According to a post on the Frog Ponds Facebook and Twitter accounts, the pool and surrounding areas will remain closed for the entire day.

The Boston Common Frog Pond, a popular splash park and fountain for children, will be closed Saturday because of a controversial rally scheduled at the nearby Parkman Bandstand.

According to a post on the Frog Ponds Facebook and Twitter accounts, the pool and surrounding areas will remain closed for the entire day, as attendees of the so-called Boston Free Speech rally descend on the public park.

Advertisement

Notice! Saturday, August 19, 2017: Frog Pond will be closed for the day, the post said.

The Frog Pond spray pool, which is operated by the Skating Club of Boston, is typically open daily, from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., during the summertime and is a draw for families and tourists.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

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

Doug Zeghibe, executive director of the club, told the Globe they decided to shut down due to an abundance of caution.

He said that recent events in Charlottesville, Va., where a woman was killed as white nationalists and counterprotesters clashed on the streets, prompted the decision.

We have full faith in the Park Rangers and Boston police, but I think what you saw in Virginia is just evidence that you never know what might happen, he said. Random people can get injured sometimes fatally.

Advertisement

Zeghibe added, These days you cant exercise too much caution.

Saturdays event, organized by the Boston Free Speech Coalition, is expected to draw both counterprotesters and a heavy police presence to the park.

Some speakers have dropped out of the planned rally, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd.

Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued a permit to organizers of the rally but set down zero tolerance rules: No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down, Walsh said this week.

Ryan Woods, a spokesman for the citys Parks and Recreation Department, said that almost everything is closed at the park Saturday because of the rally, including the Earl of Sandwich and the Swan Boats at the adjacent Public Garden.

Woods said the parks department also asked this week that vendors not set up shop on the Common amid the protest.

He said getting vendor carts into the park requires the use of vehicles, which will be banned from entering Boston Common Saturday.

Original post:

Frog Pond to close Saturday because of 'free speech' rally - The Boston Globe

Reuters:

Apple Inc CEO Tim Cook has joined a chorus of business leaders who have voiced their opposition to President Donald Trump after he blamed white nationalists and anti-racism activists equally for violence in Virginia over the weekend.

I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans, Cook wrote in a note late on Wednesday to employees, according to technology news website Recode.

Cook also said in the letter that Apple will donate $1 million apiece to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League and will match two-for-one their donations to the organizations and other human rights groups until Sept. 30.

Let me note first that I am not very impressed (to put it mildly) with the way that the president has responded to the events in Charlottesville.

That said, lets concentrate on this: Cook is spending $1m of shareholders money on a gift to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC has, shall we say, its issues. You can find some interesting commentaryover at that well-known bastion of the right, Harpers Magazine, here, here and here.

But Id like to focus on the SPLCs Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists, and two of the names included in that guide (something already discussed by Ericka Andersen on this very Corner back in June).

Firstly, theresMaajid Nawaz a British activist and part of the ex-radical circuit of former Islamists who use that experience to savage Islam.

Amongst the evidence of his extremism is this:

According to a Jan. 24, 2014, report in The Guardian, Nawaz tweeted out a cartoon of Jesus and Muhammad despite the fact that many Muslims see it as blasphemous to draw Muhammad. He said that he wanted to carve out a space to be heard without constantly fearing the blasphemy charge.

So Apple is funding an organization that deems taking a stand in favor of free speech as evidence of extremism. The company that once advertised itself as the antithesis of Big Brotheris now a de facto supporter of controlling blasphemy. Times change.

Doubtless this will play well in Apple (Saudi Arabia), so theres that.

Heres (part of) what The Atlantic had to say about Nawaz last year (my emphasis added):

Nawaz is a star in certain anti-terror circles, thanks to a compelling personal narrative: A self-described former extremist who spent four years in an Egyptian prison, he has changed approaches and now argues for a pluralistic and peaceful vision of Islam. He stood for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat in 2015, and advised Prime Ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and David Cameron.

Nawazs work has earned him detractorscritics claim he has embellished or neatened his narrative, some attack him for opportunism, and others question his liberal bona fidesbut calling him an anti-Muslim extremist is a surprise. Unlike the likes of Gaffney and Geller, he doesnt espouse the view that Islam itself is a problem; unlike Ali, who now describes herself as an atheist, Nawaz identifies as a Muslim.

Ali? Ah yes: Someone else who is on the SPLC extremist list is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali knows a thing or two about Islam, having been brought up in thatfaith (at one point in her youth she was very devout) and then broken with it publicly and, yes, abrasively, something that put her life in danger (which goes some way to backing up what she has to say about Islam). Sometimes she has, in my view, overreached in her rhetoric (others will disagree), but to go from that to claiming that she is an extremist in the way that the SPLC use that word is absurd, no more than that, its sinister.

Another prominent atheist, Sam Harris, has described the labeling of Hirsi Ali and Nawaz as extremists as unbelievable. After Hirsi Ali was snubbed by Brandeis in 2014 (two years before the SPLCfield guide came out), Richard Dawkins referred toher as a hero of rationalism & feminism.

Over at Patheos,Hemant Mehta. the Friendly Atheist (and no rightist)called the SPLCs designation of Hirsi Ali and Nawaza f****** joke :

If criticizing religious beliefs makes them extremists, then it wont be long before other vocal atheists end up on that list, too. And make no mistake, thats what Nawaz and Hirsi Ali are doing. Thats all theyre doing. Theyre not anti-Muslim; they work with moderate Muslims. Theyre critical of the worst aspects of Islam. For goodness sake, theyre not attacking Malala Yousafzai.

Hell, Hirsi Alis foundation works to end faith-based honor killings and female genital mutilation. Who knew that would make her the Worst Person Ever?

Mehta added:

Essentially, while her words may have been harsh, they should be seen with the understanding that she has been personally affected by the worst aspects of the faith. As I wrote before, it takes a very uncharitable interpretation of Hirsi Alis words to think her goal of defeating Islam means we should commit violence against peaceful law-abiding Muslims or descends into hate speech. Her goal is full-scale reform of Islam, not genocide against all Muslims.

She has repeatedly said that her goal is to prevent the spread of Islamic radicalism, not to prevent peaceful Muslims from practicing their faith.

Yet sheand Nawaz have attracted the ire of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But all of thats fine with Apples Tim Cook, so fine that hes prepared to throw one million dollars of his shareholders money SPLCs way.

See the rest here:

Silicon Valley and Free Speech: Tim Cook Edition - National Review

Following last weekends violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, many tech companies have been thrust into a debate over free speech and social responsibility.

One tech company after another has taken steps to effectively choke off white supremacist groups after a violent rally.

Some have said they have an obligation to take down content that incites violence. Others have simply suggested that hateful or racist behavior violates their community standards.

The moves have left some hate groups and websites in internet limbo, unable to communicate, move money or find a home online.

GoDaddy and Google each stopped hosting the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer after it published a derogatory story about Heather Heyer, who was killed while protesting against the rally. Facebook has taken down a number of white supremacist Facebook Groups and pulled the event page for Saturdays rally after it became clear it was violent.

On the payments side, PayPal has been cracking down on white supremacist accounts, and GoFundMe is banning crowdfunding campaigns for the man who alleged plowed his car into the crowd killing Heyer. Apple has reportedly cut off payments to websites selling Nazi-themed merchandise.

This approach even had consequences offline. Airbnb removed users who were connected with the rally and planned to stay at several of its home rentals. And an Uber driver in Charlottesville kicked out a group of prominent white nationalists from her car. The driver was then honored at Ubers all-hands meeting on Tuesday, according to a spokesperson.

Tech companies have long faced pressure to do more to address hate and harassment online.

But this weeks sudden and aggressive crack down reignites concerns about the industrys immense power to decide who does and doesnt have a place on the internet.

To me, the question is never about whether white supremacists deserve a platform, but who gets to decide that? says Jillian York, director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As private companies, the Facebooks and Googles of the world are free to determine who uses their products. Typically, however, theyve tried to cultivate the image of being neutral and unbiased platforms by relying on artificial intelligence and user feedback to flag offensive content.

At a more fundamental level, some tech companies were built by teams who strongly believed in free speech. One former Google employee told CNN Tech the company was reluctant to remove hate speech from its Blogger platform in the mid-2000s because of concerns it amounted to censorship.

The industry has been forced to evolve its approach in recent years amid greater media and regulatory scrutiny over online harassment and the spread of terrorist content from groups like ISIS.

York says most of the worlds governments and nearly all Silicon Valley companies decided that terrorists dont get speech rights. Now she says the tech industry is at risk of being seen as unilaterally deciding the same to be true for Nazis and white supremacists.

By asserting more control over offensive content, tech companies may find themselves on a slippery slope. They could face redoubled efforts from media outlets and governments to take down other controversial posts in the future.

Matthew Prince, CEO of internet firm Cloudfare, wrestled with these concerns in an unusually candid blog post Wednesday after his company terminated The Daily Stormers account.

After today, make no mistake, Prince said, it will be a little bit harder for us to argue against a government somewhere pressuring us into taking down a site they dont like.

Meanwhile, a new cottage industry of fringe copycat startups has gained attention for catering to those who arent welcome on more mainstream platforms. But even some of these sites are starting to be more discerning.

Discord, a Skype and chat service popular with the alt-right, said this week it was shutting down accounts associated with the Charlottesville events. We will continue to take action against white supremacy, Nazi ideology, and all forms of hate, the company said in a statement.

View original post here:

Charlottesville forces Silicon Valley to confront its approach to free speech - wtvr.com

Some speakers have dropped out of the Boston Free Speech rally planned for Saturday on the Common, but at least two right-wing extremists, including a Clinton conspiracy theorist and a founder of a group dubbed by hate watchdogs as an Alt-Right Fight Club, will still address the crowd at the event, which expected to draw counterprotesters and a heavy police presence.

The rally organizers said early Thursday in a Facebook post that the four headliners will be Kyle Chapman, Joe Biggs, US Senate candidate Shiva Ayyadurai, and congressional candidate Samson Racioppi.

Advertisement

So its been a little tumultuous running up to the 19th. Weve attracted much love from the Alt Left aka Antifa and their trolly bits, the post said. We apologize for the upheaval of our speaker list.

Of the four speakers, Chapman and Biggs appeared likely to draw the most ire.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

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

Chapman gained notoriety earlier this year after a video went viral of him smashing a wooden post over the head of an anti-fascist protester at a march for President Trump in Berkeley, Calif.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Mayor Walsh said. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Chapman, who became known on the Internet as Based Stickman, then started a group called the Fraternal Order of Alt Knights, which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a New Alt-Right Fight Club ready for street violence.

The Alt Knights are linked to another extremist group, the Proud Boys. According to the SPLC, Chapman says his new militant, highly-masculine group will be the tactical defensive arm of the Proud Boys, another group that shows up at pro-Trump rallies looking to rumble with counter-protesters.

Advertisement

The Proud Boys were founded by Gavin McInnes, who was originally scheduled as a speaker at Saturdays rally but dropped out earlier this week.

Biggs, a former US Army staff sergeant, worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

The conspiracy theory almost went horribly wrong when a man showed up at the pizzeria and fired a miltiary-assault-style rifle. He was later sentenced to four years in prison.

Biggs previously told the Globe that Saturdays rally is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence.

These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He was referring to the rally in Virginia that turned deadly when white supremacists and neo-Nazi demonstrators clashed with counterprotesters, and one white supremacist allegedly plowed his vehicle into Heather Heyer, killing the young woman who was part of the counterprotest.

Tensions have been high in the leadup to the planned rally in Boston, with Mayor Martin J. Walsh telling hate groups that the city does not want you here. City officials have granted the organizers a permit allowing them to rally on the Common from noon to 2 p.m., with restrictions on objects that attendees can bring into the area.

Among the banned items for demonstrators on both sides: bats, sticks, and backpacks. Walsh said police will have a zero-tolerance policy.

Walsh is not the only political leader to condemn bigotry ahead of the rally.

During an ornate State House ceremony on Thursday, Governor Charlie Baker was joined by a number of elected officials including Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stanley Rosenberg in submitting an official resolution decrying white nationalism in the wake of the Charlottesville violence.

The officials took turns reading portions of the resolution, including one excerpt read by Baker that said the state strongly denounces the bigoted ideologies promoted by white nationalists.

Meanwhile, the rally organizers continue to insist that the event is open to a range of political views and not a forum for hate groups.

We are STILL offering our platform for left groups to join us and have open slots for speakers if any left groups would like to furnish some, the Facebook posting said. We will, of course, ask that speakers stick generally to the subject of Free Speech. We will not tolerate advocacy for hate against any ethnic/racial groups, as stated on our recent release.

Ayyadurai, a Cambridge Republican who has staked out a populist stance in the early months of the GOP Senate primary in Massachusetts, recently told the Globe via e-mail that he was concerned Saturdays rally could turn violent.

He added that racial strife is manufactured and fueled by the Establishment to distract from the economic problems that they have caused and profit from. ... The Establishment creates and funds groups like Antifa, KKK and Black Lives Matter with the aim of dividing everyday poor black and white Americans.

Racioppi, the fourth speaker who is also running for Congress, is enrolled at Suffolk University and served as a Cavalry Scout in the US Army for three years, according to his campaign website.

Speech is such an important thing to me, a blog post says on his site. It is the most important value a society can recognize for free people to stay that way.

The site also includes a YouTube video of Racioppi speaking under a headline that says, How drug legalization reduces addiction and overdose deaths.

Here is the original post:

Speaker list for 'free speech' rally includes right-wing extremists - The Boston Globe

John Medlar, an organizer of Saturdays free speech rally on Boston Common.

No bats. No sticks. No backpacks.

Those are on the list of zero tolerance rules that Commissioner William B. Evans and Mayor Martin J. Walsh on Wednesday issued to organizers of a controversial free speech rally scheduled to be held on Boston Common on Saturday.

Advertisement

The Boston Free Speech Coalition, which also goes by the name New Free Speech Movement, received permit, but it will have major restrictions.

No weapons, no backpacks, no sticks, Walsh explained. We are going to have a zero-tolerance policy. If anyone gets out of control at all it will be shut down.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

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

That goes for everyone, he stressed.

The group has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

The approved permit, which was reviewed by the Globe, was issued to John Medlar, spokesman for the coalition, at 2:47 p.m. Wednesday. It is for a total five hours, including two from noon to 2 p.m. for the rally. Three hours are reserved for setting up and shutting down.

Police officials met with organizers from the free speech rally and a separate solidarity march and explained the high expectations for Saturday, Evans told reporters. He said members from both groups were cooperative.

Advertisement

We asked like we do to any large-scale events that people dont bring backpacks, Evans said. They are going to be subject to search because we still worry about ... the threat of terrorism. Any large sticks [and] anything that can be used as a weapon are banned.

Medler confirmed the meeting with police, including Superintendent Kevin Buckley, at police headquarters around 10 a.m. Wednesday. He also had a separate meeting with city permitting director Paul McCaffrey to discuss logistics related to the rally.

Reached Wednesday afternoon, Medler said he was relieved the permit issue is resolved.

Its one thing to be told its going to happen, said Medler, a spokesman for the coalition. Its another thing when you actually have real confirmation.

The police commissioner and other law enforcement officials met separately with organizers of a racial justice solidarity march that is also planned for Saturday, said Tanisha Sullivan, president of the Boston branch of the NAACP.

Sullivan said the NAACP is not holding the march but hosted the meeting at its Roxbury offices to help ensure a clear understanding of the public safety measures that will be in place Saturday.

Monica Cannon, a Roxbury advocate who heads the Violence in Boston Movement, is leading the racial justice solidarity march organized in response to the free speech rally also attended the meeting.

The meeting was informative, and the NAACP will continue to monitor the impact of any new developments, Sullivan said. It is very likely that there will be large numbers of people converging on the Boston Common Saturday afternoon. Our hope is that the message of racial justice and equality rings loud, while at the same time everyone makes it home safe.

The free speech rally garnered major attention after the bloodshed that tarnished Charlottesville, Va. Virginia authorities said neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white nationalists incited the violence. And many across social media feared some of the people involved in Charlottesville might also attend Saturdays rally.

Organizers of the Boston free speech rally who are mostly young white men in their 20s insist their event is all about the freedom of expression. They said they denounce violence.

But civil rights activists, noting the extreme, white nationalist views of some of the speakers who were initially invited, criticized the coalition for offering a platform to people who spew hate and racial violence.

As the rally day nears, a handful of faith leaders gathered under a glowing sun on City Hall Plaza around lunchtime Wednesday to lock hands and pray for healing and peace in Boston and the White House.

The prayers came a day after a vigil at the New England Holocaust Memorial, which was vandalized Monday for the second time this summer.

The mayor used the opportunity to again deliver a message to any group that wants to stir trouble Saturday.

You can have your free speech all day long, but lets not speak about hate, bigotry, and racism, Walsh said.

Evans, the police commissioner, said officers will monitor Saturdays events as they do any major gatherings. There will be barricades separating the free speech rally and the social justice march, he said, adding that he is not sure of how many people are expected to fill the Common.

Evans also said that although police met with organizers of the free speech rally, he said he has no way to know whether they support white supremacist views.

Obviously they are claiming they are all about free speech, but thats not my role to determine who and what they are, Evans said. I know we have a job to do and that is to keep people safe.

More:

'Free speech' rally in Boston to get two-hour permit with stiff restrictions - The Boston Globe

Carol T. Christ, UC Berkeleys 11th chancellor and the first woman to lead the nations top public research university, unveiled plans Tuesday for a Free Speech Year as right-wing speakers prepare to come to campus.

Christ said the campus would hold point-counterpoint panels to demonstrate how to exchange opposing views in a respectful manner. Other events will explore constitutional questions, the history of Berkeleys free speech movement and how that movement inspired acclaimed chef Alice Waters to create her Chez Panisse restaurant.

Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view, Christ said in an interview. We have to build a deeper and richer shared public understanding.

The free speech initiative comes after a rocky year of clashing opinions on campus. In February, violent protests shut down an appearance by right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos, prompting President Trump to question the campus federal funding. A few months later, conservative commentator Ann Coulter canceled a planned appearance after the campus groups hosting her pulled out.

Yiannopoulos has announced plans to return next month to spend days in a tent city in Berkeleys iconic Sproul Plaza. Conservative author and columnist Ben Shapiro is scheduled to visit Sept. 14.

The free speech issue drew the biggest spotlight in the new chancellors daylong media interviews and welcoming remarks to 9,500 new students. Christ, dressed in blue ceremonial robes, told the new arrivals that Berkeleys free speech movement was launched by liberals and conservatives working together to win the right to advocate political views on campus.

Particularly now, it is critical for the Berkeley community to protect this right; it is who we are, she 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.

She drew loud applause when she asserted that the best response to hate speech is more speech rather than trying to shut down others, and when she said that shielding students from uncomfortable views would not serve them well.

You have the right to expect the university to keep you physically safe, but we 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 said.

Although everyone wants to feel comfort and support, Christ said, inner resilience is the the surest form of safe space.

But she also emphasized that public safety also is paramount. At a morning news conference dominated by free speech questions, Christ said the February violence triggered by the Yiannopoulos event had underscored the need for a larger police presence. Only 85 officers were on the scene, she said, when a paramilitary group 150 strong marched onto campus with sticks, baseball bats and Molotov cocktails.

Under an interim policy that took effect this week, campus police will provide a security assessment for certain large events that could endanger public safety, and the hosting organizations will be responsible for basic costs. Such organizations will have to give advance notice, preferably eight weeks or longer, and provide detailed timetables and contracts with speakers may not be finalized until the campus has confirmed the venue and given final approval. The rules will be applied to all events, regardless of viewpoint.

Most of the rules already exist but have not been laid out in a unified, consistent policy known to all, Christ said. She said the student group hoping to host Coulter, for instance, offered her a date and time without checking with campus administrators that a venue was available; none was. Berkeley did not cancel the event, as has been reported, Christ said.

Campus spokesman Dan Mogulof said, We want to eliminate all gray areas and make sure theres clarity about what people need to do so we can help support safe and secure events.

The campus is accepting public comments on the interim policy until Oct 31.

Christs focus on free speech heartened Alex Nguyen, a sophomore studying molecular cellular biology. She said she took the issue especially to heart because her parents were born in Vietnam, where criticizing the government could lead to imprisonment.

I want her to really protect free speech because theres really high political tensions here, Nguyen said of the chancellor. Were at the university to learn new things and disprove our ideas.

teresa.watanabe@latimes.com

Twitter: @teresawatanabe

See original here:

UC Berkeley chancellor unveils 'Free Speech Year' as right-wing speakers plan campus events - Los Angeles Times

John Medlar, one of the organizers of Saturday's Boston Free Speech Coalition rally on Boston Common.

The Boston Free Speech Coalition evolved quietly online and out of the view of authorities in recent months, shaped in part by outrage over violent protests at political rallies and riots on a California campus, a spokesman for the group said Tuesday.

John Medlar, the 23-year-old spokesman, said he and other young men began communicating on the Internet to express alarm over what they viewed as support for protesters who set fires, damaged property, and started fights following the University of California Berkeleys decision to invite controversial conservative figures to speak.

Advertisement

We were alarmed that people were OK with fringe anarchists burning down a campus and driving [out] speakers, Medlar said.

As the coalition which also goes by the name The New Free Speech Movement prepares to hold a controversial rally on Boston Common on Saturday, a picture of the sponsoring organization has emerged. The group, which until recently planned to include speakers with white nationalist ties at Saturdays event, has become a source of outrage in Boston, a bane for City Hall, and an outlet for those who feel their voices are being shut out.

Get Fast Forward in your inbox:

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

We are not professional activists, Medlar said. We are just a bunch of volunteers who set out to go do something.

Medlar said he has been in contact with police and the city and is working to ensure a permit for Saturdays event. The city had said the group did not apply for one. But records show an organizer started the process by filling out an online application on the citys special events portal in July. He did not apply for a permit with the Boston Parks and Recreation Department, which issues permits for large-scale events in the citys parks.

Medlar said the organizer was confused by the process, but the group is working with parks and police officials to address the matter. City officials had said that if a permit is issued there would be conditions.

Advertisement

Many Boston-area activists said the group is giving a platform to those who spew racial hate and incite violence.

Ivn Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, said the coalition is naive to think that the issue is about the right to free speech if the expression at their rally dissolves into bigotry and violence.

You have the right to speak. You dont have the right to threaten or intimidate people, he said. You dont have a right to promote racial violence.

The group describes itself on Facebook as a coalition of libertarians, progressives, conservatives, and independents that is willing to peaceably engage in open dialogue about the threats to, and importance of, free speech and civil liberties.

They are mostly young white men in their 20s from places like Newton, Cambridge, and Charlestown who like to think of themselves as free speech absolutionists, members of the group said.

But civil rights specialists say the group is alt-lite, and that Saturdays event is part of a broader effort among some right-wing groups to bring their ideological battles into the streets.

Medlar acknowledged that at least one white nationalist group has been trying to use the rally to insert itself. But he distanced the coalition from that group or any group that espouses violence.

We denounce the politics of supremacy and violence. We denounce the actions, activities, and tactics of the so-called Antifa (militant leftists) movement. We denounce the normalization of political violence, the groups Facebook posting said.

One of the Virginia rallys speakers and another alt-right member who attended it were also invited to speak at the Boston event months ago. Both are no longer speaking.

The group came on scene in May with a small rally on the Common that drew protests. Police Commissioner William Evans had said the free speech group that held the event was not affiliated with Saturdays rally. But Medlar said he helped to organize the May rally. Police officials said they are trying to determine who was involved in both rallies.

Coalition members did not anticipate the uproar they would cause when they began planning Saturdays event at the Parkman Bandstand in May, Medlar and others said.

Just last week, a rally led by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and white racists led to bloodshed in Charlottesville, Va. Immediately after, there was worry on social media that the speakers who police said incite violent and hate would also speak on the Common.

Amid the uproar, Medlar said the Boston rally organizers were unsure how to respond and panicked. They wavered over whether to continue with their rally or cancel it.

In the confusion, he added, one of the groups six organizers notified headliner Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, to not to come to Boston. Invictus attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016. He told the Globe this week that organizers said they were worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Tensions between Invictus and the group soared.

We do not support him due to his willingness to support violence, as well as his Holocaust denial, said one member who would only identify himself as Louis. So he has been disinvited, and he has pulled out.

Six other participants also dropped out as of Tuesday afternoon, Medlar said, and the groups list of speakers remains in flux. Part of the speakers exodus stemmed from uncertainty over whether the event would be held, and the other part has to do with the disinvitation of Invictus. There was a breach of trust between the coalition and speakers, he added.

It was a mistake on our part we believe, Medlar said. It created the impression that we are not fully committed to free speech.

As of Tuesday afternoon, only three people are confirmed to speak, he said.

Hoping to get a handle on the situation, Medlar said the group decided it needed a public face to address reporters questions and work with the city and police.

Postponing the rally now is not an option. If organizers postpone or cancel it, they would be seen as caving to pressure, the coalition said. Plus, members added, people are going to come.

In many ways it has already [become] bigger than us, Medlar added. And we need to get our act together and take control of the reins to make sure we are on course.

View original post here:

Who is the Boston Free Speech Coalition behind Saturday's rally? - The Boston Globe

It appears that the only person who is endorsing free speech is President Donald Trump. Politicians should be saying that they don't agree with the message of the KKK and other hate groups but that they support their right to express their views. The Supreme Court has affirmed this right. By not denouncing the violence on both sides, the leftists feel encouraged to use violence to oppose those with whom they disagree such as the Tea Party and other Republican groups. Marco Rubio, John McCain and others have given tacit approval to leftist violence. The media was not reporting what I saw on television. Many people with clubs and flaming aerosol cans were attacking those who had come to Charlottesville to protest the removal of Confederate statutes. All violence should be denounced. Both sides have blame for violence in Charlottesville. Saying this does not show approval for the KKK. That is how the media is trying to spin this.

Ronald Kuhns, Nottingham

Send letters to the editor to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

See more here:

President Trump is endorsing free speech - Baltimore Sun

Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected Miami Herald My African-American professor merely laughed when I suggested that I was wrong for the job, making it clear he would be there every step of the way. The court readily agreed free speech does not permit content to be regulated by the government, forcing ... and more »

See the article here:

Free speech, abhorrent or not, must be protected - Miami Herald

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The quotationincorrectly attributed to the French enlightenment writer Voltairesums up the American ideal of free speech. The basic idea is that, in order for freedom to flourish, people of good will must protect even repulsive speechup to and including pornography, racism, sexism, bigotry, and in some cases, generalized calls to violence. Free speech must be universal, the argument goes. If Nazis are not able to speak, we will all be silenced.

This principle was sorely tested over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Nazis were permitted to march and speak. The result was not more freedom for all. Instead, the march ended, predictably, in horrific violence. One of the people attending the white supremacist march drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protestors, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and seriously wounding many others. Letting Nazis congregate didnt allow others to speak; it silenced at least one person forever. Defending fascists right to speak their minds resulted in the death of someone else. The violence in Charlottesville bleakly suggests that free speech absolutismwithout anti-fascismleads to less free speech for all, not more.

Free speech defenders vigorously reject the suggestion that, as an ideology, free speech absolutism may fail in some situations. The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of defending neo-Nazis right to hold marches and rallies. In line with that tradition, the ACLU of Virginia came to the defense of Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and prevented the city of Charlottesville from moving the site of the rally from Emancipation Park, despite the citys safety concerns. The ACLUs legal position prompted a board member to resign. It also led many on social media to suggest that the ACLU had paved the way for fascist violence.

Constitutional lawyer and Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald responded by reiterating the tenets of free speech absolutism in his usual polemical style. Purporting to oppose fascism by allowing the state to ban views it opposes is like purporting to oppose human rights abuses by mandating the torture of all prisoners, he declared. Fascism believes in suppressing free speech, he argued; therefore suppressing free speech of Nazis is actually cosigning fascism. Courts rely on legal precedents, Greenwald says. If the ACLU had failed to stand up for neo-Nazis protesting in Charlottesville, the next time marginalized people wanted to march, they could be silenced by the state. We defend the rights of those with views we hate in order to strengthen our defense of the rights of those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in society.

This is certainly a logical and coherent argument. But logical and coherent arguments dont always pan out in practice. Does defending the right of people to spout hateful views consistently protect the marginalized? Writer and activist Julia Serano points out in a Medium post that as a young adult, she could not tell people she was trans because of the likelihood that she would be greeted with freely expressed bigotry and hate. Of course, I technically had free speech, but that doesnt count for much if speaking your mind is likely to result in you being bombarded with epithets, losing your job, being ostracized by your community, and possibly other forms of retribution, she writes. Any unmoderated comments thread on the internet provides similar evidence that free speech for all often means silence for a few. Hateful, bigoted speech, if left unchecked, leaves marginalized people feeling vulnerable and endangeredfor good reason. If you let people spew bile, the folks at whom they spew bile will leave. Youll be left with a safe space for hateful speech in which the only speech on offer is hate.

Free speech absolutism also elides the issue of race. Neo-Nazis may be expressing hated views, but they are still white, and law enforcement, the courts, and the state will treat them accordingly. In Ferguson in 2014, mostly black anti-racist protestors were met with an overwhelmingly militarized response; 155 people were arrested. In Charlottesville, by contrast, despite numerous incidents of violence, police arrested only four people.

Defending free speech rights absent a specific commitment to anti-biogtry and anti-racism is meaningless. Mariame Kaba, founder of Project NIA and an anti-prison activist, noted on Twitter that these convos about civil liberties are completely divorced from the realities of living Black in the U.S.Civil liberties and individual rights have different meanings for different groups of people. In a context where black people are denied basic rights and freedom as a group, black people have focused on our collective rights over our individual liberties.As a people, weve always known it is impossible for us to exercise our individual rights within a context of more generalized social, economic, and political oppression. A supposedly color-blind approach to free speech just ends up reinforcing the status quo whereby the state default is to arrest non-violent black people and lets violent white people walk free.

Internationally, its clear that free speech absolutism and defending Nazis is not the only option for people who want to create a just and free society. Germany uses anti-hate speech laws to prosecute people who make bigoted and xenophobic statements. These laws are sometimes used against other kinds of speech too; Germany is not a perfect utopian society. But non-Nazi protestors in the US regularly face draconian punishments as well. If the ACLU had decided not to support the right of Nazis to march wherever they wanted, regardless of safety threat, would the US really descend into (more of a) nightmare dystopia? Im skeptical.

Free speech absolutism is a faith. Though people marshal pragmatic arguments on its behalf, the real argument is a moral one. The ACLU and Greenwald are committed to free speech for all because free speech is their most important idealit is the good thing from which equality, freedom, and all other good things flow.

For people who see themselves as anti-racists and anti-fascists first, however, the insistence that free speech will save us all rings somewhat hollow after this weekend. Given limited energy and resources, maybe defending the rights of violent bigots isnt the noble choice in every caseespecially when those bigots predictably use their platform to silence others. Free speech absolutists insist that free speech is the foundation of anti-fascism. But maybe anti-fascism is the basis of true free speechin which case, defending the speech of bigots can, at least in some cases, leave us all less free.

Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Follow this link:

The case against free speech for fascists - Quartz

wbur

August 15, 2017 Updated August 15, 2017 8:54 AM

Following the fatal violence at a white supremacist gathering in Virginia, public safety officials in Boston are preparing for weekend demonstrations on Boston Common. But they admit they're unsure just what to expect, partly because city officials have been unable to contact organizers of a controversial rally planned for Saturday.

"All we know is what we're seeing on social media," Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said at a Monday press conference during which he and Gov. Charlie Baker denounced the message of hate groups.

The rally,organized by a group called Boston Free Speech, got the attention of local officials because it promoted speakers who were also in Charlottesville last weekend.

"As the police said, as Commissioner [William] Evans said, they're working trying to find out who this group is, what they're all about," Walsh added. "And we're certainly going to encourage them not to march in our city."

As Boston officials look for information about the organizers, they're asking reporters what leads they have. WBUR's Bruce Gellerman has been looking into the planned rally and speakers, and joined WBUR's Morning Edition to discuss what he's found.

Bob Oakes: So an unusual step, asking reporters what information they have.

Bruce Gellerman: Very strange. I've never heard that from any official ever.

Alright, so tell us what you found.

Well it's been frustrating to say the least. I kind of feel like I've been walking on a wet sponge as I've been trying to report this story everything about it feels squishy. You know, I live by an old journalism adage that says: "If your mother says she loves you, you check it out." But every step I've taken trying to track down the facts of this one, even the simple stuff, has been really tough.

How so?

Well, you just heard Steve Brown's story about Boston Mayor Walsh saying the organizers of the Free Speech Rally hadn't filed for a permit. But in The Boston Globe they reported the name of a 23-year-old guy from Cambridge who said he had applied. I tried to check it out, I tried to check him. I called him several times, got no answer. I called the Parks Department, which issues these kinds of permits and wound up getting a call from the mayor's office. They said they'd get back to me but the never did.

So we don't know about the permit regarding the rally on Boston Common.

Right, something that simple. But it gets even a lot stranger. A flier promoting the rally appears on what purports to be the Boston Free Speech Facebook page. It lists several people as speakers and yesterday on Radio Boston, host Meghna Chakrabarti spoke with one of the people, Shiva Ayyadurai.

He's one of the Republicans running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Elizabeth Warren.

That's right. He's got four degrees from from MIT, including an Ph.D., and he's from India. He said he sent Warren a DNA kit, challenging whether she's a Native American Indian. Anyway, Meghna spoke with him:

Meghna Chakrabarti: Just so I can get some clarity here, who specifically invited you to speak this weekend on Boston Common?

Shiva Ayyadurai: I think one of the organizers from there called my assistant. You know, I get a lot of calls as a public figure, and I was just very happy to attend a free speech event.

So he says he didn't even know who invited him. It was tough to find an answer even to a simple question like that.

So we don't even know who's planning the rally?

I don't, and couldn't find out. But let me give you another example. The rally Facebook page responded to my message asking for information and they sent me a press release condemning the Charlottesville, Virginia, violence. They flatly deny any association with groups that organized that event and they say they're going to hold a moment of silence this Saturday. But another person on their Facebook flier listed as a speaker was Augustus Invictus.

Invictus, who ran in the Republican primary against Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio last year?

That's right. You might remember he got about a thousand votes and during the campaign he said he once killed and drank goats blood in a pagan ritual. He runs the website The Revolutionary Conservative. He denies he's a racist, but says he opposes "feminism, deviancy and the futile denial of biological reality." He says "leftism is an ideology of death and must be defeated." So I called him up and asked him who invited him to the Boston Free Speech Rally.

Augustus Invictus: I know who invited me. I couldn't tell you however who is organizing the event. I was invited by someone who was in contact with the organizers and I can't give his name because he's a private citizen, but he just made the connection.

It's bizarre Bob. He couldn't or wouldn't say. And then he told me he had been disinvited.

Augustus Invictus:I found out from yet a fourth person that my appearance was cancelled because of the threats of violence by the left. The right doesn't threaten rallies to shut them down. The right never threatens violence. The right only responds with violence when attacked.

And then he told me he just might show up anyhow in Boston and speak this Saturday because of the statements Mayor Walsh made during yesterday's news conference.

So that's not everyone?

No. There's a guy named Joe Biggs. He was also noted as a speaker on the free speech facebook page. Biggs is a decorated combat war veteran. He was a reporter for Infowars, that's the Alex Jones, kind of far right, conspiracy theorist online blog. And I spoke with Biggs and he couldn't tell me who invited him to the rally.

Joe Biggs: One of the Twitter accounts called Proud Boys USA or something. I saw the flier and I go man, I was like I'd love to go speak at that. I was like I've always wanted to go to Boston, I've never been there before. So they're like well **** man we'll add you onto the thing as a speaker.

Biggs disavowed any support for racists, telling me that his wife was from Guyana. But on his Twitter feed last Saturday he said: "There's nothing wrong with white people being proud of being white." He says he's just all about free speech.

He mentioned the Proud Boys USA when he spoke with you?

Yeah, that's right. That's a group that calls themselves "Western chauvinists." They're led by a guy named Gavin McInnes. I tried to reach him, couldn't. He was named as a speaker at the Boston free speech rally website. He co-founded Vice Magazine and he has a reputation for vulgar, sexist rants. I think he'd make Lenny Bruce blush. But McInnes now says he's not coming to Boston. He accused city officials of trying to incite a riot to discredit right wing activists who planned to rally in Boston.

So kind of strange and frustrating story that you are going to keep on top of this week Bruce?

You bet.

The audio atop this post includes the above transcribed conversation with Bruce Gellerman, as well as a story from WBUR's Steve Brown about the city's preparations for the weekend demonstrations.

This segment aired on August 15, 2017.

Continued here:

As Boston Prepares For Demonstrations, Here's What We Know About 'Free Speech' Rally Organizers - WBUR

(Reuters) - The white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that turned violent on Saturday, leaving one counter-protester dead and dozens injured, has raised questions about how authorities should balance the right to free speech and public safety.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech very broadly and it has historically set a high bar for courts weighing restrictions on what people can say, and where.

The following explains the U.S. approach to regulating speech and the options available to authorities looking to avoid a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville.

Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?

Yes. A bedrock principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that the First Amendment allows for hate speech, including that which denigrates people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its vitriolic "God Hates Fags" anti-gay campaign, could not be prevented from picketing at military funerals. In the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court upheld the free speech rights of a Ku Klux Klan member.

"The vast majority of speech that could be deemed hateful is protected by the First Amendment," said Will Creeley, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech watchdog group.

The First Amendment only applies to government actors, however. Corporations and private citizens are free to censor speech taking place on their property.

Other countries take a less absolute position on free speech. Britain and Germany are among nations that have criminalized hate speech in various forms.

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action."

The operative word is "imminent." Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of violence were protected by the First Amendment.

In 1982 the court said civil rights activist Charles Evers did not incite violence when he said blacks who did not participate in a boycott of white-owned businesses would "have their necks broken" by their own people. The statement was not specific enough to incite violence, the court said.

Creeley said that typical speech at white supremacist rallies falls far short of incitement to violence. He also said carrying firearms or other weapons would not be considered incitements to violence.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, said cities will face uphill battles if they try to prohibit rallies on the grounds that they incite violence.

What Brandenburg is about is literal incitement - 'Im encouraging you to kill somebody,' not just saying something that angers someone. Thats different, he said.

Can U.S. authorities regulate when and how speech takes place?

Yes. The government can place restrictions on the time, place and manner of a protest or rally. But such restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored.

"Government has to do everything possible to respect the right to free speech in public places," said John Jeffries, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "When you think public protest might lead to violence the legal answer is not to say 'No.' The right answer is 'Yes, but...'"

Charlottesvilles city government granted the organizers of Saturdays Unite the Right rally a permit to hold a demonstration in a one-acre park in the citys downtown. Citing concerns over safety and crowd size, the city later sought to move the demonstration to a larger park further from downtown.

A federal judge said on Friday the city could not move the protest, saying the rallys organizer presented evidence that the citys decision was based on the content of his speech rather than public safety considerations.

Could things change in the aftermath of the Charlottesville rally?

Because of what happened in Charlottesville, municipal governments and courts will likely weigh public safety concerns more heavily when considering issuing permits to white-nationalist groups, Jeffries said, which could lead to more time, place and manner restrictions on those groups' rallies.

"Anytime something like this happens, it affects how people view situations like this going forward," he said.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh on Monday suggested his office may place restrictions on a planned Aug. 19 rally which was initially scheduled to bring to the city some of the same far-right figures who spoke at Charlottesville.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said at a news conference that the city will take steps to ensure safety, such as keeping opposing protesters separated.

"It is such a shame that we have to be wasting resources on such a group," he said.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; editing by Anthony Lin and Bill Rigby

Continued here:

Factbox: When can free speech be restricted in the United States? - Reuters

Inside Higher Ed

Free speech a focus as Christ starts year as Berkeley's chancellor Inside Higher Ed New chancellor assumes duties amid debate over and scrutiny of university's response to controversial speakers. and more »

Read the original here:

Free speech a focus as Christ starts year as Berkeley's chancellor - Inside Higher Ed

Gavin McInnes (center) was scheduled to speak at Saturdays planned free speech rally on Boston Common. On Monday, he said he wasnt coming.

Facebook

A Boston Free Speech Rally poster on Facebook.

Three headliners scheduled to speak at a far-right rally in Boston on Saturday backed out Monday, casting doubt on the event amid strong opposition by city officials worried about a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville.

Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, said organizers of Bostons rally texted him on Monday and said it was necessary to cancel the event from a PR standpoint, after the violence in Virginia.

Advertisement

Invictus, who attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016, said organizers indicated they were also worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Im upset that my appearance was canceled, and Im upset the rally was canceled because, to me, it is pure capitulation to the mob of leftists, Invictus told the Globe Monday.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:

An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.

Another planned headliner, Gavin McInnes, said he was also backing out. McInnes, who heads a group of self-proclaimed Western chauvinists called the Proud Boys, accused Mayor Martin J. Walsh and city officials of trying to incite a riot to discredit the assortment of right-wing activists who planned to rally in Boston.

A Cambridge Republican candidate challenging Elizabeth Warren plans to speak at a free-speech rally Saturday on Boston Common.

Its a trap! McInnes said in a post on his Twitter feed. And in an e-mail to the Globe, he added: Im out.

A third speaker, Casssandra Fairbanks, also said she was going to cancel. Im not going to speak at the Boston free speech rally, she tweeted. The threats keep escalating and people are unhinged rn, she wrote, using internet shorthand for right now.

Advertisement

A fourth speaker, Joe Biggs, who lives in Austin, Texas, said he was still planning to travel to Boston for the rally, despite the cancellations.

If 10,000 lefties murder me, then so be it, he said in an interview.

A former US Army staff sergeant, Biggs worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

In an interview, Biggs insisted the rally in Boston is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence. These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He disavowed any support for racists, saying, My wife is Guyanese. I have a mixed baby. Im the furthest thing from a [expletive] Nazi.

But in a video posted on his Twitter feed on Saturday, he talked positively about the Charlottesville rally. Theres nothing wrong with white people wanting to preserve their race, he said. Theres nothing wrong with white people bring proud of being white.

Original post:

Speakers at 'free speech' rally dropping out - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

Getty Images

BY: Rachel Frommer August 15, 2017 4:45 pm

A North Carolina paper has called on a private college to institute free speech reforms by "purging its problematic policies" from the student handbook, following the passage earlier this month of a bill protecting First Amendment rights at the state's public universities.

Barton College was urged to give its students "the right to express themselves freely without fear of punishment" in an editorial by the Wilson Times, after a new state law was adopted allowing for sanctions on students who disrupt the free speech of others and prohibiting administrators from disinviting campus speakers.

"Adult college students needn't be treated like fragile children," wrote the paper. "They deserve robust free speech protections like the ones they'd enjoy in society at large and on campus at a public university."

The Wilson Times called on Barton to set an example for North Carolina's other private institutions of higher education by adopting the "Chicago principles," as the commitment to free speech outlined in 2014 by the University of Chicago has come to be known.

The paper took issue with a number of specific policies in the college handbook that it said "limit student expression," including the code of conduct's requirement that students "express opinions with civility," "show consideration for the opinions of others," and "respect the sanctity and dignity of ideas."

"While we all prefer politeness, there is no objective standard for civility, and we suspect students could be in hot water simply for voicing a viewpoint others may find unwelcome or offensive," wrote the Wilson Times.

The handbook, the most recent available online being from 2016-2017, also gives the vice president for student affairs the power to determine if materials student groups wish to display or distribute are "degrading to segments of the population due to profanity, racism, chauvinism, etc."

"Student groups are encouraged to seek prior approval of questionable designs," according to the handbook.

The Wilson Times said that "et cetera' can cover whatever a college official wants it to. Could political club fliers be banished because members of another party consider them degrading?'"

The paper also took issue with the college's "bizarre" definitions of bullying and cyberbullying, calling them "so broad that they can be contorted to fit any written or spoken slight."

According to the handbook, "bullying' means deliberate hurtful behavior to someone as a single incident or over a period of time. It can be either physical, verbal, or indirect or a combination of any of these forms."

"Cyberbullying' means, when one person uses digital technology to hurt another person," including "texting or emailing unpleasant, scary or rude mobile phone messages" and "posting abusive or demeaning comments on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, or in chat rooms."

The Times posited that under these guidelines, even a "simple argument via text or a heated Facebook debate can result in a student being forced into a disciplinary conference under threat of sanction."

"That should alarm every single member of the Barton community," wrote the paper.

Kathy Daughety, the director of public relations at Barton College, told the Free Beacon that the college would strive to uphold the University of Chicago principles.

"The College affirms the importance of the freedom of public speech," Daughety said. "In this, we agree with the University of Chicago principles."

"The College also affirms the importance of people treating each other with decency and respect," she added. "And, it's our responsibility as an institution to encourage interaction that will further clarity and engagement over topics of interest. And, we affirm the vibrancy of intellectual debate and exchange within our academic community."

Barton did not respond to questions about specific items in the handbook.

Excerpt from:

Barton College Urged to 'Purge Problematic Policies' on Free Speech From Handbook - Washington Free Beacon

Boston's Democrat Mayor Marty Walsh said Monday that he doesn't want a free speech rally to take place next Saturday on Boston Common that some say was organized by the same people who put together the violent rally in Charlottesville, Va., over the weekend.

The group Boston Free Speech is hoping to hold a rally next weekend, but Walsh said police are investigating that group, and said he's already decided the event should be called off.

"Our police intelligence unit is doing information gathering right now to see who they are," he said. "We don't need this type of hate. So my message is clear to this group: we don't want you in Boston. We don't want you on Boston Common."

Former Hillary Clinton campaign manager Brian Fallon suggested on Twitter that the rally is being organized by Jason Kessler, who led Saturday's protest in Charlottesville. But the group rejected Fallon's claim.

"We are not in any way associated with the organizers of the Charlottesville rally. This was a lie and blatant attempt at defamation by Brian Fallon on twitter," organizers for Boston Free Speech said in a Facebook post.

A rally organizer said the rally is focused on free speech and is in no way associated with white supremacists.

"We aren't in any way associated with what happened in Virginia," a rally organizer who identified himself as Steven told New England Cable News. "We are strongly, strongly against violence in any way shape or form."

At least 1,000 people are expected to attend the free speech rally on the Boston Common Saturday as local law enforcement look to develop security plans for the event. The group held a similar rally in May with no reported incidents.

Still, in the aftermath of protests in Charlottesville, Boston officials fear the same violence that killed one and injured 19 could come to their city. Boston's mayor said he would be meeting with city officials to discuss the upcoming rally.

"We're going to be working together this whole week to send a message to everyone that's heading to Boston, those that are of the mindset of white supremacy to those who understand we're all God's children we're working together. No violence," Boston Police Superintendent William Gross told WBZ.

Read the rest here:

Boston mayor tells 'free speech' group: 'We don't want you' - Washington Examiner

The clip fit perfectly into the Fox News narrative about the dangers of leftist radicalism on campuses. It also perfectly encapsulated the networks hypocrisy about defending free speech.

When it comes to protecting the speech of people who are most vulnerable to being intimidated into silence like people of color and gay people conservatives either are suspiciously quiet or drive further intimidation with wildly negative news coverage.

Its not just the right. Most schools including Princeton, where I teach support their besieged professors. But in recent months, other progressive academics have been investigated, disciplined and even fired for comments they made outside of the classroom. This is an ominous turn. The trend has become so visible that earlier this year, the American Association of University Professors implored institutions to take a stand by resisting calls for the dismissal of faculty members and by condemning their targeted harassment and intimidation.

Progressives deserve the same speech protection as conservatives. The American Civil Liberties Union and the PEN organization have gone out of their way to defend the rights of provocative speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter to speak on campuses, but have been virtually silent on cases involving leftist or progressive faculty members who face suspension for provocative comments. Lisa Durden, an adjunct professor at Essex County College in New Jersey, was fired after she appeared on the Fox News program Tucker Carlson Tonight to explain why black people might gather for an all-black celebration of Memorial Day.

Johnny Eric Williams, an associate professor at Trinity College, had to go into hiding after the conservative website Campus Reform blasted his use of racially charged language in critiquing white supremacy. He was besieged with threatening emails and suspended from his position. (Trinity eventually cleared Professor Williams of any wrongdoing.)

Tommy Curry, an associate professor at Texas A&M, faced death threats recently when an old interview he gave about the movie Django Unchained was characterized as racist bilge by the magazine The American Conservative. Texas A&M distanced itself from Dr. Curry and only later, under pressure, expressed its unwavering support for academic freedom.

What is shocking is that while the right-wing media is wringing its hands about suppressive leftists, openly racist and fascist-sympathizing organizations are recruiting young white people on campuses. That conservative pundits have precious little to say when campuses are defiled with swastikas, nooses and racist fliers but cry foul when people like Richard Spencer, Mr. Yiannopoulos and Ms. Coulter are met with protest has become a sick paradox of our time.

In the coming school years, those who are quick to defend the rights of white nationalists and neo-Nazis to speak on campuses must be just as vigilant about protecting the rights of faculty and students to speak out against them or risk revealing their hypocrisy.

Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor is an assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 14, 2017, on Page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech Isnt Just for The Right.

Continued here:

The 'Free Speech' Hypocrisy of Right-Wing Media - New York Times

TORONTO/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer had its internet domain registration revoked twice in less than 24 hours in the wake of the weekend violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, part of a broad move by the tech industry in recent months to take a stronger hand in policing online hate-speech and incitements to violence.

GoDaddy Inc, which manages internet names and registrations, disclosed late on Sunday via Twitter that it had given Daily Stormer 24 hours to move its domain to another provider, saying it had violated GoDaddy's terms of service.

The white supremacist website helped organize the weekend rally in Charlottesville where a 32-year-old woman was killed and 19 people were injured when a man plowed a car into a crowd protesting the white nationalist rally.

After GoDaddy revoked Daily Stormer's registration, the website turned to Alphabet Inc's Google Domains. The Daily Stormer domain was registered with Google shortly before 8 a.m. Monday PDT (1500 GMT) and the company announced plans to revoke it at 10:56 a.m., according to a person familiar with the revocation.

As of late Monday the site was still running on a Google-registered domain. Google issued a statement but did not say when the site would be taken down.

Internet companies have increasingly found themselves in the crosshairs over hate speech and other volatile social issues, with politicians and others calling on them to do more to police their networks while civil libertarians worry about the firms suppressing free speech.

Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, Google's YouTube and other platforms have ramped up efforts to combat the social media efforts of Islamic militant groups, largely in response to pressure from European governments. Now they are facing similar pressures in the United States over white supremacist and neo-Nazi content.

Facebook confirmed on Monday that it took down the event page that was used to promote and organize the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Facebook allows people to organize peaceful protests or rallies, but the social network said it would remove such pages when a threat of real-world harm and affiliation with hate organizations becomes clear.

Facebook does not allow hate speech or praise of terrorist acts or hate crimes, and we are actively removing any posts that glorify the horrendous act committed in Charlottesville, the company said in a statement.

Several other companies also took action. Canadian internet company Tucows Inc stopped hiding the domain registration information of Andrew Anglin, the founder of Daily Stormer. Tucows, which was previously providing the website with services masking Anglins phone number and email address, said Daily Stormer had breached its terms of service.

They are inciting violence, said Michael Goldstein, vice president for sales and marketing at Tucows, a Toronto-based company. Its a dangerous site and people should know who it is coming from.

Anglin did not respond to a request for comment.

Discord, a 70-person San Francisco company that allows video gamers to communicate across the internet, did not mince words in its decision to shut down the server of Altright.com, an alt-right news website, and the accounts of other white nationalists.

We will continue to take action against white supremacy, Nazi ideology, and all forms of hate, the company said in a tweet Monday. Altright.com did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Twilio Inc Chief Executive Jeff Lawson tweeted Sunday that the company would update its use policy to prohibit hate speech. Twilios services allow companies and organizations, such as political groups or campaigns, to send text messages to their communities.

Internet companies, which enjoy broad protections under U.S. law for the activities of people using their services, have mostly tried to avoid being arbiters of what is acceptable speech.

But the ground is now shifting, said one executive at a major Silicon Valley firm. Twitter, for one, has moved sharply against harassment and hate speech after enduring years of criticism for not doing enough.

Facebook is beefing up its content monitoring teams. Google is pushing hard on new technology to help it monitor and delete YouTube videos that celebrate violence.

All this comes as an influential bloc of senators, including Republican Senator Rob Portman and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, is pushing legislation that would make it easier to penalize operators of websites that facilitate online sex trafficking of women and children.

That measure, despite the non-controversial nature of its espoused goal, was met with swift and coordinated opposition from tech firms and internet freedom groups, who fear that being legally liable for the postings of users would be a devastating blow to the internet industry.

Reporting by Jim Finkle in Toronto and Salvador Rodriguez in San Francisco; Additional reporting by David Ingram and Dustin Volz in San Francisco, and Chris Michaud in New York and Alastair Sharp in Toronto; Editing by Nick Zieminski and Lisa Shumaker

Read the original here:

Tech companies in the crosshairs on white supremacy and free speech - Reuters

8/14/2017 12:41PM Opinion Journal: The Identity Politics Warning 8/14/2017 12:58PM Opinion Journal: North Korea: No Diplomatic Endgame 8/14/2017 12:47PM Opinion Journal: Free Speech in Charlottesville 8/14/2017 12:41PM Opinion Journal: The Cotton-Perdue Immigration Mistake 8/3/2017 1:27PM Opinion Journal: Big Labors Nissan Gamble 8/3/2017 1:19PM Opinion Journal: Throwing Money at ObamaCare? 8/3/2017 1:13PM Opinion Journal: The Supreme Court's Racial Wrangling 8/3/2017 1:08PM Opinion Journal: North Korea Regime Change: The Only Solution? 7/31/2017 1:19PM Opinion Journal: White House Staff Shake-Up 7/31/2017 1:17PM Opinion Journal: Twitter Isnt a Bully Pulpit 7/31/2017 1:15PM Opinion Journal: Venezuelas Coming Civil War 7/31/2017 1:13PM Talking Taxes: How to Bring Offshore Profits Home 8/10/2017 6:00AM

U.S. companies are holding more than $2.6 trillion in profits across the globe and they haven't paid U.S. taxes on it. Why is so much money offshore, and how could the tax code be changed to bring it back? WSJ's tax reporter Richard Rubin dives in. Photo: Heather Seidel/The Wall Street Journal

On the iPhones 10th birthday, former Apple executives Scott Forstall, Tony Fadell and Greg Christie recount the arduous process of turning Steve Jobss vision into one of the best-selling products ever made.

President Donald Trump on Monday denounced white supremacist groups by name following criticism of an earlier statement in which he blamed 'many sides' for the violence in Charlottesville, Va. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP

Add another property to the list of assets Mel Gibson is looking to unload: 403 acres of Costa Rican jungle.

President Donald Trump on Thursday said his "fire and fury" comments from earlier in the week may not have been tough enough. Photo: Getty

Theres no age limit for learning about computers, iPads, smartphones and more at New Yorks Senior Planet, a center where anyone 60 and over can get free lessons in the latest tech. Photo: Sangsuk Sylvia Kang/The Wall Street Journal

Watch a clip from "The Trip to Spain," starring Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon. Photo: IFC Films

Taggart Matthiesen, Lyft's director of product, talks to MarketWatch about how autonomous vehicles can revolutionize the ride-sharing industry.

See the original post here:

Opinion Journal: Free Speech in Charlottesville - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Academics and liberal thought leaders are increasingly vocal about the treatment of professors who are exposed by conservative media outlets for objectionable speech and behavior. This complaint, one shared even by some usual defenders of free expression on campus, was on display in a New York Times op-ed published Monday titled "The Free Speech' Hypocrisy of Right-Wing Media."

Author Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, an assistant professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, argued that conservatives who purport to be defenders and upholders of free expression in academia also advocate for the silencing of liberals who engage in speech and behavior to which they object. "When it comes to protecting the speech of people who are most vulnerable to being intimidated into silence like people of color and gay people conservatives either are suspiciously quiet or drive further intimidation with wildly negative news coverage," Taylor wrote.

The professor cited her own experience with conservative media, recalling when Fox News clipped a portion of her commencement address to Hampshire College where she called President Trump a "racist, sexist megalomaniac."

"That a junior faculty member of Princeton was critical of Mr. Trump in a speech at a small liberal arts college should not be surprising," Taylor argued in her New York Times op-ed.

Perhaps it's not surprising, but newsworthiness is not always based on surprise value.

Taylor cited conservative media's reporting on other professors who faced consequences after conservative media reported on comments they made, including Johnny Eric Williams, who was suspended, and Lisa Durden, who was fired. In the wake of the shooting on Congressional Republicans that put House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in the ICU, Williams posted an article that argued officers who responded to the tragedy should have let the lawmakers die. "Saving the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous. Let. Them. Fucking. Die," the article said. Williams posted it to Facebook with the hashtag "#LetThemFuckingDie."

Durden beclowned herself in a bizarre and unprofessional interview with Tucker Carlson during which she defended a Black Lives Matter event where white people were not allowed to attend by exclaiming, "[B]oo hoo hoo, you white people are angry because you couldn't use your white privilege card to get invited to the Black Lives Matters [sic] all black Memorial Day celebration."

One can reasonably support free expression and academic inquiry while also questioning whether either professor is fit to teach impressionable young students.

Academics on campuses are like tortoises in the Galpagos (I think that's a Chuck Klosterman phrase) -- they've been allowed to evolve for decades without competition, morphing into hardened radicals in the lack of oversight.

I will concede two points: (1) Like the rest of the press, conservative outlets can occasionally go too far on campus reporting, making mountains out of molehills and sometimes taking quotes and behavior out of context. (2) There are certainly some conservatives who have the same reflex to censor disagreeable speech as people on the Left.

But students and taxpayers fund higher education to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars -- it's in the public's interest to know when a professor or administrator acts unprofessionally or displays a worldview that is so radical it calls their ability to effectively educate students into question. In those cases, it's less a matter of free speech and more a matter of job qualifications.

Furthermore, a conservative media outlet's decision to expose a professor's statement or behavior does not mean that outlet, or interested readers, necessarily support the firing or targeting of a given employee.

If "democracy dies in darkness," as the Washington Post recently reminded us, darkness is also capable of killing academia as well.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Follow this link:

It's not anti-free speech to expose academics in the press - Washington Examiner