Wisconsin legislation to protect free speech on college campuses would force the states university system to discipline students who disrupt speakers. Opponents warn that the bill will silence those who protest harmful speakers.

Wisconsin state Rep. Jesse Kremer (R-Kewaskum) introduced the Campus Free Speech Act last month to ensure that free speech is not only welcome, but encouraged throughout Wisconsin academia.

In recent decades, attacks on free expression have become commonplace and in-vogue at institutions where ideals and truths should be challenged the American university, Kremer said in a statement. This most recent degradation has been at the behest of the leftist elite who promote their own progressive, opinionated beliefs as gospel while touting a bumper sticker slogan of coexist.

The Campus Free Speech Act would require any student who engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others to attend a disciplinary hearing. Any student that has more than one hearing would be suspended for at least one semester or expelled.

The bill comes after free speech has become an issue on college campuses across the country. In February, protests at the University of California-Berkeley turned violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak.

In November, UW-Madison students also interrupted former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro, who was speaking out against safe spaces on college campuses.

After that protest, the Wisconsin Assembly approved the Campus Free Speech Act with an 8-6 vote, sending it to the Assembly floor. All six Democrats voted against the bill, warning it would stifle free speech relating to the research and scientific pursuits of the facility.

Democrats questioned the bills neutrality clause, which states that universities must remain neutral and not take action on the public policy controversies of the day.

During a committee hearing on May 11, Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) questioned if the bill would allow a professor to correct a student that was arguing the Biblical theory that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Read more

The earth is 6,000 years old, Kremer stated, according to the Cap Times. Thats a fact.

But, Kremer said the bill stays out of the classroom and would only be intended to deal with students who disrupt speakers.

However, Kremer said that any student who felt they were unable to express their opinions in class could bring their complaints to the Council on Free Expression, an oversight board created in the bill.

The council on free expression would submit annual reports to the Board of Regents, the governor and the chief clerk of each house of the legislature, detailing any disruptions of free expression that occurred throughout the institution.

How are we to be taken seriously as an institution of higher learning and research if our professors can be called before a Council on Free Expression to defend their teaching of geology? said Dave Vanness, an associate professor of population health sciences, according to the Cap Times.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), one of the sponsors of the bill, said the biggest debate is going to be around global warming.

A lot of people think its settled science and an awful lot of people think it isnt, Vos said, according to the Cap Times. I think both sides should be brought to campus and let students decide.

Vos wrote an article in 2016, where he complained that a large number of the guest speakers invited to speak at UW-Milwaukee were easily identifiable as being liberal. He challenged the UW system to find more ways to ensure that all perspectives, including conservative ones, are present in the classroom.

Many Democrats questioned whether the bill was necessary at all, since the UW system already has policies that deal with protests.

State Rep. Dana Wachs (D-Eau Claire) called the bill a substantial overreach for a problem that frankly does not exist.

Instead of supporting free speech for all students, the authors of this bill have created a broad, vague proposal that could chill speech and ultimately silence those who want to respectfully share their beliefs on an issue, Wachs said in a statement.

Read more:

Wisconsin 'Campus Free Speech Act' risks stifling free speech ... - RT

James Nani Times Herald-Record @JamesNani845

MIDDLETOWN - A federal judge hasruled that there areenough questions to warrant a trial onwhether the Middletown school boardand superintendentrestricted free speech at a contentious school board meeting in 2010.

Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, denied a motion on Tuesday by Middletown School District Superintendent Ken Eastwood for summary judgment inthe First Amendment claim.

The long-running lawsuit that's dogged Eastwood was brought in April 2010 by Francis Hoefer.

In March 2010, Hoefer, who lived inOswego at the time, tried to speak at Middletowns meeting but was cut off by board President Will Geiger.

Hoefer was removed from the building and handcuffed by Middletown police.

Hoefer had come to air complaints about Eastwood, dating back to the time when Eastwood was in charge of Oswegos schools.

Hoefer, a former Oswego school board member, filed the lawsuit regarding that ejection, naming three parties Geiger, Eastwood and the Middletown district.

He's represented by Goshen civil rights attorney Michael Sussman.

Hoefer said his civil rights were violated, including the right to free speech.

The parties came pretty close to a settlement at one point. Geiger and the board signed it, but Eastwood refused because he had a defamation suit against Hoefer.

Hoefer had put his comments in an online blog post soon after the 2010 board meeting.

Eastwood sued Hoefer for defamation in state court, won,and last year a state appellate court upheld the decision that Hoefer defamed him in part ofthat statement.

In Ramos' June 6 opinion, he saidcourtsmust construe facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in motions for summary judgment.

"Based on the facts before the court, a reasonable fact finder could determine that Eastwood engaged in a viewpoint-based prior restraint by suppressing statements that were critical of him while conversely allowing statements that praised him," Ramos wrote.

Ramos also ruled that just because Hoefer was able to publish his statement in a blog post after the meeting "does not do away with the fact that his intended speech was chilled, indeed frozen, at the board meeting."

Finally, Ramos found that Eastwood doesn't have immunity. A defense attorney has appealed the opinion on the immunity grounds.

In an email, Sussman said the trial will begin on July 7 and called the order "a stirring affirmation of the First Amendment."

The case will now likely go to trial, Eastwood said.

"Settlements are for when you think you've done something wrong," Eastwood said.

"I didn't do anything wrong, so I'm not going to roll over and take it."

jnani@th-record.com

Here is the original post:

Judge OKs trial in Middletown free-speech case - recordonline.com - Times Herald-Record

WJHL	Fired ETSU music professor claims free speech in appeal | WJHL WJHL JOHNSON CITY, TN (WJHL) Fired East Tennessee State University music professor Dr. David Champouillon said even if the allegations against him were true ... and more »

More here:

Fired ETSU music professor claims free speech in appeal | WJHL - WJHL

David Redl, President Donald Trump's nominee to head the National Telecommunications & Information Administration, promised to work with stakeholders to identify underutilized government spectrum that can be repurposed for commercial use and said U.S. interests in the multistakeholder ICANN internet body would continue to be represented 'vigorously.'

Redl's commentscame duringhis nomination hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee last week, a hearing thatwas overshadowed by another Hill hearing on the same day -- fired FBI Director James Comey's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Redl's hearing lacked fireworks.

Redl is former senior staffer on the House Energy & Commerce committee, whose former boss, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chair of the committee, was instrumental in the legislation to free up broadcast spectrum for commercial wireless.

Redlsaid a core mission of NTIA, the White House's chief telecom policy advisor as well, is to balance the need for spectrum for government to meet its needs, like protecting the country, with the need for added commercial spectrum. He said he was committed to working with the FCC to prioritized 5G.

Redl said his experience was in looking for bipartisan solutions to telecom issues and "focusing on things we could agree on."

He said he would commit to some things he hoped would find similar bipartisan agreement: (1) balance the government's need for spectrum with that of both licensed and unlicensed spectrum users; (2) try to improve access to broadband for all Americans; (3) work to advance the digital economy; and (4) work to advance the internet as an engine of free speech, the free market and economic opportunity.

Asked by Commerce chair Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) how he would balance those, Redl said NTIA had a process in place, including a policy and planning steering group he hoped to work with, as well as the Interagency Radio Advisory Committee (ARAC), to try tofind synergies and efficiencies.

Redl was asked by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)whether he thought the Obama Administration's decision to allow the contract for domain naming and numbering conventions oversight to lapse in the interests of migrating it to a multistakeholder model was a "wise and prudent" one.

Redl cited the debate, but said the reality is "this is the situation we are in." Walden and other Republicans had concerns that the multistakeholder model was an opportunity for some bad actors to get new power over the internet.

Redl said the administration supports the multistakeholder model, but said he also would be a vigorous representative of the U.S. before ICANN.

Cruz was not satisfied, asking the question again about the wisdom and prudence of the administration finding itself in the position it was in thanks to the last administration. Redl said that once the decision was made to move to that model and end the contract, it would have been hard to "put the genie back in the bottle."

He said he had tried to protect the U.S. interest throughout that process, and that given the changes made to the accountability process, the country was in a position to protect those interests.

Asked about broadband infrastructure in rural areas, Redl committed to allocating capital "efficiently."

Redl likely didn't hurt his chances of a warm welcome at his new digs by telling the senators that NTIA staffers were the "unsung heroes" of the digital economy.

See original here:

Redl Commits to Internet as 'Engine of Free Speech' | Multichannel - Multichannel News

Comedians typically dont like to publicly condemn other comedians. But that principle was challenged over the past week after Bill Maher casually dropped the n-word on his HBO show Real Time.

Asked about the backlash last week on The View, Kevin Hart said he doesnt believe Maher is a racist, but should have known the consequences of using the word. It was stupid, he added. Maher discovered those consequences as people began calling for him to be fired and on Friday night both Michael Eric Dyson and Ice Cube took him to the woodshed, so to speak, for his transgression.

It took about 10 seconds for the topic to come up once again on Mondays episode of The View, when The Daily Shows Trevor Noah joined the hosts. It seems like its a dangerous time to be a comedian right now, Joy Behar said, citing not only Maher, but also Kathy Griffin, who was let go by CNN for her anti-Donald Trump stunt, and Stephen Colbert, who faced his own backlash for joking about the president.

You know what, to be honest with you, I think its good, Noah said. I genuinely think its good. I wont lie, as a comedian, I look back and I go, there are things I said that I shouldnt have been saying. Were progressing, were moving forward. Theres things that we said about women that we shouldnt have been saying.

Thats one way to look at it, Behar said, in clear disagreement with Noahs point of view.

Noah was speaking from experience. When he was hired to replace Jon Stewart in 2015, he found his Twitter history subjected to an unprecedented level of scrutiny with reporters digging up and highlighting any joke from his past that could be construed as sexist, anti-Semitic or just generally offensive.

If you look at what youre trying to do as a comedian, essentially what Im trying to do, is Im trying to move forward, Im trying to think progressively, Im trying to push the boundaries, Noah added on The View. I remember a time when I loved making fat jokes, because I thought, oh, look at this, this is edgy. But it wasnt.

Noah made a distinction between censorship and backlash, asking, Shouldnt there be consequences for free speech?

There should not be consequences for free speech, Whoopi Goldberg countered. People dont have to like what you say, but there should not be consequences.

In America, Noah said he finds that people conflate free speech as consequence free, but coming from South Africa, a country where the government could come after you for something you say, he sees a clear difference. You are free to say what you like, somebody may still punch you, though. Thats a consequence.

Losing your job can also be a consequence, one that Kathy Griffin, and subsequently Reza Aslan, suffered at the hands of CNN. But not, so far at least, one that Bill Maher has been dealt by HBO.

Read the original post:

Trevor Noah on Bill Maher: Free Speech Has 'Consequences' - Daily Beast

Redemmas.org

President Trump has spent the last several months keeping his campaign promises. From the ongoing push to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to the numerous executive orders targeting immigration, abortion care funding, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policies, the Trump administration has not eased up.

Many have voiced outrage over the turn the country has suddenly taken, as direct action is one of the few methods of dissent still intact. However, Assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, recently faced death threats after FOX News aired a segment from a commencement address at Hampshire College.

A leading organizer and scholar on Black politics and racial inequality, Taylor is the author of the critically acclaimed book; #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation. She spoke on a number of topics, including the growing threat of the Trump administration. From the terror-inducing raids in the communities of undocumented immigrants; to his disparaging of refugees in search of freedom and respite; he has empowered an attorney general who embraces and promulgates policies that have already been proven to have had a devastating impact on Black families and communities.

Taylor called the President a racist sexist megalomaniac and stated that Donald Trump has fulfilled the promises of a campaign organized and built upon racism, corporatism, and militarism. While the speech received backlash after being featured on a number of conservative platforms, including during, conservative news anchor, Glenn Becks The Blaze, it is far from the first time the African American professor has spoken out about the injustices that marginalized communities face. In a statement released on Facebook through the Haymarket Books page, Taylor stated that she was cancelling appearances to various universities due to ongoing threats against her and her familys safety, Since last Friday, I have received more than fifty hate-filled and threatening emails. Some of these emails have contained specific threats of violence, including murder.

While there has been a long history of white institutions silencing black academics, it seems that the increasing popularity of alt-right movements has encouraged censorship from outside influences as well. Taylor has claimed that the segment on FOX was framed as an anti-POTUS tirade that was meant to incite violent intimidation from the right-wing viewers, Fox did not run this story because it was news, but to incite and unleash the mob-like mentality of its fringe audience, anticipating that they would respond with a deluge of hate-filled emails or worse. The threat of violence, whether it is implied or acted on, is intended to intimidate and to silence.

Similar incidents around the country have featured the same type of censorship patterns towards women activists and political voices. In Iowa, Democratic candidate Kim Weaver abandoned the race against Republican Congressman Steve King (IA). Weaver cited alarming acts of intimidation, including death threats and stated that her safety and personal health had become a growing concern.

Across the country, in New York City, Muslim-American activist Linda Sarsour faced death threats before she even had a chance to get on stage. While her speech ended up being well received at the New York City commencement ceremony, the discourse surrounding her in the weeks leading up to the delivery was hostile, with messages like A good Arab is a dead Arab and Youre getting two bullets in your head being sent to Sarsour on an hourly basis.

The white nationalist movement has long used acts of violence and intimidation to manipulate public discourse. In the past the Klan played a critical role in preventing people from reaching the election polls, and harbored their extensive social network to control facets of the media. Nevertheless, the rise in the mob mentality of cyber-bullying has become a frequent tactic of the Republican partyand provides tools for doing harm to their ideological opponents.

This may seem to some to be ironic, given the anger and outrage that emerged when activist shut down Milo Yiannopoulos was forced to cancel his visit to the University of California/Berkeley after anti-fascist activists caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus in protest. Yiannopoulos however, had threatened to out undocumented and Trans students during his Dangerous Faggot tour. Such potential for harm is a far cry from Taylors voice of dissent towards an existing government that has enacted several harmful policies in a matter of months. One speaker demands non-violent liberation and the other uses their platform to doxx, and thus endanger, local students.

It seems there are clear patterns to the way in which conservatives chose who they target; women, and specifically women of color, are frequently in the crosshairs of attacks from the right. These individuals are often spammed with misogynistic comments, intertwined with a threat of sexual and/or physical violence. For black and brown women, Like Taylor and Sarsour, these threats are also frequently coded with racism and Islamophobia. It makes it possible for white nationalist to masquerade their attacks as part free speech campaign as opposed to confronting the reality of the hate speech they utilize to enact violence.

While free speech is often lauded as one of the main talking points of the right, they remain surprisingly silent when it comes to the rights and liberties of marginalized voices. As long as womens dissent poses a threat to the predominantly white-male dominated GOP, then they will feel the need to retaliate towards any potential threat. This is a status quo that Taylor directly challenges: this system is led by a billionaire president and a Congress composed mostly of white men who are millionaires, Despite the setbacks, the fight against the alt-right and their methods of censorship continue. The brilliant women of the movement will continue to be at the front lines.

***When reached out to for comment Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor stated that they are not doing interviews at this time***

Here is the original post:

Alt-Right targets women in attack on free speech - People's World