In Europe, Donald Trump could have been arrested for some of the comments he made about Muslims and Mexicans while campaigning for president, legal scholar Floyd Abrams LAW 59 pointed out during a campus visit on April 5.

But thats not the case in America, which has been more dedicated to the protection of free speech than anywhere else in the world, said Abrams, and hes grateful that it is.

Considered one of the nations top constitutional lawyers and staunchest defenders of the First Amendment, Abrams took part in a conversation with Adam Liptak LAW 88, the Supreme Court correspondent for The New York Times. The public event took place in a Yale Law School classroom, with lawyers and law students joining remotely from the New York and Washington, D.C. offices of the firm Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz. Abrams new book, The Soul of the First Amendment, was just published by Yale University Press.

Abrams told his audience that the starting point for his book and the core principle at heart in his own legal work is his belief that the First Amendment is meant to be a protection against government over-control and censorship, even though it hasnt always been interpreted in that way. As he notes in his book, the First Amendment is a mere 45 words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Even in Canada, Abrams said, a religious zealot who passed out pamphlets condemning homosexuals and homosexuality, for example, could be convicted of a hate crime. Asked by Liptak why Americas approach to freedom of speech is better, Abrams answered: I think its better for all of us because we have shown through our history tendencies to limit speech and move into highly anti-free expression modes. Weve made enormous progress and moved in the right direction by sort of gulping and saying, Were going to protect this sort of speech even though we understand that its going to inflict pain, and inflict pain on people already suffering pain from their stigmatization in American society.

Americas constitutional commitment to free expression even of the sort that denigrates groups of people, as Trump did is bred most of all from the fear that if we start banning politicians from saying things, or the rest of us from saying things even if theyre deeply offensive and antisocial the effect as a whole would be a significant deprivation of freedom of a sort that all of us would recognize.

The legal scholar defended his own decision to represent (on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell) the conservative nonprofit organization Citizens United in the controversial 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision reflected his devotion to the cause of free speech, regardless of politics, he said. In a broadly sweeping decision, a majority of the justices (5 to 4) voted that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting a corporations independent political expenditures.

Commercial speech, I think, is an interesting area in which there will be a lot of development, sooner rather than later, predicted Abrams.

He called the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts a spectacularly protective one for First Amendment rights, but warned that college campuses have most recently been the place where First Amendment values have been the most challenged in American life. He cited the shouting-down of campus speakers because of their views as one campus danger, and called Fordham University administrators decision to forbid conservative commentator Ann Coulter from speaking there unless she was part of a panel an absolute disgrace.

In the older days, university administrations objected to liberal and left-wing speakers appearing, said Abrams. Today, he added, college professors sometimes warn students in advance that class content will include something that may offend or upset them.

Its a difficult area because it is important for students to feel some level of comfort, he continued. On the other side, education isnt always comfortable, and it shouldnt always be comfortable. The non-negotiable part of that is that there should be absolute freedom of ideas and presentations of ideas, no matter how offensive they may seem.

During a question-and-answer session, Abrams who represented The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case said that despite its protectiveness of free speech, the current Supreme Court isnt likely to be as protective of the press, particularly in cases involving leaked classified information.

Journalists are at very great risk in front of the Roberts court, Abrams said. I think thats one of the softest spots in term of potential for great harm [to press freedom].

Excerpt from:

YaleNews | Legal scholar speaks about why free speech matters - Yale News

Nancy Thorner

Nancy Thorner is a musician and patriot who writes regularly for Illinois Review, and occasionally for The Heartland Institute's Freedom Pub blog.

The Heartland Institute on Wednesday, February 22 hosted an event with Steve Simpson editor of the book Defending Free Speech and director of legal studies at the Ayn Rand Institute to discuss the constant assault on this fundamental freedom and its implications for the future of liberty.

Simpson writes, speaks and gives interviews for ARI on constitutional law, freedom of speech, campaign finance law and other legal topics. A former senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, Mr. Simpson has litigated constitutional cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and state and federal courts throughout the nation on a wide variety of issues. Freedom of speech is indispensable to a free and civilized society, yet this precious right is increasingly under attack today.

Director of Communications Jim Lakely opened the event at Heartlands Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center by remarking how there was never a more timely time to hear about Defending Free Speech than now when Alinskyite tactics are being employed, riots are common all over this nation, and conservative speakers are protested or not permitted to speak on college campuses. Ann Coulter must provide body guards for her protection when she speaks, he noted, while left-leaning speakers never do.

You can watch Simpsons lecture in the player above, or here.

Opening Remarks by Simpson

Simpson recollected that it was only 25 months ago when the slaughter at the offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo took place in Paris, France. Simpson believes that the primary threat to free speech doesnt come from terrorist attacks, per se, but from an unwillingness to defend free speech. Although terrorist attacks are not inconsequential, threats and killings can only succeed in chilling our speech if we let them through appeasing those who resort to threats and violence.

Consider, he said, how editor Flemming Rose of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was threatened with death for publishing drawings of Muhammad. It was on September 30, 2005 when the Danish newspaper published 12 editorial cartoons under the title, The Face of Muhammad the most notorious of which depicted the prophet with a bomb in his turban. Flemming Rose still lives under a death threat in the U.S.

Free speech cannot exist when some are willing to resort to force. Condoning violence in response to speech will only end up ensuring that violence will become the rule. The free speech now under attack in Western nations is far too often the product of radical Islamists. It is a scary, long-term situation. Unfortunately, appeasement seems to be the mode of operation in many nations. It is important what the public thinks about continuing attacks, for it is a window into how people regard freedom of speech today.

Steve Simpson also spoke of the current Supreme Court being one of the best courts for freedom of speech in many decades, at least for now.

What is Freedom of Speech?

Steve Simpson described freedom of speech as an individual right. We can do or say almost anything as long as it doesnt violate the rights of others. But too often lately, free speech is no longer appropriate if someone is offended.

Simpson said these fundamental ideas must endure the right of free speech to flourish:

Whats Happening to Free Speech of College Campuses?

Foremost in Simpsons mind were the riots at the University of California at Berkeley sparked by the mere presence on campus of Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos. He was invited to speak there by a college Republican organization, and the resulting violence forced the speech to be canceled. But it was what happened in the aftermath of the riot that caused much consternation and reflection.

TheDaily Californian, the student newspaper at the University of California, Berkeley, published a series of op-eds defending the use of violence to shut down Yiannopoulos lecture. The series is called Violence as self-defense, ostensibly on the premise that conservative speech is a physical threat.

A defense must be mounted against what happened at Berkeley, and what is also taking place on other college campuses. Speaking is not akin to engaging in violence. Never does what is perceived by another as offensive speech authorize acts of violence as a means of self-defense. Because Yiannopoulos speech represented a threat to the safety of students attending Berkley such as illegal immigrant students being ousted the college leftists determined that the only choice available was violence.

Importance of Reason, Pursuit of Happiness, and Individualism

As a moral argument, reason and persuasion should be used, Simpson said, not force.

From an individual standpoint, free speech and freedom of thought and the right to exercise these freedoms is essential to any man, woman, and child in any society. Our own expressions are essential in solving problems. Thinking cant be forced on us. We have the right to come to our own conclusions to guide us in our lives.

Simpson noted that reason was discovered in the Age of Enlightenment, sometimes called the Age of Reason. The American Enlightenment (1714 1818) was influenced by the 18th-century European Enlightenment and its own native American philosophy. Our Founding Fathers lived during this period of intellectual ferment in the 13 American colonies, which, in turn, led to the American Revolution and the creation of the American Republic. It was during the American Enlightenment that scientific reasoning was applied to politics, science, and religion.

When logic and reason are thrown out the window, violence remains the only option, as what played out at Berkeley. Yiannopoulos lecture remarks were predetermined to be offensive. Because of this assumption, there was no other choice open but to fight back.

What has caused reason to be dismissed by so many? According to Simpson, this disturbing trend ties in with the post-modernist strain of teachings in humanities, where reason is a nuisance and a made-up concept. Simpson cited Stanley Fish as believing there is no such thing as free speech; that its a political weapon that is used against other people.

In Fishs book published in 1944, Theres No Such Thing As Free Speech (and its a good thing, too), Fish wrote: Free speech is what is left over when a community has determined in advance what it does not want to hear.

Use of Collectivism to Limit Free Speech

ExxonMobil is facing investigation into whether it has been suppressing research findings on climate change as far back the 1970s, disregarding ExxonMobils nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Exxons published input about the impact of fossil fuels on climate change took the form of a scientific debate: on the one hand, and on the other hand. Exxon was just looking into the issue to clarify it.

The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts have brought lawsuits against Exxon, claiming Exxon knew it was lying about climate change and global warming, a concept which is now being promoted as truth, and as a ploy to sell more gasoline. Also under investigation is whether Exxon played a role in persuading President George W. Bush not to ratify the Kyoto protocol, a global treaty committing signatories to targets for reducing greenhouse gases.

There is nothing to prove that Exxon knew about the claimed potential risk of fossil fuels that now has been equated with man-made global warming.

Law exists to protect our individual rights. Its not the governments job is to protect society at large and to see that it remains moral according to what government dictates. Regarding how collectivism effects on the law: It protects everyone in general, but no one in particular. Collectivism is seeping into the law and is undermining our freedom of speech. It puts government in charge of what groups of individuals should think and the views of individuals are ignored

Questions and Answers

The session was thought-provoking and lively at times, which was altogether fitting as the exercise of free speech was on exhibit.

Question: It seems that in this society free speech can no longer be tolerated, even if persuasion is used. Those who disagree are shut down. Why?

Simpson: He admitted that free speech has plummeted on college campuses where advocates for Communism flourish.

[Thorner: It seemed incredible for Simpson to express his lack of knowledge about how billionaire George Soros is promoting violence, even at Berkeley, by using his tremendous wealth to train hundreds of paid individuals to invade events across this nation to cause havoc, stifle opposition, and try to destroy Trump and his administration. Such action constitutes treason to me. Find proof in the recent articles noted below that the protests and violence against President Trump and GOP legislators holding town hall meeting are not by chance, but are being organized and funded in a big way by George Soros and even an Obama-aligned organization with an intent to destroy Trump and his administration.]

Question: Are rants from Democrats taking President Trump to task out of line?

Simpson: He told of often hearing complaints from Democrats complaining of nasty comments made by Republicans, especially about Obamacare when Obama was in office.

[Thorner: Simpson seems to think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but can rants against Obamacare, which rang of the truth, be compared to the present day rants by Democrats against President Trump because he won the presidency?]

Question: Is it fair for Trump to take the press to task?

Simpson: The press has become factionalized like many other groups of individuals. Check out Federalist No. 10.It also missed the story of the century. But Simpson believes that to attack the entire establishment press is counterproductive and problematic, although he did admit that the press does lean left.

[Thorner: What was most problematic is when Simpson stated: There are lots of journalists who are attempting to get and report the news fairly.]

Upcoming free Wednesday Night Heartland Events

March 15th Vaping: How Government Regulation Can Kill Innovation5:30 PM 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois

March 22nd Shall Not Be Infringed: The New Assaults on Your Second Amendment5:30 PM 7:30 PM Arlington Heights, Illinois

[First posted at Illinois Review.]

Heartland Event: Assaults on Free Speech and the Future of Liberty was last modified: March 11th, 2017 by Nancy Thorner

Read more here:

Heartland Event: Assaults on Free Speech and the Future of Liberty - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute (blog)

What is old is new again. Government surveillance is in the news, again. The cycle started with President Trump alleging former President Obama wire tapped Trump Towers. The cycle continued when Wikileaks released a trove of documents relating to the Central Intelligence Agencys hacking tools.

Whether President Trumps allegations have merit, or whether they are baseless should not matter. Whether the CIA spied on United States citizens or whether it did not should not matter. What should concern citizens is the governments ability to spy on them.

Consumers place confidence in the ability of a manufacturer, whether Apple, Google, or others, to secure electronic devices from prying eyes. Gone are the days when secure storage meant purchasing safes, lockboxes, or lockable file cabinets. Now, secrets are hidden within complex strings of ones and zeros. The most secure electronic systems cannot offer perfect privacy, but operate to obscure meaningful data better than the competition.

Technology can help obscure meaningful information. Technology also provides government increased access to a citizens private life, habits, and private thoughts. Instead of serving warrants and physically searching houses, computers, and other tangible items, government officials can remotely install malware, access electronic devices and seize photographs, document files, and contact lists. The Vault 7 revelations, along with Edward Snowdens prior leaks, demonstrate the government can remotely activate microphones and cameras embedded in electronic devices, including televisions. The government can turn all types of devices, including televisions, into spying tools.

Assuming the government follows proper procedures, it has a number of options minimally to comply with Fourth Amendment warrant requirements if it invokes national security as an excuse for surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides the executive branch broad leeway when conducting surveillance for national security purposes. The first option permits the President to authorize warrantless surveillance in certain circumstances. The second options allows the Attorney General to authorize warrant applications in other circumstances.

Both warrantless and warranted surveillance are classified. FISA requires the Attorney General to submit semi-annual reports to Congress. Those reports, though, do not need to contain detailed information. The reports need only list the total number of applications, the number of applications approved, and the criminal cases where information gathered is used.

Technology does not just provide governments increased access to a citizens private information; it also provides the government the ability to conceal any unauthorized access. The government can spy on citizens without even the most savvy technology expert knowing. And if the government believes it can completely avoid detection, or make it look like a foreign government was behind a hack, why should it apply for warrants? After all, the government could attribute the information gleaned to other sources, just as it has with cell site simulators.

Government surveillance relating to national security poses a unique threat compared to other criminal investigations. The president possesses significant authority to investigate foreign threats. The exercise of that authority, though, threatens U.S. citizens First Amendment freedom of speech rights. When conducting surveillance for national security purposes, it is likely the government will both record protected speech and will use its authority to monitor groups with politically incorrect viewpoints.

Well before technology permitted widespread surveillance, Supreme Court Justice Powell wrote,

History abundantly documents the tendency of governmenthowever benevolent and benign its motiveto view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic security.

Government surveillance, of political right or political left groups, makes people think twice before speaking contrary to the political establishment. State surveillance of Black Lives Matter allegedly chilled members desire to engage in political discourse about the issues of our time. Similarly, surveillance of Trump officials was used to impeach the credibility of Lt. Gen. Flynn, attack Attorney General Sessions, and generally to delegitimize President Trump. Progressive groups, right leaning groups, and individuals in the government who threaten its power are equally subject to government surveillance and potential that surveillance will be used to silence their dissent.

Government may use technological advances to operate on the edges of Constitutional permissibility. The threats government surveillance pose to First Amendment freedom of speech rights should overshadow any discussion on the propriety of the surveillance state, just as they did before the proliferation of modern technologies, such as the computer and smartphone.

The Fourth and First Amendments are inexorably linked. Ignoring one will threaten the other. In the words of Justice Powell, The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.

Jonathon Paul Hauenschild, J.D., is a technology policy analyst. He is the founder and principal of Franklin Adams & Co., LLC.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:

How the surveillance state threatens free speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

Two recent incidents demonstrate the appeal of intolerance on college campuses.

At Middlebury College in Vermont a noisy crowd of students disrupted a debate between Charles Murray, a conservative sociologist whose work has racist overtones, and Allison Stanger, a liberal professor. The Middlebury incident came just a few days after University of North Carolina Students for Justice in Palestine withdrew an invitationto journalist Rania Khalek because of her support for the Syrian government.

In both cases, the exercise of First Amendment rights was illiberally restricted in the name of liberal politics. In both cases, students chose to eliminate an unpopular point of view, not engage and refute it. In both cases it was a bad bargain, both for free speech and progressive causes.

This is not another attack on campus political correctness, which is hardly the oppressive force depicted by self-pitying conservative victimologists. Nor is it an apologia for Murray or Khalek, who can defend themselves. I want to defend people who seek to learn from robust political debate, only to find themselves thwarted by others.

As Brian Sonenstein of Shadowproof reported Monday, dozens of journalists, academics, writers, and activists signeda statement criticizing the actions of UNC Students for Justice in Palestine. The statement, "Against the Blacklisting of Activists and Writers," signed by Glenn Greenwald, Noam Chomsky,Col. Ann Wright, Medea Benjamin and others, says the cancellation of Khaleks lecture at UNC raises important issues of tactics and strategy within movements for social change.

So does the shouting down of Murray and Stanger. And it's not an easy issue. With intolerant bigots controlling the White House, how does one foster the tolerance necessary in a multicultural democracy?

Some people dont want to talk about the First Amendment in this discussion.

"This is not an issue of freedom of speech, countered an open lettersigned by hundreds of Middlebury alumni. We think it is necessary to allow a diverse range of perspectives to be voiced at Middlebury. ... However, in this case we find the principle does not apply, due to not only the nature, but also the quality, of Dr. Murrays scholarship. He paints arguments for the biological and intellectual superiority of white men with a thin veneer of quantitative rhetoric and academic authority.

They go on:

His work, including 1984sLosing Groundand 1994sThe Bell Curve misinterprets selective, uncorrected statistics and other faulty data to argue for the genetic inferiority of people of color, women, people with disabilities and the poor. This is the same thinking that motivates eugenics and the genocidal white supremacist ideologies which are enjoying a popular resurgence under the new presidential administration."

This is a fair summary, though mistaken on one point. Murrays thinking, while racist in the two cited works, is not the "same" as genocidal white supremacist ideologies. He is not a neo-Nazi or a fascist, as any reading of his books will show. And those who shouted him down ignored the fact that he was invited by Middlebury students who wanted to hear his point of view. The protesters not only silenced a man with racist views; they silenced their fellow students who wanted to learn about Murrays views for themselves.

Stangers account of the meeting on Facebook makes for a sad read.

Middlebury is now engaged in soul-searching after a spate of negative publicity, saysInside Higher Ed, but for Khalek the damage has been done. She reported that another student group, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR)at Concordia University, rescinded her invitation to appear on a panel about Palestinian rights on March 9, supposedly for unrelated financial reasons.

And that is always the danger. Silencing an unpopular point of view once makes it more likely it will be silenced a second time. The persistent attacks on the free speech rights of the campus movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel have encouraged more of the same, and for the same reason: Because it's easier to silence a point of view you don't like than it is to refute it.

But maintaining the widest possible zone of free speech isnt a favor we do for the enemies of liberalism; it is a favor we do ourselves. It is a strategy for maximizing the range of debate, strengthening democratic norms and protecting minority opinions. That is more, not less, necessary every day.

Watch:

See more here:

The Challenge of Defending Free Speech in the Age of Trump - AlterNet

Once in America, people stopped and listened to what others had to say. Once, freedom of speech was for everyone. Now the norm is to shout at people, interrupt them, call them names, bully them, censor them, threaten individuals' livelihood/reputation, berate them on social media, close ones mind before you have all the facts, or just dont bother to listen, all because they hold a different opinion.

Contrary to what some think, the Constitution has not changed. Freedom of speech is not based on gender, religion, race or even political party. It guarantees that each of us has the right to be ourselves, to have our own opinions and to voice those opinions. Nowhere does it state that if you dont think like or hold the same opinion as me, you are stupid, you should shut up, or you dont belong.

Citizenship in America isnt easy. You need to stand up and fight for what is right. You need to defend everyones right to free speech, even the opinions of those who you disagree with. You need to make your voice heard by communicating with those elected or by getting involved in our political system. You need to be civil.

I realize that there are those who hate that America is made up of different cultures, races and religions. I realize that these individuals not only fear the freedoms we have but would like to take it all away. But this should not stop us from exercising our rights and freedoms. What it means is that we need to stand up for what is right, and defend her against those who would deny these rights and freedoms both here and abroad. And to those who disagree with all that I said, I will defend your right to disagree.

Lois Clark Oakville

Continued here:

Stand up for everyone's freedom of speech - STLtoday.com

If Pastor Martin Niemllers poem First They Came was rewritten for todays free-speech battles, would the Ku Klux Klan be in the first line? Its hard to think of a more unsympathetic group, yet tyranny often starts small, sometimes targeting first those that are liked the least. A current court case involving the KKK serves as a warning: We are slowly, incrementally losing our freedom of speech.

At issue is the story of 22-year-old William D. Schenk, who spent five months in a Vermont jail after leaving Klan recruitment fliers at the Burlington homes of two women, one black and one Hispanic. Authorities accuse him of targeting the ladies, and in April 2016 he pleaded no contest to two counts of disorderly conduct, enhanced by a hate crime penalty based on prosecutors belief that Schenk was motivated by the victims race, reported the Burlington Free Press.

This plea was entered, however, under the condition that Schenk could appeal a judges decision to not dismiss the charges. That appeal is now being heard by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, the facts of the case are in dispute. Schenk claims he distributed the fliers to 50 homes; police say they found no recipients but the two minority women. Deputy Chittenden County States Attorney Aimee Griffin said it could be inferred that he targeted the women; Associate Justice John Dooley noted that theres no evidence Schenk knew the two women were minorities.Schenk is a North Carolina native and states that he conducted a similar recruitment drive in his home state.

Whats not in dispute is that if Schenk had been recruiting for the Republicans or Communist Party USA, he never would have landed in the dock. As the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)put it in papers filed on his behalf, [T]he government seeks to punish Schenk based solely on the content of his speech.

Furthermore, ACLU Staff Attorney Jay Diaz wrote in a prepared statement that while his organization considers the KKK a despicable hate groupthe Constitution does not allow the government to pick and choose which speech it will permit.

Another troubling aspect of this case is prosecutor Griffins insistence that, somehow, a government inference of motive makes otherwise lawful speech a crime. Its reminiscent of how the courts inferred that President Donald Trumps initial travel ban unfairly targeted Muslims based partially on comments he made in the past, on the campaign trail.

In other words, increasingly, the state is not judging acts and policies on their substance, but on what it divines their actuators motives to have been. But is this a government of laws or a sideshow telepathist routine? Its the thought that counts only applies to disappointed gift recipients.

Addressing the dangerous precedent suggested by Griffins inference that Schenk targeted the women, Associate Justices Harold Eaton and Marilyn Skoglund both asked whether, under Griffins argument, anti-abortion groups that distribute fliers to pregnant women could face charges, reported Seven Days.

Griffin rejected the analogy, stating that the KKKs history of violence created a more profound threat. Of course, given that left-wing groups have often unfairly, but successfully, portrayed pro-lifers as historically violent, the judges question was apt.

Lets try this on for size: What about Marxists putting recruitment literature on bankers stoops? Given that communists murdered 94 million people during the 20th centuryand target capitalists in particularcould we view this as a hate crime? And what if the New Black Panther Party put fliers on whites doorsteps?

Upon accepting the precedent that government can stifle speech based on content and motivation, playing mind reader, who will be allowed to say what would be determined by political favor.

Is this even remotely responsible, undermining our constitutional freedoms in the name of stifling the speech of a scorned and reviled .001 percent of the population? The First Amendments purpose is to protect unpopular speech; popular speechs popularity is usually all the protection it needs.

The Schenk case reflects the increasing acceptance of the notion of actionable hate speech, something explicitly criminalized in other Western nations. With hate always defined to be, quite curiously, synonymous with political incorrectness, such laws have claimed victims ranging from politicians to pundits to performers to pastors to peons, all targeted mainly for criticizing Islam and, less frequently, homosexuality. Worse still, were on the road to embracing these laws ourselves.

The problem began when the term hate speech originated (circa 1990) and then was cemented in our culture as a separate category of speech (years later). People would say things such as, to use the example of attorney Gloria Alreds hysterical 2006 shriek about a comedians epithet-laced, on-stage meltdown, This is not free speech; this is hate speech!

If you continually differentiate hate speech from free speech, people will begin to view the former as a separate species of speechnot protected by the First Amendment.

Now, for just about as long as weve had the hate-speech species, weve punished it situationallywhen associated with hate crimes. Consider: Something is generally identified as a hate crime by way of whats expressed during its commission. An example is assaulting somebody while directing racial epithets.

Its also considered an aggravating factor. For instance, if the assault would normally involve only four years incarceration, the hate-crime enhancement might bring an additional six. In other words, were already punishing hate speech within a certain context.

The problem is that upon establishing hate speech as a category and punishing it within one context, its just a short leap to punishing it within other contexts.

The Schenk case represents this (d)evolution. Where once the speech had to be uttered during a crime to implicitly be deemed unlawful, now the speech alone may be considered unlawful when directed at a certain type of person.

None of this is any surprise, with politics being downstream of an ever-degrading culture. When I was in elementary school we still heard the rhyme, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Oh, words can hurt feelings, draw tears or even start wars, but thats not the point. The saying instilled tolerance for unwelcome speech, a prerequisite for maintaining respect for free and open discourse.

Its clear that todays kidser, snowflakes, dont hear the rhyme much anymore. Instead, their fragility is nurtured as theyre taught about triggers, microaggressions, or whatever is the latest Oh, the humanity! term describing things that just shouldnt offend their ethereal ears. They are provided safe spaces where, at least momentarily, their delusive bubble wont be burst. Is it any wonder they want to turn the whole country into a safe space? (This recent survey finds growing intolerance for controversial speech among the young.)

It should be mentioned that hate-speech prohibitionswhether foreign laws or domestic campus codesrarely affect Klansmen, partially because there are so few Klansmen. Rather, they mainly stifle substantive debate over Islam, race, immigration and fashionable sexual agendas. Theyre also dishonest: Their main focus isnt hate, but what the Thought Police hate.

A good way to start draining the legislative swamp is to get the government out of the doubleplusgood thought business and rescind hate-crime law. Barring this, all we can do is ask: Whose principles will become tomorrows hate?

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke)has written for The Hill, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio.

More here:

The KKK Canary: How We're Losing Our Freedom of Speech - Observer

A lot of folks in our society today dont seem to respect or fully understand our constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Ideologically-driven leftists who refuse to let those with whom they disagree speak at university/college campus events, town hall meetings, and other public venues epitomize that selfish lack of respect. And there are often no negative, personal consequences for their impudent (sometimes violent) behavior.

Fortunately, the silent majority prefers a saner society and wants no part of any movement that promotes and/or tolerates such flagrant disregard for constitutional principles (including the right to peaceably assemble, which does not cover looting, destroying property, throwing rocks at cops, etc.). Leftists will continue to lose support because of this.

Having the audacity to believe that none of us should be allowed to speak or write in a manner that offends others is simply delusional. Can you imagine what our society would be like if that idea were to somehow be enforced? Who would decide what is offensive? Communist dictatorship, here we come.

We should all cherish our First Amendment right of free speech. For example, I not only disagree with probably 80-plus percent of what William Windsor writes, I find much of it to be quite offensive. Does that mean I would advocate prohibiting him from expressing himself the way he does? Of course not!

Make a note, Linda Nash. Nobody can hurt my feelings (or yours) unless I (or you) allow it. Like it or not, we adults cannot legitimately blame another person for how we feel. Thats our responsibility. And nobody else can be held responsible if some adult stops talking or writing due to fear of being criticized in no uncertain terms.

Some would say that we should all be able to disagree without being disagreeable. What about those whose limited communication skills preclude their always being able to do that? Should they not be allowed to express their opinions? Walking on eggshells is (as often as not) ineffective, unhealthy, and unrealistic.

Attempts to control others via what is politely termed political correctness has been carried to ridiculous extremes by guess who? Leftists, of course. Another reason they are losing ground.

Freedom of speech is a very broad concept in America. Only certain narrowly defined categories of speech are considered illegal e.g., credible murder or terrorist threats, sedition (such cases are rare), and (sometimes) incitements to violence. Hate speech per se is actually legal.

Our First Amendment right of speech is precious. Its there to protect those with whom we disagree. And since nobody has ever had a single idea that we would all agree with, arent we lucky our constitution is there to protect us from tyrants would choose to stifle us?

A few of my favorite quotes:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. Salmon Rushdie

So long as they dont get violent, I want everyone to say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me. Albert Einstein

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

How brave a thing is freedom of speech, which made the Athenians so far exceed every other state in Hellas [ancient Greece] in greatness. Herodotus

Fred Bindewald

Fort Madison

Read more from the original source:

Freedom of speech is a precious right - Fort Madison Daily Democrat

Carson-Newman Political Science major Mickey Shelton II got some real life experience when he attended a post-election protest rally at UT dressed as President Trump complete with wig.

I believe students shouldnt have to have a permit from a university to exercise their right to freedom of speech, claims Shelton.

Last month, Shelton continued to explore the right to freedom of speech on campuses. He went to a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol and spoke in favor of State Rep. Martin Daniels bill, the Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act.

He told his story about the five-hour UT campus protest attended by over 100 students and faculty. Trump supporters were outnumbered and police were called in after several reports of physical violence, including one involving Shelton.

In addition to the bills author, the Carson-Newman student got to hear the opinions of others including Senator Joey Hensley and political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes at the press conference.

The bill states that students enrolled in a university should be able to exercise their first amendment right. Members of the public who are not enrolled as students or employed by the institution may be required to obtain a permit.

Tennessee Students Free Speech Protection Act mainly outlines ways all state institutions of higher education can confirm their commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate by students whether on or off campus. It states that institutions shall include such policies in the student code of conduct that guarantees students the broadest possible latitude to speak, write and discuss any issue that presents itself on campus.

The bill continues with the statement that a state university shall not shield individuals from opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive as long as activities do not disrupt the essential processes of the institution.

Shelton says he thinks it is a public universitys job to provide an environment where freedom of expression and thought can thrive Students can hear both sides of any issue and formulate their own educated opinions.

More:

CN student helps push 'Free Speech' legislation - The Standard Banner

It was a formula Milo Yiannopoulos, former editor at Breitbart news and star of the white nationalist alt-right, had used many times. Say something incendiary and offensive in a public platform, provoke liberal outrage, argue this is another attack on free speech by the left who is obsessed with political correctness and reap the reward of the notoriety the episode generates. Except this time, another group inserted itself into this well-oiled formula. Yiannopoulos went too far, and angered the right as well as the left.

America is learning just how much conservatives will tolerate when faced with unsavory facts about a successful bedfellow. A candidates boast he can molest women with impunity? Not disqualifying. Yiannopoulos claim the tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was an expression of mainstream Muslim values? Give him a book deal. But Yiannopoulos apparent defense of pedophilia and assertion that sex with a sexually mature 13-year-old boy is not abuse? Now we have crossed the elusive line in the sand. And mysteriously, the right has stopped insisting Yiannopoulos is entitled to say whatever he wants.

In a series of videos posted on Twitter by the conservative blog Reagan Battalion, Yiannopoulos appears to condone or even encourage relationships between older men and boys as young as 13.

I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships, very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys, Yiannopoulos argues, claiming this sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent fails to recognize the subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships.

When another man on the podcast points out this enriching relationship sounds like molestation by Catholic priests to him, Yiannopoulos is flippant.

And you know what, Im grateful for Father Michael. I wouldnt give nearly such good [oral sex] if it wasnt for him, he says.

Of course this is wrong. The idea sex between adults and young teens cannot only be consensual but actually a positive experience for the younger party is dangerous and damaging to victims of childhood abuse, particularly when the argument comes from a gay man who seems to be drawing on his own experiences. Such assertions are horrifying.

But the backlash these revelations incited, costing Yiannopoulos his book deal, keynote speech at the CPAC American Conservative Union conference and position at Breitbart news, reveals the hypocrisy of the free speech defense Yiannopoulos employed so regularly. Apparently, free speech is only unassailable when the right agrees with the content.

Yiannopoulos has been allowed to get away with appalling verbal attacks in the past. At a December 2016 speech at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos projected a picture of Adelaide Kramer, a transgender woman and student in the audience, on the screen behind him, called her a tranny and accused her of forc[ing] his way into the womens locker rooms.

Kramer was, understandably, terrified and traumatized. In an email to UW-Milwaukees chancellor, obtained by the student publication Media Milwaukee, she asked, 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? She has since left the school.

To be clear, Yiannopoulos was not simply airing a controversial opinion in this case; he intentionally targeted a student for public ridicule, causing that student to fear for her safety. Nevertheless, conservatives rushed to his defense in the name of free speech. CPAC invited him to speak three months later.

Here is the problem: When the left insists normal speech has become hate speech, they are considered triggered snowflakes. But when the right finds a transgression they will not tolerate, whether it is sympathy for abusive priests or gay people daring to patronize their businesses, they are the noble moral arbiters of society. Anger at Yiannopoulos now, while indisputably justified, tacitly condones every bigoted comment he made before this moment.

This backlash reveals what we knew all along about the free speech defense of Yiannopoulos. There is no debate between free speech crusaders and gleeful censors. The debate is about the platform speakers are entitled to.

The same people distancing themselves from Yiannopoulos now decried the violent protests at University of California, Berkeley, his impending visit incited just last month. Thats the pesky thing about free speech: Everyone is entitled to it, not just far-right provocateurs.

Freedom of expression as it is constitutionally understood encompasses freedom of assembly, of the press, to petition the government and yes, of speech. In other words, protesting a free speech fundamentalist is exercising your right to freedom of speech.

Gonzaga professor of womens and gender studies Sara Diaz concurs: When students or faculty say they dont want a speaker on campus that is not a violation of freedom of speech, she clarifies. In fact, it is an exercise of free speech.

GU found itself in a similar situation to the one faced by Berkeley with Dinesh DSouzas invitation to speak on campus last year. In both cases, the universities were faced with the presence of controversial figures invited by their schools College Republicans club and had to balance their legal and philosophical impetus to ensure all views can be expressed on their campuses with a desire to ensure an inclusive academic environment free of bigotry. Both schools got it right by supporting their students invitations; as academic freedom is an essential right of universities with a clear legal trail all the way to the Supreme Court.

And the student bodies of both Berkeley and GU got it right by protesting in response.

As Diaz puts it, Freedom of speech does not protect us from the consequences of violating the norms of speech, such as rudeness, spreading misinformation [and] academic dishonesty.

Yiannopoulos is free to spew his hateful diatribe at whoever will listen. He is owed that right by the Constitution. But he is not owed a megaphone.

My recommendation for dealing with the Yiannopouloses of the world? If its free speech they want, its free speech theyll get. Robust debate and protest, not censorship, is the proper way to deal with bigots. And when they claim, as Yiannopoulos did, to be the victim of a cynical media witch hunt, can we please call them snowflakes?

Eleanor Lyon is a staff writer. Follow her on Twitter: @eleanorroselyon.

See the rest here:

Free speech is not freedom from consequence - Bulletin

Laura Tennant, news@masonvalleynews.com Published 10:32 a.m. PT March 8, 2017 | Updated 21 hours ago

Laura Tennant is a columnist for the Mason Valley News.(Photo: Provided to the Mason Valley News)

I was flabbergasted a few years ago to learn that administrators and students at some American colleges and universities were protesting free speech and the students were obtaining petition signatures to eliminate the First Amendment because a lecturer with different political views had been scheduled to speak at the school. I was more than flabbergasted when the president of the college upheld their views. I had thought the radical anti-free speech movement would fade away but it is now becoming violent with lawlessness occurring and no one suffering the consequences but innocent people.

America is a nation of laws and always has been for more than 200 years. I guess young people who have never had rules at home think they dont have to obey the laws of the land go try it in some other country.

The opponents of the First Amendment must believe, if the amendment were scratched from the U.S. Constitution, they would be the only ones who had the right to voice an opinion because, of course, their political views are superior to those of other citizens. Sounds scary that is what Adolph Hitlers brown shirts believed. If German citizens dared to express their opinion, they were immediately hauled off to a prison camp or murdered on the spot!

I cannot believe any American of any political party favors this type of a government.

The First Amendment is one of the most important freedoms we Americans have. I truly believe that everyone has a right to hold and express a political or other type of opinion in this society and to do it without fearing physical abuse from citizens who disagree.

In my younger years, I loved reading the classic authors of the 18th and 19th centuries, who often wrote about their gatherings where they socialized and respectfully discussed the worlds problems with their friends who were famous artists or statesmen.

Antagonists are our helpers

A quote by British statesman Edmund Burke reflects why I think that citizens open exchange of viewpoints on any subject is a positive force in America.

Burke said, He who struggles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper. I believe this, so with whom shall I discuss politics if everybody is forced to think alike? That form of government is called a dictatorship and citizens of those countries are so controlled there is no freedom of speech.

Burke was an 18th-century Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher who eventually moved to London and served in the House of Commons with the Whig Party and many of his quotes have become famous.

By the time students get to college, I would think that they could stand to be civil to someone who does not share their opinions.

So far, President Donald Trump has not tried to stop the deadly antics of the opposing side, but he might have to step in if communities, colleges or universities cannot get the situation remedied before someone gets killed.

Snow globe world

I woke up last Sunday morning to see and hear a howling blizzard blustering through our yard. We have not seen one of these storms for years. I honestly enjoy wild weather if I am warm and toasty inside the house by the fire and I do not have to drive anywhere.

This morning, I was unable to resist so I grabbed my camera and went outside barefooted to capture the moment. When the wind hit me, it felt like the storm had blown in from the Artic Circle but it was blowing from the usual southeasterly direction. Getting a good picture of wind and snow flitting through our yard was difficult. But I did get a couple of video shots that tell the story. The snow quit for a while until this afternoon and now the snowflakes are slowly drifting down and it feels like we are in a musical snowglobe.

Laura Tennant is a Silver City native, Dayton historian and the Leader-Couriers former editor. Comments are welcomed. Call 775-246-03256, e-mail L10ant38@gmail.com or write P.O. Box 143, Dayton, NV 89403.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rgj.com/2m2Fu1K

Visit link:

Tennant: Freedom of speech crucial for health of nation - Reno Gazette Journal

Colleges must be taught a lesson about free speech

Re Does America have a free speech problem? (Question of the Week, Feb. 28) and Troubling times for free speech on campus (Editorial, Feb. 28):

Your editorial board is to be commended for your severe rebuke of our colleges and universities for their intolerance of free speech.

Our institutions of higher learning were once bastions of free speech and the free exchange of ideas, as well as reasoned, thoughtful debate. Today, those same institutions are the epicenter of intolerance that only further divides us.

Freedom of speech is one of our most important constitutional rights. To see such rights suppressed, especially by publicly funded institutions, is not only immoral but threatens the very fabric of a civil society.

These institutions should be held to account for their abject intolerance by the state and federal entities that fund them.

Robert Schilling, Torrance

Let states decide on pot

Re White House eyeing pot rules (Feb. 24):

The Trump administration gets an A for hypocrisy.

Earlier in the week it said the states should have the right to decide how to implement rules for transgender bathroom use. By Thursday it was contemplating enforcing federal laws banning recreational marijuana use, even though some states have voted to approve it.

Using the feds to police marijuana use has nothing to do with helping people and everything to do with increasing government power and decreasing individual liberty.

Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the White House is considering the federal action because of health issues related to opioid overuse. If President Trump cared about health issues, he would ban tobacco and alcohol, whose cost to society is much higher than problems caused by marijuana. But hell never do that because their use is so widespread and includes many of those who voted for him.

Mark Apoian, Rolling Hills Estates

Question for abortion foes

Re Abortion protests target clinics (Feb. 12):

Its fine to protest abortion, but what will happen to all the unwanted children? Should every protestor be required to sign a bond agreeing to adopt one of these babies?

The Republicans dont want abortion but dont want to pay for these babies either. Abominable!

Jo Ann Michetti, Rancho Palos Verdes

Advertisement

Continue reading here:

Colleges must be taught a lesson about free speech: Letters - The Daily Breeze

The Graduate Student Assembly of the University of Nebraska met for its second to last meeting for the year in the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Nebraska Union on Tuesday, March 7 to discuss four bills.

The four bills presented include the allocation of funds for Graduate Student Appreciation Week, an endorsement for the March for Science in Lincoln, a bill to support the protection of political speech for graduate students and an endorsement for the event #HackUNL.

GSA Bill 28 proposed an allocation of $2,000 from GSAs social budget to go toward Graduate Student Appreciation Week. Graduate Student Appreciation Week is a week that celebrates grad students through different activities throughout the week. The bill passed unanimously.

GSA Bill 29 asked for the assembly to endorse the March for Science on April 22. The March for Science is a march that supports scientists and the scientific community, while allowing the community to publicly take a stand. The bill passed unanimously.

GSA Bill 30 focused on supporting the protection of academic freedom, diversity and political speech for graduate students.

English representative Daniel Clausen proposed the bill to the assembly.

There is no current policy that directly pertains to protecting free speech, he said.

Clausen continued by saying the bill presented to the Graduate Student Assembly supports freedom of speech and asks the university to adopt a policy that explicitly defends graduate students right to free speech.

Lauren Segal, the co-chair of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee, wanted to know if the bill asking for protection of free speech could be used against students regarding hateful political speech.

I was thinking of that as I wrote the bill, and I dont want to protect someones right to put up a swastika, Clausen said. But thats why I think having a policy that deals with deciding what is and isnt hate speech and then following a protocol is important.

Before the assembly voted on the bill, GSA President Ignacio Correas commented on how the bill would be enforced.

I will make sure that if this bill is passed that I will work with the appropriate university authorities to make sure that the regulations to determine what is and isnt hate speech has grad student input, he said.

After brief debating, the bill passed unanimously.

GSA Bill 31 asked for endorsement toward #HackUNL. #HackUNL is a 24-hour event in which UNL students can use coding and graphic design to come up with ideas to end cyberbullying and harassment. The bill passed unanimously.

news@dailynebraskan.com

Read the original:

UNL's GSA passes bill to protect grad student free speech - Daily Nebraskan

George Korda, USA TODAY NETWORK - Tennessee 7:06 a.m. ET March 7, 2017

The Hill and Ayres Hall, University of Tennessee. (University of Tennessee)(Photo: UT Photo)

In light of Tennessee General Assemblys discussions about the University of Tennessees diversity programs - and a legislators wish to establish an Office of Intellectual Diversity to foster conservative speakers and thought on campus - its interesting to note that UT has a microaggressions research laboratory.

The College of Arts & Sciences microaggressions research lab studies, it says, the subtle everyday experiences of discrimination and their impact on mental and physical health outcomes.

Thus, its worth exploring how microaggressions correlate to free speech in the continuing controversy over UTs (presently defunded) Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

For several months toward the end of 2015 UTs diversity office impaled itself on self-inflicted public relations blunders. One was suggesting odd pronouns by which to address people who prefer not to be identified by the gender binary (male or female). Another recommendation was to not hold Christmas parties by that name and that religiously-themed cards potentially breach the campuss inclusion imperative. The legislature stripped $436,000 from the UT budget to defund the office for a year.

George Korda: Duncan says no to a town hall meeting, and politics over principles

George Korda: If Trumps not listening, it shouldnt be a surprise

George Korda: Five-year-olds, the presidential election, and the Pride of the Southland Band

The diversity issue is enough on legislators minds that State Sen. Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald, offered on March 1 an amendment to this years proposed UT budget calling for $450,000 to fund a UT Office of Intellectual Diversity. The Tennessean newspaper reported it as, a move some senators suggested would encourage more people with conservative views to speak their minds.

Diversity of thought, expression, and civility are components of a look at the microaggressions lab. According to the labs website, its research focus is two-fold: gendered racial microaggressions, and racial microaggressions:

Various searches of the UT site produced no list of specific microaggressions. Therefore, microaggressions as found on the University of Cincinnati website are helpful in considering UT's potential future in this arena. The University of Cincinnati is the school from which new UT Chancellor Beverly Davenport recently arrived after serving as interim president, prior to which she was senior vice president for academic affairs and provost (in fact, her photo is still on the UC Office of Equity & Inclusion website).

What follow is an example of one of 36 racial microaggressions listed on UCs website. It is divided into theme, the actual microaggression, and the negative message supposedly sent by the microaggression.

The University of Tennessee has a research lab specifically studying microaggressions. The new chancellor came from a university that on her watch focused on such subjects. The continuing diversity conversation is driving discussion about UT and freedom of speech.

Given those factors, how do microaggressions as defined by the UT lab relate to UTs civility principles and free speech? Of UTs 10 civility and community principles, two in particular are significant in this discussion:

If microaggressions are uncivil speech or expression, and can be subtle and unintended, how can a student or faculty member possibly know what they can or mustnt say for fear of committing an act of bigotry or other type of incivility? What student comments or questions go unspoken or unasked because of this uncertainty? What faculty comments are, intended or unintended, unacceptable?

Common sense dictates that there are people who, as they turn to ask someone a question or begin to make a statement in class, will stop and ask themselves if they want to endure potentially being labeled as a racists, sexist, etc., for committing a microaggression.

Thats not diversity: its bringing about silence through intimidation, intended or unintended.

Are there insults and statements that are beyond the pale? Certainly. There are indeed people with discriminatory and even hateful attitudes. But is UT really a hotbed of student and faculty injustice? Must students and faculty wonder if their words are being scrutinized at all times for microaggressions and other uncivil behavior?

Thats a subject also worthy of study.

Diversity and inclusion isnt a one-way street. Otherwise, its not diverse, its not inclusion, and it bears little relation to freedom of speech.

(The University of Tennessee Microaggressions Research Laboratory website: https://microagressions.utk.edu).

George Korda is political analyst for WATE-TV, appearing Sundays on Tennessee This Week. He hosts State Your Case from noon 3 p.m. Sundays on WOKI-FM Newstalk 98.7. Korda is a frequent speaker and writer on political and news media subjects. He is president of Korda Communications, a public relations and communications consulting firm.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2mAfOg5

Excerpt from:

George Korda: UT's microaggressions laboratory: Where free speech is a priority? - Knoxville News Sentinel

We asked readers, Does America have a free speech problem?

In the United States, free speech is in big trouble

Free speech in America is in big trouble. Take the recent case of Orange Coast College student Caleb ONeil, who would have been punished by administration were it not for the exemplary defense mounted by Freedom X attorney Bill Becker and others who rallied at his side.

This mindset that declares that Trump supporters are racist white supremacists is ludicrous. Many on the left are blinded by their own hysteria and this shuts down any chance of reasonable discourse on issues.

Read the free speech column by John Phillips, Its a college campus run by bullies. You will be shocked. If not, you may have blind hysteria syndrome.

Tressy Capps, Fontana

Limited speech is not free speech

I do not believe that America has a free speech problem. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted society freedom of speech and we are grateful for it.

Some people dont want to hear what others have to say, but do we not wish for freedom of speech? Some may argue we should have freedom of speech but only to a certain extent. What is the point if we are restricted from expressing ourselves?

Itd be ironic to be a country that has freedom of speech but only to a certain point. We should be allowed to voice our thoughts and feelings regardless of the topic. That is freedom of speech.

Karla Davalos, Ontario

Respect First Amendment

When the U.S. Constitution was written, it included individual freedom of speech; therefore there is not too little or too much freedom of speech.

With freedom of speech comes disagreements, and when a person expresses their political views it becomes a sensitive subject, especially regarding hatred of Donald Trump.

Therefore, many Trump supporters feel they cannot fully express their opinion and that is not right. People allow their emotions to take over and cannot separate political views from other issues and that is why many feel they are not able to speak and write freely.

And California Democratic leaders need to respect that everyone has the right to the First Amendment instead of removing people from the floor.

Lesle Chicas, Rancho Cucamonga

Advertisement

Read the original here:

Does American have a free speech problem? Readers answer our ... - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

We asked readers, Does America have a free speech problem?

In the United States, free speech is in big trouble

Free speech in America is in big trouble. Take the recent case of Orange Coast College student Caleb ONeil, who would have been punished by administration were it not for the exemplary defense mounted by Freedom X attorney Bill Becker and others who rallied at his side.

This mindset that declares that Trump supporters are racist white supremacists is ludicrous. Many on the left are blinded by their own hysteria and this shuts down any chance of reasonable discourse on issues.

Read the free speech column by John Phillips, Its a college campus run by bullies. You will be shocked. If not, you may have blind hysteria syndrome.

Tressy Capps, Fontana

Limited speech is not free speech

I do not believe that America has a free speech problem. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted society freedom of speech and we are grateful for it.

Some people dont want to hear what others have to say, but do we not wish for freedom of speech? Some may argue we should have freedom of speech but only to a certain extent. What is the point if we are restricted from expressing ourselves?

Itd be ironic to be a country that has freedom of speech but only to a certain point. We should be allowed to voice our thoughts and feelings regardless of the topic. That is freedom of speech.

Karla Davalos, Ontario

Respect First Amendment

When the U.S. Constitution was written, it included individual freedom of speech; therefore there is not too little or too much freedom of speech.

With freedom of speech comes disagreements, and when a person expresses their political views it becomes a sensitive subject, especially regarding hatred of Donald Trump.

Therefore, many Trump supporters feel they cannot fully express their opinion and that is not right. People allow their emotions to take over and cannot separate political views from other issues and that is why many feel they are not able to speak and write freely.

And California Democratic leaders need to respect that everyone has the right to the First Amendment instead of removing people from the floor.

Lesle Chicas, Rancho Cucamonga

Advertisement

View original post here:

Does American have a free speech problem? Readers answer our ... - Redlands Daily Facts

Our Question of the Week asked readers, Does America have a free-speech problem?

Free speech comes with obligation to tell the truth

Characterizing this as a free speech issue is a disservice. When the president labels our patriotic intelligence agencies as Nazis and politically driven; when speech results in anti-Semitic attacks at graveyards and Jewish centers; when speech furthers bigotry, racism and xenophobia that results in people being shot and killed; and when speech labels groups as thieves, drug peddlers and criminals, that speech undermines our Constitution and national identity.

Free speech does not give one the right to shout fire. It comes with a responsibility to be truthful and with a commitment to further dialogue.

Gary Murph, Bellflower

A founding principle

This hasnt changed in 241 years. As long as you dont physically threaten someone, you can say whatever the hell you want.

Educated people know you defeat your enemies by outsmarting them with intelligence, brain power and articulation not force.

Don Venitsky, Lakewood

A problem for both sides

Yes, despite our First Amendment rights to free speech, there does seem to be an increase in free-speech problems due to a lack of sensibility from both dissidents and their opponents. There is an even greater wave of dissension since President Trump is attempting to disband many of the Obama administrations policies, fueling more conflict.

Fortunately, we have a constitutional right to peaceful assemble, but still there needs to be greater tranquility when dealing with protestors as well as more civility used by those expressing dissension.

Isadora Johnson, Seal Beach

Cherish it while we have it

The problem with free speech is that we only want other people to have it when they agree with us! George Orwells Nineteen Eighty-Four should be mandatory reading for everyone so they appreciate freedom of speech. When you no longer have it, its too late.

How long will it be before Donald Trump establishes the Ministry of Truth? His comment that Fox News is a reputable member of the media is laughable. It is the largest purveyor of faux news.

Shirley Conley, Gardena

Advertisement

Visit link:

Does America have a free-speech problem? Readers respond: Letters - Long Beach Press Telegram

When Lester Packingham beat a traffic ticket a few years back, he couldnt contain his joy. He went online and wrote, No fine. No court cost, no nothing spent. Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks, JESUS!

For this he was arrested and convicted of a heinous crime: using Facebook.

Who is legally forbidden to use Facebook? In North Carolina and a handful of other states, a registered sex offender. In 2002, Packingham, then 21, pled guilty to two counts of statutory rape of his girlfriend, 13 (he claimed he did not know her age). This netted him a suspended sentence and 30 years on the registry.

His case made it to the Supreme Court Monday, where he argued that not being allowed on social media violated his right to freedom of expression.

The judges seemed to grasp the profound role of social media in our lives today. Justice Elena Kagan said that a person banished from major platforms like Facebook is effectively shut out of society.

This is the way people structure their civic community life, she said. Not only can the banished not communicate the way everyone else does, they cannot go onto the presidents Twitter account to find out what the president is saying. (I imagine her mentally inserting a winking emoji here.)

For its part, North Carolinas lawyer Robert Montgomery insisted that sex offenders should be barred from any Internet sites minors might use, just as theyre barred from playgrounds and parks. This Court has recognized that they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again. Even as late as 20 years from when they are released, they may recidivate.

Its true the court recognized this high rate of recidivism, but its also true that it was mistaken. As the scholar/lawyer Ira Ellman wrote in a stunning expose a few years ago, the frightening and high recidivism risk cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2002 a rate the justice said has been estimated to be as high as 80 percent was based on what turned out to be a single article by a single therapist in an old copy of Psychology Today.

The therapist didnt even cite any evidence.

Actual studies have found the sex-offender recidivism rate to be about 5 percent.

So Montgomerys argument is based, in part, on a falsehood. But the question remains: Do sex offenders have a right to be part of the world at all?

Montgomery argued that they could lurk online, gathering information on potential victims. At which point Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to tease the man:

Breyer: Can you have a statute that says convicted swindlers cannot go on Facebook or cannot go on the Internet on sites that tell people that tell people where to gather to discuss money?

Montgomery: Im not sure about that.

Breyer: We can think of you know, pretty soon, youre going to have everybody convicted of different things not being able to go anywhere and discuss anything.

Its true that people can and do discuss anything and everything online, nice and nasty. That is precisely why keeping sex offenders off social media opens the door to keeping almost anyone else off it for almost any reason.

And yet, the justices seem to be mulling, the Internet is the new town square. In the real-world town square, even people with criminal pasts are allowed to come and go, speak their mind and resume their lives. They can stand on a soap box and present their case for changing the laws that, for instance, turn an I beat my traffic ticket! status update into a crime.

Banning those found guilty of sex offenses from social media forbids speech on the very platforms on which Americans today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change, and to petition their government, said Packinghams lawyer, Stanford Laws David Goldberg.

But of course, if your goal is to outlaw freedom of speech and assembly, its brilliant to start with a reviled group. First they came for the sex offenders, and so on and so on.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.

Lenore Skenazy, author of the book and blog Free-Range Kids, is a contributor at Reason.com.

Read more from the original source:

Do sex offenders have a right to free speech? - New York Post

Much like 1960s America, we live in an era of cultural tension and unrest. During times like these, the freedoms protected under the first amendment, especially those of freedom of speech, press and assembly, are flexed more than ever. Schools and college campuses, which serve as places of learning and spaces where voices are listened to, become the prime battleground for rhetoric and discourse of political ideas.

This immense cultural unrest and its consequential outcry, which can be heard and seen across Americas school campuses, plays a crucial role in interpreting and understanding our constitutional rights. Harping back to the time of the Vietnam war, Justice Abe Fortas famously said in the ruling of the monumental Tinker v. Des Moines, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

But modernly, the fine line between abusing and violating the first amendment is drawn even thinner. What if those students or teachers willingly shed their rights of expression for the creation of a more safe and peaceful space? Are they not utilizing their freedom of speech in another way, by denying themselves speech? In the age of political correct (P.C.) culture, the legal and moral standards associated with our first amendment have become murkier.

As the way in which we are able to exercise our freedom of speech is debated, the stakes of those exercises of freedom are elevated as well. In 1965, Tinker v. Des Moines began over the instance of five students being suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war. Only a few weeks ago, over fifteen hundred people at UC Berkeley protested against the alt-right guest speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, resulting in damages to the campus of $100,000 and the cancellation of his speech.

This recent event has been a recurring story in the news. On college campuses across the nation, and including our very own demonstrations resulted in guest speakers on campus discontinuing or canceling their speeches.

The hundreds of protesters at UC Berkeley assembled peacefully for about an hour before 150 masked agitators swayed the protest into a more violent and destructive atmosphere. On the very same campus that once served as a major battleground in the fight for free speech, Yiannopoulos was evacuated and the school was forced to cancel the event.

Not only did our President then threaten to cut federal funds to UC Berkeley, but Yiannopoulos also took to social media saying, The Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.

This particular event exemplifies the issues that arise when making the assumption that P.C. culture infringes upon first amendment rights. The conception that those protesters violated his first amendment rights is a myth because the first amendment holds that congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. The protesters are not in the position of congress, therefore the government is not restricting anyones freedom of speech in this case.

However, one may also argue that because UC Berkeley is a public school, their decision to cancel Yiannopouloss speech can be seen as a de facto violation of the first amendment under the guise of safety.

The protesters, who can arguably be blamed for inciting the cancellation, were in their rights to assemble. It was only in the violence and destruction of property that they abused and stepped out of their rights. Yiannopoulos, too, was in his right to give a speech, however inflammatory or hateful that speech would have been.

Legally, as set by the supreme court in the case of National Socialist Party v Skokie, people in a public space are within their rights when [m]arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; [d]istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion.

Essentially, the only speech that is not protected by the first amendment are those that include obscenity and fighting words, words legally defined by the supreme court as those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.

Regardless of the cultural unrest in our day and age, the legal standards of freedom of speech are being upheld and rightfully contested. Before moving on to investigate the claims of moral standards, a close consideration should be made to the first amendment itself and how its defined and interpreted by the supreme court.

Eve Peyser writes in Esquire goes on to claim that, The heart of [P.C. culture] isnt about making sure what you say doesnt offend, but how people with radically different beliefs should best talk to each other. The intentions stated and the plea for communication addressed here, by an defender of P.C. culture, seem inherently reasonable. But its almost redundant to plea for protection of freedom of speech when the negative effects of P.C. culture on college campuses are under fire from both conservatives and liberals alike.

Language and communication are powerful, these are acts both sides of the political spectrum can agree with. Language dictates our law, but language and meaning in itself is incredibly malleable. The language of law in the case of freedom of speech raises further questions and contestations, especially with the emergence of P.C. culture and recent demonstrations on college campuses.

These campuses are spaces where people with opposing opinions should have the opportunity and the platform to exercise the power of their first amendment rights. It is here where anyone, regardless of political orientation, can delve into the murky meaning of language and law and attempt to find the answers to those questions and contestations.

In the same space where those that are accused of limiting free speech utilize their first amendment rights to assembly, those that accuse P.C. culture of suppressing free speech can also find a platform to voice their opinions. Here, in this complex and controversial dynamic, the beauty in interpreting and exercising the first amendment is made outside of the courts and instead, on college campuses.

This editorial is a reflection of the opinions of The Sundial editorial board.

Go here to read the rest:

Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part one - Daily Sundial

Federal parliament should leave section 18C untouched.

The inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported to parliament. Unsurprisingly, it has focused most of its recommendations on the procedures and processes associated with the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission in accepting and hearing complaints.

The impetus for the inquiry was the now-infamous QUT case, in which an employee of Queensland University Technology asked non-Indigenous students to leave a computer lab designated for the use of Indigenous students. Those students then allegedly posted comments on Facebook, in relation to which the QUT employee lodged a complaint of unlawful vilification against the students. In November 2016, the Federal Court dismissed all the complaints against the students.

The QUT case was the most recent impetus for the launch of this inquiry, although it followed earlier rumblings in the Australian Law Reform Commissions report on traditional rights and freedoms, the Andrew Bolt case and the unsuccessful 2014 attempt to narrow section 18C.

All eyes were on what the report would recommend regarding the words used in section 18C. This is because critics of the section are quick to point out that it says that unlawful conduct occurs when it is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the ground of their race. The bar is too low, they say. Merely offending someone or insulting them ought not to be grounds for a complaint of unlawful conduct under civil law.

Supporters of the section are equally quick to point out that the courts have interpreted section 18C to mean that the conduct captured by the law has to amount to a profound and serious harm, not to be likened to mere slights. Therefore, merely having ones feelings hurt or feeling offended does not reach the threshold required to lodge a complaint. Independent MP David Leyonhelm found this out when he tried, unsuccessfully, to complain about journalist Mark Kenny describing him as speaking on ABC television with angry-white-male certitude and being a rank apologist for the resentment industry promoted by angry-white-male shock jocks.

Of the 22 recommendations made in the report, only one deals specifically with the words in section 18C. This recommendation is inconclusive. It notes merely that at least one member of the committee had supported each of the five mooted proposals.

This leaves no-one the wiser about what the federal parliament will do about the text of section 18C. It also puts the responsibility squarely in the hands of the parliament to make a decision on what has lately become a highly controversial piece of Australian federal law. The recommendation contains five options regarding the words in section 18C:

1. No change. This option is strongly supported by the Australian Greens, who wrote a dissenting report. Labor also wrote extended additional comments, which noted the high levels of racism experienced in Australian society, the important role that 18C has played during the more than 20 years of its operation, and that the section only captures serious conduct. They agreed with witnesses to the inquiry who suggested that amending the section would send a dangerous message to the community. Overall, it seems highly likely the ALP supported this option.

2. Codifying the courts interpretation of section 18C as referring to profound and serious effects. This change would have no material impact on how section 18C operates as a legal prohibition of unlawful conduct.

3. Removing the words offend, insult and humiliate and replacing them with harass. This change would create uncertainty in the interpretation of section 18C, until a case was able to make its way to the courts and a definitive interpretation of the term harass was able to be made.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines harass as to trouble or vex by repeated attacks, or alternatively as to trouble, worry or distress. These terms could imply, but do not necessarily imply, profound and serious conduct.

It is possible a court would apply a similar interpretation to the term harass as has already been applied to the existing text. If that were the case, nothing much would change.

4. Including a truth defence in section 18D. Section 18C operates in conjunction with section 18D, which allows for exemptions to conduct that would otherwise be considered to contravene section 18C. Exemptions currently exist for conduct done reasonably and in good faith, including artistic expression, public debate and fair and accurate reporting.

The inclusion of a truth defence in 18D would radically alter its scope. I imagine many people whose conduct might be caught by 18C would relish the opportunity to argue the truth of their views (for example, Holocaust deniers or those who would want to argue the inferiority of particular races). Deliberately providing a platform for such discourse through the text of 18C would make a mockery of 18Cs purpose and operation. It would significantly weaken the protection it offers to vulnerable communities, and provide a platform for hate speakers.

5. Changing the test of whether unlawful conduct has occurred from the experience of a member of the targeted group to a reasonable member of the Australian community. This suggestion was included in the ill-fated attempt to reform 18C in 2014.

Implementing this recommendation would mean a complete reframing of the way in which racial vilification is conceptualised in federal law. Currently, 18C is the only racial vilification law in Australia in which the test of whether conduct is unlawful depends on the response of the group targeted by the vilification. This is a great strength.

Changing to a test of whether a reasonable person in the community would regard an expression as vilifying or not would discount the lived experience of targets of vilification, and thereby reduce the likelihood of a complaint being upheld. People who are not the targets of vilification are simply not able to understand its effects in the ways that those who are targeted experience it.

On the whole, this report is unhelpful. It has failed to resolve the key issues at stake in terms of the text of section 18C. Given the inability of the committee to reach agreement on suggestions for textual reform, the parliament should leave 18C unchanged.

Read more from the original source:

Parliamentary inquiry into free speech resolves nothing, so 18C should be left alone - The Conversation AU

KEY POINTS FROM FREEDOM OF SPEECH REPORT:

* LEADERSHIP

Community leaders and politicians should identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech.

* SECTION 18C OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

No repeal, but some MPs still say the words "offend", "insult" and "humiliate" should be replaced with "harass".

* HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Time limits on all aspects of dealing with complaints; commission must be fairer to all parties impacted by the complaint; commission can terminate a complaint if it has no reasonable prospect of success; cost orders to prevent frivolous claims; new guidelines for the HRC president in relation to complaint handing; appointment of a part-time judge to help deal with initial complaints.

* LABOR VIEW

Commission will need extra funding; current laws strike the right balance between free speech and freedom from racial abuse.

* GREENS VIEW

Keep Section 18C as is; enable the commission to terminate complaints that lack merit.

Excerpt from:

Reforms to improve freedom of speech - NEWS.com.au