After a violent protest forces UC Berkeley to cancel a speech by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, students wonder what has become of an institution known as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. (Feb. 2) AP

Milo Yiannopoulos holds a sign as he speaks at the University of Colorado in 2017.(Photo: Jeremy Papasso/file/AP)

Inspired by a Breitbart News editor whose speeches have spurred protests at colleges across the country, state lawmakers on Thursday touted abill that they said would protect free speechon Tennessee campuses.

While discussing the bill in a news conference, sponsors Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley referenced the protests against controversial conservativeMilo Yiannopoulos, who is a senior editor at Breitbart. Violence erupted at a protest against a plannedYiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley, prompting officials there to cancel the speech.The lawmakers indicated that the violence had hampered the expression of conservative ideas at Berkeley. Similar issues have cropped up in Tennessee, they said.

Daniel, R-Knoxville, called his legislation "the Milo bill," and said it was "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."

Hensley, R-Hohenwald, said the bill was specifically tailored to defend students with conservative views that he said had been silenced in the past.

"We've heard stories from many students that are honestly on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom,"Hensley said."We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech."

The bill said public universities"have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles, and these failures make it appropriate for all state institutions of higher education to restate and confirm their commitment in this regard."

Daniel and Hensley sponsored similar legislation last year which sought to make it easier for students to advocate for various causes on campus.He notably said ISIS, the terrorist organization,should be allowed to recruit on college campuses in Tennessee.

The lawmakers referenced the University of Tennessee's flagship campus in Knoxville while promoting the bill. UT said in a statement that free speech is encouraged and protected on campus.

"The constitutional right of free speech is a fundamental principle that underlies the mission of the University of Tennessee," Gina Stafford, spokeswoman for the UT system, said in an email."The University has a long and established record of vigorously defending and upholdingall students right to free speech.

To pass, the bill would likely needto win approval from lawmakers who regularly take issue with socially liberal speech on campus, from events during UT's annual Sex Week to posts on the UT website about gender-neutral pronouns and holiday parties.

Reach Adam Tamburin at atamburin@tennessean.com and 615-726-5986 or on Twitter @tamburintweets.

Read or Share this story: http://tnne.ws/2k90EJq

View post:

Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos inspires Tennessee 'free speech' bill - The Tennessean

Four US states are considering legislation that would ensure free speech on college campuses and prohibit universities fromshielding people from offensive and controversial ideas.

Most states were put on alert after the eruption of violence at the University of California, Berkeley, whereMilo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech.His event was cancelled over safety fears.

President Trump has put the issue of free speech on campus in the spotlight after hethreatened to withdraw federal funds from universities that dont honor the First Amendment rights.

Virginia

Earlier this week, the Virginias House of Delegates passed bill HB1301aimed at protecting freedom of speech on campus. The bill reaffirms that public colleges and universities in the state are covered by the First Amendment.

The full text of the law reads: Except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the Constitution, no public institution of higher education shall abridge the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus.

House Democratic leader David Toscano celebrated the bill, saying:Any time we have the chance to support the First Amendment we should do that.

Its a good idea to celebrate the First Amendment. We want our campuses to be noisy, we want people to debate things, he added.

Colorado

In Colorado,the Senate Education Committee approved abill defending the constitutionally granted rights of Colorado students. The bill would prohibit governmentfunded colleges from restricting students First Amendment rights to free speech in any way. According to the draft of the bill, free speech includes speaking, distributing materials, or holding a sign.

The bill also requires convertingexisting so-called free speech zonesa campus phenomena where only at certain places students are able to exercise free speechinto monuments or memorials.

Free speech zones are counterintuitive to our core values, we should never falter in our defense of our constitutional rights or confine a free exchange of ideas, explained Senator Tim Neville, who introduced the bill.

Students on Colorado campuses are growing into the leaders of tomorrow, and restricting their fundamental rights as they seek out truth and knowledge is contrary to the American spirit as well as the mission of universities, he added.

North Dakota

North Dakota is also considering a bill to fight the onslaught of safe spaces and ensure the Constitution that guarantees free speech is protected in the states public universities.

Republican State Rep. Rick Becker sponsor of House Bill 1329, said the proposed legislation is aresponse to an attitude that free speech is not free speech at universities, where free expression is stifledby university policy.

There is an atmosphere of political correctness and social justice that will lead to safe spaces and this whole concept on every campus, hesaid. We have to put a stop to it now.

The bill would confirm free speech as a fundamental right and demand the governing body of the North Dakota University System to a ratify a policy of free speech.

The policy would require acommitment to free and open inquiry by students in all matters and outlaw any restrictions on speech, unless it violates other laws or disrupts the universitys functions.

It would also require tocontain a bill of student rights that would prohibitcolleges in North Dakota from subjecting students to any nonacademic punishment, discipline or censorship for exercising their free speech.

Becker cited the violence last week at the University of California, Berkeley during the protests againstMilo Yiannopoulos, claiming theres a growth of anti-speech rhetoric on college campuses.

North Carolina

The States Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest has announced his intention to work with the General Assembly to pass the Restore Campus Free Speech act, a law closely based onthe model campus free speech legislationthat would guarantee free speech at universities.

North Carolina will be the first state to use the model law by the Goldwater Institute think tank and turn it into an actual legislative proposal. AsHeat Streethas reported, the model proposalincludes a toughlegal regime to ensure free speech.

The law would prohibit colleges in North Carolina from banning speakers, creating safe spaces with the intention of shielding students from certain ideas and opinions, harsh sanctions for those limiting free speech including expulsion, and even a $1,000 fine if university violates free speech rights.

Follow this link:

4 US States Consider Free Speech Laws To Fight Censorship and 'Safe Spaces' On Campus - Heat Street

We are experiencing a new era in our nation, one characterized by polarity, equally unpopular opinions, and designated free speech zones. A recent poll found 77 percent of Americans perceive the nation as divided, I suspect that number is climbing. Nowhere are the tensions as pointed as on college campuses.

In this time of a great lack of mutual understanding, we can choose our communities, our news, our schools, and all too often we find ourselves living in a bubble of our own creation. While I am an ardent proponent of all the choices a free-market society allows us, we cannot permit our choices to permanently shield us from anything we do not like.

In times like these, I recall my own experiences growing up in an uncertain world. Often, my opinions were unpopular, but it was the resulting debates and friendly challenges that helped me learn, grow, and determine my core values. It is with those counterbalances in mind that I bring Senate Bill 62 to protect Colorado students constitutionally granted First Amendment right to free speech. I want todays youth to find the folks who challenge them and cherish those differences instead of shrinking from them.

Traditionally, universities are bastions of free speech and the open exchange of ideas. College students and faculty across the nation catalyzed countless movements, pushing back against the status quo and demanding change at times when change was unthinkable. Few people voiced their opinions louder than students, championing diversity of thought and wide array of backgrounds, beliefs, and visions for our future. Recently, however universities struggle with thoughtful debate, and instead put forth a litany of criteria for students to exercise their rights to speech, the most egregious of which requires students to limit their opinions to free speech zones. These zones are contrary to the very missions of universities.

Once we limit free speech to a zone, we indicate to our students that free speech does not exist anywhere beyond that zone. Is that the message we want to send to future generations about our nations core values?

It is possible to promote safety, high standards for education, and free speech rights simultaneously. I understand that maintaining the integrity and sanctity of education and keeping every student safe will always be a chief concern for universities. To that end, my bill allows these institutions the right to reasonable restrictions. Demonstrations which disrupt the primary mission of an undisturbed education or pose a threat to the safety of others may be curtailed when appropriate. Instead of shutting down debate, it is imperative that institutions offer ample alternative channels for communications of the students messages so that views and expressions dissimilar to the universities are given the opportunity free speech deserves.

Elected officials have a duty to citizens, an obligation to ensure that their liberties remain intact. The state legislature has a responsibility to strengthen our constitutional rights whenever possible, regardless of its political expediency. Indeed, how much we value the right to free speech is put to the test when we disagree with the speaker the most. When one of us is denied our First Amendment rights we are all denied, and free expression of all ideas, popular or not, must be safeguarded without interpretation or subjectivity. If we can have this strong dialogue and exchange in the public square, it bodes well for our nations future.

We send our kids to colleges and universities with the hope that they learn to challenge themselves, to grow and develop those skills that will see them through as tomorrows leaders who will continue to champion the core principles of our nation. We have to continue to teach our children that in order to be free, they must also be brave.

Please follow SB 62 as it progresses from the Senate to the House and share your support with your Representatives.

State Sen. Tim Neville is a Republican legislator from Jefferson County, representing Senate District 16.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.

See the original post here:

Free speech should not be zoned - The Denver Post

HARRISONBURG, Va (WHSV) -- A bill in the General Assembly looks to make sure speech, and other freedoms on college campuses, remain protected.

The bill was introduced by local delegate Steve Landes, and has passed the House of Delegates by a vote of 76 to 19.

The bill prevents colleges and universities from "abridging the freedom of any individual" including students, faculty, staff and guests.

This is timely after the incidents at U.C. Berkeley last week, when the campus was damaged by riots after a right wing speaker was scheduled to speak on campus.

"When there is dialogue, when there is respect for differing opinions, that is when the university is a better place, it comes together as a community. We respect differing opinions, so hopefully nothing like that will ever happen here at James Madison," said Bill Wyatt, the James Madison University spokesperson.

Landes said in a statement, "The legislation is an expansion of existing code to protect those who otherwise were not included."

He also mentioned instances nationwide, where free speech has been infringed.

Here is Del. Steve Landes' full statement on the bill:

House Bill 1401 prohibits public institutions of higher education from abridging the freedom of any individual, including enrolled students, faculty and other employees, and invited guests, to speak on campus, except as otherwise permitted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I introduced this bill to ensure our institutions of higher education encourage healthy debate and prevent censorship of contrary viewpoints or perceived controversial speech. The legislation is an expansion of existing code to protect those who otherwise were not included. There have been instances nationwide where free speech has been infringed. While free speech on college campuses is theoretically protected by the First Amendment, there have been instances where it has been suppressed. This legislation will safeguard speech on our campuses and guarantee that our students are exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions and afforded the opportunity to express themselves as well. -Del. R. Steven Landes

You can read the summary of and track the bill here.

See original here:

One bill aims to protect free speech on college campuses - WHSV

On Feb. 1, the University of California Berkley canceled the appearance of right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulous about one hour after protests began on campus. Students set fires and threw objects. A lockdown was in place for six hours following the start of the protests. Violence also occurred at Yiannopoulous last public appearance, at the University of Washington, where one of Yiannopoulous supporters shot a protester in the stomach. Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher reportedly had credible sources stating that Yiannopoulous would out undocumented students at Berkeley during his speech.

Yiannopoulous and Donald Trump both agree that Berkeley students reactions indicate that they do not tolerate free speech. Many argue that Yiannopoulous represents a point of view that liberals disagree with, but that he should be allowed to speak, lest college students allow their intellectual skills to atrophy, as they remained coddled in liberal bubbles.

The University temporarily faced a similar situation. A group of students circulated an electronic invitation to generate interest for Yiannopoulous to appear on campus. Its worth noting and remembering the reason that Student Life and other university officials denied Yiannopoulous from being approved as a speaker. He was not allowed to speak on campus, not because of what he said, but rather how he said it.

To me, how an institution deals with the prospect of Yiannopoulous appearing on campus is a litmus test of its character. Im proud that Villanova chose to hold up the values of dialogue and genuine engagement rather than entertain a hateful agitator who seeks to rile others with incendiary remarks rather than have conversations that revolve around genuine issues.

Yiannopoulous is banned from Twitter for targeting abuse and inciting abuse against actress Leslie Jones. He popularized the Gamergate scandal, encouraged supporters to catcall women, referred to both Islam and feminism as cancer and called transgendered people mentally ill. Many college students who are protesting are frustrated by the very notion that he should even be entertained or legitimized as a public figurethis deep seeded frustration at the most basic levels creates divides in terms of what one considers civil or within the realm of acceptability.

An individual who presented thoughtful arguments rather than fundamental disrespect for marginalized identities decoratively re-packaged in the form of his personal brand would far better serve the liberal bubble of college campuses.

Visit link:

Milo Yiannopoulous: Free Speech or Hate Speech? | villanovan - Villanovan (subscription)

Members of the controversial Westboro Baptist Church protest outside a prayer rally in Houston in 2011. (Richard Carson/Reuters)

Millions of Americans support free speech. They firmly believe that we are the only country to have free speech, and that anyone who even questions free speech had damn well better shut the #$%& up.

Case in point: In a recent essay in The Daily Beast, Fordham Law Professor Thane Rosenbaum notes that European countries and Israel outlaw certain kinds of speechNazi symbols, anti-Semitic slurs, and Holocaust denial, and speech that incites hatred on the basis of race, religion, and so forth. The American law of free speech, he argues, assumes that the only function of law is to protect people against physical harm; it tolerates unlimited emotional harm. Rosenbaum cites recent studies (regrettably, without links) that show that "emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic." Thus, the victims of hate speech, he argues, suffer as much as or more than victims of hate crime. "Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious [than that of physical injury]?"

I believestronglyin the free-speech system we have. But most of the responses to Rosenbaum leave me uneasy. I think defenders of free speech need to face two facts: First, the American system of free speech is not the only one; most advanced democracies maintain relatively open societies under a different set of rules. Second, our system isn't cost-free. Repressing speech has costs, but so does allowing it. The only mature way to judge the system is to look at both sides of the ledger.

Jonathan Rauch: The Case for Hate Speech

Most journalistic defenses of free speech take the form of "shut up and speak freely." The Beast itself provides Exhibit A: Cultural news editor Michael Moynihan announced that "we're one of the few countries in the Western world that takes freedom of speech seriously," and indignantly defended it against "those who pretend to be worried about trampling innocents in a crowded theater but are more interested in trampling your right to say whatever you damn well please." To Moynihan, Rosenbaum could not possibly be sincere or principled; he is just a would-be tyrant. The arguments about harm were "thin gruel"not even worth answering. Moynihan's response isn't really an argument; it's a defense of privilege, like a Big Tobacco paean to the right to smoke in public.

In contrast to this standard-issue tantrum is a genuinely thoughtful and appropriate response from Jonathan Rauch at The Volokh Conspiracy, now a part of the Washington Post's web empire. Rauch responds that

painful though hate speech may be for individual members of minorities or other targeted groups, its toleration is to their great collective benefit, because in a climate of free intellectual exchange hateful and bigoted ideas are refuted and discredited, not merely suppressed .... That is how we gay folks achieved the stunning gains we've made in America: by arguing toward truth.

I think he's right. But the argument isn't complete without conceding something most speech advocates don't like to admit:

Free speech does do harm.

It does a lot of harm.

And while it may produce social good much of the time, there's no guaranteeno "invisible hand" of the intellectual marketthat ensures that on balance it does more good than harm. As Rauch says, it has produced a good result in the case of the gay-rights movement. But sometimes it doesn't.

Europeans remember a time when free speech didn't produce a happy ending. They don't live in a North Korea-style dystopia. They do "take free speech seriously," and in fact many of them think their system of free speech is freer than ours. Their view of human rights was forged immediately after World War II, and one lesson they took from it was that democratic institutions can be destroyed from within by forces like the Nazis who use mass communication to dehumanize whole races and religions, preparing the population to accept exclusion and even extermination. For that reason, some major human-rights instruments state that "incitement" to racial hatred, and "propaganda for war," not only may but must be forbidden. The same treaties strongly protect freedom of expression and opinion, but they set a boundary at what we call "hate speech."

It's a mistake to think that the U.S. system goes back to the foundation of the republic. At the end of World War II, in fact, our law was about the same as Europe's is today. The Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) upheld a state "group libel" law that made it a crime to publish anything that "exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy." European countries outlawed fascist and neo-Nazi parties; in the 1951 caseDennis v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that in essence outlawed the Communist Party as a "conspiracy" to advocate overthrowing the U.S. government. Justice Robert H. Jackson, who had been the chief U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war criminals, concurred in Dennis, warning that totalitarianism had produced "the intervention between the state and the citizen of permanently organized, well financed, semi-secret and highly disciplined political organizations." A totalitarian party "denies to its own members at the same time the freedom to dissent, to debate, to deviate from the party line, and enforces its authoritarian rule by crude purges, if nothing more violent." Beauharnais, Dennis, and similar cases were criticized at the time, and today they seem grievously wrong. But many thoughtful people supported those results at the time.

U.S. law only began to protect hateful speech during the 1960s. The reason, in retrospect, is clearrepressive Southern state governments were trying to criminalize the civil-rights movement for its advocacy of change. White Southerners claimed (and many really believed) that the teachings of figures like Martin Luther King or Malcolm X were "hate speech" and would produce "race war." By the end of the decade, the Court had held that governments couldn't outlaw speech advocating law violation or even violent revolution. Neither Black Panthers nor the KKK nor Nazi groups could be marked off as beyond the pale purely on the basis of their message.

Those decisions paved the way for triumphs by civil rights, feminist, and gay-rights groups. But let's not pretend that nobody got hurt along the way. The price for our freedoma price in genuine pain and intimidationwas paid by Holocaust survivors in Skokie and by civil-rights and women's-rights advocates subjected to vile abuse in public and private, and by gay men and lesbians who endured decades of deafening homophobic propaganda before the tide of public opinion turned.

Free speech can't be reaffirmed by drowning out its critics. It has to be defended as, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, "an experiment, as all life is an experiment."

I admire people on both sides who admit that we can't be sure we've drawn the line properly. In Dennis, the case about Communists, Justice Felix Frankfurter voted to uphold the convictions. That vote is a disgrace; but it is slightly mitigated by this sentence in his concurrence: "Suppressing advocates of overthrow inevitably will also silence critics who do not advocate overthrow but fear that their criticism may be so construed .... It is a sobering fact that, in sustaining the convictions before us, we can hardly escape restriction on the interchange of ideas." When Holmes at last decided that subversive speech should be protected, he did so knowing full well that his rule, if adopted, might begin the death agony of democracy. "If in the long run the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community," he wrote in his dissent in Gitlow v. New York, "the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way."

The reason that we allow speech cannot be that it is harmless. It must be that we prefer that people harm each other, and society, through speech than through bullets and bombs. American society is huge, brawling, and deeply divided against itself. Social conflict and change are bruising, ugly things, and in democracies they are carried on with words. That doesn't mean there aren't casualties, and it doesn't mean the right side will always win.

For that reason, questions about the current state of the law shouldn't be met with trolling and condescension. If free speech cannot defend itself in free debate, then it isn't really free speech at all; it's just a fancier version of the right to smoke.

Read the original:

Free Speech Isn't Free - The Atlantic

Observer

The Death of Free Speech Observer The home of the Free Speech Movement of the 1960's just succumbed to the latest campus effort to shut down unpopular views. Last week University officials cancelled a speech by conservative performance artist and Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos ... Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus ShowdownRollingStone.com Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus--Here's How They CanForbes Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn ReynoldsUSA TODAY The Brown Daily Herald -Tribune-Review -legal Insurrection (blog) -CNN all 174 news articles »

Excerpt from:

The Death of Free Speech - Observer

A Minnesota city that drew backlash after pulling a cross from a veterans memorial park has agreed to bring it back as early as Tuesday -- inside a section of the park that supporters have called a "free speech zone."

COFFEE COMPANY TAKES ON STARBUCKS' REFUGEE PLAN, PLEDGES TO HIRE 10,000 VETERANS

The Freedom From Religion Foundation demanded the city of Belle Plaineremove the crosslast month, claiming it violated the separation of church and state. After workers took it down, many supporters of vets responded by setting up their own crosses, and theSecond Brigade Motorcycle Club patrolled the park to watch out for vandalism.

Amid the controversy in that city, the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit, proposed setting up a"limited public forum" inside the park, where the original cross could stand,Fox 9 reported. The name "free speech zone" has stuck, even though the park is public.

CEMETERY WITH GRAVES OF VETS AND A PRESIDENT'S GRANDFATHER SEES NEW VANDALISM

The city council narrowly approved the proposal, by a vote of 3-2. Under the plan, city leaders would set up a method of considering each proposed display, giving priority to veterans groups,the StarTribune reported.

"It sets it up so we can have something to memorialize our fallen but it also gives others a chance to memorialize theirs as well," Katie Novotny, a supporter of the cross who lived in Belle Plaine, told the news station. "It doesnt matter if youre Jewish, if youre Muslim, were all Americans fighting this war together."

TheFreedom From Religion Foundation called the idea "constitutionally problematic" in a letter before Monday's vote, Fox 9 added. The group reportedly claimed it would submit a proposal for a memorial of its own in the park.

The newly approved plan "ensures that there is no endorsement of religion by the city whatsoever because the memorials that will be put up represent the citizens that put them up," Doug Wardlow, who represented the Alliance Defending Freedom, responded.

The original memorial showed the silhouette of a soldier holding a gun and kneeling in front of a small cross. It could reappear in the park as early as Tuesday evening, according to Fox 9.

Cheers erupted in City Hall after the council gave the OK.

Belle Plaine is a 45-minute drive southwest of Minneapolis.

Click for more from Fox 9.

Read more here:

Cross returning to veterans memorial park inside 'free speech zone ... - Fox News

[JURIST] UNl Special Rapporteur David Kaye [official profile] called on [press release] Thai authorities Tuesday to cease using royal defamation laws to counter free speech that is critical of the royal family. This report was released as a law student activist awaits trial in detention for sharing a BBC news article on the new King, Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun, on his private Facebook page. The student has been held in detention since his December 2 arrest. Kaye claims that international human rights laws prohibit not only the current actions of Thailand but also the law: "Les-majest provisions have no place in a democratic country. I urge the authorities of Thailand to take steps to revise the country's Criminal Code and to repeal the law that establishes a justification for criminal prosecution"

Thailand has been criticized in recent months for its human rights policies. The Thailand Parliament unanimously approved [JURIST report] a controversial amendment to its Computer Crime Act of 2007 (CCA) in December, which rights groups fear will give the government unrestricted power to police the web and suppress criticism. In September Amnesty International released a report [JURIST report] detailing the prevalence of torture employed by Thai authorities and claiming the military government has led to a "culture of torture." The same month Thailand's Bangkok South Criminal Court found British labor rights activist Andy Hall guilty [JURIST report] of criminal defamation and violating cyber crime laws.

See the rest here:

UN rights expert urges Thailand not to stifle free speech - JURIST

church-state separation By Kimberly Winston | February 6, 2017

The Splainer (as in Youve got some splaining to do) is an occasional feature in which the RNS staff gives you everything you need to know about current events to hold your own at the water cooler.

(RNS) The day before President Trump used his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast to promise a repeal of the Johnson Amendment, a bill was introduced in Congress to effectively do that. It has not yet been scheduled for debate or a vote.

The Free Speech Fairness Act is being touted as a fix to the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 law that prohibits nonprofits from engaging in politics.But how much of a fix would the act be? Would it protect theFirst Amendment right of free speech for clergy or trample the concepts in the same First Amendment that form the basis for separation ofchurch and state in America? Let us Splain

The Internal Revenue Services tax code as it relates to nonprofit organizations, which includes most houses of worship, says a tax-exempt organization a 501(c)(3) in IRS parlance may not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The Free Speech Fairness Act would change that. The language of the act proposes to allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose. The act would also require the organization making such statements not incur more than de minimis incremental expenses in doing so, which means with only minimal expenditure no Super Bowl ads, no two-page New York Times ads, unless those are the usual places a tax-exempt organization promotes itself.

The act was introduced in the House by Reps.Steve Scalise,R-La., and Jody Hice,R-Ga., and in the Senate by Sen.James Lankford,R-Okla. Lankford is co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, Scalise is Catholic and Hice is a Southern Baptist pastor.

Hicesaid in a statementthat he had experienced intimidation from the IRS firsthand, adding, I know just how important it is to ensure that our churches and nonprofit organizations are allowed the same fundamental rights as every citizen of this great Nation.

Its all in the phrase if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose. What is meant by the ordinary course? Is there a limit on the amount of incremental expenses? Such phrases are not self-defining, writes Daniel Hemel, an assistant professor of law at the University of Chicago. (M)uch will depend on the way that the IRS interprets and enforces the ambiguous language that Hice and Scalise have put forward.

But Hemel finds the act fairly neutral. Its not obvious that the Free Speech Fairness Act would favor Republicans. It would allow Planned Parenthood the same freedom to endorse candidates that it would give to, say, Samaritans Purse.

Opponents of any change or repeal of the Johnson Amendment who include Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Secular Coalition forAmerica and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty worry about obscuring the line separating church and state.

Many argue that religious leaders already engage in politics without fear of reprisal from the IRS. Some point to the Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr.s support of candidate Donald Trump, which did not endanger the tax-exempt status of Liberty University, where Falwell is president. Others say taxpayers would effectively be supporting speech they do not necessarily agree with. If an organization, such as a house of worship, accepts favorable tax treatment, theyre being underwritten by the taxes you and I pay, Ellen April, a tax law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, writes in The Washington Post. Which is fair enough, but then we, the taxpayers, shouldnt have to pay for their partisan political speech that we may not agree with.

Supporters of the act include the National Religious Broadcasters, an international organization of Christians in communication; the Family Research Council; and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian organization that has long advocated a repeal of the Johnson Amendment. They view it as restoring free speech to nonprofit organizations, especially houses of worship. They also argue that critics concerned about the line between church and state misunderstand the principle.

Thomas Jeffersons separation coinage doesnt mean that there is a complete wall of separation between the two; it just means that the state should not have control over the church, nor shall the church maintain control over the state, the acts three sponsors wrotein The Washington Post.

The public has shown little enthusiasm for politics in the pulpit. A2016 LifeWay poll found that only 19 percent of Americans agree with the statement it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse political candidates during a church service, and a2013 Pew Research Center survey that found two-thirds of Americans think clergy should not endorse political candidates.

Kimberly Winston is a freelance religion reporter based in the San Francisco Bay Area. She covers atheism and freethought for RNS.

Read more:

The 'Splainer: What is the Free Speech Fairness Act? | Religion ... - Religion News Service

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Having taught at the University of California, Berkeley many years ago, I know exactly where last Tuesdays riots occurred, as I crossed Sproul Plaza regularly (Trump floats cutting off federal funds after Berkeley riots, Web, Feb. 2). Further, as a very, very old-fashioned liberal, I believe that the true heart of a high-quality liberal arts education is exposure to and engagement with a wide variety of ideas covering all points of view.

While it is laughable to imagine Governor Moonbeam cutting state funds over the denial of free speech to anyone to the right of over-the-edge left, any other old-fashioned liberals out there ought to support the threat of the cutting of federal funds for the denial of free speech as a matter of principle. Remember Skokie and the also-very-old fashioned American Civil Liberties Union.

GORDON E. FINLEY

Professor of psychology emeritus

Florida International University

Miami

Continued here:

Free speech for all, not just some - Washington Times

Draft legislation has been published with the aim of guaranteeing free speech in US college campuses.

The proposals would attempt to reinstate free expression by stopping institutions from disinviting controversial speakers, and explicitly teaching students that universities exist to uphold the First Amendment.

The new rules were published last week by the Goldwater Institute think tank, with the aim of forming a model for state legislatures to debate, amend and pass.

Although they would only apply to state colleges, the authors believe their new rules would have a ripple effect and also change the culture at private institutions.

The draft legislation contains a host of new provisions, including efforts to roll back existing practices on campus and also tough rules to deter would-be infringements.

In the most extreme circumstances, students who repeatedly stopped their peers from expressing themselves for example, through violent protest could be expelled.

An introduction to the publication said:

Nowhere is the need for open debate more important than on Americas college campuses. Students maturing from teenagers into adults must be confronted with new ideas, especially ideas with which they disagree, if they are to become informed and responsible members of a free society.

The model bill offered herein is designed to change the balance of forces contributing to the current baleful national climate for campus free speech.

Some of the proposals include:

campuses of the institution are open to any speaker whom students, student groups, or members of the faculty have invited. (1.5)

It is not the proper role of the institution to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive (1.2)

The policy shall include a range of disciplinary sanctions for anyone under the jurisdiction of the institution who interferes with the free expression of others. (1.7)

Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled. (1.9)

State institutions of higher education shall include in freshman orientation programs a section describing to all students the policies and regulations regarding free expression consistent with this act. (3)

Excerpt from:

There's a Law Being Drafted to Guarantee Free Speech on Campus ... - Heat Street

After violent protests raised concerns of student safety, administrators at UC Berkeley canceled a planned event featuring controversial far-right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos last Wednesday. 150 masked agitators interrupted an otherwise peaceful protest, causing $100,000 of damage to the universitys campus. We commend UC Berkeley administrators for effectively and efficiently handling this situation.

While the incident has been framed as a battle over free speech on UC Berkeleys liberal campus, it is important to distinguish intellectual diversity from hate speech on college campuses. It is imperative that college students gain a wide range of perspectives and evidence-based ideas to continue challenging their own opinions and worldviews, but universities should foster this intellectual growth by inviting principled conservatives to provide educational experiences for their studentsnot polemicists such as Yiannopoulos who hold little substance behind their contrarian views.

Yiannopoulos does not deserve to be granted the platform of a university campus to espouse his hateful beliefs. Institutions of higher education pride themselves on generating new knowledge and challenging old beliefs for the purposes of advancing our understanding of the world. Furthermore, these institutions are built on the principle of evidence-based research. In contrast, Yiannopoulos appears to challenge others beliefs simply for the sake of being a contrarian, and he does so with little tenability for his claims. Yiannopoulos is little more than a racist, sexist, and anti-semite who encourages hate and fear rather than intellectual thought.

There is strong precedent for believing that Yiannopoulos poses a tangible threat to the safety and well-being of university students. For example, in a sold-out talk at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee last December, Yiannopoulos singled out Adelaide K. Kramer, a transgender student at the university, by projecting her face on a large screen and proceeding to mock her in front of a packed crowd of laughing students. Following the incident, Kramer wrote to the chancellor of UW, Do you know what its like to be in a room full of people who are laughing at you as if youre some sort of perverted freak, and how many of them would have hollered at me (or worse) if I was outed? Do you know what this kind of terror is? The far-right speakers views are incredibly hateful towards students who deserve to feel welcome on their college campuses. Yiannopoulos has proven multiple times that he is a significant threat to specific students. This alone should be more than enough for administrators to bar him from campuses in the first place.

In the midst of the debates of free speech and intellectual diversity, the irony of President Donald J. Trumps Twitter responses is especially disheartening for student protesters across this country. Following the Berkeley campus protests, President Trump tweeted, If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS? Moving forward, advocates of free speech must work to also expand their selective view of the constitution and recognize that the Berkeley student protesters who were peaceful were exercising their first amendment rights. President Trumps immediate threats to pull federal funds from a public university due to student protests must be taken as a serious infringement on one of Americas most powerful democratic rights.

Members of Harvard should think twice before inviting speakers such as Yiannopoulos to our campus. Granting these figures a platform at our universities only serves to further legitimize their untenable, hateful claims and poses a threat to fellow classmates. Milo Yiannopoulos and other members of the alt-right have no place on college campuses. Harvard College's mission statement "seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students full participation"; the identification and prevention of hate speech is critical in this mission.

Read more in Opinion

See the original post here:

Free Speech, Not Hate Speech | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson

I wrote last week about the importance of the model bill drafted by the Goldwater Institute the Campus Free Speech Act. In my latest Forbes article, I elaborate on the problem and why state legislators must take action.

Free speech is far too important to leave to the campus crowd of administrators, faculty, and zealous students who are little inclined to stand up for free speech. Mostly, anti-speech views rule that is to say, speech is tolerated only if it aligns perfectly with progressive ideology. Since campus officials have shown that they cannot be entrusted with the crucial task of justifying and defending free speech, its time for state lawmakers to step in. Sure, the academic elite will howl that such legislation interferes in their domain, but public colleges and universities are not theirs to run.

Let us hope that legislators who want to restore the First Amendment and its values on our campuses introduce the model bill in each state. It certainly wont pass everywhere, but the debate will be enlightening.

See the original post:

The Campus Free Speech Act Is Desperately Needed - National Review

Willamette Week

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech Permit" for Protests Willamette Week Under applicable law, airports are not public forums for free speech activity. he Port elects to provide space for free speech activities, but restricts the time, place and manner in which these activities occur to make sure the airport continues to ... Portland Airport Protests Lead To Free Speech Zone Being EstablishedPatch.com PDX bans large protests in airport terminalkgw.com Planning a protest at PDX? You'll need a permitKATU all 5 news articles »

Read more:

Portland International Airport is Now Requiring a "Free Speech Permit" for Protests - Willamette Week

Besides the Why-Cant-We-All-Just-Get-Along cry going up the poop, Wednesday it again went up in flames.

Recap: Right-winger Milo Yiannopoulos. Greek-born Brit. Breitbart News editor. Gay. Bounced off Twitter for his supervillain anti-political correctness.

His last weeks invite by Republican students at U of California, Berkeley, resulted in police, protests, violence, demonstrations, pepper spray, flames, arrests, objects thrown, bodies in lockdown. Security blocked some, faculty blocked others.

Some authors pulled their submissions when Simon & Schuster bought his book outline for $250,000.

E pluribus unum. One-for-all-all-for-one. Land of the Free speech, Home of the Driven.

New news: His book title is Dangerous. Theres a co-writer. Pushing this dialogue himself, he personally made the rounds of publishers. As we speak its being minutely examined by lawyers. No photographs.

Inching through wall-to-wall editors, the size of its first printing is not yet decided, although Simon & Schuster is known for publishing political works. The copy price? Around $25.

Called racist, acknowledged provocateur, controversial, its all his ideas. He writes of his sexuality, free speech, why campuses cant have dialogue with those who dont agree, and why full-on war could be coming to a head. He asks why those who disagree get trashed inside Starbucks. He asks why people lack a right to their own opinion.

Oddly, Threshold, an S&S subprint, published a campaign-time book about Donald Trump. And Hillary is now grinding out a volume of personal essays. Pubdate, this fall. Publisher? Simon & Schuster.

Glenn Close, who lives the high life in Sunset Boulevard, gets a high-life opening Thursday. Black tie ... Neil Diamonds 50th anny tour starts April 7. He once razzberryd playing NY. Over it now, hell do the Garden on June 15 and 17 ... Armand Assante getting a ready? Hoboken International Film Festival award. Hoboken, an international Film Festival? Must be Newark means crossing the border ... Conan plays the Apollo in November. Another Festival. Comedy Festival.

J.K. Simmons, Oscar winner for Damien Chazelles Whiplash, hired for his musical La La Land while still filming Whiplash ... Foodies: Grocery man Stew Leonard and WNBC vegetable man Produce Pete sharing Beach Cafe fries Rich Russians shop Cartiers small neighborhood branches, not its iconic main store. They do not want to be seen or photographed there. Ask not what you can do for your country nor how I know this. I know it.

Broadway Records (two Grammy noms this year) releasing newcomer Tyces Hero. Songs by Jim Steinman, who wrote Meat Loafs 1977 album Bat Out of Hell, which sold 43 million albums The Founder, about salesman Kroc making burger joint McDonalds into a mega moneymaker, is confounding Hollywood kvetchers: Michael Keatons terrific. Story terrific. Why no nomination?

The Emotionary is Penguins new Eden Sher/Julia Wertz nonexisting words for existing feelings. Like: To predict a worst outcome mix catastrophe and extrapolate for castrapolate. Happiness and apprehensive begets happrihensive. And pretending to get something finally after someones repeated it nine times? Feignderstand. Its a fun read.

Handsome starting-out lawyer on the dating scene: One chick said: Opposites make good marriages. So I want a guy with money.'

Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

Go here to read the rest:

The war on free speech is alive and well - Page Six

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Jae Alexis Lee, Trans Woman, Technology Enthusiast, Martial Arts Instructor, long time manager, on Quora:

Why are gender pronouns being forced into law?This is a distortion of reality that's popular in some social circles and it really, really bugs me. Let meexplain, we'll start with the basics: Harassment isn't okay. We good with that? I hope so because if not there's no hope for the rest of this conversation. Harassment isn't okay.

What constitutes harassment? Well, lots of things. Anyone who's ever been a manager for a sufficiently large corporation has probably sat through at least one mandatory training session about what the company considers harassment, what the law considers harassment, and what they're expected to do about it. We'll skip the minutia and leave it at high, high-level concepts for now: Harassment can include physical behavior (inappropriate touching, hitting, etc.), verbal behavior (teasing, lewd comments, etc.) and direct actions (work assignments, dismissals or threats of termination, etc.) Got it? 1,000 foot level.

Let's descend a bit to talk about verbal harassment. Some things would be considered harassment regardless of the gender, ethnicity, religion or orientation of the target. If I make a point of loudly addressing one of my staff as "Dumb F***" and pile onto that with abusive language every time I give them instructions both in private or publicly, that's not okay. (All right, I'm wandering into hostile work environment land a little bit, but hang with me, we're not going to get sucked into that level of minutia here.) If that member of my staff quits and files for unemployment, I promise you, I'm going to have a hard time explaining my behavior to a judge on that.

Some forms of verbal harassment are unique to traditionally oppressed groups. Racial slurs, sexist remarks, religious slurs. We've got a list of things that as an employer, it's not okay to call your employees. If those employees complain and we keep doing it anyway, that's explicitly not okay.

So, now we're looking at trans people, a historically oppressed minority that studies have demonstrated face significant rates of harassment and discrimination. Like many other groups, there are collections of slurs and methods of being verbally abusive that are specific to the group. In areas where we talk about gender identity being a protected class, using trans-specific verbally abusive language would be forbidden in the same contexts that using racial slurs would be prohibited or making lewd sexual comments would be forbidden.

Still with me? Good. When it comes to trans people, in addition to slurs like shemale and tranny, denying a trans person's identity can constitute harassment. Terms commonly used in the trans community are misgendering (referring to a person with incorrect pronouns, or other gendered parts of speech), and deadnaming (using a trans person's pre-transition name.) Same as using racial slurs or making lewd sexual comments, this kind of behavior can have significant negative impact to the person on the receiving end of it.

So, Jae, what you're telling me is that if I screw up and call a trans man 'she' it's the same thing as if I asked my receptionist to show me her tits?

I get this a lot. No, not that exact question, but the idea that people are afraid that screwing up will get them in legal trouble.

This isn't about verbal stumbles. In general, when we're talking about non-discrimination legislation that creates protection for gender identity what we're doing is placing behavior that is explicitly anti-trans on the same level as behavior that is specifically anti-any other protected class.

Verbal stumbles happen, we all know that. Show of hands from everyone who's never said she when they meant to say he? Who's never opened their mouth to mention a person by name only to have the wrong name come out? It happens, and in general, we make a quick comment/apology about it, and then we move on.

There's no reason to feel like a law that protects trans people would be different in application. In any legal case we're going to be looking at severity (saying 'show me your tits or you're fired' is on a different level than calling someone the 'company slut' where it can be overheard, both are bad, one is worse), there's going to be an examination of frequency, of intent, and of circumstances.

When you dig into harassment in the workplace, you learn that there's a whole lot of gray. We can't write laws that spell out every word that can or can't be used, or every phrase or how often people can or can't say something. Instead, we have a framework of guidelines that the justice system can use to assess the situation.

So, I get that Jae, but... are you saying this is just for employers and employees?

No, not at all. Looking at from a corporate perspective is easy for me because I've been in management for so long, but it's also an approachable lens for a broad swath of people because most of us have had jobs at one point or another.

This sort of thing applies to a large number of relationships where there is an institutional power differential. It applies from employer to employee where we talk about things regarding hostile workplaces, harassment and a host of other employment related things. It also applies when we're talking about how law enforcement treats suspects. In investigations of bias and excessive force, the use of slurs on the part of the LEO can be employed as part of proving that an officer acted inappropriately due to bias. We look at this in relationships between teachers and students, especially in instances where there is a reason to suspect that grading which may be subjective has been unfair towards minority students, or that classroom environments were too hostile for students to be able to engage and learn. We talk about this in the contexts of landlords and tenants, business owners and clients and on and on and on.

Fundamentally, harassment and discrimination are issues we face in the modern world. We have laws to address these things because harassment and discrimination aren't okay. Legislation that adds gender identity to the list of protected classes aren't enforcing an Orwellian form of thought control on the population, but they recognize that trans people are frequently targeted for harassment and discrimination. Some laws make explicit note that misgendering and deadnaming are specific methods by which people harass and make transgender people feel unwelcome or unsafe.

But Jae, what about free speech?

You still have freedom of expression, as much as you ever did. It hasn't gone away. Want to call me a delusional dude on your blog? Go for it, knock yourself out. Want to demand you have the right to call Caitlyn Jenner Bruce? Be my guest. It isn't an issue until you do so in a way that is specifically harmful to another person. If you're my boss, and you call me 'he' or 'it' every time you talk about me at work, then you're going to get a complaint from me letting you know that I'm not okay with it. I'm going to copy HR on the complaint, and if it keeps happening then things escalate as appropriate for the situation (that may mean internal escalations to my boss's boss, that might entail talking to an employment attorney, again, situational.)

Speech has consequences, and in general, our rights stop when our method of exercising them hurts other people. You're welcome to say or think whatever you want, but in some situations, there are things you shouldn't say because of the harm it will cause and if you do cause damage with what you say then you may be held accountable for the harm you caused.

That's what this is about. Not about Orwellian thought police, not about an out of control radical left, but about recognizing that the trans population is a minority that faces significant harassment and discrimination. That harassment and discrimination aren't okay, and that deliberately misgendering or deadnaming a trans person may be a form of verbal abuse that would be actionable under appropriate laws regarding specific forms of verbal abuse.

Got it? Good, now go be nice to each other, class dismissed.

This question originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

The rest is here:

When Free Speech Turns Into Harassment, It Isn't Okay or Legal - Huffington Post

I support free speech but.. That is a worrying statement to hear from anyone that lives in a Liberal Western Democracy like Canadas.

I support free speech but. always means theres some kind of speech the person speaking, would like to see shut down.

And the problem with that is, where do you stop?

If you trust the current government to restrict speech you dont like, what about the next government led by that leader you hate or that party you cant stand.

Would you be comfortable handing over the ability to criminalize speech?

And yet, from people rioting to shut down civil discourse on campuses to calls for advertising bans and having the government police Twitter or Facebook for mean posts and fake news, this is a worrying time for free speech.

- Riots - Fake News - Twitter police - Ad bans - Political targeting

Watch as I go through each of the ways free speech is under attack in the current environment.

Doesnt it remind you all of 1984?

Freedom of speech, freedom of expression its all taken for granted but as we have seen in the past with issues like Section 13 of the Human Rights Act - the hurt feelings on the internet section, many people, including elected officials are more than happy to let freedom of speech be curtailed for the latest fashionable idea.

The answer however should always be no.

Visit link:

5 ways free speech is under attack - The Rebel

84 LumberDid you see the Super Bowl ad about Mexican avocados? The Coke commercial? Budweiser's mini-bio of its immigrant founder? Was corporate America trolling Donald Trump with ads that celebrated free trade, diversity, and immigration? Or were they just selling products to people perhaps more sensitive to gleaning political messages than they have been before? Do you want the government to decide that?

Breitbart commenters, among other Trump loyalists, have been concerned about political ads at the Super Bowl since last week, when the Budweiser ad hit the news cycle. Fox initially rejected one ad from a lumber company that featured a long journey to a border wall, and a big beautiful door, although the beginning of the ad, from Lumber 84, did airthe whole thing was put online. Nevertheless, there was no paucity of ads from which viewers gleaned political messages. And that's a good thingdespite the heated rhetoric against Citizens United and corporate speech rights during the 2016 election, the Super Bowl ads and the discussions they're inevitably launching are an illustration of why protecting free speech rights from government regulation is important, even for corporations. Free expression is a crucial component of a free society and a healthy democracy, and sustains a marketplace of ideas. The notion that government interference can have anything but a deleterious effect is ridiculousit shouldn't have to take a character like Trump to head the government for people to realize that; there have been enough examples of what supposedly well-intended regulations have done.

Tonight's ads reflected the American populationcompanies, unlike governments, have to offer people something they want or they won't get their money, so they are far better at delivering to and so reflecting the many moods of the American people. The inevitable complaints, even the boycotts, are part of that too, and it's all part of a process of self-regulating speech, where ideas, ideally, rise and fall on their merits, where individuals get to argue about the meaning of things instead of having government decide. Only through open discussions, unfettered by the coercions of a government inevitably interested in protecting itself and its narrow interests, can better ideas develop and thrive.

Both Trump and his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, who courageously stood up against Citizens United, which ruled in favor of free speech that was critical of her, have abysmal records on free speech. But perhaps 2017 will make more free speech fans out of people sometimes too quick to take their leaders' words on it.

Follow this link:

Super Bowl Ads Illustrate Importance of Free Speech Rights for All, Even Corporations - Reason (blog)

New York Times

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley New York Times BERKELEY, Calif. Fires burned in the cradle of free speech. Furious at a lecture organized on campus, demonstrators wearing ninja-like outfits smashed windows, threw rocks at the police and stormed a building. The speech? The university called it off. The No Free Speech Movement at BerkeleyLos Angeles Times Free speech takes a hit in BerkeleySan Francisco Chronicle Free speech: Milo is all of usThe Seattle Times The Mercury News -Breitbart News -UC Berkeley -Twitter all 845 news articles »

Here is the original post:

A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley - New York Times