Illinois state representative Peter Breen (R., Lombard) has just introduced HB 2939, which would create the Illinois Campus Free Speech Act. Breens bill is based on the model campus free-speech legislation I recently co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of the Goldwater Institute.

Upon introducing the bill, Breen said:

With everything going on nationally right now, this is a timely bill that will serve as a reminder that the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Our public institutions of higher learning have historically embraced a commitment to free speech, but in recent years we have seen colleges and universities abdicate their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles. This initiative will put Illinois in the forefront of ensuring robust, respectful speech on college campuses.

As recently noted, North Carolina lieutenant governor Dan Forest has announced that his states General Assembly will soon be considering a bill based on the Goldwater proposal, and I will be testifying before the Florida state house next week on the Goldwater model campus free-speech bill at the invitation of Education Committee chair Michael Bileca.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com

Here is the original post:

Peter Breen's Illinois Campus Free Speech Act - National Review

5488558

According to The College Fix, a free speech seminar at UCLA on Feb. 1 became an exercise in censorship when a book on Islamic Totalitarianism was removed from sight after boisterous student protest.

Students are said to have formed a human shield around the table where the offending book, entitled Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism, rested. After shocked and outraged students demanded the books removal, UCLA staff intervened and did just that.

The denial of free speech occurred at an event in support of free speech, sponsored by the UCLA chapters of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute groups that have not been banned thus far at the university.

Though UCLA issued an apology for removing the book, a campus spokesman is downplaying the incident, suggesting no one formed a human shield around the table and that students voiced their objections in a civil tone.

But thats the universitys side of the story. The books author, Elan Journo, who is a director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, told The College Fix that he received a full report on the incident from staff members who were manning the table.

Journo reported that about a dozen UCLA students confronted the staff members to object to the insulting language in the book and then proceeded to surround the table so that no one could view the book or even its title.

He said that based on eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on the scene when the UCLA rep stepped in, my colleagues who were staffing the table tried to point out the absurdity of ban the book. At that point, the rep picked up the stack of books and demanded that all copies of the book be removed, and that either he would take them or they could be put them under the table.

The author was so offended by the conduct of the students and the universitys affirmation of their behavior that he submitted an op ed piece to the The Hill, in which he stated:

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movements global assaults on free speech.

Follow David on Twitter

See original here:

UCLA Free Speech Event Censors 'Islamic Totalitarianism' Book - Daily Caller

At UCLA earlier this month a book about Islamic Totalitarianism prompted a group of student protesters to allegedly form a human shield around a table holding the publication, a confrontation that ended after a campus official demanded the books be removed.

The incident took place before a panel discussion Feb. 1 on the threat to free speech co-hosted by the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute.

The university has since apologized for the incident and has implemented procedures to ensure it does not happen again, and a campus spokesman disputes the claim that students formed a human shield to block the book.

The book that drew the ire of protesters is Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. Its co-author, Elan Journo, director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, was not at the event but was told by his staffers who were there what happened.

Journo told The College Fix that approximately twelve UCLA students expressed disapproval of the publications insulting language and effectively formed something like a human barricade around the table where his book was presented during a reception prior to the talk.

In an article in The Hill, Journo states that at this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was inflammatory. It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movements global assaults on free speech.

Journo told The College Fix that based on eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on the scene when the UCLA rep stepped in, my colleagues who were staffing the table tried to point out the absurdity of ban the book. At that point, the rep picked up the stack of books and demanded that all copies of the book be removed, and that either he would take them or they could be put them under the table.

Not wanting to escalate the dispute or delay the event, which was about to start, the staff manning the display table decided to put the stack of books under the table. That was about the time the event began, and people entered the auditorium. The protesting students dispersed, except for two who attended the event, Journo told The Fix.

Later, during the panel event, YouTube broadcaster Dave Rubin, who also served as the event moderator, held up a copy of Journos book, bringing to light the irony of the situation.

Rubin placed the book on the table and jokingly stated that its a scary thing filled with words.

He added: Its just a book and its a set of ideas.

Reached for comment, ULCA Laws Executive Director of Communications Bill Kisliuk said in an email to The College Fix that it is true that that a UCLA staffer made an error in judgment and requested that a book be removed from sale in violation of university policy.

The school has since apologized for this action and taken steps to prevent it from happening again. It is worth noting that the evenings event, in which speakers addressed a student audience and exchanged in a free flow of ideas, proceeded without interruption or interference, Kisliuk said.

The speakers included Flemming Rose, author of The Tyranny of Silence, and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute.

In his email to The College Fix, Kisliuk also pointed out that while the institute had permission to have a table in the hallway outside the event, ARI representatives never indicated in multiple discussions with UCLA officials beforehand that they planned to sell materials. University of California and UCLA policy require that third-party organizations obtain advance approval before seeking to sell products on campus.

Kisliuk also disputes the claim that the students formed a human shield.

Prior to the event, several students gathered at the ARI table and engaged in dialogue about the book. They did not seek to impede attendees interested in the book, nor was anyone prevented from entering the room where the panel discussion took place, he said. A member of the UCLA Law staff did ask an ARI representative to stop selling copies of the book. While ARI staff removed copies of the book from the table on request, at least one copy remained visible on the table until ARI packed its materials and stopped staffing the table.

Kisliuk said that in a letter of apology to the Ayn Rand Institute, Law Dean Jennifer Mnookin stated that the request to remove copies of the book was not in keeping with UCLAs Law or her vigorous commitment to support free speech and respectful debate.

Moving forward, Mnookin has partnered with administration to hatch out a plan for enhancing policies and procedures which would prevent this occurrence from repeating. Kisliuk describes how the plan now includes improved student organization training in regard to protection of free speech at events.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Dominic Mancini is an undergraduate student completing Ashford University's online psychology program. Currently working as an intern at the Quicken Loan's Detroit headquarters, his career goals include human resources, journalism and political commentary. He has previously managed a YouTube channel by filming and uploading video blogs and tutorials. During his spare time, Dominic enjoys playing the piano, heading to the gym, and discussing current events.

Go here to read the rest:

At UCLA, book on 'Islamic Totalitarianism' censored at free speech event - The College Fix

As a citizen of China, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, I must say that I am disappointed by my fellow liberals indifference toward free speech. My experience tells me that whether or not citizens have the right to free speech is the most important distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship. To give you an idea of what it is like to be a Chinese citizen, for the first 18 years of my life, my typical class schedule included a Politics and Thoughts class that taught Communist Party propaganda, a History class that taught alternative history carefully censored and rewritten by the Communist Party, and a literature class that included only authors and articles the Party deemed appropriate. I was required to memorize key speeches and principles invented by Party leaders in order to pass the ideology test, in which if anyone dared to write anything negative about the Communist Party, he or she would automatically get a zero and not graduate.

In China, online forums and social media are carefully monitored so that counter-revolutionary comments are promptly removed and perpetrators are punished. Human rights lawyers and activists are routinely jailed in secret locations or sent to forced labor camps for their beliefs and activities. It isnt that life is insufferable for normal people without free speech; the brilliance of censorship is that it makes you think only one kind of view can possibly be right, so you dont feel the need to protest, dissent, or even think.

In high school, during a summer at Yale, and my first time in the United States, I took a human rights class and a legal philosophy class. For the first time in my life, I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. I read John Stuart Mills On Liberty and his belief that everyone should have the absolute right to free speech. I read the landmark Supreme Court case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), in which a Jewish lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazi Partys right to march in a predominantly Jewish village. I learned about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, on which information was censored in China and where brave college students fought for democracy. They fought for freedom of speech and thought only to face the crackdown of an illiberal regime stuck in its own ways. I learned that liberalism means tolerance and commitment to our inalienable and indivisible rights, no matter what powerful people say, and I began to proudly call myself a liberal. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that most of my liberal friends at Swarthmore not only advocate violence against those who hold a different view, but also believe that freedom of speech is somehow a conservative value.

Most debates about free speech these days are simply confused. The kind of knee jerk reaction that many liberals display toward claims of free speech is largely a response to the hypocrisy of some conservative politicians, who, while arguing that liberals are stifling free speech on campus, are perfectly willing to withhold funding from colleges they deem too radical. Free speech as a constitutional right is different from the kind of campus free speech for which such conservatives are clamoring. Unfortunately, many liberals fail to draw the distinction and end up losing faith in the doctrine of free speech in general. Even more unfortunate are attempts to equate free speech with oppression or even white supremacy. Without freedom of speech, only those in positions of power can speak.

Freedom of speech as a legal, constitutional, and human right is important because it is the bedrock of democracy. Every attempt to undermine this right risks undermining the foundation of democracy and making the U.S. more like China or Russia. You may think I am being alarmist, but plenty of examples exist where free speech restrictions in other liberal democracies have backfired. After a German comedian accused the Turkish President and Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoan of oppressing minorities and having sexual intercourse with farm animal Erdoan sued the comedian with the support of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under an old German law. In France, after the terrorist attack in 2015, a Muslim was sentenced to a year in prison for shouting Im proud to be Muslim. I dont like Charlie [Charlie Hebdo, a far-left French magazine previously attacked for mocking Islam]. They were right to do it. As Howard Gillman, the Chancellor of UC Irvine, argues, [d]emocracies are more fragile things than we might like to believe. Free speech is important partly because it allows political minority groups to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.

The constitutional right to free speech, however, is not absolute. Child pornography, obscenity, fighting words, libel, and incitement, for example, are not protected by the First Amendment. But these exceptions are meant to be exactly that exceptions. Some have argued that hate speech is not free speech. It is factually incorrect as a descriptive claim, and practically and legally problematic as a prescriptive claim. Since the issue of hate speech matters deeply to many skeptics of free speech, Id like to set the record straight here. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that banned the placement of a burning cross or Nazi swastika on public and private property. The majority reasoned that the law was unconstitutional because it only prohibited particular kinds of fighting words that involve race, color, creed, religion or gender. In other words, the law constituted both viewpoint and subject matter discrimination. Even though in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) the Supreme Court upheld a similar law because the Court considered speech targeting racial or religious groups to be group libel, as constitutional law scholars Kathleen Sullivan and Gerald Gunther explain, most judges no longer believe that Beauharnais is good law.

Should the government be allowed to ban hate speech as many free speech skeptics wish? I do not believe this is a good idea. While it is permissible for the government to prohibit speech that incites imminent violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), or increase penalty for hate crime (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)), as the Court argues in R.A.V., any specific prohibition on hate speech involves content-based restrictions. If, for the sake of argument, the government is allowed to ban speech based on its content, then who is to stop right-wing politicians from passing laws that prohibit speech, for example, that advocates for the violent overthrow of capitalism or mocks Christianity? As the ACLU argues, free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyones rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Of course, the Court can recognize a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, but as The Economist argues, such an exception will only encourage ideologues to harass those who hold a different view. In India, a psychologist and well-known public intellectual was charged under the countrys hate speech law for making a point about corruption and lower-caste politicians. He has since said that because of the incident, he will have to be careful now. Similarly, a hate speech law may allow Trump to sue Clinton if she had instead said Evangelical Christians or white Trump supporters belong to a basket of deplorables. I am not arguing that instituting a hate speech exception is constitutionally impossible, but I suspect it will either be too broad so as to amount to censorship, or too narrow so as to be utterly indistinguishable from other exceptions such as fighting words.

Speech on campus, of course, is an entirely different matter. Public colleges are required by the Constitution to provide First Amendment protection for everyone. Private colleges like Swarthmore, on the other hand, should protect the most vulnerable members of their communities, but they should also promote diversity of political opinion and speech that has intellectual value. The decision to allow or disallow certain speech is ultimately a balancing act, but colleges should not, for example, disinvite conservative speakers merely because their viewpoints are unpopular or offensive. (I do not, however, believe Milo Yiannopoulos deserves a platform on campus, because I do not believe his speech has any value at all.) Some, however, have argued that hate speech deserves a place on campus. Gillman and UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, for example, argue that only by subjecting hate speech to examination can we expose the lie and bigotry that it is. I am sympathetic to such arguments even though I believe the line should be drawn where students might begin to feel unsafe.

There is another issue: do some students, because of their privileges, have no right to discuss certain topics or issues? There is a strong case to be made that those who belong to groups that traditionally have less voice should be given more voice to enrich the marketplace of ideas, but I think the answer to this question should be no. A friend of mine told me that when his public policy class was discussing whether catcalling should be made a felony, he was told by a female student that his view does not matter because he is not a woman. However, as a low-income and minority student, he knew that such laws disproportionately affect minorities. Regardless of whether his view was correct, he was capable of making a valuable contribution to the discussion. The point is, in the context of campus speech, more speech is almost always better than less.

Originally posted here:

What is Freedom of Speech? - Swarthmore Phoenix

Poughkeepsie Journal 3:02 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2017

Letters to editor(Photo: Poughkeepsie Journal)Buy Photo

The alarm bells are ringing.

Insidiously and gradually, free speech is on its way to extinction at universities and colleges across America, spawned by a dictatorship of the left.

Increasingly, leftists and their anarchist disciples are inciting students to use mob violence for disrupting and preventing invited conservative speakers from expressing alternative political views at the campus.

Reminiscent of Nazi and Communist tactics for eliminating free speech, leftist-inspired rioters screaming obscene language are increasingly threatening conservative speakers with physical injury, accompanied by blockage of streets and buildings, appalling vandalism, extensive property damage, and chaos.

Recently, at the University of California, Berkeley, right-wing advocate Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated and his speech cancelled because of masked rioters beating people, smashing windows and starting fires on and off campus. Incredibly, throughout this dystopian scene, despite the presence of scores of campus and city police, not a single arrest was made thanks to orders from permissive or possibly complicit municipal and school officials.

Hypocrisy prevails: The same campus leftists who allege President Donald Trump is ushering in a Fascist regime to suppress freedom of speech, are themselves plotting to silence conservatives who challenge their views.

If America is going to preserve its democratic principles, suppression of free speech through violence must be reversed. This means publicly funded educational institutions throughout our nation including Dutchess Community College need to uphold federal laws protecting the right of its citizenry to assemble in a peaceful manner and exercise free speech. Otherwise, federal funding to these scofflaw universities and colleges should be withheld.

Joe Incoronato

Dutchess County Legislator, District 15

Wappingers Falls

Read or Share this story: http://pojonews.co/2lmQ5Y8

Read more:

Free speech in danger due to extreme leftist actions: Letter - Poughkeepsie Journal

By Hunter Gilbert

The opinions expressed by The Maneater columnists do not represent the opinions of The Maneater editorial board.

Hunter Gilbert is a freshman data journalism major at MU. He is an opinion columnist who writes about rights and tech for The Maneater.

The founding fathers did not get everything right when it came to explaining the rights they believed every American should have. For starters, they didnt believe these rights applied to everyone in the nation.

What they were successful in doing was expressing how important specific rights were to their vision of a longstanding democratic republic. This is why the First Amendment includes several tenets, some of those being the freedoms of religion, speech and press. In the event that a sovereign state silences all forms of publication that have conflicting viewpoints with the powers that be, the voice and verbal opposition of a populace in the absence of the press would act as the last vessel for the people. It is essential for democratic processes to occur.

Recently at the University of California-Berkeley, a member of the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulos, had his event canceled due to a concern for his own safety. This was the result of a protest that turned into a riot one that was not controlled by the police even though their purpose was to maintain order. It goes without saying from my past columns that I do not champion or support rhetoric like Milos. He has done some truly despicable things. I do, however, agree with Milo, much like another opponent of his rhetoric, Matt Teitelbaum, when it comes to freedom of speech.

If you have ever actually watched the man speak, he carries himself with an interesting demeanor. He will have a good dialogue with someone with opposing views if they carry their conversation through well-mannered means. If someone is merely screaming at him and calling him names, he will do the same through vicious mockery and heckling. beliefs. It has been that way for over a hundred years and it will remain that way. There is no changing that. So when it was announced that one of the leaders of the UC Berkeley protest believed the protest was successful and that she tolerated the behavior that occurred, it sends a very concerning message. Plenty of protesters acted respectfully, and they deserve praise for doing so. The fact of the matter is the violence and rioting that occurred gave more attention to Milos cause. Milos book is now an Amazon bestseller thanks to the publicity, and it hasnt even come out yet. In part, the protest failed since its goal was to keep people from hearing him speak. Violence or silencing your opponent discredits your own sides credibility.

If you truly want change, make compromises. Talk to people who have different views than your own. Learn about the origins of why they believe in a certain ideology. Dont surround yourself solely with people who think exactly like you. That only creates a hive mind mentality with an echo chamber effect. It doesnt lead to any progress. Free speech is useless when your opponent cant speak for themselves.

He has two sides, one of which I respect. At times, he has openly welcomed actual dialogue from opposing viewpoints. This is rare these days. Society jumps at labeling people without actually listening to them or mislabels a party or person for the shock value or simple discreditation. Its modern day McCarthyism, but instead with buzzwords like fascist and neo-Nazi, even though sometimes it is warranted. It is the equivalent of crying wolf over and over again. No one will listen to you when the truth is applicable. One does not have to agree with Milos beliefs to recognize he values free speech for what it actually promotes: discussion and dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Back to the protest. One can easily watch the videos of rioters clubbing people with iron pipes or punching a bystander several times even though it is apparent she had done nothing to warrant this. What shocked me the most was a man, already unconscious, being beaten by a group of anti-fascist demonstrators.

There was no uproar and no mainstream condemnations from bipartisan groups for what occurred. For the most part, the response was silence. I may not agree with the people who were clubbed and beaten, but suppressing their civil right to free speech should not be so widely accepted.

Read this article:

Column: Free speech is a two-way street - The Maneater

KRQE News 13

UNM students express freedom of speech on giant beach ball ... KRQE News 13 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) Words were flowing on the University of New Mexico campus Wednesday afternoon. Students were given the opportunity to ... and more »

Go here to see the original:

UNM students express freedom of speech on giant beach ball ... - KRQE News 13

February 14, 2017 12:59 PM

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM:Facebook|Twitter

MIAMI (CBSMiami) The lawyer for a man accused of threatening Miami Beach city workers and cops is calling this simply a case of free speech.

Ricky Weinberger, 54, was in court Monday for violating an injunction.

Weinberger is accused of harassing Miami Beach Police officers with violent and vile threats, through phone calls to the police station, as well as posts on his own social media and a law enforcement site.

While he didnt show up in court Tuesday morning, his attorney argued Weinbergers rights are being violated under the first amendment.

Miami Beach police said they found these guns in an apartment occupied by Ricky Weinberger. (Source: Miami Beach Police)

Theyre claiming he made lots of threats online. But is this free speech, asked defense attorney Noel Flasterstein in court. When is this actually actionable? They said he made threats to city officials, to hotels, or harassment. But I think it has to be when theres no intent or no purpose, if youre calling somebody and bothering them just for the sake of bothering them. He actually had some disputes with the hotel. He actually had some disputes with the city employees. So I think we got, one, freedom of speech concerns. Two, is this injunction, in which this new charge is flowing, even valid? This is coming they want to lock him up, from somebody who allegedly posted stuff online. How did they know it was even his posts?

Inside Weinbergers apartment, police found 4,500 rounds of ammunition and 16 guns, including six assault rifles.

Police picked him up for violating an injunction they filed a year ago when he was arrested for repeatedly making threatening and lewd phone calls to Miami Beach city employees.

The judge found that there was reasonable cause to hold the 54-year-old while he faces three open criminal cases.

Read this article:

Lawyer Defends Alleged Online Threats To Cops As Free Speech Issue - CBS Local

With free speech under so much fire from so many directions lately, its encouraging to see Virginia lawmakers sponsor bills to protect it.

One measure, sponsored by Del. Terry Kilgore, would extend legal protection against spurious lawsuits to both political speech and to consumer reviews of the sort that have grown popular on websites such as Yelp.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Take the RTD on the go for just $1.99 a week. With your digital-only subscription you'll receive unlimited access to Richmond.com, our mobile website, mobile app and our replica e-edition. Get started now for $1.99 per week for 26 weeks ($8.62 monthly,) then $3.99 per week for 26 weeks ($17.28 monthly,) then $4.85 per week.

(Per 30 days)

Current seven-day subscribers to the Richmond Times-Dispatch can add unlimited digital access to their account for no extra charge. Your digital package includes unlimited use of Richmond.com on desktop, mobile web and mobile our app, as well as our replica e-edition. Add digital to your current active seven-day print subscription and upgrade to All Access.

BEST VALUE

Receive your newspaper every day and get unlimited digital access at no additional charge. You won't miss anything. Your digital package includes unlimited use of Richmond.com on desktop and mobile web, as well as our electronic replica edition every day.

(Per 30 days)

Receive your newspaper Monday through Saturday.Your subscription includes popular sections like Weekend and Dining on Thursdays and Richmond Drives automotive on Fridays and Metro Business on Mondays. Plus get unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Your subscription includes popular sections like Weekend and Dining on Thursdays and Richmond Drives automotive on Fridays. Plus receive unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Your subscription includes popular sections like Metro Business on Mondays and Richmond Drives on Fridays. Plus receive unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Receive the Sunday newspaper, stuffed with money-saving offers, with unlimited digital access at Richmond.com. $19 per month after six-month introductory offer.

Need an account? Create one now.

kAm%96 3:== E2<6D 2:> 2E ${p!! 42D6D[ @C $EC2E68:4 {2HDF:ED p82:?DE !F3=:4 !2CE:4:A2E:@?] p A6C764E 6I2>A=6 @44FCC65 😕 #:49>@?5 2 4@FA=6 @7 J62CD 28@ H96? $EJ=6 (66<=J AF3=:D965 2 =6EE6C 7C@> A2C6?ED 4C:E:4:K:?8 2 D49@@= AC:?4:A2=D A6C7@C>2?46] %96 AC:?4:A2= DF65[ 2?5 E96 42D6 H6?E 2== E96 H2J E@ E96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE] r@?DF>6CD 2=D@ 92G6 7@F?5 E96>D6=G6D DE2C:?8 5@H? E96 32CC6= @7 2 =2HDF:E 27E6C A@DE:?8 4C:E:42= 4@>>6C4:2= C6G:6HD]k^Am

kAm%96 >62DFC6 H@F=5 ?@E AC@E64E A6@A=6 282:?DE 5672>2E:@?[ 2?5 :E D9@F=5?E] qFE :E H@F=5 6?DFC6 E92E A6@A=6 42? 6IAC6DD E96:C 9@?6DE G:6HD 😕 E96 AF3=:4 DBF2C6 H:E9@FE 92G:?8 E@ H@CCJ E96J H:== 36 32?

kAm%96 D64@?5 >62DFC6[ 7C@> s6=] $E6G6? {2?56D 2?5 `h 4@A2EC@?D[ 😀 2 D9@E @G6C E96 3@H @7 AF3=:4 4@==686D 2?5 F?:G6CD:E:6D] xE DE:AF=2E6Di tI46AE 2D @E96CH:D6 A6C>:EE65 3J E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E E@ E96 &?:E65 $E2E6D r@?DE:EFE:@?[ ?@ AF3=:4 :?DE:EFE:@? @7 9:896C 65F42E:@? D92== 23C:586 E96 7C665@> @7 2?J :?5:G:5F2=[ :?4=F5:?8 6?C@==65 DEF56?ED[ 724F=EJ 2?5 @E96C 6>A=@J66D[ 2?5 :?G:E65 8F6DED[ E@ DA62< @? 42>AFD]k^Am

kAmq6=:6G6 :E @C ?@E[ D@>6 😕 9:896C 65F42E:@? 24EF2==J E9:?< E9:D :D 2 325 :562]k^Am

kAm$:G2 '2:59J2?2E92?[ H9@ E62496D >65:2 DEF5:6D 2E &'2[ D2JD E96C6 😀 2 >@C2= A2?:4 😕 p>6C:42 E92E 7C66 DA6649 😀 F?56C 2DD2F=E 2E F?:G6CD:E:6D[ 3FE :ED 23D@=FE6=J ?@E ECF6]k^Am

kAm(C@?8] xE 23D@=FE6=J 😀 ECF6] %96 k2 E:E=6lQ9EEADi^^HHH]E967:C6]@C8^42E68@CJ^42D6D^7C66DA6649^Q 9C67lQ9EEADi^^HHH]E967:C6]@C8^42E68@CJ^42D6D^7C66DA6649^Q E2C86ElQ03=2?:?8] s6?J:?8 :E C6BF:C6D E96 D@CE @7 H:==7F= C67FD2= E@ 7246 724ED E92E 4=:>2E6492?86 D<6AE:4D @7E6? 6I9:3:E]k^Am

kAm|2C4FD |6DD?6C[ H9@ E62496D 23@FE >65:2 2E 'r&[ 2=D@ 4=2:>D E96 AC@3=6> 😀 7:4E:E:@FD 3642FD6 DEF56?ED E96C6 6IAC6DD E96>D6=G6D @? 2 3C@25 G2C:6EJ @7 E@A:4D 6G6CJ 52J]k^Am

kAmv@@5 7@C 'r&] qFE E96 A@:?E 😀 :CC6=6G2?E] yFDE 3642FD6 DEF56?ED 2E 'r& 9@=5 7@CE9 5@6D ?@E >62? E96C6 😀 ?@ 677@CE E@ DBF6=49 7C66 6IAC6DD:@? 6=D6H96C6] ~?6 >:89E 2D H6== 2C8F6 E92E D:?46 D@>6 A@=:46 @77:46CD EC62E D@>6 3=24< >6? H6==[ ?@ 3=24< >2? 6G6C 6IA6C:6?46D A@=:46 3CFE2=:EJ]k^Am

kAm{2?56D 3:== 😀 2 ?2CC@H42DE:?8 @7 E96 u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 7@C ':C8:?:2D AF3=:4 :?DE:EFE:@?D] %96 >6C6 724E E92E :E 😀 >66E:?8 C6D:DE2?46 D9@HD 9@H G6CJ 325=J :E 😀 ?66565]k^Am

Read the original here:

Editorial - It's called freedom of speech. Maybe you've heard of it? - Richmond.com

A referendum on constitutional changes that could expand President Erdoans powers will take place on 16 April. Photograph: Ozan Kse/AFP/Getty

Turkey, once held up as an exemplar of secular democracy in the Muslim world, is now the worlds biggest prison for journalists. Since he came to power in 2014, president Recep Tayyip Erdoan has slowly tightened his grip on freedom of expression, choking his critics.

Editors of national newspapers now face life sentences for working against the state. People have been arrested for Facebook posts criticising the government and last week over 4,400 public servants were sacked in an act branded by critics as a witchhunt targeting the political opposition.

Meanwhile Erdoan has maintained cordial diplomatic relations with global leaders including Donald Trump, Theresa May and Vladimir Putin, and hopes to extend his constitutional powers with a referendum on 16 April.

If you live in Turkey we want to hear how the climate is affecting you.

Has the crackdown on expression affected your daily life? When did you notice that free speech was being compromised? Have you adjusted what you say and do online? And what advice would you give to other people around the world living under a similar style of leader?

Fill in your details in the form below and well use some of your submissions in our coverage of freedom of speech in Turkey. Alternatively, you can email maeve.shearlaw@theguardian.com.

Originally posted here:

Erdoan v free speech: how does it feel to live in Turkey right now? - The Guardian

In the last year there have been several instances of hate speech and targeted verbal attacks against different minority groups on the University of Michigan campus. However, the line between hate speech and free speech remains blurred for the University to interpret in each individual case, as the balance between maintaining free speech and a safe environment for students continually remains a precarious one.

As a public institution, the University must strictly adhere to the First Amendment and the freedom of speech it guarantees. The University codified its commitment to free speech and a safe campus in its UM Standard Practice Guide, as of the many policies in the SPG, one is dedicated solely to 601.01, the Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression.

The Civil Liberties Board of the Universitys Senate Assembly proposed a set of guidelines to be adopted by the University.

Prefacing the policies is the goal that, by representing and allowing for the entire spectrum of opinions within the University community, the staff can create an open forum for diverse opinions. The guidelines of 601.01 are committed to the exchange of opinions to encourage learning.

Expression of diverse points of view is of the highest importance, not only for those who espouse a cause or position and then defend it, but also for those who hear and pass judgment on that defense, the policy reads. The belief that an opinion is pernicious, false, or in any other way detestable cannot be grounds for its suppression.

Law student Erin Pamukcu, president of the Universitys chapter of the American Constitution Society, believes the First Amendment and free speech are foundations not only in the study of law, but the U.S. democratic system.

Its the Amendment that ensures the will of the people can always be heard and will always be heard, Pamukcu said. It was important when America was founded, and is just as important today, especially because the ways that we now communicate are continually changing. The law has to keep changing on how it interprets speech, and in what capacity does it extend to social media, what I say to people when Im working? Its an amendment that will continue to be important and its interpretation will continue to evolve.

The SPG also created policies directed specifically against Discrimination and Harassment. This in-depth policy stance includes definitions of the terms and the appropriate responses to and procedures to follow in these instances, in addition to the Regents Bylaw 14.06 and the Nondiscrimination Policy Notice already created to target these issues.

The policy clearly states the University is committed to maintaining an academic and work environment free of discrimination and harassment.

The University has a compelling interest in assuring an environment in which learning and productive work thrives, the policy reads. At the same time, the University has an equally compelling interest in protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and in preserving the widest possible dialogue within its instructional and research settings.

Pamukcu believes there is a distinction between hate speech and free speech, and the University has the discretion to decide what classifies as hate speech and when the University has cause to intervene, especially given the current divisive political climate.

Hate speech is one of those things that is recognizable, you can use common sense, Pamukcu said. You can see by the way they act, the language they use, the context they say it in those are all important parts about deciding whether someone is exercising their own right to free speech or theyre using their speech to target an individual or cause harm to an individual in the way that hate speech does.

For Philosophy Prof. Daniel Jacobson, however, freedom of speech stands as a prerequisite to knowledge, and as such, people should be able to defend their views against all arguments, whether or not some would consider it to be hate speech.

There isnt even a clear meaning to the phrase hate speech, which is one good reason not to use the phrase, let alone to use it to propose restrictions on speech, Jacobson wrote in an email interview. But the law is clear: Hate speech (including false, immoral, even harmful speech) is protected by the Constitution. That is a good thing, because if hate speech could be suppressed, then, inevitably, unpopular moral and political opinions would be labeled as hate speech.

The aforementioned guarantee of free speech and the importance of diverse opinions was the Universitys rationale in allowing The Michigan Review to utilize University space to host two contentious figures. Early in the primaries of the 2016 presidential campaign, Milo Yiannopoulosdebatedagainst Julie Bindel in the Michigan League in February 2016.

Both figures are banned from multiple universities in the United Kingdom because of their controversial views Yiannopoulos for his opinion that feminists invent fake problems specifically regarding rape and sexual assault, and Bindel for her opinions of modern feminists and the transgender community. Most recently, Yiannopoulos was slated to speak at the University of California-Berkeley, but afterviolent protestsfrom the student body, the universitycancelledthe event.

Many students expressed discontent with the hosting of this event, but University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald wrote to the Daily in an email at the time of the event that the University allowed for participation by the two aforementioned participants. The University is committed to allowing freedom of speech and opinions for all students and outside guests, referencing the SPG.

LSA junior Andrew Krieger, president of the Universitys chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, a non-partisan libertarian group on campus, believes the Universitys role in maintaining free speech and censoring hate speech is important, but his peers could work on being open to others ideologies.

So we believe that free speech allows for you to challenge your ideas and to change the ideas of others, Krieger said. As far the University censoring those ideologies, I think that makes racism worse in that it solidifies their convictions and doesnt allow for them to hear the other side.

For LSA junior Emily Kaufman, who identifies as a transwoman, Yiannopoulos coming to campus was a point of contention, as in her opinion, he represents hate speech rather than exercising his right to free speech.

I went to the event, and it was the most uncomfortable Ive probably ever been in my life, Kaufman said. It was a lot of white men from out of town. The kind of people that look like theyd beat up a trans girl like me The misrepresentation of feminism and having all these people from out of town, it wasnt University of Michigan students having a productive debate, which could have been useful.

Krieger said Young Americans for Liberty does not shy away from bringing in controversial speakers such as Yiannopoulos because it is incredibly beneficial to have open dialogues and listen to the viewpoints of those with different political ideologies than ones own.

Obviously, we dont like defamation, flat-out lies, threats none of that is acceptable under the Constitution, Krieger said. Unfortunately, the only way youre going to convince people with racial ideologies is to have discussions with them, and that is an issue people dont like to hear and people dont really want to try. For a lot of libertarians, free speech is the only way to convince people otherwise I dont like Milo, but its sad that people arent able to come to a campus for a fear of their lives.

Jack Bernard, associate general counsel at the University, and Sarah Daniels, associate dean of students, spoke about the Universitys role as a public institution and the First Amendment during a Central Student Government meeting in December.

Though Bernard and Daniels did not specify any incidents, their presentation alluded to the anti-Islam and politically charged messages that have beenchalkedon the Diag, including statements such as Stop Islam and Trump 2016. The University did not remove the chalk, and students predominately Muslim, eventually washed off the writing.

One student who helped wash off the chalk messages, Rackham student Banen Al-Sheemary, said at the time she was frustrated with the University's lack of action in response to the chalk drawings beyond an email from University President Mark Schlissel promoting unity.

Its irresponsible of the administration that we are actually out here with buckets of water and napkins to clean off these hateful messages and the administration isnt taking care of it, Al-Sheemary said at the time. And not only is the administration not taking care of it, they are putting us through a really difficult process. That perpetuates these really racist and hateful stereotypes that turn into violence and turn into students of color feeling unsafe on campus.

Bernard explained the chalk writings on the Diag could not be interfered with by the University if they were not threats of violence or other versions of unprotected speech, and Daniels added the University cannot stop people from speaking. Both Bernard and Daniels agreed the best ways to counteract speech was more speech.

Art & Design senior Keysha Wall, member of the University chapter of BAMN the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessarytook issue with the Universitys representatives during the CSG meeting, stating the chalk drawing incidents were representative of a threat toward Muslim students.

You cannot debate fascism, Wall said. You cannot have a discussion with fascism. You have to shut that down.

However, the University was prompted to respond and announce its intention to restrict the type of speech on alt-right, white supremacistpostersfound around campus on multiple occasions during the weeks leading up to the contentious 2016 presidential election. The posters were primarily anti-Black and anti-Islam, earlier posters advised white women not to become romantically involved with Black men. After many student protests following the discovery of these posters, Schlissel and the University released astatementpertaining to the racially charged poster.

Messages of racial, ethnic or religious discrimination have no place at the University of Michigan, the statement read. While we continue to defend any individuals right to free speech on our campus, these types of attacks directed toward any individual or group, based on a belief or characteristic, are inconsistent with the universitys values of respect, civility and equality. We also have a responsibility to create a learning environment that is free of harassment.

The University also stated they could not remove the posters promoting white supremacy because they were posted in public posting spaces.

Consistent with our policy for posting, whenever they are on buildings, we can remove them, said former University Provost Martha Pollack during theSenate Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Affairs meeting. If they are on kiosks, they are protected by free speech, as they should be. Not only do we have a constitutional obligation to allow all speech no matter how heinous, but if youre going to stand by the First Amendment, youre going to stand by the First Amendment. But what you have to do then is loudly make known your abhorrence of this.

Jacobson thinks the University intervening on free speech is an illegal act because the University is a public institution.

It is fine to have certain spaces where people are safe from hearing opinions that offend them, Jacobson said. But the idea that the University as a whole should be a safe space that it should compel people not to express offensive opinions is as misguided as it is impossible And it is impossible because everything offends somebody.

Following the many protests and University responses after the 2016 election, LSA sophomore Amanda Delekta created a petition,#NotMyCampus, where she stated she felt she faced bigotry for holding conservative views, and that the University administration did not foster conversations that were respectful of all ideologies.

I penned #NotMyCampus after being frustrated at the University of Michigan's seemingly biased response to the 2016 election results, Delekta wrote in an email interview. The University is a school and its purpose is to educate, but instead of fostering an open dialog (sic) professors and administrators highlighted only one viewpoint which validated that ideology over that of others which I found to create a divisive campus climate and create a stigma among students of us vs. them.

Jacobson noted the disparity between the progressive and conservative ideologies of faculty, favoring the former, is problematic because it makes students with unpopular political opinions comfortable with expressing themselves.

Many fields, especially in the humanities and social sciences, have become so politicized that scholars cannot succeed unless they hew to a leftist party line, Jacobson wrote. Students are subjected to political indoctrination even in courses that are not about politics. But perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the situation is that, despite its unquenchable thirst for diversity, the University does not really value intellectual and political diversity.

However, Delekta wrote she believes freedom of speech granted to students covers all types of speech, but requires a great responsibility.

With this freedom comes great responsibility to use it for good, to be critical, but to also be compassionate, Delekta wrote. I believe hate speech is speech with ill intent with no productive purpose beyond causing another harm. That being said, regardless of how insidious and horrible speech may be it is protected by the Constitution. I in no means think hate speech is right, or legitimate but it is legal.

Read this article:

University tackles free speech issues | The Michigan Daily - The Michigan Daily

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

After days of deliberating over some extremely disappointing news that I was being threatened with termination by Executives because of a comedy special that was only intended to bring communities closer together, I was to be punished for a joke, Cannon wrote in a lengthy Facebook post on Monday.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

This has weighed heavy on my spirit. It was brought to my attention by my team that NBC believed that I was in breach of contract because I had disparaged their brand, Cannon wrote. In my defense, I would ask how so? Or is this just another way to silence and control an outspoken voice who often battles the establishment.

Cannon told radio host Howard Stern last week that NBC executives werent laughing when Cannon made a joke about the network costing him hisblack card while filming hisupcomingShowtime comedy special,Stand Up, Dont Shoot.

The36-year-old actor apparently cracked several jokes about NBC during the comedy special, which saw Cannon use the N-word several times.

I grew up like a real na, all that stuff, but I honestly believe that once I started doingAmericas Got Talent, they took my real na card. They did because then these types of people start showing up to my shows, Cannon joked during the comedy special, Entertainment Weeklyreports.I cant do the real na stuff anymore cause then theyll put me on TMZ.

Cannon who has expressed a number of politically unpopular views over the past few months, including that Planned Parenthood is designed to exterminateblack people says he had been warned by his mentors that The System would come after him because I was speaking too many truths and being too loud about it.

I will not be silenced, controlled or treated like a piece of property, Cannon, who has hosted the reality singing competition for the past eight seasons, wrote on Facebook.

NBC, Cannon charged, is part of an unjust infrastructure that treats talent like they own them.

But Cannon said he made the hard choice to leave Americas Got Talentbecause his soul wont allow [him] to be in business with corporations that attempt to frown on freedom of speech, censor artists, and question cultural choices.

So I wish AGT and NBC the best in its upcoming season, but I can not see myself returning, Cannon wrote. There will always be a do as I say mentality that mirrors societys perception of women and minorities, and only a few will stand up against it. I proudly stand as one of those few, and will gladly take on whatever repercussions that come with it.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter:@JeromeEHudson

More here:

Nick Cannon Quits 'America's Got Talent,' Rips NBC Execs for Stifling 'Freedom of Speech' - Breitbart News

The 2017 Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) by Spiked have revealed British universities are becoming more censorious.

Through a traffic light system of red, amber and green, the survey ranks the Students Union and universitys approach to freedom of speech by considering their stance on no platforming, equality and diversity policies, advertisements, fancy dress, safe space policies and student codes of conduct.

Of 115 universities surveyed, the four worst universities for freedom of speech came from the Russell Group, including Oxford, Newcastle, Cardiff and Edinburgh.Out of 24 Russell Group unis, 16 were ranked red and eight were amber.

Buckingham University, Trinity St. David and West of Scotland were ranked the most ban-free.

Universities marked red actively censored speech and expression, amber universities have chilled free speech through excessive regulation and green universities has not restricted or regulated speech and expression.

See below where your university has been ranked.

Aberystwyth University

Aberystwyth banned Carnage because it encourages binge drinking, as well as banning YikYak on campus as the uni feltit facilitated bullying. Theuse of racial, homophobic, religious or disability slurs, even those that are used in a joke context are also barred.

Bath

The university banned transphobic materials, including those in speeches, literature and music from campus. Bath SU also censored a musical comedy sketch by Comedy Writing Improvisation and Performance Society because a line about the Prophet Mohammed had caused great offence.

Birmingham

The SUhave banned newspapers the Daily Star and Daily Sport as they claim they arederogatory towards women. They also ban any publication which upholds or propagates racial/gender/sexuality-related/disability-related stereotypes or binaries. Birmingham has a no platform policy against speakers or groups who are offensive to a race, religion, or sexuality, for example. Current groups that are banned include British National Party, Hizb-ut Tahrir, National Front, English Defence League.

Bournemouth

Students are not permitted to wear clothing that has slogans or symbols that are offensive, such as racist or sexist and will face disciplinary action if so. The Union also has a safe space policy.

Bristol

The Union has banned any songs that encourage rape culture in university buildings. Instead, lines from the songs that do reference rape will either not be played or have the instrumental version played. The SU will also disaffiliate from any society that has committed a rape apology. Consent classes are available for all undergraduate students in halls. The university expects students to attend workshops.

Cardiff

As part of their anti-lad culture policy, certain songs that are deemed homophobic or promote misogyny by the student senate, such as Blurred Lines, have been banned from playing in the SUor on the student radio station. Lad mags or those that include pornographic material are banned from being sold in campus shops. In the past two years, Cardiff have no platformed Dapper Laughs from speaking, and attempted to ban Germaine Greer for herviews on trans people.

Durham

Durham have banned any activity that promotes binge-drinking, such as initiations. Durham also have a policy whereby anydisplay of sexism, homophobia or any kind of prejudice can lead to disciplinary action.

Edinburgh

Edinburgh have banned the Sun from campus and have no platformed speakers with controversial views such as Tommy Robinson and the SWP. The SU have banned Caitlyn Jenner and Pocohontus as fancy dress costumes, no platformed lad banter that trivialises rape, such as Uni-Lad and rape apologist George Galloway. The Union also backed a boycott against Israel last March.

Hull

Hull has a strict trans policy whereby they willremove any materials considered to be trans propaganda. They have banned initiations as they promote excess drinking, and also have a no platform policy. Hull SU have currently banned the BNP, Combat 18, the National Front, Hizb-ut Tahrir and the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

Kings College London

Kings recently removed a picture of Lord Carney from their alumni wall on the strand campus because of his anti-gay views. The uni also have strict advertising rules, whereby religious advertising, advertising of pornography and sexual service, advertising of tobacco products and advertising of weapons and gun clubs are banned.

Lancaster

Lancaster unidont tolerate any harassment, racism, sexism, homophobia or prejudice. Posters at the uni cant include offensive language or break the previous policy of being racist, sexist or homophobic.

Leeds

Tabacco, casinos, gambling, strip clubs or animal testing adverts are amongst the few banned from campus as part of the universitys no platform policy.Hate or facist speakers are banned from lecturing on campus.

Leicester

The university have introduced mandatory consent classes. Like Leeds, Leicester have banned certain adverts, such as gambling, money loaning, bar crawls, the Sun as well as banning any hate speakers from campus.

Manchester

Manchester SU banned a copy of Charlie Hebdo from the Refereshers Fair as the student media are banned from promoting anything that could be deemed offensive. Any speaker who uses discriminatory language is banned from speaking. Both MiloYiannopoulosand Julie Bindel were no platformed under the safe space policy.

Newcastle

The university have banned initiation ceremonies to prevent binge-drinking. They also have bans on certain adverts such as pay day loans, smoking, t-shirt pub crawls, and bans on promotional material that exposes a womans bum or breasts as it objectifies them for a custom.

The SUhave a strict fancy dress policy. Students cant wear costumes that may incite hatred, mockery, or violence against marginalised groups of the student body. For example famous paedophiles, figure who incites hatred or dressing as someone from a marginalised groups in a disrespectful way (eg dressing as Caitlyn Jenner in a mocking way) are not permitted. The Union also have aban on beauty pageants, calling them misogynistic.

Nottingham

The Sun and Daily Star are both banned from campus as part of the No More Page 3 campaign. The uni mandate a rule against initiations, which saw the universitys football team banned from playing in the 2015 Varsity.

Oxford

Oxford have banned any advertisements from LIFE a pro-life organisation. Christ Church College further banned a debate on abortion by Oxford For Life in 2014.

The Union have the power to remove any materials they deem offensive. Controversial magazine No Offence was banned from being handed out to students at the Freshers Fair.

Portsmouth

Transphobic or offensive religious material will be removed from campus. Anyone wearing offensive symbols or slogans can face discriminatory action. The Union hold a no platform policy and will bar any speaker who holds facist views from lecturing.

Queen Mary

Last year, the Palestine Society were suspended from university. The uni have banned pay day loan adverts, initiations, and the Daily Mail, the Sun and Daily Express from being sold campus, arguing that they did not want the Union to profit from hate.

Reading

Reading have banned initiations so not to promote excess drinking. They have a no platform policy, and will prevent any speakers that do not abide to their equal opportunities and diversity policies.

Royal Holloway

Royal Hollowayprohibits any activity that encourages binge-drinking, such as pub crawls or initiations. Any person with facist views or affiliation will be no platformed from speaking or distributing recordings or materials that incite hatred. They have a zero tolerance to sexual harassment policy, which includes unwanted sexual comments (including comments about your body or private life) unwelcome sexual invitations, innuendoes, and offensive gestures.

Sheffield

Sheffield condemnsexual harassment the same as Royal Holloway, as well as banning any songs that trivialise rape culture. Theyve also banned speakers, such as Julie Bindel, banned publications like the Sun, and proposed to ban classist chants from Varsity matches such as stand up if you know your Dad.

Strathclyde

The university has a policy to no platform anti-choice groups, saying, anti-choice groups should not be affiliated to, funded or promoted by the University of Strathclyde Students Association as they go against their equal opportunities policy.

Sussex

Sussex have a no platform policy against racist, facist, sexist and homophobic speakers. They further endorsed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, therefore no commercial goods and investments from Israel.

UCL

The university have a strict trans policy, whereby gossiping about a trans person; ignoring an individual; passing judgement about how convincing a trans person is in their acquired gender; refusing to address the person in their acquired gender or new name can lead to disciplinary action.

Facist and racist groups or persons are banned from speaking, including British National Party and English Defence League. Last year, the union banned an ex student who joined the Kurdish group YPG from speaking.

UEA UEA Union have banned students from wearing sombreros for fancy dress, calling it cultural appropriation. The Sun has also been banned from being sold in the Union shops. Adverts that has slut shaming, body shaming or that which reinforced a gender binary are all banned on campus.

UWE

Freshers have to attend a mandatory consent class during Freshers Week as part of the universitys aim to tackle sexual harassment. The university also conduct a safe space policy, where any racist, transphobic, homophobic, sexist, or offensive language against any student isnt condoned.

Warwick

Warwick have a strict trans policy, whereby students are told do not add an unnecessary -ed to the term (transgendered), which connotes a condition of some kind. Never use the term transvestite to describe a transgender person A person who identifies as a certain gender should be referred to using pronouns consistent with that gender.

Songs or acts that are considered racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic are banned from the SU.

Aberdeen, Cambridge, Exeter, Glasgow, Kent, Liverpool, Trent, Brookes, Queens Belfast, Southampton, St. Andrews, UCLan, York

Loughbourgh

@wooodham

Continue reading here:

These universities have been ranked worst for freedom of speech - The Tab

At UCLA Law School last week, a squad of student "thought police" tried to ban my book, Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. They don't want you to know the book even exists, let alone what's inside it. And the UCLA administration enabled them. This ominous episode underlines how students are learning to be contemptuous of intellectual freedom.

The story of what happened at UCLA is laced with ironies. On Feb. 1, the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute co-sponsored a panel discussion at UCLA Law School on the vital importance of freedom of speech and the threats to it. My book shows how certain philosophic ideas undercut America's response to the jihadist movement, including notably its attacks on freedom of speech.

During the reception, however, a group of UCLA students assembled in front of the book table and objected to mine. Why? Had they read the book, weighed the evidence, and found it lacking? Had they formed a considered evaluation of the book's argument?

No: They felt the book was "offensive" and "insulting." They had "issues" with the views that I and my co-author, Onkar Ghate, put forward. Our views, it seems, were "Islamophobic." Based on what? Apparently, for some of them, it was the book's title.

Yet another irony here is that in the book we disentangle the notion of "Islamophobia." We show that it's an illegitimate term, one that clouds thinking, because it mashes together at least two fundamentally different things. The term blends, on the one hand, serious analysis and critique of the ideas of Islamic totalitarianism, the cause animating the jihadists, which is vitally important (and the purpose of my book); and, on the other hand, racist and tribalist bigotry against people who espouse the religion of Islam. Obviously, racism and bigotry have no place in a civilized society.

Moreover, the book makes clear that while all jihadists are self-identified Muslims, it is blatantly false that all Muslims are jihadists. (It should go without saying, though sadly it must be said, that countless Muslims are law abiding, peaceful, productive Americans.) Ignorant of the book's full scope and substance, the students felt it had no place on campus.

The students demanded that my book be removed from display. My colleagues who manned the display table declined to remove the book.

So the students enforced their own brand of thought control. They turned their backs to the table, forming a blockade around it, so no one could see or buy the books. Then they started aggressively leaning back on the table, pushing against the book displays. By blocking access to the book, they were essentially trying to ban it.

At this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was "inflammatory." It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movement's global assaults on free speech.

This shameful incident reflects a wider phenomenon on American campuses. At university, students should learn to think, to engage with different views, and thus to grow intellectually. But increasingly, students learn to put their feelings above facts. Some students demand to be protected from what they merely believe, without evidence, are uncongenial views. They demand that non-orthodox views be silenced. And such universities as UCLA willingly coddle and appease them.

The universities, observes Steve Simpson in Defending Free Speech, are a bellwether of the future of freedom of speech. If today's students are increasingly hostile to intellectual freedom, can we really expect tomorrow's voters, lawyers, judges, politicians to uphold free speech? To champion that principle, you have to value dialogue, knowledge, and, ultimately, the reasoning mind. Yet reason is precisely what those student agitators subordinated to their emotions.

Elan Journo (@elanjourno) is the director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond, and author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

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

Follow this link:

UCLA banned my book on Islam from a free speech event - The Hill (blog)

There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment

Motion M-103 is scheduled to come up for a vote on Feb. 16. While it is a non-binding motion that does not have the force of law, it could very well mark the beginning of the end of freedom of speech in Canada as we know it.

M-103 was introduced in Parliament in December by rookie Liberal MP Irqra Khalid and is entitled Systemic racism and religious discrimination. With a title like that what could possibly be wrong? Like many things coming out of Justin Trudeau and his party of trained seals, the title is misleading.

Motions are not bills that, if passed, become laws. They are merely expressions of those who vote in favour of the motion and like this one, make its supporters feel good about themselves. Judging only by its headline, this motion serves no useful purpose because, after all, is anyone sitting in Parliament really in favour of systemic racism and religious discrimination? In addition to make MPs feel good about themselves, the ability to table a motion allows rookie MPs of no particular note like Khalid feel important and feel they are actually doing something.

There is little doubt this motion will pass. Even without the Liberal majority, the NDP and many of, not most Conservative MPs will vote for it. And despite the fact passage will have no legal consequences, there are two troubling aspects of the bill that do not bode well for Canadians who value their right, or what they think is their right to freedom of speech.

First the word Islamophobia is specifically mentioned twice in the motion. Anti-Semitism or homophobia or hatred against another specified group is never mentioned but is described, as the afterthought it is as all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination. To a person of average intelligence, it is clear the purpose of this motion is to attack Islamophobia.

CBC has been well known over the years as the taxpayer-funded propaganda arm of the Liberal Party of Canada. But, in a random act of journalism as Rush Limbaugh might say, CBC gets it right. An article was posted to the CBC website on Feb. 9, entitled Liberal MPs anti-Islamophobia motion set for debate next week. And the first paragraph of the article, written by Kathleen Harris, is as follows:

Members of Parliament will debate a motion to condemn Islamophobia and track incidents of hate crimes against Muslims in the House of Commons next week. [Emphasis added]

Despite pleas to the contrary from supporters of the motion that Islam and Muslims are not being singled out for greater protections than other groups are, the headline and opening paragraph is a conclusion arrived at from a clear reading of the motion. Since it happens so rarely it is worth repeating; CBC got it right.

Had Khalid, the Muslim MP who sponsored the bill, been really concerned about systemic racism and religious discrimination she would not have included the word Islamophobia in M-103. It is clear the intent of the motion that has MPs from all political parties absolutely enthralled is to give a special status to Muslims and the religion of peace.

There is another part of the motion that is even more troubling than paying homage to the lefts (and this includes some members of the CPC) favourite group of victims. This has to do with what the motion requests the government should do.

The motion asks the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Canada does not have any heritage according to Trudeau so why do we have a heritage committee but I digress) to study, among other things, to develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia in Canada The committee is asked to report back to the House within 240 days.

Since the government is in the business of making laws, this whole-of-government approach must be interpreted as including passing laws to make Islamophobia illegal or a crime. Of course the government has never defined exactly what Islamophobia is. And probably never will.

The Parliament of Canada has always had the bad habit of making certain activities illegal while failing to define exactly what the crime is. The most recent example was the Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding the crime of bestiality.

A man convicted of bestiality argued before Canadas top court that he was not guilty because he did not have actual intercourse with the animal in question. He was convicted on the basis that he engaged in inter-species sex but there was no evidence of actual penetration.

The majority of the court accepted his defence and quashed the conviction. Under common law bestiality is defined as having sexual intercourse with an animal. Parliament could have easily defined the crime as including all sexual activity with an animal short of intercourse but, since bestiality became a crime in 1890, no Parliament ever did.

The majority of the judges were wrongly criticized for appearing to see nothing wrong with people having sex with animals when the reality was Canadian governments never bothered defining the crime. They simply applied the law. The lone justice who dissented and ruled the conviction should stand was engaging in judicial activism rather than interpreting the law. She decided Parliament would have made sex with animals short of intercourse a crime if they had bothered to think about it. As true as that may be, she was usurping the function of the legislators.

So it is unlikely the Canadian government will define Islamophobia anytime soon. We already have general hate crimes laws that protect all races and religions; not just the governments pets. So any law that comes out of the Heritage Departments study will be broader than those currently on the books. The only thing left is to make criticism of Islam or Muslims short of what constitutes a hate crime illegal.

Islamophobia, of course can mean calling for the deaths of Muslims. But the made-up word can also include any criticism of Islam or describing certain terrorists as being Islamic even though that is the way they refer to themselves.

There is certainly evidence to suggest many Muslims and members of the left, including Trudeau, want special rights not just equal rights for Muslims. The prime minister does not even attempt to hide how he feels. After six Muslims were killed in Quebec City a couple of weeks ago, Justin ran to a mosque. He was quick to characterize the act as terrorism after he learned the shooter was a white French Canadian. He didnt run to a church a little over a year ago when six Christian Canadians were slaughtered in Burkina Faso by Muslims.

Earlier this week, it was revealed an imam in Quebec called for the annihilation of Jews in 2014. Not a peep out of the Little Potato even though under Canadian law this act would constitute a hate crime. There is no way M-103 does not reflect the views of Trudeau, his caucus and other members of the House that Muslims deserve special treatment. Justins CBC even said so.

To repeat, passage of M-103 will not result in a law. Any such law will be a long way off but a law to make any criticism of Islam is what Trudeaus preferred group wants. And if such a law does eventually pass, Canadians cannot look to the courts to protect their freedom of speech.

Follow this link:

Free speech in Canada: The beginning of the end? - Canada Free Press

The Orange County Register

This editorial appeared Thursday in The Orange County (Santa Ana, California) Register:

The violence that erupted Feb. 1 at UC Berkeley during the protest of a planned speech by Breitbart News senior editor Milo Yiannopoulos, known for his conservative and decidedly politically incorrect views, was a sorry display and a blow to free speech.

It is ironic that such a demonstration took place at the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement during the 1960s. The demonstration began peacefully, with up to 1,500 protesters expressing their opposition to the conservative journalist and speaker. But then about 150 black-clad and masked agitators infiltrated the event, shooting fireworks at police, setting fires and smashing windows on campus and in the surrounding downtown area. Several apparent supporters of the event were beaten or pepper sprayed.

The provocateurs are reportedly from a group called Antifa, which claims to be an anti-fascist organization, yet remains oblivious to the fact that it adopts fascist tactics to violently suppress opposing views.

We regret that the threats and unlawful actions of a few have interfered with the exercise of First Amendment rights on a campus that is proud of its history and legacy as home of the Free Speech Movement, the university said in a statement. (W)hile Mr. Yiannopoulos views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective.

If only others, particularly on left-leaning college campuses, felt the same way. Even before the violent agitators arrived on campus, for example, the peaceful protesters voiced their opposition to free speech, shouting Shut it down outside the building where Yiannopoulos was to speak and cheering when it was announced that the talk had been canceled.

Yiannopoulos remained defiant afterwards. One thing we do know for sure: the left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down, he wrote in a Facebook post.

Such actions by progressive students to stifle nonliberal campus speakers have become a disturbing trend, however, and have only intensified since the election of President Donald Trump.

There seems to be a cognitive dissonance among them of equating speech that they deem intolerant with violence, and then using actual physical threats and violence to prevent that speech.

It is a sad commentary on our supposed institutions of higher learning when diversity is idolized in every respect but the most important one the diversity of thought; when tolerance is a virtue except when it comes to the tolerance of contrary viewpoints. The culture of too many college campuses has shifted from one of a search for knowledge and truth to indoctrination camps for immature, malleable minds and training grounds for social activism.

Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If youre really in favor of freedom of speech, that means youre in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise, political philosopher and author Noam Chomsky asserted. If our universities are to regain their reputations as places of serious scholarship and intellectual growth for our young adults, then liberal students, faculty and administrators must rededicate themselves to creating an atmosphere that embraces and respects the competition of differing ideals.

Follow this link:

Another View: Campus free speech comes under attack - The Daily Telegram

Recent events at the University of California, Berkeley, reflect the enormous difficulties that campuses can face when trying to ensure freedom of speech while, at the same time, meeting their duty to ensure an inclusive learning environment and protect everyones safety. Many, including President Donald Trump, spoke out about these events, but with apparently little understanding of what actually occurred or all that the campus did to try and protect speech.

On Feb. 1, Milo Yiannopoulos, a controversial speaker who prides himself on being inflammatory, was scheduled to speak at Berkeley at the invitation of the College Republicans student group. A demonstration of approximately 1,500 people developed to protest his presence and to stand against what they considered to be hate speech.

A few hours before the scheduled talk, a group of protesters pulled down police barricades, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows, and threw fireworks and rocks at police, resulting in $100,000 of property damage. According to the university, the violent protesters were 150 masked agitatorswho had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Perceiving a serious threat to public safety, campus officials called off Yiannopoulos talk, while also condemning the violence and reasserting their commitment to free speech principles. As university administrators and professors who teach and write about First Amendment law, we see what happened at Berkeley as enormously important in our current debate over free speech.

Did campus officials infringe Yiannopoulos freedom of speech and the rights of the College Republicans to hear his views?

The event has triggered intense debates about the scope and limits of free speech. However, to understand who did the right thing and who did the wrong thing, you must also understand a few basic First Amendment principles.

Basic free speech principles

First, by law campuses must allow all views and ideas to be expressed, no matter how offensive. Above all, the First Amendment means that the government cannot prevent or punish speech based on the viewpoint expressed. This also is a crucial aspect of academic freedom.

Even the expression of hate is constitutionally protected; court cases have addressed this very issue on college campuses in the past. Although hate speech unquestionably causes harms, it nonetheless is expression that is covered by the First Amendment. We therefore strongly disagree with those who say that campus officials at Berkeley could keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his hateful and offensive message.

Campus officials at Berkeley recognized that Yiannopoulos had a First Amendment right to speak. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks rightly resisted demands, including from Berkeley faculty, to ban Yiannopoulos appearance.

Second, campuses must do all they can to ensure that audience reactions against a speaker are not allowed to silence the speaker. Free speech can be undermined, not only by official censorship and punishment, but also by individuals who seek to disrupt or shut down others when they attempt to exercise their rights. If officials do not work to prevent or punish disruption then there will be a hecklers veto of all unpopular or controversial speakers, and this is not consistent with free speech principles. Campus officials have a duty to protect the free speech rights of protesters, but they must also protect speakers and prevent heckling. Apparently this also occurred at Berkeley. Staff members spent weeks planning extensive security arrangements, including bringing in dozens of police officers from nine other UC campuses.

Third, there may be situations where controlling the audience proves impossible, and there is no choice but to prevent a speakers presence to ensure public safety. This should be a last resort taken only if there is no other way to prevent a serious imminent threat to public safety. This appears to be exactly what occurred at Berkeley, where the riotous demonstrators could not be controlled. In such cases, authorities should do all they can, after the fact, to identify and punish those who used violence and violated the law, and should assess how different security arrangements might be more effective in preventing future disruptions. Campus officials should also do what they can to reschedule the speaker for another time.

Misguided criticism of Berkeley officials

A number of commentators were outraged that Yiannopoulos was not able to speak and claimed that free speech was under attack at Berkeley. But the campus itself consistently reaffirmed his right to speak, resisted calls to cancel the event and arranged for extraordinary security at great expense. The vast majority of the demonstrators were also merely exercising their free speech rights. Thus, the campus efforts were consistent with free speech principles. If there is blame to be assigned it should focus on the small number of outsiders who were intent on using violent and unlawful means to disrupt the event.

Nonetheless, President Trump tweeted after the event that federal funds might be withheld from Berkeley unless it allowed freedom of speech.

Putting aside that he lacks the legal authority to do this, Trump ignored the fact that freedom of speech never is absolute. Campuses can punish speech that constitutes true threats or harassment, or incitement of illegal activity. Campuses also need to act to protect the safety and welfare of all on campus.

Campus officials at Berkeley faced an enormously difficult situation. They were not insensitive to speech and they did not deserve the disapproval of the president. The campus did not keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his views, but because public safety at the time necessitated it.

Erwin Chemerinskyis the dean of the School of Law atUniversity of California, Irvine.Howard Gillmanis chancellor atUniversity of California, Irvine.

Read more from the original source:

Berkeley didn't deserve Trump's scorn: Exploring limits of free speech when it comes to campus safety - Salon

DENVER Designated free speech zones on Colorado public college campuses are one step closer to being a thing of the past after Senate Bill 62 was passed Friday by the state Senate.

SB 62 would prohibit public higher education institutions from restricting the freedom of expression by students on college campuses by limiting such displays to areas designated as free speech zones. It would abolish such zones.

The bill was heard in the Senate Education Committee last week, where concerns about allowing for speech that could lead to violence and a lack of input from universities were assuaged and it was passed unanimously.

An amendment nearly as long as the original bill was presented by sponsor Sen. Tim Neville, R-Littleton, to clarify the bill and rework it after conversations with the University of Colorado.

Changes from the amendment include:

Removal of a provision for public forums to be open for free expression. It was replaced with a definition of student forums, which extends to any area on campus not expressly used for academic purposes.Stripping a portion of the bill that required the establishment of monuments to the First Amendment where free speech zones had been located.Clarification that SB 62 did not prevent an institution of higher education from prohibiting, limiting or restricting expression that is not protected under the First Amendment. This would include hate speech that incites violence.Changing references from persons to students to ensure the bill would be interpreted as applying to college enrollees and not university employees.The goals and intent are to protect the rights of students to exercise freedom of speech on campus, while still respecting the right of universities to preserve their important education safety mission, Neville said of the amendment.

Also included was a definition of the term expression, which includes peaceful assembly, protests, oratory, holding signs and circulating petitions and other written materials.

The absence of a provision for voter registration events as an act of free expression was worrisome for Senate Democrats, who moved twice to amend the definition to include voter registration.

We always talk about wanting everyone to get out and vote, especially the young folks, and if were going to talk about the right to free speech, the right for their opinions to be heard, what is more important than to actually get them registered to vote so they can let their opinions be heard, said Sen. Andy Kerr, D-Lakewood.

Republicans in the chamber insisted that they would rather wait until they spoke with representatives of universities and not damage the rapport they had developed while working on the amendment adopted Friday.

Neville said the provision for voter registrations could be added when the bill is heard in committee in the House after it receives a third reading and final passage next week.

Lperkins@durangoherald.com

Read more from the original source:

Campus free speech bill moves forward in state Senate - The Durango Herald

Breitbart News

What Milo Yiannopoulos can teach us about the importance of campus free speech Quartz Recent events at the University of California, Berkeley reflect the enormous difficulties that campuses can face when trying to ensure freedom of speech while, at the same time, meeting their duty to ensure an inclusive learning environment and protect ... Free speech: Liberals are not the problemThe Stanford Daily 'MILO Bill' Filed in Tennessee to Ensure Freedom of Speech on College CampusesBreitbart News Regressive Leftists Promote Milo Yiannopoulos by Attacking Free SpeechThe Objective Standard The Tennessean -RT -OCRegister -CNN all 124 news articles »

Continued here:

What Milo Yiannopoulos can teach us about the importance of campus free speech - Quartz

PROTESTERS AND SUPPORTERS of a Breaking the Silence exhibit face one another outside of Barbur Gallery in the Nahlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem last night. (photo credit:RHONA BURNS)

One day after Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat abruptly announced the eviction of the owner of the Barbur Art Gallery, which hosted a lecture by the left-wing NGO Breaking the Silence, the group said the mayor was unequivocally using punitive measures to stifle free speech.

Breaking the Silence is composed of veteran IDF soldiers who condemn an Israeli presence in occupied territories, as well as purported crimes against Arab residents there. Its executive director, Yuli Novak, spoke at the Nahlaot gallery Wednesday night.

While Barkat contended that the eviction was due to zoning violations, Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff said on Thursday that there was no question the right-wing mayor was abusing his authority to intimidate opposing views.

He obviously wants to stifle freedom of speech in order to stop us from talking about our experiences as soldiers in the occupied territories, Issacharoff said.

However, according to Issacharoff, right-wing politicians attempting to cancel the NGOs events is nothing new, and generally has a converse effect.

Every time they try to silence us, we get more requests from people who want to meet us and hear about the reality we experienced in the occupied territories, he said.

Asked what he would say to Barkat if given the chance, Issacharoff replied: You are silencing soldiers, and cynically handing over the city I grew up in to Lehava in order to further yourself in the next Likud primaries. Nonetheless, he emphasized that the NGO remains undeterred.

We will continue meeting thousands of people a year all across Israel, he said. There is only one way to stop Breaking the Silence: End the occupation.

Barkats edict followed heated statements denouncing the lecture by Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev (Likud) and Deputy Mayor Dov Kalmanovich, both of whom demanded the mayor intercede, and called for the gallerys shuttering.

In a statement on Wednesday, Barkat claimed that the eviction notice followed a year-long deliberation by the municipal legal adviser, who determined that the owner of the gallery breached the citys legal protocols.

Moreover, Barkat said the building must be returned to the city for municipal use within 90 days.

According to the mayor, the eviction is unrelated to the lecture.

It has no connection to freedom of expression, he contended. The municipality needs the structure, and is actively consulting with representatives of the neighborhood about future use.

Meanwhile, the gallerys owner and curator, Masha Zuslam, expressed incredulity over the eviction, noting that she has not received any warnings or notices from City Hall.

We didnt get anything from the municipality, Zuslam said, adding that she has run the gallery for nearly 12 years without any previous warnings of wrongdoing. Everything we know is from the press.

The mayor is trying to punish us because we have different political views.

Despite a protest held by the extreme right-wing group Lehava, Zuslam said the lecture proceeded as planned, adding that far more demonstrators came to support the gallerys right to sponsor the talk and to condemn the mayor for intervening.

We had a very big demonstration of support, she noted.

While Zuslam said she is considering all her legal options, she lamented what she deemed to be an unjust and retaliatory response by the mayor for exercising the right of free speech.

Its a pity that the mayor of Jerusalem [has pitted] the artistic and cultural community against his political interests by preventing the basic right of freedom of speech, she said.

We have had this gallery for 11.5 years without any problems, and all of a sudden it is illegal. It remains unclear if the eviction will be enforced within the next 90 days.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

VP of New Israel Fund: Country was rejecting me

Kraft hosts Ezra Schwartzs family as Super Bowl VIPs

Next Article

See the original post:

Breaking the Silence: With Barbur closure, Barkat attempting to stifle free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News