak about agenda items. But they have to stick to the topic and not attack council members personally. If someone goes off-topic or breaks the rules, the mayor will give them a warning. If they keep doing it after the warning, they might be asked to leave the podium.

He said even though conflicts with speakers do have a negative effect on Killeens image, the important thing is how the city council responds.

The council is being observed by the same stakeholders looking to invest in our city, to see whether the council demonstrates the resilience to withstand the influence of individuals for the good of the city, Segarra said. The councils response and its ability to maintain a constructive and informed approach play a pivotal role in shaping the citys perception and, by extension, its attractiveness to those interested in its growth and development.

Councilman Joseph Solomon said in these instances, civility is important.

It involves treating each other with respect, even when we hold differing opinions or positions, he said. While disagreements are a natural part of the political process, it is important to express these differences in a respectful manner. No one in our meeting shouldnt be engaging in personal attacks. We must stay on the issues that are on the agenda. Respect is a two-way street. We must agree that we can disagree respectfully.

Other members of the council, including Michael Boyd, Nina Cobb, Jessica Gonzalez and Ramon Alvarez did not respond to the questions by deadline.

Paquette doesnt often speak during council meetings, but this week he will on this very topic.

The people who always expect the worst, if the tables would turn, would be doing the inappropriate things, he said.

He had a message for people speaking before the city council.

Enough is enough, you know. I know the council likes to hear feedback from the residents, but do it in a constructive manner. Be respectful, Paquette said.

Read the rest here:
Freedom of speech or lack of civility? Resident perturbed by others berating Killeen City Council and mayor - The Killeen Daily Herald

In the spring of 1986, I took a History of Christianity course at Cal. In his introductory lecture, Professor Bouwsma acknowledged that many students might come from Christian backgrounds. We might have deeply held beliefs, he said, but we should expect to be challenged and discomfited. He invited the believers in the class to think of their faith like a warm jacket.

When youre out and about in the chill, you need to wear your coat, Bouwsma said. When you come in here, I ask you to take off the coat of your faith and hang it on the back of your chair. You can put it right back on when you leave, but while youre here, you dont need it.

The young woman next to me said, under her breath, with a mixture of pain and wonder that I can vividly remember almost forty years later, But its not a coat. Its my skin.

I didnt say anything. I remember I felt sorry for her. Raised an agnostic in a culture that valued skepticism and rationality not just as servants but as masters, college-aged Hugo pitied deeply religious people.Imagine walking through the world blinded by your priors! Imagine taking your faith so seriously you couldnt let go of it for a sixty-minute lecture!No wonder the world is a mess even here at Berkeley, fanatics and fundies abound! I bet she doesnt believe in sex before marriage either!

It would take me years before I realized that my own upbringing as the son of two atheist philosophers (who met in grad school at Berkeley) was a coat I wore without knowing. I never took it off because I didnt realize I had it on. In the circles in which I traveled, everyone I admired wore the same coat, and none of them knew it either.

It would take me years to consider that Professor Bouwsmas request, as elegantly and politely couched as it was, was a monumental overask. It would take me years to understand that the ability to take ones core beliefs on and off like a jacket is not, in fact, an unmistakable marker of high intelligence and sophistication.

I would grow, in time, to envy the people Id once pitied.

I often think of that young woman in that class.I thought of her again this week as I read story after story about the backlash against various college students and celebrities who have issued statements in support of what Hamas did in Israel last Saturday.

The first story came when the Arab American porn star Mia Khalifa was fired by Playboy. Even as the massacres were still happening last weekend, Khalifa who is of Lebanese descent used her Twitter account to cheer Hamas on.On Monday, Playboyannounced:

Over the past few days, Mia has made disgusting and reprehensible comments celebrating Hamas attacks on Israel and the murder of innocent men, women, and children. At Playboy, we encourage free expression and constructive political debate, but we have a zero tolerance policy for hate speech. We expect Mia to understand that her words and actions have consequences.

(This aint your fathers Playboy! Old folks like me might remember that Playboy founder Hugh Hefner once published a nuanced and lengthy interview with the American Nazi leader, George Lincoln Rockwell. There was huge outrage at the time, but Hefner who did not think much of the slippery distinction between free expression and hate speech stuck to his proverbial guns.)

Not to be outdone by the likes of Playboy, the billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackmansaid on Tuesdaythat he was starting a campaign to name and shame Ivy League students who had signed letters of support for Hamas. Several CEOs joined the campaign. At least one student had a job offer withdrawn.Some students howled in protest, others hastily retracted (or tried to retract) their signatures on the pro-Hamas letters.

Noting that students at Harvard and other Ivy League campuses have been some of the most effective wielders of cancel culture in recent years, some thought this was just desserts. Many of my conservative friends have remarked that while they are against cancel culture in general and dislike the idea of people losing job opportunities for their political views, they are prepared to make an exception for those who celebrate burning babies to death.

I have been a free speech zealot for as long as I can remember. As a boy, I joined the ACLU after reading about their successful defense of the right of Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, Illinois. The first time I wrote a letter to a politician was to protest the work of Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center. My adolescent hero was Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler. While I confess I did like his magazine, what I really admired was that Flynt had lost the use of his legs after being shot by a religious zealot.

That free speech zealotry wasnt just because I liked porn. It certainly wasnt because I was sympathetic to Nazis. I was keenly aware of my fathers familys Jewish history. It was because I believed that the bedrock of a good society was freedom of expression, and thatthe hallmark of maturity and sophistication was to be unoffended by ideas, images, or words. I believed we should police actions, of course, but not language or beliefs.

My family encouraged this stance, at least in part. I like to tell my conservative friends the story of the time I brought a copy of the aforementioned Hustler magazine to the family ranch. I generally hid it in my duffel bag, but one day, left it out on the bedside table. That afternoon, a grave-faced aunt pulled me aside.

Darling, she said, You really must tuck all your unmentionables away each morning. Please do be more careful. In other words, there was nothing wrong with a thirteen-year-old boy looking at Hustler. There was something wrong withforcing others to confront the factthat one looked at Hustler. As Ive written before, in families like mine, the primary moral binary wasnt clean/unclean or good/bad, it was public/private.All things were permitted in the latter.

I didnt feel guilty about looking at Hustler or pleasuring myself to what I saw. I did feel very guilty that I had not better concealed the evidence.Thats the WASP moral code, and it explains why I felt perfectly at home with Professor Bouwsmas suggestion that faith was like a coat that one could and should take off in certain settings.

It also explains why Ive always had this reflexive distaste for cancel culture.What should it matter what your colleague believes, as long as they do a good job?Even if they happen to be a Nazi in their free time, if they can restrain their Nazism long enough to be a genial coworker, shouldnt we tolerate that? We should police conduct, of course but holding people accountable for their beliefs as well as their behavior is a bridge too far.If the anti-Semite can wear her antisemitism like a coat, and take it off when she comes to work, who am I to judge what she tweets on her own time?

You might retort that her antisemitism is more likely to be her skin than her coat.You might be right.

The reality is that most of us dont want to live our lives in compartments.Most of us dont want to feel as if our most deeply held beliefs can only be expressed in private, and we must discard them whenever we enter the public square. Most of us seem to feel that our most deeply held beliefs will invariably bleed over into our behavior.A great many of you seem to feel that it is too much to ask a Jew to work alongside a Nazi even if that Nazi is scrupulously polite and professional while in the office. You arent buying the idea that the highest form of virtue is separating your public conduct from your private convictions, pastimes, and reveries.

What was done to Mia Khalifa and the Hamas-endorsing Harvard students is a reminder that while free speech is a precious right, so too is freedom of association.You have the right to say what you like without fear of arrest or assault.But you do not have the right to insist that I not be offended. You do not have the right to ask me to look past your pronouncements.You get to say, I hate Israel and Im glad Hamas did what it did, and I get to say, I hear you, and I take you at your word, and while I dont think you should go to jail, I also dont want you working in my office.

As the left has been saying for at least the last decade, freedom of speech is not the same as protection from the consequences of that speech.We can mock cancel culture all we like, and I sometimes do.At the same time, the fundamental insight of cancel culture is the same as the one my classmate had all those years ago: our beliefs are not coats. Theyre skin.Not everyone can change their convictions as easily as they change their clothes.Someone who makes an antisemitic tweet is likely to express antisemitic ideas in other contexts. That may or may not always be true, but it is not unreasonable to think so.

The rigid public/private binary, so treasured by classical liberals, various college professors, and my family, turns out not to accurately represent how most people think about human nature!

One more thing, from personal experience. Sometimes, when the world turns on you because of your words or your conduct, you double down. You become defensive and intransigent.Other times, though, when you experience enough loss as a consequence of what youve said or done, you reconsider. You begin to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you are not a victim of a bigoted and intolerant culture. You begin to think it possible that you are the architect of your own adversity. Having burned a bridge, you start building another one, perhaps in a different place and with a great deal more humility.

It has been a devastating week.Nerves are raw. Many of us shift from outrage to fear to grief and back to outrage several times a day. We may not all agree on the Middle East, but most of us agree that all of that emotion feels more like skin than coat. We cannot all easily divest ourselves of our convictions and sit cheerful, polite, and unflappable in the presence of someone who holds radically different views about what happened in Israel on Oct. 7.

We cannot use the force of the law to silence those whose views appall us.We can, however, say to ourselves that these are people with whom we do not wish to associate. We know ourselves, and we know basic psychology. As a result, we are not wrong to assume that what repels the conscience is skin, not coat.

One more thing, from personal experience. Sometimes, when the world turns on you because of your words or your conduct, you double down. You become defensive and intransigent.Other times, though, when you experience enough loss as a consequence of what youve said or done, you reconsider. You begin to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you are not a victim of a bigoted and intolerant culture. You begin to think it possible that you are the architect of your own adversity. Having burned a bridge, you start building another one, perhaps in a different place and with a great deal more humility.

It has been a devastating week. Nerves are raw. Many of us shift from outrage to fear to grief and back to outrage several times a day. We may not all agree on the Middle East, but most of us agree that all of that emotion feels more like skin than coat. We cannot all easily divest ourselves of our convictions and sit cheerful, polite, and unflappable in the presence of someone who holds radically different views about what happened in Israel on October 7.

We cannot use the force of the law to silence those whose views appall us. We can, however, say to ourselves that these are people with whom we do not wish to associate. We know ourselves, and we know basic psychology. As a result, we are not wrong to assume that what repels the conscience is skin, not coat.

This article was originally published on the authors Substack.

Hugo Schwyzer was a professor of history and gender studies at Pasadena City College from 1993-2013. He is now a ghostwriter living in Los Angeles.

See the original post here:
Harvard Students Should Know Freedom Of Speech Is Not Freedom From Consequences - The Federalist

WASHINGTON October 11, 2023 Today the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the nations leading pro-free speech organization, announced a six-figure ad campaign to raise awareness and support for protecting freedom of speech for all Americans.

The campaign features a two-minute sports-themed ad that will air nationally on NBC during the primetime USC vs. Notre Dame college football game on Saturday, October 14 at 7:30 pm ET.

The ad,which can be viewed here, takes a humorous approach to the issue: It shows two football announcers talking while a player the star quarterback takes a knee at midfield. One of the announcers, a liberal, initially supports his actions while the other, a conservative, criticizes him. The script flips when the player starts voicing support for religion and the unvaccinated.

The ads message demonstrates that, while fans and viewers political opinions differ drastically, their commitment to a culture of free speech shouldnt. While we can disagree on things like National Anthem protests, the ad suggests we should all come together around our shared value of free speech regardless of the speaker's politics or beliefs. The ads end card says, Free speech is for everyone, no matter what team youre on, while a voiceover tells viewers to join the free speech movement.

WATCH AD: Free Speech is for Everyone, No Matter What Team Youre On

We can disagree with each other about our favorite sports teams sometimes loudly, until were red in the face without demanding that those we disagree with be silenced, said FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino. That spirit of free expression should extend beyond sports, too. Free speech is fair play: we must defend everyones right to speak, regardless of what team theyre on. Thats what this campaign is all about.

To be connected with FIRE spokespeople about this campaign, or about our free speech work more broadly, please contact Tony Franquiz at franquiz@longwellpartners.com.

See the article here:
FIRE launches six-figure free speech campaign with primetime ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The Undergraduate Senate (UGS) responded to student concerns over a lack of clarity in the Universitys free speech policies during its meeting Wednesday.Residential and Dining Enterprises leadership shared with the Senate that 9-inch plates would return following student criticism.

The Stanford American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) advocated for expansions to free speech on campus during the meeting.

Stanfords campus disruption policies state that it is a violation to prevent or disrupt the effective carrying out of a University function or approved activity. Penalties for violations of the policy range in severity the nature of the offense and the students prior record are considered with varying weights.

The issue with this is that protestors and activists have no knowledge of the risk theyre taking when theyre protesting and that imprecise language can be applied in any way that the University sees fit, said Diego Maglione 25, who is a member of Stanford ACLU.

White Plaza is the one of the few places on campus where protesting or chalking is allowed with prior approval. Only registered student organizations and University departments are eligible to display banners.

Maglione said this limits the voices of individuals.

ACLU leadership raised the University of California, Berkeley policies as a contrast and said they were less restrictive of individuals access to freedom of speech.

Senator Dawn Royster 26 said she intends to work on a resolution to expand free speech on campus, with a focus on White Plazas current restrictions.

I am going to be looking forward to working with you guys and ACLU, Royster said.

Maglione said the ACLU plans to send a list of demands to the Faculty Senate. Demands would include Time-Place-Manner restrictions, that would clarify the locations on campus where free speech is allowed.

ACLU will also ask to expand free speech zones to elsewhere on campus and allow banners from individuals and non-organizations. They also demanded a clarification on the punishments for violating these policies. The ACLU called on the University to rework the webpage to be more accessible and resemble UC Berkeleys website.

UGS also spoke with two R&DE members, Eric Montell and Jocelyn Breeland, about increasing communication between students and R&DE staffers.

Montell said 9-inch plates will return in about two weeks, after students expressed frustration regarding decreased plate size in dining halls across campus. R&DE had switched to an 8-inch plate to reduce compost waste, Montell said.

R&DE also announced that Chun Yang Tea, a Taiwanese boba operator in the Bay Area, will be opening in two weeks at Forbes cafe. This is Stanfords first authentic boba concept, Montell said.

According to Montell, R&DE was working on another special location with a rotation of some Southeast Asian countries in Gerhard.

UGS closed their meeting with small changes to a joint resolution on the future of affirmative action at Stanford. Senate co-chair Diego Kagurabadza 25 will meet with the Faculty Senate chair Thursday to discuss how to present the resolution to them.

I know its asking a lot, Kagurabadza said. This resolution is four pages. Its a lot of comprehensive policy recommendations.

But I think its because the moment is now. These discussions have been happening for decades and I think theres no better opportunity than the one thats present itself today to actually affect change, Kagurabadza said.

See more here:
UGS responds to free speech concerns on campus - The Stanford Daily