Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Fox News host Sean Hannity said Thursday that he was going to deliver one of the most important opening monologues hes ever given in support of free speech. That was just a few hours after he erupted over The Onion writing a story about him.

On Hannity Thursday night, the right-wing commentator addressed Kathy Griffinspicture of President Trumps severed head, saying that he didnt condone the comedians actions, butnever thought she should be fired over it.

Its a pretty consistent position Hannity has had, and he reminded viewers that he didnt agree with comedian Stephen Colbert, but didnt want to promote the #FireColbert movement either. Hannityalso played clips of himself defending Bill Maher for inappropriate comments hes made over the years, once again reminding everyone that though he may not agree with whats being said, he would never take away their right to say it.

But afterasking viewers why the left wasnt supporting his right to free speech when he clearly was supporting theirs, he brought up something that bothered him from earlier in the day: an article, published two weeks earlier, that featured a photoshopped picture of a bunch of minature Sean Hannitys emerging from the desiccated corpse of Roger Ailes.

The article, by the way, was written by The Onion.

The end of Hannitys monologue attacked the satirical websitefor posting such an image.

What is wrong with the left that they think these sorts of things are funny? he tweeted Thursday night.

Twitter, of course, couldnt help but point out the glaring irony between Hannitys monologue and the tweets that surfaced later.

There were some who were sympathetic to Hannitys remarks, but for the most part, Twitter users pointed out that his tweets and complaints didnt make him an advocate for free speech, instead they just made him a snowflake.

Continue reading here:
Sean Hannity will defend freedom of speech, but doesn't like The ... - Salon

State Sen. Patrick Colbeck (R-Canton) has officially filed paperwork with the Michigan Secretary of State to join the 2018 gubernatorial race, as well as formed a campaign committee to start fundraising. Furthermore, he recently has introduced legislation directed at college campuses.

The two pieces of legislation hope to protect freedom of speech on college campuses, and have sparked dialogue on both the political and University level in recent weeks.

If implemented, Senate Bills 349 and 350 which have recently been presided over by the state Senate Judiciary Committee would require universities to adopt policies that protect freedom of speech and intellectual debate in a university setting, while also ensuring that any speaker invited to campus, regardless of political views, is allowed to speak.

Colbeck, who sponsored the legislation, provided a written statement to the committee in which he explained he created the bills in order to protect students first amendment rights on college campuses.

"In the interest of preserving our core value of freedom of speech, I have introduced SB 349 and SB 350 to protect the increasingly rare principle of freedom of speech at our colleges and universities, he said.

In University of Michigans official position on freedom of speech and expression, E. Royster Harper, the Universitys vice president for Student Life, explained diverse opinions should be expressed, even if the majority of students disagree with said opinions.

The University of Michigan strives to create an environment in which diverse opinions can be expressed and heard, Harper said. It is a fundamental value of our University that all members of the community and their invited guests have a right to express their views and opinions, regardless of whether others may disagree with those expressions.

Though the University affirmed its commitment to protecting freedom of speech on campus, LSA junior Amanda Delekta, vice president of internal affairs for the University chapter of College Republicans, said she believes it is problematic the legislation is needed to ensure all students have a right to speak their opinions.

To address this issue, Delekta and two others sponsored a resolution in Central Student Government to strengthen the Universitys commitment to freedom of speech.

This past year this campus has seen events stopped and voices silenced because they were not in the majority, she said. At an educational institution this is unacceptable and detrimental to the continuation of critical thinking and the generation of new ideas."

In an interview earlier this month, Public Policy junior Lauren Schandevel, Communications Director of the Universitys chapter of College Democrats and a columnist for the Daily, said she disagreed with the new legislation as she views it as a method of silencing protestors, who are also protected under the first amendment.

Senator Colbeck claims his bill promotes and protects free speech, but he advocates for disciplinary sanctions against students and faculty who participate in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct in response to campus speakers, Schandevel said. That sounds a lot like a thinly-veiled attempt to silence protesters, who also happen to be protected under the First Amendment.

Continue reading here:
State Senator behind free speech legislation launches campaign for ... - The Michigan Daily

Persons have the legal right to reveal themselves to be bigoted cretins, or so ruled the Supreme Court in the 1978 Skoki case. In a 5-4 decision, the majority determined that the white supremacist National Socialist Party of America could legally march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Ill.

The Court has, in fact, long protected offensive expression see, for example, the Johnson and McCutcheon rulings in which they concluded that, respectively, flag desecration and campaign contributions must also be protected as a political expression.

Why? Because free expression is foundational to liberal democracy: No person or group has a monopoly on truth. Even ones most cherished beliefs must be held up to the scrutiny of competing ideas, so long as such scrutiny does not represent a clear and present danger and is not done, as in cross burnings, with the primary intent of intimidation.

But surely expressions as vulgar as valorizing a regime the Nazis that caused such unspeakable suffering can be restricted? The Skokie case was telling precisely because the community was predominantly Jewish; it even included a large population of Holocaust survivors. The Court rightly determined that the petitioning groups actions, as offensive as they were, did not represent a direct danger to the townships citizens. The majority went on to argue that even beliefs as foul as those that make up the supremacy dogma must be engaged and understood before they can be rejected.

Such engagement, sadly, must be continuous and brightly lit, so that fascism and bigotry cannot thrive. Virulent hatred seems all too dominant in the human psyche, as revealed in contemporary political rhetoric that has emboldened extremism and helped foment an increase in hate groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently tracking over 900 organizations, with hundreds of thousands of members or sympathizers.

Sympathizers who are, evidently, among our neighbors. It wasnt that long ago that the KKK held annual rallies on North Chester Avenue and the undercurrent clearly remains, as we were shown in last weeks grotesque display of the Nazi flag at North High School.

These students actions were deeply offensive, as was their purported justification, an asinine attempt to create equivalency between sexual and gender identity and Nazism. But one would be hard pressed to say their actions rose to the clear and present danger standard. Furthermore, the Court has given strong First Amendment protections to students. In 1969s Tinker ruling, Justice Fortas, writing for the majority, declared that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, as long as such expression does not disrupt the schools educational mission. He went on to eloquently emphasize the need for school-age expression, so as not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

How, then, should the school deal with these students? Their actions will undoubtedly lead to future conversations, in class and out, on the horrors of Nazism and associated fascism and bigotry surely a good thing. The school would be justified in punishing them, thus, only if they had a clear goal of intimidation and, from the outside and based on some of their Facebook comments, it is easy to jump to that conclusion. But intent is a terribly difficult thing to evaluate and it has to be up to those who know them best campus leadership to make that call. At the very least, it would seem a day should be devoted next year to history, tolerance and understanding.

Last, a shout-out to The Californian for covering the story. As disturbing as it is to be reminded of our communitys underbelly, it must be brought into the light of day: Even if the students actions were largely benign, one must still be troubled by a family and social environment in which such beliefs, let alone associated paraphernalia, are sustained.

Christopher Meyers, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Kegley Institute of Ethics at CSUB. The views expressed are his own.

Read the rest here:
Community Voices: Free speech, even a Nazi flag, foundation of democracy - The Bakersfield Californian

More and more, it seems, intolerance of thought has become a major problem where it should least exist: on the campuses of Americas colleges and universities.

Match that with a general misunderstanding of the First Amendment, and the result is an intolerable atmosphere that aims at the very heart of higher education in our democratic republic.

An instructive example is the recent ill treatment of conservative author Ann Coulter at one of the nations premier schools, the University of California, Berkeley. University officials first rejected a planned speech by Coulter on the grounds of safety. When a storm of protest ensued, they backed off and offered a compromise that ultimately suited no one. Coulter walked away, leaving the schools iconic image as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s badly tarnished.

To disenfranchise a person who has been invited to present ideas simply because those ideas are disagreeable to some, or even to a majority, has no place in the college agenda as long as hate or the promotion of illegal activity are not the speakers object. Any attempt to disrupt a legitimate political discourse should be met with the harshest discipline.

Someone should explain that to those who run Middlebury College of Vermont, a private school with (until now) a sterling reputation for excellence and freedom of expression. Middlebury College authorities dismissed a violent disruption of a speech by conservative author Charles Murray by 100 to 150 students with a slap on the wrist for 67 of them. It was an almost embarrassing example of the sentence not matching the crime.

Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was invited by a conservative group to speak at Middlebury last March.

Another group of students objected strenuously on grounds that he had written The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that they consider racist because it linked socioeconomic status with race and intelligence. Their answer to Murrays presence when he showed up was to shout him down when he tried to speak.

When he moved to another room for the talk, the protesters pulled fire alarms in the hallway. When he finished his speech, several masked persons appeared and began pushing and shoving him.

A faculty member who was interviewing Murray was attacked and suffered a concussion when her hair was grabbed and her neck twisted. After the faculty member and Murray got into a car, the protesters rocked it and jumped on the hood.

Last week the college finally acted. The students implicated, far from the actual number that participated in the disruption, received punishments ranging from probation to something called official college discipline, which amounts to a note being put in their file. Wow! They are scarred for life.

Missing, of course, was dismissal from the college or any other significant discipline for what the college admitted was a clear violation of its rules. Not enough time before graduation, they said.

The schools president, Laurie Patton, apologized publicly to Murray and promised the protesters would be held accountable. Obviously, Middlebury doesnt understand its obligations in preserving free speech or the principles of nonviolent protest or, even more frightening, the First Amendment, which protects such speech from clearly illegal attack no matter how odious it may be to some.

Was Murray spouting extremely provocative fighting words, which the Supreme Court has designated as on the cusp of protected speech? Was he shouting fire in a crowded theater or inciting to riot or overthrow the government by violence?

Certainly not, although the illegal use of the fire alarms by the protesters is undoubtedly a criminal act that could produce terrible consequences. Murray called the punishment a farce.

He told reporters the disciplinary actions are a statement to students that if you shut down a lecture, nothing will happen to you.

The Middlebury Police Department issued a statement saying that no one would be arrested from the attack on the faculty member or damage to the car because it was too dark to identify the culprits.

Middlebury should be ashamed of itself. And its vapid excuses for not making lasting examples of these students whose concept of college freedom is so obviously twisted. Whether they understand it or not, their conduct stems from the same root as hanging nooses on doorknobs or painting anti-Semitic symbols on walls.

Read more:
Dan K. Thomasson: Freedom of speech under attack | Opinion ... - Omaha World-Herald

Since the end of the Cold War Europe has been obsessed with the idea of eradicating hate as a shortcut to eternal peace. In short, a world relieved from human conflict. This is an utopia and we know from earlier attempts to turn utopias into reality that one of the first victims of these fantasies is freedom. In this case freedom of expression will be endangered.

Germany has for several years been at the forefront of this endeavor so it shouldnt come as a surprise that the German government now wants to enable its authorities to fine social media companies up to 50 million euros for not deleting online hate speech and defamatory fake news within 24 hours after being notified.

In Germany criminalization of hate speech and fake news is seen as a legitimate way to protect democracy and the historical truth against onslaught. Thats why a mainstream German politician and member of the European Parliament a couple of years ago countered my criticism of legislation against Holocaust denial by insisting that European citizens have a constitutional right to the truth. The frightening implications of this statement didnt bother him at all. He didnt realize that it would be welcomed by any dictator wanting a monopoly on state-sanctioned facts and truth.

In Germany and other European democracies the right to free speech is just one among many rights that has to be balanced against other rights, values and considerations, be it public order, dignity, democracy, religious sensibilities, security, equality and so on and so forth.

In the U.S. the First Amendments protection of speech cannot be balanced against other rights. That principle has served the US well.

When Heiko Maas, Germanys minister of justice, earlier this year announced that the government was planning new legislation to criminalize fake news he said:

Defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech. () Justice authorities must prosecute that, even on the internet. Anyone who tries to manipulate the political discussion with lies needs to be aware (of the consequences).

This phrasing sounds disturbingly familiar to brave individuals and groups who during the Cold War were fighting oppression behind the Iron Curtain. The Soviet Union made it a serious crime to distribute false and slanderous information defaming the Soviet social and political system. Such criminal laws were widely used by the Kremlin to silence dissidents, human rights activists, religious movements, and groups in the Soviet republics fighting for national independence.

Recently in Foreign Affairs, Heidi Tworek, a fellow at the German Marshall Funds Transatlantic Academy and an assistant professor of International History, frames the German governments targeting of U.S. tech giants like Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft as a fight about how much free speech a democracy can take. She adds that social media companies have brought this law upon themselves by failing to understand the historical reasons why the German definition is different than the American one.

Germanys push for enforcing its limits on free speech on the European level has been going on since the end of the Cold War. A European Union decision from 2008 aimed at fighting racism and xenophobia called for tougher hate speech legislation and for every EU member state to pass laws criminalizing Holocaust denial. These laws are now on the books in 13 EU-countries.

They were all passed after the fall of the Berlin Wall, not during the first decades following the genocide of European Jews during World War II. The legislation has triggered a wave of memory laws across Europe that challenges academic freedom and freedom of speech. In several former Communist states in Central and Eastern Europe its now a criminal offense to deny or minimize the crimes of Communism. Russia has passed a law banning criticism of the actions of the Soviet Union during World War II and Ukraines parliament has adopted a law criminalizing insults on to the countrys fighters for national independence in the 20th century. Among them were groups implicated in mass killings of Jews and Poles in Western Ukraine and Poland. Latvia has adopted a law criminalizing speech that denies the fact that Latvia was occupied by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

In the aftermath of the refugee crisis in the summer of 2015 the EU-commissioner for judicial affairs, Vera Jourova, said it was disgraceful that Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in only 13 EU-member states. She called for additional measures to combat hate speech. In 2016 the US tech giants signed a Code of Conduct with the EU that obliged them to remove illegal hate speech or disable access to such content with 24 hours of notification. And now we have the German government passing a law that threatens media companies that do not delete false information and hate speech.

There is no agreement on a clear definition of hate speech, which means that it can be applied to criminalize almost any speech. European countries have different understandings of what constitutes illegal hate speech. In Sweden, an artist was convicted to six months in prison for racist and offensive posters exhibited in a private art gallery; the same posters were freely exhibited in Denmark. A Swedish pastor was given a one-month suspended prison sentence for saying homosexuality is a tumour on society. That wouldnt necessarily be the case in other European countries. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist organization committed to the non-violent establishment of a global caliphate, is banned in Germany but not in Denmark. One mans hate speech is another mans poetry, to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II. What is an unacceptable hateful expression to some may sound like a perfectly legitimate opinion to somebody else.

All human-beings are biased at some level or another. We all know the emotion of hate or serious dislike of something or somebody. If a society really wants to criminalize any expression of hate it would have to ban a lot of speech. Thats not the case. Europe is very selective in its approach to hate speech. Some expressions of bias are treated as criminal offenses, others are not. This indicates there iis acceptable and unacceptable hate speech. Its okay to mock Christians but not to ridicule Islam. There is no equality before the law when it comes to hate speech.

Hate speech laws seem to be a tool to enforce social norms as Robert Post, a US expert on the First Amendment, has observed. This is problematic in a culturally and socially diverse society where individuals and groups subscribe to different norms. One would assume that the more diverse a society is the more diverse ways people will find to express themselves, i.e. a multicultural society needs more freedom of speech than a monocultural one.

Historically hate speech laws and laws criminalizing dissemination of false information are being used in unfree societies to silence political opponents and persecute minorities. But even in Italy, a European democracy, the countrys antitrust chief Giovanni Pitruzella wants to criminalize fake news in order to weaken his political opponents on the left and right.

Said Pitruzella to Financial Times: Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism, and it is one of the threats to our democracies..

As Brendan ONeill, editor of Spiked puts it:

By its very definition free speech must include hate speech. Speech must always be free, for two reasons: everyone must be free to express what they feel, and everyone else must have the right to decide for themselves whether those expressions are good or bad. When the EU, social-media corporations and others seek to make that decision for us, and squash ideas they think we find shocking, they reduce us to the level of children. That is censorships greatest crime: it infantilises us. Let us now reassert our adulthood, our autonomy, and tell them: Do not presume to censor anything on our behalf. We can think for ourselves.

Indeed. Unfortunately, Europe is moving in a different direction with an increasingly powerful Germany imposing its standards of militant democracy on all of Europe.

Visit link:
Germany's Attack on Free Speech - Cato Institute (blog)

WASHINGTON More and more, it seems, intolerance of thought has become a major problem where it should least exist: on the campuses of Americas colleges and universities. Match that with a general misunderstanding of the First Amendment, and the result is an intolerable atmosphere that aims at the very heart of higher education in our democratic republic.

An instructive example is the recent ill treatment of conservative author and philosopher Ann Coulter at one of the nations premier schools, the University of California, Berkeley. University officials first rejected a planned speech by Coulter on the grounds of safety. When a storm of protest ensued, they backed off and offered a compromise that ultimately suited no one. Coulter walked away, leaving the schools iconic image as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s badly tarnished.

To disenfranchise a person who has been invited to present ideas simply because those ideas are disagreeable to some, or even to a majority, has no place in the college agenda as long as hate or the promotion of illegal activity are not the speakers object. Any attempt to disrupt a legitimate political discourse should be met with the harshest discipline.

Someone should explain that to those who run Middlebury College of Vermont, a private school with (until now) a sterling reputation for excellence and freedom of expression. Middlebury College authorities dismissed a violent disruption of a speech by conservative author Charles Murray by 100 to 150 students with a slap on the wrist for 67 of them. It was an almost embarrassing example of the sentence not matching the crime.

Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was invited by a conservative group to speak at Middlebury last March.

Another group of students objected strenuously on grounds that he had written The Bell Curve, a 1994 book that they consider racist because it linked socioeconomic status with race and intelligence. Their answer to Murrays presence when he showed up was to shout him down when he tried to speak. When he moved to another room for the talk, the protestors pulled fire alarms in the hallway. When he finished his speech, several masked persons appeared and began pushing and shoving him.

A faculty member who was interviewing Murray was attacked and suffered a concussion when her hair was grabbed and her neck twisted. After the faculty member and Murray got into a car, the protestors rocked it and jumped on the hood.

Last week the college finally acted. The students implicated, far from the actual number that participated in the disruption, received punishments ranging from probation to something called official college discipline, which amounts to a note being put in their file. Wow! They are scarred for life. Missing, of course, was dismissal from the college or any other significant discipline for what the college admitted was a clear violation of its rules. Not enough time before graduation, they said.

The schools president, Laurie Patton, apologized publicly to Murray and promised the protestors would be held accountable. Obviously, Middlebury doesnt understand its obligations in preserving free speech or the principles of nonviolent protest or, even more frightening, the First Amendment, which protects such speech from clearly illegal attack no matter how odious it may be to some.

Was Murray spouting extremely provocative fighting words, which the Supreme Court has designated as on the cusp of protected speech? Was he shouting fire in a crowded theater or inciting to riot or overthrow the government by violence?

Certainly not, although the illegal use of the fire alarms by the protestors is undoubtedly a criminal act that could produce terrible consequences. Murray called the punishment a farce. He said, according to the press, that the disciplinary actions are a statement to students that if you shut down a lecture, nothing will happen to you.

The Middlebury Police Department issued a statement saying that no one would be arrested from the attack on the faculty member or damage to the car because it was too dark to identify the culprits.

Middlebury should be ashamed of itself. And its vapid excuses for not making lasting examples of these students whose concept of college freedom is so obviously twisted. Whether they understand it or not, their conduct stems from the same root as hanging nooses on doorknobs or painting anti-Semitic symbols on walls.

http://timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/web1_DanKThomasson.jpg

Dan Thomasson is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service and a former vice president of Scripps Howard Newspapers. Readers may send him email at: [emailprotected] .

Excerpt from:
Their view: Freedom of speech, inquiry under attack - Wilkes Barre Times-Leader

On Monday, a massive protest of immigrant activists, civilrights, and labor unionsat the Texas state capitol in Austin made national news after a fight broke out between state Rep.Matt Rinaldi (R-Irving) and his colleagues, during which Rinaldi threatened to shoot a Democratic lawmaker.

While Rinaldis threat was horrifying, the context of the fight makes it even worse. The argument was precipitated by Rinaldis announcementhe had called ICE on the protestors a brazenattempt to suppress their right to peaceful assembly.

For years, Republicanshave tried to eliminate the rights of immigrants. Theystood in the way of legislation to allow young people brought here as children to apply for citizenship. They have attacked so-called sanctuary cities that require federal agents to have a warrant for immigrants in their custody. They have even played with the idea of stripping theU.S.-born children of immigrants of birthright citizenship.

Texas is at the forefront of this battle. The reason activists gathered at the capitol in the first place was to protest Senate Bill 4, a show-your-papers law just signed by Gov.Greg Abbott. The lawgives local police broad powers to ask suspects their immigration status. It also makes it an imprisonable offense for sheriffs to restrict cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, even if ICE asks them to use their own resources or violate civil liberties.

This low-grade campaign of legalized terror, combined withsweeping ICE raids under Donald Trump, have made some immigrant families in some parts of the country terrified to venture out in public. Even people with green cards are scared of deportation.

And in some households, people here legally are refusing to apply for food stamps because they fearICE will follow the paper trail to relatives who might not have legal status. Even before Trump was elected, President Barack Obama felt he had to assure Hispanic citizens that if they register to vote, the government will not use that info to go after their noncitizen relatives.

By announcing he was calling ICE on protestors, Rinaldi sent a clear message, not only to undocumented immigrants but to all brown-skinned Texans who might look illegal. He was saying: do not protestus, or we will try to have you arrested and deported.

The fact that Texas is stripping the civil liberties of Hispanic people is horrible enough. That lawmakers now feel emboldened to deny freedom of speech and petition forthose who disagree makes it infinitely worse.

See the article here:
Texas Republican weaponizes ICE raids to stifle political opponents' free speech - Shareblue Media

A New Brunswick judge recently banned Canadian pro-life advocates from protesting and sidewalk counseling outside a hospital that aborts unborn babies.

The Chaleur Regional Hospital in Bathurst, New Brunswick is a regular location for the peaceful, prayerful 40 Days for Life pro-life campaign, The Hamilton Spectator reports.

The hospitals owners, the Vitalite Health Network, asked a judge to permanently block pro-life advocates from demonstrating on the Chaleur grounds; and Judge Reginald Leger of the Court of Queens Bench recently granted the request, according to the report.

Legers order blocks pro-life advocates from standing anywhere on the hospital grounds, which the local news report described as sprawling.

In their complaint, the hospital owners said they were concerned about patient and employee safety. They referred to a 2012 incident when a pro-life advocate allegedly forced an ambulance with an emergency patient to stop. They said the pro-lifer had stepped off the sidewalk in front of the ambulance, forcing the ambulance driver to slam on the breaks and causing a mask on the patient to become dislodged.

SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation

The pro-life advocates who now stand outside the hospital said their demonstrations are peaceful and prayerful. They said they reach out with compassion and kindness to women considering abortion.

Heres more from the report:

Ronald Jessulat, another defendant, said the group has the right to express their deeply held religious beliefs near the public hospital in an attempt to change the minds of some women considering an abortion.

Hospital officials said they took no position on the abortion debate but instead were concerned the safety of patients and employees was at risk.

The judge agreed the safety concerns warranted an injunction, and has banned the group from demonstrating at the hospital or harassing any person arriving or leaving the property.

Leger noted that while freedom of expression is critically important in a free and democratic society, the order to demonstrate off hospital grounds is a reasonable limit on the defendants rights.

Canada allows unborn babies to be aborted for any reason up to birth, without restriction. Lately, pro-abortion lawmakers have been trying to restrict pro-life advocates freedom of speech by proposing buffer zone laws to keep pro-life sidewalk counselors from reaching out to women outside abortion facilities.

Last week, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson urged lawmakers to adopt a buffer zone for the whole of Ontario. He and city lawyer Rick OConner said the current municipal bylaws in Ottawa do not punish pro-life protesters enough when they harass women, The Ottawa Sun reports.

Bylaw enforcement through ticketing cannot provide the same immediate resolution of situations of serious harassment, threats or intimidation nor can it offer the same level of deterrent effect as exists where enforcement can be undertaken by means of arrest and the possibility of imprisonment, OConnor wrote.

Buffer zones are not really about protecting women. What they do is protect the pro-abortion agenda by stopping pro-life advocates from praying and providing information to women before they walk into the abortion facility. Often pro-life sidewalk counselors can help direct pregnant women to pregnancy resource centers that offer education and material help for themselves and their unborn babies.

Buffer zones also violate individuals freedom of speech. In 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts buffer zone law, saying it restricted pro-life advocates freedom of speech.

Link:
Judge Prohibits Free Speech, Bans Pro-Lifers From Protesting Outside Abortion Facility - LifeNews.com

This academic year has been dominated by debateoften diplomatic, often noton free speech, a term which itself has rapidly become politicized. We have opined on the topic on numerous occasions, both when it has affected our own campus and when it has affected colleges across the nation.

We stand by our prior opinion: Not all speakers are equally worth hearing; all have the right to be heard.

We believe that controversial speakers have the right to expound upon whatever claims they desireincluding those that we believe to be offensive and factually wrong. This is their right of free speech, and we wholeheartedly support it. Any infringement on any persons speech, however odious that speech might be, is a threat to the free expression that has fueled our democracy.

We have seen far too many incidents of individuals with controversial beliefs facing violent protests upon their arrival. This March at Middlebury College, Charles Murraythe author of the book, The Bell Curve, which alleges that there are genetically-rooted intellectual disparities between different ethnicitiesand interviewer Professor Allison Stanger were attacked by protesters after his speech. Stanger was hospitalized and later said that she feared for her life. In the face of these and other violent protests, we condemn such violence unequivocally. That we find Murrays views patently offensive and bigoted makes, and should make, no difference. Hateful speech does not excuse retaliatory violence.

These incidents, however, are not themselves damning evidence that colleges are simply bastions of liberal privilege or that free speech is under siege. It is unfortunate that these protests are exploited by certain news outlets that choose to ignore the many respectful, peaceful, and law-abiding protests where students voice disagreement with a speaker. Indeed, the right to peaceably assemble is codified in the same amendment as the right to free speech. We urge those who object to the mere act of protest, including of a speaker whom one finds distasteful, to remember that protest too is an act of free speech.

We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to speak freely. It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires.

Milo Yiannopoulos, for instance, is free to launch his tirades against Muslims, women, and African Americansbut he does not have an automatic right to be invited to continue those tirades at some of this countrys most well-respected institutions of learning. Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

We also believe that students should have the ability to engage in dialogue with controversial speakers. When the Harvard Financial Analysts Club invited indicted pharmaceuticals businessman Martin Shkreli, we criticized them for failing to allow open discourse by limiting the kinds of questions that could be asked and attempting to bar the press. Students and speakers alike would gain from an opportunity to challenge the views of one another. Free speech is made better and richer by a lively exchange of ideas. In short, we are in support of free speech, but not free reign.

For students and others who disagreesometimes vehementlywith those invited, we encourage nonviolent, legal protest. Those who have time and again proven themselves to be peddlers of hate and cruelty should have to defend their views as the price of a Harvard lectern. Individuals and events that will challenge the beliefs of controversial speakers and students are central pillars to keeping both accountable. Without student activism, speakers could espouse hateful rhetoric that often contradicts the norms we share as a campus. It is paramount that controversial speakerson both the left and the rightare met with contradictory student voices.

We acknowledge that often the burden of confronting objectionable views falls on members of the student body unequally. In particular, students who feel that their identity or culture are routinely attacked may feel uniquely hurt by a speaker who questions an intrinsic part of who they believe themselves to be. Racist or sexist rhetoric, for example, would be more shocking to those who have never heard such views expressed than students who belong to the marginalized groups in question and are intimately familiar with those kinds of hateful speech.

All students, not just those who feel under attack, should step up and challenge speakers who question or attack their peers identities and cultures. It can be difficult and exhausting to be constantly forced to defend inherent things about oneself, especially traits that are immutable. The debate over free speech offers an unique chance for all to support and encourage constructive speech and discourage the politics of hate.

Campus organizations should likewise resist the urge to invite a contentious speaker purely for the sake of generating controversy. Speakers such as Milo Yiannopoulos have previously engaged in tactics we find offensive, such as outing a trans-woman at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Others, such as Martin Shkreli, have been arrested for securities fraud and are unlikely to offer helpful (or lawful) financial advice to the Harvard Financial Analysts Club. It seems the primary purpose of inviting such speakers is an organizations selfish desire to generate publicity and controversy.

This does not and should not mean universities should aim to foster a particular political ideology on their campuses. We welcome the invitation of a diverse range of voices, and indeed believe that many colleges could benefit from hearing more conservative speakers. Instead, we question the decision of many student groups to invite hatemongerseither liberal or conservativein the name of academic diversity. These speakers do not well represent any school of thought and have built careers on being mere provocateurs. If a student group makes the choice to invite that guest to campus, they have a right to do so, but they should not go unquestioned in making that choice.

The Constitutions protections of speech are broad and expansive, yet the desirable and the Constitutionally-protected do not always align. That the First Amendment protects the freedom of young children to curse, of politicians to lie, of conspiracy theorists to peddle their tales, and even of neo-Nazis to march does not make any of those things desirable.

To us, the caliber of speakers invited to our campus sends a message about what views are accepted and acceptable. When speakers are intellectually lazy, unnecessarily cruel, or outright vindictive, they sanction that type of behavior as encouraged. The proper response is not to stifle their voices by physically barring such speakers or shouting them down. If invited, they must be allowed to come.

Yet it is perfectly within the boundaries of free speech to be thoughtful in those we invite. Much the same way, ones acceptance of admission to the College indicates an acceptance of the diversity of backgrounds and opinions here, including those widely different from our own. That is the beauty and benefit of a school like Harvard. It requires being empathetic with and thoughtful about our peers, including when making decisions about who to invite to campus as a speaker.

The freedom of speech is a national treasure, one of the founding ideals of American democracy, and the bedrock of a free press. Indeed, these pages are made possible by those principles. Yet to preserve and protect free speech requires effort and care. To cultivate rich and educational discourse demands still more consideration. It is up to the members of this communityHarvards students, faculty, administrators, staff, and alumnito work to build the conditions that will encourage thoughtful and productive conversations in pursuit of truth.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Link:
Free Speech, Not Free Reign | Opinion | Commencement 2017 | The ... - Harvard Crimson

Our nations Constitution guarantees us certain inalienable rights, not the least of which is contained in its First Amendment: the freedom of speech. For years, college campuses have stood as a beacon to the ideal of free speech. As a Vietnam-era veteran, I saw first-hand how colleges and universities served as hotbeds for free speech and debate some of which I vehemently disagreed with, in all candor. But, as a veteran myself, I fought to protect and defend this right to free speech, and as a country we were better served by allowing both sides to passionately argue their views, instead of bottling one side up.

Recently, however, free speech has come under attack at the very same institutions that served as conduits for this debate. College students have been challenged for expressing political beliefs; differences of opinion have been censored; speakers have been shouted down; and so-called free speech zones have been created to keep students from expressing their thoughts outside of restricted areas. If we train our next generation of leaders that disagreement is something to be avoided, our society will be worse off as a result.

Too often, students basic freedoms are being suppressed in an attempt to appease a vocal minority for whom no middle ground exists. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, 1 in 10 of Americas top colleges and universities quarantine student expression to so-called free speech zones. There needs to be greater recognition that this is a problem and that appeasement is not an option.

Last year, on two separate occasions, students were arrested for distributing copies of the United States Constitution. In both instances, the students were accused of violating the colleges free speech zone restrictions. First Amendment scholar Charles Haynes notes, In the land of the free, the entire campus should be a free speech zone. In a more widely publicized event earlier this year, Middlebury College students and protesters from the community prevented an invited speaker from giving his presentation and then attacked his car and assaulted a professor as the two attempted to leave, resulting in the professor suffering a concussion. The loud voices of a few intolerant students obstructed other students ability to participate in this school-sanctioned event. Worse, since the students involved in both the protest and the attack did not face any significant discipline for their actions, the message is unmistakable: Students are free to disrupt speakers they disagree with, using violence if necessary. Let there be no mistaking this for free speech.

There are countless additional examples. After further examining the bleak situation being created on college campuses around the country, I introduced a bipartisan resolution that serves as a first step to protect Americans First Amendment rights on college campuses. This isnt about protecting conservative or liberal viewpoints its about encouraging conservative and liberal viewpoints, and a diverse set of viewpoints in between.

Just this month, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed a new law that will prohibit colleges from disinviting speakers based on their viewpoints or from charging student groups higher security fees based on their speaker. This move is similar to the steps taken in the states of Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado and Utah. This is a strong step in the right direction, and I am proud to be a representative from a state that is working to advance and protect all free speech.

It is my hope that passing our resolution and these state efforts will send a strong message to college and campus leaders across the country. If our colleges and universities protect and foster the free and open exchange of ideas, our society will be better off as a result.

Roe represents Tennessees 1st District and is a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

The rest is here:
We cannot stifle our freedom of speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)