Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

A favorite retort from those who believe in policing the speech of others is:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

This has become a thought terminating cliche for many which prevents deeper consideration of the ethics and morality involved.

Unless there is some way to make certain actions physically impossible, the way to prevent people from performing these actions is to inflict consequences on those who do so. We cannot make murder impossible so, instead, we punish those who murder. The idea is that the threat of punishment will make people restrict their own behavior.

It is exactly the same with speech. We cannot actually prevent forbidden words and ideas from being uttered. Instead, speech is restricted by inflicting consequences on those who utter them. The intention is to make people self-censor, to restrict their own speech in order to avoid punishment.

This is how governments police speech. Yes, some have enough control over the media to prevent things being published but, even then, they are still not able to prevent individuals from saying those things.

When we talk about restrictions on speech we are talking about applying consequences to speech. If saying certain words or expressing certain ideas is punished then speech is not free, restrictions have been applied. Therefore, freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences.

Those who recite the idea that "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" really mean "freedom of speech only means freedom from consequences inflicted by the government."

It's really just another way to say "it's only censorship if the government does it." This thinking is usually supported by pointing to the US constitution and explaining that the first amendment only says that the government cannot restrict speech. However, this is only a specific protection of freedom of speech, not a definition of the concept.

The US constitution defines only the rules the US government must operate under so naturally its protection of freedom of speech is limited to attacks from the US government.

If you justify restricting the speech of others with arguments based on the limitations of the US constitution then you don't actually believe in freedom of speech. You just believe in the constitution.

Freedom of speech is more than an amendment. It's a principle, that those with power over us should not use that power to restrict what we can say and, similarly, if we have power over others, our power should not be used to restrict what they can say.

The government is not the only thing with power over us. If you can inflict consequences, you have power. If you can pressure someone's employer into firing them, you have power over them.

Does this mean that we cannot respond to speech in ways which might negatively affect the speaker? Of course not. If someone says something you find distasteful then you have every right to judge them for it and express and act on that judgement. What crosses the line is action deliberately intended to punish the speaker and make people afraid of repeating the speech.

Obviously this only relates to speech in public. It's perfectly reasonable to police speech in your home or business, although even then the consequences should be limited in scope to your home or business. If someone uses racist language in your house, there's no issue with you telling them that they are no longer welcome. What is not reasonable is calling their employer to tell them what they said.

Yes there are grey areas. Is it reasonable to tell mutual friends about their behavior and have them ostracized from the group? Maybe. However, much of what internet activists are doing is well outside of these grey areas.

Am I saying that there should be laws preventing people from punishing speech? Am I saying that there need to be punishments for those who punish the speech of others? No. This is not about legality. It is about ethnics and morality. It is about what should not be done, not what must not be done.

Those who point out that these internet activists are merely exercising their own freedom of speech are right but that does not mean what they are doing is not despicable. Someone who uses racial epithets is exercising their freedom of speech but their behavior is not morally defensible.

Basically:

See the original post here:
Freedom of speech does mean freedom from consequences ...

written by: Lynne Ringle edited by: Amanda Grove updated: 8/2/2012

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects free speech, but there are exceptions that are not protected. Defamation of character, obscenity and making false statements that result in a clear and present danger are examples of speech that are not protected by law.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental American right, but limits on American freedom of speech also exist. Throughout American history, the Supreme Court has ruled on the types of speech and other forms of expression that are and are not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Even though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of Americans to express themselves, there are limits on this freedom. The Constitution states that the government cannot make any law that restricts free speech or freedom of the press. This means that the government cannot censor what Americans read in newspapers or other forms of media and the government cannot arrest citizens for speaking about their ideas and opinions, even if they differ from those of the government. However, this does not mean that Americans are free to say whatever they want at any time they want to say it. There are situations where some types of speech is illegal.

Freedom of speech does not permit someone to make a false statement about another person that could damage his or her reputation. This applies to the spoken word, which is called slander, as well as libel, which is defamation in print. Making these false statements must also be done with the intent to harm another. In one of the most important libel cases in the U.S., a police commissioner in Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan sued the "New York Times" for making inaccurate statements about the police department. The Supreme Court ruled that the newspaper did not commit libel because the statements were a mistake, not intentional, and that it could be more difficult to debate public issues if those who work in the public can sue anytime a false statement is made.

Americans are not free to make false statements that could cause panic or place others in danger. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1919, in the Supreme Court's ruling in Schenck versus the United States, that there are times, particularly in times of war, when the government must restrict speech to protect the safety of the country and its citizens. In this case, the court unanimously ruled that Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer did not have the right to distribute leaflets encouraging Americans to avoid the draft. It is within this ruling that Holmes wrote his often-quoted phrase about the First Amendment not protecting "a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic." Creating a clear and present danger is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

In 1973 in Miller vs. California, the Supreme Court ruled 5 - 4 that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. Defining obscenity can be difficult and the court did state that obscene is not necessarily the same as indecent, which is material intended for adults, not children. The Supreme Court also noted that caution has to be used in limiting personal expression, particularly when determining what is obscene and what is not. However, the court ruled that if the average person would find the speech or expression obscene and if it cannot be considered art, it is not protected by the Constitution.

We are fortunate to live in a place where we are free to express ourselves, within limits. These limitations do not take away from the meaning of the First Amendment. The right to free speech is a fundamental American right and a big part of why Americans cherish their freedom.

What do you think of these exceptions to the rule? Do you think they should also be protected by freedom of speech? Are their other instances you believe should not be protected?

More:
The First Amendment and Limits on American Freedom of Speech

Imagine a life where you had no freedom to speak what was on your mind, and imagine what it would be like to live in a world like this. Noam Chomsky, a linguistics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is a big supporter with the idea of free speech. He is known across the globe for his activism and outspoken criticism. He is also said to be the most often cited living author and one of the most respected and influential intellectuals in the world. (MinnesotaState) Chomsky is very respected in the area of free speech, which is why so many people criticize him as well, because he does have some extreme forms of free speech which he thinks how it should be. To show the view Chomsky has, there is one very extreme example of what he thinks should be allowed in society today.

In the year 1979, a French professor of Literature named Robert Faurisson published two letters in Le Monde. These letters had statements about how gas chambers used by the Nazis in World War 2 to get rid of people of the Jewish faith did not exist. After publishing these letters, there was a huge outrage almost worldwide. Faurisson was convicted for Defamation and also fined and given a prison sentence. A man by the name of Serge Thion, a French Libertarian socialist and Holocaust denier ask Noam Chomsky to sign a petition along with hundreds of other people who signed it to support Faurissons right to freedom of speech. After Chomsky had signed the petition, people were already attacking him. Jewish-French historian, Pierre Vidal-Naquet saw this petition to be a legitimization of Faurissons denial of the Holocaust and also as a misrepresentation of his intentions. Because Chomsky signed the petition, he also wrote an essay called Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression which was very critical of the French intellectual response. This also stated that Chomsky did not support Faurissons ideas but strictly his right to freedom to speech. This essay however was used by Faurisson in his book which intended to defend his rather obscure views. Vidal-Naquet attacked Chomsky in his essay and thinks Chomsky could have signed other petitions defending the right to freedom of speech without presenting Faurisson as a legitimate historian. Chomsky has stated that he believes in the absolute freedom of speech and also states I see no anti-Semitic implications in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even the denial of the Holocaust. (CriticismsWiki)

A question that can be raised from all this is, can Chomskys understanding of free speech be allowed in todays society? The answer is yes it can be allowed, and should be allowed. Everyday people are discriminated by other people because of what they think and what their opinions are on different topics. If someone doesnt agree with something you say or think, that shouldnt mean you should not have the right to express yourself. Although sometimes it could be dangerous depending on the topic your arguing or talking about, because there are some people in the society today that think there is only one side to things. Faurisson was a Holocaust denier, and even though many people disagreed with him and his ideas, they supported his right to speak what was on his mind and get his opinions across. The fact that he was considered anti-Semitic and given a fine and sentence in prison is ridiculous. He is not hurting anyone when he is doing his own research and trying to look for alternative sources and opinions. By not knowing all opinions and narrowing your knowledge on all topics, you cant really make a reasonable decision on what you think is right without knowing both sides. After 9/11 there were many opinions expressed that didnt agree with each other, and the ones that the Americans didnt like were somehow in some shape or form put aside, ignored, or penalized for having a different thought than the majority of the population. It might take some adjusting and such to get used to the absolute freedom of speech, but without it were shielding ourselves from other ideas that could prove to be good and interesting as well. If two people were to get into a fight at a school, and no witnesss were around to see it, the principle would listen to both sides most likely before making a decision and what he or she believes. This can be related to the idea of free speech, and Chomskys understanding of it, in which if you dont hear both sides of things, how can you make an honest decision on whats right and wrong, or what should be or shouldnt be.

The world would be a much different place if people werent allowed to express their thoughts and were only given stuff to think about, instead of actually looking into things and understanding the whole situation. Without Freedom of speech many great philosophers and other great beings would not have made a difference in the world. Martin Luther King Jr. Expressed his thoughts and made a difference to millions of people for the better, even when at the time many of thousands of people did not agree with him and were actually mad at him. Same thing with Bob Marley, he spoke his mind and how everyone should get along and be able to express themselves, even after getting shot at he still stood by what he believed. There are so many examples where individuals around the world made a difference by speaking up and questioning things even when people frowned apon it. Without this freedom, society would be very dull and probably not as harmonized as it could be. Chomskys understanding might be extreme, but with a little effort, it could be allowed in our society today and good would come from it.

Read more:
Freedom of Speech Analysis and Significance

Rep. Robin Vos, a sponsor of Assembly bill 299, explaining why lberals have no right to free speech.

The first amendment guarantees that the government will not restrict the speech of its citizens (with some exceptions). Republicans in the state of Wisconsin have passed legislation that restricts the speech of those who disagree with them. Assembly Bill 299 states that if a speaker comes to a University of Wisconsin campus, and their speech is disrupted, the students involved in the disruption can be expelled.

The policy must include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under an institution's jurisdiction who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others. In addition, the policy must provide that in disciplinary cases involving expressive conduct, students are entitled to a disciplinary hearing under published procedures that include specified rights. Also, the second time that a student is found responsible for interfering with the expressive rights of others, the policy must require the student to be suspended for a minimum of one semester or expelled.

During the debates on on the legislation Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, asked the author of the bill, Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, if a geology professor, under the bill, would be able to correct a student who said the earth is only 6,000 years old. To which Rep.Kremer responded, "So, this bill stays out of the classroom. Yes, the Earth is 6,000 years old, thats a fact. But, we can discuss that outside of this room."

The Earth is not 6000 years old, it has been determined scientifically to be 4.543 billion years old. A Wisconsin Assemblyman who believes the Earth is 6000 years old has written legislation that has passed both chambers of the Wisconsin Legislature that would allow a speaker like Ken Hamm come to the University of Wisconsin and state that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and no student could stand up and say, Bullshit.

To say Rep. Kremers comments created a kerfuffle in the local news media, would be an understatement.

Later on Rep. Kremer released a statement, titledBeyond Parody: Liberal Media Shocked to Discover Christians Exist, where he states,

I appreciate the concerns of my Democrat colleagues and the liberal media for providing some well-timed lightheartedness and comedic relief with their inquiries and stories related to a vital policy issue - the age of the earth. Wisconsin has completely skipped fake news and progressed to no news. Apparently this crisis trumps the need to report on the increase in shootings, carjackings, or the drug epidemic, and our Republican led solutions.

Interestingly enough, my hypothesis regarding the need for 1st amendment and free expression protections on our college campuses was made abundantly clear by the lefts unhinged attacks following the reporting on a different point of view.

This was not fake news, this was not, no news, an elected representative in the state of Wisconsin lacks the scientific education to know that the Earth cannot possibly be 6000 years old. That is news. He went on to say,

What happens to a UW geology student who is a creationist? What happens to the student who hands out a copy of the Bill of Rights or a Bible on the campus? What happens to a meteorology major who defies global warming as settled science? Simply because one doesnt elicit their belief system means, once again, that differing beliefs and viewpoints shall not be heard.

I am not sure how a geology student at the University of Wisconsin could get a passing grade if they were a creationist, especially if they believed the Earth was only 6000 years old. Just because one believes something, does not make it a valid opinion. By his logic, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, and all kind of other crackpotunpopular beliefs should be held in the same esteem as scientific knowledge.

Do people who believe this garbage have right to speak their mind? Sure they do. They also need to be aware that those crackpot unpopular opinions will receive a certain amount of pushback. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences:Just ask Bart Sibrel. In 2002 he confronted Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, by demanding Mr. Aldrin admit he never walked on the moon. Buzz Aldrin, then 72, punched Mr. Sibrel in the face. I am not one to condone violence but, Mr. Sibrel had it coming.

People who push conspiracy theories, creationism, flat-earthism, climate change denial, young earthism, and a host of other crackpot unpopular opinions do not deserve a seat at the table. I know I will hear about this in comments, but these people need to be ridiculed. If they want a public audience it should be on a street corner, not a University campus.

The bill also states that all University institutions must remain neutralon public policy controversies. The problem with that statement is many things that are settled science, or what are generally thought of as societal norms, are considered controversial to many on the right. Climate change, evolution, womens rights, civil rights, and a host of other topics would fall under this umbrella. If a student group invited the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, you could not shout him down in the lecture hall.He would be allowed to have free speech; however, a student would be denied his or her free speech rights.

Assembly Bill 299 is an affront to the FirstAmendment, if it passes the Senate (which is likely) and if Governor Walker signs it into law it will be challenged in court;it will cost the taxpayers in Wisconsin millions of dollars to defend a law that Iikelywould not pass Constitutional muster.

This is just another gambit by Wisconsin Republicans to silence dissent, andto allow their crackpot unpopular beliefs and theories to have an equal seat at the table of sound, researched facts. They cannot accept that their beliefs are challenged. They have been trying for years to discredit climate change research. Now, if a climate change denier is invited to campus, a student majoring in atmospheric and oceanic studies cannot challenge the speaker and his/her misguided beliefs. Dissent is not always pretty, it is sometimes loud and uglybut it is necessary for a democracy to function.

Continue reading here:
Free speech is only for conservatives - Daily Kos

The right to freedom of speech set forth in the First Amendment to the Constitution is being abridged by those who favor restricted speech, which allows one to say only that which they agree with.

We are experiencing a profound shift in our political culture, resulting in more and more persons with this view of the freedom of speech.

Since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, which restored free speech rights to millions of Americans by allowing non-profits and corporations to speak freely in the public arena, those who believe in restrictions now find it harder and harder to win policy arguments. Instead, they are beginning to operate under a new strategy, to threaten, harass and intimidate opponents to silence them, and to see that those who exercise their constitutional right to free speech will pay politically and personally.

Some examples are: The IRS targeting conservative non-profits; prosecutors abusing their powers to silence political opponents; activist groups using blackmail in the form of running campaigns against donors, corporations and businesses; and higher learning schools prohibiting conservative speakers.

This new strategy is not only generating a belief that those with a retrograde view have no rights, but is also turning those who exercise it from opponents into oppressors, who are more and more resorting to violence.

Undesired and offensive speech should be confronted with logic and better reasoning, without fear of retaliation or the need for societal sanction.

The liberty of freedom of speech can be better protected by more voices, not fewer.

Read the rest here:
Freedom of speech includes undesired and offensive - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

GREENVILLE After a lengthy debate, the state Assembly recently adopted the Campus Free Speech Act. The bill, which I co-authored with Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum, and Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, will defend free speech on University of Wisconsin System campuses, and I hope the state Senate adopts it soon.

Defending free speech requires more of us than letting folks see who can shout the loudest. No freedom exists without responsibility. The freedom of speech is tied to the responsibility of letting others speak freely. Without the ability to be heard, without the ability to communicate, free speech is meaningless. Free speech includes the right to not be silenced not by the state, not by the state university, not by a mob, and not by an individual.

Nowhere is it more important to uphold the right to free speech than at our public universities. Nationally, we are witnessing disruptions in response to disagreeable speech. Some may say free speech isnt threatened here in Wisconsin. I say its never too early to preserve such an important right.

This is Wisconsin after all, and here in Wisconsin we dont wait until after a disaster to act. Wisconsin must continue to be on the forefront of protecting the right to speak, and the right to be heard.

Our public universities were established to discover and disseminate knowledge. This is only possible when controversial ideas can be freely expressed. College is not an extension of high school. A university is where truth is discovered and where decisions have real consequences.

A lot of people refer to college students as kids. But theyre not kids. Theyre adults. They used to be kids, and during that time they werent held responsible the way adults are. But college students are adults, and universities shouldnt coddle them. Its time that universities hold these adults responsible for their actions.

If someone is silenced on one of our campuses, Assembly Bill 299 provides them with clear legal recourse and clarity about how they can uphold their constitutional right to free speech. Everything in the bill is constitutional. In fact, it upholds the values of the First Amendment: allowing individuals to speak in a time, place, and manner where their voices can be heard.

Not only does a speaker have a right to be speak, but an audience has a right to hear the speech they came to see. This is especially true for students and their families who are paying so much for their time at a university.

Disrupting free speech is unconstitutional. Disruption is not speech. Disruption isnt protest. Disruption is theft. Its theft of another persons right to speak and be heard.

Im sure youll hear claims this bill protects so-called provocateurs. Well, this bill does protect them. Who decides who a provocateur is anyway? This bill protects provocateurs, professors, protesters and every other member of the public from being shut down by mob rule.

This bill sends the unmistakable message that Wisconsin values speech. Its a signal to people of all political leanings that they are welcome at our universities. The bill makes clear to students, faculty and visitors alike that silencing others is never an appropriate response to speech you dont like. Shouting down a person isnt the answer to speech you disagree with.

The free exchange of ideas must be at the core of a democratic society and a university education. Sunshine is the only disinfectant of bad ideas not silence, and not disruption. The process for enforcing speech policies on our college campuses will be dragged out into this light, ensuring fair and consistent application of the rules.

At orientation, students will learn about the importance of freedom of expression, which includes the right to speak and the responsibility to not silence others speech. New employees will receive information about freedom of expression. Instructors will receive an annual refresher on how to uphold free speech.

The bill protects the university from the type of mob thinking that has endangered so many other places. I dont know any elected officials who oppose free speech. How could we? Our jobs require us every day to enable speech, exercise speech, and honor free speech.

The UW Board of Regents has shown great leadership in adopting policies to protect freedom of expression. This bill backs up their initiative with the power of the law. It sends an important message that when university administrators take action to protect the free exercise of speech, those administrators will have the law squarely in their corner.

The enactment of this bill will ensure that Wisconsin citizens will never decline to speak up for fear of being shouted down on one of our college campuses.

Murphy, R-Greenville, represents the 56th Assembly District, including parts of Winneconne and Appleton: Rep.Murphy@legis.wisconsin.gov. This column was part of his Assembly floor speech on the Campus Free Speech Act he supports.

See the rest here:
Rep. Dave Murphy: Free speech includes right to be heard | Column ... - Madison.com

RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty and visiting speakers.

I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.

Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the UNC School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.

Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.

Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.

North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.

Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.

To recognize the right of someone else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.

There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.

The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.

The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.

The John Locke Foundation

Original post:
John Hood: State universities advance free speech - Winston-Salem Journal

The American concept of free speech was built into the Bill of Rights in 1789 and forged into laws over the past 100 years to become a global icon of freedom.

AFTER a century of building free-speech rights into our laws and culture, Americans are backing away from one of the countrys defining principles.

Set off by the nations increasingly short fuse, students, politicians, teachers and parents are not just refusing to hear each other out, were coming up with all sorts of ways of blocking ideas we dont agree with.

In high schools across the country, teachers say they stay away from hot topics such as immigration and health care because so many parents complain when their kids encounter emotional issues in class.

At colleges from Berkeley to Middlebury, a year of protests, many aimed at blocking controversial speakers, led to congressional hearings last week that could end up in sanctions against some of the schools.

On the internet, scores of anonymous posters are drumming targets into silence. In one case, actress Leslie Jones temporarily fled Twitter, feeling like she was in a personal hell from an onslaught of hacks and hateful posts. In another, a congressional candidate in Iowa quit the race in early June after receiving calls and emails that included death threats.

The American concept of free speech was built into the Bill of Rights in 1789 and forged into laws over the past 100 years to become a global icon of freedom. Those who study history and the Constitution worry that in the past year, weve done real damage to a notion at the heart of democracy.

I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom of speech has never before been so poorly regarded by such large numbers of Americans.

Where will this country be if its speech tradition falters? We can already see an awkward dynamic taking shape. In social settings, when we come face to face, were hesitant to say what we think, while online in mostly anonymous exchanges all manner of spite and bitterness pours forth.

This raises a question worth thinking about as we celebrate Americas birthday this week: What are the chances of resolving the countrys differences if we no longer talk or listen to one another?

We cant lose sight of the fact that the ability to speak our minds is one of the fundamental freedoms in self government, said Gene Policinski, chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute in Washington, D.C.

A mix of developments, incidents and trends put us on this path.

At many colleges and universities, students say they shouldnt have to put up with views they find offensive, racially insensitive or wrongheaded. The thinking arose over time, and then gained momentum with the Black Lives Matter movement and the stormy politics of the year.

The sometimes-violent protests have drawn lots of reaction, condemnations and solutions but not much consensus.

I find this really hard, said Edward Wasserman, dean of the graduate journalism school at Berkeley, where protests earlier this year blocked conservatives Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking. But I dont think the world is a worse place because Ann Coulter doesnt get to say something shes already said a thousand times.

Others see a fundamental failing at work.

Its hard not to conclude that too many of our students havent had a civics course in junior high school, said Floyd Abrams, the pre-eminent First Amendment lawyer who handled cases from the Pentagon Papers to Citizens United and just published a new book, The Soul of the First Amendment.

If the high-school curriculum is part of the problem, that may be because teachers are hesitant about their roles. David Bobb, head of the Bill of Rights Institute, funded by industrialist Charles Koch to provide training to schools, said he hears regularly from teachers who avoid topics for fear of backlash.

They have to wonder, If I get into this controversial topic, am I going to be backed up by my department chair, or the principal? he said. Or are the parents going to come after me and say its not your place to talk about this?

The internet is helping fuel whats happening by creating a mob mentality and adding enormous speed and reach to what people say. Its become so much more chaotic, said Lee Rainie, who directs Pew Research work on technology, science and the internet.

Almost every conversation on the state of free speech ends up on the question of what can be done.

Embarrassed by whats happened, universities are writing new student codes and rules of engagement for visiting lecturers. Were working hard to get our act together, said Wisconsin political science professor Donald Downs, who has led a push for civility.

Organizations such as the Constitution Center and the Bill of Rights Institute see solutions in education programs and better curriculum for schools. In 18 states, legislatures think the problem rests in the unruly protests and are preparing laws that would limit mass gatherings.

Still, more than a dozen observers from every perspective interviewed for this piece said we should expect more rocky times ahead.

They cite a political climate with a historic level of rancor, a president whos been mostly on the attack since his inauguration and a media thats embraced the conflict with a fervor that has brought record viewership and readership.

When people quit listening to each other, theres that lack of discussion and a lack of understanding, said Bradley A. Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio. Thats when theres a growing tendency to think the other side shouldnt be able to say what they think.

If America becomes torn against itself, I think free speech sort of goes out with it, said Downs, the Wisconsin professor.

Sometimes Im genuinely anguished over the kind of society were going to have if this keeps going, said Christina Hoff Sommers, an author and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. Its easy to take it for granted and not recognize that were jeopardizing these freedoms.

Summing up: Its worth remembering that free-speech rights were built over decades of conflict. Theyve been tested in every generation, through wartime, civil rights, the rise of new technologies and the threat of terrorism, and have been solidly supported by U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

Todays conflicts are the most complicated yet and show no sign of easing. But as more than one scholar has pointed out, free speech is the starting place for all our other rights. We shouldnt lose sight of whats at stake: Without the free flow of ideas, the American experiment cannot succeed.

Link:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Seattle Times

Yeah, yeah, before you rush to the comments and start justifying this by saying that Europe doesn't respect free expression in the same way the US does, let's just say while that may be true, this is still bad: Germany has moved forward with a plan to fine internet companies which don't quickly censor the internet. Censor what, though? Three loosely defined (and easily abused) categories: hate speech, criminal material and fake news.

Social media companies face fines of up to 50m (43m) if they persistently fail to remove illegal content from their sites under a new law passed in Germany

The German parliament on Friday approved the bill aimed at cracking down on hate speech, criminal material and fake news on social networks but critics warn it could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

And, yes, again Europe has very different standards for free expression -- and Germany, in particular, has a long history of trying to suppress what it considers "bad" speech regarding some of its historical actions (Godwin'd!). Even so, this is dangerous and will be abused to stifle all sorts of important expression:

The German justice minister, Heiko Maas, who was the driving force behind the bill, said: Freedom of speech ends where the criminal law begins. Maas said official figures showed the number of hate crimes in Germany increased by more than 300% in the last two years.

Even accepting that free speech ends where criminal law begins, that doesn't justify fining the platforms. If people are posting "illegal" content, go after them for breaking the law. Don't go after the tools they use. By putting massive liability risks on platforms, those platforms will almost certainly overcompensate and over censor to avoid any risk of liability. That means a tremendous amount of what should be protected speech gets silence, just because these companies don't want to get fined. Even worse, the big platforms can maybe hire people to handle this. The littler platforms? They basically can't risk operating in Germany any more. Berlin is a hotbed of startups, but this is going to seriously harm many of them.

The new law also has an even weirder provision, putting liability not just on the platforms, but on individual employees at online platforms who are designated the Chief Censors for that platform:

Aside from the hefty fine for companies, the law also provides for fines of up to 5m for the person each company designates to deal with the complaints procedure if it doesnt meet requirements.

Who the hell is going to want that job? Make one mistake in failing to censor something, and you may be bankrupted.

Just a little while ago we wrote about how difficult it can be for a platform to be calling the shots on what's worth censoring and what's not. Since there's so much content, the analysis of each piece of content needs to be standardized in a manner that tends to be absurd. It appears that those supporting this law don't have any interest in the realities involved, but think that by passing this legislation, they've waved a magic wand. Yes, putting liability onto platforms (and employees) will likely lead to greater suppression of speech people dislike -- but also of important and necessary speech. There appears to have been no effort to consider how dangerous that might turn out to be.

Read the original:
Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech - Techdirt

RALEIGH A couple of months ago, I wrote a column that outlined emerging threats to freedom of speech on college campuses and noted with alarm that few of North Carolinas public or private universities had taken the necessary steps to ensure even a basic level of protection for students, faculty, and visiting speakers.

I am pleased to report that the situation has improved significantly since I wrote that earlier piece. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) assesses the rules and procedures that protect, or fail to protect, free speech on campus. Just a few months ago, only one of the campuses in the University of North Carolina system Chapel Hill was given a green light in FIREs rating system. Most received yellow lights, while four campuses got red lights for failing to provide meaningful protections.

Several UNC campuses contacted FIRE to find out what they needed to do to address the problem, and then took action to remove their intrusive speech codes. As of late June, only one institution in the system, the School of the Arts in Winston-Salem, still has a red-light designation.

Five campuses UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro, UNC-Charlotte, North Carolina Central, and East Carolina now have green lights. Thats fantastic! The other 10 universities are rated yellow, which in a couple of cases is still an improvement.

Among private campuses in North Carolina, the free-speech leader is Duke University, with a green light. On the other end of the spectrum, Wake Forest University and Davidson College are blinking red. While First Amendment protections of freedom of speech, press, and assembly dont apply to private campuses, they should champion such practices as forming the core element of a truly liberal education.

North Carolina now leads the nation in the number of higher education institutions receiving FIREs top rating. North Carolinians who treasure free expression should be proud of this progress even as we continue to press other institutions to follow suit.

Why pay so much attention to this issue? Unless you are a professor, a student, or a family member of either, you may not see free speech on campus as critical. But its related to a broader phenomenon that youve surely noticed and that may be affecting you more directly the decline of civil, constructive dialogue across political difference.

To recognize the right of some else to express a controversial point of view is not necessarily to endorse that view. To place a high value on the free exchange of ideas is not necessarily to place a high value on all of the ideas being exchanged, or to place a high level of trust or confidence in the individuals expressing those ideas.

There are at least two core arguments for freedom of speech. One is that we all have inherent rights as human beings to say (and do) whatever we please as long as we dont violate the equal rights of others to say (and do) the same. The other, more consequentialist, argument is that if we allow and foster an unencumbered exchange of views, the marketplace of ideas will sort itself out over time and provide us with better answers to important questions than we could ever get by constraining the debate.

The first argument only applies to government policy. That is, in a free society no politician or bureaucrat has the legitimate power to suppress the views of others through such means as fines or imprisonment. If you come on my property and start yelling at me about Medicaid expansion or whatnot, I can have you ejected. But if you stand on your own property and yell at me, or use private means to communicate your views through spoken or printed word, my only recourses are to answer or ignore you.

The consequentialist argument, however, applies even in non-governmental settings such as private universities where the search for truth is integral to their missions. However messy or uncomfortable it may be in some circumstances, free speech is better than the alternative.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show NC SPIN. You can follow him @JohnHoodNC.

Read this article:
State universities advance free speech | Opinion | morganton.com - Morganton News Herald