12345...102030...


What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

For many newcomers, cryptocurrencies can be confusing at the best of times. Not only are they extremely complex, but there are also so many of them to choose from.

Bitcoin itself is no stranger to this. There are multiple iterations of Bitcoin, from the original BTC to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private. The biggest competitor to Bitcoin though is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that aims to solve the issue of scaling through the use of bigger blocks.

Bitcoin Cash arose due to a large scaling debate that happened within the Bitcoin community. Debates began to arise when the Bitcoin mempool began to fill up due to the amount of transactions taking place on the network. This caused Bitcoin to become slower and more expensive to send than it had been in the past.

There were two options depending on your viewpoint. The first was to scale by increasing the block size of Bitcoin, and the second was to scale via a second-layer solution such as the Lightning Network. When neither side could come to a compromise, a fork took place and led to the creation of what became known as Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was backed by evangelist Roger Ver and mining giant Jihan Wu along with many other industry leaders and experts. They disagreed with the idea of implementing SegWit onto Bitcoin and wanted to see Bitcoin scale to 8MB blocks.

Bigger blocks allow for more transactions to take place. However, this comes with the downside of creating a larger blockchain. Those who believe in BTC argue that bigger blocks will eventually lead to mining centralisation.

BCH supporters argue that through Moores Law technology will eventually catch up, allowing for bigger blocks to be possible without these centralisation issues.

Bigger blocks are believed to be necessary due to the fees associated with Bitcoin. When the network became extremely popular in the bull run of 2017, fees and transaction times began to rise considerably. This made it clear that Bitcoin needed to scale.

Bitcoin Cash believes that it has solved these problems through bigger blocks, which it argues allows for much lower fees.

It is impossible to discuss Bitcoin Cash without mentioning evangelist Roger Ver. Ver was one of the first people to promote Bitcoin to the world. He was an early investor in the cryptocurrency and many major cryptocurrency companies today were helped by his funding. As the owner of the bitcoin.com domain, he holds a powerful position.

Ver argues that the direction that BTC has taken has limited the cryptocurrency and allowed other altcoins to rise in prominence. He argues that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin as it is a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash, as stated in the white paper.

This has not been without controversy, and resulted in much antagonism directed towards Ver. Some have argued that Ver has misled the public in his promotion of Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin an accusation he vehemently denies.

BCH went through its own drama in late 2018. After the split from BTC, BCH was led by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and development teams including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC. They were also supported by Craig Wright of nChain and his partner Calvin Ayre.

However, their relationship soured, and another fork took place splitting Bitcoin Cash into BCH and Bitcoin Satoshis Vision (BSV).

Many members of the Bitcoin Cash community are on the r/btc subreddit. The r/btc subreddit is another split from the original r/bitcoin subreddit. The drama began when users argued that the r/bitcoin subreddit was too heavily moderated, therefore limiting free speech.

This led to the creation of r/btc, and this is where you can find the most up-to-date news on Bitcoin Cash and debates surrounding the cryptocurrency. If you want the latest news and to join the community, this is the place to start.

There are many fervent supporters of Bitcoin Cash who believe that on-chain scaling is the main solution to the current scaling issues. Although it has yet to make a dent in overtaking the original Bitcoin chain, their beliefs have not diminished. This is the main difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin the debate over scaling on-chain or via a second layer.

Arguments over the split still rage on to this day, with both sides not conceding any ground. Whilst many deride Bitcoin Cash, there is an argument to be made that the testing of an on-chain scaling solution is a good experiment for the whole of cryptocurrency.

The post What is Bitcoin Cash? appeared first on Coin Rivet.

Read the original post:

What is Bitcoin Cash? – finance.yahoo.com

What is Bitcoin Cash? – Coin Rivet

For many newcomers, cryptocurrencies can be confusing at the best of times. Not only are they extremely complex, but there are also so many of them to choose from.

Bitcoin itself is no stranger to this. There are multiple iterations of Bitcoin, from the original BTC to Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Private. The biggest competitor to Bitcoin though is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). BCH is a hard fork of Bitcoin that aims to solve the issue of scaling through the use of bigger blocks.

Bitcoin Cash arose due to a large scaling debate that happened within the Bitcoin community. Debates began to arise when the Bitcoin mempool began to fill up due to the amount of transactions taking place on the network. This caused Bitcoin to become slower and more expensive to send than it had been in the past.

There were two options depending on your viewpoint. The first was to scale by increasing the block size of Bitcoin, and the second was to scale via a second-layer solution such as the Lightning Network. When neither side could come to a compromise, a fork took place and led to the creation of what became known as Bitcoin Cash.

Bitcoin Cash was backed by evangelist Roger Ver and mining giant Jihan Wu along with many other industry leaders and experts. They disagreed with the idea of implementing SegWit onto Bitcoin and wanted to see Bitcoin scale to 8MB blocks.

Bigger blocks allow for more transactions to take place. However, this comes with the downside of creating a larger blockchain. Those who believe in BTC argue that bigger blocks will eventually lead to mining centralisation.

BCH supporters argue that through Moores Law technology will eventually catch up, allowing for bigger blocks to be possible without these centralisation issues.

Bigger blocks are believed to be necessary due to the fees associated with Bitcoin. When the network became extremely popular in the bull run of 2017, fees and transaction times began to rise considerably. This made it clear that Bitcoin needed to scale.

Bitcoin Cash believes that it has solved these problems through bigger blocks, which it argues allows for much lower fees.

It is impossible to discuss Bitcoin Cash without mentioning evangelist Roger Ver. Ver was one of the first people to promote Bitcoin to the world. He was an early investor in the cryptocurrency and many major cryptocurrency companies today were helped by his funding. As the owner of the bitcoin.com domain, he holds a powerful position.

Ver argues that the direction that BTC has taken has limited the cryptocurrency and allowed other altcoins to rise in prominence. He argues that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin as it is a form of peer-to-peer electronic cash, as stated in the white paper.

This has not been without controversy, and resulted in much antagonism directed towards Ver. Some have argued that Ver has misled the public in his promotion of Bitcoin Cash as the real Bitcoin an accusation he vehemently denies.

BCH went through its own drama in late 2018. After the split from BTC, BCH was led by Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and development teams including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC. They were also supported by Craig Wright of nChain and his partner Calvin Ayre.

However, their relationship soured, and another fork took place splitting Bitcoin Cash into BCH and Bitcoin Satoshis Vision (BSV).

Many members of the Bitcoin Cash community are on the r/btc subreddit. The r/btc subreddit is another split from the original r/bitcoin subreddit. The drama began when users argued that the r/bitcoin subreddit was too heavily moderated, therefore limiting free speech.

This led to the creation of r/btc, and this is where you can find the most up-to-date news on Bitcoin Cash and debates surrounding the cryptocurrency. If you want the latest news and to join the community, this is the place to start.

There are many fervent supporters of Bitcoin Cash who believe that on-chain scaling is the main solution to the current scaling issues. Although it has yet to make a dent in overtaking the original Bitcoin chain, their beliefs have not diminished. This is the main difference between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin the debate over scaling on-chain or via a second layer.

Arguments over the split still rage on to this day, with both sides not conceding any ground. Whilst many deride Bitcoin Cash, there is an argument to be made that the testing of an on-chain scaling solution is a good experiment for the whole of cryptocurrency.

Continued here:

What is Bitcoin Cash? – Coin Rivet

Free Speech Movement – Wikipedia

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a massive, long-lasting student protest which took place during the 196465 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.[1] The Movement was informally under the central leadership of Berkeley graduate student Mario Savio.[2] Other student leaders include Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, George Barton, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Michael Teal, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others.[3]

With the participation of thousands of students, the Free Speech Movement was the first mass act of civil disobedience on an American college campus in the 1960s.[4] Students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom. The Free Speech Movement was influenced by the New Left,[5] and was also related to the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement.[6] To this day, the Movement’s legacy continues to shape American political dialogue both on college campuses and in broader society, impacting on the political views and values of college students and the general public.[7]

In 1958, activist students organized SLATE, a campus political party meaning a “slate” of candidates running on the same level a same “slate.” The students created SLATE to promote the right of student groups to support off-campus issues.[8] In the fall of 1964, student activists, some of whom had traveled with the Freedom Riders and worked to register African American voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer project, set up information tables on campus and were soliciting donations for causes connected to the Civil Rights Movement. According to existing rules at the time, fundraising for political parties was limited exclusively to the Democratic and Republican school clubs. There was also a mandatory “loyalty oath” required of faculty, which had led to dismissals and ongoing controversy over academic freedom. Sol Stern, a former radical who took part in the Free Speech Movement,[9] stated in a 2014 City Journal article that the group viewed the United States to be both racist and imperialistic and that the main intent after lifting Berkeley’s loyalty oath was to build on the legacy of C Wright Mills and weaken the Cold War consensus by promoting the ideas of the Cuban Revolution.[5]

On September 14, 1964, Dean Katherine Towle announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, outside political speakers, recruitment of members, and fundraising by student organizations at the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenues would be “strictly enforced.”[10]

On October 1, 1964, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. The police car remained there for 32 hours, all while Weinberg was inside it. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car.The car was used as a speaker’s podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped.[10]

On December 2, between 1,500 and 4,000 students went into Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus.[10] Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment. The demonstration was orderly; students studied, watched movies, and sang folk songs. Joan Baez was there to lead in the singing, as well as lend moral support. “Freedom classes” were held by teaching assistants on one floor, and a special Channukah service took place in the main lobby. On the steps of Sproul Hall, Mario Savio[11] gave a famous speech:

…But we’re a bunch of raw materials that don’t mean to be have any process upon us. Don’t mean to be made into any product! Don’t mean Don’t mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We’re human beings! … There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.[12]

At midnight, Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese III telephoned Governor Edmund Brown Sr., asking for authority to proceed with a mass arrest. Shortly after 2 a.m. on December 4, 1964, police cordoned off the building, and at 3:30a.m. began the arrest. Close to 800 students were arrested,[10] most of which were transported by bus to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, about 25 miles away. They were released on their own recognizance after a few hours behind bars. About a month later, the university brought charges against the students who organized the sit-in, resulting in an even larger student protest that all but shut down the university.

After much disturbance, the University officials slowly backed down. By January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson (who had replaced the previous resigned Edward Strong), established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus. He designated the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the Free Speech Movement.[13]

Most outsiders, however, identified the Free Speech Movement as a movement of the Left. Students and others opposed to U.S. foreign policy did indeed increase their visibility on campus following the FSM’s initial victory. In the spring of 1965, the FSM was followed by the Vietnam Day Committee,[10] a major starting point for the anti-Vietnam war movement.

For the first time, disobedience tactics of the Civil Rights Movement were brought by the Free Speech Movement to a college campus in the 1960s. Those approaches gave the students exceptional leverage to make demands of the university administrators, and build the foundation for future protests, such as the against the Vietnam War.[14]

The Free Speech Movement had long-lasting effects at the Berkeley campus and was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement in the 1960s. It was seen as the beginning of the famous student activism that existed on the campus in the 1960s, and continues to a lesser degree today. There was a substantial voter backlash against the individuals involved in the Free Speech Movement. Ronald Reagan won an unexpected victory in the fall of 1966 and was elected Governor.[15] He then directed the UC Board of Regents to dismiss UC President Clark Kerr because of the perception that he had been too soft on the protesters. The FBI kept secret files on Kerr and Savio, and subjected their lives and careers to interference under COINTELPRO.

Reagan had gained political traction by campaigning on a platform to “clean up the mess in Berkeley”.[15] In the minds of those involved in the backlash, a wide variety of protests, concerned citizens, and activists were lumped together. Furthermore, television news and documentary filmmaking had made it possible to photograph and broadcast moving images of protest activity. Much of this media is available today as part of the permanent collection of the Bancroft Library at Berkeley, including iconic photographs of the protest activity by student Ron Enfield (then chief photographer for the Berkeley campus newspaper, the Daily Cal).[16] A reproduction of what may be considered the most recognizable and iconic photograph of the movement, a shot of suit-clad students carrying the Free Speech banner through the University’s Sather Gate in Fall of 1964, now stands at the entrance to the college’s Free Speech Movement Cafe.[16]

Earlier protests against the House Committee on Un-American Activities meeting in San Francisco in 1960 had included an iconic scene as protesters were literally washed down the steps inside the Rotunda of San Francisco City Hall with fire hoses. The anti-Communist film Operation Abolition[17][18][19][20] depicted this scene and became an organizing tool for the protesters.

The 20th anniversary reunion of the FSM was held during the first week of October, 1984, to considerable media attention. A rally in Sproul Plaza featured FSM veterans Mario Savio, who ended a long self-imposed silence, Jack Weinberg, and Jackie Goldberg. The week continued with a series of panels open to the public on the movement and its impact.[21] The 30th anniversary reunion, held during the first weekend of December 1994, was also a public event, with another Sproul Plaza rally featuring Savio, Weinberg, Goldberg, panels on the FSM, and current free speech issues.[22] In April 2001, UC’s Bancroft Library held a symposium celebrating the opening of the Free Speech Movement Digital Archive. Although not a formal FSM reunion, many FSM leaders were on the panels and other participants were in the audience.[23] The 40th anniversary reunion, the first after Savio’s death in 1996, was held in October 2004. It featured columnist Molly Ivins giving the annual Mario Savio Memorial Lecture, followed later in the week by the customary rally in Sproul Plaza and panels on civil liberties issues.[24] A Sunday meeting was a more private event, primarily a gathering for the veterans of the movement, in remembrance of Savio and of a close FSM ally, professor Reginald Zelnik, who had died in an accident in May.[25]

Today, Sproul Hall and the surrounding Sproul Plaza are active locations for protests and marches, as well as the ordinary daily tables with free literature from anyone of any political orientation who wishes to appear. A wide variety of groups of all political, religious and social persuasions set up tables at Sproul Plaza. The Sproul steps, now officially known as the “Mario Savio Steps”, may be reserved by anyone for a speech or rally.[10] An on-campus restaurant commemorating the event, the Mario Savio Free Speech Movement Cafe, resides in a portion of the Moffitt Undergraduate Library.

The Free Speech Monument, commemorating the movement, was created in 1991 by artist Mark Brest van Kempen. It is located, appropriately, in Sproul Plaza. The monument consists of a six-inch hole in the ground filled with soil and a granite ring surrounding it. The granite ring bears the inscription, “This soil and the air space extending above it shall not be a part of any nation and shall not be subject to any entity’s jurisdiction.” The monument makes no explicit reference to the movement, but it evokes notions of free speech and its implications through its rhetoric.[26]

See more here:

Free Speech Movement – Wikipedia

Free Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF defends your ability to use the Internet as a platform for free expression through law, technology, and activism. The Internet has radically enhanced our access to information in countless ways, and empowered anyone to share ideas and connect with the entire world. Yet while speech is invited and empowered on the electronic frontier, it is also sometimes threatened.

Freed of the limitations inherent in traditional print or broadcast media createdand constrainedby corporate gatekeepers, speech thrives online. Social networking websites allow groups of a dozen friends to grow into massive communities that transcend national borders. Meanwhile, community journalists have used microblogging and video live-streaming to expose the world to stories that long went unheard. Websites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive have pioneered an open-source model of sharing and preserving information.

On the other hand, speech is also threatened online. Coders and developers risk criminal penalties for practicing the kind of digital tinkering, repair, and exploration that enable innovation. Similarly, dissidents and activists, especially those whose opinions may be unpopular where they live, confront chilling effects imposed by government surveillance programs that constrain their freedom of expression. Journalists and researchers can also be stymied by government agencies that limit public access to certain information.

The technological capacity enabling even great wonders can mean little when users are denied legal protections for their creativity. Without sufficient legal protections for users and innovators, it’s all too easy for governments and companies to undermine your rights. Learn more below and consider supporting our efforts.

Read this article:

Free Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Free speech zone – Wikipedia

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones, free speech cages, and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner but not content of expression.[citation needed]

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are “Orwellian”,[2][3] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[4] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.[5]

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.[citation needed]

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a “designated protest zone”[6] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young “put us in a free-speech cage.”[7] “Protest zones” were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.[8]

Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two “free speech booths” were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[9]

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. “The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged”.[10] In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that “It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits … But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights.”[11]

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a “protest pen” or “Boston’s Camp X-Ray”.[1] “Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs.”[12] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: “One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.”.[13] However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14]

Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, “The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places building vestibules, parking garages, or vans and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read ‘POLICE LINE DO not CROSS,’ establishing areas they ironically called ‘ad-hoc free speech zones.’ One by one, protesters were arrested and detained some for nearly two days.”[15] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, “For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election”.[13]

Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[16][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[17][18] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to “willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in … any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” has also been invoked.[19][20]

Civil liberties advocates argue that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[21] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[21] The Department of Homeland Security “has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves.”[17][22]

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[18] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[18]

The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. “The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.”[23]

In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.

The Secret Service denies targeting the President’s political opponents. “Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations”, said one Secret Service spokesman.[24]

“These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, ‘The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.’ The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a ‘designated free-speech zone’ on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine ‘people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'”[18][25] District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?”[16]

At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away. He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. “Bursey said that he asked the policeman if ‘it was the content of my sign,’ and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.'”[18] However, the prosecution, led by James Strom Thurmond Jr., disputes Bursey’s version of events.[26] Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.[18] Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine.[18] After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.[27] In his ruling, Marchant found that “this is not to say that the Secret Service’s power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area which was an issue in this case as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area.”[27]

Marchant’s ruling however, was criticized for three reasons:

In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ACORN v. Secret Service, representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). “The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March [2004] after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones.”[29] Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ACORN v. Philadelphia, charged that the Philadelphia Police Department, on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters “further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters. A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Stefan Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders.”[21][30] However, the court found the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case and dismissed it.[31]

The Secret Service says it does establish ‘public viewing areas’ to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech. ‘Absolutely not,’ said Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the agency created to protect the president. ‘The Secret Service makes no distinction on the purpose, message or intent of any individual or group.’ Civil libertarians dispute that. They cite a Corpus Christi, Texas, couple, Jeff and Nicole Rank, as an example. The two were arrested at a Bush campaign event in Charleston, West Virginia, on July 4, 2004, when they refused to take off anti-Bush shirts. Their shirts read, ‘Love America, Hate Bush’ … The ACLU found 17 cases since March 2001 in which protesters were removed during events where the president or vice president appeared. And lawyers say it’s an increasing trend.[32]

The article is slightly mistaken about the contents of the shirts. While Nicole Rank’s shirt did say “Love America, Hate Bush”, Jeff Rank’s shirt said “Regime change starts at home.”[33]

The incident occurred several months after the Secret Service’s pledge in ACORN v. Secret Service not to discriminate against protesters. “The charges against the Ranks were ultimately dismissed in court and the mayor and city council publicly apologized for the arrest. City officials also said that local law enforcement was acting at the request of Secret Service.”[34] ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen pointed out that “The Secret Service has promised to not curtail the right to dissent at presidential appearances, and yet we are still hearing stories of people being blocked from engaging in lawful protest”, said Hansen. “It is time for the Secret Service to stop making empty promises.”[34] The Ranks subsequently filed a lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, against Deputy Assistant to the President Gregory Jenkins and the Secret Service. “The lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, is seeking unspecified damages as well as a declaration that the actions leading to the removal of the Ranks from the Capitol grounds were unconstitutional.”[34] In August 2007, the Ranks settled their lawsuit against the Federal Government. The government paid them $80,000, but made no admission of wrongdoing.[35] The Ranks’ case against Gregory Jenkins is still pending in the District of Columbia.[36]

As a result of ACLU subpoenas during the discovery in the Rank lawsuit, the ACLU obtained the White House’s previously-classified presidential advance manual.[37] The manual gives people organizing presidential visits specific advice for preventing or obstructing protests. “There are several ways the advance person” the person organizing the presidential visit “can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route. The formation of ‘rally squads’ is a common way to prepare for demonstrators … The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform … As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”[37]

The use of free speech zones on university campuses is controversial. Many universities created on-campus free speech zones during the 1960s and 1970s, during which protests on-campus (especially against the Vietnam War) were common. Generally, the requirements are that the university is given advance notice and that they are held in locations that do not disrupt classes.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that non-disruptive speech is permitted in public schools. However, this does not apply to private universities. In September 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down the free speech zone policy at Texas Tech University.

According to the opinion of the court, campus areas such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other areas are designated as public forums, regardless of whether the university has chosen to officially designate the areas as such. The university may open more of the campus as public forums for its students, but it cannot designate fewer areas … Not all places within the boundaries of the campus are public forums, according to Cummings’ opinion. The court declared the university’s policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums.[38]

In 2007, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a survey of 346 colleges and Universities in the United States.[39] Of those institutions, 259 (75%) maintain policies that “both clearly andsubstantially restrict freedom of speech.”

In December 2005, the College Libertarians at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro staged a protest outside the University’s designated protest zones. The specific intent of the protest was to provoke just such a charge, in order to “provoke the system into action into a critical review of what’s going on.”[40] Two students, Allison Jaynes and Robert Sinnott, were brought up on charges under the student code of conduct of “violation of respect”,[41] for refusing to move when told to do so by a university official.[40] The university subsequently dropped honor code charges against the students.[40] “University officials said the history of the free-speech zones is not known. ‘It predated just about everybody here”, said Lucien ‘Skip’ Capone III, the university attorney. The policy may be a holdover from the Vietnam War and civil rights era, he said.'”[40]

A number of colleges and universities have revised or revoked free speech zone policies in the last decade, including: Tufts University,[42] Appalachian State University,[42] and West Virginia University.[42][43] In August, 2006, Penn State University revised its seven-year-old rules restricting the rights of students to protest. “In effect, the whole campus is now a ‘free-speech zone.'”[44]

Controversies have also occurred at the University of Southern California,[45] Indiana University,[46] the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,[47] and Brigham Young University.[48][49]

At Marquette University, philosophy department chairman James South ordered graduate student Stuart Ditsler to remove an unattributed Dave Barry quote from the door to the office that Ditsler shared with three other teaching assistants, calling the quote patently offensive. (The quote was: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”) South claimed that the University’s free-speech zone rules required Ditsler to take it down. University spokeswoman Brigid O’Brien Miller stated that it was “a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom.”[50][51] Ultimately, the quote was allowed to remain, albeit with attribution.[52]

For example, the Louisiana State University Free Speech Alley (or Free Speech Plaza) was utilized in November 2015 when Louisiana gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards was publicly endorsed by former opponent and republican Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne.[53] The Consuming Fire Fellowship, a church located in rural Woodville, Mississippi, often sends members to convene at the universities free speech alley to preach their views of Christianity. The members have often been met with strong resistance and resentment by the student body.[54][55] Ivan Imes, a retired engineer who holds “Jesus Talks” for students at the university, said in an interview, “Give the church a break. The don’t understand love. They don’t understand forgiveness.”[56]

As of March2017[update], four states had passed legislation outlawing public colleges and universities from establishing free speech zones. The first state to do so was Virginia in 2014,[57] followed by Missouri in 2015,[58] Arizona in 2016,[59] and Kentucky in 2017.[60]

Designated protest areas were established during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Summit in Ottawa, Canada. Although use of the areas was voluntary and not surrounded by fences, some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them “protest pens.”[61]

During the 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, over 10,000 protesters were present. Wan Chai Sports Ground and Wan Chai Cargo Handling Basin were designated as protest zones. Police wielded sticks, used gas grenades and shot rubber bullets at some of the protesters. They arrested 910 people, 14 were charged, but none were convicted.

Three protest parks were designated in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympics, at the suggestion of the IOC. All 77 applications to protest there had been withdrawn or denied, and no protests took place. Four persons who applied to protest were arrested or sentenced to reeducation.[62][63]

In the Philippines, designated free speech zones are called freedom parks.

More here:

Free speech zone – Wikipedia

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

How does the First Amendment right to free speech apply to speakers who have been invited by student groups to speak on campus?

As a public institution of higher education, NC State is committed to fostering free speech and the open debate of ideas. NC State is prohibited from banning or punishing an invited speaker based on the content or viewpoint of his or her speech. University policy permits student groups to invite speakers to campus, and the university provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose. NC State cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Only under extraordinary circumstances, as described on this page, can an event featuring an invited speaker be canceled.

Once a student group has invited a speaker to campus, NC State will act reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

Although NC State cannot restrict or cancel the speech based on the content or viewpoint of the speech, the university is allowed to place certain content- and viewpoint-neutral limits on how the speech can take place. These limits can be based on the time, place and manner of the speech.

What are time, place and manner restrictions?

Courts have long recognized that public educational institutions have the right to impose certain restrictions on the use of their campuses for free-speech purposes. Content- and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the times and modes of communication, often referred to as time-place-manner restrictions, are common features universities implement to ensure that they can continue to fulfill their mission while allowing free expression to occur. Simply put, this means that the when, where and how of free-speech activity may be reasonably regulated if such regulation (1) is scrupulously neutral (in other words, it must apply to all speech, no matter how favored or disfavored) and (2) leaves ample opportunity for speech in alternative areas or forums. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak at any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The university can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and to achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety.

Examples of acceptable time-place-manner restrictions include permit requirements for outside speakers, notice periods, sponsorship requirements for outside speakers, limiting the duration and frequency of the speech and restricting speech during final-exam periods.

The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason the university requires students to work with the administration when setting up certain events, as opposed to students scheduling and creating the events on their own without university input.

Can NC State cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speakers views?

No, NC State is prohibited from canceling an event based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

If it is known that an event with a speaker may lead to physical violence, is that legal grounds for the university to cancel the event?

In general, NC State cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs due to the potential reaction to the speech is often referred to by courts as the hecklers veto and is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

The university is required to do what it can to protect speakers and prevent disruption or violence. Although the university is committed to fulfilling these obligations, if despite all efforts by the university there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, an event can be canceled. NC States primary concern is to protect the safety of its students, faculty and staff. NC States Police Department makes security assessments with input from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

How does NC State respond to hate speech?

NC State is dedicated to fostering free speech in an environment where members of our community can learn from one another and where all are treated with dignity and respect. The university vigorously opposes and denounces all forms of hateful speech. The university encourages faculty, staff and students to use their free-speech rights, consistent with federal and state laws, to condemn hateful speech and to help create opportunities for the campus community to understand and learn from these actions. Students who encounter hurtful or offensive speech are encouraged to reach out to university administrators, including the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED), or to make a report to the universitys Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT). More information about responding to acts of intolerance may be found at the OIED and BIRT websites.

How does NC State ensure the safety of the campus community in light of freedom of speech?

NC State balances its commitment to free speech with a commitment to safety. Individuals who threaten or commit acts of violence or other violations of law may be subject to arrest and prosecution by law enforcement, as well as disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university.

Read more:

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

The Value of Free Speech | National Affairs

Harvey C. Mansfield Fall 2018

Our usual debate over the extent of free speech takes for granted the value of free speech. We argue over the boundaries or limits of what can be said but pass over the importance of what is said within those bounds. This leaves us with a peculiar sense of why speech matters: We imply that it’s valuable because its restraint would undermine our freedom, which is a way of avoiding the question more than of answering it.

This disinterest in the value of free speech, sometimes amounting to a refusal to define it, appears to be rooted in the principles of our liberalism, which enshrines free speech as one right, perhaps the principal right, among the rights that deserve protection in a liberal society. To guard such a right, it seems, one must not specify the value of how it will normally be used lest by such definition society destroy what it wants to protect. For by discussing the value of free speech one would expose less-valued or valueless speech to disdain, or worse, prohibition.

A society that understands itself in terms of rights must above all protect its boundaries in the definition of rights rather than concern itself too much, or at all, with what is within the protected territory. Thus, the protection of unlimited, or nearly unlimited, speech eclipses our view of worthy speech. To recover some idea of worthy speech, and therefore also of why free speech matters, we will need to challenge our liberalism for its own good, and to expose its more-than-simply-liberal aims and character. And to see these is ultimately also to grasp what speech is for, and why it is important.

FROM NORMAL SPEECH TO FREE EXPRESSION

Everybody admits the exception to unlimited speech in the dangerous but exemplary circumstance of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, but no one wants to pursue the distinction implied in that exception. Yet to condemn or punish the act of falsely shouting “fire!” in that situation is indeed to distinguish between helpful and harmful speech. At times we will find value in apparently harmful speech, as in the “redeeming social value” awarded by the United States Supreme Court to speech that might appear obscene and thus dangerous to our morals. From this example one could infer that there is no such thing as a “content-free” attitude toward free speech. Our need to define permissible speech tempts or compels us to find value in any speech that is permitted. We pass from permitting speech because it is valuable to valuing speech because we permit it. However much our liberalism demands that we withhold judgment upon what is said, by the same token it impels us to find value in what we permit. Hence, one may ask, not from without but from within liberalism, what is this valuethe value of normal, non-obscene speech?

The right of free speech makes presuppositions. To prize it is to hold that free speech has some value, which in turn requires that speech have value. Speech consists in giving reasons. It is not just the communication that other animals can engage in, often very effectively, without supplying reasons; only humans give reasons. Speaking is an appeal to fellow human beings who share the power of reason; so, speech presupposes that man is a rational animal. The power of reason is to appeal to others persuasively at some level of generality to gain the assent of someone besides yourself. It is more than a cry of pain or a grunt of pleasure, and it must issue in a complaint or a statement of gratitude that lifts the communication above your private feeling. It is the “rational” that rises above the “animal.” Speech is a claim upon the attention of another, a prayer or a demand to be heard; it is an argument, if nothing else, against indifference.

So far, one might nod in agreement. But this seems too simple. Is it so clear that speech lifts one above personal motives? Perhaps speech is not reason but rationalization, the reasons giving effect to one’s motives by concealing them rather than transcending them. And what of the joke: “Shut up,” he explained. Do not many arguments end in the attempt to silence the other side’s reasons? Isn’t this maneuver characteristic of political speech above all?

One might allege, therefore, that the point of arguing is to win, not merely to appeal to reason, and that the power of reason is to serve as a cloak for the desire to win. But to say this admits that reason has a certain power and the desire to win a certain limit. Reason makes domination respectable while it requires the winner to make himself acceptable. Language too is not merely arbitrary; it has a structure, a grammar enabling it to make sense. Even a lie must make sense. The “shut up” joke makes sense by pointing to the fact that it is sometimes courageous and not always wise to speak.

Reason makes its way often with only apparent rationality, but the appearance of reason indicates the presence of reason. Even silencing requires an argument, as in George Orwell’s rationalization from Napoleon the pig that “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” The power of reason, one may conclude, is shown in its very abuse. But this is an objection to which one must return. Somehow the power of reason must be shown to be compatible with, rather than merely subordinated to, the power of rulers. Somehow one must understand reason as not merely poetry and rhetoric, or, in today’s ugly word, “ideology”in sum, not merely partisan.

Preoccupation with the limits rather than the content of free speech can be seen in John Stuart Mill’s iconic pamphlet On Liberty. Mill wishes to expand the limits of free speech as against the “tyranny of the majority” that menaces his country in his time, and to do this he magnifies the benefits of free speech and minimizes the harms. The benefits culminate in more “originality” and “genius”; the harms are no worse than the need for intellectuals like himself sometimes to “keep…their convictions within their own breasts.” But discussion of the consequences of free speech detracts from Mill’s principle that all concern for them constitutes “interference” with individual freedom. Within the permissible limits of free speech, all speech is substantially equal, for “permissible” means deserving of an audience.

Mill divides speech into true and false, not good and bad, for true speech brings progress “[a]s mankind improve[s],” and false speech merely tests and corrects true speech. All speech is good, though it is not said to address other rational animals and does not have to be argumentative. The benefits of speech do exist, though Mill seems naively to exaggerate the power of reason in discussion. Yet in his view the right to free speech holds sway over its benefits, and the benefits do not arise from the nature of speech as giving reasons. Mill’s society heads toward progress but has no sense of direction other than a vague goal of replacing “despotism” and “barbarism” with “civilization.” Instead, Mill’s undescribed civilization has itself been replaced in our time by value relativism that makes it a point of pride to renounce its ability to distinguish “civilization” from the “culture” of any society whatever.

The Supreme Court has charged ahead of Mill to extend speech to “expression.” This is a step beyond the First Amendment, which speaks of free speech, to the assertion that it meant to say free expression or perhaps to express that word without saying it. The change has developed in a number of cases over the years, but it seems to have been introduced in the famous flag-salute case in 1943, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, when the Court decided that it was permissible for Jehovah’s Witnesses not to salute the flag in schoolrooms. Their refusal to salute was taken as a symbolic exercise of free speech because the command to salute was declared to be an impermissible compulsion to speak. So refusing to speak was concluded to be speech and protected as such.

In oft-quoted words, Justice Robert Jackson said that “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics…” and force citizens to do so “by word or act.” Here “act” is added to “word,” apparently as not the same, but the act is then taken as a kind of word. “Symbolic speech” and “expressive conduct” emerge in later cases dealing with flag burning, draft-card burning, wearing of armbands, and nude dancing. In 1941 Franklin Roosevelt had listed “freedom of speech and expression” among the Four Freedoms America would defend, and since the Court developed its meaning, “expression” has come to be accepted as an equivalent of speech or indeed as the generic term of which “speech” is one variety. Law-school courses in constitutional law now routinely use the title of “freedom of expression” for the subject of free speech.

Two questionable consequences can be seen to emerge from Justice Jackson’s Barnette opinion. First, he denied that there is any constitutional fixed star of political orthodoxy in the very act of declaring the political orthodoxy of free speech. The “very purpose of a Bill of Rights,” he said, “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy.” Are not those subjects declared to be beyond controversy thereby made orthodox? The implication is that free speech must be regarded as sacred and hence has no value that can or needs to be disputed. This is a proposition I am disputing here.

Second, Justice Jackson said that free speech cannot be compelled because the Bill of Rights “guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind.” But to speak one’s own mind is to address other minds, not merely to squeak or bark or chirp. The flag salute and the other, later examples of “expressive conduct” that the Court found to be akin to free speech are symbols or gestures to which one can impute a meaning, but they are not rational arguments. When speech is taken as expression, and “expression” becomes the general category of which speech is one type, then the rational in speech is subordinated to the irrationality of symbolic expression. Yet a symbol is only a symbol by virtue of its imputed rational meaning in words. The irrational is rightly subordinate to the rational from which alone it gains its sense. Both of these consequences imply that free speech is fundamentally irrational: the first implying that free speech cannot be rationally disputed as good or bad by partisans in politics; and the second that a symbol is not inferior to an argument but rather an argument is a kind of symbol.

A refusal to consider the content of speech so as to recognize its value leads to a minimal definition of free speech, one which allows for including as much as one would not wish to prohibit. One would not wish to do away with theater and poetry just because they add symbol, style, and gesture to reasonable speech. But though the beauties of speech add to its power, they distract from its thought, or at least conceal it. And since a thought is almost always disputable, so a less-strict definition of speech is more exact; one can be more sure of the boundary between speech and act. So the Supreme Court has found that although flag burning is acceptable as legal speech, draft-card burning can be prohibited as an illegal act. That is how it happens that our speech over free speech tends to concentrate on the extremes of riot, rebellion, eccentricity, and obscenity where reason seems to be at its weakest.

We liberals are occupied with challenges to normal speech rather than with the normal speech we reject. We so far forget that “expression” is a dilution of speech that it comes to be held the essence of it. Shouting and screaming take precedence over persuasion or threaten to become the normal means of persuasion. The more intense the expression, the freer it ought to be; the test of free speech is to show how far it can tolerate departures from normal speech. In the latest instance, a baker’s message on the icing of a cake is taken as protected speech (in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission). If I mush someone’s face in it, do I send a message or commit an assault? That is the kind of discussion we are now left to have over free speech.

ENEMIES OF SPEECH

In presuming the capability of human reason, free speech has two present-day enemies seeking to pervert it or make it irrelevant. One we have already seen: the notion that speech is dictated by the urge to express oneself. The other is that speech is directed by self-interest. All speech comes from the self, but as speech, it rises above the self when one has to give a reason. The reason may be urged with an implicit demand for attention to one’s selflisten to me!but the reason is a call to justice, not merely in the service of one’s own advantage.

Socrates in Plato’s Apology of Socratesdefends himself to be sure, but also “someone like himself,” or a person in his position. The notion of self-expression, however, denies the power of reason and the existence of justice to say that all reason is rationalization, all generalization a fraud, a mask for the irrational id or urge, which is truly in charge. This view is the theme (the argument!) of Friedrich Nietzsche, very powerful today though often not advanced under his name. It suggests that the purpose of argument is to win and the result is not to learn, as when one’s argument is refuted, but to triumph in a contest when no telling refutation can be readily produced. The ancient Sophists, without the help of Nietzsche, practiced their belief that rhetoric is clever maneuvering to get the best of your opponent. They were opposed by Socrates as enemies who did not understand the value of free speech and therefore felt free to abuse it.

Self-interest, the other enemy of free speech, also has an argument. Its proponents say that one’s speech follows from one’s interest, reflects it, and cannot change it. You can change your mind but not your interest; your mind is the prisoner and slave of your interest. While self-expression is heated and demanding, self-interest is cool and calculating. It has two forms: one very old and plain, the other modern (dating from the 18thcentury) and philosophically sophisticated.

Personal denunciation, or “character assassination,” is the first form. One’s opponent is said to have a bad character, a perverse sense of his self-interest that determines what he says. Hence his words are spoken in bad faith and his argument, whatever it is, can safely be ignored while focusing attention on his personal failings. The reason that this bad character deploys is the captive of his character and does not have the power to rise above it. Such a person can be defeated by reasoning that is ad hoc and ad hominem. Do not listen to him! It’s better to insinuate and insult than argue with him, which would give his argument more dignity than it deserves.

This tactic, found in both mild and strong forms, is endemic to politics; it is sometimes true and always tempting, particularly in a democracy where the multitude enjoys the spectacle of bringing down the elitethe high, the mighty, and the presumptuous. The office of the demagogue has been denounced from Plato to the Federalist Papers, by friends and by opponents of popular government. Today the term is used frequently and demagogically by politicians, and never by political scientists, who refuse it the certificate of scientific credibility.

The political scientists (and their confrres in social science) have a second method of refusing to listen to speech. Their science says that speech cannot cause action; it can only be caused by action. It assumes that humans speak and act according to their interests, open or concealed. Humans speak in opinions, but they act according to their interests, which they give as opinions as if freely chosen but actually hold in consequence of their interests. These subjective opinions can be studied by social science in such magical fashion that they become objective “data”i.e., facts obtained and certified by science. Social-science surveys are baptized as “survey data” and then explained by the interest of the group that holds them.

The explanation is a study of cause and effect with a view to making predictions, which are either in the past (as “analysis”) or in the future (truly as predictions). This procedure assumes that human beings cannot choose for themselves or guide themselves, meaning not as they describe themselves. They may say “I did it,” but in scientific fact they were caused to do what they boastfully claim to have done. Thus, humans are essentially slaves to the causes that science imputes to them. “You vote by your interest” would often be taken by a voter as an insult (and rightly so), but science is not troubled by such subjective reactions. It says that speech cannot be a cause of human behaviorwhich means that free speech has no value. Free speech in whole and every part is nothing but a boast.

FREE SPEECH WELL SAID

At this point, it is worth recalling where we started: Present-day discussion of free speech is understandably but deplorably dominated by the question of what speech should be permitted, what forbidden. By this standard everything not forbidden is permitted andhere is the rubconsidered equal because equally permitted. But all free speech does not have equal value; speech that attacks free speech has less value than speech that explains it, endorses it, and practices it. Free speech needs to define itself in order to address its enemies.

Speech that explains and uses free speech has greater value and should have precedence over speech that denies the value of speech. This does not mean that free speech should be denied to its enemies (which are self-expression and self-interest). That would be censorship, and censorship has the simple but fatal flaw of being impractical in a free society. Alexis de Tocqueville supplies a beautiful demonstration of the point. But more than impracticability, the citizens of a free society have an interest (rooted in their faith in the reason of free speech) in listening to the enemies of free speech. Those enemies may not be entirely wrong, and they certainly provide food for thought. They point to the assumptions on which free speech rests and the weaknesses that exist in supposing so confidently that free speech is really speech and really free. These weaknesses must be addressed by free citizens. The direction of my argument can be discerned by this switch of addressee from humans to citizens.

Now to take a further step: What is free speech supposed to say? The question will seem strange, even inappropriate, to one who views free speech as a right. A right to free speech presupposes that what one says, or how one exercises the right, is left undefined. The government protects the right; the citizens in society say what they please. Yet clearly some free speech is more appropriate than the rest. Some free speech contributes to free speech by helping to define freedom and free speech in general and for that society. In so doing such speech defends and promotes the right of free speech. This would be the main task of free speech: to use reason to show why free speech is valuable and to make it active and lively. The task would include the investigation of the presuppositions of free speech in political philosophy, to see whether reason can guide our lives and how.

In saying this I do not mean to abridge or deny the right of free speech but only to specify what is valuable as opposed to what is tolerated. Tolerated but not valuable is the free speech understood as self-expression or self-interest, as stated above. You should have the right to speak (almost) as you please, and that right should be protected by law. But it is important to understand and to sustain the value of the free speech that contributes to free speech rather than that which abuses the right by denying or belittling the value of free speech. Not everything said is said well, and the right of free speech needs to be exercised well.

What is it in free speech that is said well? Let the definition be positive so that we do not proceed by excluding or proscribing any speech but rather by asking what good free speech supports. We have seen that free speech presupposes the freedom of human beings. Freedom means being in charge of yourself as opposed to being a slave. More specifically, freedom is the power of the self to cause its own action and reflection as opposed to the slavery of being under the power of necessity, when one is only being caused. Self-caused is both individual and social, and it amounts to the power to choose. The individual can choose by himself or with others. In choosing, one governs oneself as a whole individual or as one among a political whole that includes other free individuals. This choosing together is self-government or political liberty.

Political liberty might not seem to be the greatest good, greater than other uses of free speech, such as freedom of thought and freedom of artistic expression, that protect individual excellence. Yet human beings are not fully self-sufficient as individuals, however much they sometimes wish to be. Men are social because they must live together, depending on one another to supply their needs, above all those bodily needs that ambitious thinkers like philosophers and poets cannot be troubled to satisfy on their own. And more than merely social, men are political because they do not have the necessary instincts to cooperate but are compelled to invent the conventions by which they live and to use the rationality they have in their nature instead of their instincts.

These conventions are based on principles by which they rule in societies. Conventions are disputable, and humans argue in politics over what they should be and who should make them. Such argument is the content of free speech, and it makes use of the rationality that is the most distinctive feature of a human. At the same time that it is distinctive, this sort of argument addresses the needs of the body, needs that humans share with other animals. Politics thus features the rule of reason over unreason, the rule of what is distinctive about humans over the necessities of animals, including the mortality common to all living things. Man in the whole is the topic of politics as much as it is the arena of philosophy and poetry. Philosophers and poets might wish to learn from politics in order to better instruct politics, as they frequently like to do.

Liberalism, as shown above, wants to distinguish politics from what it calls “civil society” in order to prevent the full operation of political liberty. It distinguishes public from private to the advantage of the latter, reducing politics to providing the means of securing the private sphere, to the pursuit of (private) happiness. It has, therefore, a strong resistance to the idea of “rule,” an animus displayed in attempts made to subvert or overthrow the sovereignty of political liberty.

One such attempt is at the heart of the discipline of “economics,” a science distinct from politics that seeks to establish economic laws that are independent of political rule. Another is the “right of consent” to government, made central to all other rights, which depend on government, in such manner as to provide a lesser substitute for the comprehensiveness of “rule.” The people do not rule but consent to the rule of those whom they elect, who also do not rule because they are creatures of the sovereign people. Consent is passive, as consent to be ruled; government is active but restrained from ruling. Political liberty in these constructions of liberalism is reduced to one liberty among others, such as economic liberty, or to the central but subordinate liberty of the liberty to consent.

Fortunately, there are wiser liberals, above all the two greatest authorities on American politics: the authors of the Federalist Papers and Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, who by observation and interpretation show that liberal consent in America amounts to political liberty in its fuller meaning. They show that the “Blessings of Liberty” promised in the preamble of the Constitution center on the free self-government over free men that is the same as “the rule of the free.” Political liberty becomes responsible for economic liberty, ruling it with encouragement and restriction as partisan elections decide, and democratic consent becomes active in private life as well as sovereign in public decisions.

Free thought can of course exist without political liberty, as we know from the great philosophical works written in times of tyranny and of threatening religious censorship. The same is true for great works of poetry, art, and music, which seem to have become scarcer as a grave but almost unnoticed consequence of more democracy. Liberty for the few can be available if exercised with care so that it does not reach the attention of the public authority. One might conclude that this liberty is the most that can be achieved, indeed that all human achievement is reserved for the few who accomplish their thoughts and deeds by themselves beyond the notice of the many and the powerful. Yet a free society in which the many are the powerful has achieved greatness and nobility in its deeds, and in a crucial situation under the watchful attention of the world.

This is America in the 20th century, which with its allies saved civilization from the barbarism of Nazism and communism. This great deed (or series of deeds) was done not out of self-expression or self-interest by mere commitment or calculation but out of nobility, a democratic nobility shared by all though led by a few.

NOBILITY AND FREE SPEECH

Nobility means rising above necessity, or above the seeming necessity of living as you wish and calculating for present advantage, by finding it necessary to face a daunting task, thus using necessity against itself. One must refuse to accept the slavery of seeming necessity and instead insist on the human capacity for choice. Free men preserve their freedom only through acts of nobility that elevate them above ordinary necessities that seem to provide excuses for indifference and inaction. These acts are not constantly necessary as if human life were one long war, but they are occasionally necessary, and they reveal the extent of human freedom over circumstances.

On this point one can again criticize the official liberalism of our time, which, guided by the great thinkers at its inception, sought to make freedom easy by connecting it to motives of necessity. John Locke, for example, began from the “perfect freedom” of men in the state of nature, and then tried to maintain this freedom by resorting to the right of self-preservation rather than to moral virtue to protect one’s freedom. America, however, fought to preserve itself as America, a free country, not to keep its population alive as separate individuals (which might have justified indifference or even surrender). This it did as a choice, neither blindly nor automatically.

Freedom is life by choice, in some serious degree conscious and voluntary and for both the individual and society. Choice requires rising above an urge or a whim or a passion. And rising above slavery to one’s human body requires moral virtue. The human body rules us by pain and pleasure, and one can become a slave to fear if one is without courage, and to pleasure if without moderation. A human cannot deny the fact of pain and pleasure, but one can learn through good upbringing to control the extremes of bodily passions in a reasonable mean.

Courage is a mean between rashness and timidity, moderation a mean between greed and insensitivity, as we recall from Aristotle’s report of what we naturally know. Free speechto return to the topichas a stake in moral virtue as the cause of free persons. Morality demands a free person because an action is not moral unless it is chosen, and morality makes free action possible by lifting an individual or a society above slavish necessities. It’s a virtuous circle of cause and effect. It implies a natural capacity for virtue that has to be actuated by virtuea capacity for freedom that requires the exercise of freedom.

To repeat, I am not proposing to forbid immoral speech, assuming it has been identified as speech succumbing to human necessities. We humans need an occasional holiday from the seriousness of moral virtue, pleasant as it is to moral people. Aristotle puts the fun of wit on his list of virtues. Free speech can serve as a safety valve for letting off steam, a purging function often claimed for it that is featured by Niccol Machiavelli. We also need other, subordinate liberties to political libertyeconomic liberty to make us prosperous, artistic liberty to make our lives beautifulbut these are not as serious as political liberty.

With political liberty we speak to one another about our liberty; we argue over a course of action, a policy, and our ruling principles. Political liberty is the use of free speech to determine who and what principle should rule us.

FREE SPEECH AND FREE RULE

Societies stay together through rulers who rule by ruling principles, which are principles about the whole, about the common good. The debate over abortion today is about the kind of society we want. One could suppose that those who want abortion to be legal should have abortions, and those opposed should refrain from them, with the result that both sides are happy. But in fact, both sides would be unhappy. Those who favor legal abortion want a society in which a woman freely controls her own body, and those opposed want a society in which a woman does not have a right to kill a developing human being for the sake of her convenience. Politics is not about “preferences,” as is often said by those using the analogy of consumer preferences. One can prefer vanilla to chocolate without wanting to abolish chocolate, but this is not the case in politics. Political liberty is distinctive because it consists in free speech over the choice of which principle, under which rulers, should rule the whole.

But what is the typical choice of free speech as to rule? One can approach this question through a consideration of the freest human being, the philosopher. The philosopher is freest because he questions and studies things that most people take for grantedon the ground that taking fundamental principles for granted is a form of slavery. Freedom in the strongest or the strictest sense is to break free of the principles that normal people do not question. To break free does not necessarily mean to abandon them and live as a hermit or madman or rogue. One can question the presuppositions behind free speech and find them reasonable (as in this attempt). But then one’s embrace of or accommodation to the principle of freedom has been responsibly addressed and found more or less reasonable. This is the highest or best freedom, one might reluctantly agree, but is it the only freedom? There seems also to be freedom in a loose sense, attainable by many if not all of those who do not want or are not able to be a philosopher. This would be political liberty.

Then within political liberty is there a typical argument, one found in most every free society? Indeed there is, and it is an argument analogous to the distinction between strict philosophical liberty and loose political liberty. According to Aristotle, there are two parties in every regime, visible in a free regime. The party of the many, democracy, and the party of the few, oligarchy, can be found everywhere, and they engage in argument with each other, sometimes muted and implied, sometimes open. The many are more than the few in quantity. They are the larger part of all, that is, of all individuals in the whole. How is this possible? One needs a little metaphysics to see; one must carry the logic of politics into the whole universe to clarify the democratic argument. “All” can be a whole if all are equal parts, and they can be equal if seen as bodies that are parts of a whole body. Human beings are equal with reference to their bodies and their bodily necessities. When, however, one looks to their souls or minds, they are unequal, sometimes greatly unequal. Bodies are equal when considered for their matter, in which they are the same as all matter, as if human beings were nothing but matter like the rest of the universe. By the logic of the democratic argument, humans would have nothing special, nothing outstanding or distinctive, from the rest of nature.

Can the many make a whole, given this stringent extension of the argument on their behalf? Aristotle’s answer is “No,” and to make it he distinguishes demotic from democratic. Demotic individuals are simply equal, but as such they cannot form a government, having no distinctive capacities. Without a government there is no rule, no common good. A government needs officials and its society needs artisans, workers, experts; all of these are unequal. It seems that certain inequalities are needed to make a whole even of equal parts. Aristotle’s distinction is like James Madison’s in Federalist No. 10 between democracy (meaning pure democracy) and republic (representative democracy). A republic needs institutions that will (likely) select “fit characters,” as Madison calls them, who are no longer simply among the many whom they are selected to serve. The “cracy” in democracy enables it to function at the cost of departure from strict equality.

Aristotle does not make this objection to demotic equality in his own name but puts it in the mouth of a spokesman for oligarchy. Oligarchy, government of the few, stands for “the better sort,” or the best, altogether for excellence, and in sum for quality. The need for quality is a need for the few who have the most of it, whatever it may be. Even democratic qualities found quite generally, like courage, are distinctive of some democrats, not all of them as such. The whole of quantity fails because it is quite homogeneous; to succeed it needs those who are outstanding and needs to give them the rank they deserve as outstanding. Democracy speaks for mankind as one individual human to another; oligarchy speaks for humanity as a whole vis–vis the rest of the world or the universe.

Mankind is the part of the whole of nature that has an awareness of the whole; it can reflect on the whole (through theory) and can act on it (in practice). Thus, the oligarchical argument asserts the claim of humanity to be outstanding, for its awareness perhaps the best part of the whole. To assert something is more than merely to say it when nothing is at stake; it is to speak with passion and to demand to be honored and listened to in a situation where one’s statements are contested. Assertiveness is the most outstanding, the freest quality of free speech. The Declaration of Independence begins from the “self-evident” truth Americans hold that all men are created equal. But this is not enough. At the end its signers go beyond what is self-evident; they mutually pledge “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor” to affirm it. In so doing they stand out from the equality they assert on behalf of those they excel by the very act of pledging their distinctive honor.

The two parties are those of quantity and of quality. But all nature has both quantity and quality. Humans are quantity insofar as each counts for one, but quality insofar as human beings have the special honor of claiming superiority over the rest of nature. Humans are a democracy among themselves as a species, and an aristocracy with respect to the rest of nature. Then both parties are correct or true: Quality counts for more because it is more important, and quantity counts for more because many are more than one or few. There are two meanings of “count” in regard to humans. “I count” means I am special; “we count” means “we count up.” Every quantity is a quantity of a certain quality, and when counting one adds up the quality or qualities that have been identified as “counting.” Yet conversely quality also depends on quantity; the quality when identified becomes something countable, as every “one” is potentially more than one, namely, few or many. In a rational claim every personal “I” becomes “someone” like me, with my qualities and deserts.

THE HIGHEST USES OF FREE SPEECH

Tocqueville applies Aristotle’s analysis to our democratic era, saying that every free society has two great parties, one that wishes to extend and another that wishes to restrict the power of the people. We may now apply the distinction to American parties today, the Democrats and the Republicans, who seem as liberals vs. conservatives to fit this general description. Indeed, ours is distinctly a politics of two parties, in a way that sheds light on Aristotle’s pointthough other free societies, with more parties, also tend to fall into broad coalitions of the left and the right in related and similar ways. These are not always perfectly the parties of quantity and quality, of course, but they are often roughly just that.

This may be particularly difficult to see given the current American president, elected by Republicans but not much of one himself, who has an adversarial relationship with virtue and particularly with its accompanying conventions. He does appeal to virtue by loudly emphasizing the application of vulgar versions of it that are attractive to his supporters, almost all of whom are more honest than he is. But even now, we can perceive that our two parties are locked in competition between a more quantitative ideal of inclusion and a more qualitative ideal of distinction.

Both parties are forgivably rather self-righteous about these ideals because, unlike the ordinary citizens who compose them, they are always arguing with each other and in doing so always compelled to make a point of themselves. They argue over the character of the whole, the whole of our country and also the whole of all things. Is it a homogeneous whole of equal or similar individuals, as the Democrats intend, or a heterogeneous whole of diverse parts of different rank and importance, as Republicans imply? The argument between these two wholes, we may now conclude, is free speech about the character of free human beings. Each is a partial truth, but each is tempted to make the partial truth a partisan whole. In doing so, each attempts to explain the other side and claim it for themselves: Democrats want virtue but in pursuit of equality; Republicans want popularity but from a virtuous people. Each reveals itself when trying to answer the other.

Democrats imply a whole that is inclusive of all, when each is understood as equal to everyone else; Republicans imply a whole with hierarchy and ranking of those who are better or best at the top. One can understand this political difference as a disagreement over our non-political thinking. When defining a thing it is necessary to speak of what it is when it is perfect or complete, in its best instance, and yet also to speak of the quality or qualities that cover all instances of that thing so as not to omit what must be included. Thus, a tree is defined by the complete tree and by all instances of objects that one would call a tree. The best instance is the standard that a tree should fit, and the class of tree holds together all its instances. Every definition needs to combine standard and class; it needs to have a standard to state a class. The difficulty is in defining a human being, where the best instance is far distant from the average or worst instancesso that a definition combining class and standard is very difficult to specify. The standard of the best human is too strict to include all humans, and the class of all humans is too loose to do justice to the best. Our two parties represent these two tendencies, and each tries to see the whole in terms of its partial or partisan view. They each call on us to exercise our freedom by choosing its way.

There is no freedom without choice, and no choice without choice-worthy choices, those that make sense and can be defended as reasonable. The politics of our free country is defined more by a dualism of our two parties than a pluralism of any number. There are many ways in which a people can be made more alike and more unlike, but Nietzsche is wrong to say that man has a thousand and one goals. Our politics is not indeterminate, chaotic, or arbitrary; it is connected to human nature, to the grand question raised by human nature, and to the choice we make in the exercise of our natural capacity for choice.

That capacity depends on the speech with which we form and state a choice. We can therefore conclude where we began: Our liberalismand here I include conservatives with those now called “liberals”should cease its feckless quest to overturn any rational basis for freedom and thereby deny any value to free speech beyond its being unfettered. What a surprise that in our very partisan differences, fickle and arbitrary as they often seem, we should turn out to be rational beings, worthy of a freedom to speak.

Harvey C. Mansfield is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Government at Harvard University.

More:

The Value of Free Speech | National Affairs

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Main content

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

The rest is here:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

Trump free speech executive order: President Trump signs …

Trump on campus free speech and student loan debt

President Trump announced in an executive order signing on free speech on college campuses that his administration would be looking “very seriously” at student loan debt and ways to curb it and make universities share the load.

In somewhat surprising remarks for the Republican president, Mr. Trump appeared to blame universities for the debt load, and said his administration will find ways to hold them accountable. Specifically for now, the president is directing the Education Department and Treasury Department to publish information on earnings and debt loads for every major at every institution.

“Student loan debt, I’m going to work to fix it. because it’s outrageous what’s happening. You’re not given that fair start. You’re too far down. It’s not right and we’re going to work very, very hard to get it fixed,” the president said.

The president’s executive order Thursday is meant to pressure schools to permit free speech and expression on college campuses. Mr. Trump has threatened to pull federal funding if they don’t. The First Amendment already prohibits the government from quashing free speech.

The move comes as some conservative groups and activists claim conservative voices are being silenced on college campuses. Recently, a conservative activist with Turning Points U.S.A. was apparently assaulted at the University of California, Berkeley campus. The president announced at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this month that he would be signing such an order, standing alongside the alleged victim, Hayden Williams. It’s unclear how Mr. Trump’s order would have protected Williams.

“If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak,” Mr. Trump said at CPAC. “Free speech. If they don’t, it will be costly. That will be signed soon.”

Mr. Trump, in talking about student debt, said he loves other people’s money.

“I’ve always been very good with loans. I love loans. I love other people’s money,” Mr. Trump said.

The president said his administration is working on student loan debt.

The Department of Education and Treasury Department, he said, will be required to publish information on future earnings and debt loads for every major at every school.

“Student loan debt, I’m going to work to fix it. because it’s outrageous what’s happening. You’re not given that fair start. You’re too far down. It’s not right and we’re going to work very, very hard to get it fixed. But we’re going to start with 43 million people in the United States are currently working to pay off student loans and we’ll be talking about that very soon. We’re going to work on that very soon.”

The president invited a handful of students on stage to share their stories.

One young woman said her school stopped her from handing out Valentine’s Day cards with religious messages on them. Another young woman said she was told to place trigger warnings around campus to share her message.

The president said taxpayer dollars shouldn’t subsidize universities that quash free speech.

“Taxpayer dollars should not subsidize anti-First Amendment institutions,” Mr. Trump told his audience.

Mr. Trump said this executive order is the first of a number of steps that will come.

The president launched into his remarks by saying it was an honor to have so many “impressive” young Americans at the White House.

The president praised the students in the room for standing up to political “indoctrination.”

“You refuse to be silenced by powerful institutions and closed-minded critics,” the president said.

Mr. Trump, taking up the mantra from conservative groups like Turning Points U.S.A. and the Young Americas Foundation, has threatened federal funding for college campuses in the past.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Mr. Trump tweeted in February 2017 after Berkeley disinvited far-right inflammatory speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. These days, Yiannopoulos has mostly been shunned from even conservative speaking engagements.

And in 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions called for a recommitment to free speech on college campuses.

Mr. Trump has been exercising his ability to say what he wishes — a little too liberally — according to his critics and even some Republican lawmakers who have condemned his repeated insults leveled against the late Sen. John McCain.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump launched into his longest attack on the late P.O.W. during a stop at a tank factory in Ohio, criticizing the senator for more than five minutes of an hour-long speech. The pro-military crowd was silent as he spoke.

“I endorsed him at his request,” Mr. Trump told the crowd Wednesday. “And I gave him the kind of funeral that he wanted. Which as president, I had to approve. I don’t care about this – I didn’t get thank you. That’s OK. We sent him on the way, but I wasn’t a fan of John McCain.

“So now what we could say is now, we’re all set, I don’t think I have to answer that question but the press keeps – ‘what do you think of McCain? What do you think?’ Not my kind of guy, but some people like him and I think that’s great,” Mr. Trump added.

Originally posted here:

Trump free speech executive order: President Trump signs …

Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday requiring U.S. colleges to protect free speech on their campuses or risk losing federal research funding.

The new order directs federal agencies to ensure that any college or university receiving research grants agrees to promote free speech and the exchange of ideas, and to follow federal rules guiding free expression.

“Even as universities have received billions and billions of dollars from taxpayers, many have become increasingly hostile to free speech and to the First Amendment,” Trump said at a White House signing ceremony. “These universities have tried to restrict free thought, impose total conformity and shut down the voices of great young Americans.”

The order follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives who say their voices have been stifled on campuses across the U.S. Joining Trump at the ceremony were students who said they were challenged by their schools while trying to express views against abortion or in support of their faith.

Trump initially proposed the idea during a March 2 speech to conservative activists, highlighting the case of Hayden Williams, an activist who was punched in the face while recruiting for the group Turning Point USA at the University of California, Berkeley. He invoked the case again Thursday, noting that Williams was hit hard “but he didn’t go down.”

Under the order, colleges would need to agree to protect free speech in order to tap into more than $35 billion a year in research and educational grants.

For public universities, that means vowing to uphold the First Amendment, which they’re already required to do. Private universities, which have more flexibility in limiting speech, will be required to commit to their own institutional rules.

“We will not stand idly by to allow public institutions to violate their students’ constitutional rights,” Trump said. “If a college or university doesn’t allow you to speak, we will not give them money. It’s very simple.”

Enforcement of the order will be left to federal agencies that award grants, but how schools will be monitored and what types of violations could trigger a loss of funding have yet to be seen. White House officials said details about the implementation will be finalized in coming months.

Many colleges have firmly opposed the need for an executive order. Following Trump’s speech, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California, said many schools are “ground zero” for the exchange of ideas.

“We do not need the federal government to mandate what already exists: our longstanding, unequivocal support for freedom of expression,” she said. “This executive order will only muddle policies surrounding free speech, while doing nothing to further the aim of the First Amendment.”

The American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,700 college presidents, called the order “a solution in search of a problem.”

“No matter how this order is implemented, it is neither needed nor desirable, and could lead to unwanted federal micromanagement of the cutting-edge research that is critical to our nation’s continued vitality and global leadership,” said Ted Mitchell, the organization’s president.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who has spoken against a government answer to campus speech issues, issued a statement that only briefly mentioned free speech, and instead largely focused on another part of the order dealing with transparency in college performance data.

Her statement said students “should be empowered to pursue truth through the free exchange of all ideas, especially ideas with which they may not agree. Free inquiry is an essential feature of our democracy, and I applaud the president’s continued support for America’s students.”

The order was supported by conservative groups including Turning Point USA, which has pushed for action on the issue. In Trump’s speech, he specifically thanked Charlie Kirk, the group’s founder, who has pushed for action on the issue. On Twitter, Kirk called the order “historic,” adding that while harassment by campus faculty is not uncommon, “it ends today!”

Several free speech groups raised concerns about the order, including the American Civil Liberties Union, which took issue with “the partisan nature of the administration’s rollout of this executive order.”

The top Republican on the Senate education committee, Sen. Lamar Alexander, said he supports the push for free speech but criticized Trump’s approach.

“I don’t want to see Congress or the president or the department of anything creating speech codes to define what you can say on campus,” said Alexander, R-Tenn. “The U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech. Federal courts define and enforce it. The Department of Justice can weigh in.”

Debate over campus free speech has flared in recent years following a string of high-profile cases in which protesters shut down or heckled conservative speakers, including at UC Berkeley and Middlebury College in Vermont. Republicans called hearings on the issue when they controlled both chambers, but proposed legislation backing campus speech never made it through committee.

Some colleges leaders have said they worry the order could backfire. If a speaking event threatens to turn violent, for example, some say they might have to choose between canceling the event for safety and allowing it to continue to preserve federal funding. Some say it could force religious universities to host speakers with views that conflict with the universities’ values.

Still, the order has gained support from some religious institutions including Liberty University, a Christian school in Virginia whose leaders say they denounce censorship of either the left or right.

Separate from the free speech requirement, the order also calls for several measures meant to promote transparency in the student loan industry and in how well colleges prepare students.

By January 2020, Trump is directing the Education Department to create a website where borrowers can find better information about their loans and repayment options, and he’s calling on the agency to expand its College Scorecard website to include data on the graduates of individual college programs, including their median earnings, loan debt and their default rates.

Trump, a Republican, also is asking the Education Department to prepare a policy that would make sure colleges “share the financial risk” that students and the federal government take on with federal student loans.

___

Follow Collin Binkley on Twitter at https://twitter.com/cbinkley

Read more:

Trump orders colleges to back free speech or lose funding

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

How does the First Amendment right to free speech apply to speakers who have been invited by student groups to speak on campus?

As a public institution of higher education, NC State is committed to fostering free speech and the open debate of ideas. NC State is prohibited from banning or punishing an invited speaker based on the content or viewpoint of his or her speech. University policy permits student groups to invite speakers to campus, and the university provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose. NC State cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Only under extraordinary circumstances, as described on this page, can an event featuring an invited speaker be canceled.

Once a student group has invited a speaker to campus, NC State will act reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

Although NC State cannot restrict or cancel the speech based on the content or viewpoint of the speech, the university is allowed to place certain content- and viewpoint-neutral limits on how the speech can take place. These limits can be based on the time, place and manner of the speech.

What are time, place and manner restrictions?

Courts have long recognized that public educational institutions have the right to impose certain restrictions on the use of their campuses for free-speech purposes. Content- and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the times and modes of communication, often referred to as time-place-manner restrictions, are common features universities implement to ensure that they can continue to fulfill their mission while allowing free expression to occur. Simply put, this means that the when, where and how of free-speech activity may be reasonably regulated if such regulation (1) is scrupulously neutral (in other words, it must apply to all speech, no matter how favored or disfavored) and (2) leaves ample opportunity for speech in alternative areas or forums. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak at any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The university can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and to achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety.

Examples of acceptable time-place-manner restrictions include permit requirements for outside speakers, notice periods, sponsorship requirements for outside speakers, limiting the duration and frequency of the speech and restricting speech during final-exam periods.

The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason the university requires students to work with the administration when setting up certain events, as opposed to students scheduling and creating the events on their own without university input.

Can NC State cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speakers views?

No, NC State is prohibited from canceling an event based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

If it is known that an event with a speaker may lead to physical violence, is that legal grounds for the university to cancel the event?

In general, NC State cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs due to the potential reaction to the speech is often referred to by courts as the hecklers veto and is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

The university is required to do what it can to protect speakers and prevent disruption or violence. Although the university is committed to fulfilling these obligations, if despite all efforts by the university there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, an event can be canceled. NC States primary concern is to protect the safety of its students, faculty and staff. NC States Police Department makes security assessments with input from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

How does NC State respond to hate speech?

NC State is dedicated to fostering free speech in an environment where members of our community can learn from one another and where all are treated with dignity and respect. The university vigorously opposes and denounces all forms of hateful speech. The university encourages faculty, staff and students to use their free-speech rights, consistent with federal and state laws, to condemn hateful speech and to help create opportunities for the campus community to understand and learn from these actions. Students who encounter hurtful or offensive speech are encouraged to reach out to university administrators, including the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED), or to make a report to the universitys Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT). More information about responding to acts of intolerance may be found at the OIED and BIRT websites.

How does NC State ensure the safety of the campus community in light of freedom of speech?

NC State balances its commitment to free speech with a commitment to safety. Individuals who threaten or commit acts of violence or other violations of law may be subject to arrest and prosecution by law enforcement, as well as disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university.

Read more here:

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

xkcd: Free Speech

xkcd: Free Speech

Free Speech

[[A person speaking to the reader.]]Person: Public Service Announcehment: The *right to free speech* means the government can’t arrest you for what you say.[[Close-up on person’s face.]]Person: It doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit, – or host you while you share it.[[Back to full figure.]]Person: The 1st Amendment doesn’t shield you from criticism or consequences.[[Close-up.]]Person: If you’re yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren’t being violated.[[Person, holding palm upward.]]Person: It’s just that the people listening think you’re an asshole,[[A door that is ajar.]]Person: And they’re showing you the door.{{Title text: I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.}}

This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

This means you’re free to copy and share these comics (but not to sell them). More details.

The rest is here:

xkcd: Free Speech

Free speech zone – Wikipedia

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment zones, free speech cages, and protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for the purpose of political protesting. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner but not content of expression.[citation needed]

The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, be narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.[citation needed]

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are “Orwellian”,[2][3] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

Though free speech zones existed prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it was during Bush’s presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.[4] These zones have continued through the presidency of Barack Obama; he signed a bill in 2012 that expanded the power of the Secret Service to restrict speech and make arrests.[5]

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.[citation needed]

During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up a “designated protest zone”[6] so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator opposing an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young “put us in a free-speech cage.”[7] “Protest zones” were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.[8]

Free speech zones have been used for non-political purposes. Through 1990s, the San Francisco International Airport played host to a steady stream of religious groups (Hare Krishnas in particular), preachers, and beggars. The city considered whether this public transportation hub was required to host free speech, and to what extent. As a compromise, two “free speech booths” were installed in the South Terminal, and groups wishing to speak but not having direct business at the airport were directed there. These booths still exist, although permits are required to access the booths.[9]

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 protest activity saw a number of changes to how law enforcement deals with protest activities. “The [National Lawyers] Guild, which has a 35-year history of monitoring First Amendment activity, has witnessed a notable change in police treatment of political protesters since the November 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. At subsequent gatherings in Washington, D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Miami, Chicago, and Portland a pattern of behavior that stifles First Amendment rights has emerged”.[10] In a subsequent lawsuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that “It was lawful for the city of Seattle to deem part of downtown off-limits … But the court also said that police enforcing the rule may have gone too far by targeting only those opposed to the WTO, in violation of their First Amendment rights.”[11]

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the FleetCenter where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a “protest pen” or “Boston’s Camp X-Ray”.[1] “Some protesters for a short time Monday [July 26, 2004] converted the zone into a mock prison camp by donning hoods and marching in the cage with their hands behind their backs.”[12] A coalition of groups protesting the Iraq War challenged the planned protest zones. U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock was sympathetic to their request: “One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.”.[13] However, he ultimately rejected the petition to move the protest zones closer to the FleetCenter.[14]

Free speech zones were also used in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention. According to Mike McGuire, a columnist for the online anti-war magazine Nonviolent Activist, “The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represent[ed] another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places building vestibules, parking garages, or vans and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read ‘POLICE LINE DO not CROSS,’ establishing areas they ironically called ‘ad-hoc free speech zones.’ One by one, protesters were arrested and detained some for nearly two days.”[15] Both the Democratic and Republican National parties were jointly awarded a 2005 Jefferson Muzzle from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, “For their mutual failure to make the preservation of First Amendment freedoms a priority during the last Presidential election”.[13]

Free speech zones were commonly used by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks and through the 2004 election. Free speech zones were set up by the Secret Service, who scouted locations where the U.S. president was scheduled to speak, or pass through. Officials targeted those who carried anti-Bush signs and escorted them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters were often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[16][4] Protesters who refused to go to the free speech zone were often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest.[17][18] A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to “willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in … any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” has also been invoked.[19][20]

Civil liberties advocates argue that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[21] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[21] The Department of Homeland Security “has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves.”[17][22]

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[18] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington, D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[18]

The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. “The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July.”[23]

In 1939, the United States Supreme Court found in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that public streets and parks “have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” In the later Thornhill v. Alabama case, the court found that picketing and marching in public areas is protected by the United States Constitution as free speech. However, subsequent rulings Edwards v. South Carolina, Brown v. Louisiana, Cox v. Louisiana, and Adderley v. Florida found that picketing is afforded less protection than pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations on demonstrations may affect the time, place, and manner of those demonstrations, but may not discriminate based on the content of the demonstration.

The Secret Service denies targeting the President’s political opponents. “Decisions made in the formulation of a security plan are based on security considerations, not political considerations”, said one Secret Service spokesman.[24]

“These [Free Speech] zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, ‘The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.’ The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a ‘designated free-speech zone’ on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine ‘people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'”[18][25] District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that “I believe this is America. Whatever happened to ‘I don’t agree with you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’?”[16]

At another incident during a presidential visit to South Carolina, protester Brett Bursey refused an order by Secret Service agents to go to a free speech zone half-a-mile away. He was arrested and charged with trespassing by the South Carolina police. “Bursey said that he asked the policeman if ‘it was the content of my sign,’ and he said, ‘Yes, sir, it’s the content of your sign that’s the problem.'”[18] However, the prosecution, led by James Strom Thurmond Jr., disputes Bursey’s version of events.[26] Trespassing charges against Bursey were dropped, and Bursey was instead indicted by the federal government for violation of a federal law that allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas visited by the president.[18] Bursey faced up to six months in prison and a US$5,000 fine.[18] After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant deemed the offense to be relatively minor and ordered a fine of $500 be assessed, which Bursey appealed, and lost.[27] In his ruling, Marchant found that “this is not to say that the Secret Service’s power to restrict the area around the President is absolute, nor does the Court find that protesters are required to go to a designated demonstration area which was an issue in this case as long as they do not otherwise remain in a properly restricted area.”[27]

Marchant’s ruling however, was criticized for three reasons:

In 2003, the ACLU brought a lawsuit against the Secret Service, ACORN v. Secret Service, representing the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). “The federal court in Philadelphia dismissed that case in March [2004] after the Secret Service acknowledged that it could not discriminate against protesters through the use of out-of-sight, out-of-earshot protest zones.”[29] Another 2003 lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia, ACORN v. Philadelphia, charged that the Philadelphia Police Department, on orders from the Secret Service, had kept protesters “further away from the site of presidential visits than Administration supporters. A high-ranking official of the Philadelphia police told ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Stefan Presser that he was only following Secret Service orders.”[21][30] However, the court found the ACLU lacked standing to bring the case and dismissed it.[31]

The Secret Service says it does establish ‘public viewing areas’ to protect dignitaries but does not discriminate against individuals based on the content of their signs or speech. ‘Absolutely not,’ said Tom Mazur, a spokesman for the agency created to protect the president. ‘The Secret Service makes no distinction on the purpose, message or intent of any individual or group.’ Civil libertarians dispute that. They cite a Corpus Christi, Texas, couple, Jeff and Nicole Rank, as an example. The two were arrested at a Bush campaign event in Charleston, West Virginia, on July 4, 2004, when they refused to take off anti-Bush shirts. Their shirts read, ‘Love America, Hate Bush’ … The ACLU found 17 cases since March 2001 in which protesters were removed during events where the president or vice president appeared. And lawyers say it’s an increasing trend.[32]

The article is slightly mistaken about the contents of the shirts. While Nicole Rank’s shirt did say “Love America, Hate Bush”, Jeff Rank’s shirt said “Regime change starts at home.”[33]

The incident occurred several months after the Secret Service’s pledge in ACORN v. Secret Service not to discriminate against protesters. “The charges against the Ranks were ultimately dismissed in court and the mayor and city council publicly apologized for the arrest. City officials also said that local law enforcement was acting at the request of Secret Service.”[34] ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen pointed out that “The Secret Service has promised to not curtail the right to dissent at presidential appearances, and yet we are still hearing stories of people being blocked from engaging in lawful protest”, said Hansen. “It is time for the Secret Service to stop making empty promises.”[34] The Ranks subsequently filed a lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, against Deputy Assistant to the President Gregory Jenkins and the Secret Service. “The lawsuit, Rank v. Jenkins, is seeking unspecified damages as well as a declaration that the actions leading to the removal of the Ranks from the Capitol grounds were unconstitutional.”[34] In August 2007, the Ranks settled their lawsuit against the Federal Government. The government paid them $80,000, but made no admission of wrongdoing.[35] The Ranks’ case against Gregory Jenkins is still pending in the District of Columbia.[36]

As a result of ACLU subpoenas during the discovery in the Rank lawsuit, the ACLU obtained the White House’s previously-classified presidential advance manual.[37] The manual gives people organizing presidential visits specific advice for preventing or obstructing protests. “There are several ways the advance person” the person organizing the presidential visit “can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service to and have them ask the local police department to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route. The formation of ‘rally squads’ is a common way to prepare for demonstrators … The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform … As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”[37]

The use of free speech zones on university campuses is controversial. Many universities created on-campus free speech zones during the 1960s and 1970s, during which protests on-campus (especially against the Vietnam War) were common. Generally, the requirements are that the university is given advance notice and that they are held in locations that do not disrupt classes.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that non-disruptive speech is permitted in public schools. However, this does not apply to private universities. In September 2004, U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings struck down the free speech zone policy at Texas Tech University.

According to the opinion of the court, campus areas such as parks, sidewalks, streets and other areas are designated as public forums, regardless of whether the university has chosen to officially designate the areas as such. The university may open more of the campus as public forums for its students, but it cannot designate fewer areas … Not all places within the boundaries of the campus are public forums, according to Cummings’ opinion. The court declared the university’s policy unconstitutional to the extent that it regulates the content of student speech in areas of the campus that are public forums.[38]

In 2007, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released a survey of 346 colleges and Universities in the United States.[39] Of those institutions, 259 (75%) maintain policies that “both clearly andsubstantially restrict freedom of speech.”

In December 2005, the College Libertarians at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro staged a protest outside the University’s designated protest zones. The specific intent of the protest was to provoke just such a charge, in order to “provoke the system into action into a critical review of what’s going on.”[40] Two students, Allison Jaynes and Robert Sinnott, were brought up on charges under the student code of conduct of “violation of respect”,[41] for refusing to move when told to do so by a university official.[40] The university subsequently dropped honor code charges against the students.[40] “University officials said the history of the free-speech zones is not known. ‘It predated just about everybody here”, said Lucien ‘Skip’ Capone III, the university attorney. The policy may be a holdover from the Vietnam War and civil rights era, he said.'”[40]

A number of colleges and universities have revised or revoked free speech zone policies in the last decade, including: Tufts University,[42] Appalachian State University,[42] and West Virginia University.[42][43] In August, 2006, Penn State University revised its seven-year-old rules restricting the rights of students to protest. “In effect, the whole campus is now a ‘free-speech zone.'”[44]

Controversies have also occurred at the University of Southern California,[45] Indiana University,[46] the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,[47] and Brigham Young University.[48][49]

At Marquette University, philosophy department chairman James South ordered graduate student Stuart Ditsler to remove an unattributed Dave Barry quote from the door to the office that Ditsler shared with three other teaching assistants, calling the quote patently offensive. (The quote was: “As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful, and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government.”) South claimed that the University’s free-speech zone rules required Ditsler to take it down. University spokeswoman Brigid O’Brien Miller stated that it was “a workplace issue, not one of academic freedom.”[50][51] Ultimately, the quote was allowed to remain, albeit with attribution.[52]

For example, the Louisiana State University Free Speech Alley (or Free Speech Plaza) was utilized in November 2015 when Louisiana gubernatorial candidate John Bel Edwards was publicly endorsed by former opponent and republican Lt. Governor Jay Dardenne.[53] The Consuming Fire Fellowship, a church located in rural Woodville, Mississippi, often sends members to convene at the universities free speech alley to preach their views of Christianity. The members have often been met with strong resistance and resentment by the student body.[54][55] Ivan Imes, a retired engineer who holds “Jesus Talks” for students at the university, said in an interview, “Give the church a break. The don’t understand love. They don’t understand forgiveness.”[56]

As of March2017[update], four states had passed legislation outlawing public colleges and universities from establishing free speech zones. The first state to do so was Virginia in 2014,[57] followed by Missouri in 2015,[58] Arizona in 2016,[59] and Kentucky in 2017.[60]

Designated protest areas were established during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Summit in Ottawa, Canada. Although use of the areas was voluntary and not surrounded by fences, some protesters decried the use of designated protest areas, calling them “protest pens.”[61]

During the 2005 WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Conference, over 10,000 protesters were present. Wan Chai Sports Ground and Wan Chai Cargo Handling Basin were designated as protest zones. Police wielded sticks, used gas grenades and shot rubber bullets at some of the protesters. They arrested 910 people, 14 were charged, but none were convicted.

Three protest parks were designated in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympics, at the suggestion of the IOC. All 77 applications to protest there had been withdrawn or denied, and no protests took place. Four persons who applied to protest were arrested or sentenced to reeducation.[62][63]

In the Philippines, designated free speech zones are called freedom parks.

Here is the original post:

Free speech zone – Wikipedia

Free Speech TV – Official Site

Democracy Now!

The Academy Awards take place this weekend, and one of the top contenders is the movie Green Book, which has

The Academy Awards take place this weekend, and one of the top contenders is the movie Green Book, which has renewed interest in the history of The Negro Motorist Green Book. So today we look at a remarkable new documentary

See the original post here:

Free Speech TV – Official Site

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

How does the First Amendment right to free speech apply to speakers who have been invited by student groups to speak on campus?

As a public institution of higher education, NC State is committed to fostering free speech and the open debate of ideas. NC State is prohibited from banning or punishing an invited speaker based on the content or viewpoint of his or her speech. University policy permits student groups to invite speakers to campus, and the university provides access to certain campus venues for that purpose. NC State cannot take away that right or withdraw those resources based on the views of the invited speaker. Only under extraordinary circumstances, as described on this page, can an event featuring an invited speaker be canceled.

Once a student group has invited a speaker to campus, NC State will act reasonably to ensure that the speaker is able to safely and effectively address his or her audience, free from violence or disruption.

Although NC State cannot restrict or cancel the speech based on the content or viewpoint of the speech, the university is allowed to place certain content- and viewpoint-neutral limits on how the speech can take place. These limits can be based on the time, place and manner of the speech.

What are time, place and manner restrictions?

Courts have long recognized that public educational institutions have the right to impose certain restrictions on the use of their campuses for free-speech purposes. Content- and viewpoint-neutral restrictions on the times and modes of communication, often referred to as time-place-manner restrictions, are common features universities implement to ensure that they can continue to fulfill their mission while allowing free expression to occur. Simply put, this means that the when, where and how of free-speech activity may be reasonably regulated if such regulation (1) is scrupulously neutral (in other words, it must apply to all speech, no matter how favored or disfavored) and (2) leaves ample opportunity for speech in alternative areas or forums. The right to speak on campus is not a right to speak at any time, at any place and in any manner that a person wishes. The university can regulate where, when and how speech occurs to ensure the functioning of the campus and to achieve important goals, such as protecting public safety.

Examples of acceptable time-place-manner restrictions include permit requirements for outside speakers, notice periods, sponsorship requirements for outside speakers, limiting the duration and frequency of the speech and restricting speech during final-exam periods.

The need to consider time, place and manner regulations is the reason the university requires students to work with the administration when setting up certain events, as opposed to students scheduling and creating the events on their own without university input.

Can NC State cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speakers views?

No, NC State is prohibited from canceling an event based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

If it is known that an event with a speaker may lead to physical violence, is that legal grounds for the university to cancel the event?

In general, NC State cannot prevent speech on the grounds that it is likely to provoke a hostile response. Stopping speech before it occurs due to the potential reaction to the speech is often referred to by courts as the hecklers veto and is a form of prior restraint. Prior restraints of speech are almost never allowed.

The university is required to do what it can to protect speakers and prevent disruption or violence. Although the university is committed to fulfilling these obligations, if despite all efforts by the university there is a serious threat to public safety and no other alternative, an event can be canceled. NC States primary concern is to protect the safety of its students, faculty and staff. NC States Police Department makes security assessments with input from federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

How does NC State respond to hate speech?

NC State is dedicated to fostering free speech in an environment where members of our community can learn from one another and where all are treated with dignity and respect. The university vigorously opposes and denounces all forms of hateful speech. The university encourages faculty, staff and students to use their free-speech rights, consistent with federal and state laws, to condemn hateful speech and to help create opportunities for the campus community to understand and learn from these actions. Students who encounter hurtful or offensive speech are encouraged to reach out to university administrators, including the Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity (OIED), or to make a report to the universitys Bias Incident Response Team (BIRT). More information about responding to acts of intolerance may be found at the OIED and BIRT websites.

How does NC State ensure the safety of the campus community in light of freedom of speech?

NC State balances its commitment to free speech with a commitment to safety. Individuals who threaten or commit acts of violence or other violations of law may be subject to arrest and prosecution by law enforcement, as well as disciplinary sanctions imposed by the university.

More here:

Free Speech | NC State University – ncsu.edu

Free Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

EFF defends your ability to use the Internet as a platform for free expression through law, technology, and activism. The Internet has radically enhanced our access to information in countless ways, and empowered anyone to share ideas and connect with the entire world. Yet while speech is invited and empowered on the electronic frontier, it is also sometimes threatened.

Freed of the limitations inherent in traditional print or broadcast media createdand constrainedby corporate gatekeepers, speech thrives online. Social networking websites allow groups of a dozen friends to grow into massive communities that transcend national borders. Meanwhile, community journalists have used microblogging and video live-streaming to expose the world to stories that long went unheard. Websites like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive have pioneered an open-source model of sharing and preserving information.

On the other hand, speech is also threatened online. Coders and developers risk criminal penalties for practicing the kind of digital tinkering, repair, and exploration that enable innovation. Similarly, dissidents and activists, especially those whose opinions may be unpopular where they live, confront chilling effects imposed by government surveillance programs that constrain their freedom of expression. Journalists and researchers can also be stymied by government agencies that limit public access to certain information.

The technological capacity enabling even great wonders can mean little when users are denied legal protections for their creativity. Without sufficient legal protections for users and innovators, it’s all too easy for governments and companies to undermine your rights. Learn more below and consider supporting our efforts.

View post:

Free Speech | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Free Speech TV – Official Site

announcement

Bioneers is a celebration of the genius of nature and human ingenuity, connecting people with solutions and each other. For 29 years, the annual Bioneers conference has served as the premiere gathering place for leading thinkers, doers, and change-makers gather to uncover solutions to the planet’s most pressing environmental and ecological challenges. Free Speech TV is proud to be a

Read the original:

Free Speech TV – Official Site

Theodore Roosevelts 1918 Wartime Essay: Lincoln And Free …

Gordon C. Thomasson (Introduction and [insertions] 2002)

The document that follows is scanned fromThe Works of Theodore Roosevelt, volume XIX, The Great Adventure (New York: Scribners, 1926 edition only), chapter 7, Lincoln and Free Speech, pages 289-300. In early February of 2002, I repeatedly encountered a citation from it in a message from friends and then over the internet:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

This text later appeared in Doonesbury on Sunday, February 10, 2002.

Shortly thereafter I obtained the complete text through interlibrary loan. At first I only wanted to be sure that this-too good to be true-text was accurate and being represented as it read in context. But I found that the full text is important enough that it merits reproduction in entirety. Beside these initial remarks, I have made a few comments within the text, which are clearly indicated, being enclosed in [square brackets].

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), was the 26th president of the United States. By party he was a progressive Republican when he completed the assassinated William McKinleys term and one of his own (1901-1908). When four years later (1912) he tried for a second complete term of his own, he lost the Republican nomination for re-election, bolted the party and formed a third Progressive party. Just as Ross Perots party took votes from the Republican George Bush Sr., and gave Bill Clinton the 1992 election as well as the 1996 election against Bob Dole, Roosevelt drained Republican votes and gave the 1912 and 1916 elections to the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelts politics were mildly reformist, attacking the worst excesses of big business. As could be anticipated by his role during the Spanish-American war in Cuba in 1898, he was an imperialist who wanted the U.S. to seize and exploit more overseas colonies, holding, for example, the Philippines and taking Panama from Columbia. As tensions arose between the expanding empires of central Europe and the already huge empires of Great Britain and France over the diminishingLebensraum (literally lifespace or perhaps more loosly elbowroom, but more accurately reflecting the struggle for larger shares of scarce colonial lands, peoples and resources), he became rabidly anti-German. Having taken the side of the Triple Entente (Great Britain, France and czarist Russia) against the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, the latter later replaced by the Ottoman Empire), Roosevelt never addressed the serious moral questions raised for any serious observer by the entire first World War.

During Woodrow Wilsons first presidential term (1912-1916), Wilson supposedly opposed becoming involved with what the American public saw as a European conflict and wanted to avoid being dragged into(following George Washingtons counsel against entangling alliances and European wars). Roosevelt was a war hawk who attacked the administration for avoiding the conflict. In 1916, Roosevelt bolted his own Progressive party and supported the Republican candidate, Charles Evans Hughes. After defeating the divided parties, in Wilsons second term, after having inflamed the American public through the earlier contrived sinking (in cooperation with Winston Churchill) of the supposedly neutral passenger ship Lusitania (an event that scarred the psyche of the American public much like 9-11), Wilson entered the war. (The Lusitania had used civilian passengers as human shields. Instead of being a neutral passenger vessel, beside mounting deck cannon fed ammunition from its bunkers by special elevators, it smuggled contraband cargo: over a million rounds of ammunition, high explosives and other war materielsall illegal for a neutral passenger ship to transport-were in its hold. Naturally it exploded and rapidly sank with enormous loss of life after being torpedoed.)

Roosevelt applauded Americas entry and participation in World War I, but never ceased to attack Wilsons conduct of the war. To what degree Roosevelts attacks were sincere, and to what degree they reflected his positioning himself to be a presidential candidate in 1920, is difficult to determine. Certainly through the war years he spoke and essayed constantly, leaving a substantial body of writing in this regard in his collected works, but what weight we give to it in terms of sincerity is problematic. Nevertheless, the case Roosevelt makes for the right of opponents of an administration and president to attack the governments policies in Lincoln and Free Speech is dramatic, instructive, and constitutionally correct as far as it goes.

But Roosevelt, in his essay, wants to have his cake and eat it too. The essay protects him in his attacks by marshalling history, logic, and the Mexican war protests of Abraham Lincoln (who as protege of Henry Clay only followed the lead of his patron), but Roosevelt does not extend this to those with whom he disagrees. The definition he provides for sedition (page 290) is self-serving and selective. It would make civil disobedience felonious, and the most essential aspects of political speech opposite his own position illegal rather than free.

Wilsons Justice Department and the Supreme Court, in cases against people opposing the war and the draft employed essentially the same politically convenient definitions as did Roosevelt. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes supposedly cool and reasonable definition of the limits to free speech, that people cannot be allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater, is in fact pornographic legal dicta and not law. He wrote it in attempting to rationalize an unprecedented decision-actually judicial legislation-making it illegal to speak against the draft. For him, fire literally meant opposition to the draft and the war, and the theater was the United States. Pointing out that the draft was anti-constitutional might cause a stampede away from it. This meant that opposition to military conscription or a draft-the most anti-constitutional perversion of American law in U.S. history-was criminalized and prosecuted to the fullest. Even cartoons ridiculing the draft were suppressed and the artists who drew them went to jail. Wilson, the intellectual Ph.D., political scientist, economist and historian, wanted to crush the First Amendment and everything for which it stood. Roosevelt wanted First Amendment freedom for himself to criticize, but opposed it for those who took a completely opposite position from his on the war. But if freedom of speech, assembly, and association does not protect all positions of political conscience regarding war-as indisputably intended by the Founding Fathers-protections for the protest of policy implementation for only one side of the debate are meaningless. Finally, Roosevelts essay stands as a ringing condemnation of himself as much as it is of President Woodrow Wilson, his over-reaching Attorney General, Justice Department, and, as Roosevelt rightly recognizes, Wilsons sycophantish partisan supporters in time of war.

Gordon C. Thomasson, Ph.D.History FacultyBroome Community College (SUNY)

Letters to His ChildrenBy Theodore RooseveltNew YorkCharles Scribners Sons 1926

RANCH LIFE AND THE HUNTING TRAIL

II. THE WILDERNESS HUNTER

OUTDOOR PASTIMES OF AN AMERICAN

HUNTER, I

III. OUTDOOR PASTIMES OF AN AMERICAN HUNTER, II

A BOOR-LOVERS HOLIDAYS IN THE OPEN

IV. AFRICAN GAME TRAILS

V. THROUGH THE BRAZILIAN WILDERNESS

PAPERS ON NATURAL HISTORY

VI. THE NAVAL WAR OF 1812

VII. THOMAS HART BENTON

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS

VIII. THE WINNING OF THE WEST, I

IX. THE WINNING OF THE WEST, II

X. HERO TALES FROM AMERICAN HISTORY

OLIVER CROMWELL

NEW YORK

XI. THE ROUGH RIDERS MEN OF ACTION

XII. LITERARY ESSAYS

XIII. AMERICAN IDEALS THE STRENUOUS LIFE

XIV. CAMPAIGNS AND CONTROVERSIES

XV. STATE PAPERS AS GOVERNOR AND PRESIDENT

XVI. AMERICAN PROBLEMS

XVII. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND POPULAR RULE

XVIII. AMERICA AND THE WORLD WAR

FEAR GOD AND TAKE YOUR OWN PART

XIX. THE FOES OF OUR OWN HOUSEHOLD

THE GREAT ADVENTURE

LETTERS TO HIS CHILDREN

XX. AUTOBIOGRAPHY

INDEX

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH

PATRIOTISM means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truthwhether about the President or about any one elsesave in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.Sedition, in the legal sense, means to betray the government, to give aid and comfort to the enemy, or to counsel resistance to the laws or to measures of government having the force. of law. There can be conduct morally as bad as legal sedition which yet may not be violation of law. The Presidentany Presidentcan by speech or action (by advocating an improper peace. or improper submission to national wrong) give aid and comfort to the public enemy as no one else in. the land can do, and yet his conduct, however damaging to the, country, is not seditious; and although if public sentiment is sufficiently aroused he can be impeached, such course is practically impossible.One form of servility consists in a slavish attitudeof the kind, incompatible with self-respecting manlinesstoward any person who is powerful by reason of his office or position.. Servility may be shown by a public servant toward the profiteering head of a large corporation, or toward the anti-American

290 THE GREAT ADVENTUREhead of a big labor organization. It may also be shown in peculiarly noxious and un-American form by confounding the President orany other official with the country and shrieking stand by the President, without regard to whether, by so acting, we do or do not stand by the country.A distinguished Federal judge recently wrote me as follows:Last November [1917?] it seemed as if the American people were going to be converted into a hallelujah chorus, whose only function in government should be to shout Hallelujah! Hallelujah! for everything that the Administration did or failed to do. Any one who did not join that chorus was liable to imprisonment for treason or sedition.I hope that we shall soon have recovered our sense as well as our liberty.The authors of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution guaranteeing the right of assembly and of freedom of speech and of the press. did not thus safeguard those rights for the sake alone of persons who were to enjoy them, but even more because they knew that the Republic which they were founding could not be worked on any other basis. Since Marshall tried Burr for treason it has been clear that that crime cannot be committed by words, unless one acts as a spy, or gives advice to the enemy of military or naval operations. It cannot be committed by statements reflecting upon officers or measures of government.Sedition is different. Any one who directly advises or counsels resistance to measures of government is guilty of sedition. That, however, ought to be clearly distinguished from discussion of the wisdom or folly of measures of government, or the honesty or competency of public officers. That is not sedition. It is within the protection of the first amendment. The electorate cannot be qualified to perform its duty in removing incompetent officers and securing the repeal of unwise laws unless those questions may be freely discussed.The, right to say wise things necessarily implies the right to say foolish things. The answer to foolish speech is wise

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH 291speech and not force. The Republic is founded upon the faith that if the American people are permitted freely to hear foolish and wise speech, a majority will choose the wise. If that faith is not justified the Republic is based on sand. John Milton said it all in his defense of freedom of the press: `Let truth and error grapple. Who ever knew truth to be beaten in a fair fight? Abraham Lincoln was in Congress while Polk was President, during the Mexican War. The following extracts from his speeches, during war-time, about the then President ought to be illuminating to those persons who do not understand that one of the highest and most patriotic duties to be performed in his country at this time is to tell the truth whenever it becomes necessary in order to force our government to speed up the war. It would, for example, be our highest duty to tell it if at any time we became convinced that only thereby could we shame our leaders out of hypocrisy and prevent the betrayal of human rights by peace talk of the kind which bewilders and deceives plain people.These quotations can be found on pages 100 to 146 of Volume I of Lincolns Complete Works, by Nicolay and Hay.In a speech on January 12, 1848, Lincoln justified himself for voting in favor of a resolution censuring the President for his action prior to and during the war (which was still going on). He examines the Presidents official message of justification and says, that, taking for true all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification, and that the President would have gone further with his proof if it had not been for the small matter that the truth would not permit him. He says that part of the message is from beginning to end the sheerest deception. He then asks the President to answer certain questions, and says: Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him remember that he sits where Washington sat, and so remembering, let him answer as Washington would answer. Let him attempt no evasion, no

292 THE GREAT ADVENTUREequivocation. In other words, Lincoln says that he does not wish rhetoric, or fine phrases or glittering statements that contradict one another and each of which has to be explained with a separate key or adroit and subtle special pleading and constant reversal of positions previously held, but straightforward and consistent adherence to the truth. He continues that he more than suspects that the President is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels that innocent blood is crying to heaven against him; that one of the best generals had been driven into disfavor, if not disgrace, by the President for insisting upon speaking unpalatable truths about the length of time the war would take (and therefore the need of full preparedness); and ends by saying that the army has done admirably, but that the President has bungled his work and knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity.Remember that this is Lincoln speaking, in war-time, of the President. The general verdict of history has justified him. But it is impossible to justify him and not heartily to condemn the persons who in our time endeavor to suppress truth-telling of a far less emphatic type than Lincolns.Lincoln had to deal with various critics of the stand by the President type. To one he answers that, the only alternative is to tell the truth or to lie, and that he would not skulk on such a question. He explains that the Presidents supporters are untiring in their efforts to make the impression that all who vote supplies or take part in the war do of necessity approve the Presidents conduct, but that he (Lincoln) and his associates sharply distinguished between the two and voted supplies and men but denounced the Presidents conduct and condemned the Administration. He stated that to give the President the power demanded for him by certain people would place the President where kings have always stood. In touching on what we should now speak of as rhetoric, he says

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH 293The honest laborer digs coal at about seventy cents a day, while the President digs abstractions at about seventy dollars a day. The coal is clearly worth more than the abstractions, and yet what a monstrous inequality in the price! He emphatically protests against permitting the President to take the whole of legislation into his handssurely a statement applying exactly to the present situation. To the Presidents servile party supporters he makes a distinction which also readily applies at the present day: The distinction between the cause of the President . . . and the cause of the country. . . you cannot perceive. To you the President and the country seem to be all one.. . . We see the distinction clearly enough.This last statement was the crux of the matter then and is the crux of the matter now. We hold that our loyalty is due solely to the American Republic, and to all our public servants exactly in proportion as they efficiently and faithfully serve the Republic. Our opponents, in flat contradiction of Lincolns position, hold that our loyalty is due to the President, not the country; to one man, the servant of the people, instead of to the people themselves. In practice they adopt the fetichism [sic] of all believers in absolutism, for every man who parrots the, cry of stand by the President without adding the proviso so far as he serves the Republic takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart royalist who championed the doctrine that the king could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent freeman can take such an attitude.The Wisconsin legislature has just set forth the proper American doctrine, as followsThe people of the State of Wisconsin always have stood and always will stand squarely behind the National Government in all things which are essential to bring the present war to a successful end, and we condemn Senator Robert La Follette and all others who have failed to see the righteousness of our nations cause, who have failed to support our government in matters vital to the winning of the war, and

294 THE GREAT ADVENTUREwe denounce any attitude or utterance of theirs which has tended to incite sedition among the people of our country. [It is noteworthy that the voters of Wisconsin disregarded the state legislatures rhetoric as well as national attempts to expel him from the U.S. Senate and try him for treason, which backfired, and returned LaFollette to the U.S. Senate in 1923.]In view of the recent attitude of the Administration as expressed through the attorney-general and postmaster-general I commend to its attention the utterances of Abraham Lincoln in 1848 and of the Wisconsin legislature in 1918. The Administrations warfare against German spies and American traitors has been feeble. The government has achieved far less in this direction than has been achieved by a few of our newspapers and by various private individuals. This failure is aggravated by such action as was threatened againstThe Metropolitan Magazine.The Metropolitanand the present writerhave stood and will continue to stand, squarely behind the national government in all things which are essential to bring the present war to a successful end and to support the righteousness of the nations cause. We will stand behind the country at every point, and we will at every point either support or oppose the Administration precisely in proportion as it does or does not with efficiency and single-minded devotion serve the country.From this position we will not be driven by any abuse of power or by any effort to make us not the loyal servants of the American people, but the cringing tools of a man who at the moment has power.The Administration has in some of its actions on vital points shown great inefficiency (as proved by Senator Chamberlains committee) and on other points has been guilty of conduct toward certain peoples wholly inconsistent with its conduct toward other peoples and wholly inconsistent with its public professions as regards all international conduct. It cannot meet these accusations, for they are truthful, and to try to suppress the truth by preventing the circulation ofThe Metropolitan Magazine is as high-handed a defiance of liberty and justice as anything done by the Hohenzollerns or the Romanoffs. [Roosevelt uses these royal families as examples of German and Russian tyranny, respectively.] Such action is intolerable. Contrast the leniency shown by the government toward the grossest offenses against the nation

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH 295with its eagerness to assail any one who tells unpleasant truths about the Administration. The Hearst papers play the German game when they oppose the war, assail our allies, and clamor for an inconclusive peace, and they play the German game when they assail the men who truthfully point out the shortcomings which, unless corrected, will redound to Germanys advantage and our terrible disadvantage. But the Administration has taken no action against the Hear[s]t papers.The Metropolitan Magazine has supported the war, has championed every measure to speed up the war and to make our strength effective, and has stood against every proposal for a peace without victory. But the Administration acts against the magazine that in straightforward American fashion has championed the war. Such discrimination is not compatible with either honesty or patriotism. It means that the Administration is using the great power of the government to punish honest criticism of its shortcomings, while it accepts support of and apology for these shortcomings as an offset to action against the war and, therefore, against the nation. Conduct of this kind is a grave abuse of official power.[1]Whatever the Administration does, I shall continue to act in the future precisely as I have acted in the past. When a sena-

____________[1] The simple truth is that never in our history has any other Administration during a great war played politics of the narrowest personal and partisan type as President Wilson has done; and one of the features of this effort has been the careful and studied effort to mislead and misinform the public through information sedulously and copiously furnished them by government officials. An even worse feature has been the largely successful effort to break down freedom of speech and the freedom of the press by government action. Much of this action has been taken under the guise of attacking disloyalty; but it has represented action, not against those who were disloyal to the nation, but. against those who disagreed with or criticised the President for failure in the performance of duty to the nation. The action of the government against real traitors, and against German spies and agents, has been singularly weak and ineffective. The chief of the Secret Service said that there were a quarter of a million German spies in this country. Senator Overman put the number at a larger figure; but not one has been shot or hung, and relatively few have been interfered with in any way. The real vigor of the Administration has been directed against honest critics who have endeavored to force it to speed up the war and to act with prompt efficiency against Germany. T.R.

296 THE GREAT ADVENTUREtor like Mr. Chamberlain in some great matter serves the country better than does the Administration, I shall support that senator; and when a senator like Mr. La Follette perseveres in the course followed by the Administration before it reversed itself in February, 1917 [urging that the U.S. stay out of World War I], I shall oppose him and to that extent support the Administration in its present position. I shall continue to support the Administration in every such action as floating the liberty loans, raising the draft army, or sending our troops abroad. I shall continue truthfully to criticise any flagrant acts of incompetency by the Administration, such as the failure in shipping matters and the breakdown of the War Department during the last fourteen months, when it appears that such truthful criticism offers the only chance of remedying the wrong. I shall support every official from the President down who does well, and shall oppose every such official who does ill. I shall not put the personal comfort of the President or of any other public servant above the welfare of the country.In a self-governing country the people are called citizens. [1] Under a despotism or autocracy the people are called subjects. This is because in a free country the people are themselves sovereign, while in a despotic country the people are under a sovereign. In the United States the people are all citizens, including its President. The rest of them are fellow citizens of the President. In Germany the people are all subjects of the Kaiser. They are not his fellow citizens, they are his subjects. This is the essential difference between the United States and Germany, but the difference would vanish if we now submitted to the foolish or traitorous persons who endeavor to make it a crime to tell the truth about the Administration when the Administration is guilty of incompetence or other shortcomings. Such endeavor is itself a crime against the nation. Those who take such an attitude are guilty of moral treason of a kind both abject and dangerous.

_______________[1] This paragraph and the five which follow are from two articles on the same theme in the Kansas CityStar, April 6 and May 7, 1918.

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH 297Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly. This is true about Mr. Wilson now and it has been true about all our Presidents in the past. It is our duty at all times to tell the truth about the President and about every one else, save in the cases where to tell the truth at the moment would benefit the public enemy. Since this war began, the suppression of the truth by and about the Administration has been habitual. In rare cases this has been disadvantageous the enemy. In the vast majority of cases it has been advantageous to the enemy, detrimental to the American people, and useful to the Administration only from the political, not the patriotic, standpoint.The Senate Judiciary Committee has just recommended the passage of a law in which, among many excellent propositions to put down disloyalty, there has been adroitly inserted a provision that any one who uses contemptuous or slurring language about the President shall be punished by imprisonment for a long term of years and by a fine of many thousand dollars. This proposed law is sheer treason to the United States. Under its terms Abraham Lincoln would have been sent to prison for what he repeatedly said of Presidents Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan. Under its terms President Wilson would be free to speak of Senator-elect Lenroot as he has spoken, but Senator Lenroot would not be free truthfully to answer President Wilson. It is a proposal to make Americans subjects instead of citizens. It is a proposal to put the President in the position of the Hohenzollerns and Romanoffs. Government by the people means that the people have the right to do their own thinking and to do their own speaking about their public servants. They must speak truthfully and they must not be disloyal to the country, and it is their highest duty by truthful criticism to make and keep the public servants loyal to the country.

298 THE GREAT ADVENTUREAny truthful criticism could and would be held by partisanship to be slurring or contemptuous. The Delaware House of Representatives has just shown this. It came within one vote of passing a resolution demanding that the Department of Justice proceed against me because, in my recent speeches in Maine, I severely criticised the conduct of our national government. I defy any human being to point out a statement in that speech which was not true and which was not patriotic, and yet the decent and patriotic members of the Delaware legislature were only able to secure a majority of one against the base and servile partisanship of those who upheld the resolution. [It would be ironic that Roosevelt does not here recognize the parallel between himself and LaFollette, were it not for the fact that LaFollette also was a possible Progressive candidate for the presidency, which nomination Teddy hoped to obtain for himself.]I believe the proposed law is unconstitutional. If it is passed, I shall certainly give the government the opportunity to test its constitutionality. For whenever the need arises I shall in the future speak truthfully of the President in praise or in blame, exactly as I have done in the past. When the President in the past uttered his statements about being too proud to fight and wishing peace without victory, and considering that we had no special grievance against Germany, I spoke of him as it was my high duty to speak. Therefore, I spoke of him truthfully and severely, and I cared nothing whether or not timid and unpatriotic and short-sighted men said that I spoke slurringly or contemptuously. In as far as the President in the future endeavors to wage this war efficiently and to secure the peace of overwhelming victory, I shall heartily support him. But if he wages it inefficiently or if he should now champion a peace without victory, or say that we had no grievance against Germany, I would speak in criticism of him precisely as I have spoken in the past. I am an American and a free man. My loyalty is due to the United States, and therefore it is due to the President, the senators, the congressmen, and all other public servants only and to the degree in which they loyally and efficiently serve the United States.Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free

LINCOLN AND FREE SPEECH 299press, is a necessity in any country where the people are themselves free. Our government is the servant, of the people, whereas in Germany it is the master of the people. This is because the American people are free and the German are not free. The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.I contemptuously refuse to recognize any American adaptation of the German doctrine of lese-majesty. I am concerned only with the welfare of my beloved country and with the effort to beat down the German horror in the interest of the orderly freedom of all the nations of mankind. If the Administration does the work of war with all possible speed and efficiency, and stands for preparedness as a permanent policy, and heartily supports our allies to the end, and insists upon complete victory as a basis for peace, I shall heartily support it. If the Administration moves in the direction of an improper peace, of the peace of defeat and of cowardice, or if it wages war feebly and timidly, I shall oppose it and shall endeavor to wake the American people to their danger. I hold that only in this way can I act as patriotism bids me

300 THE GREAT ADVENTUREact. I hold that only in this way can I serve in even the slightest degree the cause of America, of the Allies, and of liberty; and that only thus can I aid in thwarting Germanys effort to establish a world tyranny.

Original post:

Theodore Roosevelts 1918 Wartime Essay: Lincoln And Free …


12345...102030...