Free speech wall rises at Carlow University

Posted on by

Carlow University's founders, the Sisters of Mercy, held values that align with the philosophy of a peaceful liberty, which made it the perfect place to set up two 4- by 8-foot plywood boards to form a free speech wall, a student leader said Monday.

Passers-by are free to write messages on the boards at the Oakland-based Catholic university, said Carlow senior Richard Haynes, 30, a history major.

It really is up to the interpretation of who is writing it, said Haynes, founder and president of the Carlow chapter of the Young Americans for Liberty, which sponsors the wall.

Handwritten messages range from those supporting equality and social justice, such as Liberty is Truth and America should give up racism for Lent, to calls for changes to the education system, such as There should not be any grades.

Founded in December, the Carlow chapter of the Young Americans for Liberty set up the wall Feb. 24 on the campus. It plans to take it down Friday.

The group obtained permission to set up the wall from the vice president of student engagement. The $100 for the supplies to build the wall came from the Student Activities Board, Carlow spokesman Drew Wilson said.

Carlow is a university where a free exchange of ideas is expected, he said.

These ideas are going to be here whether there is a wall or not, he said.

Founded in 2008, Young Americans for Liberty is a libertarian and conservative youth organization headquartered in Arlington, Va., according to the organization. There are more than 570 chapters nationwide. Chapters often set up free speech walls, said Deirdre Hackleman, spokeswoman for the national office.

Tory N. Parrish is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-5662 or tparrish@tribweb.com.

See the article here:

Free speech wall rises at Carlow University

Updated: Group puts UI in top 10 'worst colleges for free speech'

Posted on by

Photo by: The News-Gazette

Protesters chant for Chancellor Phyllis Wise to go, in front of the Swanlund Administration Building in Champaign on Tuesday August 26, 2014. Wise chose not to pass on Professor Steven Salaita's appointment to the university's board of trustees.

What's your take? Tell Tom Kacich here

URBANA The Steven Salaita saga has landed the University of Illinois on a list it probably would rather not make.

The UI is included in the fourth annual "10 worst colleges for free speech" list published by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The foundation criticized the UI for revoking a job offer to Salaita after he posted inflammatory tweets about Israel last summer. The decision sparked a nationwide debate over free speech and "civility" on college campuses and prompted boycotts by prominent academic groups.

But campus spokeswoman Robin Kaler argued that the vigorous debate about the decision proved that free speech is alive and well on campus.

"Over the past several months, members of the campus community have expressed a wide array of opinions on a hiring decision. This is the kind of free discussion that is the bedrock of our institution and all of higher education," the UI's statement said.

"Anyone who has witnessed the vigorous and passionate debates that have taken place and are still taking place on our campus would appreciate that there is plenty of space for freedom of expression and opinion."

Salaita had left a tenured position at Virginia Tech to accept a job with the UI's American Indian Studies program when the job was withdrawn by campus administrators. Chancellor Phyllis Wise later issued a statement explaining that the campus would not tolerate "personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them." That prompted critics to charge administrators were imposing a "speech code" on faculty. Wise has repeatedly said that was not her intent.

Go here to read the rest:

Updated: Group puts UI in top 10 'worst colleges for free speech'

Annual list of 10 worst abusers of student, faculty free speech rights includes Kansas Board of Regents

Posted on by

The Kansas Board of Regents controversial social media policy has landed the board on a nonprofits list of educational institutions with the worst regard for free speech rights.

Mondays 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech in 2014 list by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education chides the Regents for enacting an overly broad policy on the improper use of social media.

FIREs annual worst of the worst list includes two institutions that arent colleges the Kansas board and the U.S. Department of Education. The list is critical of the profound effect they had on campus expression throughout the country last year.

Under the Regents policy, universities can let faculty go if they use social media in a way that is contrary to the best interest of the university. The Regents adopted the policy in December 2013 after The University of Kansas professor David Guths Twitter post about the Washington Navy Yard shootings, which killed a dozen people.

The blood is on the hands of the #NRA, Guth wrote. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.

The policy was revised in May 2014 to add language referencing First Amendment rights, but those critical of the policy say revisions didnt go far enough to protect free-speech rights.

Nothing has changed since May 2014, said Breeze Richardson, a Regents spokeswoman. To continue to repeat the policy does X, Y and Z is misleading because it doesnt mandate anything happen. The reality is those who dont like the policy dont like the law.

Also on FIREs list of worst abusers of student and faculty free speech rights are Brandeis University; California State University, Fullerton; Chicago State University; Georgetown University; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; University of Iowa; Marquette University; and Modesto (Calif.) Junior College.

Our colleges and universities are supposed to be where students go to debate and explore new ideas, said FIRE president Greg Lukianoff. But too often on the modern college campus, students and their professors find their voices silenced by administrators who would rather they be absent from the often contentious marketplace of ideas. When this happens, FIRE will be there to call out these reckless censors.

FIRE claims more than half of the top U.S. colleges maintain speech codes that violate the First Amendment.

Excerpt from:

Annual list of 10 worst abusers of student, faculty free speech rights includes Kansas Board of Regents

Carlow University 'wall' encourages free speech

Posted on by

A student group at Carlow University recently erected on campus a large outdoor poster-board, and on its otherwise blank surface, invited passersby to answer a question posed in blue marker: What is free speech?

For 10 days now, answers have been filling up the board, both weighty and whimsical, as students and others stop long enough to get whatever is on their mind off their chest and onto what the group has dubbed Free Speech Wall.

Thoughts on politics and religion, pointed observations about education and police, as well as expressions of personal sorrow and affirmation have appeared. The comments are helping the group, a campus chapter of Young Americans for Liberty, promote a dialogue on campus about the dimensions of free expression.

America should give up racism for lent, read one. Learning to love myself each day. You should too. stated another. Words might cost me my freedom, but they will never cost me my soul or my dignity, read yet another.

And then there was this:Can we have two-ply toilet paper?

The newly formed group approached school administrators with the idea, saying the project fit with the Catholic universitys mission to pursue truth in learning and to respect others, said Richard Haynes, 30, a senior history major from Smithton. The school agreed.

Two connected eight-foot-by-four-foot poster-boards attached to plywood went up in Carlows Hospitality Garden, next to Frances Warde Hall.The board is to come down at the end of today, and messages from it will be used to help organize a teach-in on campus.

Mr. Haynes said the anonymous messages on the board left up round the clock were largely upbeat and respectful. He said organizers removed nothing, but pointing to faded marker on some messages, he added, The weather seems to have taken some things down.

Drew Wilson, a Carlow spokesman, said administrators saw merit to the idea. Besides, he added, the feelings would exist on campus even if the wall was not there.

One student took the opportunity to say, Athiests have morals too.Another invoked recent police brutality protests with the words Hands up. Dont shoot. Still others tackled sexual and gender identify.

Link:

Carlow University 'wall' encourages free speech

John Kerry asked to act on murder of Avijit Roy

Posted on by

Updated: Tuesday, March 3, 2015, 13:16 [IST]

Washington, March 3: A bipartisan group of six US Congressmen has asked Secretary of State John Kerry to ensure that those behind the brutal murder of American-Bangladeshi blogger Avijit Roy is brought to justice.

"We must stand strong for freedom of speech and freedom of thought," said the letter signed by Congressmen Mike Honda, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Grace Meng, Steve Chabot and Ami Bera. Noting that the attacks around the world by religious fanatics against freedom of speech advocates was growing, they said the US cannot allow extremists to operate with impunity.

"The US Embassy and Department of State must remain engaged, and work with Bangladesh's government, to insist that Roy's killers are brought to justice, and to ensure that threats to other secularists, and writers in Bangladesh are taken seriously," the letter said.

"Were writing this letter to reiterate the United States commitment to combat extremism, stand strong for freedom of speech and freedom of thought, and seek justice under the rule of law," Honda said.

"The United States and Bangladesh must work together to protect the fundamental right to freedom of speech that Avijit Roy embodied. I urge the State Department and US Embassy to act swiftly to bring justice to those responsible for Roys murder," Bera said.

Roy, known for his critique of religious extremism, was hacked to death in the university area in Dhaka by machete- wielding assailants who attacked the writer as he was returning from the book fair with his wife on Thursday.

PTI

Read the rest here:

John Kerry asked to act on murder of Avijit Roy

The Geek Life #246: Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, Limostatin, NSA, and more! – Video

Posted on by


The Geek Life #246: Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, Limostatin, NSA, and more!
http://www.webcastbeacon.com/geeklife-246 I Wasn #39;t Squished, Before! Paul has video problems as we talk about Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, Limostatin, NSA, and more! We also...

By: The Geek Life Podcast

See more here:

The Geek Life #246: Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, Limostatin, NSA, and more! - Video

Posted in NSA

Argument preview: Hotel guest registers and the Fourth Amendment harder than it looks?

Posted on by

Tuesdays argument in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, a Fourth Amendment case, presents a particularly difficult example of a common Supreme Court question: should the Court rule narrowly on the case before it, or answer far broader questions? That question does not always have obvious ideological parameters (although the Fourth Amendment context may color the Justices views in this case), and Tuesdays argument may be most interesting for the perspective it may provide on each Justices jurisprudential approach.

Moreover, both sides in Patel have assembled all-star casts of lawyers and amici. The plaintiffs brief shows Tom Goldstein (founder of this blog) and the Harvard Supreme Court clinic; while Los Angeless merits briefs show Josh Rosenkranz (former director of the Brennan Center) and Orin Kerr (also an occasional writer for this blog). Eighteen amicus briefs have been filed (and I do not pretend to have read them all). Thus, although the bulk of media attention this week will likely focus on Wednesdays argument in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this case now looks much harder, and more important, than it first appeared.

The basics of the case

The case presents a Fourth Amendment challenge to a municipal ordinance that authorizes administrative law-enforcement searches of hotel and motel guest registers. Administrative search is a label generally used to describe governmental inspections of commercial premises for health and safety reasons that is, not based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and not looking primarily for evidence of crime. (In recent years the Court has used the label of special needs searches to capture an even broader category of searches that includes administrative).

Here, the Los Angeles ordinance in question provides that records of information about guests that hotel are required by law to keep guest registers shall be made available to any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for inspection at a time and manner that minimizes any interference with the operation of the business. The ordinance appears to have been enacted to provide a disincentive for the short-term use of hotels and motels for crime. It was stipulated below (that is, agreed to by all parties) that the ordinance authorizes the police to inspect such guest registers without the hotel owners consent and, most significantly, without a warrant. A group of motel owner-operators sued, and once various stipulations were reached, all parties agreed that the sole issue is a facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance under the Fourth Amendment. They sought a declaratory judgment against the ordinance and an injunction prohibiting its enforcement.

The district court upheld the ordinance, ruling that hotels have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their guest information. That issue, however, appears to have dropped out of the case: the Ninth Circuit ruled, and Los Angeles now concedes, that hotels have some privacy interest in their guest registers, even if limited, such that an inspection under the ordinance constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. (Also, be careful not to confuse the privacy interests of the hotel owners with privacy concerns of guests. Only the former are at issue here; and because guests have already disclosed their personal information to the hotels, precedent would say that they have no further expectation of privacy in the records in any case.)

Not one, but two, questions are presented

In its current appellate posture, the substantive Fourth Amendment issue before the Court seems clear: is a municipal ordinance, which requires hotels to make their hotel registers available for surprise (unannounced) inspections by the police, unconstitutional because the police are not required to obtain a warrant in advance? By a vote of seven to four, the Ninth Circuit ruled en banc that such a warrantless business-information search ordinance is unconstitutional. The circuit relied on cases such as Camara v. Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco (1967) and Marshall v. Barlows, Inc. (1978), which hold that under the Fourth Amendment, governmental officials generally must obtain administrative warrants in advance of conducting commercial business searches. The majority rejected the idea that hotels are closely [that is, pervasively] regulated businesses, which prior decisions hold can support an exception to the general advance-warrant rule.

The dissenting Ninth Circuit judges, however, while debating the substantive point, made a procedural argument their main focus. They quoted Sibron v. New York (1968): The constitutional validity of a warrantless search is preeminently the sort of question which can only be decided in the concrete factual context of [an] individual case. Because the hotel-owner plaintiffs here had agreed in the trial court to drop their as applied challenge in favor of a facial attack based on stipulated facts, this case now presents an issue far broader than the specific hotel-register ordinance: may statutes and ordinances ever be challenged under the Fourth Amendment on a facial basis? Substantial party and amicus briefing has now gone into this second, procedural, issue.

Three reasons that this case is harder, and more important, than it may look

Continued here:

Argument preview: Hotel guest registers and the Fourth Amendment harder than it looks?

Mass. High Court Upholds State Ban On Stun Guns

Posted on by

BOSTON The states highest court has ruled that Massachusetts ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found the stun gun in the womans purse.

Caetano told police she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.

The justices disagreed, saying a stun gun which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.

The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine if they should be legal in Massachusetts.

Story continues below

View original post here:

Mass. High Court Upholds State Ban On Stun Guns

High court upholds Massachusetts ban on stun guns

Posted on by

BOSTON The state's highest court has ruled that Massachusetts' ban on the possession of stun guns does not violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in a unanimous decision on Monday, upheld the 2011 conviction of Jamie Caetano in Ashland. Police investigating a shoplifting report found the stun gun in the woman's purse.

Caetano told police she carried the weapon as self-defense against an abusive former boyfriend and argued in her appeal that she had a constitutional right to carry it.

The justices disagreed, saying a stun gun which can administer incapacitating electrical shocks is not the type of weapon that is subject to Second Amendment protection.

The court said it was up to the state Legislature to determine if they should be legal in Massachusetts.

Read more here:

High court upholds Massachusetts ban on stun guns

'Miraculous' stem cell treatment may reverse symptoms of multiple sclerosis

Posted on by

A new stem cell treatment that reboots the entire immune system is enabling multiple sclerosis sufferers to walk, run and even dance again, in results branded "miraculous" by doctors.

Patients who have been wheelchair-bound for 10 years have regained the use of their legs in the ground-breaking therapy, while others who were blind can now see again. The treatment is the first to reverse the symptoms of MS, which is incurable, and affects about 100,000 people in Britain.

The two dozen patients who are taking part in the trials at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, and Kings College Hospital, London, have effectively had their immune systems "rebooted". Although it is unclear what causes MS, some doctors believe that it is the immune system itself that attacks the brain and spinal cord, leading to inflammation pain, disability and, in severe cases, death.

In the new treatment, specialists use a high dose of chemotherapy to knock out the immune system before rebuilding it with stem cells taken from the patient's own blood. "Since we started treating patients three years ago, some of the results we have seen have been miraculous," Prof Basil Sharrack, a consultant neurologist at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, told The Sunday Times.

"This is not a word I would use lightly, but we have seen profound neurological improvements." Holly Drewry, 25, of Sheffield, was wheelchair bound after the birth of her daughter Isla, now two. But she claims the new treatment has transformed her life.

"It worked wonders," she said. "I remember being in the hospital... after three weeks, I called my mum and said: 'I can stand'. We were all crying. I can run a little bit, I can dance. I love dancing, it is silly but I do. " However, specialists warn that patients need to be fit to benefit from the new treatment. "This is not a treatment that is suitable for everybody because it is very aggressive and patients need to be quite fit to withstand the effects of the chemotherapy," warned Prof Sharrack.

The research was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Read more:

'Miraculous' stem cell treatment may reverse symptoms of multiple sclerosis