Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

|

Posted: Jun 18, 2017 12:01 AM

LA County for Trump is not hiding their love for our President. Sure, our votes didnt swing the election in his favor last year, but his electoral win has turned into political, moral, and cultural victories which even conservative refugees in blue states can relish and celebrate.

We have not rested since Election 2016, when the real estate/media mogul took the political establishment by storm. This past weekend, we celebrated President Trump and his successes in Palisades Park, right along the Santa Monica coastline. The Peoples Republic of Santa Monica is one of the most elite yet entrenched hubs for the anti-Trump resistance in California. FYI, Santa Monica used to be reliably red, including such conservative firebrands as Robert B-1 Bob Dornan as Congressman.

Yet even along the deep Blue coast (where students married the ocean in creepy yet benign ceremonies), there are Trump supporters, and they gathered to us right there along the coastline of a beautiful, breezy, if slightly warm, weekend afternoon.

What makes us want to come out for freedom of speech, especially when we could have taken a nice swim or walk along the Santa Monica pier? Why do LA County Trump supporters make their case for the President in a deep blue area? Isnt freedom of speech well-protected already?

Sure, we love free speech, but we want to celebrate and exercise our right to speak our minds without fear, and engage others who do not agree with us to share their thoughts too. After all, the restoration of this sacred right is one of the reasons I love our President. He freed this countrys citizenry from the PC chokehold which had shamed and silenced conservatives for nearly 30 years. This deafening incapacity to punch back hamstrung Republican activists from making gains. Why? Much of the time Republican lawmakers, whether in Washington or among the 50 states, were obsessed with how the media would portray them. They didnt know how to play the media, and even individual Americans and conservative interest groups played cautious and limited their own First Amendment capacities.

This kabuki theater of fawning moderation from the grassroots and the conservative political class came to end with street fighter Donald Trump. He thrived on the media attention, for better or for worse. The media had to cover him, especially because they wanted to smear him, and he in turn thrived off the negative coverage as it prospered his profile.

For the longest time, Americans had been tired of and frustrated with a lying, fawning media telling them what to think and which facts to pay attention to. Shouldnt the media simply report the facts, paying attention to the evidence rather their bias and ideological bent? Americans were particularly furious with the political correctness cult that suppressed sensitive yet necessary information, like the murder of American citizens by illegal aliens or the destructive nature of trangenderism. Beyond that, 95 million Americans out of work were not just tired, but irritated by the chronic reports of a strong economy, when they couldnt scratch two dimes together or find a stable, full-time job.

The culture wars agitated Americans even more. Do I want transgender bathrooms in a local restaurant, when everyone with two eyes in their head knows that there are two genders, two parentsand very likely two terms for Trump? If they were so angry, why werent Americans speaking out? Shame and the fear of widespread smears. The Democratic Party, with Barack Obama at the helm, worked hard to impose this cultural Marxist sentiment of silencing dissentwithout force of law or violence. Shame is an effective tool for demolishing ones opponents. Alinksy understood the power of condemnation all too well. With this psychological warfare in the hands of our leftist opponents, freedom of speech posed no threat to their powerful, tyrannical ambitions. Furthermore, they could rely on the complicit media, a corrupted education system, and the funding of liberal corporations to induce average Americans to shut up and say nothing.

But illegal immigration carried a cost which exceeds the potential shame that follows from speaking out. More importantly, Candidate Trump was not afraid to speak his mind, as vulgar as it may have sounded to others. He touched the latent anger of Middle America, and he gave them a voice which they had been shamed into not using. He understood the Art of the Deal, but recognized that negotiation with the totalitarian left would end in failure. Playing along had already failed. Being nice simply does not work. Trump understood that, and he knew that all of us had known that for a long time, but didnt want to say it. What his successful campaign has done for this country is incalculable. But one tangible feature is the resurgence of free speech as an essential aspect for our culture.

For the greater part of my life, I never gave a second thought to my First Amendment rights, whether they would be in danger or not. After seeing bakers losing their businesses and civil servants losing their liberties over their First Amendment rights, I finally how endangered the First Amendment was becoming. Donald Trumps victory showed that the assault on our freedom of speech would not end in inevitable tyranny.

But the battle has only begun. The Democratic caucus in Washington attempted to gut the First Amendment. They still want to cut the funding from free speech exercise, i.e. repeal the Citizens United decision with a constitutional amendment. Since those efforts have failed, now the Left resorts to violence. From the Black Lives Matter domestic terrorists to the Antifa thugs shutting down free speech ralliesto the attempted massacre of House Republicans on a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginiathe Left and their Democratic Party puppets are determined to stop freedom of speech from flourishing in the heart of every American.

And that is why I will continue to stump for Trump and attend free speech rallies in the most liberal sections of Los Angeles County.

Read more:
Even After Trump's Victory, Why I Still Fight for Freedom of Speech - Townhall

As a Muslim I will defend free speech, even if it goes against my traditions and my beliefs, freedom of speech is what defines America, and it is one of the most sacred values of humanity. A few Muslims may not like it, but if they see that Freedom is a God-given, inalienable and inseparable right, they will appreciate it even more.

No bull, but very specific items that require calibrated changes are prescribed in this essay. At this time, I am committed to write three articles. The first one deals with clash of values on free speech, one of the most enduring values of humanity and what does it take to catch up with fellow Americans. The second topic will be about Muslim unwillingness to have a conversation with the ones who are opposed, and finally the deficiency of democratic attitudes in American Muslim Institutions that kills many good ideas and what can be done about it.

Quran -13:11, Verily, God does not change mens condition unless they change their inner selves. Muhammad Asad, the Quranic exegist elaborates, This statement has both a positive and a negative connotation: i.e., God does not withdraw His blessings from men unless their inner selves become depraved (cf. 8:53), just as He does not bestow His blessings upon willful sinneruntil they change their inner disposition and become worthy of His grace. In its wider sense, this is an illustration of the divine law of cause and effect which dominates the lives of both individuals and communities, and makes the rise and fall of civilizations dependent on peoples moral qualities and the changes in their inner selves.

Bhagvad Gita 5:14 shares its wisdom, God does not decide what each person should do, nor he induces people to act, nor does he create fruits of any action. Each person acts according to his/her perceptions of mind.

Neither Bhagvad Gita nor Quran says the message is for Hindus or Muslims, such is the greatness of holy books, all holy books, the universal books of guidance to build cohesive societies.

Indeed there is no compulsion in what one believes (Quran 2:256); even God does not induce one to do things one way or the other, HE has uploaded Free-will and Free-speech into every humans DNA. Didnt he give a choice to Adam as to what would happen if he were to eat the fruit or not? Adam made the choice, God could have stopped him, but he did not, God meant business he gave Adam a choice and honored his own word. Watch this 3 minutes humorous video about it.

Quran 55:5-11 brings clarity to ones role in life. HE has spread the earth for all living beings. HE has created everything in balance all things in the universe run per a program Humans were given a free will to find their own balance and equilibrium. Elsewhere in Quran, he called the human race by the title Ashraful-Mukhlooqat the honored species. A term to describe the species that did not wash away in floods, blown apart in storms, melted down in heat, crashed under falling meteoroids, died of hunger. but survived! HE expects this species to preserve and sustain harmony and balance with which he has created the world. That balance is environmental, cultural, religious, physical, social and mental including the human body.

There is plenty of wisdom in Quran with which Muslims can fine tune their future. What is good for Muslims has got to be good for all to sustain. No one can live in peace unless people around him are in peace, no one will live securely unless others around him/ her are secure. It behooves everyone to work for common goodness. Security and peace are pluralistic in nature.

Free Speech and disappointment with Muslim Organizations

After leafing through nearly 50 articles in various News outlets, I am disappointed in Muslim organizations in how they reacted towards the nasty Perfect Man bill boards that went up in Indiana, Texas and elsewhere in the nation.

One of the most cherished values of America is free speech; indeed, it is an Islamic value as well. If Muslims need to build bridges on common grounds, it would be on free speech. All of us need be on the same page. Muslims are far behind on the topic.

Muslim responses were that of anger, fear, begging for sympathies and seeking support from others. Cant Muslims tolerate that nasty Perfect Man bill board? Are Muslims so thin skinned? Is their faith so weak that they think Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)will disappear by such bill boards? Is it easy to provoke them? Isnt it? As long as you get irritated, they will do more of it.

Isnt it the responsibility of Muslim organizations to understand and communicate the meaning of free speech to Muslims? Every American should fight for his or her right, but without attacking free speech. The intent is to mitigate conflicts and nurture goodwill a formula of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

In Huffington Post, we wrote, Muslims Respond to Perfect Man Bill boards and offered solutions and invoked responsibility for Muslims and Christians to do the right thing accept and respect free speech. All the issues related with it and quotes from Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Jesus are included in the following article at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/59409a76e4b03e17eee087eb

Just take a look some of the titles a sheer lack of knowledge on first amendment, Google for Muslims respond to the Perfect Man(Muhammad pbuh) you will find over 50 news items all negative responses.

America solidly stands on free speech, an enduring value we cannot compromise on. Muslims will find comfort with fellow Americans if they fully understand Free Speech. We strongly recommend you to take the online course on Free Speech from the Religious Freedom Center located at Neseum in Washington, D.C. with a weekend attendance at the Center. Please check http://www.ReligiousFreedomCenter.orgThis will ease the tension with the stuff like Bill Boards, Muhammad Cartoons, Quran Burning or Quran Bashing. The Center for Pluralism will assist you in every which way, we can and will also arrange for a three hours intensive workshop on First Amendment and Free Speech at your place at your cost. Lets learn to live gracefully with the free speech no matter how ugly it is.

The Center for Pluralism has consistently offered pluralistic solutions on issues of the day, we are in the news every week- if you are in the business of serving public, be there every week and serve the community.

Over the last 20 years, we have brought actions and solutions to a variety of issues including: Quran Burning Pastor Terry Jones in Mulberry, Florida and Quran bashing pastor Robert Jeffress in Dallas, Texas. We were involved in Ground Zero Mosque and have responded to Fitna film by Geert Wilders. We have provided standard responses to non-sense spewed by Noni Darwish, Walid Shoebet, Wafa Sultan, Front Page Magazine, and a host of others. This week we will respond to all the items on this nasty bill board. They are not a fact but fiction.

We have organized the first Muslim Intra-faith conference with Shia, Sunni and Ahmadiyya Muslims at University of Houston and many conferences and events after that. We have visited every Muslim denomination mosque during Ramadan and chronicled at http://www.RamadanNews.com .Talking about Muslim unity is fine, but actually doing the work is better.

We have chosen to work with all of humanity including those who appear to be Anti-Muslim including Frank Gaffney, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller, John Bolton, Jamie Frank and several others.

We will continue to do this work with your support. Please donate online at: https://www.paypal.me/AmericansTogether or mail the check to Center for Pluralism, PO BOX 1490, Washington, DC 20013

At the Center for Pluralism, we produce results and build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in tension, apprehension or fear of the other.

Dr. Mike Ghouse has dedicated his life to the mission of building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions onissues of the day. He is a pluralist, thinker, writer, activist, speaker (Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, Politics and foreign policy) Interfaith wedding officiant and a news maker. More about him in 65 links atwww.MikeGhouse.net

Free speech is the most enduring value of humanity

#Free Speech, #ReligionNews, #Hannity, #FoxNews, #MikeGhouse, #PamelaGeller, #First Amendement, #ReligiousFreedomCenter, #CenterforPluralism

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read the original post:
Muslims need a tune-up on free speech, and a lot of catching up to do. - HuffPost

June 15, 2017 | :

WASHINGTON The American Association of University Professors, with the help of the Newseum Institute, held a symposium where two groups of panelists were asked whether they believe freedom of speech and the press is in a crisis and is being threatened.

John Wilson, co-editor of AAUPs Academe Blog, summarized the prevailing sentiment at the event, saying, The fact is free speech has always been in crisis.

Newseum CEO Jeffrey Herbst

Gene Policinski, chief operating officer at the Newseum, served as the moderator on the first panel of experts comprised of Wilson; Jeffrey Herbst, Newseum CEO and former president of Colgate University; and Catherine Ross, professor of law at George Washington University.

Ross, honing in on freedom of political speech in higher education, said administrators need to allow offensive and hateful speech, even if they dont agree with it. The First Amendment protects even intentional hate speech, she said.

When discussing a teachers role in educating students, Ross added, Whether K-12 or college you cannot tell a court OK, I silenced speech, but I did it to protect someone else from hurt feelings.

Wilson went on to say that administrators hold the power of maintaining freedom of speech, not the students. He explained that those with money or power have the ability to and often do influence colleges and universities and the speakers or lecturers that school administrators invite to campus.

Wilson then spoke out against the idea that millennials deserve the title snowflakes they so often receive on campuses across the nation for fighting hateful speech. Those darn kids are not destroying free speech in America, he said.

Related: Summit Looks at Diversity of Advanced Placement Enrollees

Herbst pointed out, in response to a question from the moderator, Its not an issue, as big as it is, that colleges and universities can address by themselves. Its a societal issue.

In the second panel on freedom of the press on college campuses, Frank LaMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center; Hank Reichman, vice president of AAUP; and Courtney Rozen, editor-in-chief of The Eagle at American University, tackled questions from Policinski.

Reichman first agreed with Wilsons assessment, then went further by saying, The crisis of the student media is, I think, significantly worse than it has been in other times.

To buttress his point, he quoted the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students, drafted and approved by AAUP almost 50 years ago in comparison to todays climate: Student publications and the student press are valuable aids in establishing and maintaining an atmosphere of free and responsible discussion and of intellectual exploration on the campus.

LaMonte spoke out on administrators shutting down students freedom of speech. He referred to a recent ruling by the Minnesota Supreme Court that supported the action against Central Lakes Community College nursing student Craig Keefe. The student vented his anger with a fellow classmate on Facebook and was expelled as a result.

LaMonte claims this restricts students speech, citing the law, if an offender steps outside the boundaries of accepted professional standards, he or she is no longer protected by the First Amendment on a public college campus.

LaMonte cited the ruling as an example of the government overstepping its authority and used it as a segue into his discontent with many colleges claiming the right to prohibit students from standing alone for interviews with either campus or other newspapers and media outlets.

Related: Are Historically Black Colleges Worth It?

Rozen then recounted the experience of one of her predecessors as editor with the gag rule for athletes at American University. As a swim team member, a reporter could not interview her own teammates and peers without the presence of the coach or athletic director.

At the end of the event, the panelists agreed that significant advancement is needed in order to protect freedom of speech and press on campuses.

View post:
Experts: Free Speech on Campus in Constant Crisis - Higher ... - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Recognize this?

I wonder in the wake of the tempest over Kathy Griffin's stunt and the Center for the Arts canceling her show in June.

Let's recap:

The First Amendment concerns government. Thats it. Our government doesnt get to dictate what we say or choose not to say... Youre even free to sound off with no clue what you are talking about.

Griffin posed with a fake bloody severed head of President Trump, her free speech right.

TMZ and some other media ran this "art," their free speech right.

Most of the "lamestream" media did not, though USA Today and Fox did. All certainly covered the fallout, their free speech right.

Some political organizations ran the photo for fundraising purposes, their free speech right.

The center months ago scheduled Griffin for a show spoofing fellow celebrities, fluff, its free speech right.

People from here and all across the country urged the center to cancel the show in light of Griffin's, er, expression, their free speech right.

A few contacted the paper, poised to cancel subscriptions if The Union supported the show through advertising and/or preview coverage, their free speech right.

Some promised to protest at the Veterans Memorial Building, where the show was scheduled, their free speech right.

At least one vowed to bus veterans up from Sacramento to demonstrate, his free speech right.

And one threatened to blow up the building, most definitely not his free speech right. Now we're talking about life and safety. The Supreme Court long ago established that free speech ends with the proverbial yelling of "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Then the Center for the Arts canceled the show, its free speech right.

Others condemned the decision, saying the center denied an artist her free speech right. They exercised their free speech right to be dead wrong about free speech rights.

We're familiar with this error at The Union. It's not libel, character assassination, basic facts wrong, fake facts or a collection of slurs if we decline to run someone's piece of pure genius, just ask 'em. No. It's censorship. We must hate conservatives. Or we must hate liberals. Anyway, it's a violation of the First Amendment!

Except it's not.

I wish I could argue something just as absurd, like it's our constitutional right that you must subscribe. Otherwise censorship! Yeah, that's it. Maybe this should be our next circulation drive: Sign up, because it's the law! The very First Amendment's at stake! Why, why you're suppressing free speech if you fail to take the paper.

Works for me.

Of course, this makes about as much sense as whining about the paper or the Center for the Arts denying free speech by failing to air everything and anyone.

Yes, I know. This is not what the First Amendment actually says. Please tell the callers, the emailers, the letter writers, some of the columnists. They seem quite confused.

Free speech and the First Amendment have nothing to do with whether the editors decide not to run a certain photograph, like say a comedian who thinks she's making an artistic statement that has exactly the same impact on society as an image of Bubba in a wife beater hanging an effigy of President Obama and lighting it on fire.

Are these both art or both something else? Or is one art and one not because of who did it and what they expressed with their First Amendment right to do so?

They have a right to express themselves. No one is going to arrest them. The government hasn't removed their messages or prevented them from speaking out.

And we the paper, the center, other outlets have the right to serve as their mouthpieces. Or not. That's not censorship. It's judgment.

The First Amendment concerns government. That's it. Our government doesn't get to dictate what we say or choose not to say.

Sure, we can be held accountable later if we libel or slander, move into life-and-safety territory, leak classified secrets.

But you can google Kathy Griffin or Bubba's nonsense. You can sound off however ignorantly and even maliciously you please.

No one, certainly not the center, is preventing you.

You're even free to sound off with no clue what you are talking about.

That's a matter of judgment, too, a gift in precious short supply.

Publisher Don Rogers can be reached at drogers@theunion.com or 477-4299.

See the rest here:
Don Rogers: Fictions of free speech - The Union of Grass Valley

In the wake of Wednesdays shooting of a Republican congressman, conservative talk-radio host Michael Savage on Wednesday suggested something he wouldnt have dreamed of doing a few months ago. He saidthe government should take control of the media.

In between references to Rachel Maddow (whom he mockingly referred to as Rachel Madcow), Savage wondered ifthe haters [should] be removed from the airwaves by the federal government for their constant drumbeat of hatred against [Donald] Trump and Republicans. Turns out, he thought, Yes, they should be, because of their constant drumbeat of hatred against Trump and Republicans, calling for, amongst other things resistance, with theirsneers every night.

Savages theory came at the end of a long monologue in which he sprinkled in his hatred of liberals while coming to the conclusion that angry liberals are going to kill everyone. Watch the segment viaMedia Matters:

We know that the coming civil war that Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Eric Holder I would even say Rachel Maddow have been screaming for. You know the words like resist.You know resist means something. It means kill, it means shoot, doesnt it?

Am I allowed to ask the question: Who do you blame for this? We know that the baseball gunman was a Trump-hating, white, male Bernie supporter.

And communism has consequences. Socialism has consequences. Screaming about hatred, hatred, hatred and hate and hate and hate, like that sneering, creature on MSNBC does every night, with that filthy sneer on her face. Every night hating Trump. Every night calling for resistance.

Well, he (James Hodgkinson) went off like a rocket, as I feared would happen. James T. Hodgkinson from Belleville, Illinois, went on a rampage. Staunch Democrat threatened to destroy Trump and company on social media before the shooting, coinciding with President Trumps 71stBirthday. He campaigned of course for the communist Bernie Sanders who says he is not a communist but he is a communist. Communism is violence and death. Well he opened fired on a group of guys playing baseball.

I predicted this would happen, but its not about me; its about you.

This message would come as a shock to none other than conservative radio host Michael Savage, who, in the late 1990s, created a manifesto of sorts called Beware the government-media complex, which is pretty popular in right-wing circles. Savage said at thattime the relationship between the government and media wastoo cozy,adding thatin order to keep the government relatively honest, you need a media thats constantly poking at them.

Until Wednesday Savage has been consistent inadhering to the idea that free speech should be protected.

In 2009 he criticized British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who banned Savage from entering the U.K. because he was fomenting hatred.

Savage fired back at Smith, saying, She wanted communications gathered by the government. She wanted emails and phone calls guarded by the government. . . including those from social networking sites such as Facebook. He added thatany liberal listening to the show should be quite alarmed by this movement in England because perhaps you will be next.

In Savages book, Trumps War,publishedin March, he declared, The First Amendment will be safe under Trump. No matter what else he does or does not do.

But theres one pointSavage made on Wednesday that may not be completely off base:

Should Trump take control of Twitter for not monitoring haters?You heard me. Is it time for the government to take control of the out of control pirates on social media like Facebook and Twitter.

That would be quite a feat, assuming the government would be able to silence the biggest Twitter troll of them all.

See the rest here:
Michael Savage thinks there's too much freedom of speech going on - Salon

Free speech? Hate speech? Both? Neither?

Depending on who you talk to, all of the above were on display on Saturday, June 3 in downtown Boulder in front of the County Courthouse, where roughly 30 members of Proud Boys Colorado and the groups supporters held a Free Speech Rally.

Penned in behind two rows of metal fences erected by the Boulder Police Department, the free speech ralliers waved American, Dont Tread On Me and Trump flags. They also held signs reading Muh Feelings! and Working Class Against AntiFa. Outside the fences, a far larger crowd of around 250 gathered, made up of those protesting the Proud Boys, those voicing their support, and others just curious about what was going on.

The scene was loud and chaotic, with people yelling, chanting, beating buckets and drums, and setting off smoke bombs. About 25 members of the Boulder Police Department and other law enforcement agencies were on the scene, including some in riot gear who brandished pepper spray and what appeared to be pepper ball guns, which shoot projectiles filled with a powdered form of pepper spray.

One protester was arrested for throwing a firecracker and several more were detained by police per media accounts.

Who are the Proud Boys?

The organizer of the rally, Proud Boys Colorado, is a chapter of the national Proud Boys organization, which was formed in 2016 by writer, comedian and co-founder of Vice Media, Gavin McInnes. According to Proud Boy Magazine, the Proud Boys are a fraternal organization of Western chauvinists who will no longer apologize for creating the modern world.

J, a Proud Boys Colorado member from Denver, defines Western chauvinism as being prideful [of] the great things that have been achieved through Western culture. For instance, J points out that its Western countries that have led the charge when it comes to gay rights.

Proud Boys support some traditionally right-wing positions such as minimal government, closed borders and gun rights, while also championing libertarian views like opposition to the drug war and taking a stand against political correctness.

Despite their political stances, Proud Boy Vince Hubbard of Elizabeth says, Were more like the Shriners or the Knights of Columbus than a political organization. We are mostly about cracking cold ones with the boys.

While not a member of Proud Boys, Denver resident Martin Meyers, 27, joined the group behind the barricades to advocate for the promotion of liberty, for people to be able to say what they want.

Dressed in a Trump T-shirt, Jennifer Archer, 31, from Louisville, stood with the Proud Boys to show solidarity for free speech and to express her concerns about illegal immigration.

Mingling with the larger crowd outside the fences in a Make America Great Again hat, G, a 27-year-old Boulderite, says he supports the right to free speech, and voted for Trump as a gigantic middle finger to [Washington,] D.C. He says he voted for Barack Obama in previous elections for the same reason.

Tyler, 27, from Denver, attended the rally in support of allowing people to say what they want. He sees this and similar free speech events popping up across the U.S. as a backlash to events in Berkeley, California, in February and April, where protests from the political left some of which turned violent compelled conservative speakers Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos to cancel speaking engagements.

Sticks and stones

Though the rally was billed as promoting free speech, not everyone buys that claim.

A flyer circulated by the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party maintained that groups such as the Proud Boys use free speech to conceal their intentions to people who do not know who they are or know about their violent goals.

Free speech is code for the normalization of far right organizing and violence in public discourse, read the flyer.

I do not think hate speech should be free speech, says B, a 30-year-old resident of Longmont and member of AntiFa, a loosely knit international movement opposed to fascism. Like a dozen or so other protesters at the rally, B dressed in black with a bandana covering the lower half of his face to hide his identity.

AntiFa tends to be comprised of leftist anarchists who often view themselves as the polar opposite of white nationalists, white supremacist or alt-right groups.

If you read the Constitution, free speech is what the government will or will not allow, it has nothing to do with people versus people, says B. Even if it is free speech, we dont have to stand out here and take it.

Kyle Newbrough, 23, from Boulder, believes the concept of hate speech is all too often used to silence opposing viewpoints. You cant say that just because I say something that makes you feel bad, that thats illegal.

Thomas, 23, of Denver agrees, adding that, Words arent hurtful, actions are hurtful.

Yet the Peoples Protection League and the Front Range Socialist Party have a different take, with their flyer insisting that speech is inseparable from action and organization.

I think that they have a right to be here, says Kaila Spencer, 27, from Boulder. While not a supporter of the Proud Boys, she says, freedom of speech is allowed for everyone. But once that starts to harm other people

Dialogue lacking

In one sense, those opposed to the Proud Boys and their supporters communicating their message accomplished their goal, in that it was nearly impossible for attendees to hear them over the noise of protesters. While this was a relief to some in the crowd, a number of locals were disappointed that they didnt get a chance to listen to what the organizers had to say.

Eighty-five-year-old retired Boulder high school teacher, Jacqui Goeldner, has lived in Boulder for 50 years. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, she assumes her politics dont align much with the Proud Boys. Still, she wanted to find out what they stood for in hopes of starting some sort of dialogue. This was an opportunity for communication, she says. An opportunity that we missed.

Boulders David Rosdeitcher, aka street performer Zip Code Man, says that while his own politics are not on the spectrum, hes curious about the Proud Boys take on things. They have a point of view and you might be surprised that you might agree with them.

If Rosdeitcher had his way, hed take these police blockades away and get representatives from this group to speak and this group to speak.

Tanya, in her mid-40s, lives in the Boulder area and says shed like the Proud Boys to be given the opportunity to speak so as to expose their agenda. Once they show what they are to the town, she says, more people are going to reject them.

Racist?

Do the Proud Boys have a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist, and/or fascist bent or not?

The Peoples Protection League and Front Range Socialist Party flyer contended that groups such as the Proud Boys organize in order to spread their hateful ideology and incite violence with their thinly veiled white-supremacist views.

Recently in Colorado Springs, the Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists hung up flyers with the name, address and photo of a member of Proud Boys Colorado under the heading Our Neighbor is a Fascist.

The poster read, We cant say decisively that [the individual] holds racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, or misogynist views, but he has chosen to affiliate himself with an organization that does, and should be considered a danger to the community.

Ethan Au Green, 37, of Boulder, thinks the Proud Boys and their supporters are a mix of Nazis, fascists, white supremacists and Trump supporters. I dont know if they all share the same identity, but they surely keep company with each other, which implicates them all with the worst noxious ideologies present in their group.

Yet the Proud Boys say their support for Western chauvinism is about culture, not race, which is why they have adopted anti-racism as one of their main tenets.

We arent racists. Period, says Proud Boy Vince Hubbard. If we were racists, we wouldnt have people from other races in our group.

Proud Boy J adds that, we have had tons of people contact us looking to join up with our group, many of [whom] are minorities who heard about the rally through some of the lies being pushed about it.

A handful of individuals thought to espouse pro-fascist and white-supremacist views did attend the rally, one of whom wore a Proud to Be a Fascist T-shirt. A YouTube video is circulating of a Proud Boy confronting this individual, saying, As Proud Boys we do not believe in fascism. We do not appreciate you coming out here. If I wouldve known you were coming out here, I wouldve told the police not to let you up here.

Minutes after the confrontation, the Proud Boys disbanded the rally. Proud Boy supporter Jennifer Archer admits that the arrival of these folks was the reason organizers ended the rally early. We dont want to be associated with that kind of thing, she says.

Conflicting ideologies

Asked whether he supports violence against the Proud Boys, AntiFa member B says, I actually do.

Their ideology is violence. Against my family, against other families, against my neighbors and my community, says B. So I dont think we should just sit around and wait.

The new political spectrum is freedom to authoritarianism, says Proud Boy supporter Martin Meyers. He says AntiFa and other anti-fascist groups lean heavy towards authoritarianism, because they want people to be controlled. Thats really their ultimate goal. They want their ideology to impose itself on everyone else, while we want people to be free to do what they want.

While concerned about racism in the community, Boulder resident C.T. Hutt, 34, is neither a proponent of Proud Boys nor AntiFa. Standing quietly by himself throughout much of the rally, he says he was there simply to keep calm and bear witness.

Hutt doesnt believe violence will accomplish anything worthwhile for either side, but will only exacerbate the conflict. Anger, he says, breeds anger.

The views of those behind the barriers and those protesting in front of them make it clear that in the era of Trump, free speech is up for debate. An increasing number of folks on the left seem unwilling to view speech they perceive to be masking hate and discrimination as protected. And those on the right claim that it is most often the left these days who use violence to impose censorship on the political speech of those who see themselves as pro-white or pro-American rather than anti anyone else.

And lastly, there are those of all political stripes who still believe free speech is more important than anything that might be said and allowing all viewpoints, no matter how repugnant to others, is always better than forcing silence on anyone.

Hate speech is controversial because the line our words must cross to be considered such is drawn in a different place by each of us. Hate speech to one group is simply patriotic free speech to another.

What is certain is that limiting anyones speech today will nearly always lead to someone elses speech being limited tomorrow. Thanks to the current political environment, that is a lesson Boulder County residents will be learning one way or another over the next few years.

See the article here:
Locals pick sides in 'free speech, hate speech' debate - Boulder Weekly

Berkeley Repertory Theatre's Artistic Director Tony Taccone has responded to the recent controversy surrounding JULIUS CAESAR at The Public Theater.

Read his full statement below:

"'Something wicked this way comes......'

"Over the past week, a controversy has emerged surrounding The Public Theater's production of Julius Caesar now playing in New York's Central Park As staged by director Oskar Eustis, the actor portraying Caesar is dressed to appear like Donald Trump. The famous assassination that occurs in the middle of the play has incensed political pundits from Breitbart and Fox News, provoking them to express their scorn and moral outrage and claiming that the artists involved are endorsing the murder of our president. Their reaction, in turn, spurred other citizens (the vast majority of whom had not seen the production first-hand) to pressure corporate sponsors Delta Airlines and Bank of America to withdraw their support of the production - which they did with breathtaking speed. Mr. Trump's own son added his fury to the fray by questioning the role of any corporation providing philanthropic support for the show, which he mockingly referred to as 'art.'

"These reactions are deeply troubling for two reasons.

"Concluding that any production of Julius Caesar endorses assassination is, at the very least, misguided. Shakespeare spends the entire latter half of the play criticizing both the effectiveness of murder as a political strategy and analyzing the psychological and moral consequences of such a deed. Tyranny is never eliminated when the means of removing the tyrant are the same methods he used to seize power. The play, one could argue, is a condemnation of such actions. Any criticism of The Public's production needs to include the full narrative of the story in order to understand the intentions of the artists. To do less is to foster ignorance. And to manipulate the argument so as to defund or close the show is pernicious.

"Secondly: Regardless of the debate over the content of the show, freedom of speech is the great gift of our Constitution. It guarantees that all of us have the right to voice our opinions. This tenet is critical to democracy, and to any society that aspires to engage its citizenry. It is especially important to artists, who not only have the right but the responsibility to describe their experience of the world. It is their job to not only entertain us, but to make us think about our society. To catalyze our imagination and to jolt us into action. To test our boundaries, sometimes uncomfortably. That is the job of the artist.

"Those supporting the arts are keenly aware of this. Or should be. Philanthropy is a risk, because art is a risky endeavor. But when philanthropists withdraw their support of any project without a deeper recognition of both artistic intent and our fundamental rights, they abdicate their role as leaders in the community. They become reduced to frightened players in the marketplace, as opposed to enlightened guardians of culture. And that's not fake news. That's just bad news for all of us."

Julius Caesar, Shakespeare's play of politics and power, was last seen in the Park 17 years ago. Rome's leader, Julius Caesar, is a force unlike any the city has seen. Magnetic, populist, irreverent, he seems bent on absolute power. A small band of patriots, devoted to the country's democratic traditions, must decide how to oppose him. Shakespeare's political masterpiece has never felt more contemporary.

The complete cast of The Public Theater's production of Julius Caesar features Tina Benko (Calpurnia); Teagle F. Bougere (Casca); Yusef Bulos (Cinna the Poet); Eisa Davis (Decius Brutus); RoBert Gilbert (Octavius); Gregg Henry (Caesar); Edward James Hyland (Lepidus, Popilius); Nikki M. James (Portia); Christopher Livingston (Titinius, Cinna); Elizabeth Marvel (Antony); Chris Myers (Flavius, Messala, Ligarius); Marjan Neshat (Metullus Cimber); Corey Stoll (Marcus Brutus); John Douglas Thompson (Caius Cassius); and Natalie Woolams-Torres (Marullus). The non-equity company will include Isabel Arraiza (Publius Clitus); Erick Betancourt; Mayaa Boateng (Soothsayer); Motell Foster (Trebonius); Dash King; Tyler La Marr (Lucillius); Gideon McCarty; Nick Selting (Lucius, Strato); Alexander Shaw (Octavius' Servant); Michael Thatcher (Cobbler); and Justin Walker White (Pindarus).

JULIUS CAESAR includes feature scenic design by David Rockwell; costume design by Paul Tazewell; lighting design by Kenneth Posner; sound design by Jessica Paz; original music and soundscapes by Bray Poor; and hair, wig, and makeup design by Leah J. Loukas.

Go here to read the rest:
Berkeley Rep's Tony Taccone Talks Free Speech, Art of Risk in Relation to The Public's JULIUS CAESAR - Broadway World

It distresses me to see episodes these days in which speakers who are controversial for their conservative or ultra-conservative views are prevented from delivering invited remarks at universities (including public universities) because protestors choose to violate laws designed to protect public safety. It also distresses me to see so few liberal analysts decry how illiberal these episodes of group-imposed censorship are.

As I have written at length elsewhere, no matter how repressive or otherwise abhorrent a speakers message, the appropriate response under our Constitution is counter speech, not shouting down or physically obstructing or threatening the speaker or the speakers audience. To be sure, protesting a speakers presenceregistering profound objection to a speakers viewpointis perfectly appropriate and has a rich tradition dating from even before the 1960s free speech revolution through the Occupy movement. But what we have seen over the past several months is a transition from protesting against bad speakers to preventing them from being able to speak, and that is not acceptable.

An unflinching commitment to freedom of speecheven odious, racist, sexist, hateful speechis the cornerstone of constitutional democracy in the United States. Certainly we protect freedom of speech more vigorously than any other western democracy. We also have a venerable tradition of respecting academic freedom at colleges and universities.

These two principles, freedom of speech and academic freedom, overlap and are interconnected, even as they are distinct ideas. Freedom of speech is a broadly applicable right codified in the federal First Amendment and state constitutional analogues that protects speakers both on and off public campuses from unwarranted government interference with expression. Academic freedom, which may extend beyond what the Constitution protects, is grounded on the idea that, at least in the academy, free inquiry unburdened by the constraints of orthodoxy will lead to the development of new ideas and knowledge.

Notwithstanding their different scopes, both freedom of speech and academic freedom rest on the bedrock belief that ideas and arguments ought to be evaluated on their substance. The essence of both kinds of freedom is the opportunity to persuade others of the merits of ones argument, rather than the use of power to coerce others into acceding to the proponents point of view.

Sometimes the heat and passion of political protests on college campuses causes these basic principles to be overlooked or ignored. When that happens, it is important for us to go back to what freedom of speech and academic freedom really mean and how easily both of these principles can be misused and misinterpreted.

The short of the matter is that blockading, obstructing, assaulting, destroying property, and making threats, are not, in any stretch of the imagination, constitutionally protected things to do, no matter what the objective behind them. These activities are conduct the government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because they so obviously interfere with the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.

As the Supreme Court of California stated in an important free speech case, In Re Kay:

[T]he state retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizens rights of free association and discussion. Freedom of everyone to talk at once can destroy the right of anyone effectively to talk at all. Free expression can expire as tragically in the tumult of license as in the silence of censorship.

Government actions to prohibit blockades or obstruction have been held to be permissible under the First Amendment too many times to count. To cite just one example, a federal law, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), that prohibits anyone from physically obstructing any person from obtaining or providing reproductive health services, has been upheld repeatedly against constitutional challenge, and those cases raise harder questions than do generic obstruction laws because FACE targets specific places where protestors with particular messages may be expected.

Blockades and obstructions can and should be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment primarily because they are not intended to and do not persuade anyone of the merits of the protestors position. They are employed to coerce third parties to change their behavior, not their minds. As such, they are actually antithetical to, rather than in furtherance of, the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.

In recent weeks, I have heard defenders of those who obstruct conservative speakers make two novel but completely unconvincing arguments. First, the obstruction defenders try to invoke the civil rights movement by pointing out that Martin Luther King, Jr. and his supporters were often guilty of civil disobediencethat is violating duly enacted laws. But this analogy is unavailing because King and his followers were violating laws that were (in the eyes of the protestors and many others) themselves unjust, not laws that were completely unobjectionable but simply stood in the way of the desires of the violators. Another distinction between the two settings is that to the extent that civil rights protestors violated laws regulating their political activity, they were violating laws in order to be heard themselves, not in order to prevent others from being heard. But todays obstructors cannot credibly complain that they cannot be heard; they simply want others not to be listened to.

The second creative yet deeply flawed argument Ive heard in defense of the obstructors is the idea that controversial speakers of the kind who are being suppressed are themselves not appropriate speakers to be invited to university settings because they are not sufficiently academic in character. Putting aside the fact that these speakers were invited (whether they ought to have been or not), and putting aside whether some of these speakers do have some academic bona fides (even if their ideas are often very wrong-headed), this argument mischaracterizes the kind of speakers who belong at universities. Higher education is a place not just to sharpen ones critical thinking skills through exposure to brilliant academics who make data-informed arguments in multiple directions; it is also a place where one should learn how to become a full citizen in American society. As the Supreme Court observed in the context of high school students in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, this often means that students need to engage each other on the contentious political issues of the day. And in todays college world this sometimes means hearing and evaluating strident political advocates, some of whom even border on demagoguery.

To be sure, student and faculty organizations should give some thought (perhaps more thought than they currently do) to the question of whom they invite to speak on campuscertainly not everyone should be offered a platformbut many campus speakers, on the Left as well as the Right, are not particularly grounded in rigorous theoretical or empirical analysis, and this does not mean that they are per se inappropriate speakers for college audiences. Again, colleges should be preparing young people not just to navigate the economy, but also to navigate democracy. And, for better or worse, modern democracy means having to deal with a lot of ideas that are widely held even though they dont hold up to analytic rigor. Debunking those ideasnot shouting them down or trying to suppress their expressionis what I want my students to learn how to do.

Go here to see the original:
Remaining Faithful to Free Speech and Academic Freedom - Justia Verdict

There seems to be confusion among some Americans about what constitutes freedom of speech in the nation. The issue arose because at least 10 students who had been admitted to Harvard University have had their acceptance revoked. They had apparently authored racially or sexually offensive memes on a social media site. The Harvard administration decided that such conduct disqualified them for admission.

Critics assert that Harvards action constitutes a violation of the right of free speech. Hardly. While revocation of acceptance is a severe consequence, it is never too early for the young to learn that every individual must assume responsibility for their statements. In the past, comments attracting censure were usually made on the radio, in print or in the public square. Now social media, which are generally accessible, have led to a loss of privacy, and created another hazard because of the publics fascination with technology.

The Russian invasion of the countrys election process demonstrates that privacy is readily invaded. Citizens and institutions have the right to react adversely to publicized comments. Publishers must properly identify the authors of comments, and those wishing to remain anonymous must evade the long reach of technology.

More:
Free speech revisited at Harvard University - BayStateBanner

Its official. Doctors may talk to their patients about gun safety.

Florida had passed a law in 2011 that had restricted the ability of physicians to speak on that subject.

Called Docs vs. Glocks, it was a blatant attack on the First Amendment that did not rise to the level of other constitutional restrictions on free speech, such as slander, libel or falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Had the law survived legal scrutiny, it might have served as model for the rest of the nation, much like Stand Your Ground.

The bill had been based on a few unfortunate incidents, especially one in which a physician asked a patient a standard question about gun safety in the home, the patient refused to answer and the physician then refused to treat.

The doctor-patient relationship is a sacred one. And in a free society, doctors and patients have the right to fire each other.

A lawsuit challenging the bill had been upheld by several three-judge panels in the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Finally, however, the full appellate court overturned the law, 8 to 3.

The state of Florida recently let the deadline pass for continuing an appeal. So now its final.

The law basically was an example of political correctness gone wild. As the court mentioned in its decision, there was no evidence that doctors had taken away patients firearms precisely because they have no right to do so.

The record-keeping, inquiry and anti-harassment provisions of the law were struck down, but the anti-discrimination portion was deemed constitutional.

The Bill of Rights sometimes requires the courts to find a balance between individual rights, such as right of free press and the right to a fair trial.

Some proponents of the Second Amendment appear to be trying to carve out a special level for the right to bear arms based on he phrase, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

In his book, Shall Not Be Infringed, authors David Keene and Thomas Mason assert that the phrase places the Second Amendment on its own tier of rights.

They write that much of the gun control debate relies on symbolic and nonexistent solutions that would do little, if anything, to reduce gun violence or gun crimes. They offer several persuasive examples, such as the so-called gun show loophole 90 percent of guns sold at gun shows are already sold to federally licensed firearms dealers who conduct background checks.

By the same token, Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act was a classic overreaction to a nonexistent problem.

This issue wasnt all that difficult.

The Second Amendment, in clarifying the right to own guns, refers to a well regulated militia.

What did the Founders mean?

One example was described in the book The Second Amendment: A Biography by Michael Waldman.

In 1792, Congress passed a law requiring every free and able-bodied white male citizen between 18 and 45 to enroll in a state militia and buy a gun. Basically, it was a draft.

Congress established a nationwide registry of privately owned guns for militia use, called a return.

The public largely ignored the law.

CONGRESSMAN PAYS FOR ATTACK ON REPORTER

Justice was done in the inexcusable attack by U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte, R-Montana, on a reporter for the Guardian, Ben Jacobs.

The reporter simply asked the congressman about the cost of the Republican health care plan during a campaign event. Gianfortes response was to slam Jacobs to the floor.

Gianforte was convicted of assault, sentenced to 40 hours of community service and 20 hours of anger management, The New York Times reported. He also issued an apology to the reporter and paid about $4,500 in expenses to the reporter.

Current tension in the country has resulted in verbal attacks on the press, sometimes led by the president, that can feed into this kind of assault.

SCHOOL BOARD: USING RESERVES wisely

The Duval County School Board is right to use reserves as a result of the Legislatures irresponsible overmanagement of the states school districts.

At the same time, board members are right to be cautious and responsible, realizing that these are one-time funds that are meant to be used in emergencies.

Florida law requires a 3 percent reserve; Duval maintains 5 percent, so there are funds available.

The goal of repaying the reserves is consistent with responsible stewardship.

UPGRADE THE MILITARY

Evidence that Americas military might has been allowed to slip under President Barack Obama came home in a recent news stories.

As reported in The Wall Street Journal, only three of the Armys 58 brigade combat teams are at full readiness.

More than half of the Navys aircraft cant fly because they need parts or maintenance.

The Air Force is short about 1,500 pilots and 3,000 mechanics.

And in April, the Navy announced the grounding of T-45 jets after 100 instructor pilots went on strike due to concerns about hypoxia-like conditions in the cockpits, reported military.com.

Also two-third of the Navys strike fighters cant fly because their undergoing maintenance or waiting for parts, reported defensenews.com.

The Navy cant get money to move sailors and families, about $440 million is needed to pay sailors and 15 percent of shore facilities are failing.

The headlines and the political support typically go to sexy new weapons systems, but its clear the nations leaders have been failing to keep Americas most respected occupation in tip-top shape.

Read more from the original source:
Thursday Editorial: Freedom of speech returns to the doctor's office ... - Florida Times-Union