In the never-ending battle to preserve free speech, there is always good news and bad news. There are triumphs and setbacks. The struggle for liberty always encounters the will to power, and often the will to power is cloaked in terms of compassion, justice, and equality.

And so it is with the quest to censor so-called hate speech. First, lets address the good news. Earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled 80 against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which had refused to register a trademark for a band called The Slants. The PTO claimed that the bands name violated provisions of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registering trademarks that disparage...or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

As I wrote immediately after the decision, it would have been shocking if the Court hadnt ruled against the PTO. After all, there are literally decades of First Amendment precedents prohibiting the government from engaging in punitive viewpoint discrimination, even when the viewpoint expressed is deemed hatred or offensive. Justice Alito made short work of the notion that the government has an interest in preventing speech that expresses offensive ideas:

As we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

But not even a ruling joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor can persuade determined, far-left censors, and just as sure as night follows day, Laura Beth Nielsen, a research professor for the American Bar Foundation, took to the pages of the Los Angeles Times to make the case for viewpoint discrimination. Ive seen enough pieces like this to recognize the type. They always begin with misleading statements of the law, declarations that free-speech protections arent absolute, and then move to the core pitch in this case, that the state should regulate hate speech because its emotionally and physically harmful:

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Exposure to racial slurs also diminishes academic performance. Women subjected to sexualized speech may develop a phenomenon of self-objectification, which is associated with eating disorders.

This is the very close cousin of the speech as violence argument sweeping campuses from coast to coast. Its the heart of the argument for the campus speech code that subjective listener response should dictate a speakers rights. The more fragile the listener, the greater the grounds for censorship.

And there is no limiting principle. If How does this speech make you feel? is the core question, it incentivizes victim politics and overreaction. Robust debate triggers robust emotions, and robust debate on the most sensitive issues issues like race, gender, and sexuality trigger the most robust of responses.

Lest anyone wonder about the actual definition of hate speech, look to campus and liberal activist groups. At Evergreen State College in Washington, a progressive professors statement against racial separation and division was deemed so hateful that he couldnt safely conduct classes on campus. Influential pressure groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center label the Ku Klux Klan and other genuine racistshate groups but also apply the same label to mainstream Christian conservative organizations such as the Family Research Council. The SPLC has branded respected American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray a white nationalist. Moreover, its far more forgiving of leftist extremism than of moderate speech that is conservative or libertarian.

In a stinging piece in the Wall Street Journal, Jeryl Bier notes the double standard:

Kori Ali Muhammad allegedly murdered three white people in California in April. The SPLC reports that on Facebook Mr. Muhammad wrote of grafted white devil skunks and repeatedly referred to the mythical Lost Found Asiaiatic [sic] Black Nation in America. Yet in contrast with its unequivocal (and false) tagging of Mr. Murray, the group describes Mr. Muhammad as a possible black separatist.

Got that? One of the Rights most important scholars stands condemned, while a man who shot and killed three people is just a possible separatist. Thats the through-the-looking-glass world of the anti-hate speech Left. The definitions are malleable, but one thing you can count on the Right will always lose.

Interestingly, the day before Nielsens call for censorship appeared in the Los Angeles Times, German police raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful social-media postings. Thats where prohibitions against hate speech lead. Indeed, wannabe American censors often extol Europe as a model for their proposed American laws. Do you trust the government to decide when your viewpoint is unacceptable?

Left-wing censors discount voices like mine, claiming that its easy for me to pontificate on free speech while basking in my white privilege. Yet my family has been exposed to more vile and vicious rhetoric than most people will experience in ten lifetimes. Yes, its painful. Yes, it has consequences. But it is far more empowering to meet bad speech with better speech than it is to appeal to the government for protection even from the worst ideas.

To paraphrase Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, no class of Americans is too weak to live with freedom. Rather than indulging weakness and fear, activists left and right would do well to cultivate emotional strength and moral courage. The marketplace of ideas demands no less.

READ MORE: Free Speech Isnt Always a Tool for Virtue Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Self-Expression When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more:

Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up - National Review

The tensions between them exploded in December after Mr. Paladino made offensive remarks about the Obamas in a local weekly newspaper. The newspaper, Artvoice, sent a survey to members of the Buffalo community asking about their hopes for 2017. Mr. Paladino said he hoped Mr. Obama would die of mad cow disease and that Mrs. Obama would return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortably in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.

Mr. Paladino apologized. He also said he meant to send the remarks to friends, not the newspaper, but he hit reply instead of forward. About a week after his comments were published, the Buffalo school board demanded his resignation, which he declined to provide.

Not long after, the board filed a petition with the Education Department to have Mr. Paladino removed from his position, saying he had twice disclosed confidential information. In one instance, they said that he shared information with reporters about a legal dispute the board was having with a contractor, which had been discussed with the boards lawyer in executive session, meaning it was closed to the public. Then in January, Mr. Paladino published an article in Artvoice about contract negotiations with the teachers union, which occurred in the fall.

Mr. Paladinos lawyers disputed that his disclosures were improper, arguing that the closed-door meetings had not been convened correctly. But the thrust of their argument was that the board wanted him removed after his comments about the Obamas, and when it learned he could not be removed for what he had said, it looked for another reason. Such an effort violates his right to free speech, the lawyers said. Last week, Mr. Paladino sued members of the board who are trying to remove him, seeking damages.

Frank W. Miller, a lawyer representing school board members, has conceded that Mr. Paladinos statements were protected speech but said that the board was not trying to remove him for those statements. He said Mr. Paladinos disclosures were an unmistakable rejection of his oath of office that made it difficult for the board to have open, fair, and candid discussion. In her testimony Thursday, Dr. Nevergold agreed.

It was quite disturbing to have a board member to go out and reveal executive session information knowing we were in the process of negotiating a contract, she said. It really disrupts the ability of the board to function appropriately.

This was the first day of testimony in a hearing that is expected to stretch into early next week. MaryEllen Elia, the states commissioner of education, is presiding over the hearing and will decide whether Mr. Paladino may remain on the board.

Luis Ferr-Sadurn reported from Albany, and Elizabeth A. Harris from New York

A version of this article appears in print on June 23, 2017, on Page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech Is Defense For Paladino At Hearing.

The rest is here:

With Paladino's Job at Stake, Right to Free Speech Is His Defense - New York Times

The fact of the matter is that there are certain occasions on which individuals assemble not to act peaceably, but to act as destructively as they possibly can, Feinstein stated. When you have a set group of people that come to create a disturbance, some of them even wearing masks or wearing certain clothing, what do you do? Feinstein added. I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh pushed back hard against Senator Feinstein, arguing that the First Amendment protects speech against the possibility of a hecklers veto, which is the suppression of speech by a government out of concern ofa violent reaction by protesters.

There are of course times, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, that the University isnt trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive that there is then the threat of a violent reaction to such speech, Volokh said, but I tend to agree with Senator Cruzs view that that kind of a hecklers veto should not be allowed.

The question was asked When you have a set group of people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do? I think the answer is to make sure they dont create a disturbance and to threaten them with punishment, meaningful punishment, if they do create a disturbance. And not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech that they are trying to suppress, Volokh continued.

Volokh argued that rewarding protesters with a cancellation of an event that they find objectionable will only serve to reinforce their behavior.

One of the basics of psychology that I think weve learned, and all of us who are parents I think have learned it very first hand, is behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence then therell be more such threats from all over the political spectrum. And I think the solution to that is to say that the speech will go on and if that means bringing in more law enforcement and making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively that they be punished.

Feinstein countered by suggesting that public universities might not have the resources to handle a protest on the scale of the Berkeley riots that erupted before an event featuring former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos in early 2017.

How should a university handle this, Feinstein asked. No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance the University has to be prepared to handle itTo me the extraordinary circumstance is when people come in black uniforms and hit other people over the head.

Right, and that cannot be enough to justify suppression of those who they came to try to suppress, Volokhcountered.

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.

Read the original post:

Diane Feinstein Defends Public Universities Shutting Down Free Speech - Breitbart News

This week, Germany launched a major crackdown on free expression. In 36 simultaneous raids across multiple states, German authorities sought evidence for speech-related criminal offenses based on things people posted on the Internet.

Most of these offenses come under incitement to racial hatred laws. That might sound good to some, but it isn't.

There's a major difference between U.S. and German incitement laws. U.S. law at federal and state levels criminalizes only incitement that is designed to foster imminent unlawful violence. The incitement must also be likely to lead to unlawful violence. This three-prong test means that saying "I [expletive] hate [racial/religious/social group] and think they should all burn," for example, is not illegal in America.

And Americans take that for granted. But such postings would be illegal in Germany and in much of Europe.

In the U.K., the Public Order Act mandates that, "A person is guilty of an offense if he uses threatening [or abusive] words or behavior ... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby." Importantly, proven intention and actual harm are not necessary for conviction. It is enough that the speech possibly alarmed someone nearby.

Consider what impact that law might have on the willingness of individuals to discuss sensitive issues like immigration, or abortion, or terrorism? It is a recipe for chilled speech.

Amazingly, however, Germany takes things further, proactively punishing speech that might feasibly upset someone on the Internet. Which, if you've ever been on the Internet, could be said of almost everything on it.

The head of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, Holger Mnch, explained the government's position. "Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the Internet." Again, think carefully on those words. Germany seeks not simply to punish offending speech, but to "not allow a climate" of offense.

To accomplish this objective, Germany isn't simply arresting speakers, it is punishing the platforms of speech. As Germany's Justice Minister, Heiko Mass, put it, "We need to increase the pressure on social media companies." Mass is referring to a draft law that would impose $56 million fines on Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, if they fail to remove offending speech within a short period. As I've noted, similar legislation is also being considered in Britain.

There's an immensely pathetic quality to this authoritarianism. Such coordinated efficiency and absent restraint raises troubling parallels with another era in German history.

Regardless, Americans should be grateful that the founding fathers chose a different approach. First, our deference to the freedom of individuals is the best moral, social, and political approach to offensive speech. By allowing those with grievances to articulate their beliefs, however unpleasant those views might be, we trust in the debate of different ideas. We know that ultimately, the best ideas will triumph. Moreover, by refusing to ban viewpoints that are perceivably upsetting or intolerant, we ensure that our policy debate is checked by an insidious chilling of speech.

What are Twitter and Facebook to do? I would suggest they threaten to withdraw from Germany. When German voters see that, they might be more offended by their government's policy than by what's said on social media.

Read the original here:

Why Germany wages war on free speech - Washington Examiner

University of Wisconsin students who repeatedly disrupt campus speakers or presentations could be suspended or expelled under a Republican-backed bill the state Assembly passed Wednesday.

The measure, approved on a 61-36 vote Wednesday night with no Democrats in support, is the latest salvo in the national push among some conservatives to crack down on disruptions they say is quelling free speech on liberal college campuses. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters, while other students have complained about free expression fanning hate speech.

Democrats, who didn't have the votes to stop the bill in the Assembly, blasted it as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech.

"It basically gags and bags the First Amendment," said Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison.

Republican backers told reporters that the bill would protect speech from those who repeatedly try to quash it.

"We have to lay down some groundwork here and we have to create a behavioral shift so everyone can be heard and has the right to express their views," said the measure's sponsor Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer.

The proposal must still pass the GOP-controlled Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Walker has voiced support for it.

"To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions," he said in an April interview with WISN-TV. "But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."

The proposal comes in the wake of incidents on college campuses across the country in which protests or threats marred conservative presentations.

Fights broke out at New York University in February after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist. That same month there were protests at the University of California-Berkley ahead of an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. That school canceled an April speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter due to security concerns. And in November, UW-Madison students shouted down former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Under the Wisconsin bill, two complaints about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another's freedom of expression would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. UW institutions would have to remain neutral on public controversies and the Board of Regents would have to report annually to legislators about incidents.

"You're hoping to neuter the university from having any stance on things," said Democratic Rep. Cory Mason.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

Democrats argue that the measure could open the door to partisan operatives attending speeches and filing complaints against students to get them thrown out of school.

"We are returning, when we do this, to the witch hunt era of Joe McCarthy," said Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler, referring to the former U.S. senator from Wisconsin who made it his mission in the 1950s to identify Communists.

The only group registered in support of the measure is Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization. Opponents include a group representing faculty on the flagship UW-Madison campus, the labor union representing UW employees and the League of Women Voters.

Read the original here:

Wisconsin Assembly passes college free speech bill that would punish hecklers - Chicago Tribune

Michael Reynolds/EPA/NewscomGosh, protecting controversial free speech from violent protests is expensive. Wouldn't it be easier for colleges to just not let any of that stuff happen? Who wants another Kent State?

That is, with no exaggeration, the attitude expressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a Senate hearing this week on free speech on college campuses.

The hearing came just a day after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment is so important to American culture that the federal government cannot simply reject trademarks on the basis of offensiveness. Feinstein, by contrast, expressed bafflement at the argument that universities shouldn't succumb to the heckler's veto and to the idea that publicly funded colleges should have to host invited speakers "no matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is."

There's a reason Feinstein appears on Reason's list of "enemies of freedom."

Ultimately, Feinstein's objection to protecting controversial speech is that of the bureaucrat disguised as the concerned nanny. When people intent on violence show up at protests, other people can get hurt. But colleges have limited resources, she arguesso why should campus police be expected to be able handle protests if they get seriously out of hand?

"You don't think we learned a lesson from Kent State way back when?" she asked at one point, a fascinating reply that illustrates so much about her mind-set. Feinstein's argument seems to be that the killing of four college students by members of the National Guard would have been prevented if the government hadn't allowed the protests in the first place.

Fortunately, lovers of liberty were well-represented on the panel by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who patiently explained that, yes, publicly funded colleges are expected to make sure the civil liberties of the students on their campus are protected appropriately by law enforcement. "One important job of the government is to prevent violence, and to prevent violence without suppressing free speech," he said in response.

There is an odd mind-set out thereone not confined to any particular ideologythat thinks it's some sort of distraction for law enforcement officials to spend their time protecting protesters from violence or standing along parade routes to make sure people come to no harm. These people have their priorities backwards. Protecting people who are expressing their First Amendment rights is what the police are for. The distractions are arresting people for drugs and citing people for not wearing seatbelts.

Similarly, people like Feinstein complain about the costs of protecting liberty as though colleges haven't been undergoing a dramatic increase in administrative bloat. The answer isn't more money from the government. The answer is better spending priorities.

Over at Hot Air, John Sexton says he's surprised to see Feinstein support submission to the heckler's veto. He shouldn't be. Feinstein is actively pro-censorship toward anything she perceives as potentially contributing to violence, including imaginary guns in video games.

Ken "Popehat" White, who recently wrote an excellent explainer for the Los Angeles Times detailing how and why "hate speech" is protected speech, took note of the Supreme Court decisions this week and the overall trend of judicial decisions that bolster the First Amendment. But he also worries what it means for the future if we culturally abandon free speech values:

The Supreme Court is upholding the black letter of liberty, but are Americans upholding its spirit? When college students, encouraged by professors and administrators, believe that they have a right to be free of offense, no. When Americans hunger to "open up" libel laws or jail flag burners, no. When our attitude towards the hecker's veto becomes "let's do it to them because they did it to us," no. Not only is speech practically impaired, but in the long term the cultural norms necessary to sustain good Supreme Court precedent are eroded.

After giving White space to explain why hate speech is legally protected, the Los Angeles Times gave the sociologist and legal scholar Laura Beth Nielsen an opportunity to argue that hate speech should be restricted. The crux of her argument is that hateful speech disproportionately affects the disenfranchised and causes actual measurable harms.

Here is what is especially wrongheaded about Nielsen's op-ed: She repeatedly notes how government's speech restrictions have historically protected the powerful and influential. Yet she somehow does not realize that this is an argument against granting the government the authority to define and restrain hate speech.

So she complains that Congress passed a law to prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from protesting military funerals but never did anything to stop the church from protesting the funerals of people who died of AIDS. She denounces anti-panhandling laws, saying they were enacted to protect the interests of businesses that don't want them around. (She doesn't mention that the courts do in fact frequently strike these laws down as unconstitutional.) It's true: The government is more likely to restrict speech on your behalf if you have more political influence. If the government adds "hate speech" to its rationales for cracking down, do you really think the outcome will be any different?

Neilsen simply doesn't seem aware of how her rationales for restricting speech could be deployed in ways she wouldn't like. As if to underline the point, she pulls out the old "fire in a crowded theater" trope as an example that free speech is not absolute without mentioning that the quote comes from a case where a man was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act for distributing a pamphlet opposing the draft.

So, to sum up: Feinstein sees government forces shooting student protesters and concludes that colleges should restrict free speech in order to prevent violence. And Nielsen thinks censorship laws that unfairly harm or exclude the disenfranchised are arguments in favor of giving the government more power to censor speech.

Go here to read the rest:

Sen. Feinstein: Protecting College Free Speech from Violent Protests Is Too Much of a Burden - Reason (blog)

Jon Ossoff, a novice Democratic candidate who ran for election in Georgia's 6th District on Tuesday, earned the dubious distinction of presiding over the most expensive failure in congressional election history.

His campaign burned through $22.5 million, most of it from outside Georgia, which is more than the combined amount spent by both major-party candidates in any previous House race. Ossoff's victorious opponent, Republican Karen Handel, spent a modest $3.2 million.

This greater than 6-to-1 advantage for Ossoff was narrowed considerably by spending by outside groups. In all, spending for Ossoff amounted to $30.5 million, as compared with $21.4 million for Handel.

Perhaps this narrower gap was on Ossoff's mind when, as he sank to a humiliating defeat, he denounced the proliferation of money in politics.

Either way, it takes gall for the biggest congressional spender ever to try to take the high ground on this issue. Ossoff said, "The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money." In an election day interview on NPR, he added, "There have been super PACs in Washington who have been putting up tens of millions of dollars of attack ads in air for months now."

The money in question wasn't anonymous, for parties PACs and super PACs must report their donors, but set that aside. Let's also set aside the fact that Ossoff led outside spending during the runoff, between the April 18 jungle primary and the June 20 finale. Let us charitably also set aside the fact that the Democrat's opinion is self-serving hypocrisy.

Instead, let's focus on the more important fact that Americans have a constitutional right to express themselves on political issues and that in the modern world this expression takes the form of mass media campaigns. Democrats seem unanimously to disagree with this right.

Ever since they were toppled from power in Washington in the early 1990s after nearly two generations of near hegemony, Democrats have been trying to limit free political speech by regulating the tools of its delivery.

In response to the Supreme Court's repeatedly vindicating this treasured First Amendment right, not just with Citizens United but also by striking down key parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in earlier decisions, Senate Democrats voted in 2014 to weaken the First Amendment guarantee of free political speech. The constitutional amendment that every single Democrat present on the floor voted to pass would have explicitly empowered both Congress and state legislatures to pass laws abridging the freedom of political speech for the first time in this nation's history.

Last year, Democratic Federal Election Commissioners went even further in their war on the First Amendment by attacking the freedom of the press, again in the name of campaign finance regulation. They tried unsuccessfully to prevent newspapers with more than 5 percent foreign ownership (this would include The New York Times) to endorse candidates.

They also tried to punish Fox News for its editorial decision about how to stage a summer 2015 GOP primary debate. At issue was the network's last-minute choice to hold a separate "undercard" debate for minor candidates, in order to avoid an unwatchable forum that included 16 or 17 candidates on the same stage. FEC Democrats tried to construe this editorial decision as an illegal in-kind corporate campaign contribution to the candidates who participated.

These efforts show that the party of the Left represents a clear and present danger to the First Amendment. It is the equivalent in government, but an even greater threat than the hecklers' veto over conservative speakers now being exercised by radical leftists at college campuses around the country.

The increasing hostility of leftists and their party toward the First Amendment may not have played a large role in the Democrats' several recent losses. But it is misplaced in any event. As various and ideologically diverse large-dollar donors have learned the hard way everyone from Sheldon Adelson to Tom Steyer one cannot just buy elections, hard as one tries.

More importantly, the loss of an election is no excuse for limiting others' constitutional rights, no matter how worthy of office the deluded young Ossoff believes himself to be.

Continue reading here:

If you want to restrict free speech, you can Ossoff - Washington Examiner

Linfield College administrators have forced a Young Americans for Liberty group to cancel a free speech event over a cartoon frog.

Staff at the university labeled participants white supremacists after one of them drew a picture of Pepe the Frog, the popular meme thats been unfairly maligned as a hate symbol by Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the mainstream media.

The libertarian group set up a table on campus to promote their organization, and planned to sponsor a series of free speech events planned at college, which is in Oregon.

According to Reason, Kiefer Smith, vice president of the chapter, brought an inflatable free speech ball for participants to write and draw pictures on.

The majority of the things written on there were uplifting things, not political, not inflammatory at all, he said.

Typical examples were said to include youre awesome and have a nice day.

When one participant drew Pepe, the group came under attack by other students on campus, and involved the administration in their complaints.

Immediately we were deemed alt-right, said Smith, who says that YAL were even accused of being white supremacists over the drawing.

Reason states that the Linfield Advisory Committee on Diversity responded to the drawing by inviting the group to a free speech forum, where they were supposed to hold an hour-long discussion on the freedom of expression, but the event turned into a four-hour condemnation of the group.

Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt, a professor of English and gender studies coordinator accused the group of being funded by alt-right dark money.

Following the forum, the school administration canceled the planned free speech events that YAL was sponsoring, including a talk hosted by University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson on ethics and free speech.

Peterson has come under fire from the progressive left for speaking out against the enforcement of gender-neutral preferred pronouns like ze/hir and xe/xir.

The campus faculty, including Dean of Faculty Dawn Nowacki, took aim at YAL in the campus newspaper, where they falsely described the libertarians as alt-right.

These efforts are a lot more subtle, wrote Nowacki. Just as becoming a terrorist is a gradual, step-by-step process, people do not become part of the alt-right overnight. These events represent a kind of soft recruitment into more extremist ideas.

The Young Americans for Liberty went ahead with their free speech event at an off-campus site, where they received a turn-out of over 400 attendeesdouble the number they were expecting.

The banned lecture also received around 90,000 views on YouTube.

This colleges efforts to suppress free speech backfired spectacularly.

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at@stillgray on Twitterand onFacebook.

Go here to see the original:

Pepe the Frog Drawing Forces Free Speech Event Cancellation at Linfield College - Heat Street

Last week there was another horrific shooting that took place at a baseball field filled with Republican members of Congress and their staff. They were practicing for the annual Democrat v Republican charity baseball game.

Five people were injured, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Mass shootings are far too commonplace in this country. In fact, this was not the only one that took place that day.

Fortunately, President Donald Trump rose to the occasion by reminding us that we are strongest when we are unified and when we work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, unity fell apart and the finger pointing began when airways from the right began shouting that the left had blood on their hands. Connections were made between the baseball field shooting and recent anti-Trump statements.

One such violent statement was made by Madonna at the Womens March in D.C. She said she thought about blowing up the White House. That triggered former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for her arrest.

Another act caused widespread condemnation of comedian Kathy Griffins grotesque idea of a joke. She apologized for holding up a bloody, severed head that resembled the president, and admitted she went too far. I agree she went too far, but the apology didnt stop her from losing her job. It also didnt prevent social media from lighting up with calls for her arrest.

We may never know if these inflammatory incidents influenced the shooter but the right was loudly calling for limits on free speech. No matter how disgusting we may find these statements, they dont rise to the level of being unlawful. Even though Madonna and Griffin both received a visit from the Secret Service, it seems public outcry is the main the consequence for such actions.

There are exceptions to that norm however. It seems rocker Ted Nugent may have benefited from a mountain of repugnant, hate filled statements such as, Obama suck on my machine gun. Those types of hideous comments seem to have garnered Nugent not only a place in Governor Greg Abbotts campaign, but also a dinner at the White House at Trumps invitation.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized very few exceptions to free speech. They include: obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence.

While I agree with the exceptions to our precious right to free speech, I also long for common sense limits to our Second Amendment rights. Limitations that would keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldnt have them like domestic abusers, felons or people who are dangerously ill or even suspected terrorists.

There have been numerous calls made for sensible restrictions, but those were always blocked by Republicans. In fact, there were unsuccessful efforts to restrict the type rifle used in this recent assault.

Even though 90 percent of Americans wanted to see expanded background checks after the Sandy Hook massacre, the GOP killed that effort.

Shortly after taking office, this administration began rolling back the Obama-era regulation that would keep guns out of the hands of people with severe mental disorders.

Since the shooting, there has been talk among Republicans of not tightening gun laws but loosening them.

As much as I want to see the hateful rhetoric end, I doubt it will. Both sides are guilty of it. Our Constitution protects speech and gun rights, yet even though Republicans scream for limits on the one, they refuse to allow any common-sense limits on the other. Sadly, thats the one that can actually kill you.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: After shooting, calls for free speech limits but not for guns - Austin American-Statesman

Some musicians might have just shrugged at this point and changed their name to something innocuous (" ... and here they are ... from Portland, Oregon ... THE PLANTS!")

The decision has led some so-called anti-PC crusaders to claim vindication, calling the ruling a mighty blow against those who believe that institutions have not just the right, but the responsibility to provide protections against hateful speech. They're wrongly using a case of a specific victory to make a general -- and ultimately, untenable -- claim.

Yes, the Lanham Act is archaic and poorly written. The definition of "scandalous, immoral or disparaging" is subjective to the point of absurdity, and government institutions should be extremely wary of being put in the position of determining the meaning and application of any of these adjectives. What's a "scandal" in an era where we wake up cringing at presidential tweets every morning? Whose standards should be used to define "immoral"? And especially, what constitutes "disparaging" when the user of a term is also its typical target?

The fact is, the context in which Tam and his bandmates are using Slant, as a conscious commentary on its legacy of harm, as a way of reclaiming it from that legacy, is not scandalous, nor immoral, nor disparaging. Yes, it challenges those who hear it, demanding awareness of the term's ugly roots and history. But the band is perfectly willing to provide the resources needed to share in that awareness. It's what they do: The band goes out of its way to play college campus and Asian-American festival gigs and is deeply involved in supporting and promoting social justice-related causes.

Blanket rejection of the dirty laundry in our history is cultural erasure. Refusal to acknowledge that it's dirty, by claiming that all speech is the same, regardless of who's speaking and with what intent, is tantamount to declaring open season on marginalized groups and individuals. All Tam has ever asked is for the Patent and Trademark Organization to bring a "culturally competent" approach to their decision-making, and frankly, that's what we should ask of every government institution.

The bottom line: Freedom of expression and protection of the oppressed can coexist, if people take the example set by The Slants and do the work to defend them both.

Originally posted here:

The Slants show full meaning of free speech - CNN

Harvards decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says

For many, it's a dream come true. Acceptance into the oldest institution of higher education in the United States, Harvard.

But for at least 10 incoming freshmen, the dream was dashed after they were caught participating in an exchange of images, or 'memes', in a private Facebook messaging group.

Many of the posts were described as racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic. Some mocked sexual assault or violence.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY REPORTEDLY PULLS 10 STUDENT OFFERS OVER ONLINE COMMENTS

The prestigious school rescinded admission, a move Harvard's own professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, described as over-punishment and draconian.

"Harvard is a private university, technically not bound by the First Amendment, but since I got to Harvard 53 years ago, Harvard has committed itself to following the First Amendment and I think this violates the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment," said Dershowitz.

Harvard officials declined Fox News request for an interview, stating: "We do not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants."

However, the school reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission for many reasons, including student behavior that "brings into question their honesty, maturity, or moral character."

THINK BEFORE YOU POST: ADMISSIONS EXPERTS' SOCIAL MEDIA TIPS

Rachel Blankstein, the co-founder of Spark Admissions, a Massachusetts-based consulting business that helps students gain admission to top U.S. colleges and universities, said Harvard's move did not shock her.

"They also have a highly selective admissions process in which they're looking for students with strong moral character," said Blankstein. "It's really not about free speech, it's about character."

Blankstein noted that all elite institutions have a code of conduct, adding "I would not be surprised if other schools would have made the same decision."

Harvard's call may well serve as a cautionary tale for hopeful college applicants and those who have already gained admittance.

"My first day teaching students both at Harvard College and Harvard Law School, I warn them about the social media, Dershowitz said. I warn them about putting things on Facebook that will come back to haunt them and they just don't seem to get it."

Molly Line joined Fox News Channel as a Boston-based correspondent in January 2006.

Go here to read the rest:

Harvard's decision to rescind admissions over social media violates free speech, professor says - Fox News

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders appeared on Face the Nation Sunday to denounce efforts by studentsat various universities to shut down free speech, and the violence some have resorted to in order to silence others.

Sanders has been outspoken on the issue of free speech in the wake of the attempted June 14 shooting of GOP legislators in Alexandria, Virginia, that wounded five, includingRepublican House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.).

The shooter,James Hodgkinson, was a die-hard Sanders supporter who had volunteered for Sanders campaign during the 2016 election before he was killed by police during the shooting. Hodgkinsons cover photo was a picture of Sanders, and was later found to have social media postsexcoriating Republicans, and belonged to Facebook groups such asTerminate the Republican Party, The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans, and Donald Trump is not my President.

On the day the shootingoccurred, Sanders said he was sickened by the fact that someone who participated in his campaign attempted to murder his colleagues. Hecondemned the shooting during a speech on the House floor, saying real change can only come about through non-violent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values.

Sunday, Sanders voiced his support for free speech to Face the Nation host John Dickerson, and encouraged Americans to stand up against violence.

Look, freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the right to protest, that is what America is about, Sanders said. And, politically, every leader in this country, every American has got to stand up against any form of violence. That is unacceptable. And I certainly hope and pray that Representative Scalise has a full recovery from the tragedy that took place.

Dickerson asked Sanders where he comes down on the issue of campus free speech, noting the various recent protests and attempts to silence speakers students do not agree with. Sanders shook his head in disagreement before Dickerson finished asking the question.

I think people have a right to speak, Sanders said, and you have a right, if you are on a college campus, not to attend. You have a right to ask hard questions about the speaker if you disagree with him or her.

But what why should we be afraid of somebody coming on a campus or anyplace else and speaking? Sanders continued. You have a right to protest. But I dont quite understand why anybody thinks it is a good idea to deny somebody else the right to express his or her point of view.

Sanders told Dickerson that we are in a contentious and difficult political moment in our country, and expressed his grave concerns about the Trump agenda. The Vermont senator surmised that the vast majority of Americans disagreed with the approach, but stated that you dont have to be violent about it.

Lets disagree openly and honestly, but violence is not acceptable, Sanders said.

Read more from the original source:

Even Bernie Sanders wants the fight against free speech on campus to stop - TheBlaze.com

Jonah Goldberg

Theres a tension so deep in how we think about free expression, it should rightly be called a paradox.

On the one hand, regardless of ideology, artists and writers almost unanimously insist that they do what they do to change minds. But the same artistes, auteurs and opiners recoil in horror when anyone suggests that they might be responsible for inspiring bad deeds.

Hollywood, the music industry, journalism, political ideologies, even the Confederate flag: Each takes its turn in the dock when some madman or fool does something terrible.

The arguments against free speech are stacked and waiting for these moments like weapons in a gladiatorial armory. Theres no philosophical consistency to when they get picked up and deployed, beyond the unimpeachable consistency of opportunism.

Hollywood activists blame the toxic rhetoric of right-wing talk radio or the tea party for this crime, the National Rifle Association blames Hollywood for that atrocity. Liberals decry the toxic rhetoric of the right, conservatives blame the toxic rhetoric of the left.

When attacked again heedless of ideology or consistency the gladiators instantly trade weapons. The finger-pointers of five minutes ago suddenly wax righteous in their indignation that mere expression rather, their expression should be blamed. Many of the same liberals who pounded soapboxes into pulp at the very thought of labeling record albums with violent-lyrics warnings instantly insisted that Sarah Palin had Rep. Gabby Giffords blood on her hands. Many of the conservatives who spewed hot fire at the suggestion that they had any culpability in an abortion clinic bombing gleefully insisted that Sen. Bernie Sanders is partially to blame for Rep. Steve Scalises fight with death.

And this is where the paradox starts to come into view: Everyone has a point.

The blame for violent acts lies with the people who commit them, and with those who explicitly and seriously call for violence, Dan McLaughlin, my National Review colleague, wrote in the Los Angeles Times last week. People who just use overheated political rhetoric, or who happen to share the gunmans opinions, should be nowhere on the list.

As a matter of law, I agree with this entirely. But as a matter of culture, its more complicated.

I have always thought it absurd to claim that expression cannot lead people to do bad things, precisely because it is so obvious that expression can lead people to do good things. According to legend, Abraham Lincoln told Harriet Beecher Stowe, So youre the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war. Should we mock Lincoln for saying something ridiculous?

As Irving Kristol once put it, If you believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book. You have to believe, in other words, that art is morally trivial and that education is morally irrelevant.

If words dont matter, then democracy is a joke, because democracy depends entirely on making arguments not for killing, but for voting. Only a fool would argue that words can move people to vote but not to kill.

Ironically, free speech was born in an attempt to stop killing. It has its roots in freedom of conscience. Before the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the common practice was that the rulers religion determined their subjects faith too. Religious dissent was not only heresy but a kind of treason. After Westphalia, exhaustion with religion-motivated bloodshed created space for toleration. As the historian C.V. Wedgwood put it, the West had begun to understand the essential futility of putting the beliefs of the mind to the judgment of the sword.

This didnt mean that Protestants instantly stopped hating Catholics or vice versa. Nor did it mean that the more ecumenical hatred of Jews vanished. What it did mean is that it was no longer acceptable to kill people simply for what they believed or said.

But words still mattered. Art still moved people. And the law is not the full and final measure of morality. Hence the paradox: In a free society, people have a moral responsibility for what they say, while at the same time a free society requires legal responsibility only for what they actually do.

Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online. Contact him at JonahsColumn@aol.com.

View original post here:

Goldberg: Free speech not always tool of virtue - Peoria Journal Star

The Senate Judiciary Committee is holding hearings this week on legal issues related to campus free speech. On Tuesday, the panel delved into incidents that took place at the University of California, Berkeleywhere students have lit fires and ravaged their own campus in order to avoid hearing from right-leaning speakers like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who hails from California where the worst incidents have happened, seemed unable to fully grasp the idea that there is no hecklers veto on speech.

No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced, fascist the program is, you should find a way to accommodate it? Feinstein asked those called to testify. They included several First Amendment scholars and students who had been muzzled by their own colleges for inviting controversial speakers.

Feinstein went on to suggest that it was nearly impossible to expect students to embrace a full, diverse spectrum of opinion, and handle their disagreements like the mature, educated adults they are.

No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance, the university has to be prepared to handle it. Its the problem for the university, she went on.Youre making the argument that a speaker that might fulminate a big problem should never be refused.

She claimed that a university could stop a conservative speaker from taking the stage just to protect students general welfare.

I think particularly in view of the divisions within this nation at this time which are extraordinary from my experience, I think we all have to protect the general welfare too. And I appreciate free speech but its another thing to agitate, its another thing to foment, and its another thing to attack.

Constitutional scholar and law professor Eugene Volokh, was forced to explain, slowly and in terms Feinstein could understand, that its the governments responsibility to protect Constitutional guarantees of free speech. A simple difference of ideas is not fomenting an attackstudents have a choice on how to behave.

If they cant control themselves, and serious measures are required, the problem is endemicand its not the speakers problem.

If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speech, whether its universities or otherwise, then yes, indeed, we are in a very bad position, Volokh told Feinstein.

He went on to lecture Feinstein that First Amendment considerations should be paramount, correcting her idea that a university can step in to stop a speaker merely to protect the student body from unrest.

The potential for violence, Volokh said, cannot be enough to justify suppression of those they tried to suppress.

Read the original post:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Defends Campus Fascists Instead of Free ... - Heat Street

Washington Post

Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues Inside Higher Ed Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized the decision making of campus administrators in a hearing Tuesday but didn't suggest any new federal responses to issues of free speech on college campuses. Although Congress has examined free ... Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, MiddleburyWashington Post Assembly bill on UW free speech threatening expulsion set for vote amid First Amendment debateMilwaukee Journal Sentinel When your First Amendment rights offend me: Senators considers free speech on campusFort Worth Star Telegram The Seattle Times -Fox News all 31 news articles »

Visit link:

Senate Panel Wrestles With Free Speech Issues - Inside Higher Ed

In Packingham v. North Carolina, the court struck down a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from visiting social-networking websites that allow minors to become members of those websites or to create personal web pages. This would include sites like Facebook, Twitter, WebMD and The New York Times online locations visited regularly by billions of people.

One of those people was Lester Gerard Packingham, who was prosecuted under the law after he posted a Facebook message in 2010 giving thanks for the dismissal of a parking ticket. Mr. Packingham had been convicted eight years earlier for having sex with a minor. The state did not argue that he had used Facebook or any other site to seek out sex with minors or for any illegal activity at all; the fact that hed visited a prohibited site as a registered sex offender was enough to convict him.

The justices rightly reversed the State Supreme Courts decision upholding that conviction. States have a compelling interest in protecting children from sexual abuse, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his opinion for the majority, but the law went far beyond what was needed to achieve that goal barring access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.

GERRYMANDERING On Monday the court also agreed to hear a case involving partisan gerrymandering, or the skewed drawing of legislative district lines to benefit one political party. The courts decision, which would be issued in the first half of 2018, could transform American politics.

The case comes from Wisconsin, where Republicans won control of the state government in 2010, just in time to draw new maps following the decennial census. They were extremely efficient: In 2012, Republican assembly candidates received less than half the statewide vote and yet won 60 of 99 assembly seats. They took even more seats in 2014, while winning just a bare majority of the vote.

This distortion of the voters will is one of the oldest and dirtiest practices in American politics, and while both major parties are guilty of it, the benefits over the past decade have flowed overwhelmingly to Republicans.

The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering could in theory become so extreme that it violates the Constitution, but it has never settled on who should make that determination or on what standards to use.

In the meantime, because the court voted to stay the lower-court decision ordering Wisconsin to redraw its district lines before the 2018 elections, the states Republican-friendly maps are likely to remain for at least one more cycle. The stay also raises doubts about whether a majority believes the court should ever resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. If not, voters will remain at the mercy of self-interested politicians, with no help in sight.

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

A version of this editorial appears in print on June 20, 2017, on Page A26 of the New York edition with the headline: Free Speech at The Supreme Court.

Visit link:

Free Speech at the Supreme Court - New York Times

JUDY WOODRUFF: But first: Schools are paying a lot more attention to what students post online, and that can have severe consequences for students and schools.

Harvard University withdrew the admittance of at least 10 incoming freshmen who had reportedly posted violent, racist and sexually explicit content in a private Facebook group.

High schools are cracking down, too, with some hiring outside companies to police social media posts.

But monitoring online behavior is difficult, and civil rights groups are watching.

Special correspondent Lisa Stark with our partner Education Week visited a school district in Arizona.

LISA STARK: Its just before summer break at Dysart High School in Surprise, Arizona, outside Phoenix. Students are eating lunch, signing yearbooks, and theyre immersed in social media.

Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, YouTube. More than 90 percent of teens say they go online every day, and nearly a quarter are online almost constantly.

Let me ask you, first of all, do you all have phones?

STUDENT: Yes.

STUDENT: Yes, we do.

LISA STARK: Do you ever not have a phone with you?

STUDENT: No.

STUDENT: Its always on.

LISA STARK: We sat down with four Dysart students to talk about how they use social media.

Snapchat, I post every single day, like, every day, all day.

STUDENT: I always like post my thoughts, certain way Im feeling. Depends on how Im feeling that day.

STUDENT: When Im done with all my work, and if I dont have any work from other classes, I just go on my phone and see whats going on.

STUDENT: I dont really care who sees it. Like, Im just posting it because I think its public. Like, Im open about it.

LISA STARK: The problem for schools, what happens on social media doesnt always stay on social media.

ALYSSA WAMSLEY, Student, Dysart High School: I see a lot of bullying on Facebook that it transfers to the school. And then, like, at the beginning of this year, this girl got into an altercation on Facebook, and she ended up fighting the girl at school.

AMY HARTJEN, Principal, Dysart High School: When somethings posted on social media and its being talked about on campus and it disrupts learning, thats when we have to step in and decide if theres something that we need to react to.

LISA STARK: Nationwide, a growing number of districts are watching whats posted online for anything that might impact their schools.

Principal Amy Hartjen says the number one concern is safety.

Whats like, OK, we have to get involved here? Bullying, would that be a red line?

AMY HARTJEN: Absolutely, threats, intimidations.

LISA STARK: What if someone posts something that is offensive language, racist, sexist?

AMY HARTJEN: Absolutely.

LISA STARK: Really? And why would that be a red line?

AMY HARTJEN: Because that is just its against the campus culture.

LISA STARK: Students threatening to harm others or themselves sometimes telegraph that on social media, and districts have been sued for not paying attention to online posts.

These days, the schoolyard has new boundaries.

ZACHERY FOUNTAIN, Communications Director, Dysart USD: The information space is just as important as the physical space anymore, because it has that ability to snowball at a really rapid pace.

LISA STARK: Zachery Fountain is the Dysart District Communications Chief, and point man on social media. He trains staff on how to document troublesome posts.

ZACHERY FOUNTAIN: Thats teaching them things like asking for a screen shot of what has happened, understanding that a message could disappear in five seconds, as soon as its brought to their attention by a student.

LISA STARK: Nationwide, both public and private schools keep tabs on social media in a variety of ways: hiring firms to actively monitor students accounts, encouraging students to report anything worrisome, friending students to gain access to posts that may not be public, and through simple alerts every time the district and its schools are mentioned in any type of media.

Theres anecdotal evidence, but no hard data, to show that early identification of troubling social media posts can help schools head off problems.

School officials here insist they are most concerned about safety. Theyre not trying to pry into students lives. But civil rights and privacy groups say it can be a slippery slope and that some districts have gone too far, that they have violated students constitutional rights.

Students have been disciplined for liking other posts, for private online chats that others made public, for forwarding racist posts, even in order to denounce them.

CHAD MARLOW, American Civil Liberties Union: Schools need to think about, how do we take on these issues in an appropriate way that doesnt have kind of the collateral damage effect of destroying students privacy and free speech rights?

LISA STARK: Chad Marlow is with the American Civil Liberties Union. He says, first and foremost, school shouldnt have open-ended access to students social media accounts.

Youre saying no fishing expeditions?

CHAD MARLOW: No fishing expeditions. And the way to do that is by not allowing passwords to be turned over, what we call shoulder surfing. Log onto your account, and the teacher will stand over the students shoulder and say, scroll, scroll, scroll.

LISA STARK: Are you asking students for passwords?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI, School Resource Officer, Shadow Ridge High School: No.

LISA STARK: Or log-in information or anything?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: No.

LISA STARK: School resource officer Wendy Klarkowski is assigned to Shadow Ridge High School in the Dysart district. Her morning routine includes searching for school-related posts on social media. Shes uncovered criminal activity.

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: A young man had decided to bring some marijuana-laced brownies to school, and he advertised them on Twitter and, meet me in the cafeteria. We got him with all the brownies still on him.

LISA STARK: And possible campus disruptions.

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: Some kids were going to protest something they thought was unfair, and it was all over Twitter, so we were able to get the kids that were leading it, actually, the night before, so that they put an end to that, so it didnt disrupt the campus.

LISA STARK: But why isnt that their free speech right to protest something theyre not happy about?

WENDY KLARKOWSKI: It is their right to protest, but it is not their right to disturb an educational institution.

LISA STARK: The ACLUs Marlow worries about districts stifling free speech.

CHAD MARLOW: It is very important to draw the line between punishing an action that occurs on social media vs. thoughts that are expressed on social media. Once you start policing and punishing thoughts, you are into very, very dangerous territory.

LISA STARK: Two of the Dysart students we spoke with say they tread more carefully online after each posted a disparaging remark about one of their teachers.

ALYSSA WAMSLEY: I made a reference to one of my teachers last year on Facebook, and I almost got a referral for it, for what I said about her. And then me and the teacher ended up talking, and now shes my favorite teacher ever.

HADIN KHAN, Graduate, Dysart High School: It was funny at first. Then I was like, OK, I need to take some precautions for next time, when Im angry about something, not mention names or anything. I could say English teacher, as opposed to saying their name.

LISA STARK: So, you are censoring yourself in a way, right?

HADIN KHAN: Yes, kind of. Yes.

LISA STARK: How do you feel about having to do that?

HADIN KHAN: I dont really have a problem with it, because its not that serious of an issue.

LISA STARK: Superintendent Gail Pletnick insists the district is careful not to violate free speech or privacy rights.

GAIL PLETNICK, Superintendent, Dysart Unified School District: Were not crossing that line. Were not monitoring people 24/7. Were not the social media police. But we are concerned about anything that we feel will be harmful to our students.

LISA STARK: Pletnick says technology changes so quickly that schools can find themselves operating in a gray area.

GAIL PLETNICK: Those laws, those rules, those guidelines that were going to have to use are being developed. So, were really not only flying this plane while we build it, while its being designed.

LISA STARK: It can be a rough ride, so Dysart and other districts are increasingly starting to teach digital citizenship, the responsible use of technology, to impress upon students to think before they click.

STUDENT: I like that. Thats cute.

LISA STARK: For the PBS NewsHour and Education Week, Im Lisa Stark in Surprise, Arizona.

Original post:

Schools are watching students' social media, raising questions ... - PBS NewsHour

U.S.senators focused Tuesday on the issues surrounding free speech on college campuses, as someexpressed concerns that voices have been suppressed because they have been deemed offensive, and othersraised questions about how to balance First Amendment rightswith safety.

There is no point in having a student body on campus if competing ideas are not exchanged and analyzed and respected by each other, said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The committee examined the issue at a Tuesday hearing titled Free Speech 101: The Assault on the First Amendment on College Campuses.

Here's a look at some of the protests in the Berkeley, Calif., area in recent months. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

When a hecklers veto succeeded, what effect did that have on the campus climate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) asked two college students at the hearing. Some states allow guns on college campuses, said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). Doesnt that make the issue more complicated for university presidents?

On too many college campuses, Grassley said, free speech appears to be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. Cruz, meanwhile, commented that too many institutions quietly roll over at the threat of violence.

Its tragic what is happening at so many American universities, Cruz said. Where college administrators and faculties have become complicit in functioning essentially as speech police.

The committee heard from a panel that included both students and other experts. Among them: Zachary Wood, a student at Williams College who is involved in an organization that brings provocative speakers to the Massachusetts campus; Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Frederick Lawrence, a former university president who is secretary and chief executive of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

The challenges of free expression on our campuses have never seemed greater, Lawrence said. I know this from my years as a law school dean, and as a university president.

These challenges, he continued, come in all directions and from all contexts.

They come from the left, and they come from the right, Lawrence said. They involve students, they involve faculty, they involve outside speakers.

Students at Middlebury College in Vermont protested an author who has been called a white nationalist, causing the college to move a planned lecture to another room on campus. (Will DiGravio)

The hearing followed high-profile incidents involving free-speech issues on colleges campuses across the country. In April, a scuffle broke out during protestsof an appearance from Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came to speak on the Alabama campus.

A few months ago at Middlebury College, an angry mob swarmed Charles Murray, an author and conservative scholar, after he attempted to deliver a lecture at the private liberal arts college in Vermont.

At the University of California at Berkeley, a speech from conservative commentator Ann Coulter was canceledin April, after concerns about protests growing violent. There was also unrest on Berkeleys campus in February over aplanned appearance from Milo Yiannopoulos, the former Breitbart writer.

The University of California at Berkeley canceled a talk by inflammatory Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos and put the campus on lockdown after intense protests broke out on Feb. 1. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

What brings us here today is that time and again, speech is being effectively banned on campuses because the speaker has ideas that offend, said Floyd Abrams, senior counsel at the firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel and another witness. Thats the problem. It does not arise in the main because university administrations are seeking to suppress speech, it arises more often than not because students find it intolerable to have certain speakers appear and certain ideas expressed with which they disagree and they find offensive or even outrageous.

At the hearing Tuesday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) noted that universities deal with speaking events that could present a danger or threat to the campus community, particularly those that draw outside groups of protesters. Colleges dont always have the resources to deal with those types of situations, she said, and run the risk of harm.

I know of no effort at Berkeley, of the University of California, to stifle student speech. None, she said. And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention. But I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Read More: Milos appearance at Berkeley led to riots. He vows to return this fall for a week-long free-speech

Ann Coulter finds an unlikely ally in her free-speech spat with Berkeley: Bill Maher

Berkeley gave birth to the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s. Now, conservatives are demanding it include them.

Follow this link:

Senate hearing examines free speech on college campuses after incidents at UC-Berkeley, Middlebury - Washington Post

THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washingtons National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may disparage people or bring them into contemp[t] or disrepute. The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself the Slants on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jaggers bunch uses the Rolling Stones even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning.

The justices were obviously, and properly, influenced by the fact that the Asian American members of the Slants took the name in a bid to reclaim that slur as something more positive and prideful. To apply the existing disparagement proviso in the statute despite the bands expressive intent would not merely have exercised government control over government expression, implicit in trademark registration, as the Obama administration argued when the court heard the case shortly before Inauguration Day this year. It would, as the justices ruled, have put the government in the business of picking and choosing among points of view, a role that the court has repeatedly forbidden it to perform.

To be sure, the opinion for the court by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a staunch conservative, came accompanied by a concurring opinion in which Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and three liberal colleagues, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, set out doctrinal nuances. But what was striking about all the opinions Monday was the strength with which every member of the court embraced the First Amendment, strongly enough to protect even speech that many people legitimately find hateful or offensive. The proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate, Mr. Alito wrote. The concurring opinion followed with the rationale underlying that jurisprudence: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion specifically the Washington football teams name, which was also the subject of a suit against its trademark. The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably cant be one of them. As the courts decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.

View post:

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech - Washington Post

The Senate held a hearing today on free speech on college campuses. There was a disagreement among the witnesses about how far campus administrators should go to protect speech in the face of determined efforts to shut it down. Law Professor Eugene Volokh argued that authorities must protect speech lest those trying to use the hecklers veto learn that they can silence their opponents by making threats. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein disagreed, suggesting protection of the right to speak could result in another Kent State shooting.

After reading aloud the First Amendment in her opening remarks, Sen. Feinstein said, The fact of the matter is that there are certain occasions on which individuals assemble not to act peaceably, but to act as destructively as they possibly can. She went on to say, When you have a set group of people that come to create a disturbance, some of them even wearing masks or wearing certain clothing, what do you do? Feinstein said police arent always equipped to handle this situation making it a horse of another color. She concluded, I do believe that the university has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

Professor Eugene Volokh disagreed with her during his testimony.There are of course times, as Senator Feinstein pointed out, that the University isnt trying to suppress speech because it finds it offensive but because enough people who are willing to stoop to violence find it offensive that there is then the threat of a violent reaction to such speech, Volokh said. He continued, But I tend to agree with Senator Cruzs view that that kind of a hecklers veto should not be allowed.

The question was asked When you have a set group of people who come to create a disturbance, what do you do? I think the answer is to make sure they dont create a disturbance and to threaten them with punishment, meaningful punishment, if they do create a disturbance. And not to essentially let them have their way by suppressing the speech that they are trying to suppress.

One of the basics of psychology that I think weve learned, and all of us who are parents I think have learned it very first hand, is behavior that is rewarded is repeated. When thugs learn that all they need to do in order to suppress speech is to threaten violence then therell be more such threats from all over the political spectrum. And I think the solution to that is to say that the speech will go on and if that means bringing in more law enforcement and making sure that those people who do act violently or otherwise physically disruptively that they be punished.

A few minutes later, Sen. Dick Durbin pushed back by suggesting that college administrators had to consider the possible threats posed to campus by people with concealed weapons:

A few minutes later, Sen. Feinstein suggested that public campuses might not have the resources need to protect speech from the hecklers veto. How should a university handle this, Feinstein asked the panel. Volokh responded saying, If we are in a position where our police departments are unable to protect free speechthen yes indeed we are in a very bad position.

Professor, let me just understand what youre saying, Feinstein interrupted. She continued, No matter who comes, no matter what disturbance the University has to be prepared to handle itTo me the extraordinary circumstance is when people come in black uniforms and hit other people over the head.

Volokh replied, Right, and that cannot be enough to justify suppression of those who they came to try to suppress. As Volokh argued that protection from violence was a fundamental role of government, Feinstein replied, You dont think we learned a lesson at Kent State way back when? This is a reference to an incident that took place in 1970 when national guardsmen opened fire on Vietnam war protesters, killing four people.

Professor Frederick Lawrence stepped in saying, I think the way to start with this is with a strong presumption in favor of the speech, particularly if its speech thats coming from a student group who has invited somebody.

Sen. Feinstein replied, No matter how radical, offensive, biased, prejudiced,fascist the program is? You should find a way to accommodate it.

Lawrence replied, If were talking about the substance of the program, not the danger and credible threats but the substance of the program, then yes.

Feinstein genuinely seems to be missing the concept of the First Amendment. Of course, speech isnt allowed or disallowed based on content. How does a Senator even suggest such a thing? And frankly, the idea that the campus shouldnt be expected to protect speech on the grounds that it might incite others to violence is an endorsement of the hecklers veto. Its saying that as long as opponents of speech are willing to resort to threats, they can silence their opponents. Thats a horrible message for any American to endorse. Im not surprised to hear this sort of thing coming from Evergreen College students, but I am surprised to hear it coming from a Senator.

You can see Professor Volokhs statement on free speech at around 1:10:00 into this clip. Feinsteins exchange with Professor Lawrence comes around 1:46:00.

Follow this link:

Sen. Feinstein is ready to accept the 'heckler's veto' of free speech on college campuses - Hot Air