Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

As Ben Shapiro delivered a speech called Dismantling Safe Spaces: Facts Dont Care About Your Feelings to an overflow crowd of 450 at University of Wisconsin-Madison in November, a group of about 20 protesters stood up and began to chant Safety! Safety!

They were met by shouts of Free speech matters! from many in the audience.

Shapiro, a conservative political commentator, used the interruption to write the word MORONS on the blackboard of the lecture hall in the Social Sciences Building.

Protesters lined up in front of the stage, their shouts about feeling at risk on campus drowned out by retorts from the audience. After some 10 minutes of chaos, the protesters filed out of the room, reportedly after being threatened with arrest by UW Police officers.

Na na na na! Na na na na! Hey, hey, hey! Goodbye! Shapiros fans taunted.

F*** white supremacy! a protester yelled as a parting shot.

Shapiro, from the stage, flipped off the protesters with both hands.

The whole scene was captured on video, viewable on the web site of Young Americas Foundation, the national conservative organization that helped bankroll Shapiros appearance.

The confrontation had a lot in common with others that have taken place at college campuses across the country over the past couple of years.

Students who feel marginalized on campus by race, gender or sexual orientation and their allies are engaged in a battle over safe spaces with classmates who insist they, and the speakers they invite to campus, can say what they like, no matter who finds it offensive.

Its a culture war for the 21st century that some say threatens Americas bedrock value of freedom of speech.

There have been skirmishes over free speech in classrooms, dorms, even the stands at Camp Randall Stadium. But exchanges have been most intense and most public around guest speaker lecterns.

Milo Yiannopoulos, provocateur and former editor at Breitbart News Network, ridiculed a transgender student by name while speaking in December at UW-Milwaukee. His scheduled appearance at University of California, Berkeley, in February touched off a riot that forced its cancellation.

And last month, protesters at Middlebury College in Vermont shut down a talk by controversial social scientist Charles Murray and attacked a professor, who was injured in the melee.

Opponents of speakers like Shapiro, Yiannopoulos and Murray argue that bringing them to campus amounts to attacking students of color.

Safe spaces for marginalized groups are really important, said Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II, a UW-Madison junior and member of the Black Liberation Action Coalition. People who ridicule the idea of safe spaces dont know what it feels like to be oppressed or deal with microaggressions day to day.

UW-Madison professor emeritus Donald Downs, a free speech authority, countered that allowing groups to silence speakers is dangerous to freedom of expression.

Here comes a speaker who students say violates safe space by being on campus, Downs said. Boy, thats the end of free speech, because you have completely conflated speech and action.

The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech.

UW-Madison student Ricardo Cortez de la Cruz II: As a rapper, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.

What that means in practice has evolved in a body of case law, developed in court rulings.

Since the 1940s, courts have defined that freedom in terms of broad categories of protected and unprotected speech, said UW-Madison professor Howard Schweber.

Unprotected speech, which the government can silence, includes blackmail, threats, false advertising, conspiracy, libel, treason and fighting words, Schweber said.

The doctrine comes from a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, which described unprotected speech as words which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, Schweber quoted in an email.

Speech that is objectively threatening may be banned, but the mere subjective feeling of being threatened by someones speech is not enough to justify such a restriction, said Schweber, a liberal-leaning professor of political science and First Amendment scholar.

Thats not to say that a symbolic threat cannot be objectively threatening, he said. For example, the Supreme Court has declared that cross burning is a threat that may be banned.

Speech condemning anothers speech a protest is protected, Schweber said.

Champions of free speech in America have traditionally emerged from the political left, rather than right, Schweber said.

It is only in the modern era that we have the spectacle of conservatives bridling against the perceived restrictions of political correctness and institutions such as universities attempting to limit the expression of right-wing sentiments, he said.

De la Cruz is a poet and rapper and part of UW-Madisons First Wave, a hip-hop learning community. He said he dreams of mounting a debate with campus conservatives in the spirit of James Baldwins famous 1965 debate at Cambridge University with William F. Buckley: Is the American Dream at the expense of the American Negro?

I think that would be powerful and impactful. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you learn from hearing other peoples perspectives. You dont grow without doing that, he said.

De la Cruz was among those who disrupted Shapiros talk in November, an action he called necessary.

He was persuading a room full of people to dismantle safe spaces. I dont trust that the people in that room will understand what hes saying. What I mean by that is they may feel empowered by his speech to hang nooses from the balcony of a frat house, call black people names on the street or make fun of LGBT members, he said.

Offensive speech, then, should be allowed unless it is threatening someone elses feelings or falls into racism or fighting words, he said.

I think thats when it comes into hate speech, de la Cruz said. As a rapper, of course, I wouldnt like my speech to be limited just because I say something offensive.

Provocative language in rap may be hyperbole, a bit of truth exaggerated to make it more creative thats when offense is cool, he said.

If his rap touching on the historic oppression of black people offends white listeners, de la Cruz said the question would be, Not are you offended, but are you triggered to the point where you think of what you did to us?

UW-Madison student Rose Klein believes speech that ridicules the concept of systemic discrimination creates a climate encouraging not only hate speech, but physical violence as well.

Klein, who is transgender, was an organizer of the protest against Shapiro and helped lead the chants that briefly silenced him.

Chair Kara Bell, left, and treasurer Michelle Walker discuss free speech in the office of the UW-Madison chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.

I entered that space willingly and knew there was a chance I might actually be physically beaten, but I was taking that risk, Klein said. Protesters were outnumbered and she speculated they may have been protected from violence only by the presence of police.

Klein argued the university should take a proactive, rather than reactive, strategy against hate speech and violence. That means not tolerating speech like Shapiros.

We didnt think the university should have let Ben Shapiro on campus in the first place. It was completely not in their interests. That was part of the reason for our protest, Klein said.

Hosting Ben Shapiro in the fall was our way of establishing ourselves as a conservative group on campus, Bell said. We knew he could combat lots of liberal arguments in a way that reflects our chapters values and beliefs. He was definitely the right choice.

Bell said participation in YAF has increased since Shapiros speech. The club paid his fee of around $15,000 using a $4,000 grant from student fees through Associated Students of Madison and a grant from the national YAF office, she said. Shapiro also gave the club a discount.

UW-Madison police waived their usual fee after it became clear in the days before the speech that security would be needed, Bell said. Protesters posted on social media that YAF was ended and the event cancelled, she said.

UW-Madison administrators told her they had received complaints that students would feel victimized by Shapiros likely speech, Bell said. She told them that Shapiro would talk about the ideology of safe spaces and trigger warnings and microaggressions.

Bell said protesters violated campus behavior guidelines by blocking the audiences view of Shapiro and temporarily drowning him out. Nevertheless, she called the talk a big success.

It was inspirational to conservative students, she said.

Student Michelle Walker, treasurer of the YAF chapter, said she doesnt understand the protesters complaints.

I dont know how his words make them feel unsafe. They are just words, Walker said. All he does is state his opinion and back it up with facts.

Shapiro has never been violent in his campus appearances, she said.

I am totally OK with people protesting the event. The only time theres an issue is when they are disrupting it. We allow them their free speech, but theyre impeding Shapiros right to free speech, Walker said.

His speech was right on target, she said.

Every day I hear more about safe spaces and microaggressions on college campuses. Things like safe spaces violate free speech because youre not allowed to say whatever you want, she said.

You should be able to have safe space within your home, but a public university should not define a space where you cant say things because its publicly funded.

It is not clear whether such acts as mandating sensitivity training, disinviting speakers or requiring trigger warnings violate constitutional guarantees of free expression, said Downs, a conservative First Amendment scholar.

Downs helped overturn a campus speech code implemented by UW in the 1990s, but this latest round of calls to limit free speech is being generated by students to a greater degree, he said.

Religion scholar Reza Aslan filled the Wisconsin Union Theater for a talk on Islamophobia in America on March 29. Despite the controversial topic, there were no insults hurled, no rude gestures made.

It creates a kind of chilling effect on campus, he said. Im being told all over campus, students are just not saying things that they think will rock the boat. Theyre afraid to speak out because the goalposts keep changing, because theyre afraid theyre going to get ostracized on social media, because of all the browbeating going on.

Downs said he thinks UW-Madison is doing a good job of moving toward the delicate balance of free speech and an environment conducive to learning.

Universities have a duty to have students feel safe from physical harm. But safety from ideas is an entirely different matter, Downs said. Our ideas should always be open to challenge. Physical safety is important. But no one should feel intellectually safe.

Students also have a right to criticize, even protest, offensive speech as a protected right of expression, Downs said, but not to silence speakers. That violates the speakers right to free expression, as well those of the sponsoring group and the audience.

Whats more, such obstructive behavior violates university norms, he said.

We have a distinctive role in society and that is to pursue the truth, Downs said. Thats why we get the privileges and rights we have in society without outside intervention.

Conservatives may have been the most vocal champions of free speech in recent years, but the recent violence at Middlebury College has been a turning point, Downs said.

That was a mob action purely because of Murrays ideas, he said. A lot of people are alarmed: conservative, liberals, moderates.

Indeed, there has been much soul-searching since the March 2 incident, particularly in the higher education press.

One college instructor wrote that it is precisely because academics give credence to the concepts of safe spaces and microaggressions that they should be open to rigorous debate.

And Jose B. Gonzalez, a professor of English, told Inside Higher Education that college leaders should hesitate before criticizing the students at Middlebury who interrupted Murray. Their actions were more than a criticism of that speaker, he said.

They arise from a higher ed system that negates the existence of suppressed views, he said. I am sure college presidents don't want to hear that their institutions are broken in some form, but they need to reflect on what made students take on this activism.

The resolution calls for a free and open exchange of ideas at UW System colleges and universities, and says institutions must not act to inhibit debate, even if topics or arguments are unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.

At UW-Madison, officials posted guidelines online referring to administrative rules governing the UW System after receiving requests for guidance following Shapiros appearance.

Protests are a part of a vibrant campus community; we facilitate them to ensure they do not jeopardize free speech, teaching, research or safety, spokeswoman Meredith McGlone wrote in an email.

Successful facilitation safely provides for the expression of First Amendment rights while at the same time not infringing any other individuals First Amendment rights.

While voluntary compliance is the goal, the university states its intention to employ a range of measures, from discipline to arrest, in response to situations that disrupt the universitys mission.

The university does not have guidelines on who may speak on campus, McGlone said, but policies on facilities use prioritize activities that promote teaching, research and public service. Outside speakers must be invited or sponsored by a campus department or organization.

We do plan to remind student organizations in the fall to reach out in advance regarding events that may have security needs so we can work with them to ensure a safe and successful event, McGlone said.

In the current political climate, as university officials develop programs to cultivate a welcoming climate for all students, some speakers, like Shapiro, are likely to provoke a backlash.

But free expression can thrive in an era of expanding inclusivity, said Lori Berquam, vice provost and dean of students.

We believe that inclusivity and free expression are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another, Berquam said in a statement. But we also recognize that students may not arrive on campus fully equipped with the skills to navigate difficult conversations respectfully and compassionately. Our approach is to ensure that our policies on speech apply equally to all viewpoints, as the Constitution requires, and to engage our students through programs like Our Wisconsin so they can learn how to live and work effectively with Badgers of all backgrounds.

Our Wisconsin is a cultural diversity training program introduced this academic year.

The Wisconsin Unions popular Distinguished Lecture Series has seen its share of controversial speakers over the years.

Free tickets to hear conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly had to be picked up in advance and were limited to one per person in 1993 in the hopes of defusing protests, according to news reports.

Spectators wait to ask questions of speaker Reza Aslan at the Wisconsin Union Theater in March.We believe that inclusivity and free speech are not mutually exclusive in fact, we think they depend on one another," said Lori Berquam, UW-Madison vice provost and dean of students.

Campus LGBT groups staged silent protests to greet an appearance by religious right leader Ralph Reed in 1998.

But under the current leadership of William Rosenthal, director of a student committee that selects the speakers, it is excellence, not controversy, that determines who takes the stage.

We never select a speaker based on political ideology, said Rosenthal. We want to select topics that are important for people to be more informed about and on which we can find educated speakers to broaden peoples ideas.

Expertise in their field is the first criteria, Rosenthal said. After that is a desire to present a variety of topics, so the series is not drawing the same crowd over and over again, he said.

Student Deshawn McKinney, director of the Wisconsin Union Directorate, praised Rosenthal for bringing in speakers to address topics outside the social sciences, a concentration of the past.

The folks brought in this year appeal to different communities, he said. We want to be the living room for everyone on campus, a place to come in and engage in conversation.

But its not about avoiding controversy, Rosenthal said.

We just try to make sure our speakers are high quality. And a lot of controversial issues a lot of people who talk about them dont necessarily add anything to the discussion, he said.

On March 29, the lecture series hosted Reza Aslan, an author, religious scholar and host of the CNN documentary series Believer. Aslan ran into controversy from Indian-American communities in some cities after an episode of that program showed him eating human brains with a Hindu sect.

But there was little sign of opposition when Aslan spoke to a full house at the Wisconsin Union Theater about the controversial issue of Islamophobia in America.

Aslan traced attitudes toward Muslims and anti-Muslim activities to statements made by high-ranking officials in President Donald Trumps administration. That includes pushing the idea that Islam is not a religion, but a political force.

If Islam is not a religion, it doesnt enjoy religious protection under the Constitution. This is a deliberate attempt to denationalize Muslim-Americans, Aslan said. This is no longer just on the fringes; it is at the highest levels of our government.

Maybe it was owing to the overall liberal bent of the UW-Madison and Madison communities, but only a couple of those taking the mic for a question-and-answer session after his talk probed Aslan about Islamic violence they said was encouraged in the Quran.

Aslan deftly disarmed their queries, citing passages that call for violence in both the Quran and the Bible.

Thats the thing about scriptures, he said, theres something for everyone.

View original post here:
Fighting words: The campus free speech battle at UW often focuses ... - Madison.com

SB 2193 would expand jurisdiction lines to allow campus police to make arrests and issue tickets in a limited range projected beyond their schools and into their surrounding cities. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and cleared the House last Friday with a 71-21 vote. This week, its on its way to Gov. Doug Burgum for his signature.

Including the University of North Dakota, the campuses that have their own police units are North Dakota State University and North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton.

Leaders from Grand Forks, including those in the Legislature as well as local law enforcement and city officials, largely supported SB 2193, which they characterized as filling gaps in service. The bill is now subject to emergency measure, meaning the final law would go into effect immediately upon signature by the North Dakota secretary of state, a step that follows the governors approval and ends the legislative process.

Before the bill was cleared by the House, it was amended to delineate the expanded jurisdiction areas on a street-by-street basis for each of the three municipalities that now have campus police departments.

The other bill wont get as far as that. House Bill 1329 took aim at safe spaces on college campuses and called on the State Board of Higher Education, the governing body of the North Dakota university system, to adopt more rigorous protections for free speech. Though it passed 65-25 in the House, HB 1329 was defeated Friday in the Senate by a vote of 37-7.

Rep. Rick Becker, the sponsor of HB 1329, described the bill as a rejection of political correctness gone crazy. He said the proposal would have prevented universities from enacting policies that would discourage free expression.

The bill received do not pass recommendations before each vote from legislative education committees whose members cautioned the proposal could create issues for the SBHE while duplicating protections already provided by the Constitution and rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read more here:
Campus police, freedom of speech bills go different directions in ND Legislature - Prairie Business

MEXICO CITY One of the last stories that Mexican journalist Miroslava Breach published before she was brutally gunned down in front of her son was on how drug cartels were covertly backing mayoral candidates in a region notorious for its opium and marijuana production.

On March 23, the 54-year-old correspondent for Chihuahuas La Jornada became the 30th journalist murdered in the country since 2012.

MEXICAN JOURNALIST SHOT DEAD IN NORTHERN STATE OF CHIHUAHUA

According to Reporters without Borders, Mexico is currently the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, with nine media professionals murdered in 2016 alone.

The effect of the violence is a kind of self-censorship, said Javier Valdez, an award-winning reporter who worked with Breach in northwest Mexico. You have to know the rules how the gangs or police or a local politician here or there will respond to a certain story but those rules can change quickly, he told Fox News.

ANOTHER JOURNALIST SLAIN IN MEXICO'S VIOLENT VERACRUZ STATE

These are impossible conditions in which to practice journalism, Valdez said.

Last month alone five journalist were targeted across the country three of them fatally.

While organized crime hangs over the majority of reporters deaths, occasionally the motives are hard to pinpoint. Ricardo Monlui, a newspaper columnist in Veracruz who was shot March 19 by a gunman on a motorcycle, mostly covered issues relating to the sugar-cane industry.

As for Breach, she uncovered many scandals along her 20-year career, yet colleagues and state officials believe her work on the political activities of drug traffickers is what ultimately led to her murder.

Miroslava documented and denounced the links between state politics and drug trafficking, said Chihuahua Governor Javier Corral, who knew Breach personally, during a radio interview.

MEXICAN NEWSPAPER CLOSES CITING INSECURITY FOR JOURNALISTS

In view of the rising number of journalists being targeted, the Mexican government created the Special Prosecutor's Office for Crimes against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE) to investigate all known cases since 2006.

According to a recentfreedom of informationrequest made by the Mexican news outlet Animal Poltico,in the past seven years FEADLE has opened 798 investigations into aggressions against journalists,which included47 murders, but only three caseshave resulted in a criminal conviction.

For Esteban Illades, a leading Mexico City journalist, the problem of impunity can partly be traced to a taut relationship between media and authorities and a notoriously dysfunctional criminal justice system in which startlingly few crimes are solved.

Historically, in Mexico the government has failed to understand the role of the press and the difficulties they face in doing their jobs, Illades told Fox News. The criminal justice systems at both the state and federal level are simply inadequate.

Mexico has seen widespread drug violence since the mid-2000s when the federal government launched a crackdown on organized crime. Ironically, the attacks against journalists in recent years have come as the country transitioned into a competitive democracy after 71 years of one-party rule and the media once largely state-controlled gained unprecedented freedom.

Yet according to Illades, solidarity among Mexican media outlets and journalists is weak.

The guild of journalists in Mexico is very fragmented, there are diverse groups with diverse loyalties, he said. Almost no one supports another journalist who is threatened. On the contrary, Ive seen journalists celebrate threats against others because of the kind of work they do.

Paul Imison is a freelance journalist based in Mexico City. Follow him on Twitter: @paulimison

Like us on FacebookFollow us on Twitter & Instagram

Read the original:
Journalists in Mexico killed in record numbers along with freedom of speech - Fox News

Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College, has sued the school after he said he was barred from handing out copies of the United States Constitution outside of the colleges designated free speech zone.

The college actually maintains an area about the size of three parking spaces where students can exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Its a whole process for students to secure the area because they have to submit paperwork to receive passes, and there are only a few given out at one time.

Shaw says that at the time, there were no spots available for him to exercise his free speech rights.

Related: Students Demand Free College Tuition to Make Up for Slavery

He and a few other students were stopped back in November while they were handing out Spanish-language copies of the Constitution and talking with other students about their rights. Since they were outside of the free speech zone, the students were violating school policy. Shaw is suing the school for violating his civil rights by restricting his speech.

This is a pretty weird policyfor an institution of higher learning, in my opinion. While I agree that there should be a certain levelof decorum while exercising freedom of speech at a college, it shouldnt be restricted to a small space. Students who are peacefully exercising their constitutional rights shouldnt have to jump through hoops to be able to do so.

It seems like colleges across the United States have been doing more to limit what students are doing and saying, from canceling speakers they dont agree with to creating safe spaces.

College is a place where adults go to develop their knowledge and share ideas. Whether or not the ideas are popular opinion, students should still be allowed to speak freely and not check to make sure they're within thefree speech zone. Even having a designated free speech zone implies that there's something wrong with speaking opinions on campus and that students will face consequences for speaking. When did everything get so caught up in political correctness? Where was the free speech zone when rioters were tearing up Berkeley?

Related: Rioting and Violence on Parents' Dime at UC Berkeley

I would hardly call handing out copies of the United States Constitution disruptive to the learning environment.

In any case, I'm sure this has become normal for many colleges and universities across the United States. Especially with the current political climate, there seem to be quite a few headlines coming out of the woodwork where teachers are pushing their own political agendas not only in colleges, but even inelementary and middle schools. Teachers are getting caught up in pushing anti-Trump ideas.

Those areas should be given more attention and regulated.

Related: Cop's Daughter Told to Remove Her 'Blue Lives Matter' Flag

I dont think colleges need this type of policing. All of the students are adults and are perfectly capable of handling the exchange of ideas and dialogue without the establishment's telling them where to speak and where to think. Thats completely counterproductive to those who are paying large sums of money to attend these schools.

Angelina Newsom is a U.S. Army veteran and an OpsLens contributor. She served 10 years in the military, including a deployment to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. She studies criminal justice and is still active within the military community. This OpsLens article is used by permission.

Read more at OpsLens: Respect the RankPolitical Football

View post:
College Student Sues School for Hampering His Freedom of ... - LifeZette

There is a new liberal pejorative for describing what is an essential aspect of our political system: anonymity in political speech. Some candidates for City Council are complaining that they don't know who are funding political campaigns so they are trying to impugn the messages by using the sinister-sounding "dark money" as a descriptor for anonymous donations that fund political speech.

"People deserve to know who's spending money to influence their vote," said Colorado Ethics Watch executive director Luis Toro inthe March 26Gazette. "It helps them understand who benefits from possible policies. And it also helps identify possible conflicts of interest with legislators and City Council members and the industries that are supporting them."

Colorado College political science professor emeritus Bob Loevy is quoted in the same article saying "The real mystery is who are the nameless, faceless persons or person who are behind the attempt to take over City Council. The voters have no way of telling what's really going on."

What's going on is anonymous political free speech, which has a long and honorable tradition extending clear back to Publius and the authors of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. In their day, political speech could get you hung by the British for sedition. Today it can get you attacked by masked thugs or destroy your business.

People do not deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote. The whole purpose of campaigning is to influence people's votes and it is the argument that is important, not the author. Wrote the Supreme Court, "Far from enhancing the reader's evaluation of a message, identifying the publisher can interfere with that evaluation by requiring the introduction of potentially extraneous information at the very time the reader encounters the substance of the message.The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

"Don't underestimate the common man," the Court goes on to say, "People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is 'responsible,' what is valuable, and what is truth."

Inoverturning an Ohio law that required name disclosure the Supreme Court said "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." The court went on to say, "It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation - and their ideas from suppression - at the hand of an intolerant society."

And that is why people form and contribute to nonprofits to act as political speech surrogates. Such organizations provide a shield against an intolerant and increasingly violent leftist/liberal cadre of cowardly masked thugs who are willing to commit assault, arson, criminal mischief, riot and general disorder to suppress the speech of their political opponents. The gravity of the violence of these thugs was seen in Washington D.C. at President Trump's inauguration and again at a speech by Milo Yianopolous at UC Berkeley and many other places since.

The fear of persecution and violence is today, as it was in the past, a genuine physical threat that makes anonymity critical to protecting freedom of speech. That a group must by Colorado law register and be identified to band together and contribute financially to speak politically puts them at personal risk. Anonymity is all that protects those who want to engage in free speech and expression without fear of retribution and violence.

Nobody required Publius to register as a 401(c)3 nonprofit corporation and list the names of contributors before James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were allowed to publish the Federalist Papers. We are entitled to the same protection of anonymity our forefathers enjoyed under the First Amendment.

-

Scott Weiser is an award-winning journalist

Go here to see the original:
WEISER: So-called 'Dark money' is plain free speech - Colorado Springs Gazette

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

The former president of the ACLU and co-founder of FIRE are featured speakers at RIT symposium

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Staff report 6:27 p.m. ET April 3, 2017

Nadine Strossen, Alan C. Kors(Photo: provided)

The former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and a co-founder of a group advocating free speech will be featured speakers at Rochester Institute of Technology's Center for Statesmanship, Law and Liberty's annual symposium Tuesday and Wednesday.

The symposium, "The University as a Marketplace of Ideas? The Debate over Free Speech and Fundamental Fairness on Campus," is free and open to the public.

Nadine Strossen will give a talk, "Title IX: Hostile Environment Policies that are Hostile to Free Speech and Due Process," at 7 p.m. on Tuesday in Liberal Arts Hall, Room A205, on the RIT campus.

Strossen, who is a professor of law at New York Law School, was president of the ACLU from 1991 through 2008.

Alan C. Kors will give a talk, "No Freedom of Speech, No Higher Education," onWednesday at 7 p.m., in the Ingle Auditoriumof the RIT Student Alumni Union.

Kors,a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, is co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He isthe 2005 recipient of the National Humanities Medal.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rocne.ws/2nCLZZA

0:31

0:20

1:11

0:49

0:56

0:32

0:38

1:09

0:55

1:00

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the rest here:
Former president of ACLU and co-founder of FIRE featured at RIT - Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

VERNON SMALL

Last updated11:14, April 4 2017

NZN VIDEO

It is important that strong views are expressed in NZ: Bill English

A group of 27 high-profile New Zealanders, including unlikely allies such as Don Brash and Dame Tariana Turia, have penned an open letter warning freedom of speech is under threat in the country'suniversities.

It was the brainchild of Auckland University of Technology's History Professor Paul Moon, and rejects"the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views" on university campuses.

It also insists debate must not be suppressed because the ideas put forth "are thought by some or even by most people to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed".

PHIL WALTER/GETTY IMAGES

Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy is keen to see Police gather hate-crime statistics.

It comes after a group called theEuropean Students Associationat Auckland University was closed down after threats to its members and accusations of racism.Its leaders had denied it wasracist.

READ MORE: *Prominent Kiwis pen open letter saying free speech is under threat in NZ universities *Academic calls for better recording of hate crimes *MasseyUni chancellor steps down after sexism controversy * Editorial: There's no need for hate-crimes law in New Zealand *Susan Devoy preaches free speech not hate speech on race relations

The letter also follows Human Rights CommissionerDame Susan Devoy's February call for a review of"hate speech" law and Police Commissioner Mike Bush suggesting an examination of the pros and cons of a specific crime.

The open letterhas been signed by academics, business leaders, community representatives and controversial commentators including Sir Bob Jones, former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Maori educationalistSir Toby Curtis, poet Albert Wendt and former MP Luamanuvao Winnie Laban.

Moon saidfreedom of speech was the foundation of a modern, diverse and democratic society and it protectedreligious freedom and individual expression.

"Kneejerk calls from Police and the Human Right Commission to introduce hate-speech laws after recent attacks on ethnic communities will have the unintended consequence of suppressing free speech. Education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views not censorship," he said.

DEAN KOZANIC/FAIRFAX NZ

Former National leader Don Brash has joined Dame Tariana Turia in opposing restrictions on freedom of speech.

Freedom ofspeech was intimatelyconnectedwith freedom of thought,he said.

"There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is dangerous and wrong to silence someone because you takeoffenceor don't like what they say. Of course there are limits; that is why inciting hatred or violence is already a crime."

The current law was working well.

JASON OXENHAM/FAIRFAX NZ

Paul Moon, Professor of History at the Faculty of Maori Development at AUT coordinated an open letter defending free speech at universities

Police Minister Paula Bennett has poured cold water on the idea of a new crime, sayinghate speech can be an aggravating factor in sentencing but going further was not a Government priority.

But Moon said Devoy's ideaseemed tobe her legacy project. "It'snot dead in the water yet as far as we can tell."

In a speech ata Holocaust Remembrance Day event,Devoy said that free speech was one thing, hate speech another.

HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES

Former Maori party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia one of 27 signatories to letter defending free speech.

"I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out. I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums" as well as social media accounts.

It was obvious to her when freedom of speech became a cover for threatening and harmful language.

She was also keen toseePolice gather hate crime statistics.

Meanwhile Moon pointed to the forced closure of the Europeanstudent club at Auckland Universityand threats to itsmembers,describing it as a slippery slope to be wary of.

"History shows that fear and intolerance drives suppression of free speech, not that free speech causes fear and intolerance," Moon said

Universities must remain places forrobust debate and the free exchange of ideas, not a place where unpopular views were censored.

But there was a "tsunami"withuniversitiesin the UK, Australiaand the United States facinghuge restrictions on freedom of speech.

"The question is when, rather than if, that happens here. Once it happens it's very difficult to undo, so we would like to head it off," he said.

"Where it becomes dangerousterritoryis where they criminalise ideas. Where they say if you criticise someone thatpotentially constitutes hate speech and therefore you shouldn't do it.

"And that goes against two or three hundred years of European traditionand even longer in the Maori tradition where divergent views are expressed and people reach a sort of synthesis eventually... a unified or agree-to-disagree position in the end."

Being accused of hate speech would also "put a brand on your forehead - you are guiltyof hate speech... without really knowing what your motives are or looking at the arguments".

"The preparedness of the state to curtail free speech in the (name) of either good race relations or order or whatever else is a very dangerous step. Becauseit doesn't actually solve any problem it, it really just suppresses it."

He said the signatories to the letter included those diametrically opposed on some issues, such as Brash and Turia on the Treaty and Maori rights.

"But what unites them is that they areall prepared to have their say and have others have their say, even if it's a very different imposing argument. That really is the essence of how free speech works."

Moon said he planned to send a copy of the letter to all party leaders in Parliament seeking their response to it."

It was not about influencinga particularstatute, but his hope was "they will take that as guidance when they are considering any hate speech legislation".

Those who put their name to the letter were:

Assoc Professor Len Bell, Dr Don Brash, Dr David Cumin, Sir Toby Curtis,Dr Brian Edwards,Graeme Edwards, Dr Gavin Ellis, Sir Michael Friedlander,Alan Gibbs, Dame Jenny Gibbs,Bryan Gould,Wally Hirsh,Professor Manying Ip,Sir Bob Jones, Professor Pare Keiha,Assoc ProfessorLuamanuvao Winnie Laban, Dame Lesley Max,Gordon McLauchlan,Professor Paul Moon, Sir Douglas Myers,Assoc Professor Camille Nakhid, Sir Geoffrey Palmer,Professor Edwina Pio,David Rankin,Philip Temple,Dame Tariana Turia, and ProfessorAlbert Wendt.

-Stuff

Go here to read the rest:
Prominent Kiwis pen open letter saying free speech is under threat in NZ universities - Stuff.co.nz

There is so much heatand passion surrounding Donald Trump that sometimes even very smart lawyers can lose their perspective. That is what happened last week when some members of the NJ State Bar Association warned that Judge Andrew Napolitano might be exposed to an ethics complaint because of his remarks on Fox News suggesting that the British government conspired with President Obama to wiretap Trump.

The outcry against Napolitano has become more absurd than the tweet from the president asserting the wiretapping allegation in the first place. As a Fox commentator, it is Napolitanos job to provoke reactions and to teach something about the law by entertaining a broad based television audience. Napolitano performsthat job brilliantly.

Napolitanos analysis of current events comes from a crisp and clearly articulated Libertarian perspective. His views are something you might expect to hear from Thomas Jefferson if he were alive and broadcasting at Fox. Like Jefferson, Napolitano holds an absolutist defense of personal liberty and comes from the perspective that the Constitution protects individual rights FROM excessive government intrusion.

Obviously, Napolitanos views cause him to have no shortage of detractors. However, when his critics attack the man rather than his views, they go too far.

Napolitano, a former New Jersey judge, is still a member of the New Jersey Bar, although he works primarily as a legal analyst for the media. His allegation that Obama asked a British intelligence agency to wiretap then-presidential candidate Trump caused controversy, not because of the allegation but because the President tweeted it as fact.

Not many news commentators get their remarks tweeted by the President of the United States and then become an international sensation. Instead of suspending Napolitano, Fox News should have given him a raise.

Fox News did the right thing by acknowledging that there was no evidence to support Napolitanos claims. The matter should end there. Suspending him was overkill. Even worse are the allegations that Napolitano may have violated the rules of attorney ethics. Those allegations are not only unfair, but they baselessly mischaracterize the nature of attorney ethics and demonstrate little understanding of the First Amendment.

Potential Ethical Violation

In most cases, a client or former client files an ethics complaint against an attorney. However, under New Jerseys Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC), other lawyers can also sound an alarm on their colleagues. Rule 8.3 states:

A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyers honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

A group of law professors recently relied on Rule 8.3 to file an ethics complaint against Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway. It alleged that Conway engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of RPC Rule 8.4(c). In support, the complaint cited Conways reference to the nonexistent Bowling Green Massacre and her use of alternative facts. Speculation is now growing that Napolitano could also face similar charges.

The charges against Conway are a stretch, but using Rule 8.3 against Napolitano would be an absurdity. If someone thinks they have standing to do so and they survive a challenge to their standing, there is still a matter of the First Amendment to deal with.

Free Speech Protections

To pass muster under the First Amendment, governmental action based upon the content of speech must serve a compelling state interest, and be as narrowly tailored as possible to protect that interest. In the case of Napolitano, the state may arguably have an interest in prohibiting its licensed attorneys from making misleading statements on national television, but it would be a stretch to characterize the states interest in statements made outside of the practice of law as compelling. Even if it were, such an interest would clearly be outweighed by the interest in protecting free and open debate by members of the media, particularly with respect to political issues.

The bottom line is that many public officials and media commentators are also licensed attorneys. When they are not engaged in the practice of law and commenting on decidedly political matters, their freedom of speech should not be subjected to a heightened standard simply because they are members of the bar.

Who would ever tune in to listen to a lawyer commentator if they were barred from provoking their audience? For that matter, how many of the nations most talented and popular law professors would retain their licenses to practice law? Good teachers provoke thought. Good Television commentary provokes reactionsa tweet by a President and a reaction from the British Government is GREAT television commentary.

Put Napolitano back on the air and give him a raise!

Donald Scarinci is a managing partner at Lyndhurst, NJ-based law firmScarinci Hollenbeck. He is also the editor of theConstitutional Law ReporterandGovernment and Lawblogs.

Visit link:
Napolitano's Fox News Wiretapping Comment is Freedom of Speech - Observer

Harold Hickman, In My Opinion 6:16 a.m. MT March 30, 2017

Harold Hickman(Photo: SUBMITTED)

Lata Notts recent editorial in The Spectrum & Daily Newsnoted: Maybe its time for us to come to terms with the truth: While everybody loves the First Amendment in theory, nobodys all that fond of it in practice.

Well, here is one somebody who is not only fond of it, but will follow Voltaires seemingly bromidic statement: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Ms. Lott misses the point. The problem with free speech is that many who exercise it as professions fail to understand the added element of each freedom we all enjoy the responsibility that is attached to the freedom.

Freedom of speech should be exercised with the caveat that there are ethical responsibilities that should precede its use. In America, those ethics are grounded in the protection of the individual and the society from injury or harm. At the extreme that injury is covered by liable or defamation, but in lesser instances, those who exercise free speech and the corresponding freedom of the press should guard against causing physical, emotional or spiritual harm or damage to their audience.

It is in these situations where I believe our society and the press have overstepped their responsibility in the application of the use of freedom of speech. The cannons of ethics established by the society of journalists, in my estimation, is being violated every day by reporters, writers and editors who confuse reporting the news with editorializing. Much of this confusion is subtle a word here, an innuendo there. The slanting of a story so that it leads to an understanding by the reader or viewer not supported by the actual details is common. This is an example of the current problem with free speech.

The general public isnt as naive as it used to be. Most are well educated, discerning, sophisticated citizens who can tell when smoke is being blown at them. The publics perception of the credibility of their sources of information is currently suffering low acceptance because they dont trust those sources to give them unbiased facts.

Freedom of speech is critical to our society. Citizens must defend its openness but be hypercritical of its misuse.

Harold Hickman is a professor emeritus of mass communications at Northern Arizona University. He lives in St. George.

Read or Share this story: http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2017/03/30/responsibility-free-speech/99800690/

Link:
The responsibility of free speech - St. George Daily Spectrum

The president wants liberties for himself that he doesnt grant to others.

Singaporean blogger Amos Yee, who has been granted asylum in the United States.

A March 24 decision by a US immigration court in Chicago to grant asylum to Amos Yee, an 18-year-old blogger from the tiny Asian city-state of Singapore, has lit up news media worldwide because it illuminates new dangers to freedoms of speech, not only in Singapore which ranks near the bottom of every assessment of press and other freedoms but even in the US, where Yees asylum was opposed by President Trumps Department of Homeland Security.

DHS has 30 days to appeal the immigration courts decision, and undoubtedly its deciding right now whether to do so. An appeal, which DHS would file through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencys Office of Chief Counsel, could reinforce ICEs image as Trumps presidential security force. And it would bolster the authoritarian regime in Singapore that has beguiled tourists and foreign investors with gleaming skyscrapers, obedient migrant workers and efficient management that reflect only a small part of its much harder, darker reality.

Singapore is a laboratory for what the conservative Economist magazine condemned in 2012 as crony capitalism combined with nationalism, calling the countrys late founder and longtime prime minister Lee Kuan Yew a tireless advocate of Asian values, by which Lee meant a mixture of family values and authoritarianism that hobbles democracy by running a society as if it were a business corporation.

That may be possible in a little city-state of about 6 million people, but Lees way of subsuming politics to business management has made Singapore a model for neoliberal cooperation with dictators over the world. Come to think of it, governing a country as if it were a business is just what Trump has appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner to do. Singapores restrictions on freedoms of expression, so evident in the Amos Yee asylum case, may presage a shift toward that model in America that was already happening before Trumps election.

A Trump administration appeal of Yees asylum will damage Americas reputation as the land of the free and home of the brave.

A Trump administration appeal of Yees asylum will damage Americas reputation as the land of the free and home of the brave, a reputation reinforced by Judge Samuel B. Coles detailed, devastating assessment of Singapores treatment of the then-16-year-old Yee, whom it imprisoned twice for his blog rants against religion and more fatefully, although not mentioned by the government against Singapores leaders.

An American appeal of Yees asylum would bolster Singapores authoritarian regime and cast a harsh new light on speech-suffocating political correctness in America that begins not mainly on college campuses, where some angry, frightened 19-year-olds and junior professors do react immaturely and destructively but do so to larger, encroaching dangers in government and business curbs on citizens freedoms, whether by state surveillance for power or corporate surveillance for profit.

The immigrant court, citing seemingly endless precedents in Singapores judicial record, found that, under cover of enforcing a dubious law against wounding religious feelings, Yees prosecution was a pretext to silence his political opinions of the Singapore government and that his detention and general maltreatment constitute persecution on account of Yees political opinions.

That decision and the grant of asylum confirmed America as the greatest country of the world, Kenneth Jeyaretnam, secretary-general of Singapores government-harassed opposition Reform Party, told me after flying from virtual exile in London to Chicago to testify on Yees behalf. Jeyaretnam detailed for the court precisely how Singapores government, like many others these days, suffocates citizens freedoms deftly but decisively behind legalistic and democratic facades.

Yee wasnt exactly a poster boy for freedom of expression. His expletive-laden, quasi-pornographic rants against Muslims, Christians and, more fatefully, Singapores late founder and virtual dictator Lee Kuan Yew (on a blog with some 50,000 followers) were childish rubbish, as Jeyaretnam himself acknowledged in his blog post supporting asylum.

But that only reinforces the significance of this case. Plenty of Singaporean leaders, including Lee himself, a classic 19th-century racist, have spewed such rubbish without ever being prosecuted. In 1967 Lee told an interviewer that

The bell curve [that supposedly measures race-driven differences in intelligence] is a fact of life. These are realities that, if you do not accept, will lead to frustration because you will be spending money on wrong assumptions You get a good mare, you dont want a dud stallion to breed with your good mare. You get a poor foal. Your mental capacity and your EQ and the rest of you, 70 to 80 percent is genetic.

Lee ran Singapore so tightly on such premises that he characterized its consequent racial (and religious) compartmentalization (with Chinese like himself at the top, Malays and others below) as an example of harmonious multiculturalism that Singapores laws enforce. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think, he told the government-controlled Straits Times in 1987.

Lees son, who has succeeded him as prime minister, still runs Singapore that way, with only a few new grace notes. Its prosecution of Yee is only one recent instance of the governments relentless use of its scandalous judiciary to intimidate, bankrupt or cripple the political opposition with legal suits commenced against dissidents and detractors for alleged defamation, wrote the late Francis T. Seow, a former solicitor general of the county who ended his life in exile in Massachusetts.

Its clear that the Singapore government saw Amos Yee as the proverbial nail sticking up that had to be hammered down, said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, which monitors Singapore.

Stung by the asylum decisions exposure of its methods, the countrys ministry of home affairs complained with ill-disguised petulance that

There are many more such people, around the world, who deliberately engage in hate speech, and who may be prosecuted. Some of them will no doubt take note of the US approach, and consider applying for asylum in the US. Anyone who engages in hate speech or attempts to burn the Quran, Bible or any religious text in Singapore, will be arrested and charged.

Yee hadnt burned anything or endangered anyone. Hed lampooned Singapores leaders and methods. But what about American college students who rant and sometimes even shout down others who have every right to be heard? Those wayward students, too, take more cues from authority than their critics admit.

When Yale University, where I teach, bypassed its facultys objections to establish a new college with the National University of Singapore in that country, Yale President Richard Levin told the Yale Alumni Magazine that Understanding that norms are different is part of the value of this experiment and that In Singapore, it is illegal to express racist or intolerant positions publicly. Here in the United States, some of our university peers have speech codes. If that isnt a defense of political correctness from the top down, what is?

Trump has spewed even more racist and vulgar rubbish than Lee Kuan Yew, and he has denounced political correctness for trying to block it. Since that kind of free speech is so dear to our lying, crooked, so-called president, whats his excuse for opposing Amos Yees freedom? The most likely answer is that, like Singapores late Lee and so many other aspiring seigneurs, Trump wants liberties for himself that he doesnt grant to others.

What the American Constitution rightly protects in freedom of speech, a healthy civil society would rightly modulate. Freedom does require limits against which to express itself responsibly a lesson that young people such as Yee and the shouting American students will learn in time but only if Singapores too-authoritarian civil society or Americas too-anarchic civil society become healthy enough to help them to do that. Embracing governmental solutions like Singapores, as Trump seems inclined to do, wont save either that island society or our continental one from the cascading ills we feel rising all around us.

View original post here:
Trump's Double Standard on Freedom of Speech - BillMoyers.com