Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Palestinian advocates use the language of free speech, human rights, social justice and international law to rationalize the irrational and immoral financially supporting terrorists while promoting economic discrimination against the State of Israel. This manipulative use of universalistic terms hides the boycotters real agenda: the elimination of the State of Israel.

Congress is now deliberating on whether to update 1970s-era legislation against boycotting Israel with the Israel Anti-Boycott Act that would target the international Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Some of the same misleading arguments raised against the act were also used to discredit the Taylor Force Act, a proposed piece of legislation that would punish the Palestinian Authority if it continues to financially support and incentivize terrorists and their families with American taxpayer dollars.

Today, there is bipartisan support in Congress for updating the 1979 Export Administration Act prohibiting American corporations from cooperating with boycotts against Israel by foreign nations, the EU or the UN. No American should be compelled to acquiesce to a boycott ordered by a foreign entity.

Enter Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who introduced the updated legislation to combat the 21st-century boycotters of Israel.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is bipartisan legislation currently supported by 42 senators and 247 members of the House.

The ACLU, J Street and Moveon.org among other progressive groups are lobbying legislators to withdraw their support, claiming the legislation seeks to impose an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Senators Portman and Cardin responded to the ACLU, writing, Nothing in the bill restricts constitutionally protected free speech or limits criticism of Israel... it is narrowly targeted at commercial activity and is based on current law that has been constitutionally upheld.

Lets be clear: the right to express ones point of view, no matter how contentious or odious, is a constitutionally protected right.

However, the attempt to expand the meaning of speech to include commercial transactions is a transparent maneuver to stop this particular piece of legislation that would bar economic discrimination against Israel.

According to Scholars for Middle East Peace, Legal analysts have shown... the amendment only... prohibits actual commercial boycotts... The distinction between expression, which cannot be regulated, and commercial conduct, which can be, is vital.

Boycotts against the Jewish state began immediately with its creation in 1948. The Arab oil embargo and economic blackmailing of companies doing business with Israel motivated Congress to pass the Export Administration Act in an attempt to punish the boycotters of Israel and other American allies. The law barred economic discrimination against Israeli businesses, on pain of criminal and financial penalties.

Fast-forward to the 21st century, where the original boycott effort has mutated into the BDS movement, whose endgame is the destruction of Israel not the creation of two states for two peoples.

BDS is a serious and growing problem targeting investment funds, pensions funds and companies doing business in Israel.

Groups already supportive of BDS include various trade unions, municipalities, progressive mainstream churches, and academic organizations.

But the greatest potential threat from BDS may come from the halls of the United Nations and the European Union.

The ACLU claims the proposed legislation is an infringement of free speech. Yet many state legislatures have already passed anti-BDS legislation, going to great lengths not to restrict First Amendment rights.

Now that the legislation has reached the national level, the ACLU wants to include commercial transactions under the banner of speech.

It should be no surprise that the ACLU would be at the forefront in defending the rights of the anti-Israel movement. The ACLU is an advocate of intersectionality, whereby Zionism is stigmatized as being incompatible with everything from feminism to fighting racism. Progressive Zionists are demonized while even the most illiberal BDS supporters are celebrated.

Memo to the ACLU: fighting against Israels right to exist meets the State Department definition of antisemitism. Even the UN secretary general said that the denial of Israels right to exist is antisemitism.

The ACLU says it does not want to stifle efforts to protest Israels settlement policies by boycotting businesses in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Notice that it doesnt confine itself to the disputed territories but includes all of Israel, more proof this is not about a two-state solution but supporting the BDS goal of eliminating the Jewish state.

According to the pro-Palestinian website Electronic Intifada, WESPAC, Adalah-NY, Jewish Voice for Peace-Westchester and Peace Action NY successfully mobilized to make this bill a central issue at New York Senator Gillibrands town halls.

The intimidation is working, as Senator Kristin Gillibrand, a co-sponsor of the original legislation, has withdrawn her support, moving her into alignment with J Street.

Does Senator Gillibrand know these groups are vehemently anti-Israel and antisemitic, on the fringe of the left-wing extreme? J Street, a self-styled pro-Israel, propeace organization which reliably comes to the aid of BDS supporters, has expectedly lobbied Congress to oppose the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. Despite claiming that it is opposed to BDS, it is using its considerable voice not to explain the dangers of BDS to the State of Israel, but to support BDSs rights, advocating engagement through dialogue that lends legitimization to BDSs antisemitism.

BDS is not about two states or the occupation, it is about the destruction of Israel.

The words of BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti say it all: Definitely, most definitely we [BDS] oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine, and no Palestinian Supports a Jewish state in Palestine.

Lets hope that the rest of Congress will rally in support of this important legislation against international BDS and will not be duped by the ACLUs dubious freedom of speech argument.

The author is director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political and Information Network. He regularly briefs members of Congress and think tanks on the Middle East. He is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post.

Share on facebook

Read more:
Is the Israel Anti-Boycott Act an infringement of free speech? - The Jerusalem Post mobile website

Theres an ugly fight going on in Congress over a bill thats meant to protect Israel from economic boycotts. The bill makes it a federal crime to call for boycotting the Jewish state. Despite initial bipartisan sponsorship, the bill is running into serious opposition a rarity for a pro-Israel congressional measure over charges that it violates freedom of speech. Most recently, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York withdrew her support, a risky move for a politician running for reelection in New York next year.

Civil libertarians point to language in the bill that would threaten the free speech of would-be boycotters. The bills advocates counter by saying that it doesnt outlaw anybodys personal views, but rather punishes actions by companies that knowingly comply with an Israel boycott, and only a certain type of boycott. They insist theres nothing for civil libertarians to worry about.

Whos right? Both sides have a point. A careful reading reveals that the bill is indeed aimed at business activity, not individual speech. But the language is so convoluted that its easy to see how anyone might think it outlaws speech including, perhaps, a federal judge trying a student with a Boycott Israel t-shirt. In the end, the senators do seem to be right that liberals shouldnt be worried about the bill threatening free speech. Rather, they should be worrying about another aspect of the bill thats potentially even worse, and getting almost no attention at all.

The bill commits the United States for the first time to extending its protection, including active legal protection, to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And by implication, it puts the United States on record as endorsing Israels assertion rejected by every other country in the world that Israel has an equal if not superior claim to ownership of the West Bank.

Specifically, after forbidding any actions by American businesses to boycott, divest or sanction Israel, the bill specifies that when it says Israel, thats to be defined as Israel or persons doing business in Israel or territories under its control.

This isnt the first time Congress has explicitly extended American protection to Israels endeavors in the territories it captured in 1967. The first instance appears to be in the 2015 law on fast-track trade negotiations. That law lists protecting Israels activities in territories under its control as one of Americas goals in negotiating trade deals, alongside protecting transparency, the rule of law and the American textile industry.

The new law refers back to that 2015 definition. In fact, it doesnt explicitly mention the territories when it forbids boycotting Israel. It simply states that its definition of boycotting Israel is the one spelled out in the 2015 law. Go look it up if you want to know what you just signed. Perhaps the drafters were hoping senators would find all that research too complicated and simply vote yes out of habit.

Its important to note a substantive difference between the two territories measures. The 2015 fast track measure tells government negotiators to remember while deal-making to consider the interests of Israel, including the territories. The new bill goes a big step further, requiring that United States prosecutors enforce that territories=Israel equation actively as a matter of criminal law.

Technically speaking, the new law isnt really a new law at all. Its an amendment to the 1979 Export Administration Act. That law forbade participation by American businesses in any foreign-sponsored boycott of Israel. The new bill expands that ban to include boycotts of Israeli persons or businesses in territories under its control. That is, it criminalizes boycotts of Israeli settlements.

That, in fact, is the whole point of the new bill. Or, more precisely, one of the two points of the new bill. The other one is to expand the 1979 boycott ban, which specified boycotts by foreign governments, to include boycotts by international governmental organizations like the United Nations.

To get the full context, its important to understand that the bill was born as a response to a recent United Nations resolution. The genesis is spelled out in the bills introductory preamble paragraphs. The intent of the new legislation is to right a wrong committed by the notoriously anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council in a resolution adopted in March.

That March U.N. resolution contains some surprises, which should have made the senators think twice. It starts with the usual litany of florid complaints about Israeli settlement building in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem. Then it takes an unprecedented concrete step: It calls upon all States and on business enterprises in general to refrain from any actions that contribute to the settlements maintenance or expansion. This appears to be the first time any U.N. body has explicitly called for an Israel-related economic boycott. Thats why the new congressional measure amends the 1979 exports act, which banned boycotts sponsored by foreign countries, to include international governmental organizations like the U.N.

What should have given pause in the U.N. measure is the specific boycott it urges on member nations. It calls on all States to refrain from any actions that might help the maintenance or expansion of Israeli settlements in the territories captured in 1967.

Lest there be any mistake, the U.N. resolution calls on all nations to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. That could not be clearer: Israeli activities in the territories: illegitimate. Israel inside its pre-1967 border: not illegitimate.

Thus, in stepping up to counter the March U.N. resolution, the current congressional measure adds two things, and only two things, to existing law. First, it expands the category of banned boycotts to include those sponsored by international organizations as well as by foreign countries. Second, it defines Israel for the purposes of American law as meaning Israel and territories under its control. These are now to be treated as though they were Israel.

This is a very big deal.

Remember, boycotts of Israel proper were already banned. Besides, the U.N. measure only bans doing business with the settlements. It states explicitly that its not talking about Israel itself. Thus, when Congress attacks the U.N. measure as anti-Israel reminiscent of the Arab League boycott, the bill says it is saying only one thing: that an attack on the settlements is equivalent to an attack on Israel. Thats barely a step away, if at all, from recognizing the settlements as a legitimate part of Israel.

Ironically, Israels own laws dont give the settlements any such recognition. The territories are governed not by Israels government and Knesset but by the Israeli army; they are under whats called military occupation in plain English, though Israeli governments hate the word. Theres nothing contrary to international about that. Its what happens when a country captures some land in war and hasnt yet negotiated its return to its owner. Until then, the army that captured the territory is the legal sovereign, holding it in trust until theres an agreement. Israels courts are currently hearing a case brought against the Knesset for its spelling out of the recourse available to West Bank Palestinians if they find settlers squatting on their property. The suit notes that under Israeli law, the Knesset has no authority in the West Bank. The army rules, with final sovereignty belonging to the defense minister. Even the prime minister has no authority.

Thats the reason that when the Knesset passed its 2011 bill outlawing public advocacy of boycotts, it specified that it meant boycotts of Israel or territories under its control. Theyre two different things in Israeli law. The settlers and their allies on the right have been agitating for years to annex the West Bank, or at least the biggest settlements, and make them legally part of the state of Israel. Governments have consistently refused, aware that it would have disastrous impact on Israels international standing diplomatic, economic and ultimately military.

In a very real sense, the March U.N. resolution should be seen as a victory for Israel. The world bodys most hostile agency called on all member-states to distinguish between the settlements and Israel itself. One is illegitimate. The other is not at least by implication. Nor has that or any other U.N. agency ever said otherwise. The objections are to the settlements. When you hear Israel or its advocates insisting that the settlements have nothing to do with the continuing conflict, that the hostility is to Israels very existence, youre hearing the Israeli right refusing to address the damage that the settlements do to Israels standing and security.

It should be noted that the congressional measures main sponsor, Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, is quoted by JTA as insisting that the bill does not change American policy toward the proper ownership or sovereignty of the West Bank. The very last paragraph of the bill says so explicitly: Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the established policy of the United States or to establish new United States policy concerning final status issues associated with the Arab-Israeli conflict, including border delineation, that can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the parties.

Nothing, that is, except making it illegal to protest the settlements through the pocketbook.

Boycotting Israel is an attack on the state, nation and people of Israel. Boycotting the settlements is something else: an attack on a specific Israeli government policy, one that divides the Israeli public down the middle. Making it illegal to advocate boycotting the settlements is a way of telling the public: Youre free to express your opposition to the current government policy, but youre forbidden to do anything about it.

On a personal note, I dont advocate boycotting settlements, much less Israel itself. Id be hurting too many people I know and care about. What I do advocate is telling the truth in plain language.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Go here to see the original:
Anti-BDS Bill Does Much Worse Than Threaten Free Speech The ... - Forward

Liberals intent on

eliminating free speech

Editor, The News:

The First Amendment has been under incessant attack by the left for many years, and political correctness is just their latest weapon.

Years ago, Saul Alinsky and Frank Marshall Davis, both leftists, attacked freedom of speech and advocated communism. Davis was Obamas admitted mentor while he was in college, and Alinsky was a hero to Hillary Clinton to the extent she wrote a very favorable paper about him while at Wellesley. Obama appears to have a thing for communists because he tried to put Van Jones, another admitted communist, in his Cabinet.

Story continues below video

Camille Paglia, a feminist, suggested that her Democrat Party has been seized by ruthless thought police who desire to destroy free speech, and we see this on college campuses.

When conservative speakers attempt to voice their opinions at a college or university, they are shouted down, threatened and physically attacked, and the school suffers thousands of dollars in damages, like what happened at Berkeley. If conservatives dont want to hear an alt-liberal speak, they just dont attend the speech. And we found out by Podesta emails that billionaire George Soros paid black-hooded anarchists to destroy Republican rallies. On the right, the Koch brothers donated $100 million to find a cure for cancer.

Alinsky and Davis both taught that control speech, and you can control a country. Throw in Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and you have a gaggle of America-haters who have had free reign for eight years.

Paul Dici

Ellwood City

Read the original here:
Liberals intent on eliminating free speech - New Castle News

Nick Vlahos Journal Star reporter @vlahosnick

Good morning, troops. It's Thursday, Aug. 3.

As another academic year looms across America, did you realize Carl Sandburg College and its hometown of Galesburg have turned into Yale University and Berkeley, Calif.? At least as far as threats to free speech on campus are concerned?

That's what some national right-wing media would have us believe.

Sandburg, a junior college that includes a branch campus in Carthage, received attention recently from Campus Reform. It's a website that considers itself a watchdog that exposes bias and abuse on college campuses.

A Campus Reform story posted July 19 stated Sandburg students could be subject to disciplinary proceedings for using offensive language or "hate speech." Campus Reform linked to a page that no longer can be found on the Sandburg website. Apparently, the webpage listed the school code of conduct.

(Sandburg provided this link to the school's disciplinary and due process procedure.)

Campus Reform quoted a representative from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education as saying Sandburg could be subject to a lawsuit if it enforces this policy.

Last week, another article about the Sandburg code appeared at National Review Online, a mainstream conservative website. That article cited the Campus Reform piece and also quoted Sandburg spokesman Aaron Frey, a Bradley University graduate.

The National Review author, Katherine Timpf, chastised Frey and stated the policy is about giving administrators broader power to control the speech of students. That could include ideological limits.

Nick in the Morning decided to get to the bottom of this by asking a Sandburg representative for comment. Late last week, the college provided a statement. Here it is, in full:

"Carl Sandburg College students are free to engage in any type of speech protected under the Constitution. Our policy reflects and fully supports this idea. The college is in no way interested in pursuing discipline against or penalizing those who lawfully exercise their right to free speech.

"We encourage free speech and the exchange of ideas, but we also need to be mindful of the rights of those who seek an education in a welcoming, healthy environment. That's where our policy draws the line. When speech potentially threatens or endangers the health and safety of others on our campuses, we are obligated to look into that kind of activity.

"The conversation at campuses nationwide is where the line between free speech and speech that creates a harmful educational environment is drawn. We welcome that conversation and hope it, too, can be honest, productive, inclusive and civil."

To us, that sounds more like a "Don't be a jerk" policy than a "Students have every right to silence someone with whom they don't concur" policy.

Of all places, college campuses should be havens for open expression of ideas. All ideas. Even ideas with which the majority of students might disagree or even find offensive.

In that process, students should not be subject to abuse, threats and intimidation. Then again, what constitutes abuse, threats and intimidation can be in the eye of the beholder.

Freedom of speech on campus has become a big issue recently. Some colleges and universities have disinvited or restricted guest speakers, usually from the right side of the political spectrum, because of student outcries.

Nick in the Morning isn't sure a junior college based in a smallish, fairly ordinary Midwestern city should be Ground Zero for the latest free-speech skirmish. If there have been massive protests recently at Sandburg, or if students there have been harassed to the point of intervention by higher powers, we and Galesburg media must have missed them.

Perhaps Campus Reform and National Review Online can dial down the outrage they direct toward Sandburg and save it for situations that really require it. In other words, heed the song heard on the way to work.

The rest is here:
Nick in the AM: National free-speech tempest hits Galesburg college - Peoria Journal Star

NEW DELHI: Opposition vice presidential candidate Gopalkrishna Gandhi today alleged that direct and indirect attacks are being made on freedom of belief, thought and speech and that a "new partition of a psychological" nature is being sown in the minds.

He also said that there was need to stop the "projectiles of communalism" in their tracks.

Explaining the context in which his election is held, Gandhi in a letter to the public said though the partition is now a thing of the post, yet a "new partition of a psychological division is being sown in our minds and "we must stop the projectiles of communalism".

The letter has been written for the common people, days after he sought a debate with NDA candidate Venkaiah Naidu on the role of the vice president.

"Direct and indirect attacks are being made on democratic freedoms of belief, thought and speech. And institutions serving public causes feel a palpable pressure on them to conform where they wish to dissent, to be silent where they wish to speak up," he said in his letter.

Gandhi also said, "When it comes to mutual trust, intolerance and bigotry have risen to an all-time high."

He said six months from now will mark the 70th year of Mahatma Gandhi's assassination and the wounds of partition.

"That Partition is now a fact, the riots of 1946-47 a thing of the past. And yet a new partition is being sown in our minds, a psychological division.

"As the late philosopher Ramchandra Gandhi put it, the Mahatma, on his way to prayer, was not stopped by three bullets of hate. Rather, he stopped with his heart full of prayer, those three bullets in their track. We must stop the projectiles of communalism in their tracks," he said.

Mahatma's grandson also said that the ideals of Freedom, Justice, Equality, drawn from the goals and values of our great struggle for Independence in the 70th year of independent India, "have acquired a compelling urgency. They are facing challenges."

While hailing the Election Commission for conduct of free and fair polls, he asked, "We have to also ask ourselves: In the larger arena of free choices, how free are we? Are we free of fear? Are we free to choose our way of life, our forms of thought and expression? Are we free to tell the bully and the bull-dozer in high office or on the street corner, off?."

He also asked whether one is free and able to "tell giant industries to not pollute our rivers, our air and not to dump their toxic waste in our environment".

He also described the two Constitutional offices of the president and vice president are the "fountain-heads of our Republic's very life stream".

Quoting the first vice president of India, he said, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan entreated - 'Look far ahead, be not short-sighted'.

"Let us pledge ourselves to India's greatness in freedom, justice and in an unbreakable inter-community bond, bringing us the gift of peace," he said.

Read more:
Direct, indirect attack being made on freedom of speech: Gopalkrishna Gandhi - Economic Times

With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. Its fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.

North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has been the guiding force behind the Restore Campus Free Speech Act and deserves great credit for moving it through the legislature. Im particularly grateful to Forest, with whom Ive been working since shortly after I laid out A Plan to Restore Free Speech on Campus here at NRO in late 2015. Forest and his staff provided critical early encouragement and support for the approach that eventuated in the Goldwater model bill. With the passage of the first state law based on that model, Forest has established himself as a national leader on campus free speech.

The final version of the North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act passed by a margin of 80 to 31 in the House, with 10 Democratic ayes (about a quarter of the Democrats present). The final version passed the Senate by a margin of 34 to 11 along strict party lines. Given the intense party polarization in North Carolina, the substantially bipartisan House vote was impressive. Governor Coopers decision to let the bill become law with no action is also interesting and instructive.

The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.

Although the university managed to weaken the bill at points, with one significant exception that weakening amounts to less than meets the eye. Some of the bills language on institutional neutrality was struck, for example, yet the law still affirms the importance of administrative neutrality.

The dependence of campus freedom of speech on institutional neutrality was famously affirmed by the University of Chicagos Kalven Report of 1967. Likewise, the annual reports on campus free expression to be released in North Carolina will assess the universitys successes or failures at maintaining a posture of institutional neutrality. This will discourage the university from, say, joining the fossil fuel divestment campaign, or the campaign to boycott, divest, and sanction the state of Israel.

The university did manage to weaken the cause of action provision, which would have allowed anyone whose expressive rights under the new law were violated to recover reasonable court costs and attorneys fees. However, individuals whose rights under the new law are violated still have the option of suing, and can turn to any number of organizations (e.g. the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Individual Rights, or the Goldwater Institute) for representation.

The university also succeeded in weakening the provision that designates public areas of the campus as public forums. Potentially, this would allow the university to cabin free speech to restricted zones. That is a serious concern and certainly bears watching. It should be noted, however, that the law also sets up a special committee within the UNC Board of Governors to issue an annual report on campus barriers to free expression. This provision draws the Board of Governors into more active oversight of campus free speech and serves as a check on administrative abuse on issues like free-speech zones.

In one area, however, the North Carolina bill is substantially weaker than the original Goldwater proposal. Although the North Carolina law will establish sanctions for students who shut down the speech of others, will protect the due-process rights of the accused, will inform students at freshman orientation of penalties for shout-downs, and will see that the administration of discipline is monitored by the Board of Governors, the provision that would have mandated suspension for students twice found responsible for silencing others was struck.

That provision is important for a number of reasons. First, the punishment is just. A student who twice silences visiting speakers or fellow students obviously hasnt learned a lesson from the initial punishment. Yales famous Woodward Report of 1974, the classic statement on campus free expression, recommended suspension or expulsion after only a single shout-down. The Goldwater proposal is mild by comparison. Second, since universities regularly ignore shout-downs or hand out meaningless punishments, the mandatory suspension for a second offense is the only way to prevent schools from undermining the law by handing out wrists-slaps ad infinitum. Finally, when students learn at freshman orientation that state law requires a significant suspension for participation in a second shout-down, this will have a powerful deterrent effect.

Without the mandatory suspension for a second offense, the university could conceivably undermine the law through lax enforcement. Yet its not as simple as that. If the university refuses to discipline shout-downs in the wake of passage of this law, there will be consequences. For one thing, the annual report of the Board of Governors will either condemn the refusal to discipline, or the committee will itself be subject to public criticism. A negative report on the administrative handling of discipline would give the Board of Regents a reason to replace administrators, and legislators a reason to cut university funds.

A university that refuses to discipline students who silence others is also inviting a renewed campaign to pass the mandatory suspension for a second offense. This applies to other states as well. Tennessee, for example, has just passed a campus free-speech bill. While the Tennessee law is excellent in many respects, it does not systematically address the issue of discipline for shout-downs. Should the University of Tennessee refuse to discipline shout-downs in the coming years, the limitations of the new law will be evident and a campaign to add discipline provisions will ensue.

Right now only bills based on the Goldwater proposal systematically address the problem of shout-downs. If Goldwater-based bills are weakened or campus free-speech bills that dont deal with shout-downs are passed, universities that refuse to discipline shout-downs are sure to face further legislative campaigns. Knowing that laws can be revisited and that public scrutiny will now be high should encourage universities to take their enforcement responsibilities seriously.

The same applies to provisions regarding public forums and a legal cause of action. Campaigns to restore or strengthen these provisions can easily be launched should a state university system fail to protect free speech.

So we are at the beginning of a new state-legislative era, and that beginning is auspicious. The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act accomplishes the lions share of what the Goldwater model proposed, including important steps forward on discipline for shout-downs. Goldwater-based bills are under consideration in several states, with more likely to follow next year. And any state bill can be strengthened in a second legislative round if universities continue to abuse their powers. Campus free-speech legislation is now in play as never before. Administrators will have to take that into account when they decide how to handle free speech. In short, the public has awakened and is actively pushing back against the illiberal assault on speech. That is a silver lining in the current crisis.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Excerpt from:
North Carolina Campus Free-Speech Act: First Goldwater-Based Law - National Review

An encounter at the Johnson County Fairgrounds with law enforcement made me thankful that the Sheriffs Office protects freedom of speech.

We often hear criticism about law enforcement, so I wanted people to hear my story.

I am a disabled Marine veteran. I was protesting with a friend last week at the Johnson County Fairgrounds; we opposed the childrens rodeo and were peacefully and legally expressing our views on public property near the entrance to the fair. We oppose the rodeo because concern about the treatment of the animals and because we believe that participating in these events teaches children to repress their natural sense of compassion and empathy for animals.

On the second day we were there, two teenage boys came out with a large 4H banner and began harassing me while standing directly in front of me. I am in a wheelchair and could not see over or around their banner, and the public could no longer see my sign. When I moved to a different position, the boys followed me and again blocked my view. This happened five or six times and was continuing, so I called the Sheriffs Office to request that a deputy come to clarify the legal bounds of our protest. Sgt. Brad Kunkel obtained a body camera and came over to talk to me as well as the boys and their friends who had gathered to support them.

Kunkel was very professional in explaining to them that I/we had a right to be there and that they needed to find a different place to stand.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional right that I defended as a Marine. I want to thank all of the staff from the Sheriffs Office who were present while we were at the fair, especially Kunkel. Its their continued service to our local communities that ensures our safety and constitutional freedoms in America.

Sincerely,

Lori Kendrick

Go here to see the original:
Letter to the Editor: Johnson County Sheriff's Office protects free speech - The Daily Iowan

July 28 To the Editor:

Sen. Maggie Hassan spoke at the 35th annual Martin Luther King Day Celebration in Manchester last Jan. 16. I heard her and was impressed by her firm commitment to civil rights and inclusion in our state and country.

So I am shocked that she has co-sponsored the Israel Anti Boycott Act (Senate Bill 720). This bill imposes fines and criminal penalties, up to 20 years in prison, on those supporting the movement to boycott Israeli goods and divest in Israeli investments. The purpose of the boycott is to pressure the Israeli government to change its settlement policy, which many believe is illegal and also immoral.

I oppose hate speech in any form: anti-Semitic as well as anti-Muslim speech. I condemn acts of hate directed at others. However, American citizens have a First Amendment right to speak and act in favor of boycott and divestment. Whether or not I agree with the point of view of the boycott is beside the point. I must support any American who chooses to exercise this right peacefully.

So, I believe, should Senator Hassan.

Sincerely,

David Blair

Harrisville

The rest is here:
Hassan should support freedom of speech - Seacoastonline.com

India has failed Taslima Nasreen yet again. The fact that the Bangladeshi author was denied entry into Aurangabad in Maharashtra, despite BJP governments at the state and the Centre, indicates that there is no space for freedom of speech in India regardless of which political formation is in power.

Cartoon by Manjul

And this isn't the first time that Nasreen has faced bullying from fundamentalists in India. What makes her case truly tragic is that there is no one to speak up for her. In her work, Nasreen has often taken a stand against bigotry and intolerance in Islam and has largely been abandoned by the so-called liberals. Her ordeals, in India at least, sit at the intersection of constitutional ambiguity, pseudo-secularism, votebank politics, mob violence and the State's repeated and pathetic failure in implementing law and order.

It is bad enough that the exiled author, now a Swedish citizen, has to go through the annual humiliation of applying for an Indian visa. Now it appears that we are unable to ensure even her basic safety when she is in the country on a low-key, private visit. She intended to visit the Ajanta and Ellora caves but all she witnessed was the caving in of the Maharashtra Police.

Rahul Shrirame, deputy commissioner of police (Zone-II), told PTI that the author, who landed in Aurangabad around 7.30 pm on Saturday, was immediately sent back by a Mumbai-bound flight to avoid any "law and order problem" in the city.

Yashasvi Yadav, the city police commissioner, told The Times of India that the writer had not shared prior details of her visit with the cops, and "citing security reasons, we asked her to board the next flight, and she agreed".

File image of Taslima Nasreen. PTI

"There is already tension and tight security in the city because of the ongoing demolition of illegal religious structures. We cannot tackle more problems at this moment," another police officer was quoted as saying in the same report.

Interestingly, even as the police claimed that they were unaware of Nasreen's itinerary until an hour of her arrival, the protestors a motley crew led by AIMIM legislator Imtiyaz Jaleel possessed specific details of her programme. They knew when she would arrive and were ready at the airport gate with placards, while another group started creating a ruckus in front of the five-star hotel where she had booked a room in her friend's name.

Shrirame admitted that the protestors knew very specific details. "We are wondering about the source of such specific information. The protestors were aware of her entire schedule, including the places she would be visiting and the date she would be returning."

An argument is being made that it was Nasreen's decision to return to Mumbai. She acted out of own volition. This is hogwash. When cops are dropping large hints that her stay at Aurangabad could "create law and order problems", what is she to do? Take a risk? The law and order machinery is part of the state's coercive power. And it exists for a reason. It is the state's responsibility to ensure rule of law and it cannot put the onus on the individual. It is a pathetic attempt at blame-shifting and paints a miserable picture of the Devendra Fadnavis administration.

Sadly, the script follows the template set by the Left Front or Trinamool Congress governments in West Bengal. The "progressive" Left Front had repeatedly caved in before Islamists in banning Nasreen's bookDwikhandita in 2004, or in asking her to leave the state in 2007 to ensure peace.

Soon after coming to power, the Mamata Banerjee government in 2012 had cancelled the release of her book Nirbashan at the vaunted Kolkata Book Fair, and a year later, stopped the airing of a TV serial scripted by the acclaimed author. According to a report in The Indian Express, it was done under direct instructions from the chief minister.

This prompted Nasreen to tell the media that Mamata turned out to be harsher than the earlier Left regime. "I had expected the situation in West Bengal to change after Mamata came to power. But I was wrong. I found her harsher than the earlier Left Front government," she was quoted as saying.

Furthermore, in an interview to Catch News, the writer had blasted the TMC government for "creating a Frankenstein". "Mamata Banerjee's Muslim appeasement policy made these fundamentalists this violent. I remember, two years ago, when her government banned my TV script only to appease some Muslim fanatics. Now she is seeing the results of those actions. She has created a Frankenstein monster."

It isn't about the BJP, the Left Front, Congress (banning Salman Rushdie) or the TMC, however. It is about the State's failure to uphold an individual's rights before the coercive power of the collective. This mentality goes at the heart of the mob violence or lynching episodes in India where anyone can twist rules and break laws under the cover of a group.

The Constitution fails to protect the citizen, simply because far too many dilutions have been allowed to affect the sanctity of Article 19(1)(a). Free speech is one of the building blocks of democracy, but in India, in a radical sleight of competitive vote-bank politics, the fundamental right to express one's opinion has been totally usurped by one's right to feel offended.

In the current scenario, furthermore, there is another devious ploy at work. The AIMIM is catering to its electoral constituency in protesting against Nasreen (never mind that many of those protestors may not have read even one her books), while the BJP is scoring points in letting the author become a victim of Islamist intolerance. It's a zero sum, yet a win-win game for both.

Go here to read the rest:
India has failed Taslima Nasreen yet again: Freedom of speech is still a victim as govt, police pass the buck - Firstpost

Its not just an unassuming carton in the supermarket dairy aisle. At least, not anymore.

Soy milk has been available since 1947 and is currently in high demand, bringing in about $300 million per year. Despite its popularityor perhaps because of itthe beverage has also found itself at the center of a global debate over freedom of speech.

Traditional dairy companies are arguing that the soy industry has inappropriately coopted terminologies such as milk to sell products, and that in doing so, its confusing consumers. The debate is reaching a fever pitch as cow-milk peddlersespecially in the USfind themselves in the sales doldrums while simultaneously having to fight off consumer interest in vegan, plant-based food companies looking to take more of their market share.

As a result of sour dairy-company profits, the soyfood industryworth about $5 billionis increasingly finding itself in courtrooms around the world. At its core, these cases boil down to the issue of free speech, and whether a beverage made by a commercial enterprisesuch as a soy milk companycan legally describe itself as milk.

Whether a soy company can market its liquid product as milk depends on where you are in the world. Thats because its one thing to consider individual peoples freedom of speech, but when it comes to businesses, governments take different positions globally. Those differences have created a legal minefield for soy milk.

In the US, the right to free speech includes protections for commercial speech, which is speech done on behalf of a company for the intent of making a profit. In places such as Canada and the European Union, it is generally upheld as the freedom of expression, which includes the right to hold opinions and impart ideas without interference by the government. When it comes to how that applies to corporations, the European Commission, the EUs ruling body, commits to promoting best practices by companies.

In Europe, this sort of language leaves a lot of wiggle room in the grey area of commercial speech. I think the American acceptance of commercial speech as a form of speech differentiates us from other countries, says Roy Gutterman, the director of Syracuse Universitys Tully Center for Free Speech. Other countries have way more room to regulate. We leave less room for the government to decide when it comes to speech issues.

The different legal attitudes toward freedom of speech mean that in the US, courts generally side with plant-based food companies, and in Europe, courts are ruling against them.

In June, the European Court of Justice heard a case in which a company called TofuTown was challenged by a German consumer-protection group. The court ultimately ruled that plant-based foods in the EU cannot be sold as milk, butter, and cheese because their chief ingredient isnt derived from an animal. Consumers could be confused, the court said. This ruling stands even if those products are clearly marketed as animal-free, such as TofuTowns products soyatoo tofu butter and veggie cheese.

In the same month, a US court heard a similar case against WhiteWave Foods, which produces Silk and So Delicious soy, almond, coconut, and cashew products, such as non-dairy milk, creamer, yoghurt, and ice-cream alternatives. The federal district court in California dismissed the issue outright, saying there was no consumer confusion. The court added that the challengers essentially allege that a reasonable consumer would view the terms soy milk and almond milk, disregard the first words in the names, and assume that the beverages came from cows. One month before, another federal court in California ruled in favor of almond-milk maker Blue Diamond Growers, concluding that the challenger failed to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived.

Still, the laws in Europe arent totally cut-and-dry. In 2010, the European Commission (pdf) oddly included coconut milk, ice cream, cocoa butter, and peanut butter on a list of products that are protected. This patchwork of different rules across the globe makes it especially difficult for companies looking to expand business, as discrepancies across borders can cause prickly problems for food companies looking to get their products in more supermarkets.

For an American soy-milk maker that wants to expand into Europe, this would present a serious policy challenge, says Jessica Almy, director of policy at the Good Food Institute (GFI), a Washington-based group that supports and lobbies on behalf of vegan and vegetarian food companies. Where theres no consumer confusion, they cant be restricting what goes on the label. For that reason, GFI is looking for ways to try and reshape regulations in Europe to clear a path for products such as soy milk.

The results of these legal skirmishes will stock the fridge for a food-production future that might be less reliant on animal-based agriculture. For example, new food-technology companies perfecting lab-made meats and acellular milk will be watching these battles closely to see how they will be able to market their products. In the global marketplace, these kinds of companies are still currently tiny players with big ambitions. But if they cant jump the freedom-of-speech hurdle, there will be serious roadblocks to cracking into big markets around the world.

This sounds like its a cutting edge issue thats going to be gaining some publicity and notoriety as it develops, Gutterman says.

Read this next: How the vegan movement broke out of its echo chamber and finally started disrupting things

The rest is here:
Soy milk is at the epicenter of a global free-speech debate - Quartz