Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

BUCKHANNON Dissent is patriotic.

Thats the message the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia delivered to a small crowd gathered in Wesley Chapel on the campus of West Virginia Wesleyan College Sunday night.

Joseph Cohen said the United States is at a watershed moment when it comes to being patriotic via social activism and various protest movements across the country.

Were right now in the midst of this explosion of social activism and its maybe unparalleled in American history, Cohen said, referring to the many protests organized throughout the United States, including those put on in opposition to President Donald Trumps so-called Muslim ban and the Womens March on Washington.

Theres so many people who are getting actively engaged in protest movements, and its really people who have woken up to this that need to make their voice heard people who have never been involved in protest activities, people who have never been involved in mass movements, are taking to the streets in incredible numbers, and we think thats beautiful at the ACLU, Cohen said.

We love when people exercise their right to freedom of speech, we love when people exercise their right to freedom of assembly, we love when people exercise their right of freedom of association, he continued. In our opinion, theres nothing more American than dissent than telling your government why theyre wrong, why they screwed up, why you disagree with them. That is the very basis of our whole democratic system.

Cohen began his presentation by reviewing the history and purpose of the ACLU of W.Va. The ACLU is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect and expand civil liberties for West Virginians; its an affiliate of the national ACLU, which has been in the news quite frequently lately.

A major focus of our work is to extend civil liberties to those who are traditionally denied those protections, and that particular part of our mission seems more relevant today than maybe in our countrys history, Cohen said. We accomplish our goals through litigation that is, suing the government lobbying, grassroots organization and education.

Cohen said the ACLU has been in operation in the Mountain State since 1920, and its first case here was representing coal miners who were imprisoned for organizing labor unions. He went on to note that although the ACLU isnt typically thought of as a nonpartisan organization, it has sued every presidential administration.

Weve sued Barack Obama many, many times, and weve sued Donald Trump many, many times already, and Im sure were going to be suing him a lot more, Cohen said. Theres this massive increase in First Amendment activity around the country and in West Virginia, and this has not happened before in this state. With all the other crazy things that are going on the attacks on Muslims, the attacks on immigrants, the attacks on women and all the other groups that are being targeted weve nationally and in West Virginia made one of our top priorities ensuring that peoples free speech rights are honored, so you or anybody else involved in protest activity where you think you might have encounters with police are protected.

Cohen said protecting peoples First Amendment rights is especially important in rural areas like West Virginia, where police dont have as much experience handling protesters and rallies.

Its one thing when its at the Capitol grounds, because there are protests all the time and the police kind of know what they shouldnt be doing, Cohen said. But especially when state police get involved, thats when the problems happen, because theyre just not used to dealing with protesters.

Cohen said although the ACLU is an anti-racist, civil rights organization, it has a responsibility to protect all speech, regardless of whether its officials philosophically agree with that speech or not.

We protect all speech, he said. Speech that we agree with is not usually prohibited by the government, but speech we disagree with frequently prohibited, ugly speech, speech that we find reprehensible as individuals and as an organization. And we dont make those distinctions if the government tries to infringe upon someones constitutional protected right to speech or to assemble, we will fight it, and it does not matter who it is that includes the (Ku Klux) Klan, that includes the Nazi party.

Although free speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution as well as freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom to peacefully assemble civil disobedience is not protected. Civil disobedience includes nonviolent, unlawful action as a form of protest. Cohen said classic civil disobedience is a refusal to follow laws that one feels are unjust or immoral, Rosa Parks being the most famous example.

She refused to give up her seat to a white person, but at the time, that was unlawful, Cohen said, adding that those who engage in civil disobedience should expect to be arrested and sometimes even want to be arrested to draw attention to the cause.

Cohen said two movements that have led up to the peak in protest activity currently going on are the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2013 as well as the 2016 protest in North Dakota against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Its continuing to grow this mass increase in protest activity, Cohen said. I believe this is another watershed moment. The Womens March in Washington, D.C. several weeks ago drew over 3 million people who took part in the protest that day. It was the largest single protest in American history; more than 1 percent of Americans took part in that.

Cohen said since the election of President Donald Trump and his inauguration, the ACLU has seen a significant spike in activism.

Within 24 hours of Donald Trump signing his unconstitutional and outrageous so-called Muslim ban executive order, tens of thousands of people descended on airports all over the country chanting, Let them in! Let them in!, Cohen said. At the same time, the ACLU was filing lawsuits and we were winning. These people were going to shut down the airports.

Shutting down the airports essentially shuts down the entire U.S. economy, Cohen said.

That is power right there, he added.

Cohen offered a few lessons for those who wish to stage a successful protest organize, create powerful imagery, be prepared to sacrifice and stand your ground, the last being probably the most important.

Nothing scares power more than a refusal to move, Cohen said. We all take up space because were all made of atoms, we all take up mass. If you literally refuse to move, theyre going to pay attention to you at some point.

Read more:
ACLU fights for free speech - Record Delta

A man wears a shirt reading Rope. Tree. Journalist. as supporters gather to rally with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a cargo hangar at Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. November 6, 2016. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

There are few rights more sacred to democracy than freedom of speech. Indeed, the ideas that underwrite our commitment to the notion that one ought to be able to express themselves without threat from the state or the government track closely with democracy as a way of organizing collective life going back to at least the Ancient Greeks.

In the modern era, free speech has become entwined with the right to a free press. The press plays several roles in contemporary democratic societies: it obtains and distributes information about economic, social, and political life that individuals would otherwise be unable to get for themselveswithout great and prohibitive difficulty, at least. The media act as conveyors of opinion (for the purposes of argument) and context (for the sake of understanding). Our ink-stained and computer-strained journalists hold power to accountnot just state or government power, but also economic and social power. Taken together, the media become facilitators of checks and balances, civic discourse, democratic empowerment, and general education. So, when President Trump attacks the press, he is attacking free speech and perhaps freedom itself.

The right to speech is meaningless unless it is underwritten by a public thatknows thingsthat is, an educated public. For the people to hold power to account, they must be aware of what their leaders are up to and they must know for themselves what they prefer those folks be up to and why. Thomas Jefferson captured the spirit of this sentiment when he suggested, If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. A second line of the quotation, attributed to Jefferson but unlikely his own words, continues If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.

MORE:Donald Trumps fake news is the real news at Florida rally

When the president attacks credible news sources as fake news and calls them the enemy of the American people, he encourages his mob of mouth-frothing supplicants to insult, dismiss, and even threaten members of the press. When he attacks journalists who challenge him, he undermines trust in the fourth estate and threatens free speechat least the speech of those who disagree with him (also known as a majority of Americans). The impulse to dismiss the press as biased and propagandistic is authoritarian at its core. The practice is chilling.

It matters very little whether Trump is attacking the press as part of a deliberate strategy to extend his authority, to distract from his failures,orbecause hes a narcissistic ass who cant help himselfor some combination of the three. The effect of his attacks are serious and dangerous. There are malign influences surrounding the president who are prepared to seize their moment regardless of his intent. There are disaffected and angry mobs who support the man and are prepared to harass his enemies and their own no matter what Trump intends. And even if the current occupant of the Oval Office turns out to be a minor infection of the body politic, he mightclearthe way for a much more dangerous pathogen to follow him.

Aclip from a 1962 interviewwith President John F. Kennedy has been making the rounds on the Internet lately. The president sat down for that chat in the Oval Office two years into the mandate he would never finish. Asked about the role of the press in the United States, Kennedy, who was still recovering from the sanguinary and failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, gritted his teeth and said, Even though we never like it, and even though we wish they didnt write it, and even though we disapprove, there isnt any doubt that we could not do the job at all in a free society without a very, very active press. He also cited the role of the media as an invaluable arm of the presidency as a check really on whats going on in [the] administration.

More thanthree hundred years earlier, the English poet and polemicist John Milton responded to Parliaments pre-publication requirement under the Licensing Order of 1643, which required that publishers obtain permission from the state and submit to registration prior to any printing, by writingAreopagitica. The name of the polemic was carefully chosen, drawing on the Areopagus, a hill in Athens used in Antiquity for various political matters (not always democratic). Milton was writing during the early days of the English Civil War, justasthe form and substance of future government in much of the West was being shaped by bloodshed and argument. Ultimately, Milton, free speech and democracy prevailed.

MORE:Thirty days of Donald Trump

Today we risk abandoning the legacy of the democratic tradition and the rights that have served as its guarantors for centuries. The demonization of the press has coincided with the rise of the euphemistically lazy alternative media, which tends to be little more than echo chambers for the disaffected, whether publications find themselves on the far right or the far left. While some of the messages that resonate within those chambers are perfectly fair, plenty are far from it and the effect (and one imagines, the intent) of their advancement has been to polarize and to create partisan battalions more intent on battle than debate. At the same time, because of the nature of how we seek out our news today, one no longer must contend with or even be exposed to an unwanted idea.

The fracturing of the media landscape by alternative publications, algorithms that curate newsfeeds for us, the proliferation of for-profit fake news, and the deployment of propaganda in the service of partisan interests has allowed Trump to mobilize his supporters against the mainstream media. Trump didnt invent the tactic of declaring war on a biased press; he didnt dream up fake news or propaganda or fringe news outlets. He has merely used them better than others have, as a master carpenter would use a chisel.

We thus face the confluence of several dangerous contemporary realities that leave us vulnerable to democratic retrenchment. The first line of defence against the erosion of democracy is unsurprisingly the one under the most vicious attack from those who would prefer to substitute their own partisan reality for the one we otherwise share; that line of defence is free speech supported by a free and robust press.

Neither a press nor free speech can exist in a contemporary mass democracy without the other. For those who are committed to resisting belligerent sectarianism and leaders like Trump who demonstrate authoritarian tendencies, the troubling news is that our words and arguments and ideas are under attack; the encouraging news is that they remain, as they have for decades, among our most effective means of resistance.

David Moscrop is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of British Columbia and a writer. Hes currently working on a book about why we make bad political decisions and how we can make better ones. Hes at @david_moscrop on Twitter.

Original post:
Donald Trump is a threat to the press and to freedom of speech - Macleans.ca

Those who do not support free speech for those they despise do not support free speech at all. NoamChomsky

A scheduled appearance by controversial self-described radical anti-Christian feminist Mila Ziannopolous at UC Berkeley was canceled when campus police were unable to quell demonstrators bent upon blocking her appearance. Student demonstrators were joined by 100-150 ninja-clad members of an Oakland-based anti-Communist brigade who smashed windows and set fires. Stephen Jones, one of the leaders of the conservative student protesters, stated, I believe in free speech, but purveyors of hate speech have no right to speak on this campus or anywhereelse.

This incident followed cancellation of an appearance by Ziannapolous at UC Davis two weeks ago due to threats of violence. She had been invited by campus Democrats who emphasized that they did not necessarily agree with her views but felt she had a right to express them. For the First Amendment to have real meaning, Sheila Jackson, president of the campus Democrats stated, it must be extended to those whose views many may find offensive. A writer for a radical left website, Ziannapolous has asserted that all males, by virtue of their gender dominance, are complicit in a rape culture and that Christianity is a religion that subjugates women andminorities.

On the same day as the UC Berkeley riot, a performance by an outspoken liberal comedian at New York University was ended when conservative students stormed the auditorium and pepper-sprayed him. In 2014 a conservative pro-life professor at UC Santa Barbara harassed a pro-choice demonstrator and seized her sign. Other incidents in which liberal speakers have been blocked from appearing on college campuses have occurred in recent years. Conservative students have claimed that offensive views held by these speakers about race, religion, and gender violate their right to a safezone.

Of course, the stories above are fake news of my creation. I flipped the script of events that have occurred recently on college campuses involving incendiary conservative speakers. But if conservative students did engage in the suppression of speech described. students on the left surely would be invoking Voltaire, John Milton, John Stuart Mill, and Martin Luther King in a robust defense of free expression and with justification. Thus it is dismaying to me as a liberal that so many students and, even more disturbingly, so many faculty members on university campuses appear unclear on the concept of free expression when it applies to those they strongly disagree with. Also dismaying is the silence of the many on the left who do understand the concept but decline to speak out in defense of freespeech.

Brietbart writer Milo Yiannopolous, whose appearances were blocked at Davis and Berkeley, is a provocateur, whose stock and trade is baiting the left. He is a gay man who feels gays should stay in the closet. He ridicules the transgendered and immigrants. He accuses feminists of wallowing in victimhood and calls the rape culture a fantasy. Yiannopolous also went too far when he condoned pedophilia in a 2013 video, recently released, which got him disinvited as a speaker at a CPAC conference and ended up with his resignation from Breitbart onTuesday.

Those of us old enough to remember the 60s recall that provocateurs on the left like Eldridge Cleaver, a convicted rapist whose views on race were condemned by many civil rights leaders, were not merely tolerated but frequently welcomed on college campuses precisely because they were controversial. Those who objected to inviting such figures were dismissed with What part of Voltaire dont you understand? and rightly so. Even George Lincoln Rockwell, then leader of the American Nazi Party, was allowed to speak at UCSB in 1966. He was picketed by protesters, an exercise in their First Amendment rights, but there was no organized effort to block hisappearance.

Since that period, a view has taken root on college campuses that freedom of speech can be applied selectively and that some students and faculty members can appoint themselves guardians of what is permissible speech. The arbitrary result: Yiannapoulos encountered mass resistance while Louis Farrakhan, with a deserved reputation as an anti-Semite and misogynist, spoke at Berkeley in 2012 without getting the Black Bloctreatment.

Some who have participated in efforts to block not just outspoken conservatives but even speakers like Madeleine Albright and Laura Bush (!) among many others, have advanced the Orwellian argument that prohibiting speech is, in fact, an act of free speech (Newspeak: Suppression of speech equals freedom of speech). A number of demonstrators even condoned the storm trooper tactics of the Black Bloc anarchists who assaulted supporters of Yiannapolous at Berkeley. Yvette Felarca, a leader of the group Any Means Necessary, declared, Everyone cheered. Everyone was there with us in political agreement of the necessity of shutting it down, whatever it was going totake.

Anyone who is invited by a student group to speak at a public university has an absolute right to do so under the First Amendment. This right is not conditional or situational or debatable. Advocacy of any idea in the abstract is protected; only that narrow range of speech directly linked to specific illegal activity can be prohibited under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that even hate speech is protected and for good reason. There is no consensus on where the line is between offensive or controversial speech and hate speech. Empowering any entity to draw that line creates a dangerous slippery slope. The antidote to hate speech, as the American Civil Liberties Union has long argued, is not suppression of speech, but morespeech.

In a class on the First Amendment, Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Irvine Law School. and an ACLU liberal in the best tradition, is addressing this declining understanding in academia of what free speech means. He notes that the views of students on this subject evolve during the course as they are exposed to the history of speech and repression. They learn that the same arguments currently being used to rationalize suppression of speech have been used for centuries, often to repress movements on the left. They learn that whenever a group has asserted itself as an arbiter of permissible speech, it has abused thatpower.

The Free Speech Movement that emerged on the Berkeley campus in 1964 rejected the notion that college administrators had the right to restrict political advocacy. The irony now is that it is administrators who are resisting calls by students and faculty to restrict speech. Recent UC presidents are to be lauded for a full- throated defense of all types of advocacy, whether by a Farrakhan or a Yiannopolous. Preserving the free marketplace of ideas is an existential priority for academia. Sadly, survival of that free marketplace may require that students and faculty consider taking RemedialVoltaire.

See the article here:
How Free Is Free Speech? - The Santa Barbara Independent - Santa Barbara Independent

The University of Exeter banned students from staging a street theatre performance called Mock Checkpoint. Photograph: Christopher Thomond

Universities have been accused of undermining freedom of speech on campus after cancelling events organised by students as part of an annual pro-Palestinian event called Israel Apartheid Week (IAW).

The University of Exeter and the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) intervened to cancel student-run events this week, aimed at raising awareness about Palestinian human rights. An event called Quad Under Occupation at University College London was also cancelled because organisers failed to get the necessary approval in time.

At Exeter, the Friends of Palestine Society were furious after the university banned students from staging a street theatre performance called Mock Checkpoint, in which some participants were to dress up as Israeli soldiers while others performed the roles of Palestinians.

The event, which had been approved by the students guild the universitys student union as part of an international week of talks and activities on campuses around the world, was banned for safety and security reasons less than 48 hours before it was due to take place on Monday. An appeal against the decision was refused.

Almost 250 academics, including 100 professors, have signed a letter condemning attempts to silence campus discussion about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.

The letter criticises the universities minister, Jo Johnson, who recently wrote to Universities UK, the umbrella organisation for the higher education sector, demanding a crackdown on antisemitism, mentioning Israel Apartheid Week as a cause for concern.

The signatories also express concern about the governments adoption and dissemination of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which it says seeks to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

These are outrageous interferences with free expression, and are direct attacks on academic freedom, the letter states. As academics with positions at UK universities, we wish to express our dismay at this attempt to silence campus discussion about Israel, including its violation of the rights of Palestinians for over 50 years.

It is with disbelief that we witness explicit political interference in university affairs in the interests of Israel under the thin disguise of concern about antisemitism.

A spokesperson for Exeters Friends of Palestine Society accused the university of censoring students. They are not allowing freedom of speech by cancelling an event that was in support of Palestinian activism and for Palestinian rights, they are directly censoring us.

A university spokesman said: The University of Exeter is committed to free speech within the law and to allowing legitimate protest to take place on campus.

In keeping with guidance from Universities UK, the representative organisation of UK universities, we believe that if protests take place on campus, consideration must be given to the location and prominence of planned events and their impact on the staff and student body, as well as the need to ensure that they do not restrict the ability of the campus community to move freely.

The proposed mock Israeli checkpoint street theatre event was planned for a very busy part of campus where students and staff not only congregate but use as a thoroughfare to lectures. There are other events being hosted by the Friends of Palestine this week where there will be an opportunity for views to be expressed and debated in a safe and inclusive environment.

Exeter was recently the subject of media reports about antisemitism on campuses after a swastika and a Rights for Whites notice were found in halls of residence earlier this month. Last term, students were pictured wearing T-shirts with handwritten antisemitic and racist slogans at a sports club social event.

An investigation was launched into the swastika and Rights for Whites notice at Exeter. A university spokesman said: The investigation has concluded and disciplinary action has been taken in line with the universitys regulations.

Organisers of the Israel Apartheid Week at Exeter claim the university is conflating antisemitism with Palestinian activism. It doesnt have anything to do with antisemitism, said the spokesperson for Exeters Friends of Palestine Society. We feel they were indirectly accusing us of antisemitism and discrimination and harassment through this event.

On Monday, it also emerged that an investigation had been launched after a newly elected students representative at Exeter was accused of publishing antisemitic tweets. Malaka Shwaikh, who is Palestinian, has been elected a vice-president of the students guild at Exeter after promising to improve conditions and opportunities for postgraduate researchers.

She is already a trustee of the guild which launched an investigation after tweets attributed to her by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) were revealed. Shwaikh has been contacted for comment by the Guardian.

According to the CAA, the day before Holocaust Memorial Day in January she tweeted: The shadow of the Holocaust continues to fall over us from the continuous Israeli occupation of Palestine to the election of Trump.

It also published a tweet from 2015 in which Shwaikh apparently said: If terrorism means protecting and defending my land, I am so proud to be called terrorist. What an honour for the Palestinians!

The CAA raised concerns about material in tweets attributed to Shwaikh from February 2013 when she was drawing attention to the plight of Samer Issawi, a Palestinian prisoner on hunger strike in an Israeli jail. All of the tweets cited by the CAA have been deleted.

Gideon Falter, the CAA chairman, said: So many mechanisms designed to protect students from racist hatred and extremism have clearly failed here, and what is disturbing is that they have broken down in broad daylight and very prominently indeed. Malaka Shwaikh has been very active in promoting her views, yet she has managed to become one of the most prominent figures at the University of Exeter.

In a statement to the Guardian, Shwaikh, 26, said she had been subjected to bullying, harassment, threats and serious defamation of character. She said: I do not need to explain how serious this in in the current global atmosphere of Islamophobia. I should also point out that all of this will no doubt have an effect on my freedom of movement.

Countries do not need much of an excuse to refuse visas to Muslims and a simple Google search of me reveals many of these inflammatory and abusive articles calling me an antisemite and a terrorist.

It will also have serious implications when I return to Gaza. Threats have already been sent to my family back home. A few days ago, someone implied to my dad: Malaka will have to pay the price once she gets back to Gaza.

She said the tweet concerning the shadow of the Holocaust was a follow-up to one in which she said the Holocaust was one of the bleakest chapters in the history of the 20th century. She added: I have never denied the horrific crime of the Holocaust that was inflicted upon the Jewish people, neither have I ever made light of it.

Shwaikh said she understood that the terrorist tweet might seem an extremist statement that would rightly raise concerns. But she said: These kind of statements by Palestinians are most commonly in response to efforts by Israel advocacy groups and the Israeli government to demonise and dehumanise Palestinians ... It is absolutely vital to understand the wider issues before making a judgement on that particular tweet.

She said the February 2013 tweets were not her words but the result of a hack and she removed the messages as soon as she saw them.

Shwaikh added: These attacks against me have been an attempt to defame my character, particularly as a Palestine activist and as a Muslim woman ... I would like to reiterate that I will fight against all forms of racism, including antisemitism.

A spokesperson for the students guild said it was committed to exploring the allegations of antisemitism with a thorough investigation. Toby Gladwin, the guild president, said: The students guild are passionate opponents of antisemitism in all forms; overt or subtle.

The university spokesman added: Our staff and students work tirelessly to ensure everyone feels welcomed, encouraged, supported and embraced, no matter their background, religion or nationality. Antisemitism is not tolerated. Even one incident of discrimination, racism, or harassment is one too many. The students guild, Exeter Universitys student representative body, is responsible for the election of student representatives. It has launched a thorough investigation.

Meanwhile, UCLan cancelled an event called Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine and the Importance of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, organised by the universitys Friends of Palestine Society.

An initial statement from the university said the event would contravene the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances new definition of what constitutes antisemitism and would therefore be unlawful.

A later statement to the Guardian said the event had not been referred to the authorities in a timely way and therefore could not go ahead. The content of the event has now been thoroughly reviewed and we are now working with the student society to enable such events to take place, following due process and providing that they are properly managed so that no one in our university community is made to feel unsafe.

The universitys student union president, Sana Iqbal, said: The union supports free speech within the law and hopes that an event that deals with the issues about which this group of students cares very deeply will be able to go ahead in the future. Free speech on campus is an important principle we will stand up for.

Ben Jamal, the director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said there had been coordinated attempts by pro-Israel lobby groups to pressurise universities into cancelling events as part of efforts to suppress activism for Palestinian human rights.

He said: It is important that universities withstand this pressure and uphold both their legal and moral duties to uphold freedom of expression. Discussion of human rights abuses should never be closed down.

This article was amended on 28 February 2017. An early version said UCL cancelled an event called Debunking Misconceptions on Palestine. This should have said UCLan. We also said Jo Johnson recently wrote to UK Universities. This should have said Universities UK. These errors have been corrected.

Excerpt from:
Universities spark free speech row after halting pro-Palestinian events - The Guardian

millennials do not all feel the same way when it comesto freedom of speech on college campuses

Most colleges are accredited and are required to adhere to specific policies in order to

obtain accreditation. Failure to do so typically result in the loss of any certification towards a

degree. This means that the program completed and the degree obtained would be worthless.

Although every college campus is not the same, mission statements of these campuses (in some

form) comply with the policy that the exchange of ideas be free and/or open.

The issue that millennials face on college campuses is one that is honestly hard to

address. How can a student be granted freedom of speech, and at the same time be expected to

obey trigger warnings and safe spaces?

To my surprise, I have learned that freedom of speech should no longer be a right. In a

popular situation that took place at Yale University, a student was asked when should freedom of

speech be limited? The students response was When it hurts me.

How we feel, what we think, and the way we express ourselves contribute to our

individuality. Freedom of speech is who we are and how we identify with each other and the

world. That special characteristic is destroyed once our voices have been silenced or manipulated

to please others. It is, however, important that we question the individuals intent. Although one

More here:
Can Freedom Of Speech Be Tamed? - Milwaukee Community Journal

By STEPHAN KOZUBNews Co-Editor

When it comes to college campuses, freedom of expression can be particularly difficult to navigate. At Fordham, there is a Demonstration Policy, a Speakers Policy, a policy pertaining to Bias Related Incidents and/or Hate Crimes, a Distribution of Literature Policy and a Publicity and Posting Policy.

By its very nature, the University is a place where ideas and opinions are formulated and exchanged, the universitys policy on dissent reads. Each member of the University has a right to freely express his or her positions and to work for their acceptance whether he/she assents to or dissents from existing situations in the University or society.

The following statement in the policy, however, sets the tone for the policies overall.

To insure that freedom is maintained, expressions of assent or dissent cannot be permitted to infringe on the rights of the members of the University community or the community itself not only their freedom to express positions, but their freedom to engage in other legitimate activities, the Demonstration Policy reads. Actual or threatened coercion or violence are abhorrent in a University because they can destroy those rights and freedoms which are necessary for the existence of the University.

That philosophy is present in the Demonstration Policy. Approved demonstrations are allowed to proceed, as long as they do not hinder entrances, exits, passageways and the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, do not create a disruptive amount of noise, employ force or violence or constitute an immediate threat of force or violence, disrupt the universitys normal functions, or fail to fulfill the responsibilities of organizers and participators outlined in the policy.

In order to hold a demonstration, students must schedule a meeting with the Dean of Students, who will meet with the organizer(s) within one business day, according to the policy. The demonstration cannot be scheduled any less than 2 business days after the meeting. The Demonstrations FAQ page, however, states that in some cases, the Dean can work with groups on even more rapid turnaround.

The page also states that a request to use space at Fordham for a protest or a demonstration has never been turned down based on the viewpoint or content of the protesters/demonstration.

The purpose of that meeting is to get a sense of their parameters, what theyre looking to do, with a focus on time, place and manner and impact on the rest of the university community, Dean of Students Keith Eldredge explained. So from that conversation, then I go to the space planners on campus, the folks that oversee reservations for the outside plaza or if somebody wants to do something in a classroom or meeting room.

He explained that in situations where students want to protest an event on campus, they would try to find a way to make it work. Were not going to put you in the multipurpose room in 140 for an event thats happening in the atrium, he said. That doesnt make any sense. But where could you reasonably be thats going to allow the event to continue in the way that its designed, but also give you the presence for what you want to have?

The consequences of violating the Demonstration Policy vary, according to Eldredge.

Generally, and I would say this for many violations, a first time offense with no mitigating factors is going to get a low level sanction, he said. Among the possible sanctions are a written warning, Residential Life Probation or Student Life Probation.

As outlined on the universitys website, a Residential Life Probation constitutes a warning that future violations of the residence hall regulations or University Code of Conduct will result in dismissal from the residence halls and that residents on probation at the time of the housing lottery will automatically be placed in overflow housing unless notified that this condition of Residential Life Probation is waived by a hearing officer. Under Student Life Probation, a commuting student is warned that future violations of the University Code of

Conduct or residence hall regulations on or off-campus may result in further and more serious sanctions, including University Disciplinary Probation.

Eldredge said, however, that if a demonstration engages in harassing behavior towards the community or does things like block the entranceway or goes into classrooms and disrupts the academic business of the campus, that would warrant a higher level of sanctions versus a demonstration thats simply unregistered.

The Speakers Policy is broader, with the three main prohibitions being that speakers cannot threaten to endanger the safety of any member(s) of the University community, pose a threat to the physical facilities, or obstruct or disrupt the normal functions of the University. It adds that expression that is indecent or is grossly obscene or grossly offensive on matters such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual preference is inconsistent with accepted norms of conduct at the University and that obviously, and in all events, the use of the University forum shall not imply acceptance or endorsement by the University of the views expressed.

Fordham ran into its own issues with controversial speakers back in 2012, when the College Republicans tentatively booked Ann Coulter to speak at the university.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement, University President Rev. Joseph M. McShane, S.J., said in a statement to the College Republicans at the time. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocativemore heat than lightand her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

McShane preceded this statement, however, with Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

The College Republicans cancelled the event, a decision which McShane commended in a later statement.

Eldredge said that the policy of the university is to try to give pretty wide latitude when it comes to speakers and their points of view, unless it gets into that area of violence, danger, or safety issues as outlined in the policy.

Regarding Posting and Publicity, the United Student Government (USG) is working on establishing a Community Posting board on the garden level of the 140 W. building. Previously in place outside of Student Affairs old office in the Lowenstein building, the board offers students not affiliated with clubs and official entities at the university a space to post flyers with Student Affairs approval.

Regarding preserving freedom of expression and safety on campus, Eldredge said that I think a big piece of my job is focused on the safety and well-being of students.

I think if students dont have the basic levels of safety taken care of, we cant get to those other issues, and so safety has to be paramount, he said. And that cuts across not just speakers on campus or demonstrations, but a lot of the work we do related to student discipline, our alcohol policy, our approach to the amnesty policy for alcohol issues and our approach to sexual assault. And so thats got to be present.

He elaborated, however, that he thinks we need to be careful that we dont use that as an excuse to stifle the free exchange of ideas, because it is an academic institution and thats part of what students should get in an academic institutionto be exposed to different ideas, to hear new things, to have their own beliefs challenged in an appropriate way so that theres dialogue and conversation and not just simply everybody repeating the same thing. So we have to have that opportunity for free speech, knowing that that safety is there on a foundational level.

Full text of Fordhams policies regarding freedom of expression can be found on the universitys website.

Visit link:
A Look at Fordham's Freedom of Speech Policies | Fordham Observer - Fordham Observer

5501146

Let me be very clear

I dont care if our president liberal or conservative, democratic or republican, the freedom of speech and press are two constitutional mandates we have built our country on.

If you havent heard, the Trump Administration hand-picked media outlets to join Press Secretary Sean Spicer for a gaggle in his office. Simply put, the intention of the hand selection of who can and cannot join a White House press briefing, especially in the instant, shows some blatant disregard for differing editorial slants, in part by the administration.

Trust me, I am no fan of CNN, the New York Daily News, and Buzzfeed (a few of the outlets blocked for an off-camera press gaggle). Several of those publications drop to new lows in reporting; yet, even in the ignorant distribution of misinformation (all media included, even myself), constitutional rights supersede a childish dislike of the media.

The events of today present a scenario that many didnt expect. Being one of the many to vote for Donald Trump and rest all of our future interests on his presidency, I can maybe speak on the behalf of many conservatives and libertarian types that view this as a smack in the face to document and virtues he swore to protect.

Though I will face ridicule from many members of the nationalist flights of the Republican Party, freedom of speech and press resides as one of the most important freedoms to people. Even members of the fake news media are entitled to such protections, even if they feed the masses lies.

In the First Continental Congress, in the Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, many of our founders broadly characterized the freedom of the press as a very sacred right.

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs, the Appeal proclaimed.

As I mentioned above, this definition of a free press is monumentally broad. Though it mentions the advancement of truth, I personally define this component to be truth to the perspective of the publisher of the alleged remark that embodies some truth.

This very occurrence should remind us that the United States was, and still is, a marketplace of ideas, cultures, and people.

We cannot abandon that. I do still have hope with the Administration, yet we mustnt be afraid of looking and asking for answers for the acts of our elected officials (even if we did vote for them).

Continued here:
Fake News Is Still Subject To Freedom Of Speech And Press - Daily Caller

Not everything that can be said should be said

ByMarshall Oppel | Contributor

Image provided by National Archives and Records Administration

Political correctness. Censorship. Being a decent human being. Violating our First Amendment rights.

The topic of political correctness is a fairly heated one. On the one hand, we have a group of people who want to tailor our language to avoid offending peopleseems reasonable. But on the other, we have people who dont want to be censored. These people cite our First Amendments freedom of speech; this also seems reasonable. There has to be a balance somewhere, right? I have conservative views; people should be able to live without someone controlling every aspect of their lives. As a result, Im against anyone telling me what I can and cannot say. Yet I recognize that not everything should be said. For example, look at recent comments made by the YouTube comedian Pewdiepie. For those unaware, in a recent video he paid a group to hold up a sign saying death to all Jews while singing and dancing. He did this as a joke and claims he didnt expect the group to actually do it, yet the event was still streamed to his channel.

Should he have paid the group to do this? Absolutely not. And yet he has the freedom of speech to do this. Should he have taken precautions so that the footage would be not shown if the group did what he paid them to do? Absolutely. Now he faces backlash from fans, YouTube and people whove never heard of him before this. He used to star on Disneys Maker Studios, but now theyve pulled his support. And while he has many vocal fans defending him, it seems hell learn a very expensive lesson from thisyou cant publicly say or do anything you want, not even as a joke.

Isnt that what freedom of speech is all about? No, absolutely not. Freedom of speech is the right that protects us from the government telling us what we can and cannot say. Other people likewise have the right to tell us we shouldnt say something; thats their freedom of speech.

As Christians, we fall between the main positions in this debate. On the one hand, freedom of speech is an important right to protect, for if we ever lose that, it would not be a far step to see censorship of preaching and evangelism. And yet we are also called to be kind and loving. I hate to use a massive clich, but the political correctness debate comes down to a heart issue. Why do we say what we say? If we are speaking out of love, which we should be, we wont use language that hurts someone else just because we can.

Many of us will leave the Taylor bubble in the next three months. As we enter the world, well undoubtedly face opinions that offend us. And thats a good thing. It means were in a country of freedom. But we shouldnt throw that freedom around and use it as an excuse to say whatever we want because we will still face consequences from those around us. You have every right to say something racist if you so choosebut your employer has every right to fire you for doing so, and your customers have every right to boycott you.

See original here:
Free speech isn't free - The Echo News

I testified yesterday before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House on the model campus free speech legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute. After my initial presentation, fireworks followed. Although my sense is that the majority of the committee is positively inclined toward legislation designed to ensure campus free speech, a few of the Democratic representatives were more skeptical. These skeptics dominated the questioning. One skeptic in particular, Orlando Democrat Carlos Guillermo Smith, pressed me repeatedly on the need to limit freedom of speech in order to combat hate speech. If you want to see an open clash on the free speech vs. hate speech controversy, this is it.

You can find video of the hearing here. My initial presentation runs about 17 minutes, from the 35:5053:27 mark of the video. The fireworks come during the 32 minute question period, particularly (but not exclusively) during the back and forth with Rep. Smith, which begins at the start of the question period (53:30) and returns again at the 1:18:16 mark.

Also note that in my response to questioning by Democratic Representative Robert Asencio (Miami-Dade), (which begins at 1:12:22), I refer to an incident in which leftist students silence a conservative student by way of the rehearsed and coordinated tactic of clapping her down. Video of this clap-down can be found here.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

View post:
Free Speech Fireworks in Florida - National Review

Is Milo Yiannopoulos truly a free speech advocate? Thats the question that should be at the heart of the controversy surrounding the revocation of his keynote speakership at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), his book deal with Simon and Schuster, and his resignation from Breitbart.

This question matters because despite Milos remarks supporting pedophilia, his grassroots supporters are rallying around him. To them, he is a Stockholm Syndrome victim who suffered at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest and is being unfairly targeted by the media and political establishment. He consistently receives a free pass for his actions no matter how offensive or outrageous his comments are because he is a free speech advocate. Criticism against him is spun into being an assault on free speech. For instance, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange recently referred to Milos exclusion from CPAC as an act of censorship.

However, the record reflects that Milo is not the free speech advocate that he claims to be.

RELATED: Milos comments about pedophilia made me feel sorry for him

As an attendee of his American University talk last year, I saw a sharp contrast between his stated support for freedom of speech and his actual rhetoric. When questioned by an audience member about his passionate support for then-presidential candidate Trump, who supported the anti-free speech positions of loosening libel laws against the media and of utilizing the government to shut down parts of the Internet, Milo surprisingly defended both positions.

Echoing Trumps attacks on the fake news media, Milo assaulted the press for lying as a matter of routine. He called for a mild discouragement in the law [to exist] to prevent journalists from knowingly and deliberately lying about people to specifically curtail some of the excesses of the hard left in American media.

But he went chillingly further:

So far, in the media, the extent to which you can no longer say true things if you want to keep your newspaper or if you want to have a successful job in the media to me represents a sort of industry failure. And in those industry failures, well, thats precisely the moment where the government steps in.

For true advocates of free speech, nothing could be more dangerous than this illiberal position. As highlighted by journalist and prominent free speech advocate Flemming Rose, who was targeted by Islamic fundamentalists for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, this same control over the media was employed by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissenters and opponents. In fact, our founding fathers were so afraid of this outcome that they explicitly articulated within the First Amendment that the government could not infringe upon the freedom of the press.

Hence, it is frankly puzzling why self-described free-speech advocate Milo Yiannopoulos would use the language of industrial nationalization to call for the government to step in and dictate the functioning of the media especially against a specific political faction.

But Milo doubled down on Trumps support for government censorship of the Internet. Dismissing free speech concerns over this as not very objectionable, he called for the FCC to block off certain geographic areas through the Internet Protocol system to undermine ISIS and that we could cut off the access to large geographies in the Middle East from communicating with us and with themselves.

Regardless of the feasibility of this proposal, his support for granting government the power to limit access to the Internet like Chinas Great Firewall is a stark contrast to the open nature of the Internet promoting freedom of expression. It flies in the face of the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to fight off censorship laws infringing on the Internet as platform for free speech.

RELATED:No, Milo Yiannopoulos is not a white nationalist, but he has spent a lot of time promoting them

These disturbingly authoritarian remarks should call into consideration Milo Yiannopoulos free speech advocate credentials that form the core of his public persona. Does he truly stand up for freedom of speech and of the press, or does he merely utilize them as cover for his views?

That is the question that conservative and libertarian students inviting Milo to speak at their campuses should be asking themselves, and that should be part of the CPAC exclusion debate. If not, just as the airing of Trumps sexual assault discourse failed to break his momentum, so too will this episode fail to challenge Milos grassroots support.

Gaurang Gupte was a Cong. Bill Archer Fellow, and is a current first-year medical student at the Washington University School of Medicine.

Gaurang Gupte | Posted on 7:47 am

The rest is here:
Milo is no free speech advocate - Rare.us