Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

June 29, 2017 BerlinGerman lawmakers are poised to pass a bill designed to enforce the country's existing limits on free speech including the long-standing ban on Holocaust denial in social networks. Critics including tech giants and human rights campaigners say the legislation could have drastic consequences for free speech online.

The proposed measure would fine social networking sites up to 50 million euros ($56 million) if they fail to swiftly remove illegal content, including defamatory "fake news."

It's scheduled for a vote in parliament Friday, the last session before summer recess and September's national election, and is widely expected to pass.

The United Nation's independent expert on freedom of speech, David Kaye,warned the German governmentearlier this month that the criteria for removing material were "vague and ambiguous," adding that the prospect of hefty fines could prompt social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter to delete questionable content without waiting for a court to rule it's unlawful.

"Such precautionary censorship would interfere with the right to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds on the internet," he said.

The bill is the brainchild of Germany's justice minister, Heiko Maas, a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party that is the junior partner in Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government. He accuses social networks of failing to prevent their sites from being used to spread inflammatory views and false information long illegal in Germany.

After World War II, the country criminalized Holocaust denial and any glorification of its Nazi past, citing the genocidal results such ideas produced as proof of the need to ban them from public debate.

"Freedom of opinion ends where criminal law begins," Mr. Maas said recently. "Calls to commit murder, threats, insults, incitement to hatred or the Auschwitz-lie [that Nazi death camps didn't exist] aren't expressions of freedom of opinion but attacks on the freedom of opinion of others."

The bill has been spurred by a rise in anti-migrant vitriol that has grown with the arrival of more than 1 million refugees from mostly Muslim countries in the past two years.

Maas blames unbridled social media for stoking tensions that have spilled into real-life violence such as arson attacks on asylum-seeker homes and attempts to kill pro-migrant politicians.

Right-wing websites and social media users have reacted angrily at the bill, accusing the government of trying to silence dissent. Their worst fears appeared to come true when a prominent anti-Muslim commentator, Kolja Bonke, was permanently banned from Twitter earlier this year.

The reason for his ban is still unclear Twitter refuses to publicly discuss individual cases but those who hold similar opinions worry they could be next.

"I think [Bonke's suspension] was a severe blow to countless critics of Islam and the government, including me," said one female Twitter user from western Germany who runs the account @anna_IIna. Declining to provide her real name for fear of being targeted by political opponents, she described Twitter as a place for getting unfiltered, real-time information about crimes committed by immigrants an issue she claims mainstream media suppress.

Michael Wolfskeil, who runs the influential Twitter account @onlinemagazin that posts thousands of videos and photos with anti-immigrant content each month, said he was given two days' notice before being suspended recently.

The Army veteran said the exact reason for his temporary ban, which has now been lifted, was unclear and described Twitter's policies as "very, very murky" a claim the company disputes.

Unlike others who have moved to more obscure social media sites, Mr. Wolfskeil said he has no plans to stop venting online. "Twitter is the most comfortable place for doing that," he said.

Opposition to the bill, including from constitutional scholars, prompted several last-minute changes last week, but the core elements remain:

Twitter and Facebook insist they are trying to address the problem of illegal content and hate speech, conscious of the fact that Germany's justice minister wants to take regulation to the European level as a next step.

Five years ago Germany became the first country where Twitter tested a feature that blocks individual posts or whole accounts due to potentially illegal content. The phrase "account has been withheld in: Germany" is now commonly seen by users there, including for tweets by prominent figures such as the Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders.

More recently, Twitter has created a system of "trusted flaggers" whose complaints receive special attention because they are deemed particularly trustworthy.

The company has also started testing algorithms to identify accounts set up for the sole purpose of abusing other users. It plans to refine the software so that it can automatically suspend users for limited periods of time if they breach its community standards, though presently such suspensions still require human approval.

Facebook is hiring an additional 3,000 people worldwide on top of 4,500 existing staff to review objectionable material. It has also designated refugees a "protected group," meaning that posts directed specifically against that category of people is deemed hate speech.

"We have been working hard on this problem and have made substantial progress in removing illegal content," Facebook said in a statement. "We believe the best solutions will be found when government, civil society and industry work together to tackle this important societal problem."

The company has faced a backlash elsewhere for perceived over-zealous removal of content, such as in the case of AP photographer Nick Ut's iconic"Napalm girl" phototaken during the Vietnam War of a naked girl fleeing an attack.

If passed with the government's large Parliamentary majority, the law is likely to be challenged in courts at the national and European level. Free speech groups argue that political debate in Germany will suffer if companies are forced to police every user's comments.

Users such as @anna_IIna say they won't back down in the online battle for ideas if the law is passed.

"If my account is blocked I'll be sad but then I'll create a new one and start over," she said.

Original post:
Germany considers law to enforce free speech restrictions on social media - Christian Science Monitor

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 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.

See more here:
Freedom of speech advancing on NC college campuses - Daily ... - The Daily Advance

I am extremely proud of the Republicans in the Wisconsin Assembly, whichpassed the Campus Free Speech Act last week. I earned my master's degree from UW-Madison in 1973 and lived through many violent protests during my time there.

Violence and disruption are neither free speech nor intelligent. They are anti-intellectual and tyrannical. The kind of bullying that happened at Ben Shapiro's talk at UW last November is being tolerated in major universities across America these days. I am proud that the state of Wisconsin, in regards to my alma mater, has more common sense than that and has stood up for civility and true freedom of speech for everyone.

It should alarm us that the students with such hostility, intolerance and irrational thinking might some day be leaders in our country. Perhaps, if the Assembly's bill passes in the Senate and is signed into law, it will encourage those aggressive young people to learn more adult-like behavior.

Actions that prevent the free speech of others are not free speech. Remember the adage: "My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins."

Sandy Wedel, Great Falls, Montana

Go here to read the rest:
Assembly deserves praise for free speech -- Sandy Wedel - Madison.com

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The United States likes to hold itself up as an example to the rest of the world how humankind can flourish when afforded certain freedoms. Among those freedoms is Freedom of Speech. The ability to express ourselves, even if our opinion differs from those in control of the government is a cherished right.

We see it all around us. Broadcast personalities that lambast the President. Newspaper publishers that assign cadres of investigative reporters to dig up dirt on candidates or officials they dont like. Protestors marching in the streets or in front of the Supreme Court. In the United States people are afforded the opportunity to share their views without fear of reprisal.

It isnt like that everywhere on the planet.

It is common for some Middle East nations to operate state-run media and use censorship to control what message gets out to the masses. In essence, they control public opinion by assuring only an approved message is circulated over the airwaves and in print.

Enter the Al Jazeera television network. Funded by the royal family in Qatar, Al Jazeera offers 24-hour news programming in Arabic (and in many places English as well), broadcast to a wide range of countries, including in those where television had previously been carefully controlled by the state. Al Jazeeras own site says they air in more than 100 countries to more than 310 million people. Many Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have vocally opposed the introduction of alternative views to their public. They perceive this freedom of speech as a threat to the control of their own people.

Over the years, Al Jazeera has provided news reporting and editorial views that differed from the official line of nations such as Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and more. Middle Eastern critics have complained that Al Jazeera sensationalizes the news in order to attract higher ratings. The complaint is laughable. We all snickered when the Obama administration would belly ache about Fox News. We smile when President Trump feuds with CNN. The idea that a news network would push its own ideas and make the governing class uncomfortable is readily accepted in the West.

What would never be accepted is the government telling a broadcast network who had offended it that it must shut down. Pull the plug. Say goodnight forever. Can you imagine the outrage if the Trump administration demanded that MSNBC go off the airwaves forever?

Yet that exact thing is happening in the Middle East. In an effort to regain sole control over the message that goes out to their nations. Saudi Arabia is leading the effort to make Al Jazeera go dark as part of a 13-point ultimatum in exchange for lifting a two-week trade and diplomatic embargo.

You may like the content offered on Al Jazeera. You may not. You may not be familiar with it at all. But regardless, you surely support the concept of a free and open media delivering its message to the broadcast world. If a broadcaster does its job well, the number of viewers, the number of advertisers and success itself will build. If not, demand will dwindle and the broadcaster will either change or vanish.

For a foreign nation or nations to hold another hostage, however, to literally blackmail them into pulling the plug on a worldwide broadcast or else face economic destruction, thats an act of war.

Perhaps more importantly, it is an act directly opposed to the freedoms we cherish in America and which we attempt to export everywhere. The Saudis and their allies are out of line in their effort to squelch free discussion of regional and world matters on the Al Jazeera airwaves.

Read more:
Mideast holds Al Jazeera, free speech hostage - Washington Times

Joe Hight

Freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from ramifications.

Ive often wondered that, especially considering recent events. Of the five some may even say six rights granted to us by the First Amendment, many may say speech is the most important. As my Media Ethics students have told me, Without freedom of speech, you wouldnt have the other freedoms.

Thats debatable, but the freedom to say or write or create is not limitless.

Examples are many, but here are a few recent ones:

Ten prospective Harvard students admissions were rescinded after they posted offensive messages and memes in the Facebook chat group Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens. The Boston Business Journal reported the teenagers mocked sexual assault, the Holocaust, child abuse, and ethnic and racial groups.

Comedian Kathy Griffin was fired as CNNs New Years Eve commentator after posing with a fake bloody Donald Trump head. Then, as Vanity Fair reported, she joked with photographer Tyler Shields, We have to move to Mexico today because were not surviving this, OK? She later tearfully apologized, while also attacking the Trumps for seeking to ruin her life.

Milo Yiannopoulos resigned as editor of Breitbart News, lost speaking engagements and a book contract for remarks endorsing sexual relations with boys as young as 13. He apologized but not before saying he was a victim of child abuse himself. Conservative radio personality Charlie Sykes reacted by telling The New York Times, Weve created a competition for being the most offensive and the most outrageous in order to stay relevant, and then we must rally around and defend you.

Has our need for attention proliferated to the point that Sykes is correct? Is social media behind it? Last week, I wrote about unacceptable snarky and attack tweets in the aftermath of the shootings of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and four others at a practice for the congressional baseball game.

Have we taken freedom of speech too far?

Oklahoma State University professor Joey Senat is among the experts I turned to on First Amendment and freedom of information issues. He wrote in response to my question that obscenity, deceptive advertising and child pornography do not receive First Amendment protection. He also pointed to the U.S. Supreme Courts Brandenburg Test that is used to determine the difference between speech advocating an abstract idea (which is protected by the First Amendment) and speech intended to incite imminent lawless action (which is not protected).

Even when speech is protected by the First Amendment, it can be punished, he wrote. Freedom of speech receives a great deal of protection in this country, i.e., a preferred position. To say that ramifications exist isnt to say that freedom of speech and government regulation of speech are co-equal. The scale balances in favor of speech.

But when does it go too far? Should colleges cancel a speakers planned speeches because they dont share the majority of students viewpoints? Otherwise, known as Hecklers Veto? Should people protesting at a site be escorted out and even banned because their remarks dont agree with our own?

As Joey writes, Political speech receives more protection than does commercial speech. Government must have a compelling reason to regulate political speech. The First Amendment applies only when the government is doing the censorship. Private entities may censor without violating the First Amendment.

In the end, freedom of speech doesnt give you absolute freedom. But it is a freedom we must continue to defend, along with our other First Amendment rights.

Joe Hight is a Pulitzer Prize-winning and Oklahoma Journalism Hall of Fame editor who is the University of Central Oklahomas endowed chair of journalism ethics and president of his family-owned business Best of Books in Edmond.

Continue reading here:
Oklahoma Joe: Freedom of speech is not limitless - Journal Record (subscription)

TheNational Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) is holding its annual convention this week in Chicago. Inside Higher Ed reports on an interestingdiscussion that took place today about free speech on campus and how to protect it. Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) says campus speech is mostly under assault these days not from misguided administrators, but from students.

For most of my career, we were usually running up against administrative overreach campus leaders doing things that were a bad idea, or were sometimes well intentioned but still flawed, Lukianoff said during a panel discussion about the tension between free speech and inclusivity on campuses at the associations annual conference here.

Students, he said, were traditionally the best constituents for freedom of speech. But thats no longer the case, with many more students demanding that speakers be disinvited, calling for the firing of professors or suspension of fellow students whose speech they deem hurtful, and the like.

There was agreement among the panel that what todays students mean by safety on campus is not what administrators are there to guarantee:

Students do come to college expecting to be in environment that supports them, said [Wake Forest Universitys vice president for campus life Penny] Rue. To the extent they come to college expecting safety, I can guarantee them physical safety. But psychological safety and leaning into learning moments are not always aligned.

Just because it creates hurt is not enough, [University of Chicagos Jeffrey] Stone said. Almost all controversial speech harms people, upsets or offends them The First Amendment does not allow you to restrict speech because it harms them.

Some on the panel felt many students simply dont understand the importance of the First Amendments protection of free speech because of a basic lack of civics education in high school. Rue, the campus lifeVPat Wake Forest, suggested that needed to be addressed in college as part of the curriculum. However, both Lukianoff and Stone suggested college professors may not be the best solution to this problem. Stone pointed out that many professors, think hate speech shouldnt be allowed on campuses.

The discussion at this panel event does suggest there are still some adults left in the room, but increasingly they are playing defense against waves of students and some professors who genuinely dont see free speech as a fundamental right that needs to be protected from the hecklers veto. Even when students go off the rails, as happened recently at Evergreen College, you have administrators like President George Bridges who seem intent on making sure students suffer no consequences for their illiberal actions.

Here is the original post:
College panel: Free speech on campus under siege from students - Hot Air

The Columbia Basin Herald changed the policy regarding Letters to the Editor several weeks ago. Now only one letter is allowed per month. This restricts people who want to address problems in our community, and often write second or third letters due to comments made to a prior letter. Many issues are time-sensitive. The issues cannot be addressed one letter per month.

This new policy creates a censorship because now, instead of writing a letter, there is concern that something more important may occur during the next few days, or two to three weeks. But, since a letter was submitted, the person is now blocked from writing a new letter for an entire month.

What is the reason behind this policy? Too many letters? It would appear that the number of letters being printed per week has decreased. Or is the Columbia Basin Herald attempting to restrict freedom of speech? Many people have thanked me personally, when we meet face-to-face, for writing. However, I now feel that I am being censored. I apologize to those who either like my point of view, or have chosen to debate my thinking, for not continuing to write. If you have concerns about this new one letter per month policy, please contact the paper.

Thomas Fancher

Moses Lake

View post:
Freedom of speech? - Columbia Basin Herald

John Henry and WUSA , WXIA 1:03 PM. EDT June 25, 2017

WASHINGTON (WUSA9) - Rallies have become a common sight in DC this year, but Sunday might be a little unique.

A handful of groups plan to hold dueling rallies about political rhetoric and free speech.

The "Freedom of Speech Rally" will kick off at 12pm at the Lincoln Memorial. Colton Merwin, 19, of Baltimore organized the event as an outlet for conservatives to discuss political ideas, topics regarding free speech and immigration.

That event will have multiple speakers including Alt-Right figurehead Richard Spencer. His appearance has sparked controversy, but Merwin defended the rally's decision to have him speak.

"To support free speech, you have to support all aspects of the conservative right and libertarian right as well," he said.

DC United Against Hate will hold another rally to directly oppose the Freedom of Speech Rally at the Lincoln Memorial. It is scheduled to start at 11am. Organizers plan to bring attention to the multiple acts of racist behavior that have popped up around the DMV. Reverend Graylan Hagler, of Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ, told WUSA9 that hate speech is something that cannot be tolerated.

"Given the history we have in the United States of America, disparaging speech leads to violence," he said.

At 12pm, another rally will kick off outside the White House. The event is called the " Rally Against Political Violence" at the White House.

Political operative Roger Stone and former Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart are scheduled to speak. According to the rally's Facebook page, the rally will condemn violence such as the shooting of Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise.

Finally, also at noon, protesters will gather at the DC Police headquarters to oppose the right-wing agenda and police brutality. The rally has been nicknamed the "Really Really Free Speech Rally".

DC Police told WUSA9 it will monitor that protest just as it would any other protest. Park Police released the following statement regarding the other rallies.

"The United States Park Police maintains a robust patrol presence. We consistently analyze information to detect and deter threats to public safety. In order to protect the integrity of our operations, we are unable to discuss the logistics of our security footprint. The USPP makes no distinction regarding a groups message or political standpoint. Our intent is to protect our treasured icons and the people people who visit them."

2017 WUSA-TV

See the original post:
Free speech rallies happening today in Washington, DC - WXIA-TV

Trinity Professor Johnny Williams was added this week to a national "Professor Watchlist," a list that academic leaders say conservative groups use to attack professors with views antithetical to theirs.

Williams, who made national headlines last week because of two controversial Facebook posts, joined a roster of 200 faculty members who have been selected for advancing "a radical agenda in lecture halls."

Academic leaders say the Watchlist is part of a playbook employed by conservative groups and publications that threatens academic freedom if it causes professors to self-censor their remarks to avoid threats or possible job loss.

The longtime Trinity sociology professor was in the news after a conservative online publication called Campus Reform picked up the two Facebook posts, including a profane hashtag and, Williams says, misconstrued them as saying things he never said or intended: that he endorsed the idea that nothing should have been done to save white victims in the recent shooting at a Congressional baseball practice.

Williams tried to clarify his position saying that he wants to see an end to white supremacist ideology not to let white people die as the online publication said but the Facebook posts and Campus Reform's interpretation of them went viral, resulting in death threats to Williams, threats to the Trinity Campus, and calls for Williams to be fired.

Trinity President Joanne Berger-Sweeney shut down the campus for a day and has launched an investigation into whether Williams violated college policies, while Williams and his family are in hiding far away from Connecticut to protect their safety.

The targeting of left-leaning professors like Williams and what some professors say is a misreading of their words is a scenario that Williams' supporters and national experts say is becoming more common, and has made minority professors with views that may be discomforting for some all the more vulnerable.

"I do think there is a concerted campaign to try to target and intimidate certain kinds of public intellectuals," Maurice Wade, a Trinity philosophy professor, said. "They want a certain kind of right-wing orthodoxy to be the curricular and education agenda in higher education."

Williams, who is married to a white woman, has taught at Trinity about race and racism since 1996 and is known as an outspoken opponent of white supremacist ideology who challenges students to explore territory related to race that can be uncomfortable for some.

Landing On The Watchlist

Hans-Joerg Tiede, an associate secretary with the American Association of University Professors, said "it's not new that public remarks that professors make somehow cause controversy. ... It's not even completely new that news outlets specifically try to find instances and quote them out of context or even incorrectly."

What is new, he said, is that such instances "generate this response of inundating individuals with threats and harassment... There are often threats of violence." He noted that The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., was shut down for several days earlier this month because of threats and security concerns after comments by a professor.

"It is already disconcerting for individuals to be subject to such threats. ... But then to also basically cause entire institutions of higher education to close because of them that's really an attack on higher education quite broadly," Tiede said.

He said there have been instances in which students have recorded professors' comments in class and then posted excerpts on social media that cause an uproar.

"All of these are concerns that faculty increasingly have," Tiede said, "that they are going to be subject to surveillance by students recording things, surveillance of social media posts ..."

The impact of the Professor Watchlist, which many have likened to McCarthy-era blacklists, is hard to assess, Tiede said. "As you know with the way it is with blacklists, no university will publicly say that they are not hiring somebody because they are [on the list] ... but it could in principle dissuade someone from hiring. I certainly don't know whether it does."

Noel Cazenave, a UConn sociology professor, said he is concerned that such efforts could threaten academic freedom and the diversity of faculty.

In letter to Trinity College Faculty Dean Tim Cresswell, who will be reviewing Williams' case, Cazenave wrote that organizations such as Campus Reform and Turning Point have launched a highly organized effort "to remove critical voices from college campuses."

He said Williams is the fourth "progressive faculty of color to be attacked by such groups within the last month or so." Cazenave said he sees the developments as tied to the election of Donald Trump as president. While that is unclear, the Professor Watchlist was established soon after the election on Nov. 16.

Cazenave said he's concerned that Berger-Sweeney is going to get pressure from Trinity alumni and possibly significant donors. "They may take punitive action against Johnny, and I think the African-American community is going to put Trinity on notice that that we are not going to stand around idly and let that happen."

Who Gets Targeted?

Matt Lamb, who manages the Professor Watchlist for Turning Point USA, said in an email that "professors are on the list for targeting students, shutting down debate, or otherwise using hyperbolic language which would tend to silence debate."

He called the list "a wonderful example of free speech because professors can say whatever they want, news outlets can report on what they said (free speech as well), and then we can post what is said (using our free speech rights) and people can then make a decision for themselves."

Their website says that students parents, and alumni "deserve to know the specific incidents and names of professors that advance a radical agenda in the lecture halls."

Lamb said he relies on news stories done by other organizations such as Campus Reform to determine which professors make the list.

The listing under Williams' name on the Professor Watchlist quotes the Campus Reform story as saying that Williams said first responders "should have let the congressmen die for being white" and that Williams said white people should "[expletive] die."

Williams did not say those things, though he shared on Facebook an online essay titled "Let Them [expletive] Die," which was written by another writer and explored those topics, and used that title as a hashtag in a post. That article, on Medium.com, discussed the Congressional shooting, asked what it means "when victims of bigotry save the lives of bigots" and urged a show of indifference to the lives of bigots.

Williams has said he did not defend or support the article but shared it as a "teaching tool" for readers. He said his Facebook posts, which called for an end to the "white supremacy system," referred to the fatal police shooting of a black mother in Seattle on June 18. He said the use of the hashtag and sharing the article were meant simply to offer another point of view.

Sterling Beard, the editor-in-chief of Campus Reform, said the the goal of the online publication is to "operate as a higher education watchdog and expose liberal bias and abuse in America's colleges."

The publication has student journalists on campuses all over the country who work with professional journalists to produce stories.

Beard stood by the Campus Reform story, saying the "juxtaposition" of Williams' Facebook share of the controversial essay and the hashtag constituted "an endorsement" of the essay and, coupled with the Facebook posts, backed up the story.

He added that he "condemns in the strongest terms any and all threats" received by Williams and his colleagues. "We do not advocate for any harassment of the subjects of stories on campusreform.org and we are sorry to hear that he's received that harassment."

Williams' Message Lost?

A professor's message condensed in a Facebook post or a tweet is often misunderstood because academic language can be technical and theoretical, experts say.

Wade, the Trinity philosophy professor, said it was clear to him in Williams' Facebook posts that he was attempting to make a distinction between white "as a skin color and a socially constructed white identity, deeply rooted and tied to white supremacy."

"Johnny is a dogged and relentless opponent to and critic of white supremacy," Wade said. "You know Johnny does not attack people on skin color. This is ludicrous. ... He attacks white supremacy, a certain kind of socially-constructed white identity that is linked, tied to white supremacy."

Wade said he is deeply disappointed by the "vitriol and threats that are directed at a professor because of his legitimate exercise of his freedom of speech, when there is far less distress and concern shown over the murders of innocent black people."

Cazenave said he doesn't think "European-Americans understand how racially tense the situation in the U.S. is for people who perceive that they are under constant attack by their president and by his followers. ...

"Today we have African Americans trying to respond to the intense anguish that has been caused by these police killing. That's what Johnny Williams was trying to express, that outrage."

See more here:
Attacks On Trinity Professor: Free Speech Or Intimidation? - Hartford Courant

Around the country weve had situations that have gotten to the point of demonstration shout downs

This effort was advanced almost entirely by Republicans. Democrats oppose the idea of consequences for those who infringe the free speech rights of others.

The Journal Sentinel reports:

Wisconsin Assembly passes campus free speech bill

Lawmakers late Wednesday voted to crack down on University of Wisconsin System students who disrupt other peoples speeches and events, pitting one set of free speech concerns against another.

Republicans who control the state Legislature are pushing Assembly Bill 299 to protect conservative voices on campus. The Assembly sent the bill to the state Senate on a 61-36 vote Wednesday night, with Republican Rep. Bob Gannon of West Bend joining all Democrats in opposing the bill.

Today we are ensuring that simply because you are a young adult on a college campus, your constitutional rights do not go away, lead sponsor Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) said. Around the country weve had situations that have gotten to the point of demonstration shout downs and we do not want to get to that point in Wisconsin.

Critics argue the bill isnt needed in Wisconsin and would actually hinder freedom of speech by suspending or expelling students.

Our colleges and universities should be a place to vigorously debate ideas and ultimately learn from one another. Instead, this campus gag rule creates an atmosphere of fear where free expression and dissent are discouraged, Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said.

The rest is here:
Campus Free Speech Bill Passes Wisconsin Assembly - legal Insurrection (blog)