Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

In the last year there have been several instances of hate speech and targeted verbal attacks against different minority groups on the University of Michigan campus. However, the line between hate speech and free speech remains blurred for the University to interpret in each individual case, as the balance between maintaining free speech and a safe environment for students continually remains a precarious one.

As a public institution, the University must strictly adhere to the First Amendment and the freedom of speech it guarantees. The University codified its commitment to free speech and a safe campus in its UM Standard Practice Guide, as of the many policies in the SPG, one is dedicated solely to 601.01, the Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression.

The Civil Liberties Board of the Universitys Senate Assembly proposed a set of guidelines to be adopted by the University.

Prefacing the policies is the goal that, by representing and allowing for the entire spectrum of opinions within the University community, the staff can create an open forum for diverse opinions. The guidelines of 601.01 are committed to the exchange of opinions to encourage learning.

Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not only for those who espouse a cause or position and then defend it, but also for those who hear and pass judgment on that defense, the policy reads. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds for its suppression.

Law student Erin Pamukcu, president of the Universitys chapter of the American Constitution Society, believes the First Amendment and free speech are foundations not only in the study of law, but the U.S. democratic system.

Its the Amendment that ensures the will of the people can always be heard and will always be heard, Pamukcu said. It was important when America was founded, and is just as important today, especially because the ways that we now communicate are continually changing. The law has to keep changing on how it interprets speech, and in what capacity does it extend to social media, what I say to people when Im working? Its an amendment that will continue to be important and its interpretation will continue to evolve.

The SPG also created policies directed specifically against Discrimination and Harassment. This in-depth policy stance includes definitions of the terms and the appropriate responses to and procedures to follow in these instances, in addition to the Regents Bylaw 14.06 and the Nondiscrimination Policy Notice already created to target these issues.

The policy clearly states the University is committed to maintaining an academic and work environment free of discrimination and harassment.

The University has a compelling interest in assuring an environment in which learning and productive work thrives, the policy reads. At the same time, the University has an equally compelling interest in protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and in preserving the widest possible dialogue within its instructional and research settings.

Pamukcu believes there is a distinction between hate speech and free speech, and the University has the discretion to decide what classifies as hate speech and when the University has cause to intervene, especially given the current divisive political climate.

Hate speech is one of those things that is recognizable, you can use common sense, Pamukcu said. You can see by the way they act, the language they use, the context they say it in those are all important parts about deciding whether someone is exercising their own right to free speech or theyre using their speech to target an individual or cause harm to an individual in the way that hate speech does.

For Philosophy Prof. Daniel Jacobson, however, freedom of speech stands as a prerequisite to knowledge, and as such, people should be able to defend their views against all arguments, whether or not some would consider it to be hate speech.

There isnt even a clear meaning to the phrase hate speech, which is one good reason not to use the phrase, let alone to use it to propose restrictions on speech, Jacobson wrote in an email interview. But the law is clear: Hate speech (including false, immoral, even harmful speech) is protected by the Constitution. That is a good thing, because if hate speech could be suppressed, then, inevitably, unpopular moral and political opinions would be labeled as hate speech.

The aforementioned guarantee of free speech and the importance of diverse opinions was the Universitys rationale in allowing The Michigan Review to utilize University space to host two contentious figures. Early in the primaries of the 2016 presidential campaign, Milo Yiannopoulosdebatedagainst Julie Bindel in the Michigan League in February 2016.

Both figures are banned from multiple universities in the United Kingdom because of their controversial views Yiannopoulos for his opinion that feminists invent fake problems specifically regarding rape and sexual assault, and Bindel for her opinions of modern feminists and the transgender community. Most recently, Yiannopoulos was slated to speak at the University of California-Berkeley, but afterviolent protestsfrom the student body, the universitycancelledthe event.

Many students expressed discontent with the hosting of this event, but University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald wrote to the Daily in an email at the time of the event that the University allowed for participation by the two aforementioned participants. The University is committed to allowing freedom of speech and opinions for all students and outside guests, referencing the SPG.

LSA junior Andrew Krieger, president of the Universitys chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, a non-partisan libertarian group on campus, believes the Universitys role in maintaining free speech and censoring hate speech is important, but his peers could work on being open to others ideologies.

So we believe that free speech allows for you to challenge your ideas and to change the ideas of others, Krieger said. As far the University censoring those ideologies, I think that makes racism worse in that it solidifies their convictions and doesnt allow for them to hear the other side.

For LSA junior Emily Kaufman, who identifies as a transwoman, Yiannopoulos coming to campus was a point of contention, as in her opinion, he represents hate speech rather than exercising his right to free speech.

I went to the event, and it was the most uncomfortable Ive probably ever been in my life, Kaufman said. It was a lot of white men from out of town. The kind of people that look like theyd beat up a trans girl like me The misrepresentation of feminism and having all these people from out of town, it wasnt University of Michigan students having a productive debate, which could have been useful.

Krieger said Young Americans for Liberty does not shy away from bringing in controversial speakers such as Yiannopoulos because it is incredibly beneficial to have open dialogues and listen to the viewpoints of those with different political ideologies than ones own.

Obviously, we dont like defamation, flat-out lies, threats none of that is acceptable under the Constitution, Krieger said. Unfortunately, the only way youre going to convince people with racial ideologies is to have discussions with them, and that is an issue people dont like to hear and people dont really want to try. For a lot of libertarians, free speech is the only way to convince people otherwise I dont like Milo, but its sad that people arent able to come to a campus for a fear of their lives.

Jack Bernard, associate general counsel at the University, and Sarah Daniels, associate dean of students, spoke about the Universitys role as a public institution and the First Amendment during a Central Student Government meeting in December.

Though Bernard and Daniels did not specify any incidents, their presentation alluded to the anti-Islam and politically charged messages that have beenchalkedon the Diag, including statements such as Stop Islam and Trump 2016. The University did not remove the chalk, and students predominately Muslim, eventually washed off the writing.

One student who helped wash off the chalk messages, Rackham student Banen Al-Sheemary, said at the time she was frustrated with the University's lack of action in response to the chalk drawings beyond an email from University President Mark Schlissel promoting unity.

Its irresponsible of the administration that we are actually out here with buckets of water and napkins to clean off these hateful messages and the administration isnt taking care of it, Al-Sheemary said at the time. And not only is the administration not taking care of it, they are putting us through a really difficult process. That perpetuates these really racist and hateful stereotypes that turn into violence and turn into students of color feeling unsafe on campus.

Bernard explained the chalk writings on the Diag could not be interfered with by the University if they were not threats of violence or other versions of unprotected speech, and Daniels added the University cannot stop people from speaking. Both Bernard and Daniels agreed the best ways to counteract speech was more speech.

Art & Design senior Keysha Wall, member of the University chapter of BAMN the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessarytook issue with the Universitys representatives during the CSG meeting, stating the chalk drawing incidents were representative of a threat toward Muslim students.

You cannot debate fascism, Wall said. You cannot have a discussion with fascism. You have to shut that down.

However, the University was prompted to respond and announce its intention to restrict the type of speech on alt-right, white supremacistpostersfound around campus on multiple occasions during the weeks leading up to the contentious 2016 presidential election. The posters were primarily anti-Black and anti-Islam, earlier posters advised white women not to become romantically involved with Black men. After many student protests following the discovery of these posters, Schlissel and the University released astatementpertaining to the racially charged poster.

Messages of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination have no place at the University of Michigan, the statement read. While we continue to defend any individuals right to free speech on our campus, these types of attacks directed toward any individual or group, based on a belief or characteristic, are inconsistent with the universitys values of respect, civility and equality. We also have a responsibility to create a learning environment that is free of harassment.

The University also stated they could not remove the posters promoting white supremacy because they were posted in public posting spaces.

Consistent with our policy for posting, whenever they are on buildings, we can remove them, said former University Provost Martha Pollack during theSenate Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Affairs meeting. If they are on kiosks, they are protected by free speech, as they should be. Not only do we have a constitutional obligation to allow all speech no matter how heinous, but if youre going to stand by the First Amendment, youre going to stand by the First Amendment. But what you have to do then is loudly make known your abhorrence of this.

Jacobson thinks the University intervening on free speech is an illegal act because the University is a public institution.

It is fine to have certain spaces where people are safe from hearing opinions that offend them, Jacobson said. But the idea that the University as a whole should be a safe space that it should compel people not to express offensive opinions is as misguided as it is impossible And it is impossible because everything offends somebody.

Following the many protests and University responses after the 2016 election, LSA sophomore Amanda Delekta created a petition,#NotMyCampus, where she stated she felt she faced bigotry for holding conservative views, and that the University administration did not foster conversations that were respectful of all ideologies.

I penned #NotMyCampus after being frustrated at the University of Michigan's seemingly biased response to the 2016 election results, Delekta wrote in an email interview. The University is a school and its purpose is to educate, but instead of fostering an open dialog (sic) professors and administrators highlighted only one viewpoint which validated that ideology over that of others which I found to create a divisive campus climate and create a stigma among students of us vs. them.

Jacobson noted the disparity between the progressive and conservative ideologies of faculty, favoring the former, is problematic because it makes students with unpopular political opinions comfortable with expressing themselves.

Many fields, especially in the humanities and social sciences, have become so politicized that scholars cannot succeed unless they hew to a leftist party line, Jacobson wrote. Students are subjected to political indoctrination even in courses that are not about politics. But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the situation is that, despite its unquenchable thirst for diversity, the University does not really value intellectual and political diversity.

However, Delekta wrote she believes freedom of speech granted to students covers all types of speech, but requires a great responsibility.

With this freedom comes great responsibility to use it for good, to be critical, but to also be compassionate, Delekta wrote. I believe hate speech is speech with ill intent with no productive purpose beyond causing another harm. That being said, regardless of how insidious and horrible speech may be it is protected by the Constitution. I in no means think hate speech is right, or legitimate but it is legal.

View original post here:
University tackles free speech issues - The Michigan Daily

A referendum on constitutional changes that could expand President Erdoans powers will take place on 16 April. Photograph: Ozan Kse/AFP/Getty

Turkey, once held up as an exemplar of secular democracy in the Muslim world, is now the worlds biggest prison for journalists. Since he came to power in 2014, president Recep Tayyip Erdoan has slowly tightened his grip on freedom of expression, choking his critics.

Editors of national newspapers now face life sentences for working against the state. People have been arrested for Facebook posts criticising the government and last week over 4,400 public servants were sacked in an act branded by critics as a witchhunt targeting the political opposition.

Meanwhile Erdoan has maintained cordial diplomatic relations with global leaders including Donald Trump, Theresa May and Vladimir Putin, and hopes to extend his constitutional powers with a referendum on 16 April.

If you live in Turkey we want to hear how the climate is affecting you.

Has the crackdown on expression affected your daily life? When did you notice that free speech was being compromised? Have you adjusted what you say and do online? And what advice would you give to other people around the world living under a similar style of leader?

Fill in your details in the form below and well use some of your submissions in our coverage of freedom of speech in Turkey. Alternatively, you can email maeve.shearlaw@theguardian.com.

Originally posted here:
Erdoan v free speech: how does it feel to live in Turkey right now? - The Guardian

The 2017 Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) by Spiked have revealed British universities are becoming more censorious.

Through a traffic light system of red, amber and green, the survey ranks the Students Union and universitys approach to freedom of speech by considering their stance on no platforming, equality and diversity policies, advertisements, fancy dress, safe space policies and student codes of conduct.

Of 115 universities surveyed, the four worst universities for freedom of speech came from the Russell Group, including Oxford, Newcastle, Cardiff and Edinburgh.Out of 24 Russell Group unis, 16 were ranked red and eight were amber.

Buckingham University, Trinity St. David and West of Scotland were ranked the most ban-free.

Universities marked red actively censored speech and expression, amber universities have chilled free speech through excessive regulation and green universities has not restricted or regulated speech and expression.

See below where your university has been ranked.

Aberystwyth University

Aberystwyth banned Carnage because it encourages binge drinking, as well as banning YikYak on campus as the uni feltit facilitated bullying. Theuse of racial, homophobic, religious or disability slurs, even those that are used in a joke context are also barred.

Bath

The university banned transphobic materials, including those in speeches, literature and music from campus. Bath SU also censored a musical comedy sketch by Comedy Writing Improvisation and Performance Society because a line about the Prophet Mohammed had caused great offence.

Birmingham

The SUhave banned newspapers the Daily Star and Daily Sport as they claim they arederogatory towards women. They also ban any publication which upholds or propagates racial/gender/sexuality-related/disability-related stereotypes or binaries. Birmingham has a no platform policy against speakers or groups who are offensive to a race, religion, or sexuality, for example. Current groups that are banned include British National Party, Hizb-ut Tahrir, National Front, English Defence League.

Bournemouth

Students are not permitted to wear clothing that has slogans or symbols that are offensive, such as racist or sexist and will face disciplinary action if so. The Union also has a safe space policy.

Bristol

The Union has banned any songs that encourage rape culture in university buildings. Instead, lines from the songs that do reference rape will either not be played or have the instrumental version played. The SU will also disaffiliate from any society that has committed a rape apology. Consent classes are available for all undergraduate students in halls. The university expects students to attend workshops.

Cardiff

As part of their anti-lad culture policy, certain songs that are deemed homophobic or promote misogyny by the student senate, such as Blurred Lines, have been banned from playing in the SUor on the student radio station. Lad mags or those that include pornographic material are banned from being sold in campus shops. In the past two years, Cardiff have no platformed Dapper Laughs from speaking, and attempted to ban Germaine Greer for herviews on trans people.

Durham

Durham have banned any activity that promotes binge-drinking, such as initiations. Durham also have a policy whereby anydisplay of sexism, homophobia or any kind of prejudice can lead to disciplinary action.

Edinburgh

Edinburgh have banned the Sun from campus and have no platformed speakers with controversial views such as Tommy Robinson and the SWP. The SU have banned Caitlyn Jenner and Pocohontus as fancy dress costumes, no platformed lad banter that trivialises rape, such as Uni-Lad and rape apologist George Galloway. The Union also backed a boycott against Israel last March.

Hull

Hull has a strict trans policy whereby they willremove any materials considered to be trans propaganda. They have banned initiations as they promote excess drinking, and also have a no platform policy. Hull SU have currently banned the BNP, Combat 18, the National Front, Hizb-ut Tahrir and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

Kings College London

Kings recently removed a picture of Lord Carney from their alumni wall on the strand campus because of his anti-gay views. The uni also have strict advertising rules, whereby religious advertising, advertising of pornography and sexual service, advertising of tobacco products and advertising of weapons and gun clubs are banned.

Lancaster

Lancaster unidont tolerate any harassment, racism, sexism, homophobia or prejudice. Posters at the uni cant include offensive language or break the previous policy of being racist, sexist or homophobic.

Leeds

Tabacco, casinos, gambling, strip clubs or animal testing adverts are amongst the few banned from campus as part of the universitys no platform policy.Hate or facist speakers are banned from lecturing on campus.

Leicester

The university have introduced mandatory consent classes. Like Leeds, Leicester have banned certain adverts, such as gambling, money loaning, bar crawls, the Sun as well as banning any hate speakers from campus.

Manchester

Manchester SU banned a copy of Charlie Hebdo from the Refereshers Fair as the student media are banned from promoting anything that could be deemed offensive. Any speaker who uses discriminatory language is banned from speaking. Both MiloYiannopoulosand Julie Bindel were no platformed under the safe space policy.

Newcastle

The university have banned initiation ceremonies to prevent binge-drinking. They also have bans on certain adverts such as pay day loans, smoking, t-shirt pub crawls, and bans on promotional material that exposes a womans bum or breasts as it objectifies them for a custom.

The SUhave a strict fancy dress policy. Students cant wear costumes that may incite hatred, mockery, or violence against marginalised groups of the student body. For example famous paedophiles, figure who incites hatred or dressing as someone from a marginalised groups in a disrespectful way (eg dressing as Caitlyn Jenner in a mocking way) are not permitted. The Union also have aban on beauty pageants, calling them misogynistic.

Nottingham

The Sun and Daily Star are both banned from campus as part of the No More Page 3 campaign. The uni mandate a rule against initiations, which saw the universitys football team banned from playing in the 2015 Varsity.

Oxford

Oxford have banned any advertisements from LIFE a pro-life organisation. Christ Church College further banned a debate on abortion by Oxford For Life in 2014.

The Union have the power to remove any materials they deem offensive. Controversial magazine No Offence was banned from being handed out to students at the Freshers Fair.

Portsmouth

Transphobic or offensive religious material will be removed from campus. Anyone wearing offensive symbols or slogans can face discriminatory action. The Union hold a no platform policy and will bar any speaker who holds facist views from lecturing.

Queen Mary

Last year, the Palestine Society were suspended from university. The uni have banned pay day loan adverts, initiations, and the Daily Mail, the Sun and Daily Express from being sold campus, arguing that they did not want the Union to profit from hate.

Reading

Reading have banned initiations so not to promote excess drinking. They have a no platform policy, and will prevent any speakers that do not abide to their equal opportunities and diversity policies.

Royal Holloway

Royal Hollowayprohibits any activity that encourages binge-drinking, such as pub crawls or initiations. Any person with facist views or affiliation will be no platformed from speaking or distributing recordings or materials that incite hatred. They have a zero tolerance to sexual harassment policy, which includes unwanted sexual comments (including comments about your body or private life) unwelcome sexual invitations, innuendoes, and offensive gestures.

Sheffield

Sheffield condemnsexual harassment the same as Royal Holloway, as well as banning any songs that trivialise rape culture. Theyve also banned speakers, such as Julie Bindel, banned publications like the Sun, and proposed to ban classist chants from Varsity matches such as stand up if you know your Dad.

Strathclyde

The university has a policy to no platform anti-choice groups, saying, anti-choice groups should not be affiliated to, funded or promoted by the University of Strathclyde Students Association as they go against their equal opportunities policy.

Sussex

Sussex have a no platform policy against racist, facist, sexist and homophobic speakers. They further endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, therefore no commercial goods and investments from Israel.

UCL

The university have a strict trans policy, whereby gossiping about a trans person; ignoring an individual; passing judgement about how convincing a trans person is in their acquired gender; refusing to address the person in their acquired gender or new name can lead to disciplinary action.

Facist and racist groups or persons are banned from speaking, including British National Party and English Defence League. Last year, the union banned an ex student who joined the Kurdish group YPG from speaking.

UEA UEA Union have banned students from wearing sombreros for fancy dress, calling it cultural appropriation. The Sun has also been banned from being sold in the Union shops. Adverts that has slut shaming, body shaming or that which reinforced a gender binary are all banned on campus.

UWE

Freshers have to attend a mandatory consent class during Freshers Week as part of the universitys aim to tackle sexual harassment. The university also conduct a safe space policy, where any racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, or offensive language against any student isnt condoned.

Warwick

Warwick have a strict trans policy, whereby students are told do not add an unnecessary -ed to the term (transgendered), which connotes a condition of some kind. Never use the term transvestite to describe a transgender person A person who identifies as a certain gender should be referred to using pronouns consistent with that gender.

Songs or acts that are considered racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic are banned from the SU.

Aberdeen, Cambridge, Exeter, Glasgow, Kent, Liverpool, Trent, Brookes, Queens Belfast, Southampton, St. Andrews, UCLan, York

Loughbourgh

@wooodham

Read more:
These universities have been ranked worst for freedom of speech - The Tab

There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment

Motion M-103 is scheduled to come up for a vote on Feb. 16. While it is a non-binding motion that does not have the force of law, it could very well mark the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in Canada as we know it.

M-103 was introduced in Parliament in December by rookie Liberal MP Irqra Khalid and is entitled Systemic racism and religious discrimination. With a title like that what could possibly be wrong? Like many things coming out of Justin Trudeau and his party of trained seals, the title is misleading.

Motions are not bills that, if passed, become laws. They are merely expressions of those who vote in favour of the motion and like this one, make its supporters feel good about themselves. Judging only by its headline, this motion serves no useful purpose because, after all, is anyone sitting in Parliament really in favour of systemic racism and religious discrimination? In addition to make MPs feel good about themselves, the ability to table a motion allows rookie MPs of no particular note like Khalid feel important and feel they are actually doing something.

There is little doubt this motion will pass. Even without the Liberal majority, the NDP and many of, not most Conservative MPs will vote for it. And despite the fact passage will have no legal consequences, there are two troubling aspects of the bill that do not bode well for Canadians who value their right, or what they think is their right to freedom of speech.

First the word Islamophobia is specifically mentioned twice in the motion. Anti-Semitism or homophobia or hatred against another specified group is never mentioned but is described, as the afterthought it is as all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. To a person of average intelligence, it is clear the purpose of this motion is to attack Islamophobia.

CBC has been well known over the years as the taxpayer-funded propaganda arm of the Liberal Party of Canada. But, in a random act of journalism as Rush Limbaugh might say, CBC gets it right. An article was posted to the CBC website on Feb. 9, entitled Liberal MPs anti-Islamophobia motion set for debate next week. And the first paragraph of the article, written by Kathleen Harris, is as follows:

Members of Parliament will debate a motion to condemn Islamophobia and track incidents of hate crimes against Muslims in the House of Commons next week. [Emphasis added]

Despite pleas to the contrary from supporters of the motion that Islam and Muslims are not being singled out for greater protections than other groups are, the headline and opening paragraph is a conclusion arrived at from a clear reading of the motion. Since it happens so rarely it is worth repeating; CBC got it right.

Had Khalid, the Muslim MP who sponsored the bill, been really concerned about systemic racism and religious discrimination she would not have included the word Islamophobia in M-103. It is clear the intent of the motion that has MPs from all political parties absolutely enthralled is to give a special status to Muslims and the religion of peace.

There is another part of the motion that is even more troubling than paying homage to the lefts (and this includes some members of the CPC) favourite group of victims. This has to do with what the motion requests the government should do.

The motion asks the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Canada does not have any heritage according to Trudeau so why do we have a heritage committee but I digress) to study, among other things, to develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia in Canada The committee is asked to report back to the House within 240 days.

Since the government is in the business of making laws, this whole-of-government approach must be interpreted as including passing laws to make Islamophobia illegal or a crime. Of course the government has never defined exactly what Islamophobia is. And probably never will.

The Parliament of Canada has always had the bad habit of making certain activities illegal while failing to define exactly what the crime is. The most recent example was the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the crime of bestiality.

A man convicted of bestiality argued before Canadas top court that he was not guilty because he did not have actual intercourse with the animal in question. He was convicted on the basis that he engaged in inter-species sex but there was no evidence of actual penetration.

The majority of the court accepted his defence and quashed the conviction. Under common law bestiality is defined as having sexual intercourse with an animal. Parliament could have easily defined the crime as including all sexual activity with an animal short of intercourse but, since bestiality became a crime in 1890, no Parliament ever did.

The majority of the judges were wrongly criticized for appearing to see nothing wrong with people having sex with animals when the reality was Canadian governments never bothered defining the crime. They simply applied the law. The lone justice who dissented and ruled the conviction should stand was engaging in judicial activism rather than interpreting the law. She decided Parliament would have made sex with animals short of intercourse a crime if they had bothered to think about it. As true as that may be, she was usurping the function of the legislators.

So it is unlikely the Canadian government will define Islamophobia anytime soon. We already have general hate crimes laws that protect all races and religions; not just the governments pets. So any law that comes out of the Heritage Departments study will be broader than those currently on the books. The only thing left is to make criticism of Islam or Muslims short of what constitutes a hate crime illegal.

Islamophobia, of course can mean calling for the deaths of Muslims. But the made-up word can also include any criticism of Islam or describing certain terrorists as being Islamic even though that is the way they refer to themselves.

There is certainly evidence to suggest many Muslims and members of the left, including Trudeau, want special rights not just equal rights for Muslims. The prime minister does not even attempt to hide how he feels. After six Muslims were killed in Quebec City a couple of weeks ago, Justin ran to a mosque. He was quick to characterize the act as terrorism after he learned the shooter was a white French Canadian. He didnt run to a church a little over a year ago when six Christian Canadians were slaughtered in Burkina Faso by Muslims.

Earlier this week, it was revealed an imam in Quebec called for the annihilation of Jews in 2014. Not a peep out of the Little Potato even though under Canadian law this act would constitute a hate crime. There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment. Justins CBC even said so.

To repeat, passage of M-103 will not result in a law. Any such law will be a long way off but a law to make any criticism of Islam is what Trudeaus preferred group wants. And if such a law does eventually pass, Canadians cannot look to the courts to protect their freedom of speech.

Visit link:
Free speech in Canada: The beginning of the end? - Canada Free Press

WRIC

Hundreds protest in support of freedom of speech WRIC WASHINGTON (WRIC) More than a hundred protesters rallied outside the White House on Saturday night, holding signs in support of the First Amendment. Organizers called it a candle light vigil. Issues of freedom of expression are absolutely critical ...

Go here to see the original:
Hundreds protest in support of freedom of speech - WRIC

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos and other controversial figures would be welcomed to speak at colleges in Tennessee if the state legislature approves a bill proposed by Republican lawmakers this week.

State Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley introduced the Tennessee Freedom of Speech on College Campus Bill on Thursday in an effort to prevent schools from adopting policies that shield individuals from ideas and opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive.

Campus free speech is being challenged by restrictive speech codes; speaker bans and disinvites; safe spaces and trigger warnings; and administrators who feel pressured to placate demonstrators, Mr. Daniel said at a press conference Thursday where he introduced the bill, The Huffington Post reported.

We just want to ensure that our public universities give all students the right to free expression, Mr. Hensleysaid, according to Breitbart.

Dubbed the Milo bill, the proposal was introduced after Mr. Yiannopoulos recent college speaking engagements were plagued by protests some which descended into riots and cancellations.

An event at the University of California, Davis, last month wascanceledover safety concerns just moments before he was slated to take the stage, and protests held in response to a similar event scheduled for UC Berkeley this month erupted into a fiery rampage.

Organizers of the canceled Berkeley event claimed afterwards their right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs, and President Trump responded on Twitter by threatening to withhold federal funds from the school.

We dont want this happening in Tennessee, what happened in California, Mr. Hensley said Thursday.

Public universities have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles, and these failures make it appropriate for all state institutions of higher education to restate and confirm their commitment in this regard, his bill reads in part.

Too many times weve seen classrooms where the professor doesnt want to hear both sides of an issue, weve heard stories from many students that, honestly, are on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom. We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech, Mr. Hensley said Thursday.

Mr. Yiannopoulos, whom detractors have accused of peppering his talks with hate speech, applauded the lawmakers proposal in a prepared statement.

We are winning the war. And we will continue to win as long as students, and now defenders of free speech within the government, stand up to ivory tower intellectuals and left-wing administrators intent on shutting up any speech they dont find convenient, he said.

Read the original here:
'Milo Bill' sponsored by Tennessee Republicans would protect freedom of speech at states colleges - Washington Times

At UCLA Law School last week, a squad of student "thought police" tried to ban my book, Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. They don't want you to know the book even exists, let alone what's inside it. And the UCLA administration enabled them. This ominous episode underlines how students are learning to be contemptuous of intellectual freedom.

The story of what happened at UCLA is laced with ironies. On Feb. 1, the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute co-sponsored a panel discussion at UCLA Law School on the vital importance of freedom of speech and the threats to it. My book shows how certain philosophic ideas undercut America's response to the jihadist movement, including notably its attacks on freedom of speech.

During the reception, however, a group of UCLA students assembled in front of the book table and objected to mine. Why? Had they read the book, weighed the evidence, and found it lacking? Had they formed a considered evaluation of the book's argument?

No: They felt the book was "offensive" and "insulting." They had "issues" with the views that I and my co-author, Onkar Ghate, put forward. Our views, it seems, were "Islamophobic." Based on what? Apparently, for some of them, it was the book's title.

Yet another irony here is that in the book we disentangle the notion of "Islamophobia." We show that it's an illegitimate term, one that clouds thinking, because it mashes together at least two fundamentally different things. The term blends, on the one hand, serious analysis and critique of the ideas of Islamic totalitarianism, the cause animating the jihadists, which is vitally important (and the purpose of my book); and, on the other hand, racist and tribalist bigotry against people who espouse the religion of Islam. Obviously, racism and bigotry have no place in a civilized society.

Moreover, the book makes clear that while all jihadists are self-identified Muslims, it is blatantly false that all Muslims are jihadists. (It should go without saying, though sadly it must be said, that countless Muslims are law abiding, peaceful, productive Americans.) Ignorant of the book's full scope and substance, the students felt it had no place on campus.

The students demanded that my book be removed from display. My colleagues who manned the display table declined to remove the book.

So the students enforced their own brand of thought control. They turned their backs to the table, forming a blockade around it, so no one could see or buy the books. Then they started aggressively leaning back on the table, pushing against the book displays. By blocking access to the book, they were essentially trying to ban it.

At this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was "inflammatory." It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movement's global assaults on free speech.

This shameful incident reflects a wider phenomenon on American campuses. At university, students should learn to think, to engage with different views, and thus to grow intellectually. But increasingly, students learn to put their feelings above facts. Some students demand to be protected from what they merely believe, without evidence, are uncongenial views. They demand that non-orthodox views be silenced. And such universities as UCLA willingly coddle and appease them.

The universities, observes Steve Simpson in Defending Free Speech, are a bellwether of the future of freedom of speech. If today's students are increasingly hostile to intellectual freedom, can we really expect tomorrow's voters, lawyers, judges, politicians to uphold free speech? To champion that principle, you have to value dialogue, knowledge, and, ultimately, the reasoning mind. Yet reason is precisely what those student agitators subordinated to their emotions.

Elan Journo (@elanjourno) is the director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond, and author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

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

Read more from the original source:
UCLA banned my book on Islam from a free speech event - The Hill (blog)

PROTESTERS AND SUPPORTERS of a Breaking the Silence exhibit face one another outside of Barbur Gallery in the Nahlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem last night. (photo credit:RHONA BURNS)

One day after Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat abruptly announced the eviction of the owner of the Barbur Art Gallery, which hosted a lecture by the left-wing NGO Breaking the Silence, the group said the mayor was unequivocally using punitive measures to stifle free speech.

Breaking the Silence is composed of veteran IDF soldiers who condemn an Israeli presence in occupied territories, as well as purported crimes against Arab residents there. Its executive director, Yuli Novak, spoke at the Nahlaot gallery Wednesday night.

While Barkat contended that the eviction was due to zoning violations, Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff said on Thursday that there was no question the right-wing mayor was abusing his authority to intimidate opposing views.

He obviously wants to stifle freedom of speech in order to stop us from talking about our experiences as soldiers in the occupied territories, Issacharoff said.

However, according to Issacharoff, right-wing politicians attempting to cancel the NGOs events is nothing new, and generally has a converse effect.

Every time they try to silence us, we get more requests from people who want to meet us and hear about the reality we experienced in the occupied territories, he said.

Asked what he would say to Barkat if given the chance, Issacharoff replied: You are silencing soldiers, and cynically handing over the city I grew up in to Lehava in order to further yourself in the next Likud primaries. Nonetheless, he emphasized that the NGO remains undeterred.

We will continue meeting thousands of people a year all across Israel, he said. There is only one way to stop Breaking the Silence: End the occupation.

Barkats edict followed heated statements denouncing the lecture by Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev (Likud) and Deputy Mayor Dov Kalmanovich, both of whom demanded the mayor intercede, and called for the gallerys shuttering.

In a statement on Wednesday, Barkat claimed that the eviction notice followed a year-long deliberation by the municipal legal adviser, who determined that the owner of the gallery breached the citys legal protocols.

Moreover, Barkat said the building must be returned to the city for municipal use within 90 days.

According to the mayor, the eviction is unrelated to the lecture.

It has no connection to freedom of expression, he contended. The municipality needs the structure, and is actively consulting with representatives of the neighborhood about future use.

Meanwhile, the gallerys owner and curator, Masha Zuslam, expressed incredulity over the eviction, noting that she has not received any warnings or notices from City Hall.

We didnt get anything from the municipality, Zuslam said, adding that she has run the gallery for nearly 12 years without any previous warnings of wrongdoing. Everything we know is from the press.

The mayor is trying to punish us because we have different political views.

Despite a protest held by the extreme right-wing group Lehava, Zuslam said the lecture proceeded as planned, adding that far more demonstrators came to support the gallerys right to sponsor the talk and to condemn the mayor for intervening.

We had a very big demonstration of support, she noted.

While Zuslam said she is considering all her legal options, she lamented what she deemed to be an unjust and retaliatory response by the mayor for exercising the right of free speech.

Its a pity that the mayor of Jerusalem [has pitted] the artistic and cultural community against his political interests by preventing the basic right of freedom of speech, she said.

We have had this gallery for 11.5 years without any problems, and all of a sudden it is illegal. It remains unclear if the eviction will be enforced within the next 90 days.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

VP of New Israel Fund: Country was rejecting me

Kraft hosts Ezra Schwartzs family as Super Bowl VIPs

Next Article

Read this article:
Breaking the Silence: With Barbur closure, Barkat attempting to stifle free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News

Recent events at the University of California, Berkeley, reflect the enormous difficulties that campuses can face when trying to ensure freedom of speech while, at the same time, meeting their duty to ensure an inclusive learning environment and protect everyones safety. Many, including President Donald Trump, spoke out about these events, but with apparently little understanding of what actually occurred or all that the campus did to try and protect speech.

On Feb. 1, Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial speaker who prides himself on being inflammatory, was scheduled to speak at Berkeley at the invitation of the College Republicans student group. A demonstration of approximately 1,500 people developed to protest his presence and to stand against what they considered to be hate speech.

A few hours before the scheduled talk, a group of protesters pulled down police barricades, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows, and threw fireworks and rocks at police, resulting in $100,000 of property damage. According to the university, the violent protesters were 150 masked agitatorswho had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Perceiving a serious threat to public safety, campus officials called off Yiannopoulos talk, while also condemning the violence and reasserting their commitment to free speech principles. As university administrators and professors who teach and write about First Amendment law, we see what happened at Berkeley as enormously important in our current debate over free speech.

Did campus officials infringe Yiannopoulos freedom of speech and the rights of the College Republicans to hear his views?

The event has triggered intense debates about the scope and limits of free speech. However, to understand who did the right thing and who did the wrong thing, you must also understand a few basic First Amendment principles.

Basic free speech principles

First, by law campuses must allow all views and ideas to be expressed, no matter how offensive. Above all, the First Amendment means that the government cannot prevent or punish speech based on the viewpoint expressed. This also is a crucial aspect of academic freedom.

Even the expression of hate is constitutionally protected; court cases have addressed this very issue on college campuses in the past. Although hate speech unquestionably causes harms, it nonetheless is expression that is covered by the First Amendment. We therefore strongly disagree with those who say that campus officials at Berkeley could keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his hateful and offensive message.

Campus officials at Berkeley recognized that Yiannopoulos had a First Amendment right to speak. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks rightly resisted demands, including from Berkeley faculty, to ban Yiannopoulos appearance.

Second, campuses must do all they can to ensure that audience reactions against a speaker are not allowed to silence the speaker. Free speech can be undermined, not only by official censorship and punishment, but also by individuals who seek to disrupt or shut down others when they attempt to exercise their rights. If officials do not work to prevent or punish disruption then there will be a hecklers veto of all unpopular or controversial speakers, and this is not consistent with free speech principles. Campus officials have a duty to protect the free speech rights of protesters, but they must also protect speakers and prevent heckling. Apparently this also occurred at Berkeley. Staff members spent weeks planning extensive security arrangements, including bringing in dozens of police officers from nine other UC campuses.

Third, there may be situations where controlling the audience proves impossible, and there is no choice but to prevent a speakers presence to ensure public safety. This should be a last resort taken only if there is no other way to prevent a serious imminent threat to public safety. This appears to be exactly what occurred at Berkeley, where the riotous demonstrators could not be controlled. In such cases, authorities should do all they can, after the fact, to identify and punish those who used violence and violated the law, and should assess how different security arrangements might be more effective in preventing future disruptions. Campus officials should also do what they can to reschedule the speaker for another time.

Misguided criticism of Berkeley officials

A number of commentators were outraged that Yiannopoulos was not able to speak and claimed that free speech was under attack at Berkeley. But the campus itself consistently reaffirmed his right to speak, resisted calls to cancel the event and arranged for extraordinary security at great expense. The vast majority of the demonstrators were also merely exercising their free speech rights. Thus, the campus efforts were consistent with free speech principles. If there is blame to be assigned it should focus on the small number of outsiders who were intent on using violent and unlawful means to disrupt the event.

Nonetheless, President Trump tweeted after the event that federal funds might be withheld from Berkeley unless it allowed freedom of speech.

Putting aside that he lacks the legal authority to do this, Trump ignored the fact that freedom of speech never is absolute. Campuses can punish speech that constitutes true threats or harassment, or incitement of illegal activity. Campuses also need to act to protect the safety and welfare of all on campus.

Campus officials at Berkeley faced an enormously difficult situation. They were not insensitive to speech and they did not deserve the disapproval of the president. The campus did not keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his views, but because public safety at the time necessitated it.

Erwin Chemerinskyis the dean of the School of Law atUniversity of California, Irvine.Howard Gillmanis chancellor atUniversity of California, Irvine.

Read more from the original source:
Berkeley didn't deserve Trump's scorn: Exploring limits of free speech when it comes to campus safety - Salon

DENVER Designated free speech zones on Colorado public college campuses are one step closer to being a thing of the past after Senate Bill 62 was passed Friday by the state Senate.

SB 62 would prohibit public higher education institutions from restricting the freedom of expression by students on college campuses by limiting such displays to areas designated as free speech zones. It would abolish such zones.

The bill was heard in the Senate Education Committee last week, where concerns about allowing for speech that could lead to violence and a lack of input from universities were assuaged and it was passed unanimously.

An amendment nearly as long as the original bill was presented by sponsor Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, to clarify the bill and rework it after conversations with the University of Colorado.

Changes from the amendment include:

Removal of a provision for public forums to be open for free expression. It was replaced with a definition of student forums, which extends to any area on campus not expressly used for academic purposes.Stripping a portion of the bill that required the establishment of monuments to the First Amendment where free speech zones had been located.Clarification that SB 62 did not prevent an institution of higher education from prohibiting, limiting or restricting expression that is not protected under the First Amendment. This would include hate speech that incites violence.Changing references from persons to students to ensure the bill would be interpreted as applying to college enrollees and not university employees.The goals and intent are to protect the rights of students to exercise freedom of speech on campus, while still respecting the right of universities to preserve their important education safety mission, Neville said of the amendment.

Also included was a definition of the term expression, which includes peaceful assembly, protests, oratory, holding signs and circulating petitions and other written materials.

The absence of a provision for voter registration events as an act of free expression was worrisome for Senate Democrats, who moved twice to amend the definition to include voter registration.

We always talk about wanting everyone to get out and vote, especially the young folks, and if were going to talk about the right to free speech, the right for their opinions to be heard, what is more important than to actually get them registered to vote so they can let their opinions be heard, said Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood.

Republicans in the chamber insisted that they would rather wait until they spoke with representatives of universities and not damage the rapport they had developed while working on the amendment adopted Friday.

Neville said the provision for voter registrations could be added when the bill is heard in committee in the House after it receives a third reading and final passage next week.

Lperkins@durangoherald.com

Read more from the original source:
Campus free speech bill moves forward in state Senate - The Durango Herald