Three University of Texas at Austin professors filed a lawsuit claiming that letting people carry firearms on their campus would have a chilling effect on speech. Last week, District Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the suit claiming the professors could present "no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" and that their fears rest on "mere conjecture." Although it's certainly refreshing to see professors using First Amendment justifications with such vigor, it's even better that Yeakel dismissed their ludicrous arguments and protected campus carry.

In 2015, the Texas legislature strengthened their commitment to gun rights at public universities. Senate Bill 11, which came into effect in August 2016, permitted campus concealed carry in campus buildings within reasonable guidelines. Those guidelines vary from school to school. At UT Austin, guns must stay out of sight, and individuals professors can choose to make "gun-free zones" in their offices, provided they post their rules clearly.

Professors Jennifer Lynn Glass (sociology), Lisa Moore (English), and Mia Carter (English) banded together and filed a lawsuit that sought to overturn the new law. One professor argued that the "possibility of the presence of concealed weapons in a classroom impedes my and other professors' ability to create a daring, intellectually active, mutually supportive, and engaged community of thinkers." Their reasoning centered around the idea that students will be unable to speak freelya First Amendment argumentin an environment where other students are armed.

But this logic posits that students will pull guns on each other when they hear ideas they disagree withan unlikely outcome. Even for controversial topics like abortion and, ironically, gun rights, it would be beyond the scope of reason to expect that a classroom conversation would become so heated that a student's life would be threatened.

Judge Yeakel drew on the reasoning in the 1972 free speech case Laird v. Tatum, which said that "Allegations of a subjective 'chill' are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm."

Yeakel then used the precedent of Laird, and lack of specific evidence, as grounds for dismissal: "Here, Plaintiffs ask the court to find standing based on their self-imposed censoring of classroom discussions caused by their fear of the possibility of illegal activity by persons not joined in this lawsuit. Plaintiffs present no concrete evidence to substantiate their fears" He's right that there's no evidence that this law has caused harm in the way they claim. Unfortunately, Yeakel only addressed a small part of the professors' argumentthe speech-related points. They also brought up issues with equal protection and the law's vagueness, so it's likely that this issue won't be fully laid to rest.

On one hand, it's good that college professors are recognizing the value of creating environments for free speech to thrive in. On the other, this seems like a thinly veiled political move, and it's unlikely that opponents of campus carry laws will be quelled by this lawsuit's dismissal. Hopefully these professors remain committed to the First Amendment principles they hold so dear whenever they're threatened in a classroom environment. They're certainly right about one thing: exchanging ideas freely is the whole damn point of college.

Read the rest here:

Judge: Campus Carry Doesn't Hurt Free Speech - Reason (blog)

Students at Middlebury College shouted down Charles Murray rather than listen to hiscontroversial ideas when he came to speak at their campus in MarchLisa RathkeAP

Gerken is the dean of Yale Law School and the Sol and Lillian Goldman Professor of Law

In this, the summer of our discontent, many college presidents are breathing a sigh of relief that they made it through a politically fraught spring without their campuses erupting. Nobody wants to be the next Middlebury or Claremont McKenna , where demonstrations disrupted controversial speakers.

Law deans, in sharp contrast, have reason to be cheery. Their campuses have been largely exempt from ugly free-speech incidents like these. Charles Murray , the controversial scholar whose speech drew violent reaction at Middlebury, has spoken at Yale Law School twice during the past few years. Students and faculty engaged with him, and students held a separate event to protest and discuss the implications of his work. But he spoke without interruption. That's exactly how a university is supposed to work.

There may be a reason why law students haven't resorted to the extreme tactics we've seen on college campuses: their training. Law school conditions you to know the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. That's why lawyers know how to go to war without turning the other side into an enemy. People love to tell lawyer jokes, but maybe it's time for the rest of the country to take a lesson from the profession they love to hate.

In law schools we don't just teach our students to know the weaknesses in their own arguments. We demand that they imaginatively and sympathetically reconstruct the best argument on the other side. From the first day in class, students must defend an argument they don't believe or pretend to be a judge whose values they dislike. Every professor I know assigns cases that vindicate the side she favors--then brutally dismantles their reasoning. Lawyers learn to see the world as their opponents do, and nothing is more humbling than that. We teach students that even the grandest principles have limits. The day you really become a lawyer is the day you realize that the law doesn't--and shouldn't--match everything you believe. The litigation system is premised on the hope that truth will emerge if we ensure that everyone has a chance to have her say.

The rituals of respect shown inside and outside the courtroom come from this training. Those rituals are so powerful that they can trump even the deepest divides. As Kenneth Mack recounts in his book Representing the Race: The Creation of the Civil Rights Lawyer, Thurgood Marshall was able to do things in court that a black man could never do in any other forum, like subjecting a white woman to cross-examination. Marshall was able to practice even in small, segregated towns in rural Maryland during the early days of the civil rights movement. The reason was simple: despite their bigotry, members of the Maryland bar had decided to treat Marshall as a lawyer, first and foremost.

The values in which my profession is steeped were once values in politics as well. In 2008, I was one of the lawyers in the Obama campaign's "boiler room." Buses delivered the staff to Grant Park to watch Barack Obama accept the win. We arrived just as Senator John McCain was giving his concession speech on the Jumbotrons. The election was hard fought, and there was no love lost between the two campaigns. But even as the crowd around us jeered, the Obama staff practically stood at attention. It was like watching an army surrender--one of the most moving experiences I remember from that extraordinary campaign.

We need to return to what were once core values in politics and what remain core values in my profession. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a war over values. We should fight, and fight hard, for what we believe. But even as we do battle, it's crucial to recognize the best in the other side and the worst in your own.

Read the original here:

Dean of Yale Law School: Campus Free Speech Is Not Up for Debate - TIME

Inside Higher Ed

Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? Inside Higher Ed It is clear that lawmakers in Wisconsin and elsewhere are attempting to achieve politically neutral college campuses in the name of protecting free speech -- campuses where all speech is considered equally valuable, no matter how morally repugnant, ...

Excerpt from:

Whose Speech Is Free? And at What Social Cost? - Inside Higher Ed

Preece is retired. He lives on a farm in Botetourt County.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United gave corporations the same rights as American citizens by allowing corporations to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns. The Supreme Court did this by defining money as free speech.

Does it make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy businesses as free speech when money as free speech buys votes with advertising and obligates leaders to serve the source of that money though contributions? Does it even make sense to honor the money of vastly wealthy individual citizens as free speech when, again, money as free speech buys votes and politicians?

Doesnt money as free speech promote multiple votes for some citizens, and only one vote for others? Doesnt money as free speech defeat the essential idea of democracy? Even if such nonsense made sense, does it make sense for a corporate officer to vote once as himself and a second time as the corporation? Isnt that one man, two votes?

When a voter receives most of the information about a candidate from advertising that has been paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals, such a voters judgement is significantly influenced. The question arises: Does that citizens vote then come from his own judgment or from the intent of the person that paid for the advertising?

When a politician receives most of the money that gets him elected from a particular source, doesnt that obligate him to favor that particular source in his future political judgment? The question arises: Do the future decisions of the politician originate from his authentic judgment or from judgment favoring the money that got him elected?

Amendments to change the U.S. Constitution are provided for in article V of the constitution. Indeed, the first 10 amendments to our countrys living document are called the Bill of Rights. A citizens right to free speech was established by the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. It was intended to protect human beings from the power of the state so that they could speak freely, not so that powerful moneyed interest could be allowed to rule the country like kings and oligarchs.

Thanks to an amendment to the Constitution, America has no slaves. Thanks to another amendment, women get to vote. Thanks to yet another amendment, we get to elect our state senators; and we even get to share an alcoholic drink with a friend if we like.

As American citizens, we have the obligation to advance amendments to our Constitution when we perceive that current laws of the land make no sense. Corporations as citizens makes no sense. We the people need to act to change this. The goal of each American citizen, Republican, Democrat or independent, should be to shift the power of citizenship and the vote back to the people of the United States, and that means away from corporations and big money.

Perhaps you should ask yourself, Should I, an ordinary American citizen, simply accept the present reality that I am not rich enough to deserve the right to free speech or the right to vote? Or should I feel enraged that the ideals of American democracy have been perverted?

See the original post here:

Preece: Are you rich enough to deserve free speech or the right to vote? - Roanoke Times

Kevin DrumJul. 13, 2017 2:00 PM

We have news from National Review today:

National Review Institute is launching the Center for Unalienable Rights, created to be the home of free-speech warrior David French, whose new podcast, The Liberty Files, is a must-listen for anyone who cares deeply about combating the leftist assault on the First Amendment, whether on our campuses or in any other place patrolled by the ruthless Thought Police.

.The Left wants to gag, marginalize, intimidate, shut up, and, if they can, even criminalize conservatives for what we think and what we say. We intend to fight the intolligentsia, in a more focused way. We intend to beat the determined enemies of our unalienable rights. Help us prevail.

You are expecting me to mock this, arent you? But Im not! Instead I have a serious suggestion.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberals who are concerned about this stuff too. The safe spaces/microaggressions/hecklers veto/trigger warnings movement is not entirely beloved on the left. If this project were toned down and aimed at free speech repression on both sides, it might actually attract some bipartisan support.

I know thats not really plausible these days. I just felt like mentioning it.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.

See the article here:

Conservatives Have a New Free-Speech Warrior - Mother Jones

In a year when the First Amendment seems under threat from all sides, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon has emerged as Portland's most dogged and consistent defenders of free speechno matter who's talking or what they're saying.

"We think that the First Amendment rights are the cornerstone of all of our other rights," says ACLU spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong. "But it can be complicated because we often have strange bedfellows when we're talking about free speech."

Strange bedfellows indeed. The ACLU of Oregon chided Mayor Ted Wheeler for asking the federal government to revoke a permit allowing far-right activists to hold a Trump Free Speech Rally. Just nine days before, Jeremy Christianwho had attended marches held by the same activistshurled racist insults at two Muslim teenagers on a MAX train and then stabbed three men who came to the girls' defense, killing two of them. Wheeler said the city's wounds were still too raw.

But the ACLU wasn't having it.

"The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period," the ACLU tweeted in response. "If we allow the government to shut down speech for some, we all will pay the price down the line."

In March, the ACLU had been just as firm in its opposition when the Portland City Council voted to instate a rule banning "disruptive" leftist gadflies from council meetings.

"Free speech is an indivisible right, and everyone has to have it for the whole thing to work," Armstrong says.

Recently, the ACLU of Oregon stood up for those who have very little power to raise their own voices, by taking on laws that bar homeless people from panhandling in Portland and Gresham. The cities settled the case and are currently changing their laws against panhandling after the ACLU challenged them on the grounds that they illegally outlawed an entire class of speech: speech asking for money.

The civil liberties group's most recent free speech victory, on June 28, helped a coalition of conservation groups exercise the right to buy ads in Portland International Airport after the Port of Portland refused to post anti-clearcutting billboards because of their political message.

And there's more: The ACLU had a major victory in April when Portland and Gresham settled in a case involving a woman who livestreamed the police in 2013. A Gresham police officer grabbed Carrie Medina's phone, twisted her arm and detained her, effectively censoring her. The free-speech champions have also put pressure on Portland police to use a lighter touch when policing protests and to stop targeting protest leaders and political activists.

"Being known as a place where people regularly take to the streets, people are surprised when they see what the police response to protest is like here," Armstrong said. "You'll definitely see more from us on protest rights. We're clearly not done."

Originally posted here:

The ACLU of Oregon Has Emerged as Portland's Most Consistent Free-Speech Fundamentalists - Willamette Week

Who should decide what is hate speech in an online global community? Thats the question Richard Allan, Facebooks Vice President for Policy in the Middle East and Asia, is asking in the wake of reporting on the social networks content moderation guidelines. Reporting group ProPublicas headlineFacebooks Secret Censorship Rules Protect White Men from Hate Speech But Not Black Childrencaptures our almost dystopian fear of an all-powerful corporation rigging political discourse to serve shareholders, advertisers, and procrastinators the world over. Just imagine the 7,500-strong community operations team as uniformed propagandists searching for content that bucks the party line, and your Orwellian masterpiece is off to a fine start.

At first glance, removing hate speech might seem to depend exclusively on moderators ability to judge which posts cause serious harm to usersa task difficult only because determining that harm is so tricky. Yet as Facebook acknowledges, its own categories of hate speech dont function purely as immunizations from feeling threatened by others online.

For example, categorically demeaning African arrivals to Italy violates the social networks rules, but advocating for proposals to deny refugees Italian welfare does not. And this remains true even if both actions cause comparable suffering to their migrant subjects. As Allan explains with reference to German debates on migrants, we have left in place the ability for people to express their views on immigration itself. And we are deeply committed to making sure Facebook remains a place for legitimate debate. In other words, Facebook will permit some legitimate posts in spite of their potential to harm shielded groups.

What kind of debate qualifies as legitimate in Facebooks eyes? The company doesnt say. One approach is to classify hateful content, like much-scrutinized fake news, as a subset of false speech. Group-focused hate speech contains generalizations or arguments that take no time to debunk, while more involved political content requires prohibitive resources to fact-check properly.

However, even if removing egregiously incorrect posts were a good idea, Facebook uses other variables to decide the boundaries of legitimate discussion. When then-presidential candidate Donald Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States, he likely ran afoul of the sites rules against calling for exclusion of protected classesbut reports indicate that Facebook CEO Mark E. Zuckerberg, a former member of the Class of 2006, permitted the content to remain on his platform because it was part of the political discourse. The companys efforts to exclude hate do not amount to eradicating falsehood.

Facebooks selective moderation suggests that legitimate content for the company is not necessarily true or respectful content, but material whose publication it deems valuable from the publics point of view. Even if the social network could have stopped users from hearing Trumps Muslim ban speech, for instance, doing so would have prevented voters from learning something important about the candidates policy preferences.

This desire to inform citizens just illustrates how any outfits censorship practicesor lack thereofreflect a normative set of ideas about what best serves the interests of users. When Facebook, Google, or others frame content regulation as concerned with the safety of users, they mask the extent to which that safety is just one piece of a broader, and possibly controversial, conception of how we should lead our digital lives.

A social network that helps to structure the discourse of nearly two billion individuals ought to justify the design it chooses for them. And to its credit, Facebook seems more interested than just about any other technology company in giving explicit voice to its vision of building global community. But the fact that the companys moderation guidelines were developed ad hoc and without user input over the span of several years is worrying and hard to defend. When we stop pretending that online platforms are amoral structures, we also see the urgent need to scrutinize their foundations.

As it stands, the question of who ought to define and regulate hate speech is a moot one. With the exception of some European authorities, Facebook and other companies are already answering it for us, whether or not we accept their verdicts. Undoubtedly, many well-intentioned technologists envision a future in which online platforms guide political and social debate to be as robust as possible. But absent major changes, we can only hope that their utopia is not our dystopian future.

Gabriel H. Karger 18 is a philosophy concentrator in Mather House.

Eliot House Moves Facebook On-Line

It's late at night. You're surfing the Internet, staring at your own reflection in the screen, when you notice your

Yale To Give Professors Facebook Access

At Yale, the days of quietly slipping into the back of a classroomand promptly dozing off to your professors muted

techTALK

Matching faces to names is a Harvard pastime, thanks to the Freshman Register and the various House facebooks. Student demand

Safe Spaces and Free Speech

While the University of Chicago may have overstepped in issuing a blanket condemnation of safe spaces and content warnings, its letter was also a reaction to the suppression of speech that has every right to be heard on university campuses everywhere.

BGLTQ Office Prepares For Visit of Anti-Transgender 'Free Speech' Bus

Read more from the original source:

What Does Facebook Think Free Speech is For? - Harvard Crimson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A free-speech group on Tuesday sued U.S. President Donald Trump for blocking Twitter users from his @realDonaldTrump account, arguing the practice violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University in New York and joined by seven individual Twitter users, claims Trump blocked a number of accounts whose owners replied to his tweets with comments that criticized, mocked or disagreed with the president.

Trump's blocking of the accounts amounted to an unconstitutional effort to suppress dissent, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York.

Because Trump frequently turns to Twitter to make policy statements, his account qualifies as a public forum from which the government cannot exclude people on the basis of their views, according to the lawsuit. Twitter users are unable to see or respond to tweets from accounts that block them.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Last month White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump's tweets were considered "official statements by the president of the United States."

The suit names Spicer and Dan Scavino, the White House director of social media, as defendants in addition to Trump. It asks for the blocking to be deemed unconstitutional and seeks an injunction to require the president to unblock users.

The complaint follows a letter from the Knight Institute to Trump last month warning it would sue if users were not unblocked.

"Everyone being able to see the president's tweets feels vital to democracy," Joseph Papp, one of the seven Twitter users involved in the suit, said in a statement.

Papp, an author, said he had been a registered Republican for 10 years and did not join the suit for political reasons, but that he "felt a deep sense of unease" when he was blocked.

Trump's Twitter use has drawn intense interest for his unvarnished commentary about his agenda and attacks on critics. His tweets often lead to tens of thousands of retweets and comments and can shape the news.

The Knight Institute's arguments may have merit, independent free speech and internet law scholars say, in part because Trump's tweets are used to announce policy decisions or can influence legislation. Previous cases involving politicians blocking users on Facebook may bolster its case.

The federal suit, case number 1:17-cv-05205, was filed in the Southern District of New York.

Editing by Bill Rigby and Jeffrey Benkoe

More:

US free-speech group sues Trump for blocking Twitter users - Reuters

Its a classic Internet argument.

This is a danger to free speech!

No, its not! The government isnt shutting anyone up!

Ive got good news. Both can be right. There are plenty of things that endanger free-wheeling and robust speech without the government getting involved at all. A helpful way to think about it is the First Amendments protections are a suggestion for the least a free society should do to protect and foster free speech, not an accomplishment for which we should engage in vigorous back-patting.

This is the crux of an argument one of my colleagues, Kirsten Powers, is having with seemingly the entire Internet.

In the late-night hours of July 4, CNN published a story about the Reddit user who created a video suddenly infamous for being tweeted by the president of the United States. We live in strange times, so this Redditors meme was a video of President Donald Trump beating down a wrestling opponent with a CNN logo superimposed over his face.

Andrew Kaczynski, a reporter who made his name digging up long-forgotten, newsworthy videos of prominent politicians, used those same Internet sleuthing skills to track down the user who made the meme. We live in strange times, so the subject of this national news storys handle was HanA**holeSolo, and his real name was not included in the story.

Here is the passage that addressed that decision, which set off alarm bells in many quarters of the Internet, uniting left and right for a brief moment on this Independence Day in their chorus of WUTs.

CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolos name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of this change.

It seemed to imply that HanA**holeSolos name was being withheld only because he agreed to stop engaging in speech the reporter or CNN didnt like, and should his behavior change, this mercy could be removed.I am employed by CNN, but dont speak for them. Kaczynski said the passage was only meant to communicate he had made no deal with the Redditor to withhold his name, and CNN backed him up.

CNN decided not to publish the name of the Reddit user out of concern for his safety. Any assertion that the network blackmailed or coerced him is false, the network said in the statement. The user, who is an adult male, not a 15-year-old boy, apologized and deleted his account before ever speaking with our reporter. CNN never made any deal, of any kind, with the user. In fact, CNN included its decision to withhold the users identity in an effort to be completely transparent that there was no deal.

But the whole affair raises a question about how we treat Internet trolls, when we out them, and at what cost. Powers has been in verbal fisticuffs over this question with honest interlocutors and abusive trolls alike for days.

Like Powers, I embrace the term speech nut. Like Powers, I wrote a book on dangers to free speech. But I disagree with her on this issue precisely because I care about free speech, not because I care about HanA**holeSolo in particular. Powers argues:

This mans speech was completely free of any restrictions. What his defenders are objecting to is him being accountable for what he wrote and posted. Holding a person accountable for what they say is not a violation of their free speech, unless the entity doing it is the government.

There are consequences to our speech. If a person wants to be in good standing in society, then they perhaps should not post racist garbage on the Internet for fun.

HanA**holeSolo isnt some great modern-day pamphleteer whom we should ensure at all costs can keep delivering us (and the president) hot memes from his den of racist sh*tposters. Hes not, and the fact that the White House finds inspiration in these corners of the Internet is newsworthy. Some of his other creations, including a a composite with Stars of David next to the Jewish CNN employees, are truly disgusting.

But media should be very careful about when they expose private citizens for the sin of political speech. They should be especially careful not to imply that content of political speech that crosses a big media entity is the reason for exposure. The media dont owe every troll on the Internet his or her anonymity, but doing disproportionate warfare with them can endanger and chill the speech of others.

As Voxs German Lopez put it simply, The Internet is not proportional.

The problem here is that the internet is not proportional. People wouldnt merely react to this guy making some offensive remarks on the internet by making some offensive remarks to him. They would react as the internet has reacted before to these kinds of situations with potentially thousands of hateful messages, death threats, attempts to get him fired, and harassment not just against him but also his family. Lines would quickly be crossed.

And its not just the Internet thats not proportional. Media has shown an inability to gauge its coverage of the online speech of private citizens.

Remember the #HasJustineLanded worldwide news furor over a single tweet or the week-long news cycle about a Republican staffers private Facebook post critical of the Obama daughters? The offenses of these women shouldnt have made them subjects of worldwide infamy, but they did. I am sympathetic to good, rational people who want to engage in online discussion, but put up barriers between it and their identities.

Again to Powers:We are not obligated to protect a persons identity so they can spread and foment racial hatred. They should take the hood off and own their behavior. Their targets do not have the luxury of being anonymous, after all. So why should they?

This all started with a Wrestlemania meme, not targeting of anyone. Although HanA**holeSolos other posts were anti-Semitic and racist, the one that made him newsworthy was well within bounds of American political discourse. It wasnt a threat of violence. It wasnt incitement. It was a goofy metaphor speech nuts shouldnt want to discourage Americans from making.

As to the question of anonymity, there are plenty of reasons that luxury shouldnt be jettisoned, even though it empowers some bad people to say bad things. Im a public figure. I put my real name with what I say online. I chose this way of doing things, and many private citizens do the same in their social media lives. It can be a helpful governor of online behavior that otherwise gets very dehumanizing and nasty. Ive been subjected to plenty of it myself.

But we shouldnt hold every private citizen with a Facebook account to the standards of a pundit or politician, who chose the strictures and exposure under which they speak.

Even if you do think a Wrestlemania clip is an out-of-bounds political statement, or that HanA**holeSolo should suffer for his other speech, consider this. Our justice system, though imperfect, attempts to value the presumption of innocence. This presumption is so important to us that we let the guilty go free so we dont wrongly convict the innocent.

A similar principle should apply to a culture of free speech. We let some truly vicious trolls and bad behavior by random Internet people go unpunished so we dont catch the innocent in a net meant for miscreants. In extreme cases, like incitement and threats, they must face consequences.

But this all started with a Wrestlemania meme. Even if I dont love it, and even if it was created by a guy who literally named himself A**hole, Ill go to the mats for it.

Mary Katharine Ham is a senior writer at The Federalist.

Read the rest here:

Free Speech Sometimes Means Letting Trolls Go Unpunished - The Federalist

The court case between a current Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly member and the borough administration has reached a conclusion.

Willy Dunne, who has represented District 9 to the assembly since 2015, sued the borough in March, claiming his right to free speech was being restricted because the borough attorney told him not to publish an opinion article in local newspapers on the advice of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit representing the borough in another related lawsuit over the borough assemblys invocation policy.

Under the terms of the settlement, dated July 3, the borough will pay Dunne $10,000 to partially cover his legal fees. In exchange, the court will dismiss the case with prejudice, which prevents the parties from bringing it back to court even if new information comes out in the future, according to the settlement. Superior Court Judge Anna Moran signed the order July 10, according to court records.

The case arose because Dunne, who had sponsored an assembly ordinance to eliminate the invocation that ultimately failed, wanted to publish an opinion article providing his reasoning in local newspapers. When he submitted the piece to the boroughs legal department for review, Borough Attorney Colette Thompson conferred with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which said it did not approve of the piece. Part of the boroughs contract with the ADF, which Borough Mayor Mike Navarre signed in December 2016, said the borough agreed to cooperate with the ADF in public representation of the case.

Dunne said Thompson told him not to publish, a claim both Thompson and the attorney representing the borough in both cases, Kevin Clarkson, have since refuted.

The Defendants affirmatively deny that they ever, either directly or through any borough officials, restricted or prohibited Mr. Dunnes speech or publication of matters he wished to communicate to his constituents, fellow assembly members and other borough and state residents, the settlement states. Plaintiff Dunne does not agree.

After a hearing March 16 in which Clarkson said the borough wouldnt block Dunne publishing the piece, he did, but the ordinance he was arguing for failed at the March 21 assembly meeting anyway. At a March 22 hearing, Clarkson said the borough planned to ask for the judge to dismiss the case because the point of the suit was now moot.

On March 29, Clarkson filed the motion to dismiss, saying there was no cause for conflict. Dunnes attorney, Anchorage lawyer John McKay, filed a motion in opposition, saying there were still a number of points requiring clarification from the court, including the fact the Dunne still claimed the borough attorney initially told him not to speak the Alliance Defending Freedoms contract could be interpreted as enforceable against borough assembly members.

McKay said one of the key issues he and Dunne sought from the court was a clear ruling that this contract couldnt be used to stop assembly members from speaking about issues related to the invocation policy, either in public or in private, without approval from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Because the language of the contract is vague, it could be interpreted that way, he said.

Although McKay was glad Dunne and Navarre could agree on the settlement, he said it was frustrating that the borough waited so long to settle the case after he and Dunne had said they were willing to settle the case earlier to avoid the additional costs, appropriating an additional $25,000 for legal fees in this case in late March.

They were willing to spend more money than they had to, both for us and for their own lawyers, just to fight the fact that they could enforce this contract against borough assembly members, he said. In some ways, it didnt affect (Dunne) any more than it affected any other assembly members.

Neither Dunne nor a representative for the borough could be reached for comment Tuesday.

The lawsuit over the invocation policy, titled Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, was filed Dec. 14, 2016 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska asking the court to find the borough assemblys policy setting rules for who can give an invocation before the meetings as unconstitutional. The assembly adopted the rules when a controversy arose after a woman representing the Satanic Temple gave an invocation before the meeting in August 2016.

The trial for Hunt v. Kenai Peninsula Borough is set for the week of Feb. 26, 2018 in Anchorage.

Reach Elizabeth Earl at elizabeth.earl@peninsulaclarion.com.

See the article here:

Borough to settle Dunne free speech case - Kenai Peninsula Online

wbur Commentary (Thom/ Unsplash)

Like what you read here? Sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

As all the world knows by now, last week our president prepared for his big meeting with Vladimir Putin by receiving round-the-clock briefings on the history of U.S.-Russian relations, as well as the recent accords of the G-20.

Kidding!

Actually, he prepared by tweeting out a video of himself pretend-assaulting a man with a CNN logo superimposed over his head.

The obvious question here is why the leader of the free world or any adult living outside his parents basement would do such a thing. But we all know who Donald Trump is at this point. Expecting him to go more than a few days without trolling is like expecting a leech to go vegetarian.

Whats been more interesting to watch is the fallout, and in particular, the way that Trumps fellowinternet trolls have descended into self-pity at the first sign of public exposure.

As one might expect, media outlets did not take kindly to Trumps tweet, and CNN soon tracked down the man who created the video and posted it on a Reddit site devoted to Trump worship.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech onlineanonymously.

Like many of the folks who hang out on such sites, the Anonymous Poster (who Ill refer to as AP, because his handle is too profane to print) has a long history of posting racist vitriol.

Here are just a few examples of what AP posted:

*A photo of the gate to a concentration camp with the caption, Solved the refugee problem in Europe.

*Photos of dozens of CNN staffers marked with Stars of David.

*A photo of a Koran being burned with the caption, Dont mind me just posting an image to offend Islam.

*Repeated uses of the N-word in posts such as, I just like dancing when n------ are getting beat down by the cops and FBI stats dont lie n-----. You hood rats account for more that [sic] 50 percent of the murder, rape, robbery, and assault in the USA.

(Fun fact: This last outburst is based on a bogus stat our president tweeted out during the campaign. Classy!)

When Trump first posted the CNN video, AP proudly crowed, Holy s---!! I wake up and have my morning coffee and who retweets my s---post but the MAGA EMPORER [sic] himself!!! I am honored!!

But within a day, AP had issued a long apology, claiming that he wasnt a racist and never meant any of the horrible things he posted online.

So what might explain this sudden change of heart?

Heres a hint: CNN figured out APs true identity and contacted him by email. In other words, he was afraid of being exposed.

Conservative media outlets immediately accused CNN of threatening to blackmail AP by exposing his identity. To which I would respond: nonsense.

The Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to free speech. It doesnt guarantee anyone the right to spew hate speech online anonymously.

Much of the reason the internet has become a cesspool of cruel rhetoric is because folks like AP have weaponized anonymity. They use the internet to say whatever they want without having to face the consequences. Theyve turned the information superhighway into a playground full of coward-bullies wearing masks.

Like Trump, they love to dish out abuse. And like Trump, the moment anyone tries to hold them accountable, theypitch a fit.

They also threatenchildren. Yes, a group of white supremacists responded to the CNN report on AP by posting information about CNN employees, and threatening the kids of CNN employees unless they fired the lead reporter.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate.

So thats what weve come to: Racists who threaten innocent kids online are demanding digital hoods to protect them from public disapproval. Perhaps the federal government should provide them guns and ammo, as well? Would that Make America Great Again?

We now have a president with a history of tweeting and retweeting material from white nationalist websites. He also has a long history of inciting violence against protesters, the media and other perceived enemies.

Under his watch, hate crimes have predictably surged. Journalists who work to expose the sources of hate speech routinely receive death threats from Trumps racist army all of them anonymous, naturally.

What these trolls really want is a safe space to spew hate. Forcing them to stand behind their words is the least a civilized society can do.

Follow Cognoscenti on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for our twice-weekly newsletter.

Steve Almond Cognoscenti contributor Steve Almond is the author of 11 books of fiction and nonfiction. He writes Cog's advice column, #HeavyMeddle, and is the co-host of Dear Sugar Radio.

More

Link:

Online Anonymity Is Not The Same Thing As Free Speech - WBUR

A Connecticut woman who hurled a variety of insults at a grocery store manager was protected by constitutional free speech rights and will be acquitted of a misdemeanor charge, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

Nina Baccala was arrested in her hometown of Vernon in 2013 after subjecting a Stop & Shop assistant manager to a profanity-laced tirade. Prosecutors said she became enraged when the manager told her it was too late to process a Western Union money transfer.

Baccala called the manager "fat" and "ugly," in addition to profane names, prosecutors said.

Baccala, 44, was convicted of breach of peace and sentenced to 25 days in jail. She appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing that the name calling and insults did not fall within the "fighting words" exemption to constitutional free speech rights.

All seven justices on the state Supreme Court agreed the conviction should be overturned. Four voted in favor of acquittal, while three said there should be a new trial.

Justice Andrew McDonald wrote in the majority opinion that while the words and phrases that Baccala used were "extremely offensive and meant to personally demean" the manager, they were not criminal. He wrote that the evidence was insufficient to support Baccala's conviction under federal constitutional law.

"Uttering a cruel or offensive word is not a crime unless it would tend to provoke a reasonable person to immediately retaliate with violence," McDonald wrote.

He added, "Store managers are routinely confronted by disappointed, frustrated customers who express themselves in angry terms. People in authoritative positions of management and control are expected to diffuse hostile situations."

Prosecutor Mitchell Brody declined to comment Friday. Baccala did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Brody wrote in his opposition to the appeal that Baccala's insults were "fighting words" and that the state's breach of peace law allows prosecution for "abusive language."

The "fighting words" exemption to free speech rights dates back to a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision in a New Hampshire case. In that case, Walter Chaplinsky was convicted of breach of peace for cursing at a town marshal in Rochester, New Hampshire, and calling him a "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist."

Upholding Chaplinsky's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was an exemption to free speech rights for "fighting words," which it defined as words "that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

See the original post here:

Court: State Woman's Profanity-laced Tirade Was Protected Free Speech - Hartford Courant

On Wednesday, you may go to your favorite website and see a pop-up window that claims the site has been blocked, that its stuck in the slow lane or now requires a subscription.

Dont be alarmed: This is the internets version of a protest, and its fighting for the cyber version of free speech, commonly called net neutrality.

Then again, do be alarmed: Theres a good chance that federal regulators will dismantle the current framework that allows for net neutrality, and that theyll do so without any replacement mechanism to enforce an open internet.

People who would like to change the way we regulate the internet argue that the current method has stifled innovation since it went into effect two years ago.

That idea is hard to square with the fact that the companies participating in this weeks protest are the innovators. Some on the list include Amazon, Etsy, Facebook, Google, Vimeo and Reddit.

But heres where it gets more complex. One argument of net neutrality opponents is: If broadband internet service providers like Comcast could charge higher fees for the biggest bandwidth hogs (cough cough, Netflix; cough, Amazon), wouldnt they be able to afford to build advanced fiber networks that would spawn new types of innovation? Ill leave you to consider this idea that ISPs are too cash-poor to innovate.

Backing up a bit, net neutrality is the idea that the internet is a cyber piazza, an open forum for debate and innovation, where giants like Google, Netflix and Facebook have no inherent advantage over startups and newcomers.

Unlike actual public piazzas, the cyber forum for debate and speech is reliant on a delivery infrastructure, and that infrastructure is populated by profit-driven monopolies. ISPs built the roads that lead to the cyber piazza, and they installed giant toll booths aka monthly subscriptions. So net neutrality rules are really just rules that apply to them. The idea is that Comcast shouldnt be able to charge a higher toll for Netflix than for its own subsidiaries.

The current head of the Federal Communications Commission has said he wants to preserve net neutrality, just not in its current form. Yet the FCC plans to slash Title II, the legal foundation for net neutrality. In 2015, former President Barack Obama asked the FCC to classify ISPs as utilities that the federal government could regulate. The impending regulations barred ISPs from blocking or throttling websites, favoring certain content over others, and more.

Opponents argue that Title II is antiquated because it originated in the 1930s. Im not sure whats wrong with old laws, but I do know that a bunch of pop-up windows and shut-down websites probably isnt going to change what is a foregone conclusion at the FCC.

For it to be permanent, the road to net neutrality needs to be paved by innovators, not government. The Amazons and Googles and Facebooks need to develop and build that advanced fiber network that ISPs supposedly cant afford. They need to do what they do best: disrupt industry through innovation. The giants can put their money where their protests are, and build new networks that make ISPs obsolete.

Bureaucrats dont understand technology and government doesnt move fast enough to regulate it. These people know not what they do or say, as evidenced by our commander in chiefs weird announcement about forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit with Russia yesterday.

I think this is cluelessness, not malevolence. And the only way to fight it is through innovation.

Go here to read the rest:

Booting Up: Free speech in danger - Boston Herald

Free speech on Wisconsins college campuses has been getting a lot of attention at the state Capitol recently.

Lost amid the manufactured furor over a handful of protests of right-wing provocateurs appearing on campuses in other states and whether Wisconsin students ought to be threatened with expulsion if their activism offends older, white GOP politicians are the challenges students of color face and have faced for generations.

Right now there there are 664 African-Americans out of 31,407 undergraduates at UW-Madison. In the entire UW System, there are 4,640 African-Americans out of 151,895 undergraduate students.

Yet rather than asking why the percentage of African-American students is so alarmingly low, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, is fast-tracking a bill to create safe spaces on Wisconsin campuses for right-wing purveyors of racism, misogyny and xenophobia.

As a person of color studying at the overwhelmingly white University of Wisconsin-Madison, I believe policymakers also ought to hear my story and consider my experience, and the stories and experience of other students of color, before telling us whose voices are and arent being heard.

I am a scholar in UW-Madisons PEOPLE program, a scholarship for historically disenfranchised communities in Wisconsin. Ever since my first summer on campus in seventh grade, I have been told to be on my best behavior, lest we make white people uncomfortable with our brown voices.

As a UW-Madison student, I have been told I am only here because I am black, and in a discussion section someone even said I am an affirmative action enrollee, implying I took a more-qualified white persons seat and therefore should not speak.

It is a reality many African-American students have to live with on campus. Most African-American students never forget their first time walking into a lecture hall filled with hundreds of students and being the only black face. It is a chilling and isolating feeling. The voices of people of color on campus are often discouraged, overlooked and silenced.

The conservatives campus speech bill would make it worse. If two students feel their speech is challenged, those students could file a report and trigger a suspension or expulsion hearing. That means students of color speaking up for ourselves and making fellow white students uncomfortable could face retaliation in the form of facing suspension or expulsion.

And for extreme cases, for every protest of right-wing speakers Vos points to, I can point to a hate crime perpetrated against a student of color on a college campus. In May, Bowie State University graduate and Army Lieutenant Richard W. Collins III was stabbed to death by a person who pledged to white supremacy on social media. In 2017, colleges and universities have reported increases in white supremacy groups and hate crimes on campuses nationwide. Even at UW-Madison, a student was found recruiting for a white supremacy group.

If someone like Charles Murray comes to town promoting his academic research that alleges a black student like me is genetically inferior to my white peers, I would hope that the university to which I pay tuition and the government of the state in which I live and pay taxes would support my right to speak up and defend myself.

Vos has done nothing to fully understand why students of color have protested speakers, nor at any time has he addressed the hate crimes, inspired by these hateful ideas, that students of color have endured. Instead Vos is attempting to pass a law so that students will be suspended or expelled for speaking up for themselves.

Savion Castro is a UW-Madison student and One Wisconsin Now research associate.

Share your opinion on this topic by sending a letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Read more from the original source:

Savion Castro: The missing voices in the free speech debate ... - Madison.com

A federal judge has given Twitter permission to proceed with a First Amendment lawsuit brought against the Department of Justice over restrictions limiting how tech companies can disclose details about government surveillance requests.

Twitter sued the government in 2014 after the Justice Department barred the company from revealing the exact number of requests for user data its received from federal authorities, but the government countered by claiming disclosing that data would be detrimental to national security.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled against the governments bid for summary judgement Thursday and said its restrictions constitute a prior restraint on Twitters freedom of speech and subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment.

The government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the draft transparency report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict-scrutiny standard, the judge ordered.

Even where courts have hesitated to apply the highest level of scrutiny due to competing secrecy and national security concerns, they have nevertheless held that heightened or rigorous scrutiny of such restrictions on speech is required, she added.

The judge dismissed the governments argument and instead ordered the Justice Department to expedite the process of granting security clearances for Twitters attorneys so they can review any classified documents subsequently filed in Washingtons defense.

This is an important issue for anyone who believes in a strong First Amendment, and we will continue with our efforts to share our complete transparency report, Twitter said in a statement welcoming the ruling.

Existing rules allow Twitter and other tech companies to disclose the number of government surveillance requests theyve received in wide bands, such as 0-999. Twitter has argued the restrictions are unconstitutional and prevent the company from being transparent with its customers.

Read the original post:

Twitter can proceed with free speech case against DOJ, federal judge rules - Washington Times

Harvard President Drew Faust gave a ringing endorsement of free speech in her recent commencement address. There was, however, one passage where Faust asserted that the price of Harvards commitment to free speech is paid disproportionately by those students who dont fit the traditional profile of being white, male, Protestant, and upper class. That point has been illustrated by a few recent controversies over speakers whose words were deemed offensive by some members of those non-traditional groups of students. But focusing solely on those controversies, and on a handful of elite campuses, risks obscuring a larger point: Disadvantaged groups are also among the primary beneficiaries of vigorous free-speech protections.

The Department of Justice Stands by Texas's Voter ID Law

Universities have often served as springboards for progressive social movements and helped to consolidate their gains. They have been able to fulfill these functions largely by serving as spaces where ideasincluding radical and contrarian ideascould be voiced and engaged with.

Today, many universities seem to be faltering in their commitment to this ideal, and it is the vulnerable and disenfranchised who stand to lose the most as a result. Thats particularly true beyond the world of elite private universities such as Harvard. The reality is that, as compared to white Americans, blacks and Latinos are much more likely to attend public universities and community colleges than elite private institutions. The same goes with those from low-income backgrounds as compared to the wealthy. This dynamic holds with regard to faculty as well: Female professors and professors of color are more likely than their white male counterparts to end up teaching at public universities as opposed to elite institutions like Harvard.

Heres why this matters: In virtue of their heavy reliance on taxpayer funding and major donors, public colleges are much more receptive to calls from outside the university to punish faculty and staff for espousing controversial speech or ideas. Groups like Professor Watchlist, Campus Reform, or Campus Watch exploit this vulnerability, launching populist campaigns to get professors fired, or to prevent them from being hired, on the basis of something they said. The primary targets of these efforts end up being mostly women, people of color, and religious minorities (especially Muslims and the irreligious) when they too forcefully or bluntly condemn systems, institutions, policies, practices, and ideologies they view as corrupt, exploitative, oppressive, or otherwise intolerable.

Those most vulnerable to being fired for expressing controversial views are the ever-growing numbers of contingent facultywho also tend to be disproportionately women and minorities. Meanwhile, the better-insulated tenured faculty tend to be white men.

As a result, if progressives are concerned with ensuring a more representative faculty, if they are committed to protecting freedom of conscience and freedom of expression for women and minorities, then they need to be committed to protecting free speech across the board. Every attempt to censor Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopoulos makes it easier to mount a campaign to fire someone like Lisa Durden (who made controversial comments about holding an all black Memorial Day celebration that excluded whites). Progressives lose the moral high ground they would need to defend radical and provocative speechwhich is unfortunate because they are arguably the ones who need free-speech protections most.

Americans tend to be politically to the right of most university faculty and studentsand as a result the public is more likely to be shocked and offended by views expressed by progressive scholars than by academic conservatives, who are few in number, generally rather moderate politically, and usually cautious about what they say publicly. Politicians are also more likely to throw their weight behind campaigns against left-leaning scholars, given that Republicans control most state governments, and thereby the purse strings of most public universities.

And if progressive scholars face a constant threat from the right coming from off-campus, they also face a threat from the left on campus. Many of the student-led campaigns that have made national news in the last two years have targeted professors who, themselves, identify as liberal or progressivebut who managed to challenge or violate some tenet of the prevailing activist orthodoxy.

Progressives, therefore, have reason to celebrate the fact that conservatives and their allies seem to be rallying behind the cause of free speech on campus. They can take advantage of this moment to institutionalize more robust protections, clearer standards and policies, and a healthier civic culture that turns disagreements into opportunities for learning. If progressives fail to embrace free speech, and if they cede this basic American value to the right, then, as Harvards President Faust warned in her commencement address, any effort to limit some speech opens the dangerous possibility that the speech that is ultimately censored may be our own.

Read the original post:

How Free Speech on Campus Protects Disadvantaged Groups - The ... - The Atlantic

On June 7in Los Angeles, California, theNational Constitution Center hosted a program on the future of digital free speech, in partnership with the American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society.

The first half of the program is a one-on-one conversation between Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosenand Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Listeners can find it right now on the Constitution Centers YouTube channel and in the coming weeks onLive at Americas Town Hall.

This week's episode ofWe the Peoplepicks up with the second half of the program, when Judge Kozinski was joined by Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, for a wide-ranging discussion.

Todays show wasedited byJason Gregoryand produced byNicandro Iannacci. Research was provided byLana UlrichandTom Donnelly. The host ofWe the PeopleisJeffrey Rosen.

Continue todays conversation onFacebookandTwitterusing@ConstitutionCtr.

We want to know what you think of the podcast! Email us at[emailprotected].

Sign up to receiveConstitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate.

Please subscribe toWe the Peopleand our companion podcast,Live at Americas Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

We the Peopleis a member ofSlatesPanoplynetwork. Check outthe full roster of podcasts atPanoply.fm.

Despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is aprivate nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visitconstitutioncenter.orgto learn more.

Recent Stories on Constitution Daily

John McCain to be awarded 2017 Liberty Medal

Trump team may go back to Supreme Court on immigration

Anticipation already begins for Courts next term

Filed Under: First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Podcasts

Visit link:

Podcast: The future of digital free speech - Constitution Daily (blog)

Wisconsin Public Radio News

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech Wisconsin Public Radio News The University of Wisconsin System regents plan to vote on a resolution affirming their commitment to free speech as legislators consider a bill that would punish UW students who disrupt campus speakers. The Republican bill would require the regents to ... and more »

See the original post here:

UW Regents To Vote On Resolution Affirming Free Speech - Wisconsin Public Radio News

Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white nationalist Richard Spencer speaking at Texas A&M University Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016 in College Station.

Keep going for more images from Richard Spencer's controversial speech at Texas A&M.

Students sing the Aggie War Hymn in front of riot police outside the Memorial Student Center as they protest white

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face off with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face to face with protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers come face protesters outside the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

A flier speaks out against Richard Spencer at Texas A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Protesters march at the Memorial Student Center at A&M on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers face protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

A woman is taken into custody as law enforcement officers confront protesters at the Texas A&M Memorial Student Center on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators march at Texas A&M in College Station as they protest white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators argue at a march protesting white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Kortland Finley, of Dallas, left, argues with a man at a protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Law enforcement officers stand by as demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Steven Anderson signsan Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Susana Magdalena Mata signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during Richard Spencer's speech in College Station on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Demonstrators protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Students at Texas A&M demonstrate in a silent protest against white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M graduate student Harsimran Singh signs an Aggies United board calling for unity during white nationalist leader Richard Spencer's visit to the College Station campus on Tuesday.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

Texas A&M student Jamil Brown signs the Aggies United board on Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016, in College Station.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

Rabbi Matt Rosenberg questions of white nationalist leader Richard Spencer at a news conference before Spencer's speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

White nationalist leader Richard Spencer is shown at a news conference before his speech at Texas A&M University in College Station on Dec. 6.

See more here:

Campus free speech bills advanced around the country -- but Texas' bills died in committee - Chron.com

Last week, President Trump tweeted a video of himself wrestling a man to the floor, the man's head digitally replaced with the CNN logo. CNN tracked down the Reddit user who created the video, and also asked him about other posts of his that consisted of racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic language and imagery. HanA**holeSolo, as the user is known, apologized profusely, insisted that he loves "people of all races, creeds and origins," and insisted that the video wasn't intended to incite violence against the media. The President, on the other hand, did not say "sorry." He tweeted: "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" Parties on each side of this saga could legitimately say they're taking a stand for free speech. CNN is defending the freedom of the press against a President who has sometimes appeared to threaten it. Conservatives charge CNN with being thin-skinned, but I've reported on Trump rallies where the audience has been moved to send up a chant of "CNN sucks," and where the anger at the so-called mainstream media nearly boiled over into outright intimidation. When the President of a democracy tweets a video of himself beating up a media organization, isn't that an implicit threat against the free press?

HanA**holeSolo's creation is classic Trumpery: it shows the President figuratively wrestling the media to the ground, yes, but with a dash of self-aware humor that the left is oddly tone-deaf to.

Does Trump really think he has the physique of a pro wrestler? Or that his tweets are witty ripostes worthy of Downton Abbey? No. He's a troll on a cosmic scale, and sometimes liberals would do well to ignore the one-liners he bashes out on his phone and focus on what he's doing in his day job.

So, which is it? Is the President an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? Personal experience has taught me that the line between these two things is vanishingly thin.

Down the years, I've had it all thrown at me: anti-Semitism, accusations of being a racist, homophobia, accusations of homophobia, cartoons of me in a gas oven, etc. I've said some bad things myself -- never that bad, I want to emphasize -- and feel guilty for having contributed my own small portion to this moral mudslide.

But if I might pretend to be completely innocent for a moment, then I have a couple of observations to make. One is that women always get it worst. Another is that people are happy to turn a blind eye to abuse when they agree with it politically. Liberals can give offense but they never take it lightly.

A third is that the cost of being bad online is rising. Reputations can be ruined by a nasty tweet, or even a tweet that just wasn't well phrased or was unfairly misinterpreted. Generosity is dying; it's rare to be given the benefit of the doubt. Social media is starting to become a strange mix of the abrasive and the censorious, of which the CNN wrestling story is a rather good illustration.

My sympathy, however, does lie with CNN -- for one simple reason. Online abuse is killing the appeal of public service. Any sane, ethical young person would see the ugliness of modern politics and journalism and conclude they want no part of public life. The President is encouraging that.

Horrible things have been said about Trump, true. He could argue that he's simply fighting back, yes. But fighting fire with fire inevitably leads to more fire, and while I'm sympathetic towards some of Trump's agenda, I look upon the state of politics in this era with despair. It is not unreasonable for journalists to say "enough is enough."

See more here:

Stanley: Is Trump an enemy of free speech or merely exercising it in a way that liberals dislike? - CNN