Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

A laptop computer displays Wikipedia's front page showing a darkened logo on January 18, 2012 in London, England.

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

The Turkish government, known to censor social media sites in the country, blocked access to Wikipedia, a media watchdog organization reported Saturday. The government blocked the user-written online encyclopedia under the auspices of a law allowing the government to take down sites it considers obscene or a threat to national security. The state-run Anadolu news agency reported that Wikipedia was running a smear campaign against the Turkish government. Wikipedia refused to take down content that suggested government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in cahoots with terrorist organizations, according to Al Jazeera, prompting the site to be blocked temoporarily.

The move was condemned by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

The Erdogan regime is in the midst of a systemic crackdown on dissent in the country and the removal of Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites on the internet, again raises concerns about access to information and freedom of speech. Erdogan has in the past blocked a host of social media sitesincluding Facebook and Twitteras well as YouTube and WhatsApp. The AK Party has accelerated its efforts to centralize power and control around Erdogan, its leader. The government has jailed dozens of journalists and shut down news organizations it considers unfriendly to the regime, citing security concerns and often leveling charges of aiding and abetting terrorism.

Along with the media crackdown, Erdogan has stepped up the Turkish governments offensive on minority Kurdish groups in the country, which it considers terrorist organizations, as well as the followers of U.S.-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen. Tens of thousands of civil servantsfrom professors to judges and police officershave been removed from the state bureaucracy over fears of a deep state. The ramshackle July 2016 coup attempt was pinned on Gulen and his followers, the Gulenists, and has been used to justify the sweeping crackdown at all levels of Turkish society.

On Saturday, the government purged 4,000 more officials from the state bureaucracy and, [i]n another restriction announced this weekend, the government decreed that television channels could no longer broadcast dating programs, a staple on Turkish daytime television and a major source of advertising revenue, according to the New York Times. The shows had been criticized by people from across the countrys liberal-conservative divide, with over 120,000 people signing a petition against the format.

See original here:
Turkey Blocks Access to Wikipedia as Its Assault on Dissent and Free Speech Continues - Slate Magazine (blog)

University of Wisconsin students who disrupt speeches and demonstrations could be expelled and campuses would have to remain neutral on public issue under a bill Republican legislators are pushing this week.

The bill comes as free speech issues have grown more contentious on college campuses across the country. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters and some students have complained about free expression fanning racial tensions.

In Madison, home to the University of Wisconsin's flagship campus, students shouted down and traded obscene gestures with ex-Breitbart editor and conservative columnist Ben Shapiro during a presentation in November. This week, supporters of conservative commentator Ann Coulter rallied behind her after the University of California-Berkeley cancelled her speech citing concerns that violence could erupt.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

The lawmakers sponsoring Wisconsin's bill said it represents Republicans' promise "to protect the freedom of expression on college campuses."

"All across the nation and here at home, we've seen protesters trying to silence different viewpoints," Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, one of the bill's chief sponsors, said in a news release Thursday. "Free speech means free speech for everyone and not just for the person who speaks the loudest."

UW-Madison's policy already calls for facilitating free speech equally and objectively, school spokesman John Lucas said. Mandating sanctions eliminates the ability of a disciplinary committee to consider all the circumstances of the situation, he said.

"We urge the Legislature to work with the Board of Regents to identify policies that will address the free exchange of ideas and need for order while respecting the existing student conduct process that has served institutions well for many years," Lucas said in an email.

University of Wisconsin System spokeswoman Stephanie Marquis said the system is committed to ensuring freedom of speech at its institutions.

Scot Ross, executive director of liberal advocacy group One Wisconsin Now, called Vos and the bill's other authors, Reps. Jesse Kremer and Dave Murphy and Sen. Sheila Harsdorf, "fragile snowflakes."

"These Republicans want to make our campuses safe spaces for Republicans to be free of criticism and subject students to legal sanctions if they speak out," Ross said.

The legislation would require regents to quickly adopt a policy requiring each campus to remain neutral on current public controversies. It wasn't immediately clear whether the bill would bar chancellors and faculty members from expressing their viewpoints or if university lobbyists' work would be forbidden.

Vos clarified that portion during a brief interview Thursday, saying he believes chancellors and faculty should be allowed to express their personal opinions but universities shouldn't take sides. He said a description of what qualifies as a university would be part of the process as the bill moves through the Legislature.

The policy also would have to include a range of disciplinary sanctions for students and faculty who engage in "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" that interferes with someone's free speech rights. The bill doesn't define what constitutes any of that behavior.

Students would be entitled to a disciplinary hearing and appeals. Any student found to have interfered with someone's free expression twice would be suspended for a semester or expelled. And anyone who feels his or her free speech rights have been violated can bring a lawsuit within a year to stop the violation.

Larry Dupuis, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Wisconsin chapter, said the neutrality provisions are so vague they could prevent universities from promoting tolerance for people and opinions.

Suspending or expelling hecklers, Dupuis added, is "unnecessarily draconian."

Here is the original post:
Wisconsin Republicans push college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Is free speech something that should be redrawn? With Ann Coulters scheduled speech at Berkeley cancelled today due to security concerns, were once again seeing the ugly face of the Left shutting down constitutionally-protected rights for the sake of safe spaces and political correctness. Yet, thats the whole point of college, immersing in things that areoutside your comfort zone, right?My political philosophy professor in college was an avowed anarchist and we all turned out okay. Yet, Ulrich Baer, the vice provost for faculty, arts, humanities, and diversity, and professor of comparative literature at New York University, decided to bring us an explanation for why its okay to chip away at the Bill of Rights. The New York Times published his op-ed and its only something that the snobby elite in the urban bastions of America could argue in support ofsquashing free speech: Its a public good that constantly needs redrawing (they say) [emphasis mine]:

Instead of defining freedom of expression as guaranteeing the robust debate from which the truth emerges, Lyotard focused on the asymmetry of different positions when personal experience is challenged by abstract arguments. His extreme example was Holocaust denial, where invidious but often well-publicized cranks confronted survivors with the absurd challenge to produce incontrovertible eyewitness evidence of their experience of the killing machines set up by the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Not only was such evidence unavailable, but it also challenged the Jewish survivors to produce evidence of their own legitimacy in a discourse that had systematically denied their humanity.

Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencers visit as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In todays age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the Internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

The great value and importance of freedom of expression, for higher education and for democracy, is hard to overestimate. But it has been regrettably easy for commentators to create a simple dichotomy between a younger generations oversensitivity and free speech as an absolute good that leads to the truth. We would do better to focus on a more sophisticated understanding, such as the one provided by Lyotard, of the necessary conditions for speech to be a common, public good. This requires the realization that in politics, the parameters of public speech must be continually redrawn to accommodate those who previously had no standing.

Right, theres the Left using the most extreme example to characterize the whole issue as if every conservative thats being protested is denying thatthe Holocaust ever happened. Thats not whats happening. Its students who just dont want to hear other views because theyre, in the words of Bill Maher, f**king babies. Moreover, the whole notion that the parameters for free speech needs to be redrawn is absurd. The First Amendment is quite explicit in outlining what the Founders intended it to be used for in this country of ours. Perverting that to give yourself various political escape hatches to shut down conservatives is cute at best and abjectly stupid at worst.

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community, wrote Baer.

Thats precisely wrong. And there is value for inviting some of the most insane people to speak. Since you brought up Nazis, lets say a typical national socialist addresses a college, offends people, denies the Holocaust, thinks Adolf Hitler is the best leader in the world, and feels that anyone who isnt Aryan is the scum of the Earth worthy of extermination. It would be brutal. It would be rough, but theres nothing to gain from this? You couldnt glean that maybe there should be another discussion about the sordid history of anti-Semitism? Maybe discuss at length the Holocaust; listing the endless amounts of evidence that shows the Third Reich tried to purge the entire continent, and eventually the world, of these people? All of which ends with the same result: Nazis are wrong and they have a history that is downright evil. Why do people still carry Nazi beliefs? Is it due to a lack of education? Is it because racism persists in families who hold such views? Can the cyclebe broken with more speech, more tolerance, and more outreach of some sort? If anything, having a Nazi whackovisit campus is a great way to remind us the horrors committed in the name of this ideology to avoid it from ever happening again. And I frankly think that history lessons tend to serve the public good.

The National Review took Baerto the woodshed for this piece as well. But the Right has also found some unlikely allies in this fight, like the American Civil Liberties Union. Liberal Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine is also disconcerted with this faction that he branded the illiberal left. And yes, he also criticized Baer:

But what kinds of speech should be shut down on these grounds? Baers definition is rather vague.

[]

Nearly all American politicians in both major parties support some limits on legal immigration, and some measures to enforce those laws. Virtually all of them define some human beings as unworthy of legal standing a position Baer insists does not deserve to be defended in public at all. Perfectly cogent arguments can and have been made that, say, Hillary Clinton advocates systemically racist policies or that Bernie Sanders encourages sexism. The ability to associate disagreeable ideas with the oppressor, and to quash free speech or other political rights in the name of justice for the oppressed, is a power without any clear limiting principle. Historically, states that rule on that basis tend to push that power to its farthest possible limit.

In other words, the end of free speech as we know it, coupled with the entrance of an Americanized Cultural Revolution that would make Mao proud. This is what were fightingand it shouldnt be just conservatives. Any free speech loving American should be horrified at the progressive intolerance that spreading through American academia like a brushfire.

Phew: There's Not Going To Be A Government Shutdown

Read this article:
Professor: Left Wing Snowflakes Get Some Things Right About Free Speech. Fact Check: Totally False. - Townhall

Oshkosh welcomes Ted Nugent to the Leach Amphitheater Saturday night as a special to the summer Waterfest celebration of 2014.(Photo: Oshkosh Northwestern Media Mark Ebert / Oshkosh Northwester)Buy Photo

WAUSAU - Wisconsin Valley Fair board members expected their selection of Ted Nugent as the Friday night headliner to help break a string of financial losses for the fair.

They didn't expect the rocker to create such a divide in the Wausau community.

"He was the last slot to fill," said Keith Langenhahn, president of the fair board, which is overseen by the nonprofit Marathon County Agricultural Society. "People don't realize how hard it is to book music. I'm sorry it became controversial."

For those who fiercely oppose Nugent's appearance at Marathon Park in August, they're worried the topichas become not just controversialbut political. They'd rather focus on comments Nugent has made about African Americans and other minorities than anything he has said about politics or politicians.

But the first person to speak out publicly against the Nugent booking, announced April 7, was the chairwoman of the Marathon County Democratic Party.Nancy Stencil said Nugent "definitely isn't a good fit for the Wausau community," and that she will likely call for a boycott of the event.Local social media has been consumed by calls for protest but also by Nugent supporters expressing their excitement for the show and arguing that the rock musician's political beliefs make no difference.

Those who oppose the concert say they're concerned about the controversy Nugent's outlandish statements couldbring to Wausau.Community members are worried about what Nugent might say, and the mess hemay leave behindafter the fair is over.

Nugent, whose career in rock 'n' roll took off in the late 1970s, has lately become even better known for his outspoken conservative politics and occasional offensive statements, which he shares on social media and sometimes at concerts.He's toldPresident Barack Obamato"suck on my machine gun,"and hasthreatened to shootDemocraticofficials. He has postedracist and anti-Semitic comments on his social media pages. In 2014, he calledObama a "subhuman mongrel."In a March 2016 Facebook post, he posted a bogus photograph thatincluded the n-wordethnicslur and a stereotypical depiction of African Americans.

To Langenhahn, the choice to bring Nugent to the fair was one made to sell tickets. In the last two years, the fair has failed to show a profit, and the board knew, based on a 2007 performance, that Nugent would likely be a nearly sell-out show. The board had sought a number of other acts and been turned down.

RELATED:Ted Nugent responds to Wausau boycott threats

RELATED:Report: Fair won't cancel Ted Nugent show

Langenhahn said the board stands by itsdecision to bring Nugent to the fairand saidthe primary motivation was neveranything other than a need to bring in a popular musician. He said the board will ask promoters to tell Nugent to refrain from any type of offensive or political speech but in the end, it's the artist's decision.

"We don't promote that kind of behavior," Langenhahn said. "But he's gotten popular off of that kind of conduct, so I don't know."

Members of the community are worried about Nugent's message, and how it could work to polarize a city working hard to achieve peace with its diversity.

(Photo: Erich Schlegel)

Wausau-area residents such as David Deon, an African-American musician who performs with the band David Deon & the Soul Inspirations, have started to wonder if the fair board can really make a choice that represents the different people and ideasin the community. The board usually chooses from rock and country artists exclusively.

"This isn't even about Ted Nugent,"Deon said. "When you look at the lineup, it does not represent the community. We need to start looking at making sure the decision-making is representative of all of Wausau."

Other community members have concerns about what a performance by Nugent could do to undermine local movements to build and promote understanding.Nugent's performancecould end up unraveling that, said Aaron Zitzelsberger, state director of development for the Wisconsin Institute of Public Policy and Service, a nonpartisan organization that addresses local, state and national issues by linking people with resources. WIPPS is headquartered at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County Center for Civic Engagement, a block from where Nugent is scheduled to perform.

"I didn't want to look at this through a political lens," Zitzelsberger said. "I wanted to look at this through a lens of what's going to bring out the best in the community. What do we as a community want to bring out in ourselves? I did a lot of research, I looked at the things Ted Nugent has said. I felt like this is not the voice I would want representing our community, regardless of political affiliation. It's more the message being sent."

Zitzelsberger said he would not feel comfortable bringing his children to the fair amid such messages and that he fears it's setting back community-based efforts to bring people together.

But the community also includes Nugent fans who still want to hear the Motor City Madman play.

Brad Anderson, a Weston resident, said that he's looking forward to the concert, despite what Nugent has said in other venues.

"I don't like things that Madonna says, or things that Bruce Springsteen says, but that doesn't stop me from listening to them," he said. "I don't really care about what he's said in the past. He's got great music."

Comments online have also highlighted Nugent'sown right to free expression. Others believe that his speeches should be limitedbecause the fair is a family venue.

"My concern is that freedom of speech is tempered by many things," said Tony Gonzalezof Wausau, director ofEAG InterpretersHispanic Outreach. "For example, you can't just stand in the middle of a full theater and yell 'fire!'This is not taking place in a privatearena, it's taking place in a public place. Every individual in Wausau has the right to be present there and expect decency. They're going to hear what goes on at the concert. This may raise a lot of trouble we don't want in the fairgrounds."

Langenhahn said he isn't worried about violence or trouble during the concert, but he said there will be security present, just as there is at every grandstand show.

Kevin Jari, 51, a Weston resident,is another Nugent supporter whoplans to attend theconcert on Aug. 2. He said that for him, it's about the music.

"I'm going because I like Ted Nugent," Jari said. "I've been to his concerts several times over the years."

Jari said that he's not sure if politics really have a place in musicand that he's noticed that Nugent's speeches have become much more politically charged in recent years.

"I agree with some of (Nugent's) politics, and think he has the right to perform and speak, but he's said and done some screwed-up things so I'm not gonna go around like, 'Yeah, Ted, he's the man!'" Jari said in a Facebook message. "People also have the right to protest, peacefully. Other people have the right to counter-protest, and everyone has the right to boycott anything they want for any reason. As long as everyone is peaceful and the government isn't oppressing anyone, I'm golden."

Contact Going Out reporter Laura Schulte at 715-297-7532 or leschulte@gannett.com; on Twitter @schultelaura.

(Photo: JEANNETTE MERTEN / OSHKOSH NORTHWESTERN MEDIA)

Read or Share this story: http://wdhne.ws/2q6Y9fg

View post:
Ted Nugent debate: Free speech, or hate speech? - Wausau Daily Herald

Mashable

The Women's March just won a PEN award for courage and freedom of speech Mashable Bob Bland, co-chair of the Women's March on Washington, has a simple yet resounding message for Donald Trump: "The resistance is female and we're not going anywhere." On Tuesday, PEN America, which was a formal partner of the Women's March, ...

Original post:
The Women's March just won a PEN award for courage and freedom of speech - Mashable

I am a Boulder native. I have never been so outraged to call Boulder County my home as I was when I read O'Connor's recent disgusting excuse for free speech when he incited violence by calling for the elimination of "fracking and workers," even by exploding local oil wells. The editor admitted it was an error to print the attack on oil and gas workers but then pretends that it is somehow allowable civil disobedience law breaking to advance a greater moral issue. But the First Amendment freedom of speech has its limits and O'Connor crosses this line with his "opinion." He also wrongly misinformed the public about the science of oil and drilling. Park your car if you don't like oil and gas, and stop consuming petroleum based products (note everything in your home is petroleum based unless it is organic). Invest in greener solutions. But many of the oil and gas workers are military veterans and have families, too. I'd like to see O'Connor say this to their faces, but gone are the days of resorting to vigilante stupidity. Boulder, we owe more to our current events, newspaper editing and civility toward one another. Sometimes celebrating diversity means engaging in intellectual discourse, not inciting violence against fellow human beings. Boulder should be a peaceful place to live filled with people who may disagree, but who always make it physically safe for all who come here, for work or otherwise. Safety in our community is important regardless of how you feel about mining. Remember, O'Connor, many of those oil workers fought for your freedom to have opinions.

Alyssa Neu

Longmont

The rest is here:
Alyssa Neu: Free speech has limits - Boulder Daily Camera

The Department of Veterans Affairs is dismissing the actions of an employee who has written anti-Trump tweets and is promoting her own books on Twitter as someone who is simply exercising her "freedom of speech."

The VA has also promoted the employee's books on its website, which has some conservatives grumbling that this amounts to taxpayers helping a Trump opponent sell her books.

Kayla Williams is the director of the VA's Center for Women Veterans, and she has made it clear on Twitter that she opposes Trump. Earlier this year, she told Stars and Stripes that she would be attending an anti-Trump rally with her kids, "to show them that people should stand together for what they believe in."

She also retweeted a tweet that said women should get their IUD as soon as possible, "before Trump-Pence reverse the requirement for full contraceptive coverage."

Williams' anti-Trump views haven't stopped her from promoting her two books, or from getting the VA to help her promote them.

Her VA biography notes the two books she's written, and the VA has promoted them on two other occasions: once in a May 3 release announcing her appointment, and again in a December VA blog about a podcast featuring Williams.

The December blog post was written by Tim Lawson, who has also tweeted out several anti-Trump messages. One of those just after the November election said he hasn't "felt this bad since 9/11, and I was in the Pentagon."

Williams has also used her Twitter account to promote her work, and while her Twitter handle doesn't identify her as a VA official, several of these tweets may have been sent during her work hours, which could be another violation.

In just a single week in January, for example, she tweeted several times encouraging people to see her and three other co-authors of a book about veterans at a book event. On Monday, Jan. 23, she tweeted out the invitation at 11:10 a.m., and then tweeted it out at 12:10 p.m. on Wednesday, and again on Friday at 1:10 p.m.

Just after 1 p.m. on Monday, April 10, she tweeted out that one of her books was listed as one of the 10 "must-read" books on military women.

Despite these potential problems, the VA under President Trump has ignored the issue so far. The Washington Examiner asked questions about the matter for the last several weeks without a response.

The House Veterans' Affairs Committee also ignored several requests for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Late last week, the VA dismissed the matter with a three-sentence statement indicating that officials in the agency see anti-Trump messages and the promotion of their own books as "freedom of speech."

"Like other Federal employees, VA employees have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech in their private lives, including during non-duty hours (e.g., lunch break)," said Randy Noller, a spokesman for the VA.

"Unless otherwise authorized, such private speech should not be held out as being approved or authorized by VA," he added. "Moreover, employees should not provide information that may restricted by law."

Noller declined to offer more specifics related to whether Williams was tweeting during work hours, or if the VA was looking into the issue to answer more specific questions. On Monday afternoon, however, the VA followed up by saying it would examine some of Williams' tweets to see if any rules were violated.

But sources close to the VA and veterans issues say the VA should immediately stop promoting her books. They also argue that Williams' plugs for her own books could run afoul of ethics rules.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics says officials cannot use their title or position to "further the employee's own private interests" or the interests of friends, relatives or other closely affiliated people.

Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, said Williams' tweets could draw ethics complaints against her, depending on whether they were sent when she should have been working.

"If Ms. Williams is promoting her book during work hours, she might have to answer a few questions from an ethics lawyer," he said. "Government officials must be aware that there are bans on conducting certain activities while working for Uncle Sam."

Eric Hannel, former staff director for the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, told the Washington Examiner that while Williams' activities are "not uncommon," they are still a likely violation of those ethics guidelines, and federal law.

"The bottom line is it's against the law for a government employee to use her public office for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which she is associated personally," he said.

He said at a minimum, Williams could be in trouble for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime, but could also be in violation of laws related to misuse of position, use of an official title, personal use of government property, and use of official time.

The question of Williams' anti-Trump tweets is likely something that will have to be handled politically, and conservatives have urged the White House to crack down on anti-Trump federal employees like Williams, who was appointed by President Obama and re-appointed by Trump.

So far, the White House has made it clear it wants all officials to support Trump. But in its most recent statement to the Washington Examiner, the White House said only that officials "should" back the president, not that they "must."

"Throughout his campaign, President Trump consistently reiterated his commitment to taking care of our veterans and reforming and modernizing the VA," a White House spokesman told the Washington Examiner in February. "Employees of the Trump administration should support President Trump and his agenda to improve the lives of all Americans."

Continued here:
VA defends employee's anti-Trump tweets, book plugs as 'freedom of speech' - Washington Examiner

What could have caused this rip in the space-time continuum? The so-called birthplace of the free speech movement, the University of California at Berkeley, has once again engaged in liberal censorship, this time of Ann Coulter, using the fear of violence as cover to suppress a voice it did not like.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter was invited to speak at UC Berkeley by the Berkeley College Republicans. Given recent violence against conservative speakers in Berkeley, the college cancelled the speech. Coulter, to her credit, offered suggestions as to how to better deal with any problems -- to expel any students engaging in violence or trying to stop the speech from happening. That solution apparently was not good enough for UC Berkeley, which instead decided to reschedule the talk, but on a date when there would be no students on campus.

While all this was going on, where was the traditionally-free-speech-friendly moderate Left? The prevailing view was, "If you didn't say offensive things, you wouldn't be attacked." Shame on the Left for tacitly condoning this culture of violent suppression of views it disagrees with.

And praise to Maher and Sanders for standing up against it. I question whether Coulter would do the same for them, but that is not the yardstick by which we measure our commitment to freedom of speech. Standing up for the rights of those who would not do it for us demonstrates your commitment to liberty. We don't need a First Amendment for speech that neither challenges, nor offends. We need it as a good in itself. And, sometimes that very challenging and offensive speech fosters growth.

I am grateful that nobody tried to shut him down. Had they done so, I would like to believe that I would have done whatever I could to let the man speak. The kind of people who supported him that day would not likely do the same for Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter. I am certain that anyone cheering Jeffries that day would have joined in the violence in Berkeley -- smug in the belief that their ideas were "right" and their opponents were "wrong," thus justifying the violence.

When anyone tries to shut down speech with violence, all decent Americans should band together against the violence, regardless of their political "tribe." Does Berkeley stand for freedom of expression, or is it so captivated by its infectious one-party rule that it cannot possibly stand up for expression that challenges its liberal sensibilities?

Coulter has a right to her views. Just as important, we all have a right to hear her speak.

Those who disagree have a right to oppose her, but to use violence cuts against the principles that our entire Constitution rests upon. The First Amendment stands for principles like those articulated in the case, New York Times v. Sullivan: "Debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide open."

You may think Coulter's speech is offensive. I certainly do. I think she is a mental midget and an intellectual snake oil salesman. I do wish she would shut up, dry up, and blow away. But even so, I am outraged that her political discussion must go through an on-again, off-again process because either violent thugs control the streets or effete and weak university presidents and the City of Berkeley lack the spine to defend the First Amendment.

Violent trash should never stop Ann Coulter (or anyone else) from speaking. Let her ideas flow forth into the stalls in the marketplace and let the market reject (or embrace) her. My ideas can stand in opposition to hers. And a bunch of cowardly children playing revolutionary dress-up with bandanas over their faces should not be permitted to destroy freedom of expression. Despite my politics somewhat aligning with them, I consider them to be my enemy -- not Ann Coulter.

In these times, when political violence is becoming the norm, it is your responsibility to stand up for freedom of expression, even expression you dislike. Stand against the violence, even when your tribe does it. Stand for freedom of expression, even when you abhor the words and ideas.

If you don't stand up for Coulter's liberty today, someone will come for yours tomorrow. And, more importantly, the Enlightenment will die a violent and pathetic death.

Read more here:
Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech - CNN

Students encircling the brawl said a Spencer supporter began jawing with an antifa, or anti-fascist, protester over Spencer's right to speak. A punch was thrown. The men spun through the crowd, swinging fists and grasping for headlocks before thudding to the ground.

It was over in seconds with both men in cuffs -- one of them bloodied -- and carted off to jail.

Auburn had tried four days earlier to cancel Spencer's speech Tuesday night. But a federal judge forced the public university to let him exercise his First Amendment rights.

The episode comes amid what critics say is a growing intolerance for the exchange of ideas at American colleges and universities. In recent months battles over free speech on campuses have descended into violence across the nation.

And students say the middle ground on campuses is in danger of becoming quicksand, a place where neither side dares tread.

"There's no test, just an escalation of hostilities on both sides," said Tyler Zelinger, 21, a senior studying political science and business at Atlanta's Emory University. "When there's no more argument, there's no more progress."

Assaults on college free speech have been waged for decades, but they used to be top-down, originating with government or school administrators.

Today, experts say, students and faculty stifle speech themselves, especially if it involves conservative causes.

Harvey Klehr, who helped bring controversial speakers to Emory during his 40 years as a politics and history professor, said the issues college students rally around today come "embarrassingly from the left."

Oppose affirmative action or same-sex marriage and you're branded a bigot, he said. Where debate once elevated the best idea, student bodies are now presented slanted worldviews, denying them lessons in critical thinking, he said.

"History is full of very, very upsetting things. ... Grow up. The world is a nasty place," he said. "If you want to confront it, change it, you have to understand the arguments of nasty people."

Berkeley political science professor Jack Citrin began attending UCB in 1964 during the advent of the free speech movement, when Berkeley students "viewed ourselves as a beacon of the ability to handle all points of view."

Universities expose young people to ideas and challenge what they believe about science, politics, religion or whatever. But many students today exist only in the bubble of what they believe, he said.

"It's an indicator of the erosion of the commitment to open exchange and a retreat into psychobabble," Citrin said.

Twitter dubbed it #TheChalkening. Last year at Emory, someone used chalk to scrawl "Build the wall" and other pro-Trump messages near Emory's Black Student Union and CentroLatino.

Some Emory students were livid and let the administration know it. One sophomore declared, according to the school newspaper, that protesters were "in pain."

As Emory sophomore Maya Valderrama, 20, left a February protest denouncing Trump's policy on sanctuary campuses, she said the outcry over the chalkings was overblown. She wasn't threatened by them, she said, but she understood the concern.

This wasn't about politics, she said. Pro-Mitt Romney messages on campus hadn't threatened anybody, but Trump is hostile to segments of the student body. The chalkings represented "a visual affirmation of his hatred," Valderrama said.

Many students and their professors worry that when it comes to issues on campus, emotion rather than logic is driving the debate.

Nathan Korne, a sophomore at Marshall University in West Virginia, welcomes Trump's attacks on political correctness because he's "tired of not being able to discuss open ideas."

But Yasmine Ramachandra, a 19-year-old at Ohio's Oberlin College, sees no silver lining. Trump is validating right-wingers who always wanted to snuff out certain speech, and his rhetoric has emboldened hatemongers, she said.

Two days after Trump's election, she walked through a campus racial profiling protest where a group of counter-protesting bikers called her a terrorist and demanded she leave the country, Ramachandra said.

"The bigger repercussion is (Trump) validating these other people," she said.

The anger cuts both ways, said University of New Mexico sophomore Alexus Horttor. She recently saw the Arab owner of a hookah shop kick a student out of his store over a Trump bumper sticker.

"People feel their way is the right way, and it's only their way," Horttor said.

Meanwhile, left-leaning speakers routinely appear on university campuses without fuss.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains an incomprehensive database of more than 300 attempts to disinvite campus speakers since 2000. About three-quarters of the attempts involved pressure from liberals.

Evolution and Israel are among the most controversial topics. But more often the disinvitation attempt stems from disagreements over immigration, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or abortion.

Yiannopoulos ticks several of those boxes.

The former Breitbart editor made free speech a buzzphrase when Berkeley protests turned violent during his appearance. The demonstrations made Yiannopoulos -- now persona non grata after appearing to condone pederasty -- a free speech martyr at the time.

UC Berkeley's Citrin said that was the point. Yiannopoulos' speech was staged to challenge the school's commitment to free speech, he said.

"There were a variety of calls for it not to be permitted to occur by a group of faculty who, frankly, didn't seem to understand the First Amendment very well," the professor said. "Free speech at Berkeley took a hit when it was all said and done."

Some students who attended protests against Yiannopoulos' planned speech at Berkeley told CNN they were relieved he couldn't share his message. But others who watched from the fringes were disappointed.

When the chalkings appeared at Emory, some minority students felt targeted, said Lolade Oshin, 21, who is African American.

Later, after students complained about feeling hurt, a national columnist wrote their parents should've whipped their "spoiled asses with a cat o'nine tails." National commentators chastised them as "snowflakes" -- people too vulnerable to face opposing views.

Oshin, a senior business major, feels such criticism is unfair.

"As a black woman in America, I have no choice but to hear the other side," she said. "But because those individuals are privileged, they don't have to hear my side. ... One side has grown up having to be sensitive and to navigate a white man's world."

Bigots hide behind free speech, she said, asking: How is it the Trump chalkings were free speech but student protests were not?

"Have whatever beliefs you want. Say whatever you want, but if I feel you're dehumanizing me, I'm going to use the same right you're using to fight your ideas," she said.

Oshin also sees hypocrisy in the reaction to the Yiannopoulos pederasty controversy.

Conservatives defended Yiannopoulos after Berkeley, she said, but when he appeared to condone pedophilia rather than Islamophobia and bigotry, there were crickets from the right.

"Is it what is offensive or who is being offended that matters? It is very interesting how conservatives are not screaming freedom of speech now," she said. "It seems to be a tactic used to quiet the marginalized and oppressed. But as soon as others feel threatened, it is not brought up."

University of Oregon law student Garrett Leatham, 29, believes hearing both sides is integral to understanding an issue.

"(Thomas) Jefferson did great things, but he owned slaves. We need to know both. Otherwise, we're stuck believing Columbus sailed the ocean blue and helped the Indians," he said.

Teens' brains are developing, and critical thinking is essential to maturity, so "being able to listen to disagreeable opinions when you're that young and understanding what they're saying and why" is important to higher education, he said.

Horttor, the University of New Mexico sophomore, says her own growth has been stunted by the testy atmosphere on campus.

Take religion. Horttor's mother is a Christian, but she knows many atheists.

The 19-year-old's own leanings? "I don't know what I believe in yet because I haven't seen the man."

But Horttor is reluctant to ask Christians why they believe and atheists why they don't, because she doesn't want to be ostracized.

She sees a similar reluctance to discuss partying on campus. University administrators and student leaders seem to avoid the topic, she said, for fear of appearing to condone it. Meanwhile, parties play host to fights, binge drinking, drugs and sexual assaults, she said.

Why not have forums on the dangers of binge drinking or on signs that a guy might be trying to victimize you?

"People don't talk about the dangers of partying and what to look out for," she said. "It's like sex education. These things need to be addressed so no one gets hurt."

Liam Ginn, a freshman at the University of Southern Maine, faced his classmates' fury this year when state Rep. Lawrence Lockman visited the Portland campus.

Students wanted Lockman disinvited, and as chair of the student senate, Ginn was part of a student government vote to remain neutral. He lost some friends over the decision, he said.

Ultimately, Lockman delivered his remarks on immigration -- or "the alien invasion" -- and students engaged him in heated debate, Ginn said.

Asked why he voted to remain neutral, Ginn, 24, said he'd never condone Lockman's rhetoric. But he did a stint in the US Navy before beginning college, and the experienced changed his views.

"After putting five years down for this country, you realize you're defending all the laws that we stand for," Ginn said. "Otherwise, the past five years were a waste of my time."

In 2015, liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University, the Christian school in Virginia founded by evangelist Jerry Falwell.

Senior Hannah Scherlacher, 22, said most of her classmates don't agree with Sanders' views.

But when he visited campus there were no protests, no raised hackles, she said. Attendance at his speech was compulsory.

Sanders made points students disagreed with, but he knew his audience, she said. He told the crowd of 12,000, "I want to support my arguments with what you believe -- your Bible, your Scripture," Scherlacher recalled.

His "unifying tone" made Scherlacher "reflective on my role as a Christian to alleviate poverty." She revisited her Bible to study Jesus' condemnation of wealth and power.

And Sanders spurred debates that carried on after he left, the public relations major said.

"Everyone I talked to was glad he came," she said. "It's important to communicate with those we disagree with."

Bob Richards, founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State, earned scorn himself when he brought porn publisher Larry Flynt to campus in 2001. Faculty and a Philadelphia radio station demanded a disinvitation.

Richards couldn't understand why intellectuals didn't jump at the chance to spar with Flynt. But he believes things may be worse now.

"We see more of a willingness on the part of the public to stop expression. They're happy certain speech is cut out," the journalism professor said. "If you put something like that on a ballot, people would vote to regulate expression."

Ramachandra, the Oberlin student accosted by bikers, acknowledges clinging to her own truths. Oberlin is a bastion of the left, and it's unlikely someone like Spencer or Yiannopoulos would be invited to speak at the Ohio school, she said.

If they were, there'd be anger but support. People would open up safe spaces to shield students from hurtful messages, she said. She's fine with that.

A leader of Oberlin's debate team, Ramachandra said the difference between Liberty's reaction to Sanders and Berkeley's response to Yiannopoulos is simple.

Sanders promotes policies, she said. Yiannopoulos was an alt-right darling who Twitter banned for harassment and who counts feminists, Muslims and social justice warriors as enemies.

If students want to protest Yiannopoulos, avoid him or shut him down, it has little to do with the free exchange of ideas, she said.

"I don't think I'm missing out on any political discourse" by tuning him out, she said. "I've already come up with my own counterpoints so I don't need them to come to campus and provoke me and hurt other people."

Link:
War on campus The escalating battle over college free speech - CNN

Texas code at the time banned intentional "desecration of a venerated object," including public monuments, places or worship and the national flag. Under the code, to desecrate meant to "deface, damage or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action." The punishment Johnson faced was a year in prison and a fine. An appeals court overturned his conviction and the state turned to the Supreme Court. At issue in the nation's highest court was the First Amendment of the Constitution and Johnson's right to symbolic speech exercised by burning the flag. Here's a quick refresher on the First Amendment, which reads in part: "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."

You can hear the major arguments from both sides of the case in the Instagram video embedded above, but they essentially came down to free speech against the protection of a national symbol.

More:
#TBT: Texas v. Johnson and free speech's trial by fire - CNN