Daily Archives: October 22, 2013

Campus Free Speech
http://poxyrants.blogspot.com/ https://twitter.com/PoxySquirrel https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001782467676There is a tremendous effort these days on college campuses across the...

By: Biff Burroughs

See more here:
Campus Free Speech - Video

Is Gay Conversion Therapy a Free Speech Issue?
The courts have upheld as constitutional California #39;s ban on licensed therapists practicing "conversion therapy" on gay patients. But is this a free speech i...

By: Townsquare

See more here:
Is Gay Conversion Therapy a Free Speech Issue? - Video

Free Speech TV Senator Sherrod Brown on the Financial Meltdown
Financial reports uk Financial reports us financial digest.

By: TheFinancial2013

Read this article:
Free Speech TV Senator Sherrod Brown on the Financial Meltdown - Video

University Libertarians collaborated with Young Americans for Liberty to give students an outlet for expression in the form of a free speech wall on Friday.

Besides students, faculty and alumni walking near the Bovee University Center also wrote on the wall.

Theres a lot of things that will be put on the wall that I might not agree with, but thats the whole point of freedom of speech. You can say or write whatever you want in this country because it is a liberty thats afforded to you, saidTroy junior Christian Conley, University Libertarians vice president.

A free speech wall is one of many activism projects the University Libertarians have throughout the year.

Conley said the wall was one of several ideas suggested by the Young Americans for Liberty to use as an activism project.

There was a variety of different activism projects we could have done, but we thought the freedom speech wall would have been the best choice just because many people like to express themselves. It really grasps the whole idea of liberty, Conley said.

Jackson sophomore Ty Hicks, University Libertarians president, said the free speech wall was created for people to use their first amendment rights and be more aware that they have freedom of speech.

We are just trying to draw attention to the first amendment and individual rights as a whole, Hicks said.

Two students who wrote on the wall agree that the wall is a good expression outlet with it being halfway through the semester and dealing with stress of exams.

I wrote, failing is not always failure, because a lot of people are stressed out especially with it being homecoming week, saidChicago sophomore Meredith Fuhauf.

Read this article:
University Libertarians’ free speech wall acts as an outlet for expression

With all the buzz about the strategic plan, there has been no shortage of discussion surrounding Browns mission statement and larger purpose as a university or university-college. And while the debate has often revolved around the centrality of undergraduates to our educational philosophy, Id like to take a moment to delve into something we sometimes take for granted and in turn ignore at Brown: free speech.

Our mission statement reads, The mission of Brown University is to serve the community, the nation and the world by discovering, communicating and preserving knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry. There is no doubt that we are a forward-thinking, cutting-edge and intellectually rigorous institution. But during my two years here, I have experienced some extremely frustrating moments when Brown students, and sometimes faculty members, have not fully embodied this spirit of free inquiry.

Lets start with the obvious. It is taboo to be conservative at Brown. The moment you express your uncertainty about the Affordable Care Act or drug legalization, most people in the room immediately dismiss you. If you really, truly care about limited government, you might as well be living in the 19th century. The social ostracism that exists at Brown is harsh, often repugnant and not indicative of an open-minded institution. I am constantly ignored or not taken seriously, even by close friends, when I advocate for strong American leadership on the world stage or express hesitation about government spending. This is wrong, unproductive and simply not fair to conservative students at Brown, a group I believe is larger than most people perceive.

Faiz Khans 15 recent Herald column was spot-on in its assessment of the Universitys political climate (Browns double standard of inclusivity, Oct. 2). There is an unnerving amount of intolerance for certain political perspectives and far too many unwarranted personal attacks of those brave enough to say what they believe. Ive lived this. I have received numerous borderline hateful emails from people responding to my columns. Whether I am accused of echoing Ayn Rand or not being aware of my white privilege a discussion I will leave for another column personal jabs are often the reason many do not participate in the political conversation at Brown. And if, for example, conservatives are automatically labeled as racist and classist, as they often are by Brown students, then the campus dialogue misses out on important voices.

The same one-sided culture also surrounds religion at Brown. For some bizarre reason, organized religion is considered anti-intellectual and incompatible with the ideals of a progressive Brown student. Religious individuals are considered to be uninterested in reality and victims of blind-faith and institutional dogma. This is extremely frustrating for me as a fairly religious person who realizes that much of religion is centered on rigorous intellectual stimulation and a deep tradition of questioning.

People are often afraid to admit they are religious because of the stigma attached to organized religious communities. This is bad for free speech at Brown because it both discourages certain students from speaking and overlooks the massive role religion plays in politics and culture.

And sometimes this crowding out effect moves beyond lack of engagement and ostracism. There have been horrifying instances of censorship, or attempted censorship, carried out by Brown students. Nothing typifies this idea more than the panel The Herald and the Taubman Center for Public Policy and American Institutions put together to discuss the then-impending same-sex marriage vote in the Rhode Island legislature. The organizations, doing what every respectable academic center or objective news institution should do, assembled a panel with opposing viewpoints which included a representative from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the United States preeminent advocacy groups for traditional marriage. The outrage from students was incredibly immature and inexcusable, with many students who claim to be open-minded and liberal advocating to remove the individual from the panel. One student, who thought he was so clever, even inquired as to the amount of the speakers honorarium so he could ask the University to deduct that amount from his tuition.

How can we have a legitimate, thorough discussion about an incredibly complex topic, let alone an honest debate about public policy, without allowing opposing viewpoints to be expressed? We have a responsibility not only to allow unpopular viewpoints to be articulated but also to engage with them in a meaningful way without immediately writing them off. Taubman smartly responded to the hoopla by suggesting that those upset could attend the panel and ask tough questions. I have no problem with people thinking the National Organization for Marriage is wrong or even bigoted. What I do have a problem with is those same people privileging their own opinions to the end of censoring opposing ones.

Some of this unbalance often trickles down from Browns faculty. While I am more than pleased that the University held a teach-in to discuss the ongoing conflict in Syria, I am disappointed there was not a strong voice advocating for U.S. military intervention. This is not a fringe policy position. In fact, the president, secretary of defense, secretary of state and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have all supported U.S. military action in Syria. Likewise, a recent talk on the Oslo Accords by Hanan Ashrawi, an accomplished Palestinian diplomat, should have been accompanied by an Israeli diplomat of equal stature. Dont get me wrong, I am extremely happy that Brown engages with difficult issues but propagating a limited scope of political views entrenches certain narratives and could potentially discourage dissenters from exercising their right to free speech.

With that said, I have had positive experiences at Brown, and I hope that those can be replicated. In POLS 1010: Topics in American Constitutional Law last spring, Professor of Political Science Corey Brettschneider encouraged students to share conservative views in addition to liberal ones. He was nothing but reassuring to students who articulated seemingly controversial viewpoints in a respectful, intelligent manner.

Continue reading here:
Ingber ’15: Free speech at Brown?

Steve Miller, coordinator of Undergraduate Studies in Journalism and Media Studies, believes the freedom of speech and expression in the U.S. is what sets it apart from other nations.

Miller said this inherent human right should not only be practiced but also celebrated every day.

From a screening of the documentary Trumbo to a debate about Why Snowden matters, Free Speech Week, organized by the School of Communication and Information, aims to demonstrate and celebrate the essence of freedom of speech and expression.

Free Speech Week began yesterday and runs through Oct. 24.

The week began with a documentary about James Dalton Trumbo, a writer, actor and director who invoked the First Amendment.

Trumbo was one of several people castigated and thrown in jail for practicing free speech rights, Miller said.

Brian Householder, director of Undergraduate Studies in Communication said the SC&I partnered with freespeech.org, a non-profit organization that aims to promote freedom of speech.

We have the freedom to choose how to do the Free Speech Week, he said. Freespeech.org just promotes the idea. [The organization] gets people doing the thinking about the freedom of expression.

Today, a panel of SC&I faculty members will hold a discussion about the relationship between freedom of speech and academic freedom, Householder said. Tomorrow night will feature a debate by the Rutgers University Debate Union to discuss whether the U.S. House of Representatives should pardon Edward Snowden for the National Security Agency leaks.

Edward Snowden leaked classified documents in May about the NSA spying on U.S. citizens.

View post:
SC&I hosts ‘Free Speech Week’ with film, debate

Cato has always been a faithful advocate for a robust freedom of speech. As such, we are proud this week to participate in Free Speech Week, a celebration of the freedom so important they put it first in the Bill of Rights.

As part of this weeks ongoing celebration of free speech, we will be posting highlights from Catos recent work to support freedom of speech in its various forms, whether through legal advocacy, media appearances, or other public outreach.

Todays highlight focuses on an event held here at Cato last week, in which author Jonathan Rauch discussed his recently re-released and expanded book Kindly Inquisitors. In the book, Rauch, an openly-gay advocate for gay marriage, argues that government suppression of discriminatory language and hate speech does more harm to gays and minorities than it helps. Rauchs book, originally published in 1993, contributes a number of valuable insights to the dialogue on free speech and the consequences of curtailing it to protect certain groups.

Rauch was joined by Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Brian Moulton of the Human Rights Campaign & Catos John Samples. Please check out the video below:

For more information on Free Speech Week and to learn how you can help celebrate free speech, check out http://www.FreeSpeechWeek.org.

Read more:
Free Speech Week — Monday