Monthly Archives: February 2017

Forbes

Marco Rubio, Not Elizabeth Warren, Is A Free Speech Hero Forbes When Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided to enforce Senate rules and prevent Elizabeth Warren from personally impugning the character of her colleague, Jeff Sessions, many on the Left howled that Warren had been silenced and censored. Rule XIX - Senate Rules Committee - US SenateSenate Rules Committee - US Senate Reebok celebrates Elizabeth Warren by releasing its own "Nevertheless, she persisted" T-shirtMic all 70 news articles »

See the rest here:
Marco Rubio, Not Elizabeth Warren, Is A Free Speech Hero - Forbes

Days ago, pending Milo Yiannopouloss speech at the University of California, Berkeley, an event arose more controversial than any so far in the free speech debate. In lieu of standard protesters, there were rioters. They lit fires, launched projectiles and shattered windows. Per their wishes, Yiannopouloss speech was cancelled. Berkeley is the very institution that only half a century ago viciously fought for the right to free speech on college campuses. It is cruelly ironic that an event at this institution has, at least ostensibly, illuminated the demise of that same right.

Though I have always been skeptical of the far-left, the word fascist, a term frequently promulgated by the right, seemed like a cop-out for people who only want to sling around provocative diction without any real meaning attributed to it. We have finally reached a point where it is sufficiently acceptable to use such a word. Protests are the tool of those seeking change through the spread of ideas, who confront their opposition head-on, and defend their ideas. Riots are the tool of fascists who want dissenters to be silenced; if they intend to gain any semblance of credibility, they ought to fight ideas with ideas, not with tyrannical suppression.

From the opposite perspective, Republicans just elected a president who spent the first two weeks of his term enacting executive orders so nationalist that they would have seemed inconceivable just two years ago. It has become clear that those of us who occupy neither the far-left nor the far-right are now engaged in a two-front war to defend the rights enshrined within the very fabric of this countrys existence.

Ill leave the exploration of the far-lefts threat to free speech to the right, who will undoubtedly address this issue ad nauseam. Unfortunately, the very same far-right poses many of the same threats, perhaps not as brashly, but nonetheless sinisterly.

The Wisconsin legislature, for instance, threatened to cut funding to University of Wisconsin-Madison for offering a voluntary program entitled Mens Project, which aims to explore masculinity and the problems accompanied by simplified definitions of it. The legislatures rationale? It declares war on men, as per Wisconsin State Senator Steve Nass. Surely Wisconsin has the right to pull funding, as do (private) far-left colleges which have made a habit of pulling speakers, but if this program truly amounts to a war on men, such a conclusion must be realized through vigorous debate. It should never be unilaterally decided by legislature and forced in a top-down fashion upon nonconsenting universities designed to be the very places where these debates occur.

Groups such as Turning Point USA, which runs the McCarthian Professor Watchlist, now have a presence at our own university. Professor George Yancy of Emorys philosophy department gained notoriety for his claim that racist poison is inside of [Americans]. Agree or not, this quote was drawn from an op-ed asking for and demonstrating humility: in his own words, I am often ambushed by my own hidden sexism.

Certainly, Professor Yancy is an unabashed liberal, but the bulk of the evidence that he is dangerous and closed-minded towards conservative students comes from an out-of-context quote in an article in which he takes great pains to point out his own biases.

The philosophy of suppression exists among the political right at all levels of engagement, as demonstrated by the ideas that Dennis Prager, notable conservative thinker, has propagated. Regarding high school reform measures, he suggested that clubs related to ethnicity, race or sexual orientation ought not be permitted; that classes devoted to racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, tobacco, global warming or gender identity ought not be taught; and that students should be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Not only do such proposals fly directly in the face of well-established constitutional law, but they are contrary to free speech itself only through conversation can the best ideas spread, because the only way to ensure that the best ideas win is by encouraging all ideas to be heard.

Notably, Prager proposed that the topics to be excluded from high schools are those which reflect the Republican Partys increasingly archaic beliefs. The solution to such issues is not to avoid them, but to embrace and combat them head on; if Prager is right, then his ideas should, in the end, win out.

These very same people on the right are often those who complain about the pervasiveness of political correctness and the harm it renders to open dialogue. But stretched to its philosophical extreme, these complaints waged against the left are, in the end, self-mutilating. Per Public Policy Polling, more conservatives are offended by the P.C. phrase Happy Holidays than liberals are by its counterpart, Merry Christmas. A similar parallel arose last year, when many conservatives decried the 2015 Starbucks Christmas Coffee Cups as an assault on Christmas by the politically correct left. In 2016, with the return of reindeer to their cups, unsurprisingly, there was a lack of corresponding outrage by those advocating for political correctness.

Emory University students are no exception to this trend. Last year, during the Trump chalkings incident, no group advocated more incessantly (and correctly) than the Emory College Republicans that the importance of diverging opinions trumps that of sensitivity. Yet, only two months ago, the same group moved for the resignation of Dean Ajay Nair on the grounds that he was insensitive to those affected by 9/11 after comparing the moods of Emory campus post-Trump election and the University of Virginia campus post-9/11.

Waging a war of ideas on an asymmetric battlefield is tempting. But in any war of ideas, only through extensive dialogue can any idea can be rigorously tested for flaws, inconsistencies, encroachments on rights and for judgements on those ideas to be finalized. But on both sides of the issue, many resorted to playing ostrich or attacking others First Amendment rights. If we intend to move forward as a country and a people, we must recognize the valid philosophical foundations of those with whom we disagree.

Grant Osborn is a College sophomore from Springfield, Ohio.

See the original post here:
Who's Really Hindering Free Speech? - The Emory Wheel

Federal Employee Free Speech Tied in Knots | Common Dreams ... Common Dreams Federal employees concerned about Trump White House actions face legal constraints on their freedom to protest, according to ethics warnings posted today by ... and more »

Read more here:
Federal Employee Free Speech Tied in Knots | Common Dreams ... - Common Dreams

In a case that free speech advocates are calling a victory for college students everywhere regardless of their political views, a federal appeals court on Monday ruled that Iowa State University cannot prevent a marijuana law reform advocacy group from distributing a T-shirt with the Iowa State University mascot on one side and a marijuana leaf on the other.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said ISU administrators including President Steven Leath, Senior Vice President Warren Madden and two others violated First Amendment rights of two students who were top officers of the ISU chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws.

The students, Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh, planned in 2012 to print T-shirts depicting "NORML ISU" on the front with the "O'' represented by Cy the Cardinal, the university' mascot. On the back the shirt read, "Freedom is NORML at ISU" with a small cannabis leaf above NORML.

Even though the university approved the group's original design that incorporated the mascot and a marijuana leaf, Leath and the others blocked it claiming it violated the school's trademark policy after getting pressure from conservative lawmakers and an appointee of Republican Gov. Terry Branstad who saw a story about the group's planned T-shirt in a Des Moines Register article.

The students sued in July 2014 and early last year U.S. District Judge James Gritzner ruled the school's policy violated the students' free speech rights and barred the university from prohibiting printing the T-shirt. Leath and the other ISU administrators appealed.

The appeals court agreed with Gritzner's ruling.

Here is the original post:
Iowa State students score one for free speech - STLtoday.com

On February 1, Breitbart technology editor and right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley. Students at the university protested his speech, and radicalsmany of whommay not have been studentsturned violent.

Yiannopoulos speech was canceled for safety concerns, as demonstrators threw rocks and fireworks at the building where the speech was set to take place. What began as a speech to 500 students expanded to thousands as the media (including this writer) wrote countless articles about the riots and Yiannopoulos.

If the Left wanted to shut Yiannopoulos down, they failed by behavingin such a mannerthat raised his profile. Who knows how many people wondered who this person was whocaused such a backlash, and how many of those people then found at least some of what Yiannopoulos says to be acceptable?

In a follow-up article on the riots, Washington Post columnist Steven Petrow spoke to a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lee Rowland. Rowland told Petrow that she finds much of Yiannopoulos speech to be absolutely hateful an despicablebut those adjectives dont remove his speech from the Constitutions protection.

Rowland went on to say that its easy to protect speech we agree with, but more important to protect speech we abhor, lest the First Amendment simply become a popularity contest.

Rowland tweeted the article with her quote on Friday. ACLUs own Twitter account tweeted as well. This, naturally, outraged the Left, with many responses to the tweet focusing on Yiannopoulos past comments and how he shouldnt have a platform.

Eric Boehlert of the left-wing Media Matters website quoted the ACLUs tweet,adding another wrinkle to the organizations alleged faults. One wk after came ACLU [sic] out in support of GOP overturning Obama rule to keep mentally ill ftom [sic] getting gunstoo late to get donations back?

The ACLU shot back, telling Boehlert it defend[s] everyones rights, even when its not popular.

Boehlert was referring to a recent action by House Republicans to overturn an Obama-era regulation that kept some with disabilities from owning firearms. While the mainstream media naturally went apoplectic, declaring that Republicans were removing gun-control protections and limiting background checks for people with severe mental illnesses, the reality of the measure is that it classified a large group of the mentally disabled as violent. The ACLU, and othergroups advocating for the rights of the disabled, opposed the measure.

The ACLU even wrote a letter to Congress supporting the move by Republicans. The original rule required those who use a representative payee to help them manage their Social Security Disability Insurance to have their names submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent, the ACLU wrote. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage ones Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.

The ACLU added: Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

But because the rule had to do with gun control, the Left suddenly became bigoted toward those with disabilities, conflating mental disability with violence.

To be clear, the ACLU isnt an organization friendly to activists of gun rights. The organizations stated belief on the Second Amendment is that it protects a collective right [a well regulated militia] rather than an individual right.

The only other time the ACLU comes close to supporting individual gun rights is when opposing the no fly list. The list, according to the ACLU, denies due process to those on it, and the majority of those who would be included are Muslims. When Democrats try to keep those on any of the no fly lists from getting guns, the ACLU is cited because, again, those on the list receive no due process.

But the ACLU, in these cases, isnt standing up for gun rights. In the first example, its standing up for those with disabilities, and in the second example, its standing up for Muslims.

Yet still the Left gets angry. The ACLU almost always holds positions that coincide with the Lefts views, so when it doesntas in the case of Yiannopoulos speech or gun control measuresthe Left criticizes and even suggests rescinding donations.

The ACLU is a great ally, until theyre not, apparently.

See the rest here:
Left Attacks ACLU for Defending Milo Yiannopoulos' Right to Free Speech - Observer

The State

Disclosure bill would chill free speech The State State Senate President Pro Tempore Hugh Leatherman recently filed S.255, which I believe could have a chilling effect on our First Amendment right to free speech. The legislation essentially requires every nonprofit organization that educates citizens ...

View post:
Disclosure bill would chill free speech - The State