The Supreme Court, Honor Code, and The Muppets: Reform for Free Speech and Expression – The Clerk

This article does not necessarily reflect the views of The Clerk as an institution.

Here at Haverford, our student-drafted and ratified Honor Code seeks to establish guidelines for our academic and social behavior, ideally culminating in a campus devoid of academic dishonesty and social iniquity. While the former aim rests on the objective truth that cheating is immoral, the latter goal, addressing our individual subjectivity, inherently evokes a central question to any communityto what extent is an individual personally responsible to our community? The reasonable answer is that we mediate between our personal desires and liberties and our commitment to our community; however, where this line should be drawn remains contentious. In my opinion, Section 3.04s Social category of the current Honor Code overreaches, allowing for viewpoint discrimination and the imposition of an ideological majoritys will. Although the statement may stem from good intentions, its lack of defined procedure provides for an environment in which minority opinions can be silenced under threat of official punishment by Honor Council. In determining the merit and efficacy of this clause, I recommend looking to Supreme Court precedent. One particular 1992 ruling, that of R.A.V. v. St. Paul, parallels a section of Haverfords Honor Code and, when compared to the proceedings of The Muppets, calls into question our treatment of free speech within the context of our responsibility to the community.

On the morning of June 21, 1990, the petitioner, R.A.V., allegedly burned a cross on a black familys front lawn, violating St. Paul, Minnesotas prohibitive statute against symbols which one knows or has reason to know arouses anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.(1) With the ordinance upheld by the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of expression. Although it recognized the defendants action as morally reprehensible, the Supreme Court sided with the defendant, unanimously declaring St. Pauls legislation unconstitutional for content discrimination and for de facto viewpoint discrimination.(2) By limiting its prohibition to specific topics, St. Pauls ordinance discriminated against certain subjects, while others, such as political affiliation, union membership, [and] homosexuality remained outside of its scope; essentially, the law unconstitutionally cherry-picked disfavored subjects for prosecution.(3)Further explicating the statutes unconstitutionality, the Supreme Court recognized that In its practical operation, moreover, the ordinance goes even beyond mere content discrimination to actual viewpoint discrimination.(4) In the context of the law, a statement condemning anti-Semitism would be permissible, whereas anti-Semite expression and speech would be considered illegal. Due to this potential imbalance in freedom of expression, the Court deemed the law unconstitutional censorship, declaring that the point of the First Amendment is that majority preferences must be expressed in some fashion other than silencing speech on the basis of its content.(5)

Under Section 3.04 of the Haverford Honor Code,

We recognize that acts of discrimination and harassment, including, but not limited to, acts of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ableism, discrimination based on religion or political ideology, and discrimination based on national origin or English capabilityviolate this Code.(6)

While this long-winded statement avoids an unfairly limited scope by encompassing a plethora of potential topics and providing the clause but not limited to, the threat of viewpoint discrimination remains present in its current form. In fact, during my first semester at Haverford, especially within the context of the recent presidential election, I often heard expletive-ridden denunciations of islamophobes, racists, and sexists, which elicited support from other members of the community. However, if an individual condemned Muslims, a racial or ethnic minority, or any gender in a similar manner, they would receive an overwhelmingly negative response.

While we are undeniably entitled to express our distaste for such expressions, I do not believe that we should be able to impose public consequences through Honor Council upon those who espouse views different from our own. By allowing Honor Council, an institution provided for by the Honor Code, to pass formal punishments, euphemistically referred to as resolutions, against certain types of expression we allow for viewpoint discrimination against unpopular opinions on Haverfords campus. We may believe that Honor Council will protect not only the communal interest, but also individual liberties; however, the potential for abuse remains unquestionably high. In fact, even before the implementation of the aforementioned portion of the code in 2015, its underlying rationale served as the basis for de facto institutional censorship against two students in the infamous 2004 Honor Council trial The Muppets.

As many of us are already aware, the defendants in The Muppets, Bert and Ernie, wore blackface and attached black sexual prosthetics to themselves in their portrayal of Macy Gray and an unspecified blonde haired African American performer.(7) Comprising the confronting party, Grover, Elmo, and Zoe expressed feelings of alienation, pain, and anger at Bert and Ernie for their portrayal, pressing for resolutions that included a public bi-college publication and the exclusion of Bert and Ernie from graduation, claiming that these actions would set the tone that this type of action wont be tolerated. She said that they wanted women and Black students on campus to feel secure.(8) Acknowledging that it did not possess the authority to ban Bert and Ernie from graduation, Honor Council, in its statement of violation, put forth resolutions stating:

-1. Both parties must organize a panel discussion on race and/or gender. The confronting parties are invited to help organize the panel. 2. Each party must write a research paper concerning the White male in America. 3. Each party must write a letter to the community reflecting on how he and others were affected and how he has changed.(9)

By requiring Bert and Ernie to write a detailed, seven-page research paper on the White male in America, the Honor Council passed institutional punishment for their Halloween costumes, providing de jure punishment for their controversial portrayals.

While their actions were insensitive and lacked foresight, I do not believe that Bert and Ernie should have received formal punishment from Honor Council for their engagement in blackface because it presents viewpoint discrimination as outlined by the Supreme Court in R.A.V. v. St. Paul. Just because we do not communally approve of an act of verbal or physical expression does not mean we can subject the accused to institutional punishments by Honor Council. Although appeals to the perceived threat to the security and sense of acceptance of black and female students like Zoes are important in our self-consideration of our actions, I do not believe that these concerns are substantial grounds for subjecting fellow students with minority opinions to unequal standards within our Code. As stated in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, St. Pauls desire to communicate to minority groups that it does not condone the group hatred of bias-motivated speech does not justify selectively silencing speech on the basis of its content.(10)

Arguably, maliciously burning a cross in a black familys lawn constitutes a significantly greater transgression than a negligent costume choice, begging the question: why protect this type of expression? I posit that by protecting the right to this offensive and blatantly disrespectful behavior, regardless of intentionality, we protect Haverfords core dedication to multiculturalism and pluralism.

In rejecting Bert and Ernies joint appeal, the then-current President of Haverford College, Thomas R. Tritton responded, You argue that violating community standards and violating the Honor Code are two different things. I cannot agree.(11) I contest President Trittons claim; while our community standards influence our Honor Code, the two should remain disparate to prevent viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, ensure the safety of an unpopular opinion on campus. If we fail to differentiate the two, then we allow the moral and ethical judgments of the majority to become the formal standard upheld in formal Honor Council proceedings, which subjects those who engage in controversial behavior or harbor unpopular opinions to potential punishment for expression explicitly protected within the First Amendment.

In the defense of such behavior and speech, I implore us to reflect upon historical injustices committed against unpopular opinion and action in the name of public decency and perceived security. In my home state of Louisiana, the 1896 Supreme Court ruling Plessy v. Ferguson set a precedent for over half a century of legal Jim Crow segregation in the South in the name maintaining racial purity and ensuring security. This same ideological imposition and belief in community morality, or majority morality, as absolute morality also led to ethnic and religious cleansing in Germany, Turkey, Rwanda, Iran, and Iraq in the 20th century alone. In these cases, the opinion and bias of the majority defined institutional standards, suppressing individual liberties in the name of security and moral righteousness. Unfortunately for racial, ethnic, and religious minorities in these cases, subjectively benevolent intentions did not guarantee positive yield. To clarify, while these events themselves are not comparable to the situation at Haverford, the same foundational problem persists. As in these other historical examples, majoritarian morality is masquerading as an absolute one, threatening freedom of expression with official Honor Council sanction and, thereby, silencing dissent according to its subjective determinations of offensiveness.

Ultimately, the problem with this portion of the Code revolves around an inconsistency within the legitimacy of our desired outcome and the procedures we utilize to realize it. While expressing the incongruence of blackface with our community values is certainly legitimate, the lack of formal proceedings grants Honor Council an unreasonable amount of authority in distinguishing what constitutes a violation of the Code and its corresponding punishment. In its current state, the Social Responsibilities section of the Social Honor Code places communal values and pluralism in stark contrast with each other, demanding a commitment either to the protection of minority interests or to the fundamentals of free speech and expression, and therefore generates unnecessary internal conflict.

The solution to ameliorating such a dilemma entails thoughtful commitment to our values of pluralism and mutual respect. By divesting Honor Code of the ability to pass judgement on Social Code and establishing formal procedures to treat potential violations, we can afford increased protections to individuals irrespective of their opinions popularity. To create these procedural regulations, I recommend the formation of a Free Speech Committee, whose mission would be to align Haverfords Social Honor Code with existing Supreme Court precedent as closely as possible. To ensure that the interests of all minority groups on campus are represented, such a committee would entail proportionate representation on basis of race, gender, and ideology on campus. As members of a diverse community who seek mutual understanding by means of respectful communication and believe in resolving conflicts by engaging each other in dialogue, it suits our aims to edit establish such procedures and redouble our efforts to protect and promote free speech on Haverfords campus.(12) By protecting those we disagree with and the most unpopular opinions, we ensure that no injustice is committed in the name of subjective standards of public decency, morality, or security because, in the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.(13)

(1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/377

(2) Ibid

(3) Ibid

(4) Ibid

(5) Ibid

(6) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/the-code/

(7) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/themuppets.pdf

(8) Ibid

(9) Ibid

(10) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/505/377

(11)http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/themuppets.pdf

(12) http://honorcouncil.haverford.edu/the-code/

(13)https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

To write a response to this article, e-mail our Editor-in-Chief Maurice Rippel at mrippel@haverford.edu.

Read this article:

The Supreme Court, Honor Code, and The Muppets: Reform for Free Speech and Expression - The Clerk

See Bill Maher, Milo Yiannopoulos Talk Free Speech, Trolling on ‘Real Time’ – RollingStone.com

Bill Maher sat down with Milo Yiannopoulos on Friday's Real Time to talk free speech, religion and the controversy surrounding the self-proclaimed internet troll.

In explaining why, despite the uproar surrounding the Breitbart editor, Yiannopoulos was invited to the show, Maher said, "I think you're colossally wrong on a number of things if I banned everyone from my show who I thought was colossally wrong, I'd be talking to myself."

Maher who at one point compared Yiannopoulos to Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno character and Yiannopoulos also discussed what they have in common: Their belief in free speech and the fact they've both been banned from the University of California. "We have both been disbarred at Berkeley," Maher said before Yiannopoulos interjected, "Much more dramatically, I'd just like to say. They just disinvited you. I had riots. People got beaten up."

After making disparaging remarks about Lena Dunham and Amy Schumer and how they've become the face of the Democratic party, Yiannopoulos admitted, "I like to think of myself as a virtuous troll."

Yiannopoulos' appearance on Real Time was so controversial that guest Jeremy Scahill, who was booked on Friday's episode, dropped out because Maher offered Yiannopoulos "a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign."

In a statement following Scahill's cancellation, Maher said, "Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech. If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims and he might be nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night."

On Real Time Friday, Maher and Yiannopoulos briefly touched on Scahill's absence. "Stop taking the bait, liberals. The fact that they all freaked out about this little impish British fag," Maher told the audience.

Maher then read some borderline racist, troll-esque jokes from the mouth of Joan Rivers, a comedian who was universally revered despite her predilection for provocative, offensive humor.

However, the conversation or debate never really found its footing, as each question Maher asked resulted in a meandering Yiannopoulos response that forced Maher to reposition and bring up something new, resulting in another unanswered question. Just when Maher stumbled on Yiannopoulos' most paradoxical position his unabashed love of Donald Trump the 10-minute interview concluded before the audience could get an explanation.

Yiannopoulos also took part in the "Overtime" segment where he butted heads with panelist Larry Wilmore over transgender rights:

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Original post:

See Bill Maher, Milo Yiannopoulos Talk Free Speech, Trolling on 'Real Time' - RollingStone.com

A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety – New York Times


New York Times
A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety
New York Times
As the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held on Thursday in striking down the key parts of the law, this is an obvious violation of the First Amendment, which generally prohibits restrictions on speech based on what's being said. It ...

Read the original post:

A Win for Free Speech and Gun Safety - New York Times

UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball – UNM Daily Lobo

Hello gorgeous world was written in massive curly letters on a free speech beach ball in Smith Plaza Wednesday afternoon.

The inflatable beach ball standing taller than some students was brought to Smth Plaza by the UNM chapter of Young Americans for Liberty as a way to remind students of the importance of free speech, and to create dialogues between different-minded groups, according to YAL President Jess Ceron.

We thought it would be a good idea to come out here and talk to them about how we dont support one side of free speech, we support all sides, Ceron said. So anyone and everyone can write whatever they want on this ball. No one is gonna get in trouble for saying it.

Every semester the group does a free speech event, and this is the second time theyve used a beach ball, she said.

This way it makes it fun, rather than if I was to sit here for 30 minutes and say, Let me tell you about free speech. Youd doze off. But with this you can write whatever you want, Ceron said. No ones going to get mad. People arent going to judge you for what you wrote.

Typically student groups holding events outside, in the SUB or in a classroom reserve the space for free, and are asked to do so at least two business days before the event is scheduled to take place so that the space reservation can be approved.

Ceron said YAL intentionally didnt go through that process because they dont believe student organizations should have their free speech limited by space reservations. She said space reservations make holding events difficult because of the time it takes to reserve spaces and wait for a confirmation.

We just dont think that there should be zones where were allowed to do things, especially if were not hurting anyone, she said. And then they could shoot us down, like what if they didnt like the idea of free speech? Thats kind of not fair to students, because

that is our right.

Ceron said she had issues reserving space for a dodgeball event last semester. Student activities would not approve the event because of safety concerns, a reason that Ceron said she understood.

They shot me down for many reasons where I was like, I guess we cant do this event, she said. And I was like, No thats not fair, so I came out and did it without permission. They didnt shoot me down. They didnt say anything.

Ceron said she didnt think events should be denied unless theyve happened before and already been a safety hazard.

YAL has experience with events not coming together, as they originally invited Milo Yiannopoulos to campus, but had to disinvite him and pass the speaker off to the College Republicans, she said.

Milo himself has shown partisanship, and Young Americans for Liberty is not a partisan organization, member Bryan Cusack said. Due to the nature of its tax exemption status it cannot support anyone that supports a candidate.

The group received a lot of messages over initially inviting the controversial Breitbart writer Yiannopoulos they later transferred official hosting duties to UNM College Republicans most of which they didnt respond to, he said.

Most of the criticisms, we just let them go because they were using ad hominem attacks on us, Cusack said. They were using a lot of logical fallacies against us trying to dehumanize the group. Essentially they were playing identity politics.

Ceron said the free speech beach ball was especially important now because the group wants to clarify that everyone can say anything, and they dont have to be nice.

We had a girl who just failed her stats test and she said Forget stats, and wrote it on there, she said.

Officially the group is opposed to hate speech policies, Cusack said.

We just advocate free speech in general, which means the abolishment of hate speech policies, because some of them are written to censor free speech. I could technically say hate speech, but at that point its still free speech, but its just offensive, he said.

The beach ball eventually became adorned with all kinds of messages, some political, some more lighthearted. Just some of the scrawled comments: RIP Harambe, There are only 2 genders and Love each other.

If you really dont want to hear the other side, its totally fine, Ceron said. I just think if you gave your personal opinion on a subject then you should be able to hear it too.

Cathy Cook is a news reporter at the Daily Lobo. She can be reached at news@dailylobo.com or on Twitter @Cathy_Daily.

Read the rest here:

UNM group encourages free speech with huge beach ball - UNM Daily Lobo

How Twitter’s New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora’s Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech – Forbes


Forbes
How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech
Forbes
Earlier this morning social media and the tech press lit up with reports of users across Twitter receiving half day suspensions en masse as the platform abruptly rolled out its decade-overdue hate speech filter to its platform. The company has refused ...

and more »

Link:

How Twitter's New Censorship Tools Are The Pandora's Box Moving Us Towards The End Of Free Speech - Forbes

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes – Wall Street Journal (subscription)


Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes
Wall Street Journal (subscription)
Letter writer Gary Hartzell makes an interesting statement in his Should Politics From the Pulpit Be Banned? (Letters, Feb. 10). His letter defending the 1954 Johnson Amendment that authorizes tax-exempt status for religious organizations only so ...

The rest is here:

Free Speech, Free Religion, Voting and Taxes - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago – Chicago Tribune

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to notions they once rejected such as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California at Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited.

U. of C. Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U. of C. was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U. of C. students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Related articles:

This, dear white people, is how to look like a snowflake

What the Constitution says about impeachment

Trump is looking like a very weak autocrat wannabe

Trump's White House is falling apart

Continued here:

Free speech for Corey Lewandowski at University of Chicago - Chicago Tribune

House panel gives unanimous support to campus free speech bill – Salt Lake Tribune

Dixie altered its policies as a result of the lawsuit, but Coleman said there is a need to preserve spontaneous acts of constitutionally-protected expression.

"Their rights were denied by the institution," Coleman said of the Dixie State University students. "If that would have been our standard, we wouldn't be a country."

Marina Lowe, legislative counsel for the ACLU of Utah, spoke in support of the bill. Diversity of thought is a key component of higher education, she said.

"I can think of no more appropriate place to really be affirming the right of speakers to speak than on a college campus," Lowe said.

Spencer Jenkins, assistant commissioner of public affairs for the Utah System of Higher Education, said Utah's colleges and universities have worked to update their free speech policies. He did not speak against the bill, but cautioned lawmakers that the portions dealing with litigation increases the liability of public campuses and, by extension, the state of Utah.

"As far as these institutions go," Jenkins said, "we feel our policies are already in line with what this bill would do."

Members of the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill on a vote of 11-0. It will now go before the full House for consideration.

bwood@sltrib.com

Twitter: @bjaminwood

Originally posted here:

House panel gives unanimous support to campus free speech bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Campus Leftists at UChicago say Free Speech Shouldn’t Apply Equally to Everyone – Heat Street

Students at the prestigious University of Chicago say that free speech should not apply equally to everyone. The students objected to the schools Institute of Politics invitation to former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. They claim that allowing him to speak normalizes bigotry and provides a platform forfascism.

Lewandowski did not join the White House staff but by manyaccounts remainsan influential advisor to the president.

The coalition of students from U of C Resists, Graduate Students United, Students Working Against Prisons, and UChicago Socialists claim that the schools commitment to free expression doesnt require the institution to host him due to his alleged ties towhite supremacists and similarly alleged calls to violence against minority groups and refugees.

They told Campus Reform that they did not call for the University to disinvite him, but rather encouraged [the person who invited him] to reconsider and rescind the invitation, as if it makes a difference.

In an open letter to the school, the authors state that Lewandowski courted right-wing extremist groups. They alsoreferred to his alleged assault of a woman Breitbart journalist during the campaign, among other things.

Lewandowski is not the first Trump surrogate to be invited to the Institute of Politics. Last month, Sean Spicer, Trumps Press Secretary and Director of Communications, spoke in the same series, it states. By hosting figures like Spicer and Lewandowski the Institute of Politics suggests that the ideas and ideologies they represent are debatable positions within the range of normal politics.

Free speech, it claims, should not extend to Trump surrogates.

It sends a positive signal to white supremacists that they are welcome here, the studentsdeclare. This exposes the most vulnerable members of our community to even greater risk. That is unacceptable.

In addition to the letter, the student coalition set up a Bigotry is not Normal event to protest Lewandowski, inwhich over a hundred students claimed to have participated on Wednesday. Students set up protest fliers with statements like This is not dialogue its a war. [sic]

Speaking to The Chicagoist, IoP Executive Director Steve Edwards says that he respects the students right to protest but believes its necessary to invite guests who can provide insight into Trumps campaign, adding that people are free to contest, criticize, and protest views expressed on campus so long as they do not obstruct or interfere with the freedom of others to express their views.

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

The rest is here:

Campus Leftists at UChicago say Free Speech Shouldn't Apply Equally to Everyone - Heat Street

Young people and free speech – The Economist (blog)

n=_*0vxl6"m $A'c9# $eYo%=3lIkBD}77 x*~|yWUYwe7t^kv1YM,d^OxwWRo'[R3fMPV( 7cPjI*,"%i/^x{{i~j{R^!:}7U#z~pr[^%xRoA!v@?]n~nVk4"jbe c*o|1jQDBWw_-DZl:/i DtA)9zcG,&HJU!UGE Hg X-reL-5!(WyhMyAC[ o5tX k4(w!|uHxpT6H6lQuzHdrFhBObbZh7<*j6DYt%*):zLmTtT*]h%OU&./_uZ-Brt*n.J.b)]/%#wX&oWz| VO7d,:?0I!jSB`,[P/2;mPR1mZ~y.R3bXEw(y]Zu{mLvuW[D4;{Z>)-(/$|iz1sjwX6,Jp2PB)%i(1b(/T,}5;|J?^7 5;]{w I6 >[^,'d-?chl!,I%'1R_rN4 %Ar0L(>2@ >W_fEDf142I8QUg4HPU(9I(**dDDP$F$YyT3FN@1BD*4R<+GfqG9!_6`F*%HS^HT(LQ(S4H/aYMb 8$"hNCJB` )cYl&an= 'Qb$+ E# 8/UA 0M"L"L#"ExsKKYg` QaaE,ec.j|ut@dE->2*1)MyTYX80W,KYE' ,b*B[EY^F"'(qa4NbA0Le^aq&9UETp@)'RaF879dcH6zvvjH.H3EaH@a!$1,,OR)b3u2C+`!I}4`Fj#H,B|dc:> p&7rsWo+uq|;Zt o;gM!-Rlfv" _|7BJm%x|ZnW{k{[8[hM[E9J(z,N5jhmpdxo0%`lJn<"g9"HQ}sDIpsw_6(i+^uCu$=H>Nx)Y_j^krf?egNx=kukgAu+-e 3}9"CGloqs8X7dAi;9+=z9.ABx,^%=K>M1G0<8b^y"g~]/8w xXqQf4y=&g^w|>;lS /+Tbx4@UU{lt={v# #CN'7W=Ow'wZoqtv]YcneO'c!Bh8K;cidhDvczn+W5~iP@+'n8WxY ycrA2_>6V*Bs:8V5`$}-d@9#7_0+)1UR^%f EIPu:BS' b?H?cE@8b{eHVr*lP0v>|^_d.kcK"a_Du$@5lj6JcT$O*#K'u1f)Sy/,:m:'mNqxIP*uA+[66G"Uk.vq"-cxBS jdz2#KiJ>Zj1,;M Zp l< +XVume]),5RQelR=CU |p.b$Qcz_Uip>TrGV*|1h E6DolK>ix3$PzK-j3YYd(qr=sZ-QmvMGV(5kV+wCK]g>1pkK^'$vs1i+t_D<:,i7PKG;iS<

N3%Y8KF17?3ByL7-GT{YZ|{4>q`yrB8+3J5Fq'[CkpgM@toxPsv6M0 >v/i"@*M8dR?%' )L*|0&L YZr[j!j-n^[H6vh~8m7m zUz~|H)~nvrN=@>l.3UHb)s8z]s+/o9r'4;Yd -~+k #jQs!?JO9i(d21Hyea#OI]jw(!B'e07@rRBC{:8P94zm=r[(T DNN mR b_]!o~VQD67{ %{7T"L>3pP D)|)NYtu:t ^x85?Zr N^sw4N:Nz=N6LS~cqQR~(Y1H>QJIsgxS4[fR:Z_2suS6P[30-S5Y|fiQrpNwUJ>NGNMl.Ry+8_pUlgOawaY:%,>^^(p%WTM%"5!"Y}}zOtk47mdnM8Q50S'<6DLZ-5QE,%V_}bs{2 PWZ{#Z:"M3*QP e7g'M{bk+f7HL7G)S"7!Ao"ycaSe?|]=O0+lrv>,,]X!HV"( Ej.R:u5}O]~/D}uGMQZ/)gqsB?%cjffM1fpZ$infM!{][uDkW"(.8kbEEse9N0QmCX_< @t;h.]!ZF*H"F_m&``6aO/{F#lB@wAFf}r n=5]!)J -)Lm4bm/SK:&3SV1gTBTZ[W6C)9,Hkmw?|pAm/LFIF0FxKo@ M%ehto$Vw.a"9psx9`8aa0}`fs$L SBdJ~[6EXMwa$S+`iITX-9UR9RjgQ`.D] G4I t)u)eu4hpPsc6pz.-z9/=*e{by1BLL840?S_bEHhfY*$C@ c^U28B! 4d@cUv1=iIHTx}PWqjoSWU$1 *iO EB;%,)9@"Pw;?))o}f1q A9k;.=Ju"^8 G3ntYGATXwC v&Q6/U# XGyw~<*vvpQiIxI$F9$ 0W&@) &JQh/sgm*#:p;~ tH6lk1aR?{ZGG+h 65k/6O1XcCpG(MW9'9M GzasSC XeQbUtJ,6>:-#]K,18qpVJtLRc_iqxV<_H"sX-y{>7(X} (;[%c_J CyLRs!; N?]KD+8D9q8h qxw3FvGfHMWU}UBOEo`R|s}qsYTrA@twR4z;m^U-'KV5td&w7#R8=<^_mMrruuB%a<]gg$zq}BBz3jx^^JT.B>)bJ{,e>lLf21i6liC4hnM4 ^u zi/d,4kK{zq|v>e&}|/|m{k,9/w_?kSyLMk*|OOM##wF1F_>M>6i C1J/kK9*ug,"'~',vM(kvQhJ [e(#0W7_5#ntwgu~qYQMgAH#e;B(sg3F@8^{)mI3c Agxt7^_B:lE'|tQaSED'rU)lLP(Y+3q+K28h ~{{|a930 '&D:cHIR=9P#(p~TG4'Zrfyq`7%dX5U!2:)-}WaP d*cTxr[~T& ,PtuJJ",AtIbb. '|%;>iqw%vXH35H/$B;-iz.!K*VK-W$L ( XuyB FahJbR!R+d1`c @H=U 'jIs6pkB6NX DYu$zUn8p/U=wFW_j,wZ}x IF:7Ye;(,C{qh:JQ&g`M_F5,=rQB;Hlz)JcSs^GI#Dh;):2sB-K4LVB672rWj9Y4ndvyIkyy ^/__]]}6 [O/YZubUVfddtr rk oq8#Lfz4(NL5C!S>Dhj&)3]{1bAeW{Nf^e0"n)0|siEo}yB%)i9#Rd-DRW5uo7R/zp:_O_>r>hTm.X'<;w&J;}lxAlGVCiNE< Yx6-lu Xg4~EU3H yq)N+wNe*EUh=i1dYi659+/Z#oi>]o{=0{PUqf#uG8`t47_0_c;,h8/]&R;D]q Rp|z^J?+35Mo#$uX=?o!LsNy_|dKFme%r1=g>]Y>+K}}"]RzYsY2B05mD{^jp7j >uA=^Z,gGe }R;Thf#6`MYvcDz]5f09.Z7mJ|#tUr^)$JT,6Lfv ^/zaoxLAMB'Pu=P"t]]Cb 9Ay}B_1uc:d?A|vGfeP]2"12)$hA!tJVDv.HR7} T=?g5K{A62&T&SE(217[G2C/T ,5^MO)];eO)}DQ| aO@h8{4X)wdj@:iiI2F#~s%aK; KN=g7Te=ETm;~l}]paSlXVSN9@9 $*7W"VLmr!/`s'n^eeIHD%Qd2 RoJ<"J a@d5Wl%[!;2> w[ lS}[Yt *&YPZqc'1|Zi1IlL1$QI+t +n Thg$PS,X7L1-5uleXmE1yeVo[rh6~Lqtjg5lKC^FdDzKhjbyE!UsZIJJgQI<'+-v=VD,HqS J S!@C-e"=_IK1xwP5r#<,H&^fXpRtSp'I [5.*K{Qi4uUZVFKq.m;>!Q?P:pMHy^7yEAU:>xq fc)}fN1fue(.F[jOq@HCrY2QPjOR(R^8=Q+YTuE'JY(-o1gb>?c a)3 R9)+Owy8 A#7k72muVBx6/mGXs 0O% qS>SM;r&;* x9rY#8tZ ?AMNjat;PsE|&VhTj:ZmN3?pyi2I=y8xL-oCW % |e_Kk{kt:{uwA]ab)kv,)Se9Tlw2(KKh>vkw%}:l5!U}:V# u}H .oj,!=Bruy%Cdvby[wAb"~BY`:r|Q:pZXF!LwgUj@gX&'~gB]^;q"pDa*VGdq:f|^V^4"yl~*}jhp 6>p}VB=cmDfe`])o/Kr0D,hd1uNb"1qgx9|Ed=:CKbr+2"Pa5dSze kQxjZ=e /bNSeG;X8/7.s30/j Z0/xC,JE'eJ-zF9,&exRN,"@YA?H2tQ `Y|2KB]7+c]pXU@p7@Mq]oVjbM0vrxkO"/>fLg'=g*7 Ob[7D74b'c8r8+D _w*e^'vo|_AvLKJ;qmo>f;_&X1~~:53{PdiN!op* ?i&>"?Nl+guC&,gg,7C2}S$fmP0;A?&Y4DZ"ki+[QCeZXW+Jx/~Peg3[h]lSX2DbL^m7t$g/!g+(*$OnRD.Lt`Wl-#FR0-lsr)#x=XkVk*2EC5J` E*?dmqO8Mtf$dIEUibN0SA$;Ci2pRJXvsMdhKI/^O|OFlXB,"|'m. 9PeC1 ;-&JD0PrJX1!)"Bu#8~82E.Z9Sij1;aPH:)gWe1}|Y D}!Y@(zpW47H~]2Tw9,Z8IXk/x!:0,ag8e$c3/X4A5,YlIX,H{5KEC (xBZLe151ur7aewI PK'fFfme!$YU KWjY|vR8>Ev- M3Pb:]vU&lW5x{{k9F9Pp,4+Y2s_=>X6Bt:!6 c@:(}0i/WH^"aiNdNd+HQ:Jc4rw`I v%l6')|%s:0>9>+%J2>'zFkgJDc(HF(@ctc`Vy~Azai H_1:PZv tHD0F'c0zheRbt1:)90A10:^$vactFhu-Nt9E"MCij( act<-1;&BkknTe=D*m^1:DP:#9D8PZBdNFink '0,qwyICjbbt=H0mj;SQ;cz%H/`sHP{o^X#Q{,T!"W!g, [qkE`@5XnaJnK10=dF;~0=Uorb} XX&mObabvGK]_-nQ xT,i*37!mCCjsY!9p=/o)WPZMq?Pw|sDvu ^i3.1-N$t>n9NjPbctvZp,V&t1;>4s Z "q^MjC+d *' ]~I{0a?~l+ 5xz=01xJ>-j1+')*);MWfi26.Na%,L4Hr3&eSIt~]o}Lji&)KT_N22KPB% n,M$q4lKD 8zs<75-h"3D W4 Th+_8y}Tjl#/435b,--_j/Au*S .7^ h^{r e^aPszV"mi=*@SZ&jFH-%B R?: Vy<%DkofyK?eTu?9-"d-$zIrHY?Gjbz{MSTLs>+1>+ t~fw{]o~mdpZ_5,ZH2.I4$Y0ueoH9R;MA jco n?S KR!m2k0]apPL&lB4vO1C4N1R#WqoL(=Do2.xD]qm 5H}S32x%){Qmps2Fhe7 'I2XZ}0GWOSJ]kCSWpj L+&5_TFhbu'Sv=pcvj7>.sJ>n6Xv0uUfAE{0#!2WHHmVm.TjlM{wEb3Qfo3IjU|2xT>Z[l *KLRs2t6V7f#("Vncwd;3=p=95kOYHP*n';sQ"gj.5mNUjgy"az(XZr=x PMWwTfer/cA2)Z*hS*a{}aHE0)RF1&g^fZ*oq7}/TL` UBv^j y)P/,q-A:Bq4:.!9_J@JISE-d,^+5.sh!aN(3zI6jep>7sODP'29T##$sCCfsNN5f%_K9{dSV4W$* zc6@5M>}&> n^Mfp.Xr[Fi-3!U O:1j]K8 (!lk7o2:bQ](c,R W!XoV7R-=,xn68?f>W7-ApP:;Oz YBNSN!%ON<]G) ,l!zJ%B)#V}NgGP&pS0#D{L_ Kt"5or?FghE'xf;A]CcV3=_?,lBBOQ21J.fKnVqR/7VW4>-BO;:@/LAA H9U-/R.W;J9Hd"gg,x 02EoX3Ab3^f_(k9PsNNZqx{PSAhK3Ys2]B5W%W7{zveVax2>qp">#RnOPci ^ o'iI%0x&5E8XGxFp,# 5I:3G+6ZMqt{nV`6sT&h7~{'@O!f]R9px6KcLeaFWsXT uxIbm;{c*H)^f@`=E;A_Pwk=vTIkk'wd$-n`7!oOnn $tS{e0V:;ovvt.(Y[z;ZikX'yU`BPy_+5 OF"hNC{#w+A]4vU9XHX_6S#o*`@qY EAC+kKt;:i Q*%Nxi2f5.w#H0s11M(YlXYdu=!`4` nyS1h(y8[~d*U}m$/D1OdZ.lE+O(wOx,06XH:kzx9|:vrBqfRoWYmbqro:`cQQXUGFVt*y[fW5 &sf"[n,qZ welOoO )mx&B'xw0ybkw K[p8_AcZwp+ W0gDrYU3$r3chM.DxR<=wc695p V3sA/"* r TLc"bTqV{ ,pTy&$7'HN"xM2%h#AN(J8 6qSuxJ;TWP2)B[X)}pKO(8`9s*fct.<`fW19k"(!*qf`HO~;sAsl'|h>(|)nnU5X<} 7Y@G{,L7D->z0oX? 8X v@xxBMD-d$(jh#JUE@Z7h)P32J>u, eA(z!cP8+?K>#""oH`R|53C$<%s>UHWyNh~'H['.UpU@GA,&@qI?#@-{v0yb+m(dXJ5"e_z5}/ivY+r; lt5&Pl%{;,=Sr+2/I* b21bd2 kq-,6qVMGV@lMD6dC;7v4o g<6y2oX|d(n$L2+_YHwJ0@9@!X*{B:8(lP[a2wK@AEB-":;?FF0 T'{|yl37PUZ! Fa4Q7UF%.MlF'{WT^P%D=,m%L(Gkjz}ER08%0gM>oY3}ZDd[#^w8 b^uO~e?{n*{7 +*r?CUu5 %Pz F( Re/@Yp`$ 2VzvLLH#j*>w21)l8Y)EX`%IG+B`6!+h`d#(twPJo k @M02LDJQ:#'JR,Q[n1RUd,GV,Hx}XZDFZ0`e5QMxdbQ&H ^.dR~fv+>4|-=UUSi~zjZ8nmJ/f4_y N} Lc(7Zy !>T@IQxf]VJ.|sI1 T8GBe{&R*3SS cZg U@T,Q)$~}EW*PVcu.5cZF.Y|O&]E?]I6 >@ BSGr)n1GxM-Q P%++<6zheEId_%@WL s*9ryB,cn'fZpb0][ [!YzjMii`S`C.Nu).YN>o!/6~A q_ p('+q@I2CS{@/I.@/VV-{o.x;+*]]e3>KBCafv7y/q#ing=j|9ocg&;i&JDF$;?g16PMb#L[(LPk{OL1Fu*5)ESA9SP=A:5![;GHGRpMSHi,}# AIP:GD>`# c>FO;!*+4} Z-n*$ctJP[& i!:4jTU,%D?2dLMzL[}~T1o^tQ`%?!n':(h/=p@b;W.FA$aTd7;sXHoCgmDjG >=-tcE`r]sk3Vs^G[((K(p0J0g.p@TUp:m9h|y)g' c3.z-q?enKOkx*TTlvViu^gcJt?:DlC2BPjQ[#@YSySu[&~uJ.TNqQi!v[t|Lj:XuRM%`l aA03YE7M (WIxE I9Q|bs-hxD6 S1U$wV':x]]9[o+UC${R&oa=IR'KN>prTiuYX]y'M{s,K*V;(|E ]}D4ilFv R#Ie +M,)x}p@lSa4*7 zK#>W1B%fNXHFkSp+o(h5Ps'}/T'QbcLN~NTx~WL7T(p|qp>sPu-ke H'A0Jv|KiUxP|{-%RihIa%}r2t.='wXqaz3Tj9P!I=#;gLm8qv[xUR)j)E Jl.Sh_'=Q)DL0`* sI)"Cr-eJxv_Yt[*L;bqLT;u} R><-'3QfU j# % ).)_~X+`i:y2ulcWrj$^seK, mrx_YD)2H{8WUt}. =ht&UKy 9X`Ud8XUqj&E#LC"pJaYRgVhU= (/OSa(q3xE^4'h;0=|o@(rw@D({FQN;^ esQ/+,Sx?CTqHRCcjC}CAU+yC9m!^UAQ3^hV[BhM`Ltgv$ZswZc)un/g]lV0t#`Prz5#? myNhH`65yS]|Ku3DTuwv#>2[ G+_|Jqb0r_jIH>Hkz)r7ea*W(+ 8^ 'r(eQC3.q:0Axb?0|)X -Ho6?YT0Ip0N%g^4]mX$p5Mxg}^'69KT.*5u|ymtm)dEsi!8D ^/`y5"12lTUfD 2s#]KH #!zmls%y@~=*z/L%yK8~Q 9>k ^v1 ,}? 6%#bq&>n,LS$+sIqS9-JRy&>`L(<"2pQ@j5#C!e)*({j_8H%SHK4,9w4@3%N#a)@`QjTLGh(<W|[ZvVQ5u!:jnU&VxdZl&JWXLy;n{56F4<`s$`AO|K-BS`Rj,4HY&EdspQK% +#y&AV/J(1 qrMnl ~Uq [}(P8>/BjnqwIK`BDn bDq#,f&H(8~6HR`vfr,i"MT !bC+S$R81 Ul7 _m4n&&pmv-L=>V{=z,kL^Lqdsahe.Cdi$hXiG?PwOXJv*88??333KCh6yWo7hOe;HQOm <7U nnOWE0FbRy)kSaoNSj)S*$LZIl`fh>=8t ;}#U[Dkq}Ft 2D-X1uuDVja[D:Sn4 dXBB6gK- 'O gm_wPm!& Lw) cf}[ssImv?gV9>#`2MfY rljImnDX`KuJZ}2#O;_lnaV*TT|Zz!wnH )&B^'#`tLU 1ZU -Rt~W`}Re6w-{}2bBM6'ZLb+6P2c vR0- %9b;f RM~)+~-Pa|h:J.T`7W5x+r`"_Frc",>PIYyj5*[-'KjQ fLA6+$$By mr|`[q;Oglh7&`.40 w5}=9fL7<:"=@42XM!d3MNZ} HZK uyv0SA(;V)p6 OC c ` f=@A9t/Jt5I*;{` `D .yy_-#0H:3*/"Uw,"$vV5)`MJMQe1@7`)7} +8JBw|NeTxasv3,*u=Xn@$Cf.pgDZB]TlGeaf>v[0"8"|fyG{ c8iQq<02E >7b{9w!O%pZ0wXN,YTp4VZX_L$&sgYtyNQo~?w!/Nid1#Q6] gH8P*aC06}~eh7]q~S2`1$l|}2TwAhZi7 "GchN%g'5VifqRfqzWtj>/Xon,;QA#[|l:g(h[jX>mVMxvy0-~D7kSrx }_[@Zhucf%em8(Dz> #l_rP9`G] fI$%rp+B|x,5i abM$E'X@_[E: BT@-8Eav]+R(1Q5g/]JcD}Q&K+yL >73Ah2Zl] e6@Z.`MfV|*Mr*f!1 C 0j9*8V;tl pQ *= & BT$*LdiLhE#3`sS;aq,}yH tNruew8 =^O7d$bSxd./W{WS#&{'[%tY!w nK+$P$IF$0WvcAIlVBBf{trnr b)Vt1XfJ5]2L:B3&MHM 20:Bv{ I' e}tS{PBvf@PE&d45X.w9.#^!<~K+'$c"EQD/VHFL9NK($r+=#It-V-N,LLnCV(|Ps@'G;z39P#)~Djl9jo(N03S+ZT`cK >':xT5QL H[t "b:@g!bJ% BoSS 0WO}1vpZA?,C4&l:e?O2:2k8f:.SXF^'JRVwU+!' ~8DQ&SkRt(Lc/u/b):I]:4Oe KU.[nnC6&[=Xios /S9C1_dwIoQG.n9cF$EE9[8 N|7W^kV(];tY/m<4 x u>To9iDJ(EvFP_[w9CYI nAYC9sV2t ?Lu-y3=!b-2?f-DcM^_=m]<<~I})Z]

!UiMv%M=.#Hmc#CIHyt7'a#iBx]hVf>=2>%= ev[}4c,6oRun1kS& }09|'+q<;Z001m/Ii|{z/) a%0N&Ep{Tfio~A-?R540tIs&2-4uN/};TQPR3d'I,V jr@[X1z !:wtNHi##D?Fn6$tkg|;>zC?xb7L6W3L1v252Gvm4l'&$C jafGU]J/ "` 'N,`&g"j6Tc5"-ssGJG= f'sRb>s:+,~7*N!v-XhSQStg>Q={8r~G)7w#+[=KL~9'a$[?oKz ZkKU)Y'Q5zvMB;I(`5dR U/&**]{!kq[ VjLG x dRKuuGW-E40NJ@>[~]&YMvAQK|C$|H}wl 5km qp{PB W%qo&h+,b( P [-FY0qB!8z:Wva]Pet;O=w0`I"QObd(Np {Xw ,/fsMJ<:,67ZfPnzCy&C7gMb]d:[t[+8$W- lTGzH9P(B!`-c.W.Kc6|iz>)k0Y4`7c#cPu!%qc.R^4m/^J+dFGd mV@Xu;q =uzsqihC.9RWb|9Gn!9/ )h2k^Oc!MeESG|6kA Ia$]Bubg?+{S*6o'YaVWO]0o- }e8X56oK/$}B9b{p=*_5Ym%t3{3yBlJA"t )K2H Vp~/YRHZS0N"+%@BVd 1`lVS NT**W;9:JQxTdG@It`=8qKs7@~`94`)F $V!aHxxqL ,RX.jV:5Ow;8gW!E80q^+NW"(E-%+G^XSin*@?y`X WI8Vp'.*g_,6h@/#W|Y^k3*O>&S*(4_ FbBA>/G?ZL^DP&INrb X[OnSnk ?@ZIT<7!(k&+q)^H?TkQ>p;@sbTg#AsAlC LPH53?{8)- 9D;d^tkGJdn*gi,[q^N4<>=mG) 5|MV/9@c}So4 ^jQ "N/QFGA)ABV7y#qmg eU5bn+$s4v6c9g "r4pNBg}z[c}AuNs{.eYWTL"|u<01k 93}>3-(+/OBV~A%S}=1g_:Vq@77SUMIMI>;RQX`E)qQzl[W=Fv#MO5r@MK;>hCrW _-3_YcEne{_p~qwr`_0~3u/n~f:YSdx{p[/-J#a|=7z3Zl o.}7~k?Fa^XdalMts#>l66F7o678we[kgl'm_~Z#lg1E,3i/S SYLk/i%7aM?!R>K| +Dc~q q1b |~g!z&AyA8:0F's)X?Q XnR}C)[N>`KFMV_1'&1oh L/jku.WgvGu%3~#NrPNF,&E [JOBfA[,9q}EKqhI=d= lE qKzG%/3C94<|)[^E2qHbr%b OuV|Y>ogVfd|LA"AE9^==roFq(E} e}qrOj#6kWl*%8b?- [sF+dZO@#.nRhGL/ Q(p,)=./FHjV] SsX~?D/]-qgzeT_]M^@El&hFr vL+M2z~x>ZI,`<+*OmCt ab8C7S kCr~=?g 7byYn&wTpESy*<5^a< v 7W2&o |1cV/] Uv'$'lA93sk8E/K= %B,L8cjUH4WA.$D*@ f_xCy86/Nmu`~_HYH|x2+3?2~ 2'+Ty7Bods<8`/`kM=1Z0n'Q'}LQ-_%gPNy+6Cs5gCpb?<&Wol5$IC_y1A7:x0k>)9 X#o8o{CC.H*{;5n_^y}7KZ~EU}6)7&9T8TxQ:*'NA 4(|U.w2nt]zDk/;XvkoiVU=>:svc%{A=Z.]/oU'|Ky{m,/mq([xgTE'S,QSM0EIjHj:Ed;vXq|. 3j$N^%ocp*+Ub35},&7-@IT4U*X| [`K=>Oews9guegxY9)9*:Q9k_^V{>(VER%ZuldQWEI4}<,l0/@yEC!1X`Fj{Ow[[BW6vp tUN4 !1!_lnpM`C.Ng-kG2rekr&I E.|'=Z`.q]f>}H6JhB1Lgy1>[xtJCrX--+-]ERp&< hKn${q#cdU_-U0i%geS1tfCP!{>i>$xoiOt&w$]-jca:Le5yWg|;e_EGy: #fEQZDxr4z4-ss:yhR Cc["|.Jh(Zpw)1i .>>_{[ +]n="WTDCEQ+E4}(dUnuQf+6YPil2g_B82r_o%{~5X S~eZXM3S9.c/XOX%%IRv0;5?%zk}{k:HTlF:Cm< ]xq kEB9}b2h5>X@1 CUq&`d$b*gDoS6!#%_xzLZ:+X>}:Q9SM,f,G|Mju SYvZ.8p<0J-_vn5KY:!w,0Gj3:1f FCsR+Fd&Q*d(}F$k$V r$ncmY081.=S+r/Dv|c|qY<2 AWvcRR!2X~N $Tfx):B]@v:IiH*TNQxYYF*d|@~'cuMQ>D>-=>7 +@-]b|9[!mn l19)nn]C.Y'jv# zFB'6I_FD>]Y&6Ifs]Ip5i (ozE1Tn|WwEqq6%Eg ON806yh*8vH em!=RMS"jfNi,N0FfD~4 [|oe!fb;x,#^AVI.Xl<-wY`}[ qYr%zPu8(b::_Zg["3.4h;?>%/[a !iws3/aw]/ D*@8$E8S7%xEo/Gdznl'L5jc!ee?W'Jg-(&EtkwvCy/JSiD<" [Yu@dF /{$J@i&%@hVX?ayNpidj#NsAbWoX3O ~#.,%rUKHp%f.&~ZmYt2vQ)! "R]Q]n QlG~]TQk107VKb.sf< m=p1pM!o9b^(4RPem~X;nI~e N"p)DGd+v 2Mc$KhDN?xwD%GpU k/u)W5jv_}T$-t2@8%F+RQB+>1cG5NK&Uk]rI%9tQHGG-{$2)LP ESt+V%$RK1P{=W*" {q#{FYk#]uQ;*#KC%G!-".SZhFf2=u{5*SD)3fH D/QL0"FVd:y~Z.[EuC }p}[r- 56+(BpB;&ui/9B,oA${`:oHQDhF "|V@]"*h^`yN6O7/d]f:dvV)Ai2}$f05VAXN>b ZCf-6J:-NUaKY[B4g_wEs-&6b7aNeA=KIwuI!x "dP#)9haP31:da|W%, QQJhK)CC(0ZU5#q$/]UC2&lZ'v,9A/X3`E?S#YMloC`LX/+TNoxu>7w1lnvU9^lg9 }#]-_dwqrUd.;` Ar`/|}l-Gwhz7}5HtO;m {pZdeW;z=on?~wu 'Y>3q;`MbM1F1}sN73@.#}o~o;I?t9ksq}4^YJ^1qJQ*kPD!I()B I;WeF*bry{uVu masRSSVvEY_Lxz92Br;@"MjD + koFDi:LbStf]Suzv2v?3[_>9nNSPg}}d^ ](>@3;Z2K#%2MNfv}|0Vj^PXH_)Z/YN-c:dV+UZjVeC#Kv9&6tr[ hq0xx?TN5lelRs=fK'p.52^v!7X_?}h`w(GpB5Kr FEiVY]nw2ax(]Kd,%4.nJg vlR%E@Zm~L,ehD9~Y-B0=*eW|,ax*V"]DY4bDg4`'Mjs>Aq^>&4}lY>Z4^Y|X.?x>>54VUC=p;E|ZJ.5=xUXUjT%*KrUm1I>S'R W}wXE?'pz6U d!i?y%kSAOioC!Or>0R]fjCjzJC5M1Y}_fE_iaCOE?YN9F: 5Vl6yi&JC?.D**,:Q$oy9R.$msI_;fn6Tz+ilbl=yy8fBk8Mb L"+8o'5]73g:RG:=y:F3=yxc=.h5=uf4]/.[ &/h{w3=y|yap- mWLsjMcV8 9.'^v46vr:cB{[]kFkh xv8^.;-xfA/ZJs~AOt~|SA.A{>cco=^Zp8-C9>`^iW;{KEDwDpMs P&yvZDjt #pu-'ieAo5-k:GA&l$ O+A v{r /L(a$yO

/ohCrohquy, _K-f38Nc2r9K4>G0t~}6Eqq+O[{3Puydj?W{;cXN?Xz J"J|qG!g& H;{ul_=3`!g8_~=r>"^?|3wqF:;cUiq6fmX]Ub7}*HG+mjO`7O5k1W~r!lFZ"YP$m|0?f_}iA;5L&JtvP ?{)?eXu/QR' iz(*g+'{/o}?,:~uuJZ[U/{we:nvwqrYLFkal!p/z|* DPksQ6 9 RwwKZwhKZVCo6Jrev~WEXStw'MwOPo|G+O3C-$U7t}#td /zc~}_=MAOoWaI,ig`TgsJ]nAHD#x r .pD,y3Nm$qW/SU]^lA!.J/.WNzkNM//lv(Z3Fyzvz.u7e)i 8&p:;G?!{4gY; 9oOxiI(0jrZl6gc3!5"HrQVhvLFarS&)'"fr)~T& C">'`ld 3%==CS-CbD~]c*!`:PJO7e1=k3@QR_C=,zz8y;@U|6iC]` |V6(q@eL1A&8=uDwQ%u.{ [Hxk,8f^G{8 hcBBmo7z+!ua :6 /?|_7w*=*ZL|"YZjPtPtm=*WE& 6aD||ki$FX 6!VykBz]5& sq1%s[ovL(%1DxN;djt#6[?KxZESo]7-lygn6m+!iM^y|R/mR~!4"[#'zfl@C]+RI9V77aneP2 |/]n0~UTe%V*E&$f af2p#90Hbs+w7_em#t"2H`aOnf0]ELIdi?VnPPV2jW {Jr`,VXm2ZR ~_6E@5Xf'B)~&)7bhy"*ONg:W+.p Qwijx9$Sl3E|ro#^A00ms(AM[] f 1ssrbs{Kr&vA6Lc 5A#4P6&!=)8BZ|+A T F3}D^} 6 4^v(x "yl a mPlqNPBS5xmRt/#FsSC_moEP-(Pn-'&; |t0c~ /$Hn))ZI-jh_jF^v?LT!AJgko+a]@o>a mM#AW"l~Ee]}a1y9Y5Omqh7xo|K}Ee,"B{]Pj|ZS#APbW_[N PJV[{Z`YyQ n1 4:k@@sDjB(LO5nB[t +HI)'Z|GZ n{ >TJd E^upT!TIMpW*sXo2,z8",01:P9wd!qG]x'4o,] [M3cEHrK?%p]} Df''(?}UM`zOUtX SV y@sJ#5G?6q$vlY/.Zer}/so [1/Y"]v3Yrd)M.?X:.T$i_2Td^y+z?_qmZPr:rRh rLs8qi$6Ywva,nj@N5~ ja:SFR(8gP-G T**V!qL9z5bEZfE".]Ys0+L1G71NH'N{%e0yB1I%K%44:p'lAH c,s2ryJk=ji$;zHTMcpetN7*m&j9!MK5h(x6'owNxN{Teeo4(-t=V">6V'dv g2WGe lgPt`JB[kdr$LE,Mo>{d./y^Z4")mX9^F!=_hp}knmnK ymI5umHN8f[#Di[n`m#CbtS+!#/o ?PA6cz/{Irt9oy@DOsY%9>#sw#_UeQEPvZ2NU(!X&CwDqv9WyQ`J>/dk, UZzO %q? ^[5e _#6 h7}Sdf9yXvhBNiw$HTv WepV|aANC_h|[QWP&!_?A}%0Y?o7E1owy oLOV[iOSL/9TJivGCO?mT$XJ(kCRq44qLfd{*e6Q~S'"dV}Nu4QY#J}(P$VtgQk:GL g24;p_f'Je*q/" h[g}M' _}@IO.*WNiUbbg}l#[|XUw]Ld0+K=e xPMLpLn@DEq e^$s8"!7U,S9N@ip7UL9 JZ-q=n Ud.WF] vBYFHL$Pp:"Wpb b+dPpcr_~CGbj1$-NbUIE"hp_y$f';}-1@@ FhYZI&# ?4E{%A-6Ck_ R*(@9ldf2;>dB? f,=#1DmjrU$R tI)]'/Uf;'(.FFAnh#K*wP@573TO9J#e25ZTk-yA_p[G4^S=-; *.P_ln0_%7RUXHUP DEtUqLlY`+Umx|9Hvy M9[{^S9 3gZZcfZDSE;gZN|B"Dx0W/n}Zu]u7PY'J=dLG3?u!d)[qpuG5m4-22:bIuh$y sWl:T&bUB^{G}iTxu+{xq(e{"ex_#]y3$ ck%GZj0- Q48n7x(_ ;$DPMn8B8!)glaIyK|Hb:F~&}x4cF& l@K Pb0BN'YEOtR8ub$( /LkN+f!*HJO8g/U'_RC(M"%CF`a`K}sapDIDqlG=;a]v($ ^0?asC~j_?5)2|Cdl9@vK/W|nv% 3U,.- O/m[lxEty{Dca{v%8%Qf?>+XD,8J_]_o0*QHC @~**YS 5:a6qwD"[!_}Gco">j,BzB@EfNtxfkj c.n~b;x %J!hij.>Y-Dzq2}r/`OQh`SF3mrR)s5sf;U#QUEZ0Vbk-H;C0Jv]=K`V~>luu]G?( J(%A^^)}>M'h>7] B` 4,Zi@ >*:&BL5Itm1nytknV&m8w.|sd2+_#^1Xh/UyAnjWo|~sOx6TFE? bqn5%a]fLrQ2cDkBs0_]Ko6WEKIlloYc!Hrvb{gD^z R~$E# MX^A+W.3fFoe({_&Ra/hsa` i|GEv|R7qhSgBX#-#4DKhqs7HT Rm-[(#LY 9NF1@/)YN_%+Rw^ [DFroT_8WUg6wl:QCWuBgC/rGtf/=gP3OIr&NRm0,zEloC}KIDh[77#67k OT).f G+_{cAP'T&W^ Z-86 &.rN&PSs3[6"(PT5 haacm!hEE@/x2.l9E[_gz)2)#OC{u;)"7--:X[U9j`AkwWOL98_M&NQ$omi~Wr*Jy6x0/3 ag!{X_{w(P(oXkV|lyZ@Q22Kb'0 BOw*N`fx|vXgiuLBUfiCLPN: B2Q1I( /?=9-qnJ=+|}ZY89lO2 ?9(bX$FHYuiJ>F|&}?g5*k*"qY[F&9U0Ybtm-x*wGaVxY+dtEU)y< tCny3xA0WAk9pJ@w2Gs),Vy}1~ -[n0Jx0 DsT^J^5Qy6p,nj8L+GrpbbbWW4ZHe*-g]niu nyMW/HU{wuAlr8%{nI*Fz"PylAI Y/4YNh yRZw%fS@Ft8e~RcD?Km,q)=L'VE;Gx2*5RB B4/"Rnk$pg-#0`l%'o}H86=}P}=dR{@>hsS{{,>L*{TV`Q seSJm1F2ik|I`r;)tTPIKkht'ps]YCOenw2GXhQDhHL ?^)bJDtp1w&V%5Uriid$!m )}i h~2,MU!71L5#]X3)pEzGytws]xi>N'I8T}X<9wf-8XNatQ*{ly-IJ*@j%*_`yyADimTZA:i@,04g_S)~Gg_=cKSF@T)S W LAAE|N]w)!cEjzq-^HL(1[F0_ina5,5Vp"-z8NB163t T12cLgBVl s1EB=s,{L/%vuK;a5T%zNRG>(|{'$Lt4 P;i53Op Q8K^k7jPv%if2Y#1TTaf$GnF4 'r0_{Z#28 y2:x*Z _:{5Y X>1NwL+I^k}q`4=(o17Q~@c@xqC10 l1N}olZuz6;(r#!bX'7wy:%'R5d-iU*b)]+VyQf=?^'^wp#k;Tc7kFA"d=4|C1z`-1zC=DVYgA|WyK*RVjE5r`N0Qw#BYU@4B/UVUT]#Bgu20jGI %IBRqzSROA'Fq:x:CT0tdo_]FtQ@4X(NA.z$tTA7eqb;]OE%AA3NUe$f|7=`?x9%2>@.nw1:JdTPeDxxL^Q[QACFj?"r.DH;?]n6S9(R6H)zb`DHuCQSu^X|s5j!aV3+OVZERVl,>V8DQ+0W"+NVZRN((a*yaG=OG>1G) J~lLz&--,z]fL26f)0d4&5&1 %q{ 3cefDo2's23fMrp{m:Ct{u/8`QE g z!&YYf[$xAPXkS(k25@CPx0_SyUix,$~* #f|v8~|H_v $gfu /wg)R3W%W}Tx/dSb}J $Q@g,T?n VvVbx7 O8zOT`~ 6 AFU6gp@B=>B;CI;8=I.2Rp&nEcbpGwXGYT*shaqv;pM4il;$E" AbiP*fmJv-Q]?J`x f.2NZd}vWmdi3W;GR;YAEdQf+U,J) P1bjiZVy1="V6TA')=#;N"mkO*Kh[946J>n.*kJwrd_TbPdK5l_M.tDwx"V67LOe{)FO[BnbAoh(+&)E3lZR?.v@;sVo I5Z(+/Xa5 />W$in C=$Z-I&Js 8G@,%I/h;[_3"OwIriew:zvouGuQY-G81 ~xcQ%9 :@k%~RGmx%$',"p+?%D&.3 !zA7G&@[waV):8@E4/X]R,f 5-t(,2I hhU-8%dIcI{i BS47]*MR*z,Ob 0p^Qr L 'R9&zn7wD&R9UNn0V >f"Aa!JDjIeblJQM 746rDVpe>~[;v[wW ,h_f;A*&V:rfrc98X2K;.GRci=dICj~Qf)%JLfN|vZdd}/t$a:Zjr"9ymM,gW{u|hNja).He3`gLF0~{|J0@CwR.A/ZXXP+oy|X3}|M!_ +K^uI^LItH#[`ti7s.&)K!^NR:'s+%.xL?`W#6zAq;+h%:LMG.lXHLe#Y"}6D0?2 >**qt"h@zZ 4l+-/($6kCXK2G$5=u;6Yox^siyO(jVP_4D}epQ_A}P]{~D}-awEWaR6Cr~W#rx{GW{R7~-*P%iIjSG~opPqT],XudfY%UV#>).oAg/K)'/VIR}?rgZ%4%y!2j_y@_NOI0fMtg6efN}scw5]|*!9W3DW{,j,d%D()VCxn!yWv} ' ki9;a80S97n&eL?xN0!JD ]r0>JK%i34m8;]l.I,=+9Jod6;#$N>oGy 6>!G 1M3er{pBTl$]Povw],Hy`$?xvN7-VYT/KP"y[N''*i*F@>j.!X NlMk-W*cx wvEE8E~pOD`EKg'6zVlf CH>b@2 }Q54 aKv[+ T.(YvfKhio2h9:g2JXxUb<5VRYsep|!b Y"f4=BZzUr=c# 5 ?k-A~7oYz[7My[|5q?;@)de$K rr{WoyvMNF=51kicMZu6yX xcd"Qkj4a:sp- :flvRvDt=hf]DZ69qu^}2QEB)[xHWVr19A!Y8>{x*`54cNZ6OdScfHp Rg 0wUj~8~$NkV,W3'.,(@izYeGcW~.V~@Qn)u{'G^C2YpoQ"RN.**t^og1nUiiUYv5=q(*uyC>2bnlkm}yjn{ 8-A8]v:N?Im^g<8W?=^O6]9/f zn+skk0fa Fj1sFvQ/A/fr9Ug@Br?=q[s +FhF0 kYR#jktW;O$d6grC)u^}->!0i);O?TTLd}4rr9ra0='S)x zS;,mhuDecag`~G{-8cwc_dTbEbX1)T=/U|A0aI[V,)Alll2&qY >c-4 :XXE75z3U]6.,p2Y%0"Kx9$zi6j n& 'QhppNtXsin$Ii$f"G2E#WIgP0V:9BZdgBiPBlvxL:K!}O=Q=V'.5 9oE.dcUC"&T Fy}>kq#mC7W.YCh7:`?!0]p5mF`Kk1eZX:.T;N#*1eT1_L:,Xmo~jL $trjj+ D!TKVnH1TG&DRH5fB"#${wsaUG^ 8 3 c2A+]]nF~)XF ne"(uj6-PF2THAz#GI:,Eg)-bgg Q:OGj$8*097Hmdw) U W8h& }!>.ElH"Y:Hf$G} CaLE&(h-D{hEFC~^EhUpoiOzkkht9ycbFZb;s_JIm Tza:Nwl74GRog^7|OQ%,>.?Fr!V] 'aq|":L`4E+}'aF<>^>+d"^f>2) Q,x7KQXW(R8_"A$Dh?V@%?A3gUWAJ'{Ei^tBbbp gd(6Uw`;$jVe6O*Fe J R>3X{~asM6D8Ff3XUa&>'EW~tSz]Vo4sWia*QU&nUOX'yw^pHskvUmD%V4Q7YSnb:K|7*.PcZj5s Z,fn2%kd@S s,l~1"C9Oi8MC4MCY3 SO2i]mp>5VVf3X)oluW3?]k0Rv:(]OMcK291s>l=!YudjL]3xk&f"YZ'Rj`P$sVk&o%*lBuJ!XPNa.'K ;IP n@D|G8!;I0$p?ulnbIwAx,]Z?/-u qe]B@bpe|*35KJc6o)lv b( SibPk9%O (V)bU]nF&m~C?/93HI7~H{}rB,mAwYdst)YNJq $Id08hki 8@d*Np,6RybNxg Iuq-,6j|$U%~au+a2 l Hhb]}Qa;FPu .tw" #eF"$8!EU- ZU8n!+Xu&RZ:_Q(bI[Bdq|"a3h9Y6V7C:US8;c*?0OW&go`i`cRo4$HJ]:K+ V$Ug2%9KdA?"A6!_pDsJ NX54}6

<:xNs+pO}Q>iz0x/2W"_,+TJLW$x!3*]a8fz@*q,]HkJeiGo_iu_7'AV3R=I'~o];|q+nvKpopbM@tTtDR?]`iKb]}pd!JeYi#,!4'._D{)M10]|grb]+ l~9Me&R88y)bO+{{z7FzCzx)_}SXCXp; Q.b!yuMVrbDc`x:?k^l`;MrW6s}WcrFulZ2Pi"BmI/wgy\z|QPC]W%'`,6AK+5 0oMp!W0mUF5P3E-Z3uN ;e+]Kn0 PI@,F&$U)wkh/tf(0N) QsO`N:- 5PBs+k5"OA#lV*Ygt;O@8G?3cs16Svy `(-=,32OGuT9ea%*Vm$u-6iH#&d,u O.m#A0VO~^o0E|c|IM8V8GfvWA(EI6!J3Hzus')U0-NAQ"?Y~X|hpuA9IJ{!.Arls=xYZl;10/:zF3tO_W*P/,^-33F235PfJ< ~EO0P4P h4%I*jl un5%;Bys9 meDXJ.Gm9Akc$nt )kR+3g]Co$ #c]Mo@+uS$;HU]*J0,b]bc'7YvfwftPGyPs[Djc7_zSP5hQS&Y.KTRv&z;Y@*C=0;[`!/c'9$$H^`$I0(L[O|6$ 86 ceP.epYUBK {`=7w8AIevD@ej#uY!!&V,`z2"h>fn1ZP)^J!aB/j;QlhX>[RQ {PURCem>QSDb@rS%L{^`|Y4iyQoXk~CL0T.lK0 T}7*gFC5{.1>.F6O>d~mHWf}G@2Ew3lR>^qR$W@u #(e_mMJQFp%d? I[NK^{$9 [~Ve>x?KH"lPQl8RnrBQ$)w]vt!!zuF@$Ak4+ G TaZq=)nlaSTmkosh(|06qNw6h5o7L>?:/q,9P_sF_1OwUB[]Yy[{k`50RHhWNV|>A=sXNHBl_YG;62&coOFifO5"u2ZACq:4.*{aHTt&6H%La FB1}3cTc"H]q%rxP1 '|1GxU^m9owOP`;L!> 6YHts~X]6Z!rUX^/8EQ0D@&%Ga9qD>5u$a1a&(U9HL4T oBV]i/llU(DMc;f}xdjtCiOvs |ne {.0HZ"g0-6DM0jo+F7a)8,K$[bg]e"c c.~P 1C=0'Ncrm )w _L;%[!JV`ZTe|O0>q/5ws8y #iI@ $=1xX:3Lk&8%R`L/y{ma>*(nGL)gTgOdNH_^EG42A@0jB>4KP n}mcP?4%]lKV/[__O_vLl5+ InVfTJY#Yv+T&+O;k?ZDCeTeh-C[k#e+[@J C+pJNjdn4JV_V8hwZb.7i1{Er@rx{x|VHb$ohxgo_[k/'*^8thC%/|v ZYVcmO4megffs2d+pO9 dxG}KV*#Xa.>L 0j9N^V85RR[qX54ob?I &B17IoU*"7/[^/i89&+=%)C)4iDo9dIx1]IKy^Z n!{ M? vp{b&q .3bO`^MSBB,5jd }-qXVx2_A1H8ma7#~,4f>RAWY :(8mSSA%ra6/(.saD7 D%KLq*'SSI>Aa=h}e)1qv/yJ6M<+5}>VjkaGB?4/RGOEy(q&b RG XJ2H$g I$R+~;~sM(N0FLeqzfz~Zu|xo_CIo^'O@?/$TaTp#W>y1Ek"Y}}4J J`|u("|:tI4!kZsjf5zy@ I`HrqiNb|Pjq~iQr}pgO-247OH15%EZj t00HR+5RFX*>KO-z2$hXktzy~TL%N9 T_VW

Read the original post:

Young people and free speech - The Economist (blog)

Davenport talks free speech, diversity, AD search on first day – Knoxville News Sentinel

VIDEOS: NEW UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE CHANCELLOR BEVERLY DAVENPORTBeverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work | 1:25

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

1 of 3

UT Chancellor Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor, Beverly Davenport, at a reception during his last week as chancellor on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2017. Rachel Ohm/News Sentinel

2 of 3

Beverly J. Davenport, interim president at the University of Cincinnati, speaking in an open forum with faculty and students at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center on campus Monday, Nov. 7, 2016. Davenport is the second candidate to visit UTK. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

3 of 3

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking on first day at work

Jimmy Cheek offers words of advice for his successor

Chancellor candidate Beverly Davenport speaking at open forum at UTK

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)Buy Photo

In her first interview on the University of Tennessee's Knoxville campus, new Chancellor Beverly Davenport said she doesn't think the state needs a law protecting free speech on college campuses and suggested she would work to reinstatefunding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.

Davenport, who took office Wednesday as the first female chancellor at UT, also touched on the search for a new athletic director, outsourcing of facilities management jobs and Title IX issues in a wide-ranging discussion with members of the media Wednesday morning.

Davenport, 62, takes over from Chancellor Emeritus Jimmy Cheek, who is moving to a tenured faculty position in the College of Education, Health and Human Sciences. With a $585,000 base salary, Davenport will earn more than her predecessor.

She isinheriting a wide range of issues and said she has "a lot of listening to do" in her first few weeks on campus.

Among the most recent is a bill proposed by state lawmakers last week that aims toprotect free speech on campusafter a Breitbart News editor whose planned speech at the University of California, Berkeley, spurred violent protests that promptedcollege officials there to cancel the event.

Rep. Martin Daniel, R- Knoxville, a sponsor of the bill, said last week the legislation is "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."

Beverly Davenport, UTK chancellor, speaking to media on first day at work in Knoxville. Michael Patrick/News Sentinel

Davenport, who has a background in communications and comes to UT from the University of Cincinnati, where she most recently served as interim president, said she is a First Amendment advocateand proponent of free speech on campus, but doesn't see the need for a bill.

"It's a constitutional right. I don't think we need a bill," Davenport said.

She's also expected to work with state lawmakers when it comes to funding for UT's Office for Diversity and Inclusion.Last year the state diverted more than $400,000 away from the office after conflicts with lawmakers over Sex Weekevents and a post on the office's website promoting the use of gender-neutral pronouns and advising against Christmas-themed holiday parties.

When asked by a reporter Wednesday whether that money, which was diverted to pay for scholarships for minority students, would be redirected, Davenport said "there will be funding."

"I will only be on a campus where every student is supported and made to feel welcome and important and safe," she said. "I wouldn't be on a campus if I wasn't committed to and wouldn't find revenue to support the programs that serve all of our students."

She also said communicatingwith state lawmakers is one area where universities, in general, need to improve.

"We say this when Im among administrators at national meetings, we say this all the time: 'We havent constructed our narrative very well. We havent told our story well enough,'" Davenport said."The burden is on us. The responsibility is on us to make that argument, to tell that story."

On the search for a new athletic director, Davenport said the university is "moving really quickly" but no firm timeline is in place for filling the post. She would not comment when asked to disclose the names of specific candidates.

"I have no doubt she'll make a great decision," said Lady Vols coach Holly Warlick."I think she's going to take her time. Do I want an AD yesterday? Yeah. But I think she's going to do her homework. She's going to do her due diligence. I think she's going to try to get the best fit here. I respect that. I want her to do that. We've got to get it right."

In an interview last week, Davenport also talked about the importance of education on Title IX issues, especially given that UT in July settled a $2.48 million lawsuit accusing the university of fostering a "sexually hostile environment" and mishandling allegations of sexual assault on campus, especially allegations made against athletes.

She reiteratedWednesday that Title IX and campus sexual assaults arethe issue that "probably keeps me up at night more so than any other issue that I deal with."

Davenport cited a meeting with Gov. Bill Haslam during her interview process as one thing that attracted her to Tennessee, but said she needs to research more his proposal to outsource facilities management on public college campuses. She said she would consider options for UT to opt out of the outsourcing proposal but "its certainly one of those topics I need to know more about."

An avid Twitter user, Davenport also expressed her excitement to be on campus Wednesday morning on Twitter and said it's one way Tennesseans both on and off campus can keep in touch with her - though it's not the only way.

"I will be outin as many places as I can be every day," Davenport said."I want them to know me some other way than through a Tweet, too. I will be out there.I will be visible."

University of Tennessee Chancellor Beverly Davenport spent her first morning on the job Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2017, talking to students and media.(Photo: Michael Patrick/News Sentinel)

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2ljVv5J

More:

Davenport talks free speech, diversity, AD search on first day - Knoxville News Sentinel

Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism: Banning A TV Station Is Protecting Venezuela’s Free Speech – Forbes


Forbes
Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism: Banning A TV Station Is Protecting Venezuela's Free Speech
Forbes
Not that any of us have really expected any less than this from the Chavistas currently running Venezuela but they're now claiming that banning a TV station is a method of protecting Venezuela's free speech. The background to this is that CNN Espanol ...
Venezuela may have given passports to people with ties to terrorismCNN

all 118 news articles »

More:

Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism: Banning A TV Station Is Protecting Venezuela's Free Speech - Forbes

Right-Wing Troll Milo Yiannopoulos Inspires Free Speech Bill …

A bill to protect free speech on college campuses, introduced Thursday in Tennessees state House, was informally named in honor of Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, who has sparked waves of student protests over his offensive remarks.

The Milo Billwould require the states public universities to adopt policies giving students the broadest possible latitude to engage in expressive activity.

Campus free speech is being challenged by restrictive speech codes; speaker bans and disinvites; ... safe spaces and trigger warnings; and administrators who feel pressured to placate demonstrators, state Rep. Martin Daniel (R), the bills sponsor,warned at a press conference.

Under the proposed legislation, officially titled the Tennessee Student Freedom Expression Act, the new college policies may not shield individuals from ideas and opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. They must promote mutual respect and civility, but not use those concerns as a justification for closing off the discussion of ideas no matter how offensive or disagreeable.

In an apparent nod to the controversy over Yiannopoulos, the bill requires that public universitiesbe open to any speaker whom students, student groups, or members of the faculty have invited.

State Sen. Joey Hensley (R) suggested that the legislation was particularly necessary to protect students with conservative views.

Too many times weve seen classrooms where the professor doesnt want to hear both sides of an issue, Hensley said. Weve heard stories from many students who are honestly on the conservative side, who have those issues stifled in the classroom.

But state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D) dismissed the bill as silly in a statement emailed to HuffPost.

The First Amendment isnt under attack on Tennessee campuses, Yarbro said.The sponsors should try focusing on real issues, instead of bringing silly legislation to suck up to Breitbart.

Yiannopoulos has made a career out of trolling liberals, including writing an article titled Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy, describing transgender individuals asmentally ill and calling Black Lives Mattera hate group. He has gained publicity for acts like directing a flood of racist and harassing comments at Saturday Night Live actress Leslie Jones on Twitter, which got him banned from the social media site. Yiannopoulos styles himself as a free speech advocate.

His Dangerous Faggot tour appearances on college campuses have been met with protest, violence and cancellations. A scheduled speech at the University of California, Berkeley, last week was called off by school officialsafter some protesters turned violent and police put the campus on lockdown.

A statement from the Berkeley College Republicans, who had invited Yiannopoulos, said the groups right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs.President Donald Trump also weighed in, threatening to pull federal fundingfrom the school.

We dont want this happening in Tennessee, what happened in California, Hensley said Thursday.

The Tennessee bill requires that the proposed speech policy be communicated to students at least once each semester.If students think a public university has violated the policy, the legislation gives them the right to file complaints or petition for relief in local courts.

A spokeswoman for the University of Tennessee system pushed back on the idea that speech is being stifled on its campuses. The University has a long and established record of vigorously defending and upholding all students right to free speech, spokeswoman Gina Stafford said in an email.

Daniel proposed similar legislation last year, according to CBS affiliate WVLT, but pulled it after a critic noted that its speech protections couldtheoretically allow ISIS to recruit on campus.

Visit link:

Right-Wing Troll Milo Yiannopoulos Inspires Free Speech Bill ...

Free Speech Washington – Home

Free Speech Washington is a citizens group dedicated to preserving the right to boycott and divest from countries and corporations involved in human rights violations and abuses. Boycotting and divesting are forms of free speech afforded the highest level of constitutional protection by the United States Supreme Court.

2017 has so far seen four attacks in the Washington State Legislature on free speech, the right to boycott and in particular on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. These measures include an anti-boycott bill announced in December by Senator Michael Baumgartner, House Joint Memorial 4004 and House Joint Memorial 4009 condemning the BDS Movement, and a Governors Against BDS statement delivered to Governor Inslee. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is a grassroots campaign to pressure Israel to abide by international law: end military occupation, ensure equal rights for Palestinians inside Israel, and accept the internationally-recognized Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. The BDS call is modeled after the South African boycott and thus calls for broad boycotts against Israeli institutions. Nothing in it calls for discrimination against individuals solely because of their national origin, religion, or ethnicity. Whatever your views on Israel, Palestine, or BDS, anti-boycott measures should be of concern, because they threaten our right to take collective action against injustice.

Contact us: freespeechwa@gmail.com

Follow this link:

Free Speech Washington - Home

Guest column: free speech is essential to American liberty – The Daily Cougar

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times. | Ajani Stewart/The Cougar

In the wake of protests in Berkeley, California, and the ensuing support for silencing speakers deemed upsetting by the left, we all should step back and reflect upon the idea that has made our society truly and classically liberal.

Free speech is more than a mere law; it is a defining principle of our society. It is not merely one among many competing values. Properly understood, it is a foundational value that supports all else that is good in our culture.

We hold this truth to be self-evident: that free expression, the foundation of a liberty-loving society, is granted to us by our creator and cannot be justly restricted by the institutions of man.

Those who believe government grants us our rights fail to comprehend this essential feature of the American tradition. If government grants us free expression, then it has the ability to constrict it by requiring that it be exercised in the proper place with proper consent.

I do not hold to that idea and neither should you.

The moment we give individuals the authority to decide where and when you can express your views, we relinquish the power to freely dissent. Being at liberty to do so is not merely a concoction to benefit the few; it protects us all no matter our race, religion or ideology. It provides universal benefit, and we must never lose sight of that basic truth.

In his immortal treatise On Liberty, John Stuart Mill described the virtues of free expression.

He said: He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. And further, The particular evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human racethose who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Even if a suppressed opinion may be erroneous, it often contains a kernel of truth. Since no view is ever perfectly formed, by the battle of wits we elucidate the unknown.This argument is not about law, but rather a personal responsibility to engage with those whom we disagree.

Any restriction on the expression of an opinion reduces the total knowledge of humanity and immorally robs from history the conclusions of our frank and honest debates.

The problem with confronting free speech with forceful demands that it be stopped is not that it runs counter to law the Constitution constrains only the government from such action, not individuals. The problem is that those actions trample the principle of liberty that a pluralistic society must cherish.

Rather than shout down speakers, we should hear them out (or not youre not required to listen) and then counter speech we find disagreeable with our own. If you truly believe your views are correct and important then you should use every opportunity to persuade others rather than banish dissent.

Shutting down discussion is merely a self-gratifying exercise rather than one of academic courage.The corollary to this notion is that any restriction on the locations where free expression can be conducted similarly constricts the voices of those who wish to be heard.

The only difference is that, where speech is restricted to designated places, the coercive force is exerted by administrators and police rather than by a mob. Free Speech Zones are, therefore, an aberration which have no place in a university setting.

Rather than talk about what areas of campus should be Free Speech Zones, an understanding of the rationale and importance of free speech should cause us to flip the argument around. Instead of designating a few areas as places where we allow the exercise of liberty, we should consider all of campus to be a place of free expression barring only the few requirements necessary for the functioning of the University.

For example, it would not be possible for a professor to teach if people were to protest inside her classroom.

By looking at the entire campus as a Free Speech Zone as the starting point, and only then limiting the few necessities, we make a statement of our values: We will no longer aspire to the bare minimum of the law but rather to the maximum of our principles.

In a commitment to free expression, universities nationwide should be fostering speech in all forms, at all times, and everywhere that does not diminish the ability of the school to perform its functions.

I urge our beloved University to similarly codify its own commitment to fostering dialogue, free expression and open inquiry by all students, faculty, staff and guests. The University of Chicago described the importance of and its commitment to this value in its Statement on Principles of Free Expression.

It is high time we make a similar pledge.

In Whitney v. California, Justice Louis Brandeissaid: If there be a time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

History senior Matthew Wiltshire is thepresident of College Republicans at the University of Houston. History senior Michael Anderson is the chapter president and Texas state chair of Young Americans for Liberty. Both can be reached at [emailprotected]

Tags: free speech, University of Houston

The Super Bowl is coming to Houston: what do you think?

Total Voters: 200

More here:

Guest column: free speech is essential to American liberty - The Daily Cougar

Climate Lawsuit Threatens Free Speech – The New American

As a practical proposition if I enjoy normal life expectancy, this case will consume the bulk of my remaining time on earth. In the event that I dont, the thuggish Mann will come after my family, as has happened to my late friend Andrew Breitbarts children.

This is how well-known political commentator Mark Steyn recently summed up his opinion about the libel suit filed against him by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, which is expected to be set for trial soon.

I did not seek this battle. But I will not shirk the fight, and I will prevail, Steyn predicted in a recent blog.

Remarks made by Rand Simberg, a policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) in 2012 were the genesis of the Mann suit. Simberg referred to Mann as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. Sandusky was a coach with the Penn State universitys football team who had been convicted of child molestation. The university has been roundly condemned for neglect in allowing Sanduskys antics to continue for so long.

This hyperbolic statement of comparing the Sandusky case to Manns was an effort to lambast Penn State for clearing Mann of accusations of scientific misconduct. Apparently, since Penn States administration had failed to rid itself of Sandusky, Simberg was saying that the exoneration of Mann by that same university was suspect.

Political commentator Steyn said as much, declaring in National Review magazine that any investigation by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

This was no doubt a strong comment by Steyn, but it was an opinion, and an opinion, regardless of how harsh it is, about a public figure is held to be protected speech press, under the First Amendment, according to the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York v. Sullivan.

Mann is most famous for his development of the so-called hockey stick image to illustrate his assertion that global temperatures have spiked over the last century, a spike Mann and others attribute mostly to human activity in the industrial age.

After Mann responded by suing CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Steyn for defamation, the defendants all asked that the lawsuit be dismissed on the grounds that their remarks were constitutionally protected free speech. The original trial judge allowed Manns suit to continue. Judge Natalia Combs Greene even argued that Manns defamation suit was likely to succeed. She said, To call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud.

Surprisingly, the D.C. Court of Appeals declined to dismiss. Judge Vanessa Ruiz spoke for the three-judge panel when she wrote, Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming. That the challenged statements were made as part of such debates provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards.

Despite these words, which would seem to have favored the defendants, Judge Ruiz then concluded, But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.

The D.C. appellate court said, in remanding the case back to the district court for trial, Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.

Steyn, in an article for National Reviews online blog, The Corner, cited Simbergs analogy of the Mann and Sandusky cases. Im referring to another cover-up and whitewash that occurred [at Penn State] two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps its time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much weve also learned about his and others hockey-stick deceptions since.

Then, Steyn added the biting words that precipitated Manns retaliatory lawsuit: Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in service of politicized science that could have dire consequences for the nation and planet.

Steyn did note, Not sure Id have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point, adding that Manns hockey-stick graphic was used to advance the fraudulent climate-change thesis, and that Mann was the ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. (Editorial note: This is typical of Steyns wit, using tree-ring, instead of three-ring. Of course, animal-rights activists, the close cousins of the radical environmentalists, have now succeeded in shutting down the largest of the circuses).

While National Review has recently been dismissed as a defendant in this particular case, leaving Steyn and Simberg as the defendants, Dr. Judith Curry had previously filed a very interesting amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court brief on the side of National Review and the individual defendants. An amicus curiae brief is often filed in high-profile cases by parties who, while not actual litigants in the case, have a strong interest in the cases outcome.

Dr. Curry recently announced she was leaving academia due to the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming. She had challenged some of the assertions of the advocates of the climate change theory, and Mann had responded by calling her three books and nearly two hundred scholarly articles a meager contribution to science and stating she played a particularly pernicious role in the climate change denial campaign [by] laundering standard denier talking points but appearing to grant them greater authority courtesy of the academic positions she has held.

In short, Mann dismissed Currys work as boilerplate climate change denial drivel.

A comparison of anyone to a convicted child molester, as was done by Simberg, even though a reasonable person could see that it was simply a hyperbolic statement, is certainly a harsh statement. But the use of the expression of climate change denier to scientists like Curry is even stronger. As despicable as the analogy to the sexual molestation of little boys is, the denier label used so freely by the climate change crowed, including Mann, conjures up a comparison to the denial of the Holocaust the systematic murder of millions in Hitlers gas chambers.

For his part, Mann has repeatedly attacked those who disagree with him on this issue as peddling pure scientific fraud, and fraudulent denial of climate change, and even taking corporate payoff for knowingly lying about the threat climate change posed to humanity.

The Curry brief noted, As it relates to this case, Dr. Curry has been critical of Appelle Michael Manns methodological approach to climate science and the conclusions he has reached. Dr. Curry has experienced personal and professional attacks from Dr. Mann for her criticism of his work. Dr. Mann has a pattern of attacking those who disagree with him and this case is another in a long line of tactics to silence debate over the science of global warming.

Dr. Curry said that she has tried to understand Michael Manns perspective in suing so many people, while at the same time so freely throwing insults at others and even defaming other scientists. My understanding is this. Michael Mann does not seem to understand the difference between criticizing a scientific argument versus smearing a scientist.

The amicus brief of Dr. Curry highlighted its concern about allowing such a lawsuit to continue. If Dr. Mann and others like him who use libel laws to silence critics are allowed to prevail, those who use normal scientific debate will find themselves disadvantaged in the marketplace of ideas.

This is why libel suits involving public figures such as Mann are required to overcome significant hurdles in order to succeed. The plaintiff in a libel suit must prove not only that the statements found offensive are false, the plaintiff must additionally prove to a jury by clear and convincing evidence (a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence of most civil actions, and closer to the beyond reasonable doubt requirement of criminal cases) that the defendant knew the statement was false. And the statement must have been made with actual malice, or a desire to cause damage. (For example, writing that a football player won the Heisman Trophy would not be libelous, even if the writer knew that was not true, because such a statement is not damaging and no intent to cause harm exists).

Finally, a plaintiff must show that some actual damage was caused to his reputation.

Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University law school, explained the dangers of making it too easy for public figures to win such lawsuits. It threatens to make it too easy for public figures to file lawsuits against their critics, and, as a consequence, threatens to chill robust political debate.

Adler also expressed concern over the reasoning of the appellate court, when it held that, because Penn State had investigated and then exonerated Mann of doctoring scientific evidence to support his thesis of global warming, Simberg and Steyn cannot then criticize that investigation. It cannot be that once some official body has conducted an investigation of an individuals conduct, that further criticism of that individual, including criticism that expressly questions the thoroughness or accuracy of the investigatory body, is off limits.

This would preclude criticism of a judicial processes that exonerated individuals found not guilty, Adler notes.

Nor is it consistent with existing First Amendment doctrine to suggest that hyperbolic accusations of bad faith or dishonesty against public figures involved in policy debates is actionable, Adler added. In other words, the opinions expressed by Steyn and Simberg were just that opinions.

Even the threat of a libel suit is often enough to inhibit the free expression of honest political opinions, because of the potential enormous costs of litigation. Winning in a successful defense, but nevertheless out thousands of dollars, does not make one feel much like a winner. As one federal court once put it in the context of controversies in the field of science (and applicable in other fields, as well), More papers, more discussions, better data, and more satisfactory models not larger awards of damages mark the path toward superior understanding of the world around us.

Link:

Climate Lawsuit Threatens Free Speech - The New American

Free speech and soy milk – The Washington Post – Washington Post

February 14 at 6:47 PM

The Feb. 11 Economy & Business article Dairy industry stakes claim on milk reported that the dairy industry has enlisted members of Congress in its quest to stop soy- and almond-milk makers from using the word milk on their packaging.

The article made clear that no one is confused by the labels on cartons of soy and almond milk and also that this effort represents a brazen dairy industry attempt to harm its competition by creating government-enforced market interference. Missing was the fact that what the dairy industry is asking for would also violate the First Amendment free-speech rights of soy- and almond-milk makers. According to clear Supreme Court precedent, for the government to dictate that almond-milk producers cannot call their product almond milk, it would need to have some legitimate government purpose, and supporting one industry over another does not qualify. Free speech and free markets are both bipartisan values, and so the dairy industry will fail in its latest attempt to fight unfairly with its plant-based competitors.

Bruce Friedrich, Washington

The writer isexecutive director ofthe Good Food Institute.

See the article here:

Free speech and soy milk - The Washington Post - Washington Post

Free Speech Restrictions Leave Federal Workers Anxious About Challenging Trump – Truth-Out

The First Amendment does not always protect civil servants from reprisal. (Image: Jared Rodriguez / Truthout)

Recent internal memos on how and when federal employees can speak their minds has left those frustrated by President Trump in murky waters, according to advocates.

For climate scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or rogue members of the National Park Service, this uncertainty around their ability to speak without fear of reprisal is causing confusion and despair as the Trump administration assumes control and attempts to assert its version of the facts, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a watchdog group that represents civil servants at agencies like the EPA.

"There will be a number of instances where people are speaking their minds and the rules aren't all that clear," said PEER Director Jeff Ruch, who counsels government employees about their rights. "And you have a chief executive who is somewhat thin-skinned, and that may trickle down through his appointees," who could punish employees for actions perceived as dissent.

Ruch said there seems to be a "level of mutual mistrust" between civil servants who staff federal agencies as nonpartisan workers and President Trump, who promised on the campaign trail to gut agencies like the EPA, and announced a hiring freeze for many agencies shortly after taking office.

"The hiring freeze was not an economic measure but an effort to drain the swamp, as if [federal employees] are a malignant force and, if you can bleed them off, then government will be better," Ruch said. "And a lot of this could be offensive to some of these career civil servants."

Some civil servants have dared to challenge Trump. Since the National Park Service's Twitter account was temporarily shuttered after it questioned White House statements on the size of the crowd at Donald Trump's presidential inauguration, dozens of "alternative" federal agency accounts (such as AltEPA and AltFDA) have opened and amassed followings that rival their official counterparts.

These accounts identify with the anti-Trump resistance, and are unofficial. Many make it clear that tweets and posts are not coming from government employees in their official capacity, if from government employees at all. Ruch said PEER has been fielding questions from operators of these alternative accounts, which often challenge Trump's public statements and draw attention to the latest climate science.

Agency employees who speak out against Trump are treading on difficult ground, particularly since federal civil servants have limited rights to free speech in the workplace. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect public employees for statements made while acting in their official capacity, making it risky to speak out against a new administration that has been openly hostile to the media and anyone else who challenges its narrative.

Moreover, the Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits the vast majority of federal employees from participating in certain political activities on the job, including advocating for and against political candidates. Trump has filed 2020 campaign paperwork and is considered a political candidate. This means that federal employees are prohibited from speaking for or against his reelection in their official capacity, according to a memo circulated by the US Office of Special Counsel last week.

Ruch said making a statement as simple as, "This is a disaster, we've got to get rid of this guy," around the water cooler at a federal office could apparently cost a federal employee their job.

Federal employees do have First Amendment rights as private citizens, but that doesn't protect them in the workplace. Not too long after the White House's snafu with the National Park Service's Twitter account, the EPA sent out an agency-wide memo advising employees about the difference between addressing the public as an EPA employee and in their "individual personal capacity."

The memo urges employees not to refer to their agency title, such as "inspector" or "climate scientist," when writing, speaking or making social media posts in their personal capacity, and not to make such statements from EPA computers:

If you feel you must refer to your EPA position or title, then the prudential advice is to do so as one of several biographical details with EPA not having any undue prominence. You should be clear you are expressing an individual personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of the Agency.

Ruch said it's unclear exactly what EPA employees would have to reveal about themselves to make sure their official status as an agency scientist or attorney is not "unduly prominent" compared to, say, their educational background or volunteer positions.

"Federal employees who depart from the official talking points enter murky waters," Ruch said. "Unlike White House staff, who are merely counseled about clear ethics violations, public employees trying to educate the public about the consequences of Trump initiatives may be targeted for discipline or removal."

Ruch said the Trump administration could use this ambiguity to target dissent in its ranks, and purge critics of Trump's policy directives for making statements that would otherwise be considered "borderline and marginal." This looming threat is almost certainly having a chilling effect, especially at agencies that deal with hot-button issues like climate change and immigration.

"Sean Spicer said, 'Get with the program or get out'," Ruch said.

Still, this did not keep EPA workers in Chicago from attending a February 6 rally opposing Scott Pruitt, Trump's nominee to head the agency, and speaking against him from their standpoint as employees.

Ruch said it was unclear if these employees were breaking ethics rules. The recent memos suggest that federal agencies would rather their employees not say anything to the public at all. However, despite all of this uncertainty over what federal employees can and can't say in a nation under Trump, resistance to Trump at federal agencies continues.

"Besides social media, organizations like PEER, federal unions and even professional scientific societies will increasingly become channels for public employee free speech," Ruch said. "Times have changed -- both the public and public employees are demanding more candor and have less tolerance for censorship than ever before."

Read the original post:

Free Speech Restrictions Leave Federal Workers Anxious About Challenging Trump - Truth-Out

Gainesville Resident Fights To Protect Free Speech – WUFT

Jim Funk still remembers when a Gainesville police officer grabbed his arms and escorted him away.

It was an event that shocked and scared Funk but also sparked a discussion about free speech and assembly in Gainesville. His run-in proved to Funk that the cityhas work to do toensure free speech to all its citizens.

That kind of disturbed me that something like that would happen, Funk said.

Funks run-in happened in November 2015 at Artwalk, a monthly event held in downtown Gainesville, while he was gathering petitions for medical marijuana. Funksaid he was approached by police officers and the events coordinatorand was told he couldnt gather signaturesbecause he wasnt affiliated with a reserved booth.

Funk said he could gather signatures because the event was on a public street. After debating the issue for a while, police said Funk caused a scene an accusation Funk denies and he was carried out. Though Funkbelieves it was an isolated incident, he still feels he was treated with injustice and that his speech was limited.

They basically can assault someone in public whos an old man not doing anything, and they can get away with it, Funk said.

The discussion about free speech has mainly been ledby Gainesville resident James Thompson, an acquaintance of Funk. Shortly after Funks incident, Thompson emailed Gainesville City Commissioners and Mayor Lauren Poe. He has since been in touch with members of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs, city commissioners and city lawyers.

Poe said he firmly stands behind free speech in Gainesville, and wants to ensure it remains protected.

We dont want anything that would create a chilling effect on people practicing their free speech, Poe said.

Thompson received a list of court cases supporting Gainesvilles law from a city lawyer, David Schwartz. In response, Thompson went through each case and pointed out why it didnt apply.

At the time of his initial complaint, the Citys Administrative Procedure 34 said more than two canvassers contacting a single member of the public could be restricted, along with profanity and actions designed to gather crowds. Since then, the city manager updated the procedure to 34-A, which struck down those restrictions. However, a procedure only affects how city staff operatesinternally, and is not city law.

The current ordinance, which hasnt been updated, still has language limiting more than two canvassers from contacting a single member of the public at any time, Thompson said. It is found in Chapter 19, article 2, under peddlers and canvassers.This means people gathering petitions or passing out information might be unable to do so in a group.

That law is pretty egregious, and really a bad liability situation in my opinion, Thompson said. You basically dont need to make laws to limit free speech. We have a constitution, we have a set of practices, we have a set of rules. You cant create free speech zones, thats unconstitutional.

Thompson said limiting free speech makes sense when its a public safety concern, but that doesnt apply to Gainesville.

We all think of Gainesville as this perfect liberal open-minded town, but the fact is, you know, when people hold events even in public streets they have grand expectations about what they can do to limit others, and thats not the case, Thompson said.

Initially, Thompson planned to let the issue sit until the city took care of other dated laws on the books. The city hired Municipal Code Corporation in December to review existing laws. After the laws are reviewed, a recommendation will be made to the commission. The process should wrap up in two to three months, said Gainesville Clerk of the Commission Kurt Lannon.

Poe said he thinks it is too early to see if the code will be changed.The commission will wait until they receive a recommendation from the group.

This is why we wanted to hire an outside person, so we wouldnt crowd the view with our own personal biases and assumptions, Poe said.

With the election of President Donald Trump and subsequent national protests, Thompson said free speech in Gainesville needs to be protected now more than ever. He thinks making changes to the laws around assembly cannot wait.

I thought its very important for Gainesville to have this stuff cleared up before anything bad happens, to basically state that Gainesville is going to stand by the First Amendment and stand by its citizens, Thompson said.

Though Thompson considers himself liberal, he said it doesnt matter what the protests are for.

Thats exactly the time when we are supposed to protect free speech, is when it makes us uncomfortable and when it is unwelcome[d], Thompson said. In fact, it doesnt matter what these people are petitioning or assembling for, they should be allowed to do what theyre allowed to do with their rights.

See more here:

Gainesville Resident Fights To Protect Free Speech - WUFT

Who’s Really Hindering Free Speech? – The Emory Wheel

Days ago, pending Milo Yiannopouloss speech at the University of California, Berkeley, an event arose more controversial than any so far in the free speech debate. In lieu of standard protesters, there were rioters. They lit fires, launched projectiles and shattered windows. Per their wishes, Yiannopouloss speech was cancelled. Berkeley is the very institution that only half a century ago viciously fought for the right to free speech on college campuses. It is cruelly ironic that an event at this institution has, at least ostensibly, illuminated the demise of that same right.

Though I have always been skeptical of the far-left, the word fascist, a term frequently promulgated by the right, seemed like a cop-out for people who only want to sling around provocative diction without any real meaning attributed to it. We have finally reached a point where it is sufficiently acceptable to use such a word. Protests are the tool of those seeking change through the spread of ideas, who confront their opposition head-on, and defend their ideas. Riots are the tool of fascists who want dissenters to be silenced; if they intend to gain any semblance of credibility, they ought to fight ideas with ideas, not with tyrannical suppression.

From the opposite perspective, Republicans just elected a president who spent the first two weeks of his term enacting executive orders so nationalist that they would have seemed inconceivable just two years ago. It has become clear that those of us who occupy neither the far-left nor the far-right are now engaged in a two-front war to defend the rights enshrined within the very fabric of this countrys existence.

Ill leave the exploration of the far-lefts threat to free speech to the right, who will undoubtedly address this issue ad nauseam. Unfortunately, the very same far-right poses many of the same threats, perhaps not as brashly, but nonetheless sinisterly.

The Wisconsin legislature, for instance, threatened to cut funding to University of Wisconsin-Madison for offering a voluntary program entitled Mens Project, which aims to explore masculinity and the problems accompanied by simplified definitions of it. The legislatures rationale? It declares war on men, as per Wisconsin State Senator Steve Nass. Surely Wisconsin has the right to pull funding, as do (private) far-left colleges which have made a habit of pulling speakers, but if this program truly amounts to a war on men, such a conclusion must be realized through vigorous debate. It should never be unilaterally decided by legislature and forced in a top-down fashion upon nonconsenting universities designed to be the very places where these debates occur.

Groups such as Turning Point USA, which runs the McCarthian Professor Watchlist, now have a presence at our own university. Professor George Yancy of Emorys philosophy department gained notoriety for his claim that racist poison is inside of [Americans]. Agree or not, this quote was drawn from an op-ed asking for and demonstrating humility: in his own words, I am often ambushed by my own hidden sexism.

Certainly, Professor Yancy is an unabashed liberal, but the bulk of the evidence that he is dangerous and closed-minded towards conservative students comes from an out-of-context quote in an article in which he takes great pains to point out his own biases.

The philosophy of suppression exists among the political right at all levels of engagement, as demonstrated by the ideas that Dennis Prager, notable conservative thinker, has propagated. Regarding high school reform measures, he suggested that clubs related to ethnicity, race or sexual orientation ought not be permitted; that classes devoted to racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, tobacco, global warming or gender identity ought not be taught; and that students should be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Not only do such proposals fly directly in the face of well-established constitutional law, but they are contrary to free speech itself only through conversation can the best ideas spread, because the only way to ensure that the best ideas win is by encouraging all ideas to be heard.

Notably, Prager proposed that the topics to be excluded from high schools are those which reflect the Republican Partys increasingly archaic beliefs. The solution to such issues is not to avoid them, but to embrace and combat them head on; if Prager is right, then his ideas should, in the end, win out.

These very same people on the right are often those who complain about the pervasiveness of political correctness and the harm it renders to open dialogue. But stretched to its philosophical extreme, these complaints waged against the left are, in the end, self-mutilating. Per Public Policy Polling, more conservatives are offended by the P.C. phrase Happy Holidays than liberals are by its counterpart, Merry Christmas. A similar parallel arose last year, when many conservatives decried the 2015 Starbucks Christmas Coffee Cups as an assault on Christmas by the politically correct left. In 2016, with the return of reindeer to their cups, unsurprisingly, there was a lack of corresponding outrage by those advocating for political correctness.

Emory University students are no exception to this trend. Last year, during the Trump chalkings incident, no group advocated more incessantly (and correctly) than the Emory College Republicans that the importance of diverging opinions trumps that of sensitivity. Yet, only two months ago, the same group moved for the resignation of Dean Ajay Nair on the grounds that he was insensitive to those affected by 9/11 after comparing the moods of Emory campus post-Trump election and the University of Virginia campus post-9/11.

Waging a war of ideas on an asymmetric battlefield is tempting. But in any war of ideas, only through extensive dialogue can any idea can be rigorously tested for flaws, inconsistencies, encroachments on rights and for judgements on those ideas to be finalized. But on both sides of the issue, many resorted to playing ostrich or attacking others First Amendment rights. If we intend to move forward as a country and a people, we must recognize the valid philosophical foundations of those with whom we disagree.

Grant Osborn is a College sophomore from Springfield, Ohio.

Go here to read the rest:

Who's Really Hindering Free Speech? - The Emory Wheel