On July 27, Comedian Adam Carolla testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the threat to free speech and diversity of thought across Americas college campuses.

Carolla was invited to the congressional hearing, entitled Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, because of his partnership with conservative radio talk personality Dennis Prager in their upcoming feature film,No Safe Spaces.

In the film, Prager and Carolla journey to colleges and universities to uncover the war on freedom of speech and diversity of thought, exposing the threat so-called safe spaces pose to our nations future. In the testimony, Carolla offers his own take on the issue of identity politics:

When a Democratic congresswoman raised the subject of race and diversity on college campuses, Carolla chimed in.

Geez. I want to talk about my white privilege so badly, the comedian said. I graduated North Hollywood High with a 1.7 GPA and could not find a job. I walked to a fire station. I was 19 and living in the garage of my family home and my mom was on welfare and food stamps. I said, Can I get a job as a fireman? and they said, No, because youre not black, Hispanic or a woman and well see you in about seven years.

The testimony was picked up in the media, and was featured on the Washington Examiner, Washington Free Beacon, and the New York Times. Carolla also penned an op-ed featured in the Daily Beast explaining why he was invited to speak before Congress:

Ive been asked to testify before Congress Thursday morning on the topic of free speech on college campuses. I talk for a living. Words matter to me. I earn my paycheck from making people laugh, but whats going on across the country at many of our nations universities is anything but funny. (See what I did there!)

What kind of preparation is being provided if we are avoiding discussions on tough subjects? Are true facts and best research being sidelined because its taboo to someones feelings?

Watch the complete hearinghere:

No Safe Spaces was successfully crowd-funded more than $500,000. CRCs Dangerous Documentaries has supported it with another $500,000 of matching funds.

No Safe Spacesis set to release in 2018, and will be directed by Justin Folk and produced by Mark Joseph. CRC president Scott Walter and Dangerous Documentaries founder Joseph Klein are the films executive producers. See the trailer forNo Safe Spaces here:

Dangerous Documentaries is a project of the Capital Research Center.

The rest is here:

Comedian Adam Carolla Testifies on Free Speech Abuse Before ... - Capital Research Center

Does Congress have a place in the free speech campus debate? The House of Representatives subcommittee on intergovernmental affairs sought to find out in their hearing on the Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses.

The committee is concerned about the state of free speech on college campuses amid the protests in the past year against controversial speakers such as alt-right advocate Milo Yiannopoulos and conservative pundit Ann Coulter, bothat the University of California-Berkeley, where protests ensued.

The key issue is whether, in an effort to preserve free speech, college campuses could fall into an area where their actions would inhibit it.

The House hearing comes on the heels of a similar hearing in the Senate last month.

The House hearing focused on a recent law in Wisconsin which seeks to allow for the suspension or expulsion of any University of Wisconsin student who engages in indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud or other disorderly conduct that interferes with the free expression of others, and committee members were especially concerned with how conservative speakers could be silenced by those who disagree with their opinions.

The experts agreed that the government should not have a role in policing free speech on campuses or deliberating what is considered to be a breech of free speech though disagreed on who should.

Michael Zimmerman, the former provost and vice president for academic affairs at the Evergreen State College which has recently grappled with protests and free speech issues on its campus advocated for putting the control in the hands of the school administrators.

This is wrong and it must stop, but what we dont need is additional legislation, he said. We currently have all the tools we need to fix the problem if we have the courage to use them. College administrators need to have the courage to stand for what is right, to stand for principles rather than expediency, and to risk alienating some in the same of those principles.

He affirmed his commitment to freedom of speech on campus: When we shut out voices, we shut out ideas, and serious consequences ensue.

Though Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of conservative news and opinion site the Daily Wire, highlighted instances where he felt the administrations decisions infringed on his own right to free speech, such as at the University of Wisconsin where he gave a speech last year which was interrupted by protesters. He said he asked the police to intervene, but they told him the administration advised them not to.

What Im seeing is a hecklers veto thats taking place on campuses, Shapiro said. What Im seeing is people engaging in free speech that is not made to enrich the debate, but in order to shut down the debate, and there have to be some sort of ramifications for people who are actually committing trespass.

At a minimum, the clearest way experts see to protect free speech is to encourage more dialogue overall, especially on controversial topics.

The appropriate answer, as the Supreme Court has said, is more speech, counter speech, said New York Law School professor Nadine Strossen, and interestingly enough, evidence indicates that it is far more effective than censorship in robustly effectively countering ideas that we disagree with.

Zimmerman echoed Strossens point as well.

The more we talk with one another and the more we listen to one another, the easier it is to understand one another, Zimmerman said. When we look at others as other, we can demonize them, we can ignore their ideas and know their ideas are wrong. When we understand who these people are and what they believe, its so much easier to share what we have in common, instead of looking for our differences.

Emma Kinery is a University of Michigan student and a USA TODAY intern.

Excerpt from:

Who should police free speech on college campuses? Congress wants to know - USA TODAY

On Thursday, the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the Challenges to Freedom of Speech on College Campuses.

Several witnesses were called to testify, including Ben Shapiro, editor of The Daily Wire and contributor to National Review. Watch him deconstruct and dismantle the ideology of the campus Left in less than five minutes.

Shapiro ended his opening statement by emphasizing what should be our core values:

Shielding college students from opposing viewpoints makes them simultaneously weaker and more dangerous. We must fight that process at every step. And that begins by acknowledging that whatever we think about America and where we stand, we must agree on this fundamental principle: All of our views should be judged on their merits, not on the color, or sex, or sexual orientation of the speaker, and those views should never be banned on the grounds that they offend someone.

Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), the chairmanof the committee, joked that left-wing college professors would probably find that very statement to be a microaggression.

The House Oversight Committee also invited Adam Carolla, the conservative-minded comedian, to share his insights. He did not disappoint, arguing that we need the adults to start acting like adults.

If we want to protect free speech on campus, we need to follow Carollas advice and establish order. This means enforcing the laws and college regulations that already exist, and punishing campus radicals when they suppress free speech. They are free to protest, of course, but they cross a line when they prevent others from speaking.

Claremont McKenna did just that when it suspended students who shut down a speech by Heather Mac Donald. More schools should follow Claremonts example, listen to Shapiro and Carolla, and defend the idea of the university.

The rest is here:

Ben Shapiro and Adam Carolla Tell Congress the Truth About Free Speech - National Review

Maan Abu Taleb is the co-founder and editor of the online Arab-language music magazine Ma3azef.comand a radio showwith the same name featuring contemporary Arab music. His debut novel "All The Battles" was published in Arabic in Februaryand the English edition will be published in September.

DW: What does freedom of speech mean to you?

Abu Taleb: For me, it means that we can address what we want to address without having to think about freedom of speech. The problem is that you end up having to talk about things because you are not allowed to talk about them or you sort of self-censor and you don't end up talking about something because you are worried about freespeech.

What gets lost in those two scenarios is writing about something just for the sake of the topic itself. For example, at ma3azef.com, we do not want to address something just to break some boundaries. We do not write about a band just because they are controversial. We write about bands because they are good, because they make good music. We shouldn't have to think about whether this falls into our (idea of)freedom of speech or not.

A screenshot of the Arab art magazine ma3azef.com

But there is another aspect to free speech that many do not think about and that is logistics. Some regimes limit access to online tools of communication so we have trouble talking to our writers. We are even having trouble paying our writers because sometimes sending money to them would get them into trouble, like in Egypt. If they cannot be compensated for their hard work, it is difficult for them to write for us.

Is it true that media from outside the Arab-speaking world solely covers art that goes against the government orsocietal norms?

What's happening now is that whether it is the Arab press or the Western press, all of the focus is on the political side and no attention whatsoever is given to the artistic side of a work. You find that books, novels, music andtheater do not get covered for the quality of the art in them but for the topic they are addressing. I think this is a disaster in the realm of arts and aesthetics. My interest in arts and music is purely the artistry. Great art is often not black and white but nuanced and complicated.

A lot of people find this reactionary and old-schoolbut we want to write about the aesthetic value of the work. Often you find that both the people who traditionally repress freedom of speech, like censors or governments, and the people who claim to be pro-freedom of speech are wary of this approach.

For our magazine, I want to say that an album is good because it contributes to this genre:it's interesting, it's engaging, it's pleasingor it's a beautiful work.

On the other side, we are not going to ignore a piece of art because we may disagree with the politics of it. This is what I mean about nuance.

But isn't art intrinsically political?

Of course. If you're from our part of the world, then everything is intrinsically political. We are not battling that. We don't want to get rid of that at all. What we do want to emphasize is that you can be political but at the same time you can also do work that is great art.

The Arab world is a very troubled place right now so artistic thinking does reflect that - Abu Taleb

This view of art -that art is OK because it is sensationally political -is a patronizing view of culture that comes from the Arab world. We do not accept that. Subtlety is being lost for easy-to-understand headlines.

That said, the Arab world is a very troubled place right now so artistic thinking does reflect that.

So what type of art is being missed?

What's interesting is what people are doing in different parts of the Arab world, where they are trying to converse with their own surroundings. We are muchmore interested in local scenes in Cairo, where they are writing music that they know their neighbors, their friends and their community will enjoy.

This is one of the reasons our magazine is only in Arabic. We find that there is a lot of value in having a discussion in the Arab world about the Arab world.

Interview: Ole Tangen Jr

This commentary is a part of DW'sFreedom of Speech Project which aims to highlight voices from around the world on the topics of freedom of expression and press freedom. You can also follow the project on Facebook.

Here is the original post:

'Controversy, not artistry': How the media covers Arab art - Deutsche Welle

BY: Kathryn Covert July 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said Thursday on Capitol Hill that free speech on college campuses is at risk, as students and faculty are "forced into self-censorship" for fear of "triggering, violating a safe space, a micro-aggression, or being targeted by a bias response team."

Jordan opened the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee hearing Thursday with a video montage showing examples of free speech being suppressed on U.S. college campuses. The clip included incidents at University of CaliforniaBerkeley, University of Wisconsin Madison, DePaul University, and Middleburry College. Each event consisted of public figures beinginvited to speak and protesters attempting to shut down the events.

Jordan said the incidents exemplified how the free flow of ideason campuses is being restricted.

"Trigger warnings, safe spaces, safe zones, shout-downs, micro-aggressions, bias response teams, and as we saw in the video, even riots on campuses today," Jordan said.

The purpose of the hearing was to identify problems and form solutions in response to the suppression offree speech on college campuses.

"The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable," Jordan said, quoting a 1974 Yale University Woodward Report.

Jordan saidthe Woodward Report outlined campus policy that was, "for years, the gold standard for what free speech on campus should look like."

"College is a place for young minds to be intellectually bombarded with new challenging ideas," Jordan said. "Unfortunately, today on many campuses students and faculty are forced into self censorship out of a fear of triggering, violating a safe space a micro aggression, or being targeted by a biased response team."

Jordan referenced anincident at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., which he called"the most recent example of how not to promote free speech on campus."

"Students and even faculty at Evergreen State College berated and even threatened a professor for even questioning why a new campus initiative could not be debated," Jordan said. "The police eventually stepped in to warn the professor it was no longer safe for him to actually come to campus."

"The college administrators stood by and did nothing," Jordansaid. "In fact, when asked to defend their behavior and speech policies, Evergreens president George Bridges refused to testify."

Jordan was referring toBret Weinstein, a biology professor at Evergreen State College who "supported Bernie Sanders, admiringly retweets Glenn Greenwald, and was an outspoken supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement," the New York Times reported.In April, he was labeled "racist" and effectively barred from campus after he questioned an "invitation" for all white faculty and staff members to leave campus during a"Day of Absence."

Jordanmade it clear that the work was just beginning, and Thursday's hearing was the second in a series intended to "highlight the First Amendment."

"This committee is committed to help colleges reinstate the freedom of speech as an important protection," Jordan said. "After all, it's no coincidence that the Constitution's framers prioritized the freedom of speech in the FirstAmendment."

Continue reading here:

GOP Rep. on Campus Free Speech: Students and Faculty Are 'Forced Into Self-Censorship' - Washington Free Beacon

Barack Obama had his share of poor decisions and outright failures. One of his worst moments came during his 2010 State of the Union address. With six justices seated in front of him, he upbraided the Supreme Court for a decision on campaign finance regulation.

"With all due deference to separation of powers," he said, "last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." It was a rude breach of protocol, inducing Justice Samuel Alito to shake his head and mouth, "Not true."

Obama's first sin was being disrespectful to justices who were there out of respect to his office. His second was a bad prediction. The legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams has found that of the $2.76 billion raised in the 2016 presidential election, corporations and other businesses provided only $67 million 2.4 percent. Finally, Obama failed to recognize the sound principles underlying the decision.

The Citizens United decision has been portrayed by liberal critics as proof that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court has become a captive of business interests and right-wing ideologues. But Brooklyn Law School professor Joel Gora, who has served the American Civil Liberties Union as a staff attorney and longtime member of its board of directors, says they are mistaken.

That ruling, he writes, is part of a commendable but unsung pattern. Over the past decade, Gora argues, "the Roberts Supreme Court may well have been the most speech-protective court in a generation, if not in our history."

He's not alone in this conclusion. Abrams told me the Roberts court has gotten some decisions wrong, but "taken as a whole, it has rendered First Amendment-protective decisions in an extraordinarily broad range of cases, and it deserves great credit for doing so."

Geoffrey Stone, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago Law School who has fiercely criticized the campaign finance ruling, says, "The Roberts court has given more protection to free speech across a larger range of areas than any of its predecessors have although sometimes unwisely."

Citizens United, argues Gora, has been unfairly maligned. "Here you had a law which made it a crime to put out a movie criticizing a major candidate for the presidency of the United States," he says. The First Amendment, wrote Anthony Kennedy, "prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

Critics say the conservative justices saw it that way because corporate spending tends to favor conservative causes (see: Koch brothers). Some other free speech rulings, says Stone, could also be ascribed to a rightward bias such as invalidating rules restricting protests at abortion clinics and overturning a law allowing doctors to keep private the medicines they prescribe.

But as Gora notes, many of the court's First Amendment decisions haven't followed that track. It struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim to have won military medals and a California law barring the sale of violent video games to minors.

A court awarded $5 million to the parents of a Marine whose funeral drew demonstrators with signs bearing such offensive messages as "Thank God for dead soldiers." The Supreme Court said the verdict violated the protesters' freedom of speech.

It also ruled against a George W. Bush administration policy requiring overseas groups getting AIDS prevention funds to adopt "a policy explicitly opposing prostitution." None of those decisions fit the policy preferences of conservatives.

The court has sometimes gone wrong on free speech. It upheld a public high school's suspension of a student who brandished a sign saying "Bong hits 4 Jesus," which it took to be a pro-drug sentiment, at a school-supervised event. The court said public employee whistleblowers have no First Amendment protection for anything they say "pursuant to their official duties."

For the most part, though, the court has been a force for freedom of expression. Gora thinks that will be reinforced by the arrival of Neil Gorsuch, who shares the general approach of the court's conservative wing. The new justice indicated in his confirmation hearings that unlike Donald Trump, he has no desire to make it easier for public figures to win libel suits.

Liberals and others will often find fault with the court, as well as Trump. But thanks to the justices, they will have a wide berth to complain.

Download "Recalculating: Steve Chapman on a New Century" in the free Printers Row app at http://www.printersrowapp.com.

schapman@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @SteveChapman13

Follow this link:

The John Roberts court: Champion of free speech - Chicago Tribune

Under Chinas increasingly harsh control on information, a Chinese female sexologist called on Chinese citizens to fight against censorship

By Charlotte Gao for The Diplomat

July 26, 2017

Li Yinhe, 65, Chinas leading sociologist on sex and family as well as an activist for LGBT rights, has become a role model of courage and rationality for many Chinese netizens. Against Chinas increasingly harsh control on information, Li has been constantly calling on all Chinese citizens to fight against censorship with moderate and rational argument.

As The Diplomat reported, the Chinese governments clampdown on internet activities has become increasingly harsh. Particularly in recent months, a large number of online accounts have been deactivated by hidden online censors for unknown reasons. WeChat and Weibo are the two most scrutinized social media platforms.

Faced with such grim atmosphere online, most Chinese intellectuals choose to stay silent. Against the odds, Li surprisingly published a long article on her personal Weibo account on July 9 criticizing Chinas censorship and calling for its abolition.

In her nearly 2000-word article under the title of Why should we completely abolish censorship, Li argued that the censorship of books, newspapers, online contents, films and television programs is against the Chinese Constitution and is one of the most critical problems in todays society.

She continued her reasoning:

Then why are some topics are forbidden from discussion? Its for sure that [the government] must have done something wrong but refuse to admit. However, refusing to admit the truth cant change the historical fact itself. It does not work but makes people see the lack of moral courage

She further contended that freedom of speech is written into the Chinese Constitution. Yet, its the 21st century and Chinese people are still fighting for this right.

Finally, she appealed to all Chinese citizens to resist censorship, exercise freedom of speech, work for the complete abolition of censorship, and safeguard the dignity of the Chinese Constitution.

Within hours, the long and powerful article garnered thousands of thumbs-up and reposts. Unsurprisingly, the popularity also led to the articles removal. Li is now reportedly banned from posting anything on her Weibo account for three months.

However, Li didnt stop her exercise of free speech. Several days later, she published another long article on her WeChat account, commenting on her ban on Weibo. She argued that her ban has just become a new piece of evidence to show Chinas lack of freedom of speech.

Although her new article was also deleted, her constant resistance has moved numerous Chinese netizens. What moved people most is not what she said as it is common sense but her gentle tone, rational reasoning, moderate wording and, most importantly, her courage.

Consequently, many Chinese netizens have been inspired to publish long articles to praise Lis behavior and character on various online platforms, despite the fact that their articles about Li have also been deleted.

Charlotte Gao holds a MA degree in Asian Studies. Her research interests center around East Asian topics. She has worked in the past as a news editor, reporter, and writer for multiple traditional, online, and new media outlets.

Read this article:

How Does a Chinese Sex Expert Become a Free Speech Advocate? - The Diplomat

Another round has begun in the battle between Google (and other internet companies) and the European Union over the misbegotten right to be forgotten. Frances supreme administrative court has just bucked the issueup to Europes top court, the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A decision, which will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech and the flow of accurate information on the internet, could take up to two years. But well before that, the Trump administration should intervene to make clear that the US will defend Americas leading internet companies and freedom of speech on the internet.

To review briefly, this all began in 2014 when the ECJruled that EU citizens had the right to demand that Google and other service providers expunge information that allegedly was out of date, inflammatory, or no longer relevant (although accurate). ThisforcedGoogle, which accounts for 90 percent of the EU internet search market, to bear the burden in cost and resources of removing links to search results from not only the country from which the request had come but also searches conducted in other EU domains. At this time in 2017, the company hasremovedsome 43 percent of individual privacy takedown requests, equivalent to 800,000 links to digital content.

A pedestrian walks past the Google offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., June 27, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder

In September 2015, the French national data protection agency went a step further anddemandedthat offending links be removed fromallsearch results worldwide. Google balked at this extraterritorial demand and subsequently received a $115,000 fine in March 2016. Google then appealed the ruling to Frances supreme administrative court, the Council of State, which last week pushed the whole set of questions back up to the ECJ.

Although it complied with the ECJs original mandate, Google has been steadfast in challenging the rationale behind the right to be forgotten doctrine and now the more outrageous worldwide extraterritorial expansion. Itargued from the outsetthat we believe that no one country should have the authority to control what content someone in a second country can access. . . . If the [French courts] proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the internet would only be as free as the worlds least-free place.

It is impossible to predict what the ECJ will decide but one ominous precedent illustrates Europes arrogant extraterritorial ambitions. Some years ago, the EU, backed by a tortuous, even ludicrous opinion by the ECJ, attempted to extend its internal carbon tax for airplanes beyond its borders. Thus, Asian airlines including a growing number of Chinese flights would pay the tax for not only miles chalked up over the EU but also the entire flight back and forth from Beijing, Seoul, or Tokyo. The ECJ claimed preposterously that the rules were merely an extension of EU internal regulations. Others, including the US, protested, but China went further and acted. It threatened quietly to shift future airline orders heavily away from Airbus and toward archrival Boeing. The incidentculminated in a humiliating retreatfor Europes top political officials and no further attempt to tax airline emissions beyond EU borders.

It is not to argue here that the US should emulate Beijing with overt direct trade or investment threats. However, two alternate courses of action should be adopted. First, as I argued to no avail during the Obama administration, the Trump administration should intervene actively in the court appeal certainly through a public expression of support for Google and possibly with a friend of the court brief. Down the road, the EU has expressed a strong desire torevive negotiationsfor a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to link two of the worlds strongest economies and trading powers. The Trump administration should respond affirmatively to such overtures, with the stipulation that the EUs continued demand for extraterritorial internet information removal is a deal breaker.

The bottom line is that the issues involved here clearly transcend Googles business model and competitive position in the EU. As I havewritten previously, At stake is the future of free data flows and the accessibility of accurate, public information through the entire internet.

So how about it, Mr. President? Time to finally use America First! for a good cause: free speech on the internet. It has a good ring to it.

Continue reading here:

The right to be forgotten issue gives Trump a chance to use America First for a good cause: Freedom of speech - American Enterprise Institute

When it seems anyone can say or write almost anything and have it published on the internet, recent events offer reminders that the freedom of expression is not universal.

The Financial Times first reported this week that the Chinese government has banned Winnie-the-Poohs likeness and name on social media.

Yes, that Winnie-the-Pooh, the anthropomorphic bear created by author A.A. Milne and digitized by Disney. As USA Today reported in a follow-up: The characters name in Chinese was censored in posts on Sina Weibo, a social media platform similar to Twitter, while a collection of Winnie-the-Pooh gifts vanished from social messaging service WeChat. ... Any attempts to post Poohs Chinese name on Weibo prompted a message: 'Content is illegal.' "

Insiders speculated that government censors acted on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was the subject of an internet meme featuring roly-poly Pooh and his wiry pal Tigger. Those images emerged in 2013 after the stout Xi was photographed with the slender President Barack Obama.

As is often the case, examples of absurd government censorship in China and elsewhere are accompanied by appalling abuses of human rights. Too often one leads to another, or vice versa.

It has been widely reported in the free world that Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recently died in Chinese custody denied access to his wife, who is under house arrest. But Chinese officials who control the media have been on social sites busily blocking news of Lius death and monitoring private conversations.

Liu was in state custody because he had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for writing about and advocating universal values shared by all humankind, including human rights, equality, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Eleven years.

For advocating universal values shared by all humankind.

Horrifying.

China is one of the most populous offenders but hardly alone. We have written previously about Raif Badawi, a blogger who has criticized the entanglement of religion, namely Islam, and government in Saudi Arabia and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes as a result. Considered a foe of the state and the national religion, he remains in custody; little is known about his condition or the extent of the beatings he has suffered.

Examples of repression are everywhere. Credible reports by watchdogs show that 34 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 with evidence that the killings were in retribution for coverage of public- and private-sector corruption. Turkey has recently jailed human-rights advocates.

And, yes, in the United States, there are troubling signs of intolerance: Campus speakers have been threatened and shouted down by political opponents, the tenor of the cultural wars is increasingly hostile and dishonest journalists have been labeled by the president as enemies of the people.

But at least in America we have the First Amendment and its protections, which have seldom seemed more necessary and valuable.

This editorial was originally published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a sister newspaper of the Daily News within GateHouse Media.

See original here:

EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech never more valuable - Holmes County Times Advertiser

Richard Dawkins and other leading atheists have hit out at a California radio station after it canceled an event upon learning of the scientists controversial views on Islam.

Dawkins was supposed to speak at an August event about his memoir, A Brief Candle in the Dark, hosted by Berkeleys KPFA radio station.

But in an email, which Dawkins published on his blog, the station informed ticketholders that the event was canceled.

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

We had booked this event based entirely on [Dawkinss] excellent new book on science, the email read, when we didnt know he had offended and hurtin his tweets and other comments on Islamso many people.

Responding in an open letter, Dawkins said,I used to love your station when I lived in Berkeley for two years, shortly after that beloved place had become the iconic home of free speech.

My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking. I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources.

You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of abusive speech. Why didnt you check your facts... before summarily canceling my event?

I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM vile but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam.

Far from attacking Muslims, I understand, as perhaps you do not,that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.

A letter in support of Dawkins from philosopher Stephen Pinker said,Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of the 20th and 21st century. He has criticized doctrines of Islam, together with doctrines of other religions, but criticism is not abuse.

Robyn Blumner, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, said in a statement thatfor KPFA to suddenly break its commitment to Richard and the hundreds of people who were so looking forward to seeing and hearing him is unconscionable, and the baseless accusation that Richard has engaged in abusive speech is a betrayal of the values KPFA has, until now, been known for.

Dawkins, who is known for his atheist views as well as his work as a scientist, has repeatedly spoken out strongly against Islam.

Among other incidents, he described Islam as the most evil religion in the world at a British book festival this spring, according to The Daily Telegraph, and received condemnation in 2015 when he walked out of an interview with the New Statesman magazine after a disagreement over the Muslim journalists faith.

At the time, journalist Emad Ahmed wrote that I was genuinely stunned when he decided to angrily walk away from our scheduled interview after I confirmed my beliefs in the revelations of the Islamic faith, calling my views pathetic.

Dawkins later said it was the journalists belief that the Prophet Muhammad rode a winged horse that led him to abandon the interview.

View post:

Freedom of Speech: Atheist Richard Dawkins Pulled From Berkeley Radio Station over remarks against Islam - Newsweek

Indian supporters of Gorkhaland chant slogans tied with chains during a protest march in capital New Delhi. Eastern India's hill resort of Darjeeling has been rattled at the height of tourist season after violent clashes broke out between police and hundreds of protesters of the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) a long-simmering separatist movement that has long called for a separate state for ethnic Gorkhas in West Bengal. The GJM wants a new, separate state of "Gorkhaland" carved out of eastern West Bengal state, of which Darjeeling is a part.

Sajjad Hussain/AFP/Getty Images

Demonstrators clash with riot security forces while rallying against Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro's government in Caracas, Venezuela. The banner on the bridge reads "It will be worth it"

Reuters

The Heathcote river as it rises to high levels in Christchurch, New Zealand. Heavy rain across the South Island in the last 24 hours has caused widespread damage and flooding with Dunedin, Waitaki, Timaru and the wider Otago region declaring a state of emergency.

Getty Images

A mourner prays at a memorial during an event to commemorate the first anniversary of the shooting spree that one year ago left ten people dead, including the shooter in Munich, Germany. One year ago 18-year-old student David S. shot nine people dead and injured four others at and near a McDonalds restaurant and the Olympia Einkaufszentrum shopping center. After a city-wide manhunt that caused mass panic and injuries David S. shot himself in a park. According to police David S., who had dual German and Iranian citizenship, had a history of mental troubles.

Getty

Palestinians react following tear gas that was shot by Israeli forces after Friday prayer on a street outside Jerusalem's Old City

Reuters/Ammar Awad

Ousted former Thai prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra greets supporters as she arrives at the Supreme Court in Bangkok, Thailand

Reuters/Athit Perawongmetha

Marek Suski of Law and Justice (PiS) (C) party scuffles with Miroslaw Suchon (2nd L) of Modern party (.Nowoczesna) as Michal Szczerba of Civic Platform (PO) (L) party holds up a copy of the Polish Constitution during the parliamentary Commission on Justice and Human Rights voting on the opposition's amendments to the bill that calls for an overhaul of the Supreme Court in Warsaw

Reuters

A firefighter stands near a grass fire as he prepares to defend a home from the Detwiler fire in Mariposa, California

Reuters

Michael Lindell ,CEO of My Pillow reacts as U.S. President Donald Trump attends a Made in America roundtable meeting in the East Room of the White House

Reuters

Giant pandas lie beside ice blocks at Yangjiaping Zoo in Chongqing, China. Yangjiaping Zoo provided huge ice blocks for giant pandas to help them remove summer heat

Getty Images

People ride camels in the desert in Dunhuang, China, as stage 10 of The Silkway Rally continues

AFP/Getty Images

17th FINA World Aquatics Championships in Budapest, Hungary. Team North Korea practice under coach supervision

REUTERS

IAAF World ParaAthletics Championships - London, Britain - July 17, 2017

Reuters/Henry Browne

Workers check power lines during maintenance work in Laian, in China's eastern Anhui province

AFP/Getty Images

Russia Kamaz's driver Dmitry Sotnikov, co-drivers Ruslan Akhmadeev and Ilnur Mustafin compete during the Stage 9 of the Silk Way 2017 between Urumqi and Hami, China

Franck Fife/AFP/Getty Images

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull talks with Special Operations Command soldiers during a visit to the Australian Army's Holsworthy Barracks in western Sydney

AAP/Brendan Esposito/via Reuters

Men in traditional sailor costumes celebrate after carrying a statue of the El Carmen Virgin, who is worshipped as the patron saint of sailors, into the Mediterranean Sea during a procession in Torremolinos, near Malaga, Spain

Reuters/Jon Nazca

People participate in a protest in front of the Sejm building (the lower house of the Polish parliament) in Warsaw, Poland. The demonstration was organized by Committee for the Defense of Democracy (KOD). Members and supporters of the KOD and opposition parties protested against changes in the judicial law and the Supreme Court

EPA

People prepare to swim with a portrait of late Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong on the bank of the Yangtze River in Yichang, Hubei province, China to celebrate the 51st anniversary of Chairman Mao swimming in the Yangtze River.

REUTERS

A woman takes a selfie picture with her mobile phone next to the statue of Omer Halisdemir in Istanbul, in front of a memorial with the names of people killed last year during the failed coup attempt .

AFP/Getty Images

French President Emmanuel Macron gestures next to US President Donald Trump during the annual Bastille Day military parade on the Champs-Elysees avenue in Paris.

AFP/Getty Images

Philippine National Police chief Ronald Bato Dela Rosa holds an M60 machine gun during a Gun and Ammunition show at a mall in Mandaluyong city, metro Manila, Philippines

Reuters

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker embrace before the EU-Ukraine summit in Kiev, Ukraine

Reuters

US President Donald Trump (R) and First Lady Melania Trump disembark form Air Force One upon arrival at Paris Orly airport on July 13, 2017, beginning a 24-hour trip that coincides with France's national day and the 100th anniversary of US involvement in World War I

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

Iraqis walk on a damaged street in west Mosul a few days after the government's announcement of the liberation of the embattled city from Islamic State (IS) group fighters

Getty

Iraqi boys wash a vehicle in west Mosul a few days after the government's announcement of the liberation of the embattled city from Islamic State (IS) group fighters

Fadel Senna/AFP/Getty Images

Afghan policeman pour fuel over jerry cans containing confiscated acetic acid before setting it alight on the outskirts of Herat. Some 15,000 liters of acetic acid, often mixed with heroin, were destroyed by counter narcotics police

Hoshang Hashimi/AFP

Residents stand amid the debris of their homes which were torn down in the evicted area of the Bukit Duri neighbourhood located on the Ciliwung river banks in Jakarta

Bay Ismoyo/AFP

Boys play cricket at a parking lot as it rains in Chandigarh, India

Reuters/Ajay Verma

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks at the 22nd World Petroleum Congress (WPC) in Istanbul

AFP

Police from the anti-terror squad participate in an anti-terror performance among Acehnese dancers during a ceremony to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the Indonesian police corps in Banda Aceh

AFP/Getty Images

New Mongolia's president Khaltmaa Battulga takes an oath during his inauguration ceremony in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

Reuters

US army 1st Division, US air force, US Navy and US Marines, march down the Champs Elysees, with the Arc de Triomphe in the background, in Paris during a rehearsal of the annual Bastille Day military parade

AFP

Participants run ahead of Puerto de San Lorenzo's fighting bulls during the third bull run of the San Fermin festival in Pamplona, northern Spain. Each day at 8:00 am hundreds of people race with six bulls, charging along a winding, 848.6-metre (more than half a mile) course through narrow streets to the city's bull ring, where the animals are killed in a bullfight or corrida, during this festival, immortalised in Ernest Hemingway's 1926 novel "The Sun Also Rises" and dating back to medieval times and also featuring religious processions, folk dancing, concerts and round-the-clock drinking.

AFP/Getty Images

Iraqi women, who fled the fighting between government forces and Islamic State (IS) group jihadists in the Old City of Mosul, cry as they stand in the city's western industrial district awaiting to be relocated

AFP

US President Donald Trump arrives for another working session during the G20 summit in Hamburg, northern Germany

AFP/Getty Images

People climb up on a roof to get a view during riots in Hamburg, northern Germany, where leaders of the world's top economies gather for a G20 summit

AFP/Getty Images

A military helicopter rescues people trapped on the roof of the Ministry of Finance by an intense fire in San Salvador

AFP/Getty Images

Donald Trump arrives to deliver a speech at Krasinski Square in Warsaw, Poland.

AP

A firefighter conducts rescue operations in an area damaged by heavy rain in Asakura, Japan.

Reuters

Anti-capitalism activists protest in Hamburg, where leaders of the worlds top economies will gather for a G20 summit.

AFP/Getty

Crowds gather for the start of the San Fermin festival in Pamplona, Spain.

AFP

A member of the Iraqi security forces runs with his weapon during a fight between Iraqi forces and Islamic State militants in the Old City of Mosul, Iraq.

A U.S. MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile is fired during the combined military exercise between the U.S. and South Korea against North Korea at an undisclosed location in South Korea

A.P

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un looks on during the test-fire of inter-continental ballistic missile Hwasong-14

Reuters

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping during a signing ceremony following the talks at the Kremlin

Reuters

Belarussian servicemen march during a military parade as part of celebrations marking the Independence Day in Minsk, Belarus

Reuters

Ambulance cars and fire engines are seen near the site where a coach burst into flames after colliding with a lorry on a motorway near Muenchberg, Germany

Reuters

Protesters demonstrating against the upcoming G20 economic summit ride boats on Inner Alster lake during a protest march in Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg will host the upcoming G20 summit and is expecting heavy protests throughout.

Getty Images

Protesters carry a large image of jailed Chinese Nobel Peace laureate Liu Xiaobo as they march during the annual pro-democracy protest in Hong Kong. Thousands joined an annual protest march in Hong Kong, hours after Chinese President Xi Jinping wrapped up his visit to the city by warning against challenges to Beijing's sovereignty.

AP

Jockey Andrea Coghe of "Selva" (Forest) parish rides his horse during the first practice for the Palio Horse Race in Siena, Italy June 30, 2017

Read more from the original source:

Russian police arrest man carrying 'Putin lies' poster at freedom of speech demo - The Independent

By The Editorial BoardRockford Register Star

We dont typically root for libel plaintiffs.

Too many Americans have sacrificed too much over the generations to ensure that we can speak our minds in the public square without fear of reprisal for us to cheer on those use litigation to silence an adversary.

Yet it is hard not to sympathize with Justin Fern, proprietor of Urban Equity Properties.

Fern, youll recall, filed a lawsuit a couple of weeks back against a handful of people Fern claims defamed him by suggesting that he set the June fire that consumed the old Hanley Furniture building in downtown Rockford. The building was owned by Urban Equity.

Its unclear what will become of the lawsuit. It was dismissed at the request of Ferns lawyer so the lawyer can add defendants. Nevertheless, theres an important lesson to be learned. Well get to that in a moment.

Decades of jurisprudence have erected a high legal par for those claiming theyve been defamed. Its especially difficult for plaintiffs whom the law considers public figures. Whether Fern meets that standard would be determined by the court.

What is clear, however, is that Fern has joined the company of those who because of their business activities, political activities, or creative or artistic talents have been subjected to the merciless torment meted out so casually by users of Facebook and other social media platforms.

Such conduct may not be unlawful. But it certainly violates the norms of civilized behavior the kind of informal, widely accepted standards of conduct for the community.

We can hear the critics now.

Youre advocating censorship!

You want to take away my right to free speech.

No and no.

Censorship occurs when the government suppresses speech it considers politically objectionable or deems a threat to national security. (In ancient Rome, the censor was an official in charge of public morality, among other duties.)

No one is trying to suppress your right to speak freely. But we don't want you to treat the right to free speech the way you would a dime store toy, as a source of personal amusement. Be responsible. Be civil. Be constructive. And remember that freedom of speech doesnt mean freedom from consequences.

The surest way to avoid running afoul of the law is to confine yourself to speaking from facts, truth being an absolute defense. That, of course, rules out of bounds an awful lot of the poppycock that finds its way to social media.

It means you dont speculate about events about which you have know evidence. You dont instantly impugn someones motives. You dont demand that an adversary prove a negative. And you dont spout conspiracy theories when events dont go your way.

Its really pretty simple.

Were fortunate. There are plenty of places in the world where speaking truth to power earns you a quick trip to jail.

A substantial segment of social media users seem to get their jollies from posting incendiary comments. After all, the more people you can rile or amuse, the more people you can incite to anger, the better. Thats the measure of success on social media. And theres not much anyone can do to stop it.

What these knights of cyberspace fail to grasp, however, is that with each flaming tweet or Facebook post, they cheapen the contributions of those who've made serious use of the right to speak freely to power abolitionists, suffragettes, civil rights activists and antiwar demonstrators, among others. Those kinds of people, and their causes, are what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined free speech in the First Amendment.

It's likely, of course, that the people who took to social media to insult Fern had no clue about that history, any more than they understood their potential legal exposure or the limits on their own free-speech rights. For them, we offer this advice:

When you want to strike a blow for free speech, make sure you have something worthwhile to say.

Here is the original post:

Our View: Case makes clear: Talk is cheap. Free speech isn't. - Rockford Register Star

RE: AZ Star (7/18/17) - "Opponents of vouchers find funds..." In response to the possibility that groups opposing vouchers are successful in collecting enough signatures to get a petition regarding the vouchers on the 2018 election ballot, state representative Debbie Lesko has a strategy to defeat the voters. She stated that if the referendum drive succeeds and the issue goes to the ballot, the legislature could make changes prior to the election. She explained that that would effectively repeal the current legislation and eliminate a public vote. If the public didn't like the new plan they would have to start the referendum drive all over again.

Such thinking demonstrates a clear disdain for the public exercising its right to free speech through voting. Lesko introduced a large number of bills in an effort to further weaken public education and promote the use of public funds for for-profit schools.

Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.

Link:

Letter: Lesko shows disdain for citizens' freedom of speech - Arizona Daily Star

The city of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, ended months of debate Monday by eliminating a free speech zone at Veterans Memorial Park, blocking a proposed satanic monument and forcing other religious displays to be removed.

The original intent of providing the public space was to recognize those who have bravely contributed to defending our nation through their military service, city leaders said in a statement. In recent weeks and months, though, that intent has been overshadowed by freedom of speech concerns expressed by both religious and nonreligious communities.

The controversy started in January when the city ordered a Christian-themed statue of a praying soldier to be removed from the city-owned park, fearing a lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The order was met with local backlash, and the Belle Plaine City Council passed a resolution in February designating a free speech zone at the park. That opened the door, however, to all speech, and an application from the Satanic Temple of Salem Massachusetts to erect a satanic monument at the park renewed tensions.

Mondays vote by the City Council rescinds the free speech resolution and blocks the satanic display from ever going up, a local NBC affiliate reported.

The debate between those communities has drawn significant regional and national attention to our city, and has promoted divisiveness among our own residents, the citys statement said. While this debate has a place in public dialogue, it has detracted from our citys original intent of designating a space solely for the purpose of honoring and memorializing military veterans, and has also portrayed our city in a negative light.

Owners of all privately owned displays in Veterans Park were given 10 days to remove them from the property.

More:

Minnesota city eliminates free speech zone at veterans park, blocking satanic monument - Washington Times

Jul 19, 2017 at 9:58 am | Print View

Tim Bickels July 9 letter Exercise your right to free speech was a completely inaccurate representation of what the freedom of speech truly is.

The impression I got from his letter is that he wanted to be able to say what he wanted whenever he wanted and no one is allowed to respond or be critical of it. Thats not how it works. If you say something that is anti-gay, thats homophobic and you will be told that youre homophobic. If you say something thats discriminatory toward Islam, then yes you are Islamaphobic. Theres a big difference between being critical of something and demonstrating out right hate and bigotry toward it. Being critical of something is dissecting the various points of it and stating why you disagree with it without classifying it in a discriminatory light.

Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to express yourself without interference from the federal government, thats a very basic laymans term definition of it. But that doesnt mean that a person can say something and another person isnt allowed to retort and classify them as what theyre demonstrating when they speak.

My interpretation of what Bickel wanted was to be able to demonstrate discriminatory thinking, but not carry that label along with him. I think he may need to re-examine things.

I wish for people to exercise freedom of speech with the understanding that others will too and if youre discriminatory the First Amendment doesnt protect you from that.

Chandra Jordan

Marion

We make it easy to stay connected:

The rest is here:

Letter: What freedom of speech truly is - The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines

The University of California at Berkeley is again blocking a conservative speaker from coming to the flagship public campus, an advocacy group claimed, threatening the constitutional rights of students.

But university officials said they welcome Ben Shapiro and are just trying to find a large enough, and safe enough, venue for the conservative columnist to speak to students in September.

We think theres a very strong likelihood we can make this work, university spokesman Dan Mogulof said Wednesday evening.

He said university officials are trying to meet with students to talk about it and that efforts to resolve the situation would be better served by a face-to-face meeting than by a public fight in the media.

Berkeley, long known for its liberal-leaning student body and its role in the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, has become a cultural battleground, with pitched fights between far-left and far-right activists.

When Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer who calls himself a free-speech fundamentalist and whom critics call a hatemonger, tried to speak on campus in February,University of California police locked down the campus and canceledthe event after 150 or so black bloc anarchists in masks streamed into a large crowd of peaceful student protesters, breaking windows, setting a propane tank ablaze and attacking police with rocks and firecrackers.

That decision was polarizing: Some saw it as the smothering of conservative thought, an assault on the First Amendment. Others saw it as the only rational response to the imminent threat of dangerous riots.

President Trump jumped into the fray with a tweet the morning after: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

In the months to come, there were violent clashes between far-right and far-left protesters in Berkeley. The Berkeley College Republicans, who had invited Yiannopoulos, asked conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus, and that sparked another fight, as campus officialscanceled the event over safety concerns.

After pushback, they invited her to speak the following week in a safer venue. The Young Americas Foundation and College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the university, claiming it had violated their right to free speech.

Coulter never gave the speech. Protesters swarmed campus anyway.

[Ben Shapiro plans to speak at UC-Berkeley, where clashes have shut down other conservative speakers]

This summer, Berkeley College Republicans, with the help of the conservative advocacy group Young Americas Foundation, invited Shapiro.

University officials said, when they learned of the invitation, that they welcomed him and would work to find a secure site for the speech.

The university continues its shameful tactic of hiding behind vague security concerns, Naweed Tahmas, external vice president of the UC Berkeley College Republicans, wrote in an email Wednesday night.

Most recently, the university police and the administration cited broad concerns that Ann Coulters speaking engagement would spark violent protests.

Ultimately, after massive police presence the day of Ms. Coulters proposed speaking date, the Anti-Fascists and other left-wing groups did not show. In fact, they released an op-ed stating that they had no intentions or plans to disrupt Ann Coulters speaking engagement at UC Berkeley. After canceling our last three events, UC Berkeley has solidified itself as an ideological echo chamber, as only favored viewpoints may be heard on campus with no meaningful opposition or challenge permitted.This is a disservice to students as it is incumbent upon universities to expose students to a breadth of different ideological views.

The Young Americas Foundation announced: Berkeleys inability to find a lecture hall more than two months in advance is laughable.

Ben Shapiro, in a written statement, said, Using ridiculous pretexts to keep conservatives from speaking is unsurprising but disappointing.

Well find a way to get this event done, and UC Berkeley has a moral and legal obligation to ensure we do so.

Mogulof said there are three venues on campus that are free to student groups and large enough to accommodate the event but that they were already booked for that time, so they have asked the student group if another time or a smaller venue would be acceptable or if they would be willing to pay to rent another space.

He said they were hoping to get a better understanding of their request, not through the media but by sitting down to talk about it.

They support the right to have a wide variety of speakers on campus, and freedom of speech, he said.

We want to have this event. he said.

[Trump threatens UC-Berkeleys funding after violent protests shut down a speaker]

[UC-Berkeley readies police, concerned Ann Coulter plans to speak in public plaza on campus]

Read the original post:

Berkeley free-speech fight flares up again over Ben Shapiro - The ... - Washington Post

MSU graduate Alex Bissell protests convervative columnist George Wills commencement address in 2014.(Photo: Max Ortiz / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

A pair of bills introduced in the Legislature that seek the suspension or expulsion of outspoken students are causing a stir at Michigans universities.

Critics say the proposed measures could hinder student activism. However, the main sponsor, state Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, says the Campus Free Speech Act ensures invited campus speakers have their voices heard.

It makes sure they arent able to shout down the speaker, he said. Ideally, I think it would be nice to have engagement in debate if they are willing to have a civil debate on the topic. ... If that doesnt happen, they could hold their own forum.

The legislation would apply to Michigans 15 public universities and 28 community colleges. Institutions would be required to suspend for one year or expel students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others.

The measures also would eliminate free speech zones that designate where students can engage in expressive activity on campus.

Opponents say the proposals would infringe on free speech, not protect it.

This is a very tricky situation, said Vikrant Garg, 21, a graduate student studying public health at the University of Michigan. What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech.

Garg, a co-founder of Students4justice, a coalition for students of color, said the legislation could drive away any kind of dissent.

Theres so many applications of this bill, its so far reaching it could apply to almost everybody, he said. Thats what makes it even more dangerous.

Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said the measures are intrusive and unnecessary.

Its a solution in search of a problem, Hurley said. The freedom of speech and expression are not an issue at Michigans post-secondary institutions. There have been some anecdotal incidents that youve probably read about that proponents would refer to. These are often incidents that are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university.

Fostering discussion

Colbeck pointed to the cancellation earlier this year of a planned speech by conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California at Berkeley. University officials said threats of violence made it impossible to guarantee security at the event.

A Philadelphia-based group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, has found that Michigans public universities already have speech code policies that substantially restrict freedom of speech or have the ability to result in restrictions on protected expression because of their vague wording or for other reasons. The group annually rates the speech codes for the 400 of the nations largest universities and colleges.

FIRE found problems with protecting speech at all 15 Michigan public universities. Six universities, including the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and its Dearborn and Flint campuses as well as Wayne State, had at least one policy that substantially restricts the freedom of speech, according to FIRE.

The other nine universities, including Michigan State and Oakland universities, had policies that restricted a more limited amount of free speech or whose vague wording could easily be used to restrict protected expression, the nonprofit said.

Grant Strobl, a 21-year-old international studies and political science major at UM, supports the legislation, saying it would require universities to remove protesters who interfere with events.

Its something that needs to be addressed not only in Michigan, but across the country, said Strobl, chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a campus conservative group. Its not a perfect bill. Im sure there will be changes. ... I think its a step in the right direction.

He concluded: Its unfortunate that some students have the mentality that if they dont agree with certain speech, they can shout down the speaker and silence them.

As an example, Strobl said he saw hundreds of shouting protesters stop a debate last September at UM about whether the Black Lives Matter movement harms race relations. The event was hosted by Michigan Political Union, an independent student organization.

I feel like a lot of what is important in the democracy was lost that day, he said. We werent able to have a discussion on relevant political issues. Theres no better place to do that than the university.

The legislation in Michigan follows action by Republican lawmakers in several other states to crack down on protesters who disrupt speakers at post-secondary institutions.

In Wisconsin, for example, lawmakers are weighing a bill that would penalize protesters who disrupt speakers. The issue is now before the state Senate.

UMs student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, wrote an editorial last month opposing Colbecks legislation. Officials at some state universities also have expressed reservations.

Targeted limits

Michigan State University spokesman Jason Cody said that while the school has not taken an official position on the legislation, officials are concerned about the bills and share the some of the objections raised by MASU.

Here at MSU, we encourage our students and faculty members to bring in speakers and events, regardless if they are deemed controversial by some, Cody said. By the same token, we encourage our campus community to make their viewpoints known on issues they are passionate about. In all of that, though, we ask both sides of any issue to be respectful and follow MSU ordinances.

Oakland University officials say campus policy has always protected the rights of student groups and outside organizations that gather in a peaceful manner.

Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events, said Nancy Schmitz, assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with this latest legislation being proposed.

Free speech expert Gregory Magarian, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, said he doesnt mind the parts of the bills that reiterate the values of the First Amendment. However, he considers certain areas problematic.

Why single out protests and demonstrations? he said. If I recall correctly, those terms arent even defined in the statute. So this bill, which is supposed to be a free-speech bill, is putting a particular kind of limit on certain kinds of free speech, so-called protests and demonstrations.

Magarian said the legislation could be interpreted as banning all forms of protest.

The effect of that passage would seem to be that a protest or demonstration can be shut down if it interferes with any other kind of expressive activity, he said. I dont know of any kind of protest that doesnt interfere with other kinds of expressive activity.

Magarian said the bills mandatory penalties of a one-year suspension or expulsion for second-time offenders create a conflict for universities. He said hes inclined to think its better for universities to figure the issue out themselves.

One thing that might backfire about the provision is that its a pretty severe sanction, he said. The mandate of that sanction might well encourage universities in disciplinary proceedings to go easier on disruptors than they would if they had less severe penalties to dish out. ... That would cut against what this legislation is trying to do.

cwilliams@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2311

Twitter: @CWilliams_DN

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2vwkVyV

Continue reading here:

Campus free speech bills: Restrict or protect rights? - The Detroit News

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The death of Liu Xiaobo from liver cancer on July 13, under guard at a hospital in Shenyang, marks the passing of a great defender of freedoma man who was willing to speak truth to power.

As the lead signatory to Charter 08, which called for the rule of law and constitutional government, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting the subversion of state power.

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

Before his sentencing in 2009, Liu stood before the court and declared, To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity, and to suppress the truth.

With proper treatment and freedom, Liu would have lived on to voice his support for a free society.

Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 6, 2017. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

While Lius advocacy of limited government, democracy, and a free market for ideas won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, Chinas leadership viewed him as a criminal and refused to allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award.

Instead, the prize was placed on an empty chair at the ceremony, a lasting symbol of Lius courage in the face of state suppression.

Beijing also prevented liberal Mao Yushi, cofounder of the Unirule Institute, from attending the ceremony to honor Liu.

The mistreatment of Liu, and other human rights proponents, is a stark reminder that while the Middle Kingdom has made significant progress in liberalizing its economy, it has yet to liberate the minds of the Chinese people or its own political institutions.

The tension between freedom and state power threatens Chinas future. As former premier Wen Jiabao warned in a speech in August 2010, Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost. Later, in an interview with CNN in October, he held that freedom of speech is indispensable for any country.

Article 33, Section 3, of the PRCs Constitution holds that the State respects and protects human rights. Such language, added by the National Peoples Congress in 2004, encouraged liberals to test the waters, only to find that the reality did not match the rhetoric.

The Chinese Communist Party pays lip service to a free market in ideas, noting: There can never be an end to the need for the emancipation of individual thought ( China Daily , November 16, 2013).

However, Party doctrine strictly regulates that market. Consequently, under market socialism with Chinese characteristics, there is bound to be an ever-present tension between the individual and the state.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2015), President Xi argued that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom.

The real meaning of that statement is that Chinas ruling elite will not tolerate dissent: individuals will be free to communicate ideas, but only those consistent with the states current interpretation of socialist principles.

This socialist vision contrasts sharply with that of market liberalism, which holds that freedom is not the purpose of order; it is the essential means to an emergent or spontaneous order. In the terms of traditional Chinese Taoism, freedom is the source of order.

Simply put, voluntary exchange based on the principle of freedom or nonintervention, which Lao Tzu called wu wei , expands the range of choices open to individuals.

Denying Chinas 1.4 billion people a free market in ideas has led to one of the lowest rankings in the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters without Borders.

In the 2016 report, China ranked 176 out of 180 countries, only a few notches above North Koreaand the situation appears to be getting worse. Under President Xi Jinpings consolidation of power in preparation for this years Party Congress, the websites of liberal think tanks, such as the Unirule Institute, have been shut down, and virtual private networks (VPNs) are being closed, preventing internet users from circumventing the Great Firewall.

Lius death is a tragic reminder that China is still an authoritarian regime whose leaders seek to hold onto power at the cost of the lives of those like Liu who seek only peace and harmony through limiting the power of government and safeguarding individual rights.

James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal , senior fellow, and director of Catos annual monetary conference.

Read the original:

What Liu Xiaobo's Grisly Prison Death Tells Us About Free Speech in Xi's China - Newsweek

James Madison, prime drafter of the Bill of Rights, would be appalled to find marauding mobs curbing speakers, but not surprised. This and much more that illuminates todays struggle over freedom of speech is the subject of a compact volume, The Soul of the First Amendment, by legendary First Amendment constitutional scholar Floyd Abrams.

Abrams traces the two-century history of the First Amendment, from its creation in the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, three years after ratification of the Constitution (which took nearly a year after its publication by the Framers of Philadelphia), The Framers were disinclined to adopt a Bill of Rights, whose protections they regarded as implicit in the text of the Constitution. Framer Roger Sherman of Connecticut said of bills of rights: No bill of rights ever yet bound the supreme power longer than longer than the honey moon [sic]of a newly married couple. Fortunately, Mr. Madison prevailed over such skepticism.

Abrams cites the mid-century historian Clinton Rossiter, who described the 1787 Constitution as plain to the point of severity, frugal to the point of austerity, laconic to the point of aphorism. Madison stated that the great object of bills of rights is to limit and qualify the powers of government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. Madison believed courts would act as an impenetrable barrier to infringement of speech. But speech is now under a sustained assault not seen since the 1798 Sedition Act saw more than 20 newspaper editors jailed by President John Adams.

Because Abrams covers only the First Amendment, he ignores the Courts seminal Bill of Rights case prior to 1925, the year the Supreme Court began to selectively incorporate clauses, thus applying them to the States. Until then the case that defined its ambit was Barron v. Baltimore (1833), in which Chief Justice John Marshall, our most influential Justice, authored the Courts opinion holding that the Bill of Rights limited only the powers of the federal government. Indeed, it was not until 1939 (NOT a misprint) that the final trio of the original 13 colonies Massachusetts (Mar. 2), Georgia (Mar. 18) and Connecticut (Apr. 19) ratified the document many consider our true fundamental charter. This view is widely held because the Constitutions text focuses on definition and distribution of powers, many arcane to non-lawyers; the first ten amendments collectively called the Bill of Rights is a charter that mostly defines substantive constitutional rights, to many our secular Ten Commandments.

Abrams offers six chapters: (1) the history of free speech and the First Amendment over the past 226 years; (2) comparison of free speech protection between America and the other Western democracies; (3) how English free speech law was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision; (4) comparison of relative protection of a right to be forgotten; (5) comparison of regulation of spending in political campaigns; (6) free speech issues that evade legislative and jurisprudential solution.

Abrams notes two emerging, divergent views on free speech protections. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent as to free speech protection in the landmark 2010 Citizens United decision: The First Amendment advances not only the individuals right to engage in political speech, but also the publics interest in preserving democratic order in which collective speech matters. (Italics in original.) As rebuttal, Abrams cited Chief Justice Roberts in a later election free speech case, that the will of the majority plainly can include laws that restrict free speech. The whole point of the First Amendment is to afford individuals protection against such infringements. The case for new curbs on speech was carried further by former Harvard Law School Dean Kathleen Sullivan, who identified opposing visions of free speech: one protects only such speech as is perceived to advance political equality by protecting designated rights holders; the other is negative, and bars the government from restricting speech, with a few very narrow exceptions. Sullivan supports the former, while Abrams supports the latter. Abrams follows the Framers; Sullivan, postmodern jurisprudential values.

The dominant limitation of speech from the founding into the 1920s was censorship. Only with the jurisprudence of Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis did protection of free speech, however unpopular, came to the fore. It was only in 1925 that the Frist Amendment was applied to the states; and not until 1965 NOT a misprint did the Supreme Court rely upon the First Amendment to strike down a federal statute.

Abrams is very effective in contrasting the great degree to which speech remains protected in America, versus its creeping strangulation in Europe. Prime culprits are rulings by national courts and administrative tribunals, plus pan-European international bodies. He cites several recent decisions that would not have been made on our side of the Pond. Speakers have been convicted for such offenses as calling for an end to Muslim immigration (Britain, Belgium); for putting ones country first (Britain and Belgium again); and attacking Christianity (Poland). But it is criticism of Islam that is most ferociously punished today. Dutch parliamentarian and unsuccessful candidate for prime minister Geert Wilders was convicted for giving speeches calling for an end to Islamicization in Holland. This is the steep price of multicultural political correctness.

Another landmark protection for American speakers and writers came with passage of laws preventing enforcement against Americans of libel judgments issued by European courts; militant Islamist plaintiffs had targeted authors whose works sold only a few copies overseas, suing in England rather than in the U.S., to take advantage of European speech laws. Abrams counts 23 nations in the European Union that have criminal libel laws, with 20 of them including imprisonment penalties; several have laws calling for greater punishment for libeling public officials.

In one major area even a free speech libertarian like Abrams draws at least a partial line: national security. He recounts that during the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (in which a massive archive of Vietnam war decision-making was published by the New York Times and the Washington Post) the Times withheld certain classified details. Earlier, in the 1950s the Times learned that the CIA was conducting secret reconnaissance overflights of the Soviet Union, and elected not to publish. Rampant disclosure of sensitive classified information is now close to a journalistic norm. While such may prevent abuses, which undeniably exist, they can also damage national security sources and methods regarding intelligence collection, for example.

Perhaps most dangerous of all is the growing trend towards suppressing speech by resort to mass violence. Violence is contagious, if unchecked. Democrats were silent when Madonna said on Inauguration Day that she imagined the White House exploding; when a rapper posted a video imagining President Trump being assassinated; and some even defended the profanation of a Julius Caesar Shakespeare in the Park production in which Caesar dressed as Trump was stabbed to death. Such attitudes spawn violence not only against the right. California Democrats, much to their surprise, have received death threats from members of their hardcore leftist base, warning them not to cede to President Trump on health care.

Many remember vividly the tragic and terrifying events leading up to November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was gunned down. For at least a year before that ghastly Friday of November 22, right-wing extremists had openly preached violence against the president. The contagion had spread, but a radical leftist was the assassin. Violent and hateful rhetoric, far from being tamped down, escalated though the massively destructive race riots of 1964-1968. The wave crested with the spring 1968 murders of Martin Luther King by a white racist, and of Senator Robert Kennedy by a Palestinian terrorist.

In what Abrams terms an historical irony the protections of the Bill of Rights have most often been invoked on behalf of leftist dissenters, yet it is the hardcore left that today aggressively moves to curtail such protections for speakers on the right. It was said of the French Revolution that in the end it, like the Roman deity Saturn, ultimately devoured its own children. Todays myriad leftist practitioners and the few of their ilk on the right of intellectual thuggee might do well to ponder this.

The death of free speech would mark the demise of the American republic, tossing the Constitution into historys ash heap. It would be a terrifying triumph for totalitarians everywhere. Either we let speech run free, or we let the sensitivities of listeners (and readers) delimit what we may lawfully say. To prefer the latter is to empower most those who will most vociferously impose their sensitivities to silence others. They will always be the most extreme among us. And then we will have the least freedom of speech when we need most the broadest freedom to speak.

Excerpt from:

Free Speech 2017 At War With the Framers of 1787 - American Spectator

Michigan State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, is the leading sponsor for the Campus Free Speech Act, a proposed bill that would restrict certain kinds of protesting on Michigan college campuses. Students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others, would either be suspended for a year or expelled permanently.

Colbeck says that the bill would allow speakers to visit campuses without being disrupted by students who disagree with their views, referring to when author and commentator Ann Coulter canceled her speaking engagement at the University of California, Berkley, because of pushback from students.

The CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, Dan Hurley, said that such instances are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university." He does not believe there is a problem with free speech or expression at colleges, he said.

Michigan's 15 public universities and 28 community colleges would adopt the rules set out by the bill, and would also abolish free speech zones. In May, Sen. Colbeck said, Ultimately, theres people that are just trying to shut down any discussion of issues that they dont agree with.

Michigan students are split on the bill, some thinking that it would infringe on their own free speech rights. Vikrant Garg is a graduate student at the University of Michigan and helped found Students4Justice, a group for students of color at UM who organize to target inequities on our campus.

What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech, Garg said.

This bill, and the people that make these decisions, including the police who are used to enforce these policies operate under a framework in which they can silence us and inflict violence against us with no consequences. They can inflict violence against us for speaking out."

Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University in Saint Louis and a free speech expert, says that colleges should address the issue on their campuses individually.

Nancy Schmitz, dean of students and assistant vice president of student affairs at Oakland University said, Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with the latest legislation being proposed.

Some faculty members believe the bill is unnecessary. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that rates speech codes on campuses, rules restricting or limiting free speech already exist on Michigan's public university campuses.

Ultimately, the legislation could promote an atmosphere of discussion and civil debate. Sen. Colbeck said, "if campus leaders believe some speech creates a safety concern because of unruly audience members wishing to use violence, they must police those who would break the law in order to stifle free speech, ... intellectual freedom on our campuses must not be bullied into silence."

What McConnell Said When He Was Asked to Justify Health Care Failure to Voters

Read more:

Michigan Students Object to Campus Free Speech Bill - Townhall