BISMARCK, N.D. Environmental groups being sued by the developer of the Dakota Access oil pipeline say the lawsuit is an attack on free speech and an effort to punish supporters of American Indian tribes that oppose the project over fears of environmental harm.

Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace, BankTrack and Earth First, alleging they disseminated false and misleading information about the project, interfered with its construction and damaged the company's reputation and finances through illegal acts.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in North Dakota cites "a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas," and seeks damages that could approach $1 billion.

BankTrack called the allegations "outrageous" and maintained it did nothing wrong in informing the public and commercial banks about the potential impact of the $3.8 billion pipeline to move North Dakota oil to a distribution point in Illinois. It also denied it benefited financially from its efforts.

"BankTrack considers the lawsuit an attempt ... to silence civil society organizations, and to curb their crucial role in helping to foster business conduct globally that protects the environment, recognizes the rights and interests of all stakeholders, and respects human rights," the group said in a statement.

Greenpeace attorney Tom Wetterer said the lawsuit was meritless, "harassment by corporate bullies" and an effort "to silence free speech."

Michael Bowe, one of the company's attorneys, countered that the response by Greenpeace "was not to defend the truth of its challenged statements, but to attack the lawyers who exposed those statements as false."

"Our laws hold accountable those who intentionally make demonstrably false statements, and there is no special exception for Greenpeace," Bowe said.

Earth First did not reply to Associated Press requests for comment.

Earthjustice, whose attorneys are representing the Standing Rock Sioux tribe in a federal lawsuit that aims to shut down the pipeline, isn't a defendant in the lawsuit but is mentioned throughout as being part of a vast network of groups and people who allegedly conspired against the pipeline.

Earthjustice President Trip Van Noppen said the lawsuit is "nothing more than an attack on all those who stood up for the tribe in this historic fight, packaged as a legal claim."

ETP said the company "has an obligation to its shareholders, partners, stakeholders and all those negatively impacted by the violence and destruction intentionally incited by the defendants to file this lawsuit."

The 1,200-mile (1,930-kilometer) pipeline began operating June 1, after months of delays caused by legal wrangling and on-the-ground protests. Police made 761 arrests in North Dakota between August and February.

___

Follow Blake Nicholson on Twitter at: http://twitter/com/NicholsonBlake

See the article here:

Groups sued by pipeline company decry attack on free speech - Fox News

San Francisco Examiner

Free speech is test of faith in US Constitution San Francisco Examiner Your question requires an analysis under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ... The Most Shortsighted Attack on Free Speech in Modern US HistoryThe Atlantic Have we taken free speech too far?Bristol Herald Courier (press release) (blog) 'Their Mission Basically is Genocide!': LawNewz Columnist Battles Tucker Carlson on Free SpeechLawNewz Herald and News -KJZZ all 19 news articles »

See more here:

Free speech is test of faith in US Constitution - San Francisco Examiner

UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ sent this message today to the campus community:

Dear students, faculty and staff,

This fall, the issue of free speech will once more engage our community in powerful and complex ways. Events in Charlottesville, with their racism, bigotry, violence and mayhem, make the issue of free speech even more tense. The law is very clear: Public institutions like UC Berkeley must permit speakers invited in accordance with campus policies to speak, without discrimination in regard to point of view. The United States has the strongest free speech protections of any liberal democracy; the First Amendment protects even speech that most of us would find hateful, abhorrent and odious, and the courts have consistently upheld these protections.

Chancellor Carol Christ

But the most powerful argument for free speech is not one of legal constraint that were required to allow it but of value. The public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university. The philosophical justification underlying free speech, most powerfully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his bookOn Liberty,rests on two basic assumptions. The first is that truth is of such power that it will always ultimately prevail; any abridgement of argument therefore compromises the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. The second is an extreme skepticism about the right of any authority to determine which opinions are noxious or abhorrent. Once you embark on the path to censorship, you make your own speech vulnerable to it.

Berkeley, as you know, is the home of the Free Speech Movement, where students on the right and students on the left united to fight for the right to advocate political views on campus. Particularly now, it is critical that the Berkeley community come together once again to protect this right. It is who we are.

Nonetheless, defending the right of free speech for those whose ideas we find offensive is not easy. It often conflicts with the values we hold as a community tolerance, inclusion, reason and diversity. Some constitutionally protected speech attacks the very identity of particular groups of individuals in ways that are deeply hurtful. However, the right response is not the hecklers veto, or what some call platform denial. Call toxic speech out for what it is, dont shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech.

We all desire safe space, where we can be ourselves and find support for our identities. You have the right at Berkeley to expect the university to keep you physically safe. But we would be providing students with a less valuable education, preparing them less well for the world after graduation, if we tried to shelter them from ideas that many find wrong, even dangerous. We must show that we can choose what to listen to, that we can cultivate our own arguments and that we can develop inner resilience, which is the surest form of safe space. These are not easy tasks, and we will offer support services for those who desire them.

This September, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos have both been invited by student groups to speak at Berkeley. The university has the responsibility to provide safety and security for its community and guests, and we will invest the necessary resources to achieve that goal. If you choose to protest, do so peacefully. That is your right, and we will defend it with vigor. We will not tolerate violence, and we will hold anyone accountable who engages in it.

We will have many opportunities this year to come together as a Berkeley community over the issue of free speech; it will be a free speech year. We have already planned a student panel, a faculty panel and several book talks. Bridge USA and the Center for New Media will hold a day-long conference onOct. 5; PEN, the international writers organization, will hold a free speech convening in Berkeley onOct. 23. We are planning a series in which people with sharply divergent points of view will meet for a moderated discussion. Free speech is our legacy, and we have the power once more to shape this narrative.

Sincerely,

Carol Christ Chancellor

Read the original:

Chancellor Christ: Free speech is who we are | Berkeley News - UC Berkeley

Writing for Spiked Online, Naomi Firsht gives details of Britains latest attack on free speech (my emphasis added).

Hate is hate, says Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, explaining the new Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines on hate crime. Abusive or offensive messages on social media can now be classified as hate crimes, and the perpetrators subjected to harsher sentencing.A statement on the CPS website says that, in recognition of the growth of hate crime perpetrated using social media, the CPS will treat online crime as seriously as offline offences, while taking into account the potential impact on the wider community as well as the victim.

.So what is a hate crime? According to the CPS, a hate crime can include verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, harassment, assault and bullying, as well as damage to property. It is officially defined as: Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a persons disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation, or a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.

What constitutes hostility? Well, the CPS says it uses the everyday understanding of the word, which can include ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. This effectively means reporting a social-media post which could be deemed unfriendly on the basis of a persons identity. Thank goodness Facebook never made a dislike button, or wed all be criminals.

Its wrong to equate online posts with interactions which take place in person. Tweeting something unpleasant is not the same as shouting abuse in the street, and absolutely not on a par with physical assault. Saunders clearly doesnt agree with this distinction. In an article for the Guardian this week, she drew parallels between the attacks in Charlottesville and Barcelona and online hate. We should remember that there is a less visible frontline which is easily accessible to those in the UK who hold extreme views on race, religion, sexuality, gender and even disability. I refer to the online world where an increasing proportion of hate crime is now perpetrated, she says. This is madness. To equate horrific terrorism (13 were killed in the Las Ramblas attack) with someone tweeting an extreme view on gender or religion is actually quite repellent.

It is repellentmore than repellentbut it also reflects the failure of the British state to get to grips with the problem posed by terrorism specifically, and Islamic extremism more generally. Far easier to go after some jackass who has tweeted something vile, or even just something that offends someone else.

More than that, the fact that the test can be subjective (perceived by the victim or any other person) and that hate speech can include unfriendliness is clearly designed to give the enforcers of silence the widest possible latitude, something that is obviouslyintended to encourage anyone who thinksthat he or she mighteven possibly fall foul of the censors to hesitate before committing anything, let alone anything that might possibly be construed as a thoughtcrime, to twitter. Chilling effect much?

And if anyone thinks that these rules will be applied fairly, I have a bridge to sell them.

As a reminder, Britain has been governed by a Conservative or Conservative-dominated government since 2010.

I have no doubt that free speech will come under farmore sustained assault should todays hard left Labour Party come into power (and the way that the Tories are running things, theres a very good chance of that), but if and when Labour does, the Conservative party will have handed it the tools it needs.

Heckuva job, Theresa

Read the rest here:

Britain's War on Free Speech (Continued) - National Review

With hundreds of protesters expected to turn out to two free speech rallies in the Bay Area this weekend, police leaders and local officials are now fine-tuning plans to prevent a repeat of the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Their answer so far: huge officer manpower and tighter restrictions on the demonstrators.

In San Francisco, every single police officer will be on duty on Saturday, when a right-wing rally is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. at Crissy Field. Days off have been canceled, said OfficerGiselle Linnane, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Police Department.

Across the bay in Berkeley, city officials are working to issue new rules for protests lacking city permits, as is the case with Sundays No to Marxism in America rally at Civic Center Park. The new rules, put into force under a hastily passed ordinance, could include a ban of items that could be turned into weapons.

The organizers of the two protests say they have no ties to racist groups. ButBay Area elected officials have condemned both events as white nationalist rallies.

Today and always, we stand together as a community against bigotry, racism, and intolerance and we are stronger for it, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin said Tuesday on the steps of City Hall. As mayor, I am working closely with officials at every level of government including various law enforcement agencies to keep the peace on Sunday.

Arreguin said that the city still hasnt received any permit applications for the rally, scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. And on Friday, the City Council passed a new ordinance allowing the city manager to issue rules for unpermitted protests. The city managers office and the Berkeley police department did not respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

Berkeley rally organizer Amber Cummings told Bay City News that she doesnt want white nationalists to attend her event. She said she organized the event long before the events in Charlottesville and called Arreguins characterization of the rally as a white supremacy event an outright lie.

The situation in San Francisco is complicated by the fact that the rally is planned to be held in a national park, within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The National Park Service issued a permit for the rally earlier this month but agreed to review it after an outcry from city officials.

Joey Gibson, the organizer of the event whose group, Patriot Prayer, has held events well-attended by white nationalist and other right-wing groups in the past said in an interview Tuesday that he expected his permit would win final approval and they just havent finalized the paperwork.

Dana Polk, a spokeswoman for the park service, said in an email late Tuesday that there was no news yet.

The U.S. Park Police, which will be leading the law enforcement response to the rally, did not respond to a request for comment.But Linnane said the San Francisco Police Department has been holding meetings with the Park Police to plan their response.

Our main goal is nonviolence and to help protect ralliers exercising their First Amendment rights, Linnane said. Well be ready if theres anybody bringing in weapons.

Officials in both cities are urging residents not to counter-protest at the scene of the events in the hopeto avoid violent clashes.We dont want nonviolent protesters to be in a situation where they can be in a middle of a fight, Arreguin said.

Lines of counter-protesters facing off with right-wing demonstrators are exactly what hate groups want, said state Sen. Nancy Skinner, who represents Berkeley and a swath of the East Bay.

They only get attention when we give it to them, Skinner said, quoting former first lady Michelle Obama: When they go low, we go high.'

But some locals, including ReikoRedmonde of the Refuse Facism group, said residents should show up and send a strong message condemning the hate groups.

Maybe people are risking their safety, but shouldnt people have risked their safety early on in the Nazi regime when Hitler came to power? Redmonde asked. Shouldnt they have stood out and not let their neighbors be taken away?

Also on Tuesday, Skinner introduced new legislation that would broaden the states hate crime statute.

In Charlottesville on Aug. 12, Heather Heyer, who is white, was murdered after a white nationalist allegedly drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters.

If Heyer had died the same way in California, the driver wouldnt face hate crime charges because the states statute only covers crimes committed against people in a protected class, such as a racial minority.

Under Skinners bill, SB 630, the hate crime statute would also protect people acting in support of or in defense of protected groups.

Staff writer Tom Lochner contributed to this report.

See the original post here:

With all-hands-on-deck police action, Bay Area cities prepare for 'free speech' rallies - The Mercury News

It is no secret to anyone who has been paying attention that the Lefts commitment to free speechperhaps never strong in the first placehas been eroding rapidly. Now even the American Civil Liberties Union is beginning to backtrack on the First Amendment. The Associated Press reports:

Faced with an angry backlash for defending white supremacists right to march in Charlottesville, the American Civil Liberties Union is confronting a feeling among some of its members that was once considered heresy: Maybe some speech isnt worth defending.

Traditionally, the ACLU has recognized that the question isnt whether the content of any particular speech is worth defending, but rather, whether the right to speak is worth defending. Departure from that principle would represent a radical change.

Cracks in the ACLUs strict defense of the First Amendment no matter how offensive the speech opened from the moment a counter-protester was killed during the rally in Virginia. Some critics said the ACLU has blood on its hands for persuading a judge to let the Aug. 12 march go forward.

This is absurd. Neither the ACLU nor the judge authorized the driver of a car to run into another car, which hit a third car, which in turn plowed into a crowd of counter-demonstrators.

The backlash, reminiscent of one that followed the ACLUs 1978 defense of a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb with a large number of Holocaust survivors, set off a tumultuous week of soul-searching and led to a three-hour national staff meeting in which the conflict within the group was aired.

What resulted was an announcement that the ACLU will no longer stand with hate groups seeking to march with weapons, as some of those in Charlottesville did.

This makes little sense, for three reasons. 1) WeaponsI assume the reference is to gunshad nothing to do with what happened in Charlottesville. 2) Assuming that demonstrators are legally carrying weapons, the ACLU now says that the exercise of their Second Amendment rights negates their First Amendment rights. This is certainly not true as a legal matter. 3) A lot probably turns on the definition of hate groups. The antifas always carry weaponsbaseball bats, ax handles, bags of urine and so on. In my opinion, they are a hate group. Will the ACLU withhold its sanction from all protest activity by the antifas? Somehow, I doubt it.

In an opinion piece in The New York Times, K-Sue Park, a race studies fellow at the UCLA School of Law, argued that the ACLUs defend-in-all-cases approach to the First Amendment perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal, adding that group is standing on the wrong side of history.

The wrong side of history means I disagree with them. If the ACLU adopts the I disagree with them standard, its days as a principled defender of freedom are over.

If liberals are wavering in their defense of the right to actual speech, they have no problem invoking the concept of free speech when it comes to vandalism, malicious destruction of property, defamation, and so on. Tom Steward reports at AmericanExperiment.org:

Environmental protests have become an accepted cost of doing business for companies involved in natural resource projectsuntil now. Energy Transfer Partners has just filed suit against Greenpeace and two other protest groups that held up the Dakota Access pipeline project for months last year.

The Texas pipeline company has invoked federal racketeering laws to seek damages that could reach $1 billion, according to the AP.

The company alleges that the groups actions interfered with its business, facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism, incited violence, targeted financial institutions that backed the project and violated racketeering and defamation laws. The company seeks a trial and monetary damages, noting that disruptions to construction alone cost it at least $300 million and requesting triple damages.

The group of defendants is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas, the company said in a statement.

That sounds pretty bad. How does Greenpeace intend to defend?

Greenpeace attorney Tom Wetterer said the lawsuit is meritless and part of a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies. The lawsuit is not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation, Wetterer said.

But does the issue here have anything to do with speech?

The pipeline companys lawsuit alleges protesters undertook a series of illegal acts from pipeline vandalism to cyberattacks. The FBI recently raided the home of two Des Moines protesters who have publicly claimed to have vandalized the pipeline.

The company alleges that members of the network used torches to cut holes in the pipeline, manufactured phony satellite coordinates of Indian cultural sites along the pipelines path, exploited the Standing Rock Sioux, launched cyberattacks on company computer systems, damaged company equipment, threatened the lives of company executives, supported ecoterrorism and even funded a drug trafficking operation within protest camps.

The schemes dissemination of negative information devastated the market reputation of Energy Transfer as well as the business relationships vital to its operation and growth, the lawsuit states.

So crime is free speech, but speech isnt, if it is on the wrong side of history. I am drawing here from diverse sources who may or may not agree with one another, but I think the above formula is a fair description of where todays Left is when it comes to the First Amendment.

Originally posted here:

Free Speech? What's That? - Power Line (blog)

wbur

August 23, 2017 Updated August 23, 2017 4:21 PM

Forty thousand counter-protesters showed up on Boston Common last weekend to demonstrate against a "free speech" rally, which they feared would attract white supremacists and other hate groups. Police put up barriers to separate the rally's speakers from counter-protesters.

Critics of the police say the tactics were an assault on free speech because the rally organizers couldn't be heard by the crowd, and because others some who wanted to speak, and journalists couldn't access the bandstand where the speakers were located.

Civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate (@HASilverglate) joins Here & Now's Robin Young to discuss.

On the importance of hearing different points of view

"First of all, the purpose of the event was to hear a variety of points of view. You do not have a variety of points of view when you say, 'Well, this person shouldn't be heard because it's hate speech, this person shouldn't be heard because he's dangerous.' That is not free speech when you only hear the people who agree with you. No. 2, for our own security, we need to hear the people who we think are dangerous or could be dangerous so that we know whom to watch out for. If you don't allow even dangerous people to speak, how do you know where you have to watch out of the corner of your eye?"

On media members not being allowed to access the bandstand where speakers were located

"The press should be making a lot of noise about this. They're wasting an awful lot of space and time and print by criticizing the speakers that they never heard, and they should be criticizing the city that contributed to this vast silence."

"For our own security, we need to hear the people who we think are dangerous or could be dangerous so that we know whom to watch out for."

On how he defines hate speech

"First of all, there is no such thing as hate speech in the constitutional law. People have the same rights if they are going to speak love speak, or if they're gonna speak hate speech, and it is even more important that they hear the haters so that they know what they're gonna say. You say that you know what they were gonna say, but what about the other hundreds of thousands? I will give you odds if you did a survey, you would find .001 percent had previously heard or read anything by any of these speakers."

On whetherhe worries about cities silencing voices they don't support

"The thing about censorship is the worm turns. The people who are in a position of control today, 10 years from now could very easily find themselves at the other end of the censorship spectrum. When we protect the right of others to speak, we are indirectly protecting our own right to speak, so that when 10 or 20 years later, the worm turns, we've established legal protections for everybody."

This segment aired on August 23, 2017.

Here is the original post:

Boston Rally Ends Without Violence, But Was Free Speech Served? - Here And Now

Conservative activists cut short a planned rally in Boston on Saturday as thousands of counterprotesters chanted anti-Nazi slogans and waved signs condemning white nationalism.

The Boston Police Department announced on Twitter that the event, billed as a Free Speech Rally, had ended around 1:30 p.m. Saturday afternoon saying demonstrators had left the [Boston] Common.

The tweet came just a few hours after dozens of rallygoers gathered at the historic Boston Common and were met with thousands of counterprotesters who had marched peacefully through downtown Boston.

Boston Police Department Commissioner William Evans said in late afternoon there had been 27 arrests, most for disorderly conduct, along with a few for assaulting police officers.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

He added there were few injuries and no significant property damage.

Organizers of the rally had publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others whose Unite the Right march in Charlottesville turned deadly Aug. Only a few dozen conservatives turned out to the Boston rally, in stark contrast to the approximately 40,000 people who showed up to protest against racism and bigotry.

Counterprotesters hold signs before conservative organizers begin a planned "Free Speech" rally on Boston Common, Saturday in Boston. Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers, some in uniform, others undercover, would be deployed to keep the two groups apart. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

In an early afternoon tweet, President Trump praised the work of local law enforcement.

Reports said about 10 people were arrested during the demonstrations.

Bostons demonstrations were mostly peaceful, however there were some confrontation between protesters including when a person dressed in all black grabbed an American flag out of an elderly womans hands, pulling her for several feet before she stumbled and feel to the ground.

People assemble on Boston Common before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins, Saturday in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

There were some confrontations amid the counterprotesters and conservative rally participants in Boston as they marched from the city's Roxbury neighborhood to Boston Common, where the rally was being held.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers -- some in uniform, others undercover -- were deployed to keep the peace Saturday.

BOSTON HOPES TO KEEP PEACE AT 'FREE SPEECH RALLY'

The permit issued for the rally on Boston Common came with severe restrictions, including a ban on backpacks, sticks and anything that could be used as a weapon. The permit is for 100 people, though an organizer has said he expected up to 1,000 people to attend.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, said it has nothing to do with white nationalism or racism and its group is not affiliated with the Charlottesville rally organizers in any way.

"We are strictly about free speech," the group said on its Facebook page. "... we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence."

But the mayor pointed out that some of those invited to speak "spew hate." Kyle Chapman, who described himself on Facebook as a "proud American nationalist," said he will attend.

Events are planned around the country, in cities including Atlanta, Dallas and New Orleans.

Dating to 1634, Boston Common is the nation's oldest city park. The leafy downtown park is popular with locals and tourists and has been the scene of numerous rallies and protests for centuries.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:

Boston 'Free Speech Rally' cut short as conservative ...

The ACLU has been here before.

In a statement posted Tuesday night, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero insisted hateful, bigoted speech must be aired.

"Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground," Romero wrote. "Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it."

Stacy Sullivan, ACLU associate director of strategic communications, said Wednesday that Romero was trying to answer outside critics as well as ACLU board members, donors and staff working for racial justice and concerned about the representation of white supremacists.

In his statement, Romero referred to the ACLU's history of representing Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and other detestable groups through the years and tacitly acknowledged the current dissent within ACLU ranks over its litigation ensuring that demonstrators could gather last Saturday in a downtown Charlottesville park.

"The violence of this weekend was not caused by our defense of the First Amendment," Romero wrote, countering critics who have argued that the ACLU's effort to prevent Charlottesville officials from moving the protest out of downtown contributed to the violent confrontations.

Romero's piece was posted Tuesday, soon after Trump had prompted public outrage with his remarks at Trump Tower in New York City about "blame on both sides." Trump's response to the rally of white supremacists and neo-Nazis has become arguably the most contentious of his turbulent seven-month presidency. He has been reluctant to denounce the white supremacists that started it all, instead saying there was blame all around.

The ACLU represented Jason Kessler, organizer of Unite the Right, as the group fought the city's attempt last week to revoke its permit to gather in a downtown Charlottesville park to protest removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The city had raised safety concerns about the number of demonstrators expected to attend.

US District Court Judge Glen Conrad, who rejected the revocation, noted that the city had left in place permits for counter-protesters near the downtown park and appeared to be targeting white nationalist Kessler for his views.

Some people, including Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, leveled blame at the ACLU for the resulting violence.

"The city of Charlottesville asked for that to be moved out of downtown Charlottesville to a park about a mile and a half away -- a lot of open fields," McAuliffe said on NPR Monday. "That was the place that it should've been. We were, unfortunately, sued by the ACLU. And the judge ruled against us."

McAuliffe contended the result in the middle of downtown was "a powder keg."

Virginia ACLU executive director Claire Gastanaga countered in a statement after McAuliffe's interview, "Our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events."

She said Charlottesville officials had failed to make the case ahead of time that danger at the downtown park was imminent.

Romero said he thought the Virginia chapter "made the right call here."

"Some have argued that we should not be putting resources toward anything that could benefit the voices of white supremacy," he said. "But we cannot stand by silently as the government repudiates the principles we have fought for -- and won -- in the courts when it violates clearly established First Amendment rights."

Romero referred to the ACLU's nearly century-long history of defending unpopular causes. One of the most prominent instances came in 1978 when the organization represented a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, home to many Holocaust survivors.

As is happening today, some ACLU members said they would resign or stop donating. The ACLU's Sullivan acknowledged that some staffers were upset with the Virginia ACLU's legal work and that the organization was concerned about donors turning away but described the current criticism as "muted" compared to the ACLU's "Skokie moment."

By 6 p.m. Wednesday, 24 hours after Romero's post had gone up, it had generated 75 responses. Most were anonymous and no unanimity emerged among the views. Some commended the ACLU's unequivocal support for free speech. Some said the organization had wrongly ignored crucial safety concerns. Some were torn.

Some referenced the deaths of Heyer and two state troopers killed in a helicopter crash as they helped monitor the Charlottesville scene.

Said one anonymous ACLU member, "I fully support the ACLU's defense of free speech rights, including groups such as the KKK, neo Nazis and other hate groups. However, I am deeply disturbed by the ACLU's decision to oppose local officials in Virginia who sought not to prevent the recent Charlottesville rally but to locate it in a place that would make it easier to keep all in attendance safe. ... (T)hree people are now dead and I cannot escape the thought that my donations may have contributed indirectly to their deaths."

Read more from the original source:

ACLU takes heat for its free-speech defense of white ...

One week after violent protests rattled Charlottesville, Virginia, a scheduled free speech rally in Boston Saturday was met with thousands of counterprotesters, but the day went off mostly smoothly, police said, with 33 arrests but few injuries.

The free speech rally was deemed "officially over" by police ahead of its official end time, but thousands of counterprotesters continued to spread out in the city throughout the afternoon, with some protesting peacefully but others confronting officers and people.

A total of 33 arrests were made Saturday, mostly from disorderly conduct and a few assaults on police officers, the Boston Police Department announced. Police Commissioner William Evans said at a news conference this afternoon that some urine-filled bottles were thrown at officers, and police indicated on Twitter that some demonstrators were throwing rocks at police.

But for the most part, Evans said, the day of direct action went off smoothly as police planned, with very little injury and property damage.

"Overall I thought we got the First Amendment people in, we got them out, no one got hurt, no one got killed," he said.

Police did stop three people with ballistic vests and a gun, Evans said, "but we were lucky to get those three out of here and confiscate the vests."

Evans said roughly 40,000 people descended on Boston Saturday, "standing tall against hatred and bigotry in our city, and that's a good feeling." He added that he wished the "trouble makers stayed away," who he said weren't there for either the free speech side or the counterprotesters' side, but "were here just to cause problems."

Evans said that "99.9 percent of the people here were for the right reasons -- that's to fight bigotry and hate."

Saturday's massive gathering of demonstrators across Boston was sparked by a free speech rally set to take place from noon to 2 p.m. at Boston Common. But the rally was deemed "officially over" in a tweet from Boston police at 1:30 p.m ET, and police said the demonstrators had left the Common.

Libertarian congressional candidate Samson Racioppi, who was set to speak at the free speech event, told ABC affiliate WCVB, "I really think it was supposed to be a good event by the organizers, but it kind of fell apart."

An organizer of the free speech event said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists involved in the violence in Charlottesville, but a small number of Ku Klux Klan members were expected to attend, ABC affiliate WCVB in Boston reported.

After the free speech event has concluded, counterprotesters still swarmed Boston this afternoon, and riot police also responded in the city.

The giant crowds of counterprotesters first gathered in the city this morning holding signs with phrases like, "hate speech is not free speech" and "white silence is violence."

Counterprotesters chanted "no fascists, no KKK, no racist USA."

One Massachusetts woman who drove three hours to Boston to attend today's counterprotest told ABC News she has felt "months of depression" and "absolute outrage."

"And after Saturday [at Charlottesville]," she said, "I just cannot be silent anymore."

Of the free speech rally attendees, she said, "I was glad to see that their crowd was very small. That spoke volumes to me.

"We have a really long way to go and we have to end white supremacy in all of its forms," she added.

Another counterprotester told ABC News, "I just wanted to come out and confront them head on, and I didn't want to miss this chance."

"I didn't think that we would ever have to have this confrontation in 2017," she said, "so it feels really vital to just come out and try to stamp it out today. And I'm encouraged by how many other people came out."

While many counterprotesters marched peacefully, some scuffled with armed officers.

Video showed several officers taking an individual to the ground after he angrily confronted the officers.

Amid the confrontations, Boston police tweeted that individuals are asked to "refrain from throwing urine, bottles and other harmful projectiles at our officers."

President Trump on Saturday afternoon thanked the police in a tweet, saying they look "tough and smart" against what he said appeared to be "anti-police agitators."

Trump also tweeted, "I want to applaud the many protestors in Boston who are speaking out against bigotry and hate. Our country will soon come together as one!" Boston Mayor Marty Wash responded to that message by saying that his city stood together for "peace and love."

First daughter Ivanka Trump on Saturday night tweeted, "It was beautiful to see thousands of people across the U.S.A come together today to peacefully denounce bigotry, racism & anti-Semitism ... We must continue to come together, united as Americans!"

Throughout the day, protesters also scuffled with each other.

In one tense scene between a man and a counterprotester at the Common, the counterprotester followed the man, saying, "We only hate hate." The man shouted, "Get away from me. Stay right there! You're not even a me [sic], you're not even a woman, you're an it!" As the man walked away, he kicked and punched into the air, leading one counterprotester to yell "Get your bigotry out of here, a------." The man shoved another counterprotester, which caused more people to step in to make sure the situation didn't escalate.

Boston city officials said they planned to deploy hundreds of police officers today to prevent violence similar to what took place in Charlottesville last weekend, where a rally by white nationalists, including neo-Nazis, skinheads and Ku Klux Klan members demonstrating over plans to remove a Robert E. Lee statue, ended in the death of a counterprotester after a car was rammed into a crowd that was marching through the streets.

"We're going to respect their right to free speech, Walsh said Friday, but "they don't have the right to create unsafe conditions."

Scheduled to speak at the free speech rally, which was organized by the Boston Free Speech Coalition, were Kyle Chapman, who caused controversy online after photos emerged of him hitting anti-Trump protesters, Joe Biggs, who previously worked at the website InfoWars, run by conservative radio host Alex Jones, Republican congressional candidate Shiva Ayyadurai and Racioppi.

Walsh said that some of those invited to speak "spew hate," The Associated Press reported.

John Medlar, who said he is an organizer for Boston Free Speech, said the group has no affiliation with the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville, Boston.com reported.

"While we maintain that every individual is entitled to their freedom of speech, and defend that basic human right, we will not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence," the group wrote on its Facebook page.

The group is largely made up of students in their mid-teens to mid-20s, Medlar told Boston.com.

WCVB reported that the KKKs national director, Thomas Robb, said as many as five KKK members from Springfield and possibly more from Boston were planning to attend today's rally.

Several other rallies were planned across the U.S. Saturday. Many are in response to the Charlottesville violence last weekend, as well as the movement to remove Confederate statues across the country, and in reaction to Trumps controversial press conference on Tuesday.

The "Rally Against White Supremacy" took place in Austin, Texas, while the Black Lives Matter Protests to remove Confederate statues took place in Houston, and the United Against HATE: Demand Racist President Trump Resign rally was held in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Events were also planned in cities including Atlanta, New Orleans and Dallas.

ABC News' Erin Keohane and Meghan Keneally contributed to this report.

Excerpt from:

Counterprotesters swarm Boston after police deem free ...

So glad to have found [FSTV] because theres nothing else out there telling us whats really going on. - Rita

I am so excited that I found your station flipping through the channels ... Keep up the good work. - Susan

Thom Hartmann is one of my heroes. - John

The Most informative and honest news station on American TV. No B.S. and great documentaries. - Kevin

[FSTV] is the best channel on tv. - Patricia

Most of us seek out media that tell us what we already believe to be true. Free Speech TV actually helps us think. - Alice

I want to thank Mike Papantonio for his wit and razor-sharp intellect, Amy Goodman for the highest standards of journalism... - Gail/Michigan

(Stephanie Miller) is why I started watching. Now watch Democracy Now! and Hartmann as well. - Deborah/Texas

"Free Speech TV is the best source of information that nobody knows about. We need to spread the word and educate the people." - Lorelei S.

"A little known TV station that offers an alternative viewpoint to the usual propaganda of network and cable news." - Ron S.

FSTV is the source. I'm greatful for the access these last four months. - Philadelphia, PA.

See the article here:

Free Speech TV

Photo Carol Christ, the U.C. Berkeley chancellor, is taking over at a time of intense debate over free speech principles. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Good morning.

(Want to get California Today by email? Heres the sign-up.)

A swirl of problems awaited U.C. Berkeleys new chancellor, Carol Christ, as she assumed the top job at Californias flagship public university this summer.

The campus is contending with a student housing shortage, a budget crunch and the fallout from a series of sexual harassment scandals.

Then there is the issue thats been attracting national attention: Whether conservative speakers have become unwelcome at Berkeley, a university regarded as a birthplace of the free speech movement.

In an interview, Dr. Christ, 73, indicated that she would confront that question head-on.

She announced a free speech year to include, among other events, a series of debates titled Point Counterpoint that would feature speakers with sharply divergent views.

What were trying to do is really give the community as many different kinds of opportunities to think carefully about free speech, she said.

Berkeley has been shadowed by doubts over its commitment to freedom of expression since February, when a planned speech on campus by the far right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was canceled in the wake of violent protests.

In the months that followed, more debates flared over invited speakers including the conservative writers Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro.

Dr. Christ, a scholar of Victorian literature and former president of Smith College, took over for the former Berkeley chancellor, Nicholas B. Dirks, in July.

She said she was looking carefully at how to improve the security around contested events on campus, a concern amplified this month by the deadly protests in Charlottesville, Va.

Asked if Mr. Yiannopoulos who has railed against Muslims, immigrants and transgender people was welcome at Berkeley, Dr. Christ cited the Constitution.

Lots of speech that I would find abhorrent, noxious, hateful, bigoted is protected, she said.

Whether Berkeley can guarantee that right without anyone getting hurt may be tested soon.

Mr. Yiannopoulos has said he will hold a four-day free speech event in September on Berkeleys Sproul Plaza.

This time, he vowed in a Facebook post, he will bring an army if I have to.

{{= c_phrase }}

(Please note: We regularly highlight articles on news sites that have limited access for nonsubscribers.)

A Democratic state senator who voted in favor of a gas tax has faced a well-funded recall effort. So his party colleagues are trying to change the election rules. [Sacramento Bee]

The Trump administration is expected to decide this week whether the status of five national monuments in California should be revoked, shrunk or let be. [San Francisco Chronicle]

Its called arrogance. The gate is still padlocked at Martins Beach, despite a judges order that a Silicon Valley billionaire could no longer block public access. [The Mercury News]

Hundreds of homeless people live in makeshift dwellings along the Santa Ana River Trail. Many local residents say the time has come to clear them out. [Orange County Register]

Keak Da Sneak, a well known Bay Area rapper, was critically wounded in a shooting. [East Bay Times]

A Los Angeles jury awarded $417 million in damages to a woman who sued Johnson & Johnson claiming baby powder caused her cancer. [The New York Times]

The top leadership of The Los Angeles Times was ousted in a shake-up that stunned many members of the newsroom. [The New York Times]

My life has been a constant hell. For some Sunnyvale residents, its not easy living next to Apples new $5 billion spaceship campus. [The Mercury News]

Daybeds, scented candles and organic seaweed snacks. Inside the $22 million private terminal at Los Angeles International Airport. [Vanity Fair]

We need more softness and more silence and more pause through the chaos. A conversation with the actress Shailene Woodley. [The New York Times]

The arrival of Apple, Facebook and Google means that the hypercompetitive world of scripted television is going to become even more ferocious. [The New York Times]

What $1,700 rents you in San Francisco right now. [San Francisco Curbed]

The eclipse on Monday delivered the country a welcome, if brief, moment of unity.

Americans across the country paused to peer skyward as the moon cast a shadow that traveled from Oregon to South Carolina.

From California, the show was hit or miss.

Most of the state got a clear view of the crescent-shaped sun. But morning fog along the coast effectively canceled the experience for many people, who resorted instead to online broadcasts.

They can take some solace. Another chance is coming in a mere seven years, when a total solar eclipse will travel along a route from Texas to Maine.

Yesterday we asked you to send us your eclipse photos. Here is a selection:

Want to submit a photo for possible publication? You can do it here.

California Today goes live at 6 a.m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes.com.

The California Today columnist, Mike McPhate, is a third-generation Californian born outside Sacramento and raised in San Juan Capistrano. He lives in Los Osos. Follow him on Twitter.

California Today is edited by Julie Bloom, who grew up in Los Angeles and graduated from U.C. Berkeley.

More:

California Today: Berkeley's New Chancellor and a 'Free Speech Year' - New York Times

Sixty-seven planned rallies in 36 states that were meant to attract members of the so-called alt-right and other racist groups are moving online after a free speech rally on Saturday in Boston attended by white supremacists was drowned out by demonstrators.

ACT for America is deeply saddened that in todays divisive climate, citizens cannot peacefully express their opinion without risk of physical harm from terror groups domestic and international, reads a statement from the anti-Islamic group behind the rallies, which were meant to begin September 9.

Instead, a Day of ACTion will be conducted through online and other media, ACT said, but it did not detail what shape that would take.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

A demonstrator holds a U.S. flag in front of white supremacy flags and banners as self-proclaimed white nationalists and members of the "alt-right" gather for what they called a Freedom of Speech rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., June 25. Jim Bourg/Reuters

The group accuses extremist individuals and groups inspired by the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) as well as anti-fascists, neo-Nazis and the KKK of creating security issues at similar free speech events this month.

In recent weeks, extremist and radical organizations in the United States and abroad have overrun peaceful events in order to advance their own agendas, and in many cases, violence has been the result, the group said. Protests against neo-Nazis were held in Germany last week.

Tens of thousands of anti-racist demonstrators also marched in Boston Saturday, dwarfing the number of alt-right members who gathered to express their views in Boston Common. The alt-right label was coined by white nationalist Richard Spencer and acts as an umbrella term for white supremacists, conspiracy theorists and misogynists.

The counterprotest was largely peaceful and followed a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that turned violent the week before. In Charlottesville, one counterprotester was killed and 19 others injured when police said a right-wing activist drove his car into a group of pedestrians. Anti-fascist groups in Charlottesville also pepper-sprayed and beat white supremacists.

Related: U.S. authorities consider shutting down hard-right rallies after Charlottesville

The ACT for America statement was first given to the hard-right website Breitbart. The sites executive chairman, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, has called the outlet a platform for the alt-right.

Two hate group watchdogs, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Anti-Defamation League (ADL), identify ACT for America as the largest anti-Muslim group in the U.S. ACT propagates the hateful conspiracy theory that Muslims are infiltrating U.S. institutions in order to impose Sharia law, according to the ADL.

In June, ACT organized simultaneous March Against Shariah events throughout the U.S. that attracted armed militia groups, white nationalists and other members of the alt-right, including the Blood and soil fascist group Vanguard America and white nationalists Identity Evropa.

Shariah law in Europe and North America refers mainly to an Islamic family law court system set up for religious adherents that can be used to mediate and settle disputes. Many hard-right Americans see the system as encroaching on the traditional European court systems jurisdiction. Since 2010, 15 anti-Sharia bills have been passed in various states. A total of 42 have been tabled across the U.S.

ACT for Americas membership is patriotic citizens whose only goal is to celebrate Americas values and peacefully express their views regarding national security, according to group, which claims to have 750,000 members.

In 2007, the groups founder,Brigitte Gabriel, saidat the Department of Defenses Joint Forces Staff College that any practicing Muslim who believes the word of the Koran to be the word of Allah...who goes to mosque and prays every Friday, who prays five times a daythis practicing Muslim, who believes in the teachings of the Koran, cannot be a loyal citizen of the United States. She has made a number of other anti-Islamic statements.

Despite these statements, ACT says that any organizations or individuals advocating violence or hatred towardanyone based on race, religion, or affiliation are not welcome at ACT for America events, or in the organization.

The groups online day of action is planned for September 9.

See more here:

Alt-Right 'America First' Rallies Move Online After Boston 'Free Speech' Protest Is Overrun - Newsweek

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Assault on Free Speech Wall Street Journal (subscription) Two recent events on either side of the globe have underscored the importance of free speechand the peril it faces today. Just days ago, Cambridge University Press yielded to pressure from the Chinese government to remove more than 300 articles from ... and more »

Read the original post:

The Assault on Free Speech - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Generally speaking, anyone can say anything online. But, lately, things have started to get complicated. Last week, after neo-Nazis and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, the neo-Nazi blog the Daily Stormer disappeared from the Internet. GoDaddy, the registrar of the sites domain, had discontinued its service. The Daily Stormer switched its domain to Google, which promptly shut it down as well. The site is now back up, on the dark Web, with its publisher pleading victimhood on social media. (I am being unpersoned.) What happened to the Daily Stormer wasnt a violation of the First Amendmentprivate companies are allowed to stifle speechbut it enraged people on the right, many of whom were already deeply skeptical of the puppet masters in Silicon Valley. Before any of this happened, a pro-Trump activist named Jack Posobiec was organizing a multicity March on Google, calling the company an anti-free-speech monopoly. (Last week, Posobiec announced that the march had been postponed, citing threats from the alt-left.)

Jack Conte is not an alt-right activisthes a bald, bearded musician from San Franciscobut he, too, once resented the titans of Silicon Valley. A few years ago, Conte was trying to make a living on YouTube. His music videosfunk covers of pop songs, homemade robots playing percussion padsoften went viral. I made a video that took many, many hours and cost me thousands of dollars, Conte said. My fans loved it. It got more than a million views. And I made a hundred and fifty bucks from it. I realized, Clearly, there is a problem with how stuff on the Internetwhat we now call content, what used to be called artgets monetized. Conte co-founded his own tech company, Patreon, a Web site that allows artists and activists to get paid directly by fans and supporters. A creator posts a description of what she intends to makea comic strip, a podcastand patrons sign up to fund it, each chipping in a few dollars a month. Patreon takes a five-per-cent cut. The company now has about eighty employees and a hundred-and-fifty-million-dollar valuationbig enough that many Web denizens consider Conte a new kind of puppet master.

Last month, Lauren Southern, a right-wing activist and pundit who was earning a few thousand dollars a month on Patreon, received an e-mail from the companys Trust and Safety team. Here at Patreon we believe in freedom of speech, it read. When ideas cross into action, though, we sometimes must take a closer look. Southern, a videogenic Canadian in her early twenties, whose book was blurbed by Ann Coulter, was known for videos like White Privilege Is a Dangerous Myth. Her Patreon page now reads This page has been removed.

Southern had participated in an anti-immigration action in the Mediterranean Sea, in which a motorboat tried to prevent a ship from bringing refugees to Europe. In an apologetic YouTube video, Conte insisted that Southern had been banned not for her politics but for her risky behavior. I didnt expect to convince everyone, and thats O.K., he said.

Predictably, Southerns fans were not pleased. Youre an idiot and a beta cuck, one commented. Some called for lawsuits. Others linked to a copycat site called Hatreon. (Motto: A platform for creators, absent thought policing.) Southern set up her own site, patreonsucks.com. Big liberal silicon valley companies want me to become a friendly little vlogger that spouts all the right lines, she wrote. I wont let that happen. She made a YouTube video directing followers to her new site, adding, As for Patreon, you guys can suck my balls.

Then came Charlottesville. Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally, had a Patreon page (three backers, generating thirty-three dollars a month). It was swiftly removed for violating Patreons rule against affiliations with known hate groups. Meanwhile, another Patreon user, the progressive activist Logan Smith, began sharing photos of the torch-wielding mob on his Twitter handle @YesYoureRacist. He urged people to help him identify the participants: Ill make them famous. Online vigilantes complied, and several marchers lost their jobs. A few people were incorrectly identified, causing nonparticipants to receive death threats. Doxingpublishing someones private information onlineis against Patreons rules. Smith claims that his activism wasnt doxing. If these people are so proud of their beliefs, then they shouldnt have a problem with their communities knowing their names, he said last week.

Patreon disagreed, and Smiths page was removed. It doesnt matter who the victim is, Conte said. It could be a convicted murderer. If someone is releasing private information that an individual doesnt want to be made public, then thats doxing. And we dont allow it. (One person tweeted at Patreon, He is identifying nazis and you are stopping him at the request of nazis .) Conte went on, Weve been getting it from all sidesof course. I get it. Taking away someones income is a hugely onerous thing, and we dont take it lightly. He sighed. Weve dealt with a huge range of stuff in the past few years, a wider variety than I ever would have imagined. But the fact that were talking about swastika flags right now? It just makes me sad.

Read more:

The Fight Over Free Speech Online - The New Yorker

The heavy weaponry put police at a distinct disadvantage as they tried to maintain safety. Chief Thomas denied that his officers were intimidated by the protesters weapons, but the armaments must have affected their strategy. That some of the counter-protesters also carried riflesthe Redneck Revolt, which styles itself after abolitionist John Brownheightened the fear of a violent confrontation. The fatal weapon turned out to be a Dodge Challenger rather than a firearm. But from the start, firearms made the battle between rival protesters much more than a war of words, or even of fists and sticks. That set the stage for the attack that took the life of Heather Heyer and could well have claimed many more.

No country in the world protects the right to hate speech as strenuously as America, and as painful as that can be at times, it has served the nation well by providing a release valve that repressive societies lack. Such is the American commitment to freedom of expression that even hateful speech advocating violence is lawful unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (In the 1969 ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court threw out the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who advocated violence.)

Free speech is a valuable right to protect, and were fortunate that courts have gone to great lengths to preserve it. But the semi-automatic weapons that protesters toted at the Charlottesville rally, along with a collection of shields, clubs and other riot paraphernalia, provided an actively threatening dimension to the violence-tinged speech being exercisedand that should not have been ignored. It was, though. Judge Glen E. Conrads ruling avoids the entire question of whether there was to be an incitement toward imminent lawless action, and makes no mention of the police chiefs concern about guns. Then again, court records indicate that the city of Charlottesville provided the judge with only sketchy details about the danger that firearms added to the Emancipation Park rally.

Still, the city did correctly predict violence. We firmly believe there is a threat of violence if it takes place in Emancipation Park, City Attorney S. Craig Brown told the judge the day before the rally, urging that the protest be moved to a larger park where it would be easier for police to do their job.

What can be done now?

A statement that numerous Catholic organizations issued on August16including Franciscan Action Network, major religious orders and their conferences, and Pax Christioffers the path of vigorous, nonviolent resistance. This is how it concludes:

We are called by our faith to be bold witnesses to nonviolence, and to nonviolently resist any display of hatred and violence.

As Catholics, we uphold the finest traditions and examples of nonviolence, and commit ourselves, in Pope Francis' words, "to make active nonviolence our way of life." Our faith calls on us to accompanyand protect our African American sister and brother, and all God's people, and to work for a day when the Beloved Community will become a reality, and hatred, intolerance, institutional racism, violence and injustice will find no place among us.

But we must be vigilant. Now is the time to be bold, to be public, and to let our voices be heard.

Read more:

Free Speech & Firearms - Commonweal

Any sort of extremism in Germany sets off alarm bells, and Michael Stuerzenberger may well be some sort of extremist. He sounds as if he is making a reasoned argument against the mass immigration that is changing the identity of Germany but theres no way of knowing whats really going on in his head. He has been mixed up with the Freedom Party and PEGIDA, both of them small anti-immigration pressure groups that their critics make sure to call racist and Islamophobic.

A Munich court has just sentenced him to six months imprisonment. This is because he put on Facebook a photograph taken in Berlin in about 1942 of Haj Amin Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, greeting a prominent Nazi in uniform complete with swastika arm-band, by the look of him it is Robert Ley. Other Nazis in uniform are in the background. There is nothing very special about it. Often reproduced are far more compromising photographs of the Mufti in the company of Hitler or Himmler. The Mufti hoped to participate in the Holocaust and the Allies hoped to try him as a war criminal. Whatever might have been Stuerzenbergers motive in publishing that photograph, the judge sentencing him is forbidding free speech and dropping the historical record down the memory hole. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly as often as was necessary. George Orwell, where are you? Worst of all, officially sanctioned abuse of the law compels the violence it is trying to defuse.

Original post:

Free Speech Under Attack in Germany - National Review

The principle of free speech is again being debated in the streets, in op-ed columns, and between opposing ideologies. Although principles are often deemed absolute, their legal application is most often contextual and therein lies the rub. The context often cited is that its illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater unless theres a fire.

Its also illegal to verbally incite the use of lawless force with intent to do violence and, just recently, to encourage suicide. Pornography has limited protection, but child pornography has none. And theres diminished protection for commercial speech such as false or misleading advertising. But the expression of ideas, no matter how repugnant, remains legal.

Courts have consistently confirmed the rights of Nazis, Klansmen, ultra-radical and fringe groups to associate and promulgate their beliefs. The First Amendment also protects the endless stream of partisan invective so riddled with alternative facts that fact-checking has become a growth industry. That said, the guarantee of free speech is constantly under legal challenge and review.

Perhaps, the most controversial application of the First Amendment was Citizens United in 2010. Its opponents are adamant about the essential difference between citizens and corporations. Those who support it, including the ACLU, contend that corporations are merely a body of citizens. But detractors question whether the interests of management and shareholders who control corporate messaging and campaign contributions are necessarily consistent with those of the rank and file.

The second point of contention is whether spending money on elections and lobbying constitutes speech. If money is indeed speech, its hard to see how a poor man has equal footing with a rich one or how a soapbox could possibly equate with a broadcast network.

After Charlottesville, the emerging question is whether white supremacy demonstrators brandishing automatic weapons capable of spraying bullets into a crowd in seconds constitutes speech? Does the confluence of enhanced first and second amendment rights create a new form of threatening speech?

And when amplified by vast media ownership, by millions spent in lobbying, or by the intimidating presence of military weapons, is speech still just speech?

The ACLU asserts that our right of free expression rests on the premise that the people get to decide what they want to hear, not government. The ongoing challenge is to sustain that right without compromising other principles like public safety, equal opportunity, and democratic process.

Read the rest here:

Schubart: Free Speech Revisited - Vermont Public Radio

wbur

August 20, 2017 Updated August 21, 2017 10:20 AM

Police estimate that 40,000 people converged on Boston Common on Saturday to protest a few dozen people attending what organizers called a free speech rally.

Critics of that rally, including Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, said the event gave a platform to people who promote hate. The rally was cut short, and organizers of it said they were denied their right to exercise free speech.

'Don't Let Him Speak!'

The day was hot and humid, and mostlypeaceful. There was music, and all manner of free expression by counter-demonstrators. Some women dressed as witches, anda fewmen were wearingtutus. One person wore a gingerbread man costume. And everywhere, there were signs and T-shirts with slogans some nice, some nasty.One pregnant woman even wrote on her belly, "This baby hates Nazis."

Police were out in force, and bottles and weapons were banned in order to prevent violence like that which occurred last week in Charlottesville, Virginia. There, during a "Unite-the-Right" rally, neo-Nazis and alt-right demonstrators attacked onlookers and counter-demonstrators, and 32-year-old Heather Heyer was killed.

On Boston Common, there were added surveillance cameras, and undercover officers mingledwiththe crowd. Fences were set up to keep the fewpeople who wanted to get to the Parkman Bandstand to hear the speakers separate from counter-demonstrators, creating a 30-yard no-man's land in between.

No reporters or members of the general public were allowed in.

Counter-demonstrators lined the fence, blocking access to the bandstand.

One man, who would not give his name, tried to get into the area. He was surrounded and interrogated by the crowd.

One counter-demonstrator asked him, "What brings you here today?" As he started to answer, his reply was drowned out by people in the crowd shouting, "Don't let him talk!" "Don't let him speak!" "We don't want to hear him!"

Another person said: "You don't get a voice! You don't get to talk!"

Then, the counter-protesters broke out in a chant of "Shame, shame, shame."

Police stood behind the barriers. The man was followed by counter-demonstrators as he left the Common. He and others who wanted to get to the bandstand never made it.

A Message Debate

Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evanswas asked why some of the speakers that planned to join the free speech rally said they were not let through the perimeter.

"We had a job to do. We did a great job," Evans replied."I'm not going to listen to people who come in here and want to talk about hate. And you know what? If they didn't get in, that's a good thing because their message isn't what we want to hear."

The rally had a permit from the city to run for two hours, but it lasted less than half that time before police escorted those on the Parkman Bandstand into wagons and away from the Common.

John Medlar, organizer of the self-described free speech rally, was among those transported and protected by the police.

"This was mob rule today," he said on WBUR. "This was not justice." He added: "We had to get out of there because there were people out there trying to kill us."

In the days before the rally, several alt-right speakers were disinvited from the event, and Medlar publiclydisavowed bigotry, hatred and racism. He calls himself a libertarian and his group a coalition of classical conservatives, liberals and Trump supporters.

Medlar said that by blocking the gate to the Parkman Bandstand, counter-demonstrators were not exercising free speech or expression.

"You think honestlythat if we're not allowed to speak, then you'll be allowed to speak?" he asked. "The First Amendment applies to everybody. We're trying to defend everyone's right to speak here. Including the people who shut us down today."

Medlarsaid that Boston has not seen the last of him, or his coalition.

"I'm telling you, this is not going to be the last rally," he said. "We're not going to give in to threats of violence."

This segment aired on August 20, 2017.

Bruce Gellerman Reporter Bruce Gellerman is an award-winning journalist and senior correspondent, frequently covering science, business, technology and the environment.

More

Original post:

A Debate Over Speech As A Boston Common Rally Is Cut Short - WBUR

Photo White supremacists at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday. Credit Joshua Roberts/Reuters

To the Editor:

Re The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech (Op-Ed, Aug. 17):

K-Sue Park argues that the American Civil Liberties Union should rethink its approach to defending free speech after the tragic events in Charlottesville, Va. We are deeply sickened by the violence and mourn the lives lost there. The First Amendment is never a shield for violence.

There is no moral equivalency between the values of equality and justice promoted by Black Lives Matter, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and antiwar protesters, whom we have supported in our history, and the odious views of white supremacists. But we believe that the right of free speech, peacefully expressed, must extend even to those with whom we most vehemently disagree.

Ms. Park is correct that racist speech causes harm, and that speech rights, like property, privacy and liberty rights, can contribute to inequality. But allowing government officials to regulate speech based on their assessment of who is promoting equality or on the wrong side of history would be disastrous. How does Ms. Park think that Southern mayors would have used that power during the 1960s? How would President Trump use it today?

We devote the vast majority of our resources to the never-ending fight for equality for all, including communities of color, women, the L.G.B.T. community, immigrants, people with disabilities and political dissidents. But the freedoms to speak, associate and demonstrate are indispensable tools for advancing justice. We will continue to fight for equality and free speech for all.

DAVID COLE, NEW YORK

The writer is national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

To the Editor:

As an A.C.L.U. member, a Jew and a Charlottesville resident, I agree that the time has come for the A.C.L.U. to end its commitment to defend the free speech of Nazis and white supremacists.

View post:

Free-Speech Rights and Hate Groups - New York Times