ANTI-FREE SPEECH: Leftist Middlebury College students turned their backs and shouted down political scientist and Bell Curve author Dr. Charles Murray on Thursday.

MIDDLEBURY, Vt. Anti-free speech students fromMiddlebury College disrupted a planned lecture by guest speaker,political scientist andauthor Charles Murray in the McCullough StudentCenter on Thursday.

The event, which included severaldark-masked, bandit-like student protestors, descended quicklyintoarowdyeffortto preventthe Harvard- and MIT-educated speakerfrom discussing his book, Coming Apart. The student protest effort succeeded.

Murrayis affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. He also is the co-authorofthe1994 book The Bell Curve, an study ofrace and intelligence.

On campus, Murrays appearance was being castas adisplay of academic free speech versus shutting down what protesting students called hate speech.

Before Murrayappeared on stage,William Burger, thecolleges vice president of communications, told students about the colleges rules of conduct for First Amendment protests. He noted that failing to follow the rules couldresult in reprimands includingacademic dismissal.

Middlebury College President Laurie Pattonofferedher reasons for allowing thefree and open discussionbya researcher she did not personally agree with. I would regret it terribly if my presence here is read to be something that it is not an endorsement of Mr. Murrays research and writings, she said.

Students booed Patton wholeft the stage visiblyshaken.

Free speech?

The loud,sustainedprotest inside the auditorium included manystudents turning their backs on Murray when hewalked on stage.

With their backs to Murray, students heldup posters with hand-scrawled protest slogans such as White Supremacy is the Enemy and Race is a Construct and F Eugenics.

Many in the Middlebury audience shouted, Racist, sexist, anti-gay, Charles Murray go away! in unison. One protestor in the audience shouted Yiannopoulos! referring to former Breitbart Newscommentator Milo Yiannopoulos, andperhaps the violent University of California, Berkeley protest against him in February.

Chanting continued for nearly 30 minutes until Murray wasescorted offstageby Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics at the college. Asecurity guard and student membersof the American Enterprise Institute astudent-runcampus club whicharranged the authors appearance also escorted Murray.

When Stanger returned on stage and took the podium microphone, she said, Well have a great dialog if youd let us continue, but youre not going to let us speak. Brothers and sisters, namaste.

Murraywas usheredto an undisclosed room on campus to deliver hislecture via live stream video. However, whenalarge video projection screen was lowered for audience viewing and the live streaming began,loud protesting continued, making it impossible for audience members to hear Murray and moderator Stanger.

Most people know Murray for The Bell Curve. Butthe speakerwas invited to Middlebury to discuss Coming Apart, a more recent bookabout the moral decline of white America and the growingeconomicdivide.

Many student voices

Saanvi Khambatta,a senior studyingeconomics, came to the event tolearn aboutMurrays intellectual thought process.

I wanted to see a different perspective, she told Watchdog. Charles Murray does not have the credentials,but he does influence a lot of people in our nation. I disagree with his ideas but I feel like I should know about his ideas to challenge me intellectually.

Anna May Walker, a sophomore English major, was appalled by the behavior of fellow students.

Silencing Charles Murray is another example of two wrongs not making a right. Let him speak andengage intellectually, she said.Sure, I would have preferred him not to have been invited to campus,but hes here and now were guilty. Were people unwilling to hear the voices of others despitedemanding our own voices be heard.

Walker said she fearsthat students who stand for free speech at the college will face intimidation and retribution.

I know in saying these words I jeopardize myself in many ways.I will face the wrath of this community that we clearly see here today. It frightens me. This? This was not the answer, she said.

The real world beyond this campus cant be controlled and shut downwith shouted sentences. If Murrays ideas arent legitimate, then we shouldprove it by discussion, not shouting. We are undermining theauthenticity of this institution with this whole process.

Stanger reportedly was violently assaultedduring the event and was treated at nearby Porter Hospital. Fire alarms wereset offandseveral campus electronic devices were disrupted. Burger said some students identified by staff members will be punished for interrupting the event.

Lou Varricchio is the bureau chief for Vermont Watchdog. You can contact him [emailprotected]

Continued here:

Middlebury College students shout down speaker in display against free speech - Watchdog.org

The other day I came up with a line Im pretty happy with.

During an interview with Bill Whittle on NRA TV, I pointed out that I am The One at Cornell Law School, where I teach.

Heres the excerpt:

Whittle: And were speaking with William Jacobson of the website Legal Insurrection, who we should also point out is also a professor at Cornell Law School, which makes him pretty much as rare as [inaudible] out there, you must be leading a lonely life out there .

WAJ: I am the only open conservative on our entire law faculty of over 50 law professors, so Im not the 1%, Im actually The One.

There was truth in that jest.

I pointed to a report by the student newspaper The Cornell Sun showing that 97% of faculty donations went to Democrats, and a College Fix study that 11 departments at Cornell have zero registered Republicans.

I also could have pointed to the defeat of a resolution at the student assembly asking the faculty Senate to study the issue of faculty diversity of political thought, which was defeated.

The lack of faculty diversity of political opinion is not just a theoretical matter. The increasing role of faculty in joining the resistance against Trump helps feed an increasing hostility towards conservatives among student activists.

Two recent speakers had their appearances disrupted by left-wing student activists who have worked themselves into a frenzy over Trumps election.(Yes, Cornell was the location of the notorious student Cry In after the election.)

Last November, Rick Santorum was heckled throughout his speech, and the leader of the Cornell Republicans was physically assaulted by someone screaming about having brought Santorum to campus.

I examined the Santorum disruption in the context of a more recent disruption of an appearance by Michael Johns, one of the early Tea Party organizers and a Trump supporter,Conservative speaker event forced into hiding at Cornell:

The Johns appearance, however, came under Cornell University Police Department (CUPD) scrutiny when there were threats of disruption on social media. The CPU was given the choice of cancelling the event, turning it private so that only CPU members could attend, or paying the university a security fee of up to $2,000. Because CPU could not afford the $2,000 fee, it decided to turn the event private.

The event took place, but only after it was turned private and the location moved to a secret location not announced publicly.

Nonetheless, student protesters tracked down the location and protested outside, while demanding entry into the room.

I spoke with Johns about it, and he said the protesters were chanting, among other things, Let us in, Let us in. They were kept outside the room, but Johns said the chants were loud enough to make it hard for Johns to be heard. The chanting started a few minutes into his 20 minute speech and went on for the remainder. Johns believes that the event would have had hundreds in attendance had the threat of disruption not caused it to be closed to the public and moved.

Incredibly, the student protesters who forced the event to be made private under direction of CUPD then complained that the event was private.

But what bothered me the most was the universitys demand for up to a $2,000 fee to provide security after the threats were discovered. This seemed to me to be uniquely dangerous to conservatives on campus since only conservatives are likely to be targeted in this manner.

As detailed in that post, I wrote to the Interim President of Cornell expressing my concerns about the security fee being a form of hecklers veto since only conservatives were likely to be the targets of disruption:

As someone who openly expresses views that are unpopular on this campus, it concerns me greatly that the onus of security protection was put onto the organizers of the event through a security fee. This obviously has a very chilling effect on campus speech since it amounts to a hecklers veto over public discourse through the imposition of security fees.

Since this is a scenario which almost certainly will only suppress conservative speech on this campus, it is a matter of great importance to whether Cornell will be a welcoming place for conservatives.

Although I received a response from the communications office about the details of the event (see prior post), I did not receive a response as to my point on the security fee serving as a form of hecklers veto over conservatives.

The Cornell Sun has an article today on the issue of security fees uniquely affecting conservative speech,The Cost of Conservatism at Cornell: Groups Claim Hosting Conservative Speakers Comes With Added Expenses:

The right to speak on Cornells campus is a paramount value, one upon which the University has an essential dependence, according to the Campus Code of Conduct. In fact, the administration is so committed to free speech that even finding a speakers cause to be evil would not justify suppressing that speaker doing so, the University writes, would be inconsistent with a universitys purpose.

But some groups that have hosted conservative speakers on campus are not buying the administrations rhetoric, citing the thousands of dollars they have been asked to pay the University for security at their events.

And they say it is a cost that hosts of conservative speakers disproportionately have to bear.

The University, through its current policy intentional or not imposes additional financial and administrative costs on groups wishing to host conservative speakers, said Troy LeCaire 17, president of the Cornell Political Union. [CPU]

The Cornell Sun goes on to note that of the many speakers brought to campus by the non-partisan CPU, Johns was the only right-of-center speaker, and the only one requiring a security fee for protection, something common for Republican speakers:

Of the nearly 20 speakers CPU has brought to campus, all of these speakers including those who, like Johns, are not Cornell professors have been liberal, LeCaire said.

We have hosted someone who worked in the Obama administration, a former U.S. General under President Obama, and quite specifically, two Democratic politicians from the New York State Assembly, including the Speaker, arguably the most powerful Democratic state official, LeCaire said. I think Michael Johns was our first speaker who could be considered right of center.

Johns was also the first speaker in CPUs history that came with a security fee, according to LeCaire.

The Cornell Republicans are no stranger to these fees either. Last semester, the group was charged $5,000 an entire semesters worth of funding to secure the infamous Rick Santorum event, where protesters repeatedly shouted down the former United States Senator during his speech, according to Olivia Corn 19, the groups president.

The Cornell Republicans also payed security fees in the hundreds of dollars for its fall 2015 and spring 2016 speakers political activist Ward Connerly ($228) and FOX News personality Kimberly Guilfoyle ($472.50), respectively, according to the groups former president, Mark LaPointe 16.

The student Democrats have no such security fee problem:

Meanwhile, the Cornell Democrats have not payed anything in security fees to the University within the past few years, according to Kevin Kowalewski 17, the groups president.

During my time at Cornell, no, the Cornell Democrats have not had to pay the [U]niversity for security at any event where we brought a speaker. We have never been informed that this was necessary, Kowalewski said.

The Cornell Sun article sheds an important light on the structural bias of the Cornell security procedures.

Only conservative speakers are likely to be disrupted. Liberal, and even communist, speakers are safe on campus. So while on its faced the security fee policy is content neutral, in reality it targets conservatives, as the two student leaders told the Sun:

Corn said that the Universitys security fees foste[r] the shutting down of free speech, and added that making student groups pay for security is irresponsible on the Universitys part.

Its not my job to make sure the students of this University are safe. Its the Universitys job, Corn said.

LeCaire said that the Universitys policy precludes CPU from inviting the full range of speakers it would like to.

I think we want to invite more conservative speakers. Whether or not well have the capacity to is uncertain, LeCaire said. If Rick Santorum cost $5,000 [in security fees], there is no way we can afford to invite Rick Santorum or anyone of similar stature. So basically were limited to low-profile conservative people.

Im not hopeful that the Cornell administration will recognize much less properly address the hostile campus environment towards conservatives, and how the security fee acts as an enforcement mechanism against conservative speech.

But maybe they will surprise me.

[Featured Image:Michael Johns at Cornell, image via Cornell Political Union Facebook]

See the article here:

For conservatives at Cornell University, high price for free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)

They shut her up. That was their most valiant act, their only claim to fame, in recent times.

They are ministers of the mighty government of India, a cricketing great, a Bollywood star, an Olympic champ, and a whole army of rabid trolls. Her is Gurmehar Kaur, a 20-year-old student of English literature at New Delhis Lady Shri Ram College for Womenher father being a martyred soldier is irrelevant to the discourse.

Over the past few days, Kaur and her placards had left Indians breathlessly debating freedom of expression, patriotism, peace with Pakistan, and sexual violence against women. Yet, all she did was to post a protest message on Facebook: I am a student from Delhi University. I am not afraid of ABVP. I am not alone. Every student of India is with me. #StudentsAgainstABVP.

ABVP, or the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, is the student wing of Indias ruling Hindutva outfit, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Over the past few days, this organisation has been involved in an ugly battle with political opponents in Delhi University, to which Kaurs college is affiliated.

The ABVP, BJP, and their supporters were furious at #StudentsAgainstABVPs success. And then, an old video-campaign featuring Kaur re-surfaced, in which one of her placards says: Pakistan didnt kill my father, war did.

The nationalists simply went ape-shit after losing their long-held rhetorical fetish, the dead soldier, to his daughter.

Modis junior home minister Kiren Rijiju and urban development minister Venkaiah Naidu, cricketer Virendra Sehwag, actor Randeep Hooda, champion wrestler Babita Kumari Phogat, besides hundreds of rightwing online warriors, launched #MissionTrollKaur. She fought valiantly in the face of even rape threats and abuses, but ultimately gave in:

A nation that takes immense pride in being a democracy had silenced one young dissenting woman.

But then, mightier, more renowned Indians have had to zip up before. So this is hardly news. One of the most illustrious cases was that of Indias most famous modern artist, Maqbool Fida Hussain, who died in exile following years of litigation and threats of physical harm by Hindutva goons over his paintings.

In a beautifully-worded verdict, the Delhi high court in 2008 rubbished all charges against Hussain and his paintings. The judgment by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, which starts off with Pablo Picassos famous wordsArt is never chaste. It ought to be forbidden to ignorant innocents, never allowed into contact with those not sufficiently prepared. Yes, art is dangerous. Where it is chaste, it is not artmakes for a riveting read.

While it largely deals with art and the creative fields, the judgment touches upon a variety of issues related to freedom of expression.

The complete text (pdf) ought to be a must-read for Indians. All the more so if you are the hyper-anything kindnationalist, sensitive, or prudish. Trolls, the little-known ones as well as the high-fliers, must keep a bedside copy.

For the benefit of our readers, we have here a few pertinent excerpts:

We welcome your comments at ideas.india@qz.com.

Go here to see the original:

To all of Gurmehar Kaur's trolls, the Delhi high court has a pertinent reminder of the importance of free speech - Quartz

Milo Yiannopoulos claims to be a champion of free speech. Ironically, he entirely misunderstands the purpose and meaning of free speech. His argument that the general public has violated his right to free speech is wrong, both historically and practically.

Free speech does not grant the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire, or yell bomb in an airport when there is no bomb. This is an opinion held by the Supreme Court of the United States and anyone with a shred of common sense. Such actions do nothing but elicit panic and public distress.

Much of the rhetoric put out by Yiannopoulos is no different. It has little to no basis in fact, misinforming the public. For example, he once likened rape culture to Harry Potter, saying that they are both fantasy. Lies like this can potentially weaken the public initiatives taken in the past several years to fight rape culture. As a result, his lie may contribute to continued sexual violence. His extensive lies fan the flames of radical and inflammatory factions within our country, creating panic when there should be none.

The truly ironic element of Yiannopoulos argument is that free speech is about the relationship between the government and the people. The government has in no way infringed upon his right to free speech. The TV stations that have prevented him from going on their shows are private companies, not government entities. The universities that will not allow him to speak are academic institutions, once again not the government. No one is preventing Milo from speaking entirely but merely refusing to allow him to use a specific university or network as a platform. Universities and TV networks have every right to do this.

Furthermore, just as Yiannopoulos believes that he can say whatever he wants, people have the right to say whatever they want back to him. It is preposterous for him to promote such blatant lies and deceit and not expect to be called out for it. The right to free speech protects an individual from government censorship. It does not protect an individual from backlash and consequences for inflammatory remarks.

Ryan Steinberg is a freshman majoring in political science.

Featured image courtesy Flickr user Hindi Pro.

The rest is here:

Milo Yiannopoulos is not the champion of free speech that he claims to be - The Miami Hurricane

On Wednesday, a British member of the European Parliament expressed his support for a measure that would allow the presiding officer of the body to effectively "kill" a speech they consider "racist" or "xenophobic."

Mike Rowe on How to Battle Unemployment & the Skills Gap

'Educate the President': Dem Rep Bringing DREAMer to Trump Speech

'You Don't Know!': Tucker and Bill Nye Clash on Climate Change

Tucker Carlson asked Labour MEP Richard Corbett what formal "standards" are in place to decide which expressions of free speech can be curtailed.

Corbett said the measure prohibits the use of "racist terms and xenophobic language." Any speech considered such will be cut short and "purged" from live and archived television, he explained.

Carlson called the move "quite draconian" and "Orwellian."

Corbett said it would protect against a member prospectively unfurling a banner demanding Jewish people be killed, but Carlson pressed further on what official standard the Parliament had set.

Corbett said a "variety of views" can be expressed, underlining that the Parliament's speaker, who is in control of the rule, is elected by members "across the [political] spectrum."

"Did anybody acknowledge that this is a totalitarian measure?" Carlson asked.

Corbett assured him that the rule would not be imposed "willy-nilly."

"Free speech continues to die a sad death on the continent that created it," Carlson remarked.

'I'm Worried About Your Leadership': Tucker Battles CT Mayor on Illegal Immigration

'Why Not Ban Pens & Keyboards?': Tucker Battles Student Over Whiteboard Ban

'We're Not Standing in the Way': CT Gov, Tucker Spar Over Illegal Immigration

Link:

Tucker Battles Member of EU Parliament Who Supports Free Speech 'Kill Switch' - Fox News Insider

LOS ANGELES, Calif. Numerous empty seats pepperedthe large lecture hall. Multiple students strolled into class late while others trickled out early. That was the scene on a recent Wednesday nightas lecturer Keith Fink taught his popular class on free speech at the public university.

While there areplenty of seats available for many more students to take the class, more than 40 students have been blocked from this popular UCLA course.

The courses lecture hall holds nearly 300 seats, but just 200 of the 241 students who tried to sign up for the class were enrolled. Thats left more than three dozen students shut out of a course taught by a professor focused onteaching students the value of the First Amendment.

Such is the situation in Finks Communication Studies 167: Sex, Politics, and Race: Free Speech on Campus.

The class made headlines recently after Fink, a conservative who openly criticizes campus administrators during his classes for what he contends is their violation of students free speech rights, claimed his department is keeping students who are attempting to add the course from enrolling init because of politicalbias.

The chair of the department says its aboutmaintaining reasonable class sizes across the major.

Finks not buying it.

This is nuts. They are penalizing the students to get at me, hesaid.

I believe my role is to test students beliefs theyre holding at a young age, to probe the reasons for their belief, to criticize views they may have, to expose them to other views. Thats my role, Fink told The College Fix.

The labor and employment lawyer added his job as a professor is not to tell [students] how to think. Its to make them think.

The Free Speech course, which Fink has taught for nine years, focuses on how the First Amendment, case law, state statutes, and federal statutes affect students and teachers ability to express themselves both on and off campuses, per the syllabus.

(Pictured: Empty seats in class students seek to enroll in)

Course readings in part include a textbook written by Fink as well as case law. Class topics touch on harassment issues, speech codes, campus protests, the rights of student publications and due process rights, among others.

The course, held on Wednesday nights, delves into controversial, timely campus issues. For instance, a list of nearly two dozen discussion topics on the syllabus includes questions such as Should teachers provide trigger warnings before [discussing] a topic that some find sensitive? and Can students be punished for burning the American flag?

Fink, a former college debate champion, employs the Socratic Method in his teaching, guiding discussion and pushing students on the topic at hand.

And during a recent class, he wasnt shy about offering his own opinions. However, he also encouraged students multiple times to do their own fact checking and research.

Fink also isnt afraid to voice his opinions in class about issues at UCLA. During the Feb. 22 class attended by The College Fix, Fink questioned the mission of the universitys division of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion.

I think its more exclusion for people who have conservative views or perhaps Jewish views, but Ill let you guys make that conclusion, Fink said.

During class, Fink read aloud a CrossCheck written last spring by Jerry Kang, UCLAs Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion. Kang alleged that posters posted on UCLAs campus by conservative activist David Horowitz accused the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine of being murderers and terrorists.

Fink disagreed with Kangs allegation and his description that the posters were hostile.

Hostile posters. What does that mean hostile? Why are they hostile? [Its] political advocacy and who cares if theyre hostile, Finksaid.

He also focused on the language Kang used as he read the CrossCheck post line by line.

I have a big problem with the wording because I believe youre being threatened, he told his students.

Class discussion later pivoted to a recent controversial cartoon published in UCLAs student newspaper, the Daily Bruin, that included Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The newspaper later apologized for running the cartoon after some found it anti-semitic.

Fink told the class he thinks the newspaper shouldve have published the cartoon without an apology, but questioned the universitys lack of response given Kangs post on Horowitzs posters.

So, if I dont see a rebuke, I just put two and two together theres some kind of viewpoint discrimination going on here, he said. Somebody has to give me another explanation. Why isnt there a whisper that theres a problem here?

A UCLA grad himself, Fink (pictured) said his own intellectual training at the school came from his involvement in debate where his coach pushed him on both sides of the issue.

That notion of pushing both sides of an issue is something higher education has lost, Finksaid.

It has lost the marketplace of ideas because theres only one stream of thought thats acceptable. And yes, teachers will not provide a balance, he told The College Fix in an interview.

As for the fight regarding his class size, Fink said the UCLA administration is giving him a complete runaround.

Kerri Johnson, his department chair, previously told The Fix the enrollment situation is based on ensuring reasonable class sizes across the major.

Fink, whos taught more than 200 students in the past, said Johnsons statement doesnt hold merit.

Wheres the problem? I havent voiced a problem. [My Teaching Assistant] hasnt voiced a problem. Prior assessments, there was no problem, he said.

MORE: UCLA students step on U.S. flag in protest of Bruin Republicans event

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Nathan Rubbelke is a staff reporter for The College Fix with a specialty on investigative and enterprise reporting. He has also held editorial positions at The Commercial Review daily newspaper in Portland, Indiana, as well as atThe Washington Examiner, Red Alert Politics and St. Louis Public Radio.Rubbelke graduated from Saint Louis University, where he majored in political science and sociology.

Continue reading here:

An inside look at the 'Free Speech' class UCLA blocked students ... - The College Fix

That's all from me and the Fairfax team at Parliament House for Wednesday.

Thanks for joining us. Here's what happened today:

Don't forget you can follow me on Facebook.

Andrew, Alex and Stephwill be back tomorrow. Have a great night.

Defence Minister MarisePayne is speaking to estimates hearings in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade committee.

Last month the government backed down from plans to compel Queensland landholders to sell their properties to make way for expansions to Australian Defence Force training bases in the Coalition's most marginal electorate.

Ms Payne said the multi-billion-dollar deal, will see Singapore invest in the Australian-owned Shoalwater Bay training facility in return for access, won't require compulsory acquisitions.

Here's the background from Amy Remeikisin February.

Canberra is getting ready for the annual Enlighten Festival, which starts this Friday.

The front of Parliament House is set to be bathed light, along with a series of buildings around the capital.

This news from former MP and keen Twitter user Clive Palmer raises at least one question:

We're told Foreign Minister Julie Bishopwill meet with her French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault on Friday, with the pair expected tosign an enhanced strategic partnership agreement between Australia and France in Melbourne.

Don't forget you can keep up with political news anytimeon my Facebook page.

Special Minister of State Scott Ryan says a parliamentary report on foreign political donations has been delayed.

The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Mattershas requested a short extension and won't deliver its report as planned on Friday,March 3.

Instead Senator Ryan has agreed to a request from chairSenator Linda Reynoldsto tablethe reporton or beforeFriday, March 10.

The public sector union is taking a bleak view of plans by Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce to relocate government agencies to regional areas.

Here's thelatest from the Community and Public Sector Union, via Twitter.

Here's some news from crack Senate estimates-watcher Adam Gartrell.

Australia's electronic spy agency was forced to rely on diesel backup generators when the nation's power supply came under intense pressure during last month's heatwave.

TheDefence Department and the shadowy Australian Signals Directoratewas asked to help with load shedding during soaring temperatures on February 10, when Canberra Airport was moved onto backup generators.

Read Adam's story here.

Great to be with you, Politics Live readers.

The Senate Economics Committee is discussing the electorate allowance paid to all MPs and senators. The Greens want it scrapped, saying the payment of at least $32,000is regularly misused.

Australian Taxation Office bureaucrats say the allowance is part of politicians' income, but Greens leader Richard Di Nataleasks why its separate from MPs expenses.

"It's funny how everyone gets very touchy when it comes to MPs' pay," Senator Di Natale said when the committee chair tried to move things on.

Time for me to head off so I'm handing over to my colleague Tom McIlroy.

Thanks for your company today.

I'll see you in the morning. Don't forget we can chat on Facebook.

The government is also not happy about penalty rates - but for a different reason than Ms Sudmalis.

You can catch up on the issue in this video.

The Treasurer has been grilled about what he thinks the outcome of a cut in penalty rates will be, refusing to give his opinion.

"There are some people who are very dependent on those penalty rates, and I get that and I understand that, but there are some others who might be able to pick up an extra day," Ms Sudmalis said.

"There'llbe opportunities for more people to get more work, rather than just people losing part of what they believe is 'I'm working on a Sunday, I should get paid more'."

A bit more on Ann Sudmalis's comments.

Ms Sudmalis, who holds the NSW seat of Gilmore, told her local paper yesterday that cuttingSunday and public holidaypenalty ratesare "not cutting wages" butrather "opening the door" on morejobs.

"It's not cutting wages, it's opening the door for more hours of employment and in a regional area like Gilmore, with almost double the national youth unemployment, that's a gift;that is a gift for our young people to get a foot in the door of employment," Ms Sudmalis told the Illawarra Mercury.

And that's it for question time.

For the third day in a row every opposition question was on penalty rates.

The opposition repeatedly referred to Ms Sudmalis's comments during question time yesterday and today is heckling the Liberal MP.

It's a tough game, for sure. Still, making someone cry is never a good look.

Liberal MP Ann Sudmalisis copping a lot of flak from the opposition over comments she made to a local newspaper in which she said the penalty rates decision was a "gift" in an area like hers with high youth unemployment (because lower wages would mean businesses could employ more people).

It's getting to her.

Dad and Mum aren't getting along again.

Veterans Affairs Minister Dan Tehan has told the house that a Defence Signals Directorate facility and Canberra Airport had to rely on back-up generators during the load shedding that took place on February 10.

Eek.

View original post here:

Politics live: Company tax cut in spotlight as Coalition splits over free speech - The Sydney Morning Herald

The Orange County Schools Board of Education, faced with public demands Monday that it ban the Confederate flag from school grounds, essentially punted.

That wasnt a bad idea.

The flag controversy -- far from unique to Orange County or its schools -- raises sensitive issues of racism, hate speech -- and free speech.

We understand the flag is an abrasive symbol that to many evokes generations of white supremacy and enslavement and mistreatment of African-Americans.

On the other hand, when official bodies decree what symbolic speech is permitted and what is proscribed, the slope is slippery indeed.

The board said it would establish an equity committee to advise it on the flag and the issues it raises.

We understand that improvement is an ongoing process and we are committed to collaborating with our community to support the health and well-being of all students, board chairman Stephen Halkiotis said.

That collaboration might not be easy. Finding the right path through such sensitive issues seldom is.

Perhaps the committee and the board can view this if not as a teachable moment at least an opportunity to ponder the difficulties of honoring free speech in a time of societal discord.

We tend to look to the American Civil Liberties Union in this sphere. The organization has a staunch belief in the broadest construction of permitted speech, and argues persuasively that the most important speech to defend can be that we find most disagreeable.

A couple years ago, the ACLU raised some eyebrows when it praised the South Carolina legislatures decision to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol while at the same time criticizing Texas for not allowing a Confederate flag as an option in the states specialty license program.

Those license messages are designed and paid by individuals, and are not messages of the state, Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project wrote in the Washington Post in July 2015.

If the schools were hoisting the Confederate flag, that would be government speech which government could (and should in this case) renounce.

But private speech? The government cant stop you from taping up your bumper sticker or rabble-rousing from your soapbox, whether your message is a peace sign, battle hymn, swastika or heart, Rowland wrote. Your individual liberty to speak, unconstrained by government, is at the heart of both the First Amendment and our American tradition of protest and freedom.

We hope the school boards committee has a full and spirited discussion, but that those words are on their minds.

Here is the original post:

Free speech isn't easy - Durham Herald Sun

The events at Ramjas College in Delhi University, the ensuing protests and the vicious trolling of a girl student Gurmehar Kaur, which saw Union minister Kiren Rijiju criticise Kaur rather than take on the trolls, all misconceive and truncate the right to freedom of speech.

True, the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on this freedom, on grounds of sovereignty and national integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Free speech is not meant only for those who agree with a dominant view; it matters most when it comes to unpopular, minority views. If those who disagree with such views unleash violence, and create a threat to public order, what should the state do? Some Delhi policemen present when Ramjas College students were allegedly attacked by ABVP activists, who sensed a threat to Indian nationalism from a speaker, chose to take off their name tags and beat up Ramjas students.

Minus such blatant partisanship, if the state merely used the public order proviso to gag the minority opinion, that would still fall short of defending the right to freedom of expression. That would only be an invitation for people to stage violence to muzzle opinion they disagree with. The countrys courts are the final arbiters of when a restriction on free speech is warranted, but in a technical sense. It is the lived practice of democracy with citizens actively defending free speech, even of the kind they disagree with that will give substance to this and other fundamental rights.

In this light, it is welcome that many students, teachers and others have come out against violent suppression of free speech and lent support to Gurmehar Kaur, including senior minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Excerpt from:

The right and wrong of free speech - Economic Times (blog)

(Francisco Kjolseth | Tribune file photo) Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, pushed through the House a bill recognizing and bolstering free-speech rights on the campuses of Utah's public colleges and universities.

ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY (1)

HB54 A bill promoting freedom of campus speech won unanimous approval Tuesday in the Utah House and now heads to the Senate.

Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, has said that HB54 was created to address limits on speech on certain campuses

Coleman said the bill affirms that college campuses are traditional public forums for speech and that "the institution may maintain a reasonable time, place or manner of restrictions on expression, but everything else is free."

Outdoor areas of public colleges and universities are reserved for free speech and an institution may not prohibit it so long as the speakers' conduct is lawful = under the bill. It also recognizes a cause of legal action if free-speech rights are violated.

See the article here:

House OKs free-speech on campus bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, talks about free speech as an issue on college campuses and in national politics on Monday, Feb. 27, 2017 at the University of Tennessee. Rachel Ohm/ News Sentinel.

Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, speaks at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)Buy Photo

A free speech forum at the University of Tennessee on Monday touched on First Amendment issues as they have affected the university over the past year, including a controversial tweet made last fallby a professor of law.

"Free speech is one of the most important topics in America today," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and the moderator of Monday's forum at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy. "On campus we're seeing dramatic debates about the boundaries between dignity and freeexpression online. We're seeing debates about whether presidents should be tweeting and whether members of Congress should respond. The boundaries of free speech have never been more contested."

The forum also comes as Tennessee lawmakers earlier this month proposed a bill to ensure free speech on Tennessee campuses after the controversial speeches of a former Breitbart News editor spurred protests at colleges around the country.

Two students, two faculty members and an administrator made up a panel that weighed in Monday on various issues related to free speech as they have appeared on the University of Tennessee campus.

Melissa Shivers, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University of Tennessee, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

The discussion mostly focused on a controversial tweet made last fall by Glenn Reynolds, a UT law professor andcontributing columnist for USA TODAY and the News Sentinel, whourged motorists to run over demonstrators blocking traffic in Charlotte, N.C.; and a letter to the editor that appeared in the student newspaper, The Daily Beacon, last spring that took issue with the idea of "safe spaces" on campus.

Barry Hawkins, a UT senior who penned the letter to the editor and a member of Monday's panel, said during the course of the discussion that he hasn't seen any recent barriers to free speech on campus, and faculty and administrators on the panel also said the issue is one that is taken seriously with an emphasis placed on the importance of free speech on campus.

One faculty member not on the panel, however, did express concerns Monday about a lecture scheduled to take place Tuesday at UT's Alumni Memorial Building entitled "How Killing Black Children is an American Tradition."

Mary McAlpin, a professor of French and member of the Faculty Affairs Committee in the Faculty Senate, said during a question-and-answer portion of Monday's forum that she was concerned that funding from three of the four departments sponsoring the lecture had been pulled because the title was "too provocative."

Amy Blakely, assistant director of media and internal relations for the University of Tennessee, said she "was not sure about the specifics of the funding" but that the lecture would still be held as planned Tuesday.

"The challenges are difficult; the lines are hard to draw," Rosen said during opening remarks Monday. "I know how this campus, like campuses around the country is struggling with these issues, but we can unite around them. We can be inspired and take solace in the beautiful tradition that speech is a natural right and our democracy is stronger if we have confidence that bad speech will be driven out by good speech."

Brittany Moore, president of UT Black Law Students Association, speaks during a panel discussion at the "Understanding the First Amendment on Campus" event Monday, Feb. 27, 2017, at The Howard Baker Center for Public Policy on UT's campus.(Photo: BRIANNA PACIORKA/NEWS SENTINEL)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2mxs4eG

See more here:

UT forum discusses free speech on campus - Knoxville News Sentinel

Feb. 27, 2017, 4:35 p.m.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday against the state for continuing to demand the removal of a blog post that listed the home addresses of legislators who voted for California's newest gun control measures.

The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition on behalf of one of the groups members, who is listed in the lawsuit under the pseudonym Publius and writes a blog called The Real Write Winger.

Last year, the blog published the names, home addresses and homephone numbers of 40 legislators who voted for a package of gun control measures in June, saying the lawmakers decided to make you a criminal if you dont abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry.

The Web hosting company WordPresstook the post down after it received a letter from Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg saying the information putelected officials at grave risk, and citing state law barring the release of such information.

Chief U.S.District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill in Fresno issued an order Monday granting the plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction in the 1st Amendment civil rights lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs are likely to succeed ontheir claims that the state law violates the 1st Amendment.

We are delighted that Judge ONeill saw the statute and the States enforcement of it for exactly what it was: an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, said coalition president Brandon Combs.

Read the rest here:

Gun rights activists win round in free-speech court case against state of California - Los Angeles Times

Georgetown University received a dubious distinction last Wednesday after landing on the Foundation for Individual Rights in Educations list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech.

For a university that has, in the past two years, hosted speakers of every ilk and creed, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and feminism skeptic Christina Hoff Sommers to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, this categorization seems hyperbolic. Georgetowns Speech and Expression Policy contains provisions that allow any student group to host an event or peacefully protest for demonstrators.

Regardless of if the university deserves the distinction of FIREs worst of the worst list for campus free speech policy, the report spotlights how the ambiguities in the Speech and Expression Policy are sometimes liable to misinterpretation and confusion by administrators and students alike.

According to the report, the ranking is largely predicated by an incident in September 2015, in which the Georgetown University Law Centers Office of Student Life prevented a group of law students from campaigning for Bernie Sanders presidential campaign on campus. The university claimed that its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization precluded the universitys engagement in partisan political activity, but later acknowledged in a February 2016 letter to a congressional subcommittee that the GULC had applied an overly cautious interpretation of the legal requirements governing the use of university resources.

Similarly, another incident cited by FIREs list also stemmed from a misunderstanding, after the Georgetown University Police Department removed condom envelopes from the doors of students volunteering for H*yas for Choice after reportedly mistaking them for vandalism.

These events in the past year do not represent insidious, systemic attempts by the university to muzzle free speech and expression on campus. Rather, the incidents cited by FIRE to justify its ranking all arise from the vague and obscure language of an otherwise permissive and accepting policy.

For instance, even after issuing a swift revision of its policy that clearly permits students to table for campaigns, GULC expressly prohibited the use of university-sponsored resources, including Georgetowns phone system, email lists, computer networks or servers, or postal service, for partisan political campaign activity. But as FIRE points out, other university resources including classrooms, bulletin boards and even campus Wi-Fi are absent from the policy, leaving it to the universitys discretion as to how to enforce expression policy.

These ambiguities persist on the main campus, where confusion abounds among students and administration about the regulation of free speech. In 2014, GUPD removed students tabling for H*yas for Choice in Healy Circle outside a Right to Life event because H*yas for Choice strayed outside the confines of Red Squares designated free speech zone, despite Vice President of Student Affairs Todd Olson reassuring the group in a Jan. 16, 2014 free speech forum that it was not confined to the area.

The conflicting reports from campus law enforcement, administration and students about free speech rights demonstrate that although the university remains committed to free expression and the exchange of ideas, the exact provisions of the policy remain subject to interpretation. This is easily remediable through the consolidation of a definitive Bill of Rights for student free speech, with specific language about space and resources that administrators can show to students who violate the terms, or, alternately, students can point to when disputing their right to expression.

Despite FIREs ranking, Georgetown will demonstrate its commitment to free speech this week by hosting two contentious speakers, Nonie Darwish and Asra Nomani, who proclaim inflammatory views about radical Islam. At the same time, Georgetowns Bridge Initiative will host a conversation on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism with Rabbi Rachel Gartner and Imam Yahya Hendi. This campus climate is a far cry from FIREs ranking Georgetown as a repressive university for free speech. But in order to assure this continued commitment, the university needs to clearly delineate its expectations regarding free speech for both students and campus officials.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

Read this article:

EDITORIAL: Clarify Free Speech Policy - Georgetown University The Hoya

Yms6Aw3Hzub;: DBbHY8w5["bwbI|/NoF+2P?$lhRX#Su"Z$fBNb/4R*$,9 Y0cH.CzgJ"(]2#"eC$"Y8Qn%[cxFlh K%R>i,5iyPZp;v_ "2Mt]m|"3V&`:^"If}%+JTpf!k9JDqVU}J}6I:h*:;XT:yS>rg1rGg>$x2>8ul:&6{Ne8A[ph^l8th)`Q/(oQ#$!2WlzWx.u4Nef@*~"m;P"IU,^[~e-WZ P1!J'LlP@Xn]>n9OP{E3P^M_jf*>Xb|'=/L%m111j,^-7&):C,d#]G<<)]b*uP.MU+t4*~ZngY2I{utgD=r$))h}si+_z_M~xKF!Nkw1mqbx|{FD-%,nhf:C,7Ew=LBt ptCc/ 8yx'+UbHYyM~~'Zp W>wEJ[/VNJ]R~ZP)U*~R@%4,SQIr;nuE`(z.>UKNZt|O-@W8;-YD5QhX3'4#,^W$1EHe{5#9YRC| RhQ!D[kB1e)}lm VW}PBAMcOz^!+r$/x4/xVJZ*_) hS[HzB?wMMWoO3t0 *C/[1/`q5I :~8PtbETl(6,3s5:!N(X7iK62tTw6_{JpuA)R)R|Ecn.:UU n"(tX4bc"Qu0?tLc"h:U48$f:)NECr#rEt?ft"X`Ei k H_DgvH1c,8_*?>l.mNvo.BLB`T18QvKLC6q+9CrTqy:gsK Z6Kyp*Lm 1Ng- ]!xM"V^kF5 +DedMBa6o>k={""f"! K`{"?lf^3nW&lP7` Up~gK}_I|`sfbD+f KSw>ePcgocU#1'M_n=41N1[Qvv[kYr1DYk+kG[HHBk$=$$ZvvIgqF"s/}Iw|fv;ze J:0|kf!ag}y$[,3MM_{`Sk K1{/Lh-ow;Wa +E*^ &3dom *=_wr_!BgT1#u;n=dFbRAd;z3 BX>[j>{bv1Z/EQHb!OoONGggoG_s5t3<>==r4>J3S!_U^^gb@N{w|y5fdG7R2H0 @s]j ",%E#47!yB&LJsK< A]C_.IC[6A'1*x;fsOB6%i}Lf'9uwvX_p:S,[nn)ea(38*-p xxS17R( xNR<5Tah&wO>nU8y]lOu[W1uQ}y-O x^YR{eWBY8{dG/;3M0IF[+p&b5R"]750tLJ#G#HR,jlHDnJC o1ST?G[D}i~'JVNT9w3lak)fw>ozEOpNrKs-g[5mtD`m(llWqk)*l%R*s, lNX6.Z-LH1{wej]]k+LO^jc/T:s6~5".;,.,|^j'yt"'l8N1`*8;(pwoXz}Q]^,.i _) ]G`~g"y-un#_;OTk<[#agm8e8+~pc5J ;dm'7oFbGH6UR-1%#DqY2Tv}e+`ZM}njF"Gn$m*exq}so~oj$GRyKws=`Q1[Iw73r[(14HqEa LI"jd@UDAM?QYF;9D OFT 5')?%-8Cd]q8'Lz0*u#)D_d]sr@&@A<&LMaK w|i0*nr{5'N'RUaJ(}ES#Z0mn6{Y#SeIH=(%3Q3>0?=g)gGoR0>J;{04rqdgK[FK?ga 3I~p%*{<=JqD8q/ ]#u ID&~ ;X$9Y5d}0 h_wGdO$q5G+og_!*fMg7Cz41FWN0CUP170 S u VtMb.I$FqmCg^+(S(C))npl';LQXR^ H^bbc^iP#}I% GDo+ QLBI Utz P84S{zdZnP1W3q6"N+ ]s _2IW0EPq c/FuIc)UhQ K(-~CmIi ZjO>`IA`j[q# fC[(%;a;4D|w%2Gw7i=J4F}sqnE!Th6Gr25ip(f-=-;y

Continue reading here:

The threat to campus free speech comes from Republicans, too - NY ... - New York Daily News

FrontPage Magazine

Free Speech Smackdown FrontPage Magazine On Tuesday, February 21, California's senate Democrats memorialized the late Tom Hayden, a former state senator, husband of Jane Fonda, and leading figure in the New Left. On Thursday, February 23, southern California Republican Janet Nguyen rose to ... and more »

Originally posted here:

Free Speech Smackdown - FrontPage Magazine

A survey of U.S. political science professors a month into Donald Trumps presidency shows that fraud-free elections tops a list of 19 principles as most essential to democracy, as do free speech and a free press.

Political scientists at Dartmouth College, the University of Rochester and Yale University collaborated on the survey as part of an initiative they called Bright Line Watch. They wanted to get the experts reading on the status of democratic practices and potential threats to American democracy.

Dartmouth professor John Carey said the groups motivation was impatience with many news articles saying the sky is falling with regard to the status of American democracy since Trumps victory. He added: What were doing is not motivated by a partisan agenda; its really an intellectual agenda.

Participants were asked to rank principles on how important they are for a democratic government, and then rate them on how well they describe the United States now. Clean elections and equal voting rights were ranked as high priorities for democracy.

One principle, that elections be free from foreign influence, was regarded by the vast majority as essential or important. But less than half thought the U.S. mostly or fully meets this standard, and a number said they werent sure if it did. The results probably speak to how new and unsettling the prospect of foreign interference is for many political scientists, said Yale University professor Susan Stokes, who co-organized the survey.

My own hunch is that anxiety about this issue is related not just to reporting that there was Russian influence (in the November presidential election), but also to reports of the insidious nature of that influence that it was carried out in a highly clandestine manner through hacking, and that its true nature may never be revealed, she said.

U.S. agencies, including the FBI, have been probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. Three congressional committees are conducting separate investigations into the issue, including contacts between Russian officials and members of the Trump campaign and administration.

The principle of all votes having equal impact on election results ranked low on the priority list for democracy, probably reflecting long-standing institutions of electoral exclusion and wide socioeconomics inequalities that have been matters of concern for many years, the study said.

Rated as least essential is that politicians campaign without criticism of their opponents loyalty or patriotism.

The group surveyed 9,820 professors at 511 U.S. institutions by email Feb. 13 through 19, and received 1,571 responses. The survey sample was compiled from a list of U.S. institutions represented in the online program of the 2016 meeting of the American Political Science Association conference.

Visit link:

Survey: Fraud-free elections, free speech, key to democracy - Concord Monitor

Charlotte Observer

Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' Charlotte Observer Many on the right hailed Milo as one of the few brave enough to defend free speech and speak uncomfortable truths. After his speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, he was invited to speak at this year's Conservative Political Action ... Un-blurring the lines of free speechHuffington Post The limits of promoting 'free speech'The State Milo outs the fair-weather friends of free speechSacramento Bee The Globe and Mail -The Student Life -cuindependent all 180 news articles »

Read more:

Yiannopoulos faces the limits of 'free speech' - Charlotte Observer

Forbes

Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights Forbes Northwest Florida is largely inhabited by conservative folk who believe in private property and limited government under the Constitution. Nevertheless, officials in Walton County have been hammering both the First Amendment and property rights in an ...

Original post:

Countering Public Officials Who Respect Neither Free Speech Nor Property Rights - Forbes

I testified yesterday before the Post-Secondary Education Subcommittee of the Florida State House on the model campus free speech legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute. After my initial presentation, fireworks followed. Although my sense is that the majority of the committee is positively inclined toward legislation designed to ensure campus free speech, a few of the Democratic representatives were more skeptical. These skeptics dominated the questioning. One skeptic in particular, Orlando Democrat Carlos Guillermo Smith, pressed me repeatedly on the need to limit freedom of speech in order to combat hate speech. If you want to see an open clash on the free speech vs. hate speech controversy, this is it.

You can find video of the hearing here. My initial presentation runs about 17 minutes, from the 35:5053:27 mark of the video. The fireworks come during the 32 minute question period, particularly (but not exclusively) during the back and forth with Rep. Smith, which begins at the start of the question period (53:30) and returns again at the 1:18:16 mark.

Also note that in my response to questioning by Democratic Representative Robert Asencio (Miami-Dade), (which begins at 1:12:22), I refer to an incident in which leftist students silence a conservative student by way of the rehearsed and coordinated tactic of clapping her down. Video of this clap-down can be found here.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read more:

Free Speech Fireworks in Florida - National Review

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER The Georgetown University Law Centers policy against campaigning was criticized as anti-free speech.

Georgetown University was included in a list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education based on free speech cases the foundation has worked on during the previous year.

In a report released Wednesday, FIRE a nonprofit focused on defending individual liberties at educational institutions citied an incident last year at Georgetown University Law Center in which students were blocked from campaigning for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on campus.

During the September 2015 primary season, GULCs Office of Student Life rejected students request to table for Sanders outside GULCs McDonough Hall. The group instead used tables inside the McDonough cafeteria to campaign, but Oct. 13, 2015 the day of the first Democratic debate the group was asked to leave by university officials.

The university cited that because of its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization under the 501(c)(3) category of the Internal Revenue Code, it could not engage in partisan political campaign activity.

FIRE Director of Litigation Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon cited the status of the student group H*yas for Choice, which is not formally recognized by the university, as an additional reason behind Georgetowns position on the list.

Georgetown has made some efforts to improve its policies on speech and expression in recent years, but its execution has not always been great, as Im sure H*yas for Choice can attest, considering they are still not a recognized student organization, Beck-Coon wrote in an email to The Hoya. The Law Centers confusing and overly restrictive handling of student partisan political speech this election year is another example of that.

FIRE wrote an open letter to Georgetown University Law Center Dean William Treanor on Feb. 1, 2016, on behalf of Alexander Atkins (LAW 17) and other students who were tabling in support of Sanders.

Additionally, the group spoke on behalf of Atkins at a subcommittee hearing of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, entitled Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses, on March 2, 2016.

Georgetowns Office of Federal Relations wrote in a letter to the subcommittee hearing on Protecting the Free Exchange of Ideas on College Campuses that it was changing its policies to better protect Georgetown Law students right to political expression.

The Office of Federation Relations wrote in a letter to the Chairman Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ranking Member of the subcommittee John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Feb. 29, 2016, to further explain changes in its policies.

We are adjusting the policies to make very clear that individuals as well as groups are able to reserve tables for organized activity and that all members of our community are able to make reasonable use of University resources to express their political opinions, the letter reads.

Treanor stressed the importance of free speech at GULC in an email to The Hoya.

We share Georgetowns commitment to the fundamental right of members of our community to free expression, dialogue and academic inquiry and are aware of the concerns expressed by our students, Treanor wrote. We are currently exploring the best ways to respond to these issues.

Despite these changes in university policy, some groups still say they encounter restrictions.

2017 marks the second year Georgetown has appeared on FIREs list. Georgetown was first listed in 2014 because of a free speech incident regarding H*yas for Choice in which the group was removed from tabling in Healy Circle and was relocated outside of Georgetowns front gates.

Additionally, two condom envelopes were removed Sept. 23, 2016, from the doors of students who volunteered with H*yas for Choice on the fifth floor of Village C West.

According to a September email interview with Georgetown University Police Department Chief Jay Gruber, the envelopes were removed because GUPD had received a report of vandalism on the fifth floor of VCW and interpreted the envelopes as part of the vandalism.

Georgetown University Student Association and H*yas for Choice cited the incident as a violation of the free expression policy at Georgetown.

H*yas for Choice Co-President Brinna Ludwig (NHS 17) said she believes there has been little policy change in recent years, and free speech restrictions are still a major problem for the organization.

H*yas for Choice has encountered a number of issues related to free speech, Ludwig wrote. We are also restricted by the tabling zone policy, which limits where we are allowed to set up our table.

Georgetown College Republicans President Allie Williams (SFS 19) also highlighted the importance of expanding free speech areas on campus. Williams wrote in an email to The Hoya that because the student body tends to be more liberal, free speech issues occur particularly in regard to GUCR and the speakers the group invites to campus.

As a college campus with a student body that inevitably leans left, Georgetown has had its fair share of free speech issues and, as a conservative organization that often invites controversial speakers, we have absolutely suffered from closed dialogue at GUCR, Williams wrote. The limited areas for free speech on campus is concerning and something that the University should definitely work on going forward.

GUSA free speech policy team chair D.J. Angelini (MSB 17) wrote in an email to The Hoya that students should see the ranking as motivation to continue to fight for free speech improvements across campus.

I look at that rating not as an indication of what Georgetowns doing wrong, but rather to show that we need to constantly regard speech and expression as one of the most important pieces of campus life today, Angelini wrote. I believe Georgetowns administrators and students are committed to these ideals and I hope the rating energizes more students to get involved in promoting a culture of free speech on campus.

Have a reaction to this article? Write a letter to the editor.

See the rest here:

Study Ranks Georgetown Low for Free Speech - Georgetown University The Hoya