Recently I undertook a final year undergraduate class in political philosophy. The opening lecture commenced with a trailer from1984(1984). This film adaptation of George Orwells original dystopian novel (1949) imagines a society monitored pedantically by an all-encompassing omniscient totalitarian super state (Oceania).

My lecturer subsequently discussed her upbringing in formerly USSR-controlled East Germany. East Germany was a microcosmic manifestation of Airstrip One (Britain rechristened in1984). It was a relatively small communist province managed maliciously from Russia.

What dangers can transpire when a singular overriding ideology is bequeathed an exclusive cultural and legislative precedence?

Stringent protections of free speech (the right to dissent) are an important guarantor against any potential monopoly of power. When free speech is unjustifiably curtailed, democratic societies are threatened. Enabling disparate voices to participate in political and academic life ensures that current orthodoxies become neither lackadaisical nor presumptively unequivocal. Unpopular schools of thought, strong opposition parties and a variety of editorial slants constrain intellectual egomania and unhealthy political power grabs.

Most people will acknowledge this principle to some extent. At a base level, many Republicans recognize that they need Democrats. Often, academics are more indebted to their detractors than they would care to admit. But should disparate fascist cohorts and militant Islamic groupsbe given a hearing in democratic societies? Should extremist spokespersons be allowed to benefit from the privileges which they would seek to suppress in alternative circumstances?

What if particular radical tenets exploited susceptible listeners? Surely some measure of benevolent paternalism is warranted. In practice, many developed nations do place limitations upon free speech.

Recently, Ursula Haverbeck, a prolific revisionist historian and neo-Nazi, was imprisoned for denying the Holocaust on German soil. The British government has also introduced anti-extremism legislation. Even views which were oncethemain sway of opinion merely decades ago are now mitigated against legislatively and on university campuses.

In 2016, Angus Buchan (a conservative evangelical South African evangelist) was banned from preaching in Scotland. LGBT groups cited his allegedly homophobic and misogynistic views in justification of the prohibition. Offbeat second wave feminists like Germaine Greer and Camille Paglia have had their invitations to universities revoked by disenfranchised students.

These measures are not only inappropriate, but fundamentally counter-productive. Furthermore, they send a dangerous message to zealous minority factions. Theprima facieobvious ought to be stated: these demarcations are purely symbolic. Everyone knows that the most efficient way to stifle reprehensible opinions merely requires not paying attention to them.

Unsurprisingly; bannings, finings and imprisonment provide frenzied radicals with much larger spheres of influence. Nothing is more ineffectual than bestowing notoriety upon fringe groups which would otherwise have never been given any platform. Attempts to curtail free speech merely ratify the grandiose outlaw status which agitators thrive upon. Outrage just adds fuel to the fire of irrational contempt.

Ifcertain views really are beyond the pale of rational discourse, there is no inherent reason for their adherents to feel any compulsion towards dialogue, compromise or self-critique. Abhorrent positions should be forced to earn their place in an economy of ideas rather than being crowned royalty in a much more lucrative, less competitive, black market.

Why then have coercive attempts to restrict hate speech become so popular? Perhaps attempts to officially proscribe certain opinions pertains to a far more raw, emotive and visceral essence. An ancient human facethas resurfaced: team psychology.

An ability to cooperate in large collectives is one of the characteristics which distinguish humanity from other primates. This remnant of our tribal ancestry is manifest almost everywhere; competitive sports; fashion; political partisanship; etc. Even whenever we are not facing any imminent danger we still sense a pressing need to express particular loyalties and make specific alliances.

However, in his infamous Ted Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (N.Y.U.) identified one precarious trait innate to team psychology: The psychology of teams [] shuts down open minded thinking.

This is tantamount to stating the obvious. But Haidts observation should provoke serious introspection. Is it possible to reasonably discard ingroup thinking and pursuethecommon good? Do attempts to officially silence various antagonistic voices actually have a predominantly self-validating function?

Our position within a specific social tribe is reinforced. We are no longer required to critically assess objectionable opinions. The immense pleasure tribalism affords us makes it difficult and painful to distinguish between advocacy and enactment. Acknowledging the practical ineffectuality of anti-free speech legislation feels like betrayal.

Notwithstanding this phycological complication, there remains an immense difference between allowing persons to vocalize positions and possessing a blaze attitude towards the manifestation of such beliefs. Mob psychology has undoubtedly contributed to the rise of populism and social polarization (e.g. identity politics) throughout many Western nations which arose after the 2007-2008 global economic meltdown. Speech regulation provides continuity in an unstable world.

However, preemptively shutting down the possibility of dialogue with others cannot provide long term social security. The War on Extremism will soon be cataloged alongside other failed social Wars (like the War on Terrorism or War on Drugs). If monitoring language is counter-productive, what posture should anti-extremist political engagement take?

Free speech has become a hot button issue in recent years. The rise of cultural libertarianism (embodied by alternative media outlets like the Rubin Report) has remapped the political landscape for many millennials. Its purported free speech fundamentalism resonates amongst people alienated by consensus politics; which characterized both the 90s and Noughties. Cultural libertarianism is a flashy somewhat adolescent protest movement with plenty of uncanny insights and a remarkable lack of real solutions.

The conscientious branding which these star struck demagogues have deployed does their crusade a damning disservice. They have inadvertently capitalized upon the tribal loyalties which underlying anti-free speech regulation in the first place.

Furthermore, this movement has failed to attract much needed cross-partisan support. Left of center socially minded democrats, often disparagingly christened Social Justice Warriors, are presumptively excluded from this more open project. As Milo Yiannopoulos (a recently defamed former darling of the Cultural Libertarian troop) states; free speech is now a conservative issue.

Cultural Libertarianism is too facile. Its unwavering commitment to value facts over feelings reflects a limited awareness of the complexities inherent throughout the historical development of moral and political theory. Social liberalism has produced revolutionary free speech advocates liketheinfamous British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins. Without the Quran political toleration may never have got off the ground.

Yes; free speech is under threat. Democratic participation is difficult. Authentic university life is fragile. The freedom of the press is always somewhat in jeopardy. Protecting free speech involves hard work. It requires putting up with ideas we dislike and hoping that reasonable discourse will win out in the end.

Free speech advocates on the right, left, top, bottom and center should recognizethe importance ofgrey. We must stop painting ourselves and our adversaries in cheap gaudy colors. Unless we are careful, one persons utopia may become everyone elses nightmare.

Photo: John Nakamura Remy/Creative Commons

See the rest here:

Protecting truly free speech is hard work - GlobalComment.com

Jack Phillips is the operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from Phillips, who has religious objections to same-sex marriage and had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union.

Colorado cake maker Jack Phillips is devout about his artistry in icing and fondant. Hes also devout about his Christian faith, so much so that he believes it would be deeply sinful to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Last week, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear his case, and arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission one in a series of efforts to fence in the galloping acceptance of same-sex marriage could come as soon as this fall.

Events were set in motion in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who planned to marry in Massachusetts, stopped into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused to serve them, even though Colorado law says businesses open to the public cant discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Advertisement

Phillips, of course, has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to profess his faith. And hes made it clear theres no room for compromise, telling The New York Times: I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and that to participate in a sin is wrong for me. For me to take part in it against my will is compelling me to make a statement that I dont want to make. But theres another right hanging in the balance, rooted in the 14th Amendment and codified by the Supreme Court in 2015: the right to same-sex marriage.

Historically, courts have tried to strike an equitable balance between expanded civil rights and religious expression. Since the Civil Rights Act was enacted, in 1964, lawmakers and the courts have allowed some exemptions but have tended to draw the line when claims of religious freedom are used to justify discrimination. As James Esseks, director of the ACLU LGBT project put it: You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

The Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision two years ago was transformative, addressing vital claims to liberty and dignity for millions of gay Americans. Phillipss protest also comes at a time when national support for same-sex marriage is at an all-time high, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. A majority of Americans surveyed 62 percent now support gay marriage, including two-thirds of Catholics and 68 percent of mainline Protestants. And while white evangelical Christians arent exactly waving rainbow flags, support for same-sex marriage has grown from 27 percent in 2016 to 35 percent today, according to Pew.

Theres a broader First Amendment principle at stake, however. The Phillips case is another alarming assault on freedom of speech, part of an effort by businesses large and small to turn that most essential constitutional right into an antiregulatory tool. This compelled speech doctrine is already making its way through Congress and the court system, most notably in a case involving business groups fighting a 2010 law that requires them to disclose whether their products contain minerals linked to warlords in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In June, the US House passed the Financial CHOICE Act, which includes a pro-business provision to repeal the conflict-mineral disclosure. The US Senate should reject the bill, which also rolls back Dodd-Frank reforms. And the Supreme Court justices should recognize that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not about forcing speech, but about banning discriminatory conduct. The Colorado cakemaker should be free to worship as he pleases, but not to abrogate settled civil rights law under the guise of the First Amendment.

Continue reading here:

Using 'free speech' as a cover for discrimination - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

In the wake of CNN threatening to out a critic if he does not limit his speech in the future, former federal prosecutor and First Amendment champion Ken White has published an eminently sensible post about the incoherence of the present moment's views on free speech, and on the way that partisanship causes us to apply a double standard that excuses "our bunch" and damns the "other side."

As you'd expect from White, he goes beyond the "pox on both your houses" and sets out a course for a consistent and coherent view on free speech, speech with consequences, and taking sides.

We're not consistent in our arguments about when vivid political speech speech inspires, encourages, or promotes violence. We're quicker to accept that it does when used against our team and quicker to deny it when used on the other team.

We're not consistent in our moral judgments of ugly speech either. We tend to treat it as harmless venting or trolling or truth-telling if it's on our team and as a reflection of moral evil if it's on the other team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether online abuse and threats directed at people in the news are to be taken seriously or not. We tend to downplay them when employed against the other team and treat them as true threats when used against our team.

We're not consistent in our arguments about whether calling some individual out by name exposes them to danger. We tend to claim it does when the person supports our team and sneer at the issue when the person supports the other team.

We're not consistent in our treatment of the significance of behavior by obscure individuals. When some obscure person's online speech gets thrust into the limelight, we tend to treat it as fairly representative if they're on the other team and an obvious non-representative outlier if they are on our team.

We're hopelessly bad at applying consistent legal principles to evaluate whether speech is legally actionable depending on which team it comes from.

We're pretty inconsistent in our assessment of what social consequences should flow from ugly speech, with our views of proportionality, decency, and charity diverging widely depending on whether the person at issue is on our team or not.

CNN, Doxing, And A Few Ways In Which We Are Full of Shit As A Political Culture [Ken White/Popehat]

Louisiana Republican congressman Clay Higgins shot video of himself talking about the need for invincible U.S. powerwhile wandering the gas chamber at Auschwitz. In his five-minute ramble, Higgins explains the horrors that took place at the camp, where some 1.1m people, mostly Jews, where murdered by the Nazis during World War II. And that this []

Described by the BBC as a stunning attack on a female news anchor as if such a thing were at all unusual for the president of the United States of America, Trumps latest twitter barrage concerns the allegedly bleeding badly facelift of MSNBCs low I.Q. Crazy Mika Brzezinski. Brzezinski tweeted back, to mock Trumps famously []

Piers Morgan is a British journalist, pundit and Trumpkin who blew his big break in America and now presents breakfast television when not being nasty to women on Twitter. Here he is on Good Morning Britain getting savagely owned by copresenter Susanna Reid. This moment was just too beautiful for words, @susannareid100 @piersmorgan @CharlotteHawkns pic.twitter.com/hK2n88nBS4 []

Excel, Microsofts venerable spreadsheet program has some seriously powerful capabilities. But unless you know where to look in the maze of menus and toolbars, you probably leave the pivot tables and conditional formatting to your offices Excel guru. If you want to level up your skills and steal the title from the resident guru, take []

Entertaining bold changes in your career can feel like an abandonment of what youve worked for thus far, but this fallacious mindset can cost you a lot more in the long run than the time spent at your current gig. Change is constant, and building new skills outside of your typical wheelhouse will do much []

Immersive 3D sound is usually only possible with an array of surround-sound speakers, or by using headphones with Binaural audio content. And since most readily-available media is mastered for generic stereo, your Dolby 5.1 setup wont automagically add an extra dimension to your listening experience. But you can still simulate a rich audio environment with []

Read the rest here:

Debullshitifying the free speech debate about CNN and Trump's alt ... - Boing Boing

News & Observer

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer News & Observer Where will this country be if its speech tradition falters? In public places and social settings, when we come face to face, we're hesitant to say what we think. and more »

Follow this link:

What is happening to free speech in America? | News & Observer - News & Observer

Jonathan Turley, Opinion Columnist Published 4:03 p.m. ET July 5, 2017 | Updated 6:14 p.m. ET July 5, 2017

CNN has been accused of blackmailing the man who created a meme of President Donald Trump tackling CNN by threatening to reveal his identity. USA TODAY

President Trumps video tweet on July 2, 2017.(Photo: Twitter, @realDonaldTrump)

CNN has reported that it has confirmed the identity of the creator of the controversial videothat shows President Trumptaking down someone with the CNN logo for a head. Like many, I was highly critical of the president for reposting the video on his Twitter account. That wasboth irresponsible and unpresidential.

What is curious is that CNN has withheld the creator'sidentity while making a thinly veiled threat that it will release his name if he posts anything CNN finds disturbing or offensive. That is an odd role for a news organization. The newsmedia do not usually put citizens on probation forexercising theirfree speech.

CNN announced that it had identified the Reddit user HanA**holeSolo who first shared the video that Trump reposted with the hashtags #FraudNewsCNN and #FNN. CNN said the man also posted images with racist and anti-Semitic imagery. Heissued a long apology and removed all of the images.

"I am not the person that the media portrays me to be in real life.I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on Reddit and never meant any of the hateful things I said in those posts, he wrote. He said hewas engaging in what he thought was satire or trolling fun on Reddit.

Like the poster, I ama fan of Reddit, which is known for its open forum and varied viewpoints. It is often caustic and funny. At times, it is offensive and disturbing. However, it is a genuine and largely uninhibited forum for free expression.

No, Trump's wrestling tweet doesn't 'incite violence'

Yes, Donald Trump and other presidents can be charged with obstruction

The Trump videoby the Reddit user was a typical satire on contemporary political events. It is not even clear whetherit was meant as a celebration or a criticism of Trump. It simply swapped out the face of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Vince McMahon with the CNN gif.

It was the exercise of free speech. It was also news. While posting such a video on Reddit is not surprising or noteworthy, it took on an entirely new character when Trump reposted it. He haswaged an intense war against the news media and CNN in particular. That makes the original poster'sidentity newsworthy.

CNN, however, stated that it has decided to withhold hisname for now. He is a private citizen, the network said, who apologized, took down the offending posts and said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media. 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 that change.

The last statement is particularly jarring. It sounds like CNN is putting a citizen on a type of media probationary status threatening to reveal his name if it deems any posting as constituting ugly behavior. It puts a news organization in the position of monitoring free speech and deciding whether to ruin someone if he crosses some ill-defined line with CNN. It is the antithesis of what a news organization is supposed to be about.

CNN caved to Trump. It should have stood by its reporters.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

If the mans name is news, CNN can choose to publish it or not publish it. In reality, he is news only because his videotape was snatched from obscurity and paraded to the world by the president of the United States. It is the Internet equivalent of being hit by lightning. If the man posts an anti-media comment or gif, will CNN then declare it news and post his name? It is not clear how long this probationary period will run, let alone the standard for distinguishing between free speech and ugly speech.

Nor is there a clear rationale behind a media probationary status. Journalists will often withhold the names of sexual assault victims or minors. However, they don'tthreaten to reveal those names if they fall to meet the news organizations' expectations or standards in future conduct. Indeed, even when juries reject sexual assault claims, CNN continues to protect thenames.

In this case, CNN is behaving like a media censor. The president arbitrarily selected this man and his gif. Now CNN appears willing to arbitrarily punish him.

It is the threat of future disclosure that is so concerning and dangerous.News is not supposed to be a weapon to be brandished to induce good conduct by organizations like CNN. Free speech and free press go hand in hand. Indeed, many reporters are protected more under the former right than the latter in legal controversies. Once a news organization becomes the manager of free speech, it becomes a menace to the free press.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2tRZ4Fb

See the original post here:

CNN in odd role as censor: Network threatens free speech over Trump wrestling video - USA TODAY

GUEST: George Zornick, Nation Magazine's Washington editor, author of a new article, "Gun Sales Are Plummeting and Trump Wants to Help"

BACKGROUND: The NRA, which spent tens of millions of dollars to help elect Donald Trump, has recently posted to its Facebook page a terrifying video aimed at progressives. Conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch is the video's narrator and she begins by saying, "They use their media to assassinate real news." She goes on to say that teachers are teaching children to think of Trump as Hitler and imply that President Barack Obama is backing the resistance to Trump and inciting people to "smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports," and "bully and terrorize the law-abiding."

Loesch concludes that, "the only option is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness." The video ends claiming that the NRA is "freedom's safest place."

But my guest George Zornick, the Nation's Washington editor has a cover story in the latest edition of the magazine. In it he writes that NRA head Wayne La Pierre, "understands the gun-rights movement as a culture war first and a battle over gun laws second."

Visit link:

NRA's Dangerous Propaganda Video Is Aimed At the Left - Free Speech TV

In the same week that the state Legislature sent a bill to Gov. Roy Cooper to restore and preserve free speech on the states public university campuses, East Carolina University received a top rating for protecting free speech on its campus.

Officials said ECU has earned a green light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education after changing four campus policies to meet First Amendment standards. FIRE also helped state legislative leaders craft HB 527, which requires the University of North Carolina Board of Governors to adopt a uniform speech policy for all campuses in the UNC system.The bill is intended to prevent universities and campus groups from policies and actions that deter free speech.

In a year surrounded by controversy over free expression and speech on college campuses including ECU the FIRE group and HB 527 are being lauded and scrutinized because of its support from conservative backers, including several organizations supported by the Koch Brothers.

After ECUs Craig Malmrose, a professor in the School of Art and Design, asked the university to revise its yellow light speech codes, administrators at the 29,000-student university revised four policies in accordance with FIREs recommendations, Laura Beltz, a policy reform official with FIRE, told The Daily Reflector. Beltz came to ECU and worked on policy reform with Steve Serck, associate university attorney.

Four ECU speech policies had earned FIREs yellow light designations due to ambiguous wording that led to free speech restrictions, Beltz said. Two were related to facilities where speech was more restricted, and another was related to computer use policy. The final objection related to the universitys written creed, which made students pledge specific behaviors of civility and common courtesy, Beltz said.

Weve seen those civility requirements used before to police protected speech, so we required a revision to make them more aspirational, rather than mandatory, Beltz said.

The challenges to campus speech have shifted over the years, Beltz said.

We began in the 1990s to deal with the censorship actions of university administrations, but we now see a lot of problems stemming from students calling for censorship, Beltz said. There are a lot of students on the left calling for censorship of views on the right, and it can be disheartening for us. Of course, we want to protect students right to free speech, and when other students are calling for that right to be taken away, it can be frustrating.

FIRE tracks what it calls disinvitations on college campuses, actions taken by students or student-led groups to prevent appearances by speakers with whose views they strongly disagree. In March, a group of ECU students protested the campus appearance of controversial conservative commentator Tomi Lahren.

On the other end of the protest spectrum,19 members of the ECU band rested on a knee during the anthem at the opening of Saturdays game with the University of Central Florida. Chancellor Cecil Staton issued a release shortly after the protest that supported the students right to free expression. The protest and Statons reaction produced outrage from fans who threatened to pull their support from the university.

Beltz thinks much of the confrontation over speech results from the new world of social media, in which something said on a campus that a few students once found offensive now can instantly become viral and draw worldwide calls for censorship.

Virginia Hardy, ECU Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, issued a statement following the changes that led to the new green light designation.

At ECU we are committed to free speech and freedom of expression on our campus, said Hardy. We want our students, faculty, staff and guests to feel comfortable exercising their rights and exploring their ideas. Allowing the opportunity for freedom of expression and civil discourse around differing views has always been, and continues to be, a mainstay of institutions of higher learning.

ECU joins Duke University, North Carolina Central University, and the campuses at Charlotte, Chapel Hill and Greensboro as universities in the state with FIREs green light designation and 32 other colleges and universities that earn a green light rating because their written policies do not imperil student and faculty expression, according to FIREs Spotlight database.

House Bill 527, written by Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, also directs the Board of Governors to form a Committee on Free Expression. That body would enforce the speech policy across all UNC campuses. The bill is headed to Gov. Roy Coopers desk for his signature.

The bill is a solution in search of a problem, but free speech always should be a priority for public universities, Sarah Gillooly, policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, told the Carolina Journal last week.

In the rare circumstances where there is an issue with the stifling of free speech on campus, appropriate remedies exist and are working, Gillooly said.

Contact Michael Abramowitz at mabramowitz@reflector.comor 252-329-9507.

Continue reading here:

ECU changes policies to bolster free speech - Daily Reflector - Greenville Daily Reflector

Now it is time for lovers of free speech to strike back, a blog post on MILOs site reads. Since Milos book comes out on July 4th, it is the perfect week to hold a free speech rally outside of Simon & Schuster headquarters in New York City. Milo will deliver a speech to the crowd, and it will be a giant spectacle like every MILO event.

The post encourages attendees to bring signs with suggested slogans like All Viewpoints Matter, America Needs Dangerous Books, The Worst Part of Censorship is#$@*&^#@*, and Simon & Schuster: Politics Before Free Speech.

The rally will take place on Friday, June 7, at 10:30 AM on 6th Avenue between 48th and 49th streets in Manhattan, which is situated right outside of the Simon & Schuster offices.

Liberals have spent the last few decades learning how to shut up conservatives they consider dangerous, MILO said in a statement to Breitbart News. I experienced it firsthand at universities that tried to weasel out of letting me speak using red tape, and those that stood idly by while masked criminals sent innocent people to the hospital.

This way of thinking extends beyond campus, infecting the media and related industries including book publishing. Simon & Schuster caved to pressure from whiny leftists to cancel my book. They thought that would shut me up I guess they really dont know anything about me! he added.

When I came up with the idea of holding a free speech rally, I knew holding it outside of Simon & Schuster was the only option. They tried unsuccessfully to shut me up, but my book DANGEROUS has now been released into the hands of more than 100,000 people. Its the perfect time for me with some help from thousands of fans to show Simon & Schuster that free speech always wins, he concluded.

Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart.com

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Follow this link:

MILO Plans Free Speech Rally Outside of Simon & Schuster Headquarters - Breitbart News

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

Around the country, state lawmakers have been talking aboutand legislatingways intended to protect free speech on college campuses.

The Wisconsin State Assembly, for example, recentlypassed a campus speech billthat would require public colleges and universities to punish students who disrupt campus speakers. The legislation is now heading to the State Senate for consideration.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

As a higher education law researcher and campus free speech supporter, I view some requirements in these new campus speech laws as positively reinforcing legal protections for student free speech. However, I believe language in several pending state bills,including the punitive legislation proposed in Wisconsin, does more to impede free speech than protect it.

College students at the University California San Diego demonstrate against President Donald Trump's current immigration orders in La Jolla, California. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Free Speech Zones

In an effort to keep campuses safe and avoid disruption, some universities have restricted student speech and expressive activitysuch as handing out leaflets or gathering signatures for petitionsto special speech zones.

These free speech zones have been subject tocriticism and legal challenges. In one illustrative case, a federal court invalidated aUniversity of Cincinnati policythat limited student demonstrations, picketing and rallies to one small portion of campus.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not ruled definitively on the legality of designated student speech zones. Consequently, legal battles over their constitutionality continue, as shown bypending litigationinvolving a Los Angeles community college student who claims he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S. Constitution only in a designated campus speech zone.

Some states have recently enacted laws that prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing such free speech zones against students. At least seven states have passed anti-speech zone laws:Virginia, Missouri, Arizona,Colorado,Tennessee,UtahandKentucky.

Public institutions in these states may impose reasonable rules to avoid disruption, but officials cannot relegate student free speech and expression to only small or remote areas on campus. Instead, they must permit free speech in most open campus locations, such as courtyards and sidewalks.

Along with the pending legislation in Wisconsin, which also wouldban speech zones,North Carolina,Michigan,TexasandLouisianaare considering similar legislation.

Striking down these free speech zones seems a sensible way to promote student free speech: In my opinion, institutions shouldnt seek to restrict students First Amendment speech rights to strict borders on campus.

Punishing Protesters

If the Wisconsin bill passes in its current form, the state would do more than ban designated free speech zones. It would also become the first state requiring institutions to punish student protesters. The North Carolina House of Representatives has passed a similarbill, now under review in the State Senate, but this legislation seems to leave institutions morediscretionover dealing with students disrupting speakers than the Wisconsin legislation.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter is No. 13 on Right Wing News's list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women in New Media." (Mark Mainz / Getty Images)

Much of the push for campus speech bills has come from lawmakers who believe that college campuses arehostile to conservative speakers. They point to incidents such as those involvingAnn CoulterandMilo Yiannopoulosat the University of California at Berkeley as indicative of an overall resistance to conservative speakers on campus.

Provisions in campus speech bills, including ones mandating penalties for students who disrupt speakers, can largely betracedtomodel legislationfrom the Goldwater Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. The group aims to correct what it views as a left-leaning bias in American higher education regarding campus free speech.

In my view, forcing colleges to take punitive action against all disruptive protesters is troublesome. Such a requirement would mean that institutions would be faced with devising overly cumbersome rules for when punishment should or should not occur. But what counts as a punishment-worthy disruption?

A more problematic outcome would be if free speech werechilled. Students might understandably refrain from speech and expressive activity based on fear of punishment, particularly if the rules around such punishment are necessarily vague and difficult to understand.

Based on such concerns, theFoundation for Individual Rights in Educationan influential group that promotes, among other things, student free speech in higher educationhascome out against this particular requirementin the Wisconsin bill. The American Civil Liberties Union has alsoexpressed concernover the similar provision under consideration in North Carolina.

Moving Forward

The Wisconsin bill isdescribed by supportersas intended to protect the right of campus speakers to be heard. However, it seeks to accomplish this goal in a way that undermines student free speech of all types.

Hopefully, lawmakers in Wisconsin and in other states considering legislation will stick to workable measures that actually promoteas opposed to hindercampus free speech.

Neal H. Hutchens is Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi.

Link:

New Legislation Could End Free Speech on College Campuses - Newsweek

Conservatives are right to skewer liberals as snowflakes who need to go back to their safe spaces when the left starts promoting codes that limit free speech.

That critique is largely aimed at college students who dont want to listen to controversial speakers.

In our politically divided nation, it is too often being left to big corporations to decide the limits of acceptable political speech.

And those companies are concluding that defending free speech is not worth their time if it damages their brand and their stock price.

On this Independence Day, ask yourself what the authors of the Declaration of Independence men heavily influenced by the works of Shakespeare and Roman philosophers might have said about corporate sponsors like Delta and Bank of America pulling their support for the Public Theaters production of Julius Caesar in New York City.

Those big companies ran away from free speech and artistic freedom when far-right talk radio and websites produced a swarm of social media outrage suggesting that the assassination of a Trump-like Caesar could promote violence against the real President Trump.

Top executives at those companies failed to notice that the play was written in 1599. They also ignored that a recent production of the play had the lead character played by a black actor who looked and acted a lot like President Obama. He, too, was assassinated. Yet no sponsors pulled their financial support from that show.

But in these politically polarized days, the billion-dollar brands are skittish about being trolled online by provocateurs on the right and left.

By the way, the takeaway from that play is a warning that stands the test of time about the danger of political violence and its unintended consequences.

The same dynamic featuring big corporations instead of citizens deciding the limits of free speech is now also at play in the fight over the value of opinion shows presented on our ideologically divided media outlets.

The right and the left now press big companies to pull advertising from media personalities with whom they disagree.

They are counting on timid executives to focus only on their profits without giving a thought to the basic American tenet of free speech.

I am not asking corporations to spend a dime on the racists, the women-haters, the gay-bashers, liars or people calling for violence. They deserve to be shunned.

But lets stop and consider how corporate bosses with the power of their advertising dollars have taken charge of determining acceptable speech in America.

Last month, I took my family to the Washington D.C. Capital Pride Parade.

The parade was the biggest and best in years. It was a rainbow-flag-waving celebration of the progress made by the LGBT community in terms of marriage equality and broad social acceptance.

Several parade watchers pointed out to me that some of the corporations whose logos were now proudly placed on floats had not long ago fired those who were open about their homosexuality.

More than a few of these companies stood silent as states passed anti-gay laws. They thought standing up for equal rights might be bad business.

But as the culture shifted on gay rights, those same corporations hopped on the rainbow bandwagon.

Isee the critics point.

But just as the Supreme Court changed the laws to protect gay marriage, I am glad to see corporations take a stand for individual rights.

The heart of the issue is sincerity. Are these firms sincere in promoting gay rights or do they have their fingers in the air, checking comments on social media and fearing for their stock price with no regard for the principle of protecting constitutional rights, even when they are unpopular?

Controversy about free speech on a politically sensitive subject is a storm I know all too well.

Seven years ago, I was fired by NPR for telling Bill OReilly, then of Fox News, that since the September 11 attacks I get nervous whenever I see people dressed in Muslim garb boarding an airplane.

By acknowledging my personal fears, I was pointing out the need to speak freely and have honest debate in a time of crisis. I was making the case for tolerance and for avoiding the kind of fear-mongering that might lead to zoning restrictions against a particular religions house of worship.

My point was this: Giving voice to hidden fears allows for clear thinking and full-throated discussion. This, in turn, can prevent a free people from falling into the same kind of policy mistakes seen in the past the setting up of internment camps for Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, for example.

But the argument was lost on the politically correct crowd who quickly labeled me an anti-Muslim bigot. They didnt like the idea that I work at Fox News, engaging in debate with its conservative personalities, either.

Many people on the right and the left only want to hear news and opinion that confirms their pre-existing point of view.

And they are willing to demonize opposing views. Often dangerously they even try to silence them.

This July 4, liberals and conservatives We the People, not big business, need to find common ground in defense of honest debate and its life blood, free speech.

Free speech can lead to revolution. But we are a nation born of revolution. And the greatest gift of our founders remains the right to speak out.

Juan Williams is an author, and a political analyst for Fox News Channel.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to read the rest:

Juan Williams: The land of free speech - The Hill

July 2 at 6:30 PM

The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion.

When the statute was written, offensive words could still be banned from public use and were not consideredeligible for trademark protection;free-speech protection has since been expanded to includesuch words. But make no mistake: The court, ostensibly in defense of free speech, has now expanded governmental trademark protection tooffensive speech.

The outcome of the case may be legally correct, but by plugging the disparagementgap in the Lanham Act, the court, ironically, has limited free speech.

Kenneth Hall, Rockville

The rest is here:

Free speech takes a hit - Washington Post

Along partisan lines, the state Assembly last month passed a bill with the stated intention of protecting free expression on campus.

Protecting free expression is something everyone can get behind. Unfortunately, this bill will not accomplish that goal, and it very well may have other far-reaching negative consequences.

The goal of Assembly Bill 299 is to stop students from shouting down invited speakers and preventing them from giving their speeches. While I agree that invited individuals should have the opportunity to give their speeches, I do not believe the Legislature should be suppressing Wisconsin students First Amendment right to protest.

That is what this bill does. It effectively prioritizes the rights of a paid speaker over the rights of our university students to protest. More alarmingly, the bill sets mandatory punishments for students who are found to have interfered with anothers free expression, forcing state schools to suspend them for one semester if a student has violated this ban twice and calls for an automatic expulsion on a third infraction.

Punishing students for exercising their First Amendment right to protest is clearly unconstitutional.

The bill also mandates that Wisconsins universities remain neutral on the public policy controversies of the day. This could have a chilling effect on both the institutions abilities to advocate for themselves as well as the everyday lives of students and faculty.

Experts should be able to take positions on public policies that affect them. For years, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has refused to take stances on issues and has testified in committees for information only. As legislators, this practice gives us nothing. We are generalists we cannot be experts in every subject, and we rely on those who are experts to tell us if policy will have a positive or negative effect on their areas of expertise.

We should not allow that to happen to our universities. Their contributions to our state are invaluable and should not be diminished.

I have deep concerns about how this bill will negatively affect the functioning of our great university system. The bills author gave his assurance that this bill would have no effect on professors teaching in classrooms. But one Republican member explicitly stated in committee he was going to vote for this bill because of stories he heard of how conservative students in his district were treated poorly by liberal professors.

It is telling that, though we were told it wouldnt affect professors daily lives, some Republicans seem to be confident that it will, and they voted for it for that reason. The fact that one of Wisconsins elected representatives is ready and willing to pass legislation he believes will regulate academic thought and instruction is disturbing.

I find many issues troubling in this bill. It would allow any two individuals to report to the university that a student interfered with anothers right to free expression. As this bill is written, it doesnt even have to be two students reporting. It could be someone completely unaffiliated with the university.

Assembly Bill 299 could act as a legal magnet for frivolous litigation because it allows those allegedly prevented from exercising free speech to sue the university. Wisconsin taxpayers could be left paying the bill for lawsuits brought by agitators looking to stir up trouble.

This bill, which now heads to the Senate for approval, has good intentions. But the provisions of the bill do not meet the goal of protecting free expression. In fact, they do the opposite.

This bill will crush the free expression of students and professors in and out of classrooms. Silencing First Amendment rights is troubling, unconstitutional, and un-American.

Hebl, D-Sun Prairie, represents the 46th Assembly District, which includes Sun Prairie, Stoughton and Cottage Grove: Rep.Hebl@legis.wisconsin.gov

Read more:

Rep. Gary Hebl: Republican 'free speech' bill will squash it on campus - Madison.com

The right-wing campaign of concern over suppression of speech on college campuses is an elaborate exhibition of theater, using the stagecraft of liberal genuflection, to advance an anti-intellectual agenda and express resentment and hostility toward students, scholars and one of the last remaining bastions of free inquiry in the United States.

If any proof, beyond elementary logic, was necessary to demonstrate the transparently phony outrage of conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who have announced plans for a massive free speech tour of supposedly liberal universities while advocating for significant budget cuts to the institutions they claim to protect, Yale University and Essex County College have given observers an illuminative gift.

Right-wing commentators were quick to criticize Yale when a small group of students demanded punishment for a lecturer who defended Halloween costumes against charges of cultural appropriation, and for her husband, a professor and mentor, for coming to her intellectual aid. The couple voluntarily resigned from their respective positions in residential life, but they remain on the faculty.

Former Yale dean June Chu is not nearly as fortunate. After the discovery of Yelp reviews in which the academic derided a restaurant as fit only for white trash and ridiculed movie theater employees as barely educated morons, her Ivy League employer placed her on leave.

Shortly after Chus dismissal, Essex County College announced that it waspermanently suspending Lisa Durden, a professor of communications. Durdens employment-ending crime was her defense of Black Lives Matter campus events that did not allow the attendance of white students during an appearance on Tucker Carlsons nightly Fox News program an exercise of performed indignation with outrageous left-wing guests.

For several years conservatives, along with some liberalcommentators, have offered melodramatic warnings to America that colleges are transforming into veritable gulags, where those who refuse to adhere to an increasingly rigid and severe standard of political correctness will face swift and harsh punishment.

A liberal professor, eager to get in on the act for Vox, wrote under a pseudonym to declare his own weakness and fragility: My students sometimes scare me particularly the liberal ones.

I have taught at four universities, over a period of seven years, and Ive never once felt frightened annoyed, yes, even angry but never afraid. I wonder how someone terrified of his students manages in life, and why he even continues to teach. He might want to apply for a position in a less threatening career, like corrections officer at the nearest prison.

After the ongoing faucet of tears and through all the shrieks of horror over the demolition of free speech in higher education, two women of color have lost their jobs over speech speech made outside the confines and duties of university employment and life to little protest or outrage. Fox News is not keeping a nightly watch on the free speech wars demanding that Durden and Chu receive immediate reinstatement. The Atlantic has not yet published a maudlin think piece about the chilling effect these firings will have on other professors who broadcast speech, offensive or not, on social media or television. No liberal professor has announced that he is sometimes scared of his administrators.

Perhaps, because of their race and gender, or because the violation of Durden and Chus free speech rights and academic freedom does not offer the excitement of casting unaware 19-year-olds as comic book villains, few seem to care when actual people are actually punished for using the wrong words.

Stephen Davis, an administrator at Yale, called Chus Yelp posts reprehensible. Whether or not Chus reviews qualify for that description, shouldnt conservatives who decry political correctness condemn Yale with the same zeal they used to insult obnoxious students?

Tucker Carlson truthfully reminded his audience that he did not advocate for the firing of Durden, but rather than claim her dismissal as a casualty in the campus speech wars, he simply added that it was nuts that she once taught students. It seems rather unlikely that Carlson, who is not a psychiatrist, ever audited one of Durdens classes.

The penalization of Durden and Chu for inflammatory speech falls into a troubling pattern of university hostility toward controversial communication. While cable newsdrama queens and serious columnistsalike play masquerade with phantoms of Stalinist students, real people are losing their jobs in academia, not because they are victims of left-wing political correctness, but because they violate conservative codes against free expression.

In 2005, the University of Colorado fired Ward Churchill, an ethnic studies professor, for academic misconduct after Fox News spotlighted an essay he wrote disparaging some of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack. Churchill filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, and a jury decided that he had indeed faced undue penalty for his controversial article. They awarded Churchill $1 million, but a District Court judge later vacated the award during an appeals case.

The University of Illinois offered a faculty position to an English professor, Steven Salaita, but soon withdrew it after discovering that he tweeted several harshly critical remarks against Israel. Salaita also sued and won but, unlike Churchill, has not faced appeal.

Larycia Hawkins, the first black woman to earn tenure at the evangelical Christian university Wheaton College, lost her position after wearing a hijab into the classroom.

Commentators treated Mount Holyokes cancellation of The Vagina Monologues, amid student protest over its lack of inclusion of trans stories, as the apocalypse, but never bothered to learn or mention that administrators at Catholic universities, citing their own theology, have prohibited the same play from being staged 22 times.

Meanwhile, the state of Wisconsin is on the verge of passing a bill that would permit the University of Wisconsin to suspend students who disrupt campus speakers.

After the surreal election of Donald Trump, the right-wing organization Turning Point launched itsloathsome project Professor Watch List. According to Turning Point, its mission is to expose and document professors who advance leftist propaganda. The group claims that it has no intention of suppressing free speech, but no identifiable purpose for its McCarthyite ambition exists outside the intimidation of left-leaning college instructors.

Whenever a reductive debate about free speech on college campuses begins, a predictable and boring analyst will make an attempt at profundity by pointing out, as if everyone hadntheard it ahundred times already, that in the 1960s it was liberals at Berkeley, and elsewhere, who defended free speech. Now, they are the ones against it, the pundit will proclaim with an emphatic and self-satisfied tone of voice.

The pattern of punishment for controversial professors, along with the right-wing campaigns of censorship, suppression and intimidation, prove that, no, the story has not changed in a gleefully ironic way. The enemies of free speech and dissent on college campuses are still apolitical and cowardly administrators, and conservative ideologues hoping to control campus culture.

To paraphrase a J.J. Cale song, Its the same old story, same old blues again.

Link:

There is a campus war on free speech but it's not being waged by snowflake students - Salon

By Susan Corke and Emma Bernstein

In a blow to free speech, German lawmakers today passed a bill requiring social media companies to remove illegal content, including hate speech. Sites with more than two million users could face fines of up to 50 million.

Over the last two years, as Germany has welcomed more a million refugees, the debate over migration has played out on social media, and there has been an increase in racist and anti-refugee comments. And with elections coming up in September, German lawmakers are increasingly concerned with the role of social media in the electoral process, although this bill will not take effect till October.

The bill requires social media companies to remove obviously illegal content within 24 hours. (Companies have seven days to deal with more ambiguous content.) Because of the threat of hefty fines and quick timeline for removal, social media companies would be incentivized to remove content first, then review later. Add this dynamic to the lack of appeals process afforded by social media companies, and it becomes likely that legal content would be wrongfully removed. This is a threat to free expression.

Facebook has argued that its not its job to be carrying out state responsibilitiesand its correct. Governments shouldnt ask, much less require, private companies to make determinations about the legality of content.

Although Justice Minister Heiko Maas supports the bill and believes it will deter acts of hate both on and offline, eight out of ten experts who testified at hearing for the bill in late June, argued that the bill was technically unconstitutional and would,not withstand constitutional scrutiny.The U.N. Special Rapportuer on Freedom of Expression,David Kaye, believes that the vague and ambiguous language of the bill could force companies to remove content before it could be legally deemed hate speech.

Finally, efforts by the German government to silence those who propagate hate could give other more repressive regimes the idea that censorship is acceptable and might lead to the silencing of dissent. Human rights advocates in countries such as Turkey, Russia, and Kyrgyzstan have made this very point. Many countries view Germany as a leader in the fight against extremism and for human rights, especially with their recent welcoming of refugees. It is for this reason that Germanys social media law might set a disturbing precedent as regimes cite it to try to justify similar-but-worse restrictions of free speech.

In order to remain a champion for human rights and basic human freedoms, the German government should combat online hate speech in a way that does not create opportunities for repressing free expression and emboldening repressive regimes.

Visit link:

German Lawmakers Pass Restriction on Free Speech - Human Rights First (blog)

Attempts to stifle or censor free speech in the United States are constant. The latest comes from the Republican governor of Arizona.

This week state legislators approved a bill that would protect the free speech rights of journalism students. Members of both the Arizona House and Senate felt it was unfair and inappropriate for the journalists to be penalized for what they write or say.

The legislation would have forbidden school officials from restricting the distribution of media and imposing disciplinary measures in retribution for critical content.

Nationwide, conservative and Christian students complain their speech and ideas are often suppressed by liberal professors and administrators. On some campuses (Berkley) leftists have turned to violence to impose their politically correct thought and speech on students.

Surprising is that a conservative Republican governor would back away from his earlier commitments to protect free speech. Governor Doug Ducey vetoed the legislation saying the bill would, "create unintended consequences, especially on high school campuses where adult supervision and mentoring is most important."

Governor Ducey is up for re-election soon. He may feel the need to garner more support from Arizonans who feel journalists and members of the media are going too far in their reporting.

What do Arizona journalism students and others think of the governor's veto and the effort to suppress free speech rights on campus?

The Global Lane got the inside scoop from Campus Reform's Hannah Scherlacher Take a look:

Many on the American leftand some on the political right try to silence speech they deem offensive. But how we respond to speech is totally subjective. For example: when someone takes the Lord's name in vain, I am offended, yet many people don't seem to blink an eye when people utter such words.

Sure, we live in a time of fake newsDonald Trump will give you many examples of untruthful media reports about him. But some are true, and while the president may find some remarks offensive, the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to speak our minds.

If our speech offends, we'll be criticized and may lose our job, or damage our reputation.

If our words are untruthful, we may face a lawsuit for libel or slander.

If our speech incites people to acts of violence, we may get arrested.

Yes, there are consequences to free speech, but in America we have the right to speak openly and freely and then we let the chips fall where they may. That right should not be denied anyoneincluding journalists--whether in the public square, at high schools, or on college campuses.

Link: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9363

Read more:

Free Speech Right Under Fire in Arizona | CBN News - CBN.com - CBN News

Dive Brief:

Administrators and school leaders can often be caught in a difficult and politically fraught position, as campus issues about controversial speakers can quickly become political battles playing out on a national level. College freshmen are reportedly more politicized than in previous decades, reflecting the public at large. Administrators must be cautious of how lawmakers wield political power, as their suggestions could provoke unintended consequences.

State legislatures across the country have considered bills purportedly promoting free speech, but it becomes difficult in determining when an individual is no longer protesting a speaker they deem to be offensive or inflammatory, and when that protestor is encroaching on the free expression of that speaker and the free assembly of their audience. Most of the legislation touts the right to assemble and the right to protest, but political remarks have been leaning in the defense of the former. College presidents and administrators must also be cautious, as the audience they must satisfy is not only the general public, but students on campus many of whom might be among the crowds that would protest a speaker seen as inflammatory. The partisan lines drawn between typically conservative speakers and liberal protesters make it an even more difficult needle to thread for administrators, as the external nastiness of the nations partisan debates increasingly encroaches on these questions.

Top image credit: Getty Images

Read this article:

Campus 'free speech' bill rejected by Louisiana governor ... - Education Dive

L. B. Sullivan, an elected commissioner in Montgomery who supervised the police department, sued The Times for defamation, even though he was not named in the advertisement. He sought $500,000 in damages, an amount equivalent to about $4 million today.

The lawsuit arose, his lawyers said, because of a wilful, deliberate and reckless attempt to portray in a full-page newspaper advertisement, for which the Times charged and was paid almost $5,000, rampant, vicious, terroristic and criminal police action in Montgomery, Alabama, to a nationwide public of 650,000.

Mr. Sullivan won his case in the Alabama courts but the matter wound up at the Supreme Court, where The Times and the free press generally won a stunning victory in 1964.

We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials, the liberal Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority, which included Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The present advertisement, as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection, he continued. The question is whether it forfeits that protection by the falsity of some of its factual statements and by its alleged defamation of respondent.

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth, whether administered by judges, juries or administrative officials and especially not one that puts the burden of providing truth on the speaker.

Justice Brennan noted that there is evidence that The Times published the advertisement without checking its accuracy against the news stories in The Timess own files.

But he went on to say, We think the evidence against The Times supports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to show the recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice.

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher of The Times, welcomed the decision. The opinion of the Court makes freedom of the press more secure than ever before, he said.

He might well have said so. Heed Their Rising Voices may have paid greater dividends than any advertisement The Times has ever run.

Read more:

1964 | A Libel Suit Yields a Vigorous Defense of Free Speech - New York Times

Kansas City Star

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Kansas City Star After a century of building free speech rights into our laws and culture, Americans are backing away from one of the country's defining principles. Set off by the nation's increasingly short fuse, students, politicians, teachers and parents are not ... and more »

Read more:

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Kansas City Star

Actions are different from words, and words are not violence. This is the position of the free speech absolutist.

Though it's tempting to assume American newsrooms are made up entirely of free-speech hardliners after all, freedom of speech is enshrined specifically in this country's founding documents that would be assuming too much.

As this week has shown, there are a number of media personalities who believe President Trump's ugly press criticisms may be responsible for any future acts of violence against journalists.

"What I worry about more than anything else is that there are people in the country [who] are going to hear over and over again from the president, that the reporters [and] journalists are enemies of the state," Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffery Goldberg said this week during a panel discussion at the Aspen Ideas Festival.

He added, "And someone, God forbid, but someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then, I know where the fault lies. We're heading in that direction and it's quite frightening."

Goldberg's concerns are shared by more than just a few in the press.

CNN's Clarissa Ward suggested elsewhere this week that Trump's newsroom criticisms may embolden people abroad to attack, and possibly murder, foreign correspondents.

"[A]t what point does this become dangerous? And I'm not just talking about dangerous in terms of tearing at the social fabric, I'm talking about dangerous as in a journalist gets hurt, because I can tell you working overseas in war zones, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all-out declaration of war on the media," she said during a panel discussion.

She added in a question directed at CNN's Chris Cillizza, "If I'm getting it in the neck, Chris, I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible, Chris?"

Cillizza, who lives and works in that notoriously dangerous war zone known as Washington, D.C., responded, "I don't want to say we're past that point."

Playboy White House correspondent Brian Karem begged to differ, saying, "We are past that point."

"I think it is already dangerous what the Trump administration is doing, which is Brian's point," Cillizza agreed.

Just to be clear, everyone on that media panel is an American. There was not even the slightest pushback against the idea that words spoken by one party are responsible for actions of another.

Words matter, of course, as there is a great deal of power in what our leaders say. Words can elevate, and they can diminish. Words cannot, however, be held responsible for the wrongdoings of others.

If we argue that rhetoric is to blame for certain acts of violence, then shouldn't the natural conclusion to that line of thinking be that certain types of speech ought to be banned or regulated so as to protect against possible future harm? Wouldn't it be irresponsible not to regulate this type of speech if it is indeed responsible for violence caused to others? This is all rubbish, of course, as the speech-can-kill line requires that one subordinate personal responsibility to external factors not directly involved in specific actions. It frees the criminal from the crime.

This is the sort of thinking one would expect from underdeveloped college students, not professional journalists.

American media benefit enormously from the free speech protections included in the U.S. Constitution. Let's show our appreciation by not attributing the terrible actions of others to our freedom to speak freely.

Link:

You're not helping free speech when you suggest Trump is going to get journalists hurt - Washington Examiner

Campus police said they had very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker, attendees and those who may wish to lawfully protest the event, according to court documents.

The university proposed an alternate date for the Coulter event, but the College Republicans noted it was during Dead Week when few students would be on campus, and that Coulter had only signed onto the initial plan. They said UC Berkeley had canceled the event, violating their free speech rights and discriminating against conservatives.

In the new response, UC Berkeley begged to differ: Plaintiffs First Amendment free speech claim fails because the relevant venues were limited public forums and the alleged restrictions were reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

The university also laid out the process it plans to follow to create a new campus event policy. The administration will seek extensive input from the public and student groups, the response said.

On Thursday, Young Americas Foundation released a statement on UC Berkeleys response, calling it bizarre.

Berkeleys response laughably alleges that its actions welcoming prominent liberals, including Maria Echaveste, a top aide to President Bill Clinton and Vicente Fox Quesada the former president of Mexico, while simultaneously denying equal access for students attempting to host David Horowitz and Ann Coulterare viewpoint neutral,' the statement said.

The organization also criticized Cals plan to develop an event policy with input from the public.

The very idea that a free speech policy is open to discussion or negotiation is absurd. UC-Berkeley administrators should base any policies protecting students constitutional rights on the Constitution itself, the statement said.

The conservative groups, represented by attorneyHarmeet K. Dhillon, filed their suit against UC President Janet Napolitano, Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, UCPD Captain Alex Yao and other Cal officials in U.S. District Court in Northern California in April. The groups are asking fora jury trial, an injunction stopping UC Berkeley from restricting the exercise of political expression on the UC Berkeley campus, and damages for attorney fees.A court date is set for August 25.

Amid the tension between the conservative groups and Cal officials, Coulter threatened to come to Berkeley anyway on the initially proposed date, April 27, implying she would speak outdoors. She did not end up coming, saying the students who had supported her had failed to guarantee her safety.

UC Berkeley set up barricades around Sproul Plaza that day, and UCPD turned out in force. Little action ended up occurring on campus, but members of the far-right, including many who came from out of town, held a free speech rally in Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. The event was peaceful, in large part because counter-demonstrators did not show up to confront the protesters, except for a brief interaction between anti-fascists and the far-right at the end of the day.

Follow this link:

UC Berkeley: Free speech lawsuit is unfounded - Berkeleyside