Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

The 1960s Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader warned that freedom exercised irresponsibly or freedom repressed could bring disgrace upon our university.

Mario Savio, leader of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, speaks to assembled students on the campus at the University of California in Berkeley, California on December 7, 1964. (AP Photo / Robert W. Klein)

Since publishing my biography of Berkeley Free Speech Movement leader Mario Savio almost a decade ago, I have often been asked what Savio would say about a host of contemporary issues. Since Savio died in 1996 and there was only one Mario Savio, it usually seemed to me inappropriate to speculate on how he might have viewed events that he unfortunately did not live to see. However, the free-speech controversy that raged this past month over the Berkeley College Republicansponsored speaking event of the hateful far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, and the violent disruption of his talk last week, raised questions addressed so often and eloquently by Savio that one can see how he would likely have viewed them just by reflecting on his relevant writings and speeches on freedom of speech, minority rights, responsibility, and community.

The first point is so obvious it barely needs saying: Mario Savio supported the right of speakers from all political perspectives to speak on campus. He helped lead the Free Speech Movement in 1964 to secure that right and endured suspension from school and months in jail for the acts of civil disobedience (the mass sit-ins) he led at Cal to win those rights. Rather than ban speakers he disagreed with, Savio debated them, whether they were deans, faculty, the student-body president, or whoever. And this was the spirit not only of Savio but of the FSM, which had an almost Gandhian faith that through open discourse anyone had the potential to be won over to the movements free-speech cause, whose justness seemed to them self-evident.

Savio supported freedom of speech not merely on instrumental grounds but as an end in itself, since speech acts were in his eyes the essence of what it meant to be human, and were the key to enlightenment and freedom. Having suffered with a very serious speech defect that blocked his ability to speak fluidly in his childhood and teens, Savio developed a very personal, even spiritual reverence for freedom of speech, and a disdain for attempts to constrict that freedom. Indeed, though an ex-Catholic, Savio used religious imagery to express that reverence. Citing his favorite quote by Diogenes that the most beautiful thing in the world is the freedom of speech, Savio explained that those words areburned into my soul, because for me free speech was not a tactic, not something to win for political [advantage]. To me freedom of speech is something that represents the very dignity of what a human being is. Thats what marks us off from the stones and the stars. You can speak freely. It is almost impossible for me to describe. It is the thing that marks us as just below the angels. I dont want to push this beyond where it should be pushed, but I feel it.

So Savio would almost certainly have disagreed with the faculty and students who urged the administration to ban Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus, and been heartened by the chancellors refusal to ban a speaker. But that does not mean Savio would have been dismissive of the concerns the faculty raised in their letter seeking to ban Yiannopoulos on account of Yiannopouloss history of crude and cruel baiting of students of color, women, and transgender students in his campus speeches. Savio was a veteran of the civil-rights movement whose battle against racism had led to his arrest in a nonviolent sit-in for fair hiring in San Franciscos Sheraton Palace Hotel, and then to risk his life in the historic Mississippi Freedom Summer crusade for black voting rights. So it is not surprising that later in Savios life when he was on the faculty of Sonoma State University he sought to convince the editors of the student newspaper there that their use of the term nigger in the paper was hurtful and irresponsible, which is why it had sparked angry protests by African-American students. Savio did not deny students had the right to print what they chose, but asked that they reach out to their black classmates and reflect on whether in the future they could be more thoughtful about the impact their words had on the campus community.

The stakes are higher now than ever. Get The Nation in your inbox.

The Berkeley College Republicans (BCRs) who invited Yiannopoulos have been quick to invoke the FSM and to present themselves and Yiannopoulos as free speech martyrsa position embraced by much of the mass media. But in the context of Savios speeches and writings about free speech, the Republicans might want to be a bit more reflective. Listen to Savios words from the FSM victory rally, December 9, 1964: We are asking that there be no, no restrictions on the content of speech save those provided by the courts. And thats an enormous amount of freedom. And people can say things in that area of freedom which are not responsible. Nowweve finally gotten into a position where we have to consider being responsible, because we now have the freedom within which to be responsible. And Id like to say at this timeIm confident that the students and the faculty of the University of California will exercise their freedom with the same responsibility theyve shown in winning their freedom. (Emphasis added.) In other words, merely because you have the right to invite a hateful and irresponsible speaker to campus does not mean that it was responsible to do so. Indeed, when the Daily Californian editors questioned the BCR spokesman, they found that he had not even read or heard Yiannopouloss speeches on other campuses. That interview suggested that the BCR had invited him for the spectacle involved and to antagonize the Berkeley left. Again, that is their right. But is it responsible? Does it promote dialogue? Or does it just inflame and polarize?

For Savio, these would not likely have seemed trivial questions. He wanted all to speak freely, but also to be thoughtful as both speakers and listeners. This is why on the FSMs 25th anniversary, in Savios design for a Free Speech Movement monument (never built) he included not only the Diogenes quote cited above on the beauty of freedom of speech but an ephebic oath (modeled on that of ancient Athens) to remind speakers of their special responsibility. The oath read: We will never intentionally bring disgrace uponour university. By our words and actions we endeavor to honor the ideals of those who came before us, and deepen and strengthen the community in which we are privileged to speak.

I remember when first reading the words Savio chose for his FSM monument design how surprised I was that he had coupled the liberalism of Diogenes with the conservatism of the ephebic oath. After all, we tend to associate the 1960s, the decade of the FSM, with an anything goes philosophy. But when you considered Savios intensive study of ancient Greece and Rome in his early college years, it made sense that he would understand the dangers of demagoguery, that the great gift of free speech could be abused. His answer, of course, was not to repress speech but to urge speakers and listeners to think critically about their discourse. And so he hoped that the Diogenes quote and the oath would lead speakers to judge whether they had spoken worthily and encourage the audience at Berkeley to judge critically whether the speech it hears is really free or merely cant.

What Mario Savio did in his FSM victory speech in 1964 was in its own way reminiscent of what Martin Luther King Jr. did in his March on Washington speech a year earlier. Both were seeing beyond their time, with King sharing his dream of an America freed from the shackles of racism and Savio envisioning a campus as it was being reborn, liberated from its history of binding restrictions on political expression. Without idolizing Savio, it is not too much to see in the oath he designed a kind of prophetic warning that freedom exercised irresponsibly or freedom repressed could bring disgrace upon our university. Those were the words that came to mind when the live stream on my computer brought those disturbing images of windows smashed and fires ignited in the student union last week. Savio is, sadly, no longer with us, but I hope his words will push us all to reflect on whether our actions in this crisis have honored the free speech ideals of those who came before us and served to deepen and strengthen the community in which we are privileged to speak.

Continue reading here:
What Might Mario Savio Have Said About the Milo Protest at Berkeley? - The Nation.

By Rick Sallinger

DENVER (CBS4) Protesters have asked a federal court judge to issue an injunction against the City of Denver and police after demonstrators were asked to leave Denver International Airport last month.

The response was strong and immediate to President Donald Trumps travel ban. Protestors rushed to airports around the country including DIA.

(credit: CBS)

But in Denver, police told the demonstrators that they needed to have obtained a permit seven days in advance of the protest.

They were addressed by a man with an airport badge on a megaphone who announced, You need a permit to conduct this activity on airport property.

And a Denver police officer told them, Stop doing anything that can be construed as Free Speech without a permit.

(credit: Darren OConnor)

Now some of those protesters have filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for the airport rule that requires a permit a week in advance to be lifted.

Civil Rights attorney David Lane is representing the protesters.

(credit: CBS)

Those protesters were out there the day that occurred and Denver expects them to wait seven days? The Supreme Court says thats unconstitutional, said Lane.

The protests continued inside DIA despite the request by police. Then, to avoid arrest, some demonstrators moved outside by the Westin hotel. The city insists its actions were within the law.

Travel ban protesters gathered Jan. 28 at Denver Intl Airport. (credit:: CBS)

DIA issued a statement, Denver police and the airport worked to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect passengers and airport operations.

Those who filed the lawsuit continued their protests at DIA. CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger asked them a question as they carried one of the signs they had at the protest.

(credit: CBS)

Are you a little worried about holding up this sign? asked Sallinger. Yes. Any minute DPD could arrive and take it, said one protester.

CBS4s Rick Sallinger is a Peabody award winning reporter who has been with the station more than two decades doing hard news and investigative reporting. Follow him on Twitter @ricksallinger.

More:
Activists Claim DIA Infringed On Freedom Of Speech - CBS Local

Last week's riot at University of California Berkeley has raised some big questions about the future of the free speech movement. A divided campus which once incubated the ideals of the 1960s was sent into lockdown as it struggled to balance inclusive values with its legacy of fighting for the right to voice your opinion, however ugly it may be.

When the Berkeley College Republicans invited inflammatory Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, over 100 faculty members signed letters of protest, urging the administration to cancel his visit, while an op-ed by veterans of the free-speech movement defended his right to speak. The university decided that the Berkeley College Republicans, a separate legal entity from the school itself, had the right to host Yiannopoulos but many in the community didn't agree with that decision, pointing to other schools that have successfully prevented his appearances.

The night Yiannopoulos arrived on campus, 1,500 people showed up to protest some carting a giant, homemade dove to symbolize their peaceful intentions. But just after sundown, the protests turned violent, as roughly 150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals with clubs and shields lit fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows and caused enough of a scene to achieve their objective: deny Yiannopoulos the opportunity to spread what they view as dangerous hate speech at the university's new Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union Center.

They were successful. But what does that mean for a campus uniquely tied to the idea that everyone even those holding ideas widely condemned and deemed to be offensive, ignorant or hateful has the right to say their piece?

University officials were disappointed by the events, quickly distancing themselves from the rioters. "It's not a proud moment for us," says Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of the university. "It was a sad day, given UC Berkeley's legacy, history and institutional values We want to provide a venue for speakers across the political spectrum."

Although it's difficult to determine the affiliations of the more militant protesters who used the "black bloc" tactic of wearing all black and masking their faces, in order to avoid police recognition and appear as a cohesive group they have been depicted as being from out of town and unrelated to the UC Berkeley community. YetRolling Stone spoke to one participant who said they graduated from the university and cited not only fears that a rising far right could bring about more "xenophobia, misogyny and [white] ethno-nationalism" but also anger and disappointment directly pointed at the university's administration.

"Shutting down the talk was successful," the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, saidin an email. "But it was also about sending a message to everyone else: We aren't about to allow white supremacist views to be normalized. It was about striking at the seemingly impervious confidence the far right has been boasting."

But it isn't just about blocking a single speaker. "It is really about making them understand the danger they pose by treating these insane neo-Nazi ideas cavalierly," the protester says. "People talk a lot about 'freedom of speech' and I think this fetish of speech misses the larger point. It is about ideas of freedom itself. Who has it, and who is denied it."

Lately, Trump supporters at UC Berkeley have had reason to be fearful. One, who told news cameras he was attacked by protesters, was seen bleeding from his eye. Another was pepper-sprayed by a masked individual after giving an interview to a local TV station. A day after the protest, two people were arrested for attacking a man walking near campus with a "Make America Great Again" hat. Video of an unconscious Trump supporter lying face down in the street and being struck in the head with what was described as a shovel circulated online.

"It's become evident that the black bloc is not just a matter of concern for local agencies," says Assistant Vice Chancellor Mogulof. "We've taken note of the tactics, weapons, discipline, organization and training. We will not be caught unprepared for them again."

The majority of protesters didn't engage in violence. Max Raynard, a Bay-Area native who attended the protests, witnessed students attempting to give water and medical attention to the Trump supporter with the eye wound. UC Berkeley says the next day students formed an ad-hoc group via social media to clean up campus.

But despite the majority's actions, university policies and widely condemned views of Yiannopoulos, the shut-down of the event brought a larger issue to light. "The whole point of the free-speech movement was to defend unpopular speech. There's no point in defending popular speech," says Jack Citrin, professor of political science and director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the university. "This could have been a teaching moment for our students: that it is legitimate for people with views you find abhorrent to speak, and to debate them, and to do so with a superior argument. Instead, it ends up a moment where this provocateur gets exactly what he wanted."

Citrin, who received his PhD from Berkeley in 1970 and was passionate about the free speech movement as a student, says he was heartened by the chancellor's decision to resist pressure and allow the event to go forward. He argued much along the same lines as the op-ed written by the Free Speech Movement Archive Board of Directors. "If even a 10th of the 100 or so faculty who signed those pro-ban open letters showed up to ask this bigot tough questions or held a teach-in about what's wrong and unethical in his vitriol," read the op-ed,"they could puncture his PR bubble instantly, avoid casting him in the role of free speech martyr and prove that the best cure for ignorant and hateful speech is speech that unmasks its illogic, cruelty and stupidity."

Citrin believes the battle for free speech on college campuses is still raging, just in a new way. "I think the defense of free speech is a very real issue now," he says. "And that battle takes place in many forms, and includes demands for so-called 'safe spaces,' which I view as absurd. There's a whole range of issues that have arisen that has made the firm commitment to free speech in academia less secure."

These violent protesters, he says, claim to be liberal but don't believe in free speech. "This is a gift to Milo, and of course presents Trump with an opportunity to get on his horn." (The president tweeted at 3:13 a.m. "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Experts quickly responded saying the president's ability to fulfill this threat was "unlikely.")

According to a statement put out by the university, there was one arrest (for failure to disperse) and six minor injuries the night of the protests. The school's early estimate is that $100,000 worth of damage was done to the area outside its new MLK Student Union building a popular study spot. A large diesel-fuel fire, started after protesters tipped over a light post and generator, was hot enough to be felt 20 or 30 feet away, scorch nearby steps, and thin out a couple of trees, students present at the protest told Rolling Stone.

Robert Borsdorf, a 20-year-old third-year art student at Berkeley spent part of the night documenting the protests on behalf of the art department, and another part of it wrestling with protesters who didn't want him to photograph their faces.

"I look over my right and this dude has a fucking mason jar," says Borsdorf. "He lit it and tossed it up at these cops. When I turn around, there's something going toward the cop and it exploded. It was insane."

The black-bloc protester who spoke to RSon condition of anonymity says they "took it pretty easy that night," and that they still believe in the tactics.

"In this case, with the goal being to absolutely shut down a central target, it made sense to employ these means to ensure that the University understands there are consequences for enabling fascism," the protester says. "The demonstration had less to do with stopping one particular right-wing narcissist than it did combatting the movement he is part of."

Peaceful activists, direct-action anarchists, conservative provocateurs, campus faculty and the UC Berkeley Police can't agree on much. But there is one topic where they do: The police presence and response to the protest was small and non-interventional. And that's not by mistake.

The notably muted response was not part of a conspiracy by administrators to allow protesters to stop the event despite suggestions on social media and from Yiannopoulos himself in interviews. Rather, it was the direct result of officials following the guidelines of the Robinson-Edley report, campus officials said. The report was drafted to suggest changes to protest-management on California universities after two clashes between protesters and police in November 2011. One, when protesters were pepper sprayed at UC Davis, and the other a violent beating of protesters at UC Berkeley. The report's findings prioritize student safety, and support more non-physical methods, like opening lines of communication and building trust.

But after the violent clashes, the lines of communication and bedrock of trust on campus can be hard to find. Mogulof recalled a phone call he received before the protests.

"I had a faculty member of the campus call me and say, 'You must ban him,'" he recalls. "I said, 'We're not allowed to do that, he is protected by the first amendment.' They say 'No, he's not.' So I say, 'Why do you believe that?' and they said, 'Because he's wrong.'"

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

More:
Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus Showdown - RollingStone.com

Forbes

Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus--Here's How They Can Forbes You might find it surprising that academics need to be told to protect free speech and inquiry, but American campuses have become increasingly intolerant of speech that conflicts with progressive orthodoxy. I have often written about the rules ... Freedom of speech cannot be selectiveDaily Trojan Online Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn ReynoldsUSA TODAY Doblin: Free speech, Molotov cocktails and a Twitter feedNorthJersey.com USA TODAY College -PennLive.com -The Guardian -CNN all 93 news articles »

Original post:
Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus--Here's How They Can - Forbes

Debate is what Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago, came to the University to encourage, and debate is what he got.

In a lecture at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs Friday, Stone discussed the importance of fostering an environment that encourages free expression, especially controversial opinions. His talk was followed by a heated question and answer session about the pragmatism and presentation of his ideas.

Free speech on college campuses has come under national scrutiny again with the protests at the University of California at Berkeley that led to the cancellation of an alt-right speakers event Wednesday, said President Christina Paxson P19 as she introduced Stone.

Stones talk, Free Speech on Campus, dealt exactly with these issues and was part of a University speaker series Reaffirming University Values: Campus Dialogue and Discourse.

Stone chaired the University of Chicagos Committee on Freedom of Expression in 2015. My own personal view is that if (universities) aspire to be serious academic institutions, they have to have a profound commitment to debate, discussion and disagreement because thats how we create knowledge, Stone told The Herald. If institutions cut off that debate (and) disagreement, they are, in my view, undermining the central purpose of their being, he said.

Increasingly, faculty members and students are less comfortable taking controversial positions, Stone told The Herald. One reason is that some students have been raised by helicopter parents who have shielded or protected them from discomfort, risk and failure in ways that their predecessors have not, Stone said. Additionally, those who share controversial views on social media may risk offending potential employers.

I think its an unhealthy thing that social media has produced that environment, but its a healthy thing that students and marginalized groups such as racial and religious minorities, women (and) gays have become more vocal about their experiences and intolerance for certain views, Stone told The Herald.

Contrary to the position espoused by the University of Chicagos Dean of Students John Ellisons letter to incoming freshman of the class of 2020, Stone said trigger warnings and safe spaces are not violations of free speech in his view. The letter written by the dean of students in the college did not reflect the reality or the policies of the University of Chicago. I regard that aspect of that letter as unfortunate, Stone told The Herald.

The decision to use trigger warnings should be left to professors rather than dictated at an institutional level, Stone told The Herald, emphasizing that faculty members should feel free to use trigger warnings if they think that it would improve the quality of education that students receive.

The University of Chicago is filled with safe spaces, Stone said.There are endless organizations that are designed to bring together students (with) particular experiences, interests (and) background(s).

But while student groups can serve as safe spaces, universities as a whole must be open to even the most loathsome, odious, offensive, disloyal arguments, Stone said in a speech at the American Law Institutes meeting in May 2016. Universities must ultimately uphold free speech even in the case of hate speech, he said.

I dont believe that the idea of hate speech is one that universities should get involved in addressing any more than it should get involved in communist speech or pro-abortion speech, Stone told The Herald. Hate speech is simply speech that says bad things about certain people, and my view is that the right response to it is to address it and explain why one thinks its hateful and wrong instead of seeking institutional censorship, he added.

In addition, universities should not take political positions to protect freedom of speech on campuses. But exceptions can be made if political actions have a direct and real effect upon the operation of universities, such as President Donald Trumps recent executive order banning immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Stone said.

Responding to a question from a professor at the event about a universitys responsibility to address institutional oppression, Stone said, In university communities like ours, were not the ones afraid to speak out. Rather, those afraid to speak out on college campuses are the Trump supporters or evangelical Christians, he said.

Across the University, you should not have certain types of perspectives unrepresented (or) not reasonably represented because of some bias about those views, Stone said. But in his view, a liberal bias has already taken root at most universities across the country.

A persistent point of tension in Stones speech was the conflict between freedom of speech and the need to be civil in an academic setting. Stone said that professors have a right to intervene when racial epithets are directed at students in a classroom. He proceeded to directly name certain racial epithets as examples of unacceptable language.

Naomi Chasek-Macfoy 18 requested that Stone discontinue the use of racial slurs in his speech, to which Stone replied that racial epithets should be allowed in the classroom if they are relevant to the discussion or mentioned in course materials. Someone who goes around yelling and screaming racial epithets even outside the classroom, I would say, is being a jackass. Is that okay can I say that? he joked.

Many attendees told The Herald that they were uncomfortable with Stones response to Chasek-Macfoys question. While some students might have even agreed with Stone, the fact that he was mocking (Chasek-Macfoy) from then on, I lost my respect for him, Areeb Mahamadi 17 said. I thought he was rude.

More:
Freedom of speech talk stirs debate - The Brown Daily Herald

Editor,

In 1982 an editorial in the Daily Lobo led to a student picket against the Daily Lobo. The editorial (October 13) by the managing editor stated that the 1980-81 scores of the SAT exams proved what everyone knew all along minorities are academically inferior to whites.

This infuriated many and over 150 students and representatives from eight UNM organizations who, headed by the Student Coalition Against Racism, held a press conference which led to occupying the Daily Lobo newsroom demanding the firing of the both the managing editor and the newspaper editor and threatening to prevent publication of the next days issue of the Lobo.

The managing editor immediately apologized for his poor choice of words and resigned. Within a few days the UNM Student Publications Board suspended the newspaper editor. All this led to a deluge of letters to the editor both by readers appalled by the printing of the statement and by those wanting to protect freedom of speech.

In an Oct. 29, 1982 Lobo editorial letter, UNM professor Dr. Tobias Duran, after giving examples starting since 1848 of how state and national newspapers wrote insulting and blatantly bigoted remarks about Mexican Americans in New Mexico, stated that Freedom of the press has been alive and well, so has racism and discrimination.

He argued that the law of freedom of the press must not be used as an instrument to reinforce existent inequalities related to race, class and ethnicity but rather it should apply criteria using standards of universality and logic. Otherwise, he said, freedom of speech masks reality. (UNM Daily Lobo, Oct. 13- Oct 29, 1982.)

Hate speech is not the same as freedom of speech.

Samuel SisnerosDaily Lobo reader

Read this article:
Letter: A line should be drawn between hate speech and free ... - UNM Daily Lobo

The anti-Milo Yiannopoulos protests at UC Berkeley have left Donald Trump and friends suddenly in desperate need of a safe space.

On Wednesday, a planned appearance at UC Berkeley by Milo Yiannopoulos, the Breitbart contributor and high priest of the Twitter Pepe Avatar crew, was cancelled after some 1500 protesters turned out to make clear that his brand of vapid, bigoted bullshit was unwelcome in the university community. This was very, very good. Unfortunately, these vibes were ruined by the arrival of an estimated 150 Black Bloc provocateurs, who showed up on campus to start fires, break windows, throw rocks and fireworks at police, and generally ruin everyone's good time. This was very, very bad.

Although the university was quick to make clear that the mask-wearing rioters were unaffiliated with the assembled protesters, the damage was done. Right-wing media outlets spent the morning purposefully conflating the nonviolent demonstrators with the violent ones in order to boost their pet "dangerous unhinged violent liberals" narrative. President Trump, a man who has no time for things like "reading" or "facts," responded to these dumb headlines and the scary-looking images he saw on cable news by...threatening to pull federal funding from the University of California.

It was also very, very strange how the president had nothing to say about the the sanctity of tolerating "different points of view" when an apparent Milo supporter shot a protester at a Yiannopoulos event at the University of Washington last monththe shooter later claimed self-defensebut I'm sure Trump's omission was just an oversight. Here's how serial liar Kellyanne Conway put it on Fox and Friends this morning:

I dont even know if they know what theyre protesting, she said. Is it the free speech? Having someone maybe on your campus who has a dissenting point of view or wants to present an alternative point of view?

Sounds to me like someone could really use a safe space.

The point that Trump and Conway and their ilk miss is that freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from dissent. Milo Yiannopoulos is a basically an Internet troll who hit the big time, and he cares more about the attention that his bigoted remarks earn him than actually engaging in legitimate, constructive debates over policy or ideology. (I mean, Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter after organizing a campaign of racist, sexist harassment against Leslie Jones. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get banned from Twitter for being racist and sexist?!) Nonetheless, he is perfectly within his rights to hold whatever deplorable or non-deplorable views he likes. Freedom of speech often isn't fun, but that's how it works.

At the same time, though, other private citizens are perfectly within their rights to show up where Yiannopoulos intends to spew his vile hate speech nonsense and, through nonviolent means, shut that shit down. Yes, Cal is a public university, and it boasts a proud tradition of supporting freedom of expression. But the administration didn't bar him from campusit was student protests that did it. Despite their fondest victimhood fantasies, when Yiannopoulos and Trump and Conway and company are met with thousands of protesters telling them to go to hell, no one's "free speech rights" are being trampled. This is just the free market of ideas responding loud and clear, and if they don't like the reactions their views elicit, they have no one to blame but themselves.

MORE STORIES LIKE THIS ONE

See the article here:
Freedom of Speech Is Not Freedom From Dissent - GQ Magazine

Outspoken liberal comedian Bill Maher says the left needs to rethink its hostility to freedom of speech in the wake of the riot at the University of California, Berkeley this week.

Believe me, Ive been a longtime critic of colleges shutting people up, Mr. Maher said Friday on HBOs Real Time with Bill Maher. That is a problem on the left that we need to deal with, very much so. Free speech should be something we own.

Students at the prestigious public university assaulted people in the streets, lit fires and looted stores on Wednesday night in order to prevent conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus.

Mr. Maher called the Breitbart editor a provocateur, but said students had no right to resort to violence and vandalism because they disagree with his views.

He speaks from experience.

In 2014, Berkeley students voted to disinvite Mr. Maher from delivering the schools fall commencement address because of his criticism of Islam.

But the Berkeley administration refused to rescind the invitation, and Mr. Maher devoted much of his speech to defending the First Amendment.

If you call yourself a liberal, you have to fight oppression from wherever it comes, he said at the time. Thats what makes you a liberal.

Continue reading here:
Bill Maher on Berkeley riot: The left has a 'problem' with free speech - Washington Times

This week the leftish Twittersphere and liberal comment sites went wild for two stories. The first, that President Donald Trump doesn't seem to know who Frederick Douglass was. The second, that those Berkeley students and non-Berkeley anarchists who shut down the Milo Yiannaopolous meeting might not have done such a bad thing. Okay, a mob silenced Milo, people tweeted and intoned, but perhaps that's okay in the anti-Trump fightback.

It's almost unbearably ironic. Because if these critics of Trump themselves knew anything about Douglass, they'd know he was implacably opposed to using mob pressure to shut down public meetings. They'd know he valued free speech so highly, above all other values, that he thought no one should ever be "overawed by force" simply for what he thinks and says. Imagine: in one breath mocking Trump for not knowing who Douglass was, and in the next saying things that will have made Douglass spin in his grave.

The mocking of Trump followed his comments marking Black History Month, on Wednesday morning. He praised Dr. Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, and Frederick Douglass, before going on to talk about matters closer to his heart: himself and how much he hates CNN.

But it seems he doesn't know much about Douglass, the slave turned abolitionist and suffrage campaigner who wrote brilliantly in defence of free speech and the right to bear arms. He was fleeting in his praise of Douglass, and his wording seemed to suggest he thinks Douglass is still alive (he died in 1895.)

The headlines and snark came flying. "Trump implied Frederick Douglass was alive," the Washington Post laughed. "Seth Meyers roasts Trump for being too lazy to Google whether Frederick Douglass is still alive," said a headline over a video of Seth Meyers doing exactly that. Cue millions of shares.

All of which is fine, of course, and funny in fact. Trump really ought to know about Douglass. Someone should have briefed him. But then the same political sphere that came over all pro-Douglass as a way of meming against the Presidentright-on tweeters, the left-leaning webstarted to wonder out loud if it's such a bad thing that Milo was silenced at Berkeley. Which is about as anti-Douglass a thing as you could say.

"Milo Yiannopoulos is trying to convince colleges that hate speech is cool," CNN cried. When Trump tweeted that perhaps Berkeley should have its federal funding cut if it won't stand up for free speech, The Advocate accused him of "defending hate speech." The mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, implicitly sided with the protesters against freedom of speech when he said: "Hate speech isn't welcome in our community." In short, let's cleanse Berkeley of certain, dangerous ideas; let's make it a Milo- and alt-right-free zone.

The celeb set also welcomed the shutting down of Milo's meet. "RESISTANCE WORKS!", tweeted Debra Messing. As Heat Street said, "vocal members of the progressive left took to social media" to celebrate Milo's silencing, "dubbing it a legitimate resistance movement against the Trump administration."

This cheering, or at least failure to challenge, the heavy-handed prevention of political chatter at Berkeley is a far bigger snub to Douglass and everything he stood for than Trump's Black History comments were. Indeed, anyone who knows anything about Douglass will know that one of the most stirring, moving things he ever wrote was a criticism of the shutting down of public meetings by mobs.

On 2 December 1860, at the Tremont Temple in Boston, anti-slavery activists held a meeting called "How Shall Slavery Be Abolished?". Douglass was there. To his horror, a group of pro-slavery peopleDouglass called them "a mob of gentlemen"disrupted the meeting. They screamed insults at the attendees, took over the room, drowned out anyone who tried to speak. They pushed the attendees about. Douglass was most alarmed by the failure of the mayor of Boston to protect the meeting. The gathering was "broken up and dispersed by the order of the mayor, who refused to protect it, though called upon to do so", he wrote. This brings to mind Mayor Arreguin's craven response to the Berkeley fiasco.

In response to this illiberal violence, Douglass wrote an article titled "A Plea for Free Speech in Boston." It is one of the best things ever written about free speech. He said the intrusion and stopping of the meeting was "a palpable and flagrant outrage on the right of speech." He said it had "trampled under foot" the "law of free speech and the law for the protection of public meetings." And then, in words that echo down the decades, he spelled out why freedom of speech is so important:

"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence."

This is probably Douglass's most important legacy: his argument that free speech underpins all liberty; that the freedom to think and speak and organise is the precursor to any kind of progress. And it is this legacy that is shot down by those who argue that using pressure or threats or speech codes to shut down controversial speakers is acceptable behaviour.

Sure, the men meeting in Boston 150 years ago were discussing something incredibly important and goodhow to abolish slaverywhile Milo's meeting would largely have consisted of provocateur ridicule. But so what? As Douglass said in that article, all people, whatever their thoughts or station, should enjoy freedom of speech: "There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments."

So yes, of course Trump should know who Douglass wasI hope someone has since given him a copy of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Douglass's profound autobiography. But in continually compelling people to suppress their honest sentiments, in "overawing by force" those they disagree with, in thinking it is acceptable to use pressure or law or rules to prevent the holding of public meetings, too much of the modern left does an even greater disservice to Douglass. They forget his plea to humanity to remember that liberty is meaningless where people's right to utter their thoughts has ceased to exist.

More:
Frederick Douglass Would Have Ardently Supported Milo Yiannopoulos's Free Speech Rights - Reason

New York University historian Robert Cohen will deliver The Death of Free Speech on Campus?a public lectureon Wed., Feb. 15, 5:30 p.m. at NYUs Jurow Lecture Hall.

NYU historian Robert Cohen, author of "Freedoms Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s", will deliver The Death of Free Speech on Campus?a public lectureon Wed., Feb. 15, 5:30 p.m. at NYUs Jurow Lecture Hall.

New York University historian Robert Cohen will deliver The Death of Free Speech on Campus?a public lectureon Wed., Feb. 15, 5:30 p.m. at NYUs Jurow Lecture Hall, Silver Center (100 Washington Square East/enter at 31 Washington Place).

This lecture, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session, will explore the state of free speech on campusas the media and critics report and distort it, as studentsexperience it, and how it looks from a historical perspective.It will also consider ways that colleges and universities canenhance freedom of speech.

Cohenis a professor of history and social studies in the Department of Teaching and Learning at NYUs Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Cohen, who has an affiliated appointment in NYUs Department of History, has authored or edited several works on the history of free speech on campus, including: Freedoms Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s; The Essential Mario Savio: Speeches and Writings That Changed America; The Free Speech Movement: Reflections on Berkeley in the 1960s(co-edited with Reginald E. Zelnik);When the Old Left Was Young: Student Radicals and Americas First Mass Student Movement, 1929-1941;Rebellion in Black and White: Southern Student Activism in the 1960s(co-edited with David Snyder);andHoward Zinn and the Spelman College StudentMovement, 1963(in press).

The event, an NYU College of Arts and Science Bentson Deans Lecture, is free and open to the public.Admission is on a first-come, first-served basis. Space is limited. Please call 212.998.8154 for more information. Subway Lines: 6 (Astor Place); N, R (8th Street).

Reporters wishing to attend the lecture must RSVP to James Devitt, NYUs Office of Public Affairs, at 212.998.6808 or james.devitt@nyu.edu.

See the original post here:
The Death of Free Speech on Campus? NYU Historian Cohen Takes Then and Now Look in Feb. 15 Lecture - NYU News (press release)