Category Archives: Censorship

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

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

Are we to be ruled by anarchists and have mob rule?

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

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

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Sheldon Rabinowitz, Des Moines, Letter to the Editor 6:21 p.m. CT Feb. 10, 2017

Students from City and West High lead protesters down the pedestrian mall during a rally against President Trump's travel ban on Sunday, Feb. 5, 2017.(Photo: David Scrivner/Iowa City Press-Citizen)

If we really have free speech in this country, as provided by law, then any lawful program should be able to be held on any campus. Whether any of us, including university administration or the news media, agree with the sponsors or their subject matter, should have nothing to do with the right to hold the program.

Lawful protest is to be respected, but universities and the local government have the responsibility to protect the people and the property from rioters. Are we to be ruled by anarchists and have mob rule? If the police need to get tough to enforce the law, so be it.

If universities knuckle under threats of rioters, it will only encourage more censorship of what the mob does not want to hear, all across the country.

Sheldon Rabinowitz, Des Moines

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2kYEG0s

3:38

2:31

3:45

1:56

1:47

3:24

3:03

1:24

14:52

3:39

0) { %>

0) { %>

Read more:
Mob censorship can't be tolerated - DesMoinesRegister.com

Forbes

What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship Forbes How was this decision made, what kind of data fed into this decision-making process and what does it tell us about the future of censorship and who decides what is real on the Internet, especially as social media platforms increasingly play the role ... WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - WikipediaWikipedia Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' sourceThe Guardian Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources - WikipediaWikipedia all 94 news articles »

More:
What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship - Forbes

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Photo illustration by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Editorial: Censorship in the Senate

THE ISSUE:

The Senate majority leader shuts down criticism of a Cabinet nominee.

THE STAKES:

Where do such heavy-handed tactics end at a time of one-party rule?

---

An extraordinary moment came Tuesday in the U.S. Senate when Sen. Elizabeth Warren was told to sit down. She'd gone too far, it seems, in criticizing a Cabinet nominee.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell shut down Ms. Warren on the grounds that Jeff Sessions of Alabama, President Donald Trump's pick for attorney general, is a senator himself, and as such should not be "impugned."

Whatever your political loyalty, this censoring of an elected representative marks a dangerous development for our democracy.

Ms. Warren, D-Mass., was speaking against Mr. Sessions' nomination Tuesday when the chair interrupted to remind her of Senate Rule 19, which states "no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator." Ms. Warren had been voicing a host of concerns about Mr. Sessions' record on civil rights, abortion, women and immigration. She quoted harsh criticism he had drawn in 1986, when Mr. Sessions was being considered for a federal judgeship, from then-Sen. Edward Kennedy and civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. She continued until Mr. McConnell and his GOP colleagues cut her off, a ruling sustained by a party-line vote.

Put aside that it's absurd to argue Mr. Sessions merits more tender treatment than any other nominee. Let's call this for what it is: The majority leader of what's called the world's most deliberative body stifling deliberation he disagrees with.

Mr. McConnell has employed this sort of partisan heavy-handedness in various ways before, notably in snubbing the Constitution by refusing to even consider former President Barack Obama's nominee for Supreme Court last year. That capped a long campaign of partisan obstructionism.

What we are witnessing what should matter to all Americans is nothing less than a breakdown of the norms of democratic government. Republican stonewalling of Mr. Obama's lower-level judicial appointments led Democrats to eliminate filibusters for those posts when they ran the Senate. Now Republicans may do the same on Supreme Court nominations. So much for a long-standing check on unbridled majority rule.

And now Mr. McConnell has introduced a new prospect: shut down whatever speech the majority doesn't like. What's next?

It's all the more alarming at a time of one-party rule in Congress and the presidency, and with Mr. Trump promising to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues. A top adviser to the president tells the free press to "keep its mouth shut" even as the Senate's leader says as much to one of the foremost women in the opposition party.

If they care nothing for the legacy this behavior is leaving our republic, Mr. McConnell and Republicans should at least weigh their own self-interest. Every bad precedent they enjoy setting today they will surely regret tomorrow.

Visit link:
Editorial: Censorship in the Senate - Albany Times Union

Forbes

Tor Project's New Mobile App Alerts You To Internet Surveillance ... Forbes Over the past few years you've seen the Tor Project's name pop up in the news on more than one occasion. With a core mission of "advancing human rights and ... Why Did an Internet Censorship App Send My Phone to ... - GizmodoGizmodo Ooniprobe Maps Countries Around the World That Censor the ...The Atlantic Tor-developed smartphone app will detect internet censorship and ...CyberScoop Android Central -Softpedia News -International Business Times UK all 7 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Tor Project's New Mobile App Alerts You To Internet Surveillance ... - Forbes

Rioters in Berkeley, Calif. forced the University of California, Berkeley to shut down a planned speech by so-called "alt-right" provocateur and Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Wednesday, Feb. 1, 2017. (Photo courtesy of Pietro Piupparco / Flickr / CC-BY 3.0)

The president of the Sacramento State College Republicans demanded that school president Robert Nelsen and ASI President Patrick Dorsey if they did not denounce a riot that broke out at UC Berkeley on Feb. 1 in response to a visit by right-wing blogger Milo Yiannopoulos.

The demand came shortly after College Republicans President Mason Daniels and several others attempted to obstruct the path of an anti-Trump march on campus. Several anti-Trump demonstrators responded by telling them your hate speech isnt protected here.

Of course and to the chagrin of many on the left the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does protect hateful speech.

This is not to say that the rhetoric of the self-described alt-right is anything but repugnant to the very concept of morality.

But attempts to censor Yiannopoulos and white nationalist leader Richard Spencer have the potential to backfire for everyone opposed to the Trump administration.

Those protesters who prevented Yiannopoulos from speaking at UC Berkeley last week, and the two people who punched Spencer in the face last month, must have been emotionally satisfied at going the extra mile to oppose the alt-right a loosely-connected network of people opposed to multiculturalism and modernity.

But if the alt-right has shown anything in its quick rise from online harassment of female video game developers in 2014 to one of its own working in the White House, its that what doesnt kill it makes it stronger.

The riots sparked at Berkeley have only helped Yiannopoulos a blogger for Breitbart, the former home of Trump confidant and the aforementioned White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon go from an internet curiosity to a household name.

Yiannopolous YouTube response to the Berkeley riots has garnered 1.2 million views in just four days, as of press time. Being cast in the role of a victim, Yiannopoulos has become something of a folk hero even for those who do not share his repulsive philosophy.

This has made nobody happier than Yiannopoulos himself, with the possible exception of President Donald Trump, who tweeted that the federal government should consider defunding UC Berkeley.

Trump did not cause the divisions in our country, but he exacerbates them for his political gain. He hopes that by painting all people opposed to his policies as violent anarchists, he can get most Americans to pick him as a lesser of two evils.

Such a strategy worked in the past. According to an August 1968 poll, 53 percent of Americans thought that the U.S. should never have entered the Vietnam War.

Just several months later, however, Republican Richard Nixon and segregationist third party candidate George Wallace won 57 percent of the combined vote not because they were particularly pacifistic, but because they galvanized images of riots, urban crime and political assassinations to scare people into voting for them.

That may be why former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort said that Trumps Republican National Convention speech was specifically modeled on Nixons in 1968.

Again, this isnt to argue against a massive mobilization of Americans from the far left to principled conservatives to oppose Trump and the alt-right, even by taking to the streets in protest.

It is to argue that using violent tactics, smashing windows and burning limousines may be a cathartic release but do nothing to convince a Trump voter to change their mind.

And the violence deals another, more dangerous card to the president.

During the campaign, Trump showed very public disdain for religious liberty, freedom of the press, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Is this really the time to demand that government institutions give up neutrality regarding the content of political speech?

As president, Trump is a far larger threat to the Constitution than a small number of rioters in Berkeley which is precisely the problem.

Criticism of the First Amendments religious and political neutrality is nothing new. It has been charged with fostering indifferentism treating all ideas as equally valid.

All ideas are not equally valid, but censorship only gives the power of deciding what is and is not allowed to be talked about to whoever the most powerful person is And as the election upset should make clear, that can change very quickly.

No matter how grievous Yianopoulos or Spencer get, it is government neutrality in political speech that protects everyones right to speak freely.

Do we really want to set a precedent that offensive speech should be banned at a time when the president of the United States has praised dictators for murdering their opponents?

By all means protest, organize and vote. But dont play a character in Bannons dystopian play.

Take off your black bloc outfits, be brave enough to go face-to-face with the other side, and let it be said of us to quote a great leader of a different time that this was their finest hour.

Continued here:
EDITORIAL: Don't become an enemy of free speech, no matter how hateful it is - StateHornet.com

A new report on artistic freedom by the Danish free speech advocacy group Freemuse has recorded a sharp rise in attacks and censorship.

In its annual report, titled Art Under Threat, Freemuse documented 1,028 violations of artistic freedom throughout 78 countries in 2016. According to the group, the increase in registered cases between 2015 and 2016 amounts to a spike of 119 percent, rising from 469 violations.

The non-profit dividesits findings into categories, includingserious violations, for killings, attacks, abductions, imprisonments, and threats; and acts of censorship. In 2016 the organization counted 840 incidents of censorship and 188 serious violations.

Categorized amongst the serious violations are three killings, two abductions, 16 attacks, 84 imprisonments and detentions, 43 prosecutions, and 40 persecutions and threats.

Violations of artistic freedom in 2016. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Musicians were targeted most frequently, accounting for 86 cases of serious violations, followed by theatre with 32 serious violations, and visual arts with 27 serious violations. Meanwhile film was the most censored art form, amounting to 79 percent of censorship cases.

Iran, responsible for 30 cases, was once again the worst offender for serious violations of artistic freedom, making it the worst violator of artistic expression since Freemuse began recording data in 2012. Turkey, Egypt, Nigeria, China, Malaysia, Syria, Tanzania, and Uzbekistan also recorded dismal artistic freedom records, collectively making up 67 percent of globally recorded serious violations.

Top 10 serious violators of artistic freedom. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

The worst practitioner of censorship in 2016 was Ukraine, responsible for a staggering 577 registered acts of censorship. Freemuse attributes this to a blacklist of 544 Russian films banned in the wake of the ongoing conflict between the two countries.

Other offenders making up the top 10 for recorded cases of censorship were Kuwait,China, Egypt, India, Russia, Turkey, USA, Pakistan, and Iran. Together these countries accounted for 88 percent of global censorship cases.

Top 10 practitioners of censorship. Graphic: courtesy of Freemuse.

Summarizing its findings, Freemuse explained that the drastic increase may be a consequence of rising global populism and nationalistic political views, resulting in a greater number of reported cases of artists being censored or persecuted. The organization also said that improvements in its own data collection and documentation methodologies, as well as its expanding network, resulted in a greater number of incidents being accounted for.

However the advocacy group stressed that the actual frequency and number of artistic freedom violations is almost certainly far higher. Factors including lack of public awareness, ability, political will, intimidation, cultural or social pressure, and the threat of punishment often prevent people from reporting serious violations and censorship.

Read more from the original source:
Artists Faced Sharp Rise in Attacks and Censorship in 2016, Report Says - artnet News

The Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), which monitors networks for censorship and surveillance, is launching Ooniprobe, a mobile app to test network connectivity and let you know when a website is censored in your area.

The app tests over 1,200 websites, including Facebook (FB, Tech30), Twitter (TWTR, Tech30) and WhatsApp. You can decide how long to run the test, but the default is 90 seconds and would test between 10 and 20 websites depending on bandwidth. Links to blocked websites are listed in red, while available sites are green.

Service providers, sometimes controlled by the government, don't always shutdown the internet entirely -- for instance, Facebook.com might be inaccessible while CNN.com still works.

"Not only we will be able to gather more data and more evidence, but we will be able to engage and bring the issue of censorship to the attention of more people," Arturo Filast, chief developer for the Ooniprobe app, told CNNTech.

To test connectivity, Ooniprobe mimics what a browser does when you connect to a website. It tries to establish a connection to a site's IP address and download the webpage. OONI compares the activity to the same test on an uncensored network. If it doesn't match, the site is likely being censored.

Created in 2012 under the Tor Project, OONI monitors networks in more than 90 countries through its desktop and hardware trackers, which are available to anyone. It publishes censorship data on its site. The organization has confirmed censorship cases in a number of countries, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ethiopia and Sudan.

By introducing a mobile app, OONI can reach more people potentially affected by internet outages, especially in emerging markets where smartphones are more common than computers.

Related: This African country is taking an unprecedented step in internet censorship

In just the last week, at least two countries have experienced outages. Iraq shut down the internet while students took exams to prevent cheating, and in Cameroon, protests and unrest have led to ongoing outages in the country's English-speaking regions.

Ooniprobe tests web connectivity to not only figure out whether sites are blocked, but how they are being censored. For instance, an internet service provider can initiate a DNS-based block, so when you try to connect to a specific website, the page will say the domain is unknown or blocked. Ooniprobe can also check whether IP addresses are blocked, and looks for "middleboxes" or network devices that manipulate web traffic.

If the app detects a site is censored, it will list ways of getting around it. For instance, Ooniprobe might tell you to visit "HTTPS" versions of sites to circumvent "HTTP" blocking, or to download the Tor browser or the Orbot Android app. (Ooniprobe is used to find specific instances of censorship -- if the entire internet was blacked out, you would know.)

Ooniprobe is rolling out this week for iOS and Android.

Filast says Ooniprobe can help people see how censorship and surveillance impact them.

"They can better understand that this is something that isn't so abstract and so distant from them, but it's something they can actually understand how it's working," Filast said. "And maybe be less scared about it."

View original post here:
Ooniprobe app helps people track internet censorship - Feb. 8, 2017 - CNNMoney

Australian scientists are rallying behind their counterparts in the United States amid fears that President Donald Trump could ram through a damaging anti-science agenda over the next four years.

Trump's moves to censor federal government scientific departments and undermine the integrity of climate research have triggered sympathy and anger in Australia, where many scientists believe the country's conservative government has conducted a similar assault on science over the past few years.

"My sense is that morale among the science fraternity in the U.S. is extremely low at the moment," said Associate Professor Stuart Khan, a water researcher at the University of New South Wales and one of the organizers of the Australian March for Science. "We want to show that we understand what is going on and we stand in solidarity."

The United States is an important research partner for Australia and a bilateral science and technology relationship has existed in some form for 48 years.

However, Trump's recent directives, particularly his administration's instructions that any data from the EPA must undergo review by political appointees, have many Australian scientists concerned.

"It's reminiscent of the censorship exerted by political officers in the old Soviet Union," Dr. Alan Finkel, the chief science advisor to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, told a roundtable discussion in the capital Canberra on Monday. "Every military commander there had a political officer second-guessing his decisions."

Gag orders aren't the only sign of Trump's apparent anti-science stance. His pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has made a career of challenging the agencies environmental regulations. Trump has also reportedly tapped vaccine skeptic Robert Kennedy Jr., who has erroneously linked vaccines with autism, to lead a commission into immunization safety.

RELATED: Will Trump Go After Vaccine Science?

Australian scientists have not faced directives limiting interaction with the media and public like those imposed by Trump, but several said political interference has taken different forms.

"It's primarily lack of funding, pulling out government support, and public campaigns that undermine and belittle scientific achievements," Khan said.

After taking office in 2013, former prime minister Tony Abbott slashed science funding, abolished climate science programs and chose not to appoint a science minister for the first time since 1931.

Funding for Australia's main research grants body, the Australian Research Council, was cut by $74.9 million; the national science agency, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, had its funding slashed by $111 million.

As a result, severe job losses including up to 110 roles in the organization's Oceans and Atmosphere division were announced by CSIRO in February 2016. The decision was reversed and extra resources allocated to climate change research only after a public outcry and widespread international criticism.

"It was a brutal act to try and force compliance and control because they didn't regard the organisation to be sufficiently beholden to government directives," Dr. Michael Borgas, a climate scientist and former president of the CSIRO staff association, said.

RELATED: Cities Are Tackling Climate Change by Freeing Their Data

Abbott, who once declared that climate change was "absolute crap," was ousted by Malcolm Turnbull in a party coup in September 2015, but key science policies have remained intact.

In fact, the Turnbull government has proven it's not above scrubbing science from the record.

In May 2016, it was revealed the Australian government intervened to have all mentions of the country removed from a UNESCO report on climate change impacts at world heritage areas.

One of three Australian case studies, the Great Barrier Reef, experienced its worst coral bleaching ever in 2015-2016, an event scientists said was 175 times more likely because of human-caused climate change.

More than 93 percent of the smaller reefs that make up the wider ecosystem were affected by bleaching and preliminary surveys have shown widespread reef mortality.

"I was confidentially told by the editor of the report that the Australian government asked that the Great Barrier Reef case study and two others that referred to Australia were taken out of the report," said Professor Will Steffen, a climate science expert at the Australia National University, who reviewed the Great Barrier Reef chapter.

The Australian government later admitted the request was made because the reef's inclusion may have impacted tourism.

Borgas, who spent 15 years advocating for employees at CSIRO, said there were lessons from the Australian experience that could be useful to scientists in the U.S.

Participating in a trade union or scientific society that advocated for the rights of scientists was a good start, he said. But he also urged U.S. scientists to keep speaking out about threats to science integrity.

"Scientists sometimes don't like to be politically engaged," said Borgas. "But it's something you have to do. You have to learn to do it."

WATCH: The Difference Between Global Warming and Climate Change

See the article here:
Australian Scientists Who Faced Censorship Have Advice for Dealing With Trump - Seeker

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Brian Bauer

Brian Bauer

Womens Resource Center creates an event to talk about reasoning behind book censorship and the affect of the community on the flow of information. The event will be held Friday at noon.

Megan Bradley, Contributing Writer February 9, 2017

The removal and restriction of certain books is no new phenomenon. Despite a more historical and dystopian portrayal, book censorship is still a current issue.

To address and inform about this issue, the office for Diversity and Social Justice Education is holding a Conversation Cafe titled Burn Before Reading: Book Censorship at noon on Feb. 10 at the Womens Resource Center. The Conversation Cafe will be hosted by Emily Knox, a specialist on intellectual freedom and censorship.

Conversation Cafe is a lunchtime series focused on current questions or issues that might be emerging around social justice issues. They are often facilitated by current or former students or faculty. We really draw upon the talent and questions that people are asking here on campus, said Ross Wantland, the director of diversity and social justice education.

Wantland said the issue of book censorship is an emerging question for students and faculty alike. Knox, the speaker for the Burn Before Reading discussion, clarified that sometimes books are challenged for the right reasons, such as being in the wrong place for its genre or reading level. However, a lot of the time books are censored because of disagreements or a thirst for power.

A lot of it is about control: of the flow of information, how children develop or what the community should believe, Knox said.

Her goal is to show that the power of reading is stronger than the power of censorship and there is no way to formally stop the flow of information in society.

Knoxs discussion of book banning will center on how an open flow of knowledge in society is important for social justice. She emphasized the importance of understanding the different people and places that reading can foster, and said students need to be exposed to ideas that are different from their own in order to grow and cultivate their own opinions.

The Conversation Cafe, which is typically on the second and fourth Friday of each month, has a different topic to focus on each week. Anyone is welcome to walk in and enjoy lunch while engaging with the different speakers that the program brings in.

The Lunch on Us programs provide a unique opportunity for people to dip their toes into the waters of these types of conversations, even if theyre studying areas that dont allow these conversations daily, Wantland said.

The lessons these programs can give students, Wantland said, are invaluable and can provide a strong basis for an understanding of different problems that affect campus life.

One of the students who is interested in this kind of discussion is Skylar Lipman, senior in ACES. Lipman found the event on Facebook and was intrigued by the title and topic as well as by the location of the event, the Womens Resource Center.

Censorship is an interesting topic to me, largely because it has to do with issues of choice and the power that comes along with this. Im also hoping to build some connections through the Womens Resource Center, as there is some very interesting work being done through there, Lipman wrote in an email.

Wantland said the importance of attending events such as the Conversation Cafes is that through the programs, his office is able to give a discussion space to issues that may otherwise not have homes around campus. Book censorship is one of these issues that Wantland is proud to be able to host.

Both Wantland and Knox emphasized the importance of students being able to use their years at college as a way to grow and develop views of the world. To Knox, this is largely facilitated through reading, which is why she believes in social justice and the flow of information working hand-in-hand.

Being in college is about being exposed to ideas you have not been exposed to before, and sometimes that might be uncomfortable. Part of the experience of higher education is being exposed and learning to work through them, you dont have to agree with all of them, Knox said.

features@dailyillini.com

The rest is here:
Conversation Cafe covers book censorship - Daily Illini

Four US states are considering legislation that would ensure free speech on college campuses and prohibit universities fromshielding people from offensive and controversial ideas.

Most states were put on alert after the eruption of violence at the University of California, Berkeley, whereMilo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech.His event was cancelled over safety fears.

President Trump has put the issue of free speech on campus in the spotlight after hethreatened to withdraw federal funds from universities that dont honor the First Amendment rights.

Virginia

Earlier this week, the Virginias House of Delegates passed bill HB1301aimed at protecting freedom of speech on campus. The bill reaffirms that public colleges and universities in the state are covered by the First Amendment.

The full text of the law reads: Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

House Democratic leader David Toscano celebrated the bill, saying:Any time we have the chance to support the First Amendment we should do that.

Its a good idea to celebrate the First Amendment. We want our campuses to be noisy, we want people to debate things, he added.

Colorado

In Colorado,the Senate Education Committee approved abill defending the constitutionally granted rights of Colorado students. The bill would prohibit governmentfunded colleges from restricting students First Amendment rights to free speech in any way. According to the draft of the bill, free speech includes speaking, distributing materials, or holding a sign.

The bill also requires convertingexisting so-called free speech zonesa campus phenomena where only at certain places students are able to exercise free speechinto monuments or memorials.

Free speech zones are counterintuitive to our core values, we should never falter in our defense of our constitutional rights or confine a free exchange of ideas, explained Senator Tim Neville, who introduced the bill.

Students on Colorado campuses are growing into the leaders of tomorrow, and restricting their fundamental rights as they seek out truth and knowledge is contrary to the American spirit as well as the mission of universities, he added.

North Dakota

North Dakota is also considering a bill to fight the onslaught of safe spaces and ensure the Constitution that guarantees free speech is protected in the states public universities.

Republican State Rep. Rick Becker sponsor of House Bill 1329, said the proposed legislation is aresponse to an attitude that free speech is not free speech at universities, where free expression is stifledby university policy.

There is an atmosphere of political correctness and social justice that will lead to safe spaces and this whole concept on every campus, hesaid. We have to put a stop to it now.

The bill would confirm free speech as a fundamental right and demand the governing body of the North Dakota University System to a ratify a policy of free speech.

The policy would require acommitment to free and open inquiry by students in all matters and outlaw any restrictions on speech, unless it violates other laws or disrupts the universitys functions.

It would also require tocontain a bill of student rights that would prohibitcolleges in North Dakota from subjecting students to any nonacademic punishment, discipline or censorship for exercising their free speech.

Becker cited the violence last week at the University of California, Berkeley during the protests againstMilo Yiannopoulos, claiming theres a growth of anti-speech rhetoric on college campuses.

North Carolina

The States Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced his intention to work with the General Assembly to pass the Restore Campus Free Speech act, a law closely based onthe model campus free speech legislationthat would guarantee free speech at universities.

North Carolina will be the first state to use the model law by the Goldwater Institute think tank and turn it into an actual legislative proposal. AsHeat Streethas reported, the model proposalincludes a toughlegal regime to ensure free speech.

The law would prohibit colleges in North Carolina from banning speakers, creating safe spaces with the intention of shielding students from certain ideas and opinions, harsh sanctions for those limiting free speech including expulsion, and even a $1,000 fine if university violates free speech rights.

View post:
4 US States Consider Free Speech Laws To Fight Censorship and 'Safe Spaces' On Campus - Heat Street