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

TWO YEARS ago, confronted with an inflammatory advertisement depicting the prophet Muhammad, the agency that runs Metro banned all issue-oriented advertising from the subway and bus systems. This March, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found the ban constitutional. You might expect this to be the end of the story but it turns out that defining issue-oriented advertising isnt quite as simple as it sounds.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is facing a new First Amendment lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union. And the ACLU has a point at least in part. While WMATAs policy bans advertisements advocating for any side of any issue, it has determined what counts as advocacy in a manner that privileges some viewpoints over others. And its guidelines are so vague that its hard to say what WMATA considers advocacy to begin with.

The ACLU is suing on its own behalf Metro rejected its effort to display the text of the First Amendment and on behalf of far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, the Carafem abortion clinic and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, all of whose advertisements WMATA rejected. In Mr.Yiannopouloss case, WMATA approved the advertisement only to remove it after receiving complaints from offended riders.

The ACLUs suit goes too far in arguing for WMATA to accept its advertisements and those of PETA, which encouraged veganism. Those really were issue ads prohibited by WMATAs legally acceptable guidelines.

But Mr. Yiannopouloss advertisement aimed not to broadcast a viewpoint but to sell his book. WMATA appears to have rejected the advertisement based on complaints about Mr. Yiannopouloss politics, when it does accept ads for other creative works; that amounts to the governments unconstitutionally selecting which ads to display on the basis of viewpoint. Likewise, WMATA rejected Carafems advertisement promoting the clinics services as advocacy because the ad implicated the abortion debate. The ACLU makes a persuasive argument that WMATAs choice to label all abortion-related advertisements as issue-oriented constitutes viewpoint discrimination as well.

WMATA must apply its guidelines consistently, even to products associated with contentious issues. It should also provide clear, objective guidance as to what constitutes advocacy. Of course, even advertisements for products often put forward a point of view to some extent. The vice president of Carafem, for example, has stated that the clinic hopes its ads will increase abortions social acceptability. A McDonalds ad might promote the consumption of meat.

Nevertheless, we can distinguish between advertisements that primarily promote products and those that promote only ideas. Legally, WMATA can prohibit the latter. But if it allows the former, it should approve advertisements for all products and services that meet WMATAs other guidelines, no matter how controversial the views behind those products may be. And while some ACLU supporters even one of its own attorneys have criticized the organization for representing Mr. Yiannopoulos, we should celebrate its willingness to remind us that the First Amendment also protects those voices we may find loathsome.

Read more here:

The ACLU is half-right about Metro's violation of free speech - Washington Post

Last Saturday, my adopted home was invaded by a throng of white nationalistsmany heavily armed. They were opposed primarily by area residents, like myself. The results of that protestthe violence, injuries, and deathare by now well known.

I have called Charlottesville home for six years. When I got an offer to join the faculty of the University of Virginia Law School, I was hesitant to leave my native country, the Netherlands, to move to a small town in the American South. But I am glad I did; Charlottesville has been a wonderful place to live: a friendly, cosmopolitan, and welcoming college town.

As images of armed militias and others waving and wearing swastikas made their way across the globe, many of my European friends and family messaged me to ask why the government was allowing this to happen. After all, events would not have unfolded as they did if Charlottesville were in my native country, or for that matter, in any European country. Europeans reject and criminalize certain types of expression they define as hate speech. Much of the speech that we witnessed in Charlottesville would have qualified as such.

This trans-Atlantic difference is largely the product of Europes own history with Nazism. Many Europeans share complicated histories of Nazism that current generations are still grappling with. My own family history illustrates this.

On the eve of WWII, my working-class great-grandparents, like a large number of Dutch, joined the National Socialist Movement (NSB), a Nazi-aligned Dutch party. My family was poor, and joining the NSB improved my great-grandfathers prospects for getting a factory job. Those who knew them insist that anti-Semitism did not motivate their decision to join the party. Still, they gradually started to buy into the partys sinister ideology. After the war my great-grandparents were imprisoned for their NSB affiliation.

My grandfather made a different choice from his parents: during the German occupation he joined the Dutch resistance. He was soon arrested and sent to a labor camp in Germany. He escaped the camp and ended up between enemy lines, where German soldiers executed his travel companions but spared him because of his blond hair and blue eyes. A German mayor helped him after he escaped the labor camp. After the war, he traveled back from Russia to the Netherlands with a girl named Stella who had survived Auschwitz but died giving birth to her first child. These stories were revealed to us in bits and pieces. My grandfather was an amateur poet and prolific writer, but the memories remained raw and painful, and it took him six decades to finally tell his story in a (still unpublished) book.

One ordinary working-class family ended up on different sides of one of the worst atrocities in human history. Our family never overcame those divides.

After WWII, western Europeansand decades later joined by their eastern compatriotsbuilt one of the strongest human-rights systems in the world. Within the framework of the Council of Europe they adopted the European Convention of Human Rights, which would be enforced by both national courts and the newly established European Court of Human Rights. This system protects free speech to an extent. European free-speech doctrine is based on the idea that free speech is important but not absolute, and must be balanced against other important values, such as human dignity.

As a result, freedom of expression can be restricted proportionally when it serves to spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an international human rights treaty, reflects similar principles. This balancing of free speech against other values led Germany to ban parties with Nazi ideologies and recently, to prosecute Chinese tourists who performed a Hitler salute in front of the Reichstag. It led France to outlaw the sale of Nazi paraphernalia on eBay, led Austria to jail a discredited historian who denies the holocaust, and caused the Netherlands to criminalize the selling of Mein Kampf. It is for this same reason that many Europeans could not believe the open display of swastika flags in Charlottesville.

Since WWII, the United States has taken a different tack, exceptional from a global perspective. American free-speech doctrine protects a panoply of viewpoints, even when they target ethnic or religious groups, cause deep offense, or are false by consensus. One underlying theory for doing so is that bad ideas will eventually lose out in a well-functioning marketplace. Some go so far as to argue that it is valuable in itself for a society to tolerate even the most extreme viewpoints. Hence, speech can almost never be restricted on the basis of viewpoint. Most famously, that approach protected the rights of neo-Nazis to march through heavily Jewish parts of Skokie in a 1977 Supreme Court case. It is the approach that allowed neo-Nazis and other white supremacists to demonstrate in Charlottesville on Saturday.

Americans are generally proud of their free speech tradition, and many argue that the European approach is unprincipled or ineffective. Why is denying the Holocaust forbidden, but depicting the prophet Muhammedwhich is blasphemous to many Muslimscondoned? Many of these lines reflect majority opinion and national experience rather than neutral principles. And policing speech can embolden those being censored. When the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders was convicted for inciting discrimination, he became even more popular among some groups.

Whatever its merits, the European position is rooted in its experiences that the free market of ideas can faildisastrously. Dangerous ideas can catch on quickly, especially when people holding power or influence endorse them. My great-grandparents were not like the protestors in Charlottesville last weekend; they were ordinary citizens who saw their economic lot improve and stayed silent because they benefited from, what some knew thenand nearly everyone knows nowwere toxic ideas.

America today is different from Europe in the 1940s. But Europes history raises the question: Can we count on the market of ideas to succeed? Is it possible for white supremacy and related ideologies to spread beyond the relatively small number of Unite-the-Right fanatics and their brethren? Some suggest that Donald Trumps election is one piece of evidence thats its already happened.

There are no easy answer to these questions. But I believe that in a system where government does not police vile ideas, as in the United States, a larger burden falls on ordinary citizens and other private actors. It is my (admittedly anecdotal) observation that, to some extent, Americans are already doing this. Americans who express objectionable views face harsher community judgement than Europeans who do so.

My American fiance has often expressed shock that the Dutch still commonly use the term neger (negro) although its usage is increasingly controversial. A team of all-black-faced helpers officially accompany the Dutch Santa before Christmas each year. And I have occasionally found myself surprised to learn that there are some things that I absolutely cannot say here, or that people can lose their jobs for what they say off-hours.

Americans long have been caught up in debates over whether there is too much political correctness. Though they are starting to emerge, there are many fewer such debates in Europe. To some extent that is understandable; when the government polices speech, ordinary citizens do not have to concern themselves with all the subtle ramifications of speech. What we may be seeing is a substitution effect: Ordinary citizens in the U.S. take it upon themselves to do what governments are doing elsewhere.

A minority of Americans believe that Donald Trump got elected in part because political correctness has gone too far. They believe that Trump is a healthy corrective in a society in which people are policing each other too much.

But the Charlottesville events, viewed through the lens of European history and its response in law, may teach us that we private citizens and residents in the U.S. need to work even harder to expose the rotten ideas being peddled in the marketplace. When leaders condone hate speech (as Trumps condemnation of both sides and his insistence that the alt-right protestors included some very fine people arguably did) and ordinary people acquiesce, the market can break down quickly. European history has shown this. In an unregulated marketplace of ideas, private citizens need to take up the burden of holding the line against racist extremism.

Kevin Cope, University of Virginia School of Law and Department of Politics, contributed to this article.

Here is the original post:

What Europe Can Teach America About Free Speech - The Atlantic

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.

The rest is here:

Counterprotesters swarm Boston after police deem free speech ...

BOSTON --Thousands of demonstrators chanting anti-Nazi slogans converged Saturday on downtown Boston, dwarfing a small group of conservatives who cut short a "free speech rally" in a boisterous repudiation of white nationalism, just a week after racially tinged bloodshed in Virginia.

Police confined a small group of "free speech" protesters to the Parkman Bandstand on historic Boston Common as they blocked off the massive counter-protests, CBS Boston reports. The permit issued for the rally came with severe restrictions, including a ban on backpacks, sticks and anything that could be used as a weapon.

Boston's police commissioner, William B. Evans, said an estimated 40,000 people attended the counter-protests and there was very little property damage.

The Boston police department tweeted there were 33 arrests.

A large crowd of people march towards the Boston Commons to protest the Boston Free Speech Rally in Boston, MA, U.S., August 19, 2017.

STEPHANIE KEITH / REUTERS

The Boston Police Department announced at 1:30 p.m. that the "free speech" rally had ended. Police vans escorted conservatives out of the area, and angry counter-protesters scuffled with armed officers trying to maintain order.

Police in riot gear struggled to push the large crowd of counter-protesters away from the area, pushing them back in the area of Boylston and Tremont Streets.

On Twitter, the police department asked "individuals" in the area to refrain from throwing urine, bottles and other "harmful projectiles" at officers. They later confirmed that rocks were thrown at officers.

Several images on social media showed at least one counter-protester burning a Confederate flag.

A protester burns the Confederate flag in Boston on Saturday, Aug. 19, 2017.

Jordan Presley/Twitter

President Trump tweeted on Saturday,applauding the police presence and their responsein Boston. "Looks like many anti-police agitators in Boston. Police are looking tough and smart! Thank you," he wrote.

In a separate tweet, Mr. Trump said, "Great job by all law enforcement officers and Boston Mayor [Marty Walsh]."

He also applauded protesters who were "speaking out against bigotry and hate," saying the country would "soon come together as one!"

Organizers of the "free speech" event had publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others who fomented violence in Charlottesville on Aug. 12. A woman was killed at that Unite the Right rally, and scores of others were injured, when a car plowed into counter-demonstrators.

Aerial footage shows where police confined a small group of "free speech" protesters as they blocked off massive counter-demonstrations in Boston.

CBS Boston

John Medlar of the Boston Free Speech Coalition, which organized the event, is a 23-year-old student at Fitchburg State College. He told CBS News correspondent DeMarco Morgan that his group would not tolerate hate speech.

"Reasonable people on both sides who are tolerant enough to not resort to violence when they hear something they disagree with, reasonable people who are actually willing to listen to each other, need to come together and start promoting that instead of letting all of these fringe groups on the left and the right determine what we can and cannot say," Medlar said.

Play Video

Police officers in riot gear clashed with protesters following a planned "free speech" rally in Boston on Saturday.Thousands of counter-protester...

Some counter-protesters dressed entirely in black and wore bandannas over their faces. They chanted anti-Nazi and anti-fascism slogans, and waved signs that said: "Love your neighbor," ''Resist fascism" and "Hate never made U.S. great." Others carried banners that read: "Smash white supremacy."

TV cameras showed a group of boisterous counter-protesters on the Common chasing a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him. But other counter-protesters intervened and helped the man safely over a fence into the area where the conservative rally was to be staged. Black-clad counter-protesters also grabbed an American flag out of an elderly woman's hands, and she stumbled and fell to the ground.

Police Commissioner William Evans said Friday that 500 officers would be deployed to separate the two groups.

Read more from the original source:

Boston "free speech" rally ends after counter-protesters take ...

(BOSTON) Boston will deploy about 500 police officers on Saturday to prevent possible violence at a free speech rally and planned counterprotests, the mayor and police commissioner said Friday.

"We will not tolerate any misbehavior, violence or vandalism whatsoever," Police Commissioner William Evans said at a City Hall news conference.

The city granted permission for what organizers are calling a free speech rally on Boston Common, but which some people fear is actually a white nationalist event similar to the Unite the Right rally in Virginia last weekend that erupted in violence and left one person dead.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh 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.

"They have the right to gather no matter how repugnant their views are," Walsh said. "We're going to respect their right of free speech. In return they must respect our city."

The Boston Free Speech Coalition says its rally has nothing to do with white nationalism, Nazism or racism and that they are not affiliated with the organizers of the Charlottesville, Virginia, rally.

"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 said on its Facebook page.

Its permit is for 100 people, though an organizer has said he expected up to 1,000 people to attend.

Organizers of a counterprotest expect thousands of people to join them on a 2-mile (3.2-kilometer) march from the city's Roxbury neighborhood to the Common to "stand in defiance of white supremacy," activist Monica Cannon said.

"I don't think what they are exuding is free speech, I believe it is hate speech," she said at a separate news conference Friday.

Organizers promised a peaceful counterprotest.

Another group is planning a separate "Stand for Solidarity" rally on the Statehouse steps near the Common.

The police presence in Boston will include undercover officers mingling in the crowds and officers on bicycles, Evans said. More officers will be held in reserve in case of trouble. Transit police will increase their presence at subway stations in the area. Weapons of all kinds, even sticks used to carry signs, are banned. The sides will be separated by barricades.

Popular tourist attractions, including the Frog Pond on the Common, and the Swan Boats in the adjacent Public Garden, are being shut down for the day. Streets around the Common are also being blocked to vehicle traffic.

Extra security cameras have been installed at the bandstand where the free speech rally is taking place. Walsh noted it's a spot where Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., and President Barack Obama have spoken.

State police troopers are also available if needed, Gov. Charlie Baker said.

"We're going to do everything we can to make sure tomorrow is about liberty and justice, and about freedom and peace," he said.

Boston isn't the only city preparing for such a rally.

Dallas police said Friday they will have extra officers on duty for a rally against white supremacy planned for City Hall Plaza on Saturday night.

Supporters of keeping the city's Confederate monuments have also posted on social media about a counterprotest, but it was unclear Friday whether that event would occur.

Read the original post:

Boston Prepares for Free Speech Rally and Counterprotests ...

After a day of mostly peaceful protest, President Donald Trump told marchers that he applauded them for speaking out against bigotry and hate. But only after he also called out "many anti-police agitators" for their actions.

A right-wing group had planned to protest in Boston Common Saturday, but broke up their rally prematurely as thousands over counterprotestors overwhelmed their event.

Trump praised the Boston Police Department and Mayor Marty Walsh for how they handled a controversial "Free Speech Rally" and thousands-strong counterprotest Saturday.

The counter-protest reportedly drew at least 30,000 people occasionally erupted into confrontation, and almost 30 arrests were made, according to the Boston Globe.

Hours after the sparsely attended rally ended, the Boston Police Twitter feed reported individuals near a "sit-in" protest close to the intersection of Tremon and West were throwing rocks, urine, and other projectiles at officers.

At least one public transit station had been shutdown, according to the Boston Transportation department.

The event was held a week after a white supremacist march and counter-protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, ended in bloodshed.

Trump said in a tweet Saturday afternoon that he saw many "anti-police agitators" in coverage of the event and praised the police for looking "tough and smart."

The president went on to thank law enforcement and Boston's mayor for a "great job."

He later tweeted that the "country has been divided for decades," that sometimes protest is necessary in order to "heel" (sic).

He then resent the tweet with the proper spelling of the word "heal."

A law enforcement official told the Associated Press earlier Saturday that there were about 20 arrests, but no serious injuries were reported during the event.

Many counterprotesters still remain in the area, including a few who were among people chanting "Black Lives Matter" who burned a confederate flag, AP reported.

The "Free Speech" rally itself was sparsely attended, according to Boston.com. Barely 20 people were reportedly seen attending the rally in Boston Common, which had a permit to go until 2 p.m.

According to multiple reports, the few "Free Speech" protesters in the park left around 1 p.m. local time, escorted by police. It's unclear if there are other events being held elsewhere in the city.

The "Free Speech Rally" organizers have publicly distanced themselves from the white supremacist groups that marched in Charlottesville last week.

Hundreds of counter-protesters had surrounded the perimeter of the park in downtown Boston during the rally.

Boston's Walsh on Friday had urged counter-protesters to stay away from the event, arguing that their presence would simply draw more attention to the far-right activists. But on Saturday, the mayor was seen walking with the march, and later attended a rally called West Broadway Unity Day in South Boston, according to Boston.com.

Organizers of the "Free Speech" rally had denounced the violence and racist chants of the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" protest.

"We are a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents and we welcome all individuals and organizations from any political affiliations that are willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties," the group said on Facebook.

The event's scheduled speakers include Kyle Chapman, a California activist who was arrested at a Berkeley rally earlier this year that turned violent, and Joe Biggs, formerly of the right-wing conspiracy site Infowars.

At least 500 police officers, many on bicycles, were on hand to keep the expected crowd of a few hundred people at the "Free Speech" rally separate from thousands attending a counter-protest by people who believe the event could become a platform for racist propaganda.

The rest is here:

Far outnumbered, Boston 'Free Speech' rally ends early

La Jolla Playhouse Presents

July 29 August 21, 2016

Free Speech! (While Supplies Last) offers an irreverent look at Americas electoral insanity. This topical new show features political satire made famous by Second City stars like Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert and Keegan-Michael Key, as well as brand new scenes, songs and improv straight from their sold-out shows in Chicago and Toronto. This must-see evening of comedy features some of Chicagos best and brightest in a special three-week engagement.

Click here for full company bios and to read more in-depth articles about the show.

Contains strong language and adult situations.

Patron Services will be happy to answer any questions you have at (858) 550-1010.

Please check back for more information.

Please check back for press and reviews.

The Mandell Weiss Forum is a 400-seat thrust stage theatre, with audience members surrounding the stage on three sides. It contains a rehearsal hall, two courtyards and an outdoor "lobby." Built with sleek industrial materials and intersecting geometric shapes, it has a long free-standing entry wall with massive reflective smoky-glass panes that generate the illusion of being both within and outside of the partition.

> Learn more

Children under the age of 6 are not permitted in the theatre during performances unless otherwise posted.

Every Thursday during the run of Free Speech, starts at 7:00 pm

Join us before your performance for complimentary beer tastings from Modern Times Brewery. Presented by La Jolla Playhouse in partnership with James Place. Includes two 3-oz beer tastings.

Every Friday during the run of Free Speech (except August 5), starts at 6:00 pm

Theatergoers are invited to attend Foodie Fridays, where a ticket to select Playhouse performances also includes access to some of San Diegos finest food trucks!

Every Saturday evening during the run of Free Speech

Enjoy live music before the show. More details to follow.

See original here:

The Second City's Free Speech! (While Supplies Last)

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 2:50 PM

Let's get one thing straight from the start: President Trump was utterly and completely wrong to equate the white supremacists who converged on Charlottesville, Va., last weekend with the counter-protesters who challenged them.

By saying that there were "bad people" in both groups, he implicitly placed them on the same moral plane. And by repeatedly emphasizing that "both sides" engaged in violence, he ignored the obvious fact that only one side the white supremacists counted a murderer among their numbers.

I'm talking about James Alex Fields, Jr., of course, the reported neo-Nazi who killed paralegal Heather Heyer and injured 19 others by driving his car into a crowd. There was nothing even close to that on the other side.

But the counter-protesters did engage in violence, wielding fists and sticks to attack some of the white supremacists. It was small potatoes, by comparison, but it has big implications for free speech. Across the political spectrum, a growing number of Americans want to deny that right to people they detest. And once you do that, you can visit any wrong upon them.

John Kelly's five stages of grief during Trump's news conference

Witness the assault on Jason Kessler, one of the key organizers of the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville. When he tried to speak at a press conference on Saturday, a pair of men charged at him; one of them shouted an obscenity, and the other said, "Indict for murder now."

As Kessler scurried away from the podium, a man identified as Jeff Winder punched him. "Jason Kessler has been bringing hate to our town for months and has been endangering the lives of people of color," Winder said. "Free speech does not protect hate speech."

Actually, it does. For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of Americans to say pretty much anything they want. The lone exception is for "fighting words," personal threats that pose an immediate danger of physical harm to somebody else.

Did Kessler's words pose that kind of peril? Of course not. Instead, they provoked a violent reaction against him, by people who took it upon themselves to decide what he should and shouldn't be allowed to say.

Mom of Charlottesville victim says daughter's cause won't stop

And if you think that's OK, how can you object when other people try to muzzle speech that you might approve, but which they find abhorrent? I'm thinking especially of Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour, whose selection as a commencement speaker at the City University of New York School of Public Health last spring provoked protests outside the university and death threats against Sarsour.

Calling Sarsour a supporter of terrorism, which she resolutely denied, critics urged Gov. Cuomo to cancel her speech. He refused, fortunately, and Sarsour delivered her address without incident. But she also had to hire two private bodyguards to accompany her to public events.

I'm not equating Sarsour with Jason Kessler. My point is simply that "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder. That's why we need to protect it, no matter how vile or offensive it seems.

19 photos view gallery

The alternative is to have the government define and delimit hate speech, via laws and regulations. Every federal court who has examined such rules including campus speech codes has struck them down. And thank heavens for that, because our own government is now led by one Donald J. Trump.

Trumps response to Charlottesville attack was weak and cowardly

At every turn, Trump has shown himself to be an enemy of free speech. During his campaign, he openly wished for the demise of newspapers that criticized him. He encouraged supporters to attack protesters at his rallies, even offering to pay the resulting legal bills. Do you really want this guy deciding what you can and can't say? I didn't think so.

And that's one of the sad ironies of our current moment. The last few days have witnessed a surge of disgust for President Trump, who has openly defended racists and white supremacists. But we have also seen attacks on free speech, including a tweetstorm against the American Civil Liberties Union for upholding the rights of these same white supremacists.

That plays right into Trump's hands. At this delicate juncture, the last thing we should be doing is restricting freedom of speech. In America, everyone should have their say. And if you say otherwise, watch out! He might be coming for you next.

Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania. He is the author (with Emily Robertson) of The Case for Contention: Teaching Controversial Issues in American Schools.

Visit link:

In Charlottesville, some on the left attacked free speech ...

Boston police said 27 people were arrested during day-long demonstrations to protest hate speech a week after a woman was killed at a Virginia white supremacist rally. (Reuters)

BOSTON Tens of thousands of counterprotesters crammed Boston Common and marched through city streets Saturday morning in efforts to drown out the planned free speech rally that many feared would be attended by white-supremacist groups.

By 1 p.m., the handful of rally attendees had left the Boston Common pavillion, concluding their event without planned speeches. A victorious cheer went up among the counterprotesters, as many began to leave. Hundreds of othersdancedin circles andsang, Hey hey, ho ho. White supremacy has got to go.

City officials said that at least 40,000 people participated in the counter protest, 20,000 of whom participated in a march across town.Tensions flared as police escorted some rally attendees out of the Common, prompting several physical altercations between police and counterprotesters.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said there were 27 arrests, primarily for disorderly conduct. He said no officers or protesters were injured and there was no property damage. Evans added that three individuals were wearing ballistics vests, one of whom was later found to be armed. It is unclear if those three are among the arrests.

Evans said there were three groups of people in attendance: attendees of the free speech rally, counter protesters, and a small group of people who showed up to cause trouble.

Overall everyone did a good job, Evans said. 99.9 percent of people were here for the right reason, and thats to fight bigotry.

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh met up with the counterprotesters at themarch.

I think its clear today that Boston stood for peace and love, not bigotry and hate, he said.

[Donald Trump brought me here today: Counterprotesters rout neo-Nazi rally in Berlin]

President Donald Trump praised law enforcement and Mayor Marty Walsh via tweet Saturday afternoon for their handling of the crowds, saying that there appeared to be many anti-police agitators in Boston. More than an hour later, he tweeted support for protesters.

The showdown between right-wing ralliers and the far larger group of counterprotesters in the heart of downtown Boston comes just one week after a chaotic gathering of far-right political groups including neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members left dozens injured and one woman dead in Charlottesville aftera reported neo-Naziallegedly plowed his carinto a crowd of counterprotesters.

In anticipation of potential violence, city officials corralled more than 500 police officers onto the Common, installed security cameras and constructed elaborate barriers to separate the free-speech rally from the massive demonstration in opposition to it. The handful of rally attendees gathered beneath a pavilion near the center of the Common, surrounded by metal barriers and dozens of police. Several hundred feet away, thousands of counterprotesters surrounding them carrying signs declaring Black Lives Matter and Hate Has No Home In Boston, while mockingly chanting we cant hear you when it appeared the ralliers had begun to speak.

One moment of tension came when rally attendees ventured outside of the barriersand were promptly confronted by counterprotesters. One man, draped in a Donald Trump flag, was immediately surrounded by media, while demonstrators chanted at him to go home.

[Shame!: Part of Bostons protest looked eerily like a scene from Game of Thrones]

One rally attendee, Luke St. Onge,a young man wearing a red Make America Great Again hat and GOP T-shirt, saidhe came even though he knew it might be attended by white-supremacist groups, whose views he said he does not agree with.

I definitely wouldnt associate myself with the KKK or any white supremacist. I dont stand with them at all, said St. Onge, who is from Las Vegas. I do support their right to an opinion, he added. Free speech is definitely something I stand for.

Plans for the Boston rally, which organizers said was not about white supremacy or Confederate monuments, were nearly scrapped following the violence in Charlottesville. Several speakerspulled out of or were uninvited from the event, but John Medlar, a Boston-area college student and the rallys lead organizer, said that the rally would go on.

Among those who were scheduled to speak were Joe Biggs, formerly a writer for the conspiracy-theory website Infowars, and Kyle Chapman, a far-right activistcharged with beating counterdemonstratorswith a wooden pole during a clash at the University of California in Berkeley earlier this year, though it is unclear if either man attended. Members of the KKKtold the Boston Heraldthat they expected several of the groups members to attend, but there was little, if any, visible KKK presence at the rally.

There have been questions about why we granted a permit for the rally, Walsh said on Friday. The courts have made it abundantly clear. They have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are. But they dont have the right to create unsafe conditions. They have the right to free speech. In return, they have to respect our city.

Wewill not be offering our platform to racism or bigotry, organizers said in aFacebook postearlier this week. We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence.

Last weeks gathering in Virginia was ostensibly in protest of the proposed removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. In the days since, cities across the nation have announced the removal of dozens of Confederate monuments, sparking anew the long-heated debate over what, if anything, should be done with the hundreds of statutes, streets, and schoolhouses named after or in honor of those who fought to maintain slavery.

[Deconstructing the symbols and slogans spotted in Charlottesville]

Thousands of protesters are expected to attend rallies calling for the removal of Confederate monuments at cities across the country this weekend, including Dallas and New Orleans. Meanwhile, supporters of the Confederate monuments are also organizing, with a rally plannedin Hot Springs, Ark.

Organizers in Boston said todays gathering is not in solidarity with white nationalists, but few of those who attended the massive counterprotest believed them.Across town, thousands began gathering before 10 a.m. on Malcolm X Boulevard for a march to the Common.

Were not standing for it. Were not standing (for) white supremacy. Were not going to have it in our city, not in Boston, said Boston activist Monica Cannon, who was among those who organized the counterprotest. We want to send a clear message that you dont get to come to the city of Boston with your hatred.

Thousands of people demonstrated against a rally featuring right-wing political figures in downtown Boston on Aug. 19. (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Rebecca Koskinen stood in front of her brick rowhouse on Tremont Street, awaiting the marchers, with her daughters Elle, 5, and Liv, 1. The older daughters sign read Im only five and even I know Black Lives Matter.

Koskinen said she and her husband, who are white, had taken the girls to the several other marches earlier this year and felt that it was important to show support for an event that was particularly important to people of color especially because Elle will soon start kindergarten at a private school that is less diverse than the South End neighborhood where they live.

Because shes not going to public school, it felt really important to me to talk about this with her and how different groups are treated, Koskinen said.

Joel Moran, a Boston resident who attended the march with his partner and a friend, said he was moved to have my voice heard against white supremacists, against people who think that, for some reason, they have more rights than other people have.

Moran said they were absolutely influenced to participate today after the tragedy in Charlottesville.

It wasnt even on my radar until last weekend, he said. After seeing that and having a very emotional and disturbing response to that, I feel like its basically my responsibility.

Read more:

Boston 'free speech' rally ends early amid flood of counterprotesters; 27 people arrested - Washington Post

Counterprotesters during Saturdays march from Roxbury to Boston Common.

Boston Common was the scene of two rallies Saturday. One was joyous and boisterous, the other minuscule and impotent. One triumphed, one fizzled.

There was supposed to be a free speech rally at which self-described libertarians were supposed to make some kind of statement about their rights, with the help of a few speakers from the far right. It started late, ended early, and its headliners were fortunate to make it out of the area unscathed.

Advertisement

The so-called counterprotest was the days true main event a resounding display of unity and harmony.

The crowd for the counterprotest began gathering early in Roxbury. By the time they began marching from Malcolm X Boulevard to the Common, the crowd was an estimated 15,000 strong, far larger than anticipated. It was a mix of Black Lives Matter activists, suburban Womens March veterans, organized labor stalwarts, and regular citizens intent on refusing to let intolerance carry the day. There was a visible, through unobtrusive, police presence, bolstered by a significant cadre of undercover officers and a SWAT team.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email.

As the crowd grew, Superintendent in Chief Willie Gross of the Boston Police Department worked the crowd. He thanked marcher after marcher, individually, for coming out to make their voices heard. He complimented people on their creative signs. He took dozens of pictures with marchers who looked relieved to discover that the police werent there to give them a hard time.

This is how we do it in Boston, he said. We exercise our right to free speech, but we do it peacefully. If anyone starts anything [at the Common] well get them right out.

Gross was also monitoring events around town by radio. And something unexpected was happening or not happening downtown: right-wing troublemakers, who so many feared would trigger violence, were barely showing up.

Advertisement

By the time, the counterprotesters, fortified by a brass band, began their march down Columbus Avenue, the it was clear that the other side was likely to be drowned out.

After the counterprotesters were on their way, Gross stopped into the command center at Boston Police headquarters. There, a group of officers from agencies across the area watched both the Common and the counterprotesters on a bank of television monitors. Commissioner William Evans was in charge.

To my surprise, Governor Charlie Baker was there too. True to form, he was immersed in the details. He said he was there because hed been nervous. But by early afternoon, everyone in the room was breathing a tentative sigh of relief. As planned, the protesters and counterprotesters were far enough apart to have little opportunity for direct confrontation. The major concern of the free speech group seemed to be getting out of the area.

One of them was followed down Charles Street South by a group of counterprotesters chanting Shame! as police led him away. Others, on the Tremont Street side, were taken out by police in riot gear. A small number were held voluntarily, police said in a building on Boylston Street across from the Common, until after the crowd thinned out.

In effect, the free speech rally became a giant peace rally. The were a few tense encounters between police and demonstrators, but nothing out of the ordinary for an event like this.

To be smug about that would be silly. Theres doesnt seem to be much doubt, in this unstable time, that those who harbor bigotry and hate feel more free to express, and act on, those feelings than they have in years. Theres no question that a president who cannot bring himself to condemn evil has emboldened it.

But Boston resisted, emphatically. Thats no small thing.

Toward the end of the day, Gross stared over at an empty Boston Common bandstand, abandoned ahead of schedule by the free speech provocateurs.

I wont say they were driven out, but they decided to leave, Gross said. I think they were influenced by love. They couldnt stand any more.

View post:

As a 'free speech' rally fizzled, a march for unity triumphed - The Boston Globe

By MARIA DANILOVA and JOCELYN GECKER,Associated Press

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP) When Carl Valentine dropped off his daughter at the University of Virginia, he had some important advice for the college freshman: Dont forget that you are a minority.

As classes begin at colleges and universities across the country, some parents are questioning if their children will be safe on campus in the wake of last weekends violent white nationalist protest here. School administrators, meanwhile, are grappling with how to balance students physical safety with free speech.

Friday was move-in day at the University of Virginia, and students and their parents unloaded cars and carried suitcases, blankets, lamps, fans and other belongings into freshmen dormitories. Student volunteers, wearing orange university T-shirts, distributed water bottles and led freshmen on short tours of the university grounds.

But along with the usual moving-in scene, there were signs of the tragic events of last weekend, when white nationalists staged a nighttime march through campus holding torches and shouting racist slogans. Things got worse the following day, when a man said to harbor admiration for Nazis drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one woman and injuring 19 others.

Flags flew at half-staff outside the universitys Rotunda, and a nearby statue of founder Thomas Jefferson was stained with wax from a candlelight vigil by thousands of students and city residents in a bid to unite and heal. Some student dormitories had signs on doors reading, No Home for Hate Here.

In an address to students and families on Friday, UVA President Teresa Sullivan welcomed every person of every race, every gender, every national origin, every religious belief, every orientation and every other human variation. Afterward, parents asked university administrators tough questions about the gun policy on campus, white supremacists and the likelihood of similar violence in the future.

For Valentine, of Yorktown, Virginia, the unrest brought back painful memories of when, as a young boy, he couldnt enter government buildings or movie theaters through the front door because of racial discrimination.

Weve come a long way, but still a long way to go for equality, he said.

His daughter Malia Valentine, an 18-year-old pre-med student, is more optimistic.

It was scary what happened, but I think that we as a community will stand together in unity and well be fine, she said.

Christopher Dodd, 18, said he was shocked by the violence and initially wondered if it would be safe at UVA.

Wow, I am going to be in this place, it looks like a war zone, Dodd, a cheerful redhead, remembered thinking. But I do think that we are going to be all right, there is nothing they can do to intimidate us. I am not going to let them control my time here.

Others feel less confident.

Weston Gobar, president of the Black Student Alliance at UVA, says hell warn incoming black students not to take their safety for granted. The message is to work through it and to recognize that the world isnt safe, that white supremacy is real, that we have to find ways to deal with that, he said.

Terry Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, said colleges are reassessing their safety procedures. The possibility of violence will now be seen as much more real than it was a week ago and every institution has to be much more careful.

Such work is already under way at UVA.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Sullivan said the university will be revamping its emergency protocols, increasing the number of security officers patrolling the grounds and hiring an outside safety consultant.

This isnt a matter where we are going to spare expense, Sullivan said.

Hartle said some universities may end up making the uneasy decision to limit protests and rallies on campus and not to invite controversial speakers if they are likely to create protests. There is an overarching priority to protect the physical safety of students and the campus community, he said.

Student body presidents from over 120 schools in 34 states and Washington, D.C., signed a statement denouncing the Charlottesville violence and saying college campuses should be safe spaces free of violence and hate.

Jordan Jomsky, a freshman at UC Berkeley, said his parents had advice he plans to follow: They told me to stay safe, and dont go to protests.

I wish people would just leave this place alone. Its become this epicenter. Were just here to study, said Jomsky, an 18-year-old from a Los Angeles suburb.

The school has become a target of far-right speakers and nationalist groups because of its reputation as a liberal bastion. In September, former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro is scheduled to speak on campus. Right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos has vowed to return for a Free Speech Week in response to violent protests that shut down his planned appearance last February.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ told incoming freshmen last week that Berkeleys Free Speech Movement in the 1960s was a product of liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to hold political protests on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, Christ said. That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with. Even of those whose views you find abhorrent.

We respond to hate speech with more speech, Christ said to loud applause.

At the same time, though, she said, theres also an obligation to keep the campus safe. We now know we have to have a far higher number of police officers ready, she said.

Concerns for safety are compounded for international students, many of whom have spent months reading headlines about the tense U.S. political situation and arrived wondering if their accents or the color of their skin will make them targets.

It was scary taking the risk of coming here, said Turkish international student Naz Dundar.

Dundar, 18, who considered going to university in Canada but felt relief after attending orientation at UC Berkeley. So far, no one hated me for being not American.

She plans to stay away from protests. Especially as a person of another race I dont want to get stoned, she said.

______

Associated Press writers Sally Ho in Nevada and Kantele Franko in Ohio contributed to this report.

See more here:

Colleges grappling with balancing free speech, campus safety - The Mercury News

CNN

Boston rally touting free speech: Live updates CNN (CNN) Thousands of counterprotesters gathered Saturday in downtown Boston in response to a self-described free speech rally at Boston Common. The demonstrations come a week after protests over race and national identity in Charlottesville, Virginia, ...

Original post:

Boston rally touting free speech: Live updates - CNN

Counterprotesters assemble at the Statehouse before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins on the adjacent Boston Common, on Saturday. Michael Dwyer/AP hide caption

Counterprotesters assemble at the Statehouse before a planned "Free Speech" rally by conservative organizers begins on the adjacent Boston Common, on Saturday.

Updated at 1:00 p.m. ET

Thousands of counterprotesters gathered on the Boston Common on Saturday, far outnumbering a "Free Speech" rally of a few dozen conservative activists who said they have no connection to last week's violent protests in Charlottesville, Va., which drew white nationalists and sparked violent clashes and a deadly vehicle attack.

Under police escort, the Free-Speech demonstrators left the location where they said they would rally as they faced a sea of counterprotesters. It wasn't immediately clear if they would reassemble elsewhere.

Earlier, a speaker who addressed the counterdemonstrators condemned what many see as President Trump's tepid response to events last week in Charlottesville that led to the death of 32-year-old Heather Heyer.

"If you don't condemn it, you condone it," the speaker said. Demonstrators also chanted "black lives matter" and "our streets."

Chris Hood, an 18-year-old Boston resident who planned to join the Free Speech rally, was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: "The point of this is to have political speech from across the spectrum, conservative, libertarian, centrist."

"This is not about Nazis. If there were Nazis here, I'd be protesting against them," Hood said.

Some 500 officers, both uniformed and undercover, have been deployed to maintain order, according to Boston Police Commissioner William Evans. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a Democrat, both warned that extremist unrest in the city would not be tolerated.

Speaking with member station WBUR in Boston, an organizer of the self-described free speech rally insisted that the message from the demonstrators "is one that [is] anti-hate and pro-peace."

"I think we've taken pretty much every precaution, not only with [Boston police], but with the other organizers, to make sure our message is clear," John Medler, of the Boston Free Speech Coalition, said.

However, WBUR reported Friday that a "free speech" rally in Boston in May drew not only more mainstream conservative activists, but also some of the same groups that caused violence in Charlottesville:

"On May 13, a group of veterans, ex-police, Tea Party Republicans and young people affiliated with the self-described 'alt-right' a conservative faction that mixes racism, white nationalism, anti-Semitism and populism gathered around the Common's historic Parkman Bandstand.

"Organizers claimed that they were honoring their First Amendment right to assemble and express radical viewpoints. But the event felt more like a small, right-wing rally than a celebration of the Constitution."

For Saturday's rally, Police have banned backpacks and signs on sticks. The Boston Globe writes:

"Boston officials said Friday that they will shut down the Saturday event if there are signs of violence.

" 'The courts have made it abundantly clear that they have the right to gather, no matter how repugnant their views are,' said Mayor Martin J. Walsh. 'They don't have the right to create unsafe conditions. ... They must respect our city.' "

"He urged the public not to confront members of hate groups who show up Saturday and advised residents and tourists to avoid the Common during the rally."

WBUR's Bruce Gellerman, reporting from the Common, tells Weekend Edition Saturday that the site of the Parkman Bandstand, the focus of the rally, is historic because of speakers such as then-candidate Barack Obama, Martin Luther King Jr. and Frederick Douglass.

More:

Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By Counterprotesters - NPR

Thousands of leftist counterprotesters marched through downtown Boston on Saturday, chanting anti-Nazi slogans and waving signs condemning white nationalism as conservative activists appeared to cut short a rally one week after a Virginia demonstration turned deadly.

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

Dozens of rallygoers had gathered on the Boston Common on Saturday, but then left shortly after the event was getting underway. It's unclear if they will gather to rally somewhere else in the city.

Rallygoers had been met by thousands of leftist protesters who marched peaceably through downtown Boston on Saturday, chanting anti-Nazi slogans and waving signs condemning white nationalism ahead of the rally.

Organizers of the midday event, billed as a "Free Speech Rally," have publicly distanced themselves from the neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others whose Unite the Right march in Charlottesville turned deadly Aug. 12. A woman was killed at that march, and scores of others were injured, when a car plowed into counterdemonstrators.

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'

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)

Opponents feared that white nationalists might show up in Boston anyway, raising the specter of ugly confrontations in the first potentially large and racially charged gathering in a major U.S. city since Charlottesville. But only a few dozen conservatives turned out for the rally on historic Boston Common -- in stark contrast to the estimated 15,000 counterprotesters -- and the conservatives abruptly left early.

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.

TV cameras showed a group of boisterous counterprotesters chasing a man with a Trump campaign banner and cap, shouting and swearing at him. Other counterprotesters intervened and helped the man safely over a fence to where the conservative rally was to be staged.

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

Black-clad counterprotesters also grabbed an American flag out of an elderly woman's hands, and she stumbled and fell to the ground.

Boston police estimated the size of the crowd participating in the march by conservative activists to the Common at about 15,000.

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.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more here:

Thousands march through Boston for 'Free Speech Rally' - Fox News

Photo Credit Hanna Barczyk

Even before violence erupted in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, city residents and the police anxiously watched the arrival of self-styled militias swaggering gangs of armed civilians in combat fatigues standing guard over the protest by white supremacists and other racist agitators against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Who were these men, counterprotesters asked as the riflemen took up watchful positions around the protest site. Police? National Guard? The Virginia National Guard had to send out an alert that its members wore a distinctive MP patch. This was so people could tell government-sanctioned protectors from unauthorized militias that have been posing as law-and-order squads at right-wing rallies.

In brandishing weapons in Charlottesville, the militiamen added an edge of intimidation to a protest that was ostensibly called as an exercise in free speech. By flaunting their right to bear arms, they made a stark statement in a looming public confrontation. You would have thought they were an army, noted Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, one of 45 states that allow the open carrying of rifles in public to some degree, most without a permit required.

The limits of that freedom are being increasingly tested by jury-rigged militias at demonstrations, public meetings and other political flash points around the nation. These strutting vigilantes have become such a threatening presence that government should rein them in to allow for a truly free exchange of ideas. State and federal laws would seem to allow their curtailment, provided that political leaders and the courts face up to the risks of mob rule.

No shots were fired in the Charlottesville violence, but with more alt-right rallies planned the danger that these militia members loaded weapons might be used increases. The armed groups mostly back up right-wing protests, although there was one militia in Charlottesville claiming to protect peaceful counterdemonstrators at a church. (The protest also drew antifa anti-fascist counterprotesters on the political left, ready to brawl with fists and sticks against those on the other side.)

Police officials have warned that gun-packing vigilantes only compound the risks in confrontations. Charlottesville officials, citing public safety, had sought to move the protest to a different site but were rebuffed in federal court. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the protesters free speech rights, though lawyers concede that the issue is becoming more complex as the potential for violence grows. Some critics think that the intrusive militias in Charlottesville could have contributed to the initial hesitation by the police to break up the violence.

Original post:

The Gunmen at 'Free Speech' Rallies - New York Times

Since its founding during a period of anti-communist paranoia in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has served as a reliable line of defense for those who find their constitutional freedoms under threat.

Sometimes, that means fighting for liberal causes: ACLU lawyers were involved in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the two U.S. Supreme Court victories that underpinned womens right to abortionin modern America.And the ACLU was the only major U.S. organization to speak out against the internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

But sometimes, the group has decided to defend people who its liberal supporters find less palatable. In a 1934 pamphlet, entitled "Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?" the group defended its choice to stand up for German-American Nazis who wanted to hold meetings in the U.S. Is it not clear that free speech as a practical tactic, not only as an abstract principle, demands the defense of all who are attacked in order to obtain the rights of any? its justification read.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

In modern America, the ACLU finds itself in a similar bind. With far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan more visible, and white nationalists grouping under the self-defined banner of the "alt-right,"it must decide whether it will defend the rights of such groups to demonstrate and spread their often hateful views.

While the ACLU does still advocate for such groups, it is now laying out some strict boundaries about what it is willing to stand up for. Prior tothe Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,Virginia, the ACLU actedin support of the organizers, who were originally denied a permit to gather. However, that gathering resulted in violent clashesand the death of a woman when a man drove his car into a group of anti-fascist counterprotesters.

On Thursday, the ACLU made a statement specifying that it would not defend groups that wanted to incite violence or march armed to the teeth, the Los Angeles Times reported.

We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence, the statement, from three California ACLU affiliates, said.

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution, the statement continued. The 1st Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

Waldo Jaquith, a former member of the ACLU Virginia board, had already resigned over the groups decision to defend far-right activists. I just resigned from the ACLU of Virginia board, he wrote on Twitter. Whats legal and whats right are sometimes different. I wont be a fig leaf for Nazis.

As the organizations ranks have swelledin many cases with people opposed to the policies of U.S. President Donald Trumpand left-wing views on zero-tolerance anti-fascist tactics gain a greater hearing, this is likely to be just the start of a long wrestle within the ACLU on the boundaries between defending free speech and endangering more vulnerable groups.

Members of the Charlottesville community hold a vigil for Heather Heyer, who died protesting the rally, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia, on August 16. The Cavalier Daily/Handout/Reuters

See the original post here:

Free Speech or Hate Speech? Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups - Newsweek

It was 1934 and fascism was on the march not only in Europe but in America. People who admired Adolf Hitler, who had taken power in Germany, formed Nazi organizations in the United States.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by lawyers who were Jewish, faced an existential question: Should the freedoms it stood for since its founding in 1920 apply even to racist groups that would like nothing more than to strip them away?

Ultimately, after much internal dissent, the ACLU decided: Yes, the principles were what mattered most. The ACLU would stand up for the free-speech rights of Nazis.

We do not choose our clients, the ACLUs board of directors wrote in an October 1934 pamphlet called Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis In America? Lawless authorities denying their rights choose them for us. To those who support suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask where do you draw the line?

Once again, the ACLU is wrestling with how to respond to a far-right movement in the U.S. whose rising visibility is prompting concerns from elected officials and activists.

In response to the deadly violence at a rally in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, the ACLUs three California affiliates released a statement Wednesday declaring that white supremacist violence is not free speech.

The national organization said Thursday that it would not represent white supremacist groups that want to demonstrate with guns. That stance is a new interpretation of the ACLUs official position that reasonable gun regulation does not violate the 2nd Amendment.

Officials in Charlottesville had initially denied organizers of the Unite the Right rally a permit to hold the event at the site of a Robert E. Lee statue. But the ACLU filed a lawsuit defending protesters rights to gather there. The rally ended with one woman killed and dozens of people injured as neo-Nazis and other far-right groups that had come armed with shields, helmets and even guns clashed violently with counter-protesters.

Now, with more far-right events scheduled in California, the states ACLU affiliates are warning that there are limits to what they will defend.

We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the 1st Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence, said the statement, which was signed by the executive directors of the ACLU affiliates of Southern California, Northern California, and of San Diego and Imperial Counties.

If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution, the statement continued. The 1st Amendment should never be used as a shield or sword to justify violence.

That statement drew some criticism from former ACLU board member Samuel Walker, a history professor at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, who supports the ACLUs historical stance on far-right groups. He called the remarks irresponsible.

How is the 1st Amendment being a shield for violence? he said. They need to be clear on that, and this statement is not clear.

Ahilan Arulanantham, the legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said it was not the organizations perspective on civil liberties that had changed, but the nature of the far-right groups themselves a willingness to come to events ready for violence.

The factual context here is shifting, given the extent to which the particular marches were seeing in this historical moment are armed, Arulanantham said.

For decades, the ACLU has defended the speech rights of far-right groups like neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan on the principle that if those groups rights are not upheld, the government will try to restrict the free-speech rights of other groups as well.

Most famously, the ACLU successfully defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, Ill., in 1978, which was home to many Holocaust survivors.

But the ACLUs stance was costly. The groups membership and donations which had soared during the Nixon administration declined sharply after the Skokie case, with thousands of supporters abandoning the group. A left-wing civil liberties counterpart, the National Lawyers Guild, accused the ACLU of "poisonous evenhandedness.

The group has seen its membership and its donations soar under the Trump administration as left-leaning Americans embrace the organization as a bulwark against the administration.

But some emerging factions of the left do not share the ACLUs values on free speech and assembly. Surveys have shown that young people are more likely than older Americans to support a government ban on hate speech, which is constitutionally protected.

Leftists who call themselves anti-facists and in many cases endorse illegal violence, viewing it as a morally just tactic to prevent neo-Nazis from gathering publicly, have also seen their numbers grow since Trumps election, which was supported by far-right groups.

The ACLUs decision this month to file a 1st Amendment lawsuit on behalf of right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos whose rhetoric about immigrants and minorities has made him a target of violent protests prompted a high-profile ACLU attorney to publicly object.

Though his ability to speak is protected by the 1st Amendment, I don't believe in protecting principle for the sake of principle in all cases, wrote Chase Strangio, who stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. His actions have consequences for people that I care about and for me."

The outcry from the ACLUs California affiliates prompted the groups national leader, Anthony D. Romero, to respond with a statement of his own.

We agree with every word in the statement from our colleagues in California, Romero said. The 1st Amendment absolutely does not protect white supremacists seeking to incite or engage in violence. We condemn the views of white supremacists, and fight against them every day.

But, Romero added: At the same time, we believe that even odious hate speech, with which we vehemently disagree, garners the protection of the 1st Amendment when expressed non-violently. We make decisions on whom we'll represent and in what context on a case-by-case basis. The horrible events in Charlottesville last weekend will certainly inform those decisions going forward.

Link:

Tensions grow inside ACLU over defending free-speech rights for the far right - Los Angeles Times

The University of California at Berkeley is a place where right-wing provocateurs such as Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos know they can get a rise. But maybe less so, starting now: On Tuesday, the school's recently-appointed chancellor, Carol Christ, declared this year to be a "Free Speech Year" on campus, and marked that the school would be doubling down on not only protecting speech, but also teaching the value of discourse to college students that seem to have forgotten.

In February, campus protests became violent, shutting down a Milo Yiannopoulos appearance. This upcoming academic year, he's slated to speak again. A less controversial (but still somewhat cringe-worthy) Ben Shapiro will be speaking on campus later next month. This time, though, new policies will be in place to bolster security and event preparation, regardless of viewpoint. "We have not only an obligation to protect free speech but an obligation to keep our community safe," said Christ.

Other Berkeley events during this upcoming year will center around core constitutional issues, the school's history as the forefront of the student activism movement, and employ a "point-counterpoint" format for panels, where participants can practice civil exchange of ideas in a public forum.

In Christ's own words, Berkeley "would be providing you less of an education, preparing you less well for the world after you graduate, if we tried to protect you from ideas that you may find wrong, even noxious."

She's completely right, and it's wonderful to see a university administrator choosing not to mince words when it comes to defense of free speech, especially at a place such as Berkeley. If administrators were more fervently clear that hateful, offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment too, we might see more ideologically-tolerant college students.

Of course, Christ isn't claiming that every year can't be devoted to free speech rather, she's making it abundantly clear that there is, and will always be, immense value to civil discourse. And she is making it clear that the birthplace of the student free speech movement shouldn't be desecrated by violent protesters who don't understand the most challenging aspects of a liberal democracy that one should extend free speech rights to those you find abhorrent, lest your own be taken.

Perhaps Berkeley will, once again, lead the campus free speech movement.

Liz Wolfe (@lizzywol) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is managing editor at Young Voices.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more from the original source:

Free speech might be coming to Berkeley in a shocking turn of events - Washington Examiner

On Wednesday afternoon, a Canadian university, Ryerson, decided to immolate its educational principles. It cancelled a discussion between conservative journalist, Faith Goldy, and Professors Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad.

Let's be clear, the excuse the school offers is fake. What's really going on here is that Ryerson has decided to sacrifice intellectual curiosity at the altar of far-left fascism.

Declaring that it is "prioritizing public safety" over free speech, Ryerson is offering a false choice. For one, Ryerson is in Toronto, a city with more than 5,000 police officers and named the safest city in North America in 2015. Had Ryerson sought to preserve free speech, it could have requested and enacted a security envelope around the event.

A warped sense of political correctness is at blame here. The individual who led the effort to force Ryerson to cancel the event, Christeen Elizabeth, explained that "Transphobia is violence, Islamophobia is violence. Violence is contextual."

Sure.

Regardless, to sabotage the discussion, Elizabeth told the National Post that she "inundated Ryerson with calls and emails protesting the panel. She said she also collaborated with the school's student union, who added to the pressure." The pressure campaign worked as Ryerson yielded to the threats and abuse.

Still, what's most troubling here is the degree to which this situation shows how far the far-left's "no speech" platform now extends. After all, the panelists who were no-platformed are hardly neo-Nazis.

For one, Faith Goldy bears nothing in common with Hitler. She works for an online conservative media outlet, The Rebel, which revels in being controversial and cheeky. But that website is not a malevolent entity. Indeed, this week, Goldy gave a compelling defense of her viewpoints. "I do not bathe in tears of white guilt, that doesn't make me a white supremacist. I oppose state multiculturalism and affirmative action, that doesn't make me a racist. I reject cultural marxism but that doesn't make me a fascist."

Indeed.

Similarly, Professor Jordan Peterson isn't Himmler, he's a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His great crime against social justice? Making intellectual arguments against the subjective appropriation of gender pronouns. But search for any video of Peterson.

And Gad Saad? His topic is consumer choices.

In the end, there's only one takeaway from what's just occurred. Goldy, Peterson, and Saad, are far better people than Christeen Elizabeth, her fascists, and Ryerson's administrators. Professor Peterson proved as much when he offered a very measured response to the cancellation of his event. He told the National Post that "We're drifting into a scenario of increased polarization, and it's not an advisable time to contribute to that, wittingly or unwittingly."

View post:

The far-left strikes another blow against free speech - Washington Examiner