Monthly Archives: March 2017

posted at 5:01 pm on March 7, 2017 by John Sexton

There is a lot to like about the New York Times editorial on the silencing of free speech that took place recently at Middlebury college, but there is also a problem. Midway through, the Times inserts a paragraph suggesting the incident is part of a right-wing narrative aimed at unfairly blaming progressives, rather than an example of a genuine problem with progressive culture on and off campus.The editorial starts well enough with this accurate, if somewhat bloodless, account of the incident at Middlebury:

Truth would lose something by their silence, Mill wrote, even if their views go against the entire world, and the entire world is right.

Persuasive words. But not last Thursday in an auditorium at Middlebury, where a student recited that very quotation in introducing the notorious social scientist Charles Murray. Moments later caterwauling erupted, and the event collapsed into a night of turned backs, shouted chants, pounding fists and one wrenched neck belonging to a professor who was supposed to have provided a counterpoint to Mr. Murrays remarks, and to lead the Q. and A., but instead was attacked while leaving with him.

As I noted yesterday, political science professor Allison Stanger, who is a Democrat, wrote of the moment students began shouting her and Murray down, I saw some of my faculty colleagues who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything Dr. Murray had written join the effort to shut down the lecture. Speaking of her effort to exit the building later she wrote, we confronted an angry mob and added, I noticed signs with expletives and my name on them. On the moment when she was grabbed by the hair and shoved violently, Stanger writes, I feared for my life. She later went to the ER and was given a neck brace.

Eventually, the NY Times does condemn all of this in no uncertain terms. Free speech is a sacred right, and it needs protecting, now more than ever. Middleburys president, Laurie Patton, did this admirably, in defending Mr. Murrays invitation and delivering a public apology to him that Middleburys thoughtless agitators should have delivered themselves, the editorial states. Unfortunately, before it reaches that conclusion, the Times felt it was necessary to insert a paragraph suggesting the whole story is part of a bogus right-wing narrative:

Though speakers of all ideologies regularly appear at colleges without incident, a few widely publicized disruptions feed a narrative of leftist enclaves of millennial snowflakes refusing to abide ideas they disagree with. From the president to Fox News, right-wing voices wail, through their megaphones, about how put upon they are, like soccer players collapsing to the turf and writhing in pretend agony.

What the Times is describing with this sports analogy is whats usually called a flop, i.e. a player faking an injury in order to draw a foul on the other team. Clearly, that doesnt apply to the incident at Middlebury College. So where does it apply? Is the Times referring to a similar mob that shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulis at Berkeley? If so, the editorial writers should take a look at a first-hand account by a student reporter who was at Berkeley that night. Heres a bit of what he wrotein the NY Times last month:

Until Wednesday, I never felt in danger during a protest. Around 7 p.m. I saw a huddle of people yelling at one another. As more people surrounded them, a burning red truckers hat was held up on a stick. There were reports that another student wearing what appeared to be a Make America Great Again hat was severely injured.

Then I saw someone wearing all black walk up to a student wearing a suit and say, You look like a Nazi. The student was confused, but before he could reply, the black-clad person pepper-sprayed him and hit him on the back with a rod.

Doesthis sound like a flop created by conservatives to support a false narrative or does it, once again, sound like violent progressives venting their rage on people they see as a threat? The NY Times claim that these incidents are part of a bogus narrative, and not a sign of a genuine problem with progressive protesters, is absurd and ignorant. Not only are conservatives routinely mobbed when they come to campus, some schools now use the likelihood of progressive mob action as an excuse to disinvite them.

Last October, PEN America, a group devoted to preserving the freedom of written expression, issued a report on campus protest behavior. The report stated, a rising generation may be turning against free speech because some of its more forceful advocates have been cast as indifferent to other social justice struggles. The PEN report did not agree with the NY Times that having conservative voices shut out of campus was part of a fake narrative. On the contrary, it suggested there was a real danger to allowing mob action to become an implied threat to speech:

The assassins vetothe ability of those willing to resort to violence to determine what speech can be heardis anathema to free speech. It cedes control to the most extreme and lawless elements. It is the responsibility of the university administration and, where necessary, local law enforcement to ensure the safety of the speaker, the audience, and protesters.

The New York Times is right about the importance of free speech. Its wrong to suggest theright has created a false narrative about this issue. In fact, these incidents keep happening because the progressive left now routinely labels speech it disagrees with as hate speech or worse still as the equivalent of violence. It seems the NY Times isnt ready to admit progressives, on campus and off, are the real cause of this problem.

See the rest here:
NY Times supports free speech but blames right for 'narrative' about progressive campus culture - Hot Air

By Carter Yancey | 03/06/2017 7:02pm

CW / Kylie Cowden

It is astonishing that discussion over the extent to which free speech applies is taking place in the United States of America. The right of free expression is fundamental and absolute, just as it ought to be. Hate speech is free speech, offensive cartoons are permissible, calls to insurrection are totally legal and vile advocations of Nazism should be ignored but by no means silenced. So far, the United States Supreme Court has done a supreme job at preserving and protecting these rights. But free speech is more than just a right; it is a fundamental moral principle.

As a human being, your ability to express yourself is a necessary by-product of your right to exist; if it is denied or suppressed, your humanity itself is being compromised. It is not only necessary to protect this right from government intervention, but also to protect speakers from other citizens. Those who would advocate assault against preachers of hate or endorse the banning of trolls from social platforms are undermining one of the most necessary concepts for a civilized society to prosper. Defenders of liberty, when citing the First Amendment to speak out against such cases, are often met with a defense that goes something like: "Free speech means the government can't punish you for giving your opinion. It doesn't mean that you don't have to face the consequences of what you say." To that, I have several responses.

First of all, we need to be ever conscious about the direction legislation is taking in first world countries. Canada has already passed laws preventing a person from using speech that could be deemed offensive by others. The phrase "hate speech is not free speech" is an attack on free speech which is clearly intended to influence political action. To dismiss the defense of free speech by calling it inapplicable to the private sector is to ignore the fact that such ideas are infiltrating our political sphere. It is not an overreach to proudly invoke the Constitutional right to free speech as a defense against current events when the other side of the debate, if left to its own devices, would gladly pass laws to limit this fundamental freedom.

Secondly, a right is something that the government has an obligation to preserve, meaning it is the duty of the government to protect me from those who would try to prevent me from or attack me for speaking my mind. You cannot relieve the government from that responsibility and then accuse me of misusing the First Amendment to defend hate speech. Anyone who commits assault should be punished by law, even if the victim of the assault is a Nazi. When riots ensue and property is damaged in the heart of protesting a speaker and the government sits by idly, reminding people that free speech is a right becomes of dire importance.

But most importantly, people who say that free speech doesnt apply to the private sector are missing the point. Of course universities have the right to deny speakers a platform on their premises, and of course Twitter has the right to ban those who would harass other users from using their site. The question is not should they be allowed to do so, the question is should they do so. No honest and proud institute of education would shy away from the opportunity to discuss and dismantle ideas. Listening to your opponents does not grant them legitimacy cowering from them does. It is good for a free market to bring bad ideologies to ruin by boycotting the lectures and writings of their supporters, but the difference between a University not accepting a speaker because there is no profit to be made and prohibiting a talk because it is contrary to an established agenda is extraordinary.

Free speech is more than a legal right to be protected by the government; it is a moral necessity that every individual should be encouraged to exercise. For readers of this column, as students of a university, this idea is of particular relevance. Campuses across our country are making a habit of creating zones where students are safe from being exposed to dissenting opinions. We have seen Universities go through great lengths to prevent certain influential people from appearing on their grounds. With this in mind, students should not only be reminded that free speech is a right, but should be taught that it is inherently a good thing even when the words spoken are bad.

Carter Yancey is a sophomore majoring in computer science and mathematics. His column runs biweekly.

Go here to read the rest:
Free speech is more than a right - The Crimson While

New York Times

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech New York Times Mr. Erdogan's opponents in Germany, both Turkish and German, say the president wants to use the freedoms of Western democracy to further consolidate his anti-democratic powers at home, and they accuse him and his men of using their right to free speech ... The Latest: Opposition: Turkish govt limits free speech too - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.comKHQ Right Now How Germany accidentally gave Erdogan a boost ahead of key voteAl-Monitor all 759 news articles »

The rest is here:
Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech - New York Times

Pakistan is no place for free speech.

A justice on Pakistans Islamabad High Court (IHC) has threatened to shut down the entirety of social media if criticism of Islams Muhammad continues, declaring these blasphemers as terrorists.

According to local reports, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi burst into tears while issuing the warning for those who apparently have taken to social media to criticize Muhammad. Siddiqi made it very clear that Pakistan would not allow for such displays of free speech.

Why is the blasphemous content present on the social media? What steps had the government taken up in this regard so far? Siddiqi asked. I submit and sacrifice myself and all what I have including my parents, my life and job to the person of Allahs messenger If the sacrilegious pages cannot be blocked, then, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) should cease to exist, he added.

Siddiqi then took his comments a step further, arguing that social media in its entirety should be cut off for Muhammads sake.

"Each and everything can be sacrificed for the honor of Allah's Messenger. I will close entire social media, if I have to," he said.

And then came the conclusion: The justice declaring those who decide to engage in free speech as terrorists.

"I hereby declare as terrorists who commit blasphemy to the holy Prophet. the IHC justice declared.

About 75 percent of Pakistanis support the countrys blasphemy laws, which say that insulting Islam is punishable by death. This has led to massive discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities living inside Pakistan. The blasphemy edicts sometimes lead mobs to take the streets, and guaranteesviolent repercussions for those who have been deemed slanderers of Islam.

Pakistan is currently fending off a wave of jihadist terrorist attacks. In one such incident in February, a suicide bomber killed 88 people after detonating his vest at a Sufi shrine. This might lead observers to believe that such a vital issue to national security would take priority in Islamabad. Instead, the judiciary is discussing how to block what its citizens discuss on social media.

Free speech does not exist in Pakistan. And worse, the highest levels of government are accused of becoming cozy with international terrorist groups.

Pakistan was notoriously once the home base for deceased al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, who set up shop in Abbottabad, located less than a mile away from a prominent Pakistani military academy. Its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has long been accused of collaborating with jihadist terror outfits.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Originally posted here:
Pakistani judge threatens to shut down country's social media over free speech 'terrorists' - Conservative Review

3:20 p.m. ET March 7, 2017

A University of California-Berkeley spokesman says a small group was responsible for turning protests violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak.(Photo: AP)

They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!

At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech canceled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows and started fires. Protesters threw commercial fireworks at police.

According to CNN: The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. . . . As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks. No arrests were made throughout the night.

According to CNN, the protests caused over $100,000 in damage.

Yiannopoulous wasnt the only victim of silencing efforts. At Marquette University, conservative speaker Ben Shapiro faced efforts by Marquette university employees to silence him.

The Young Americas Foundation obtained Facebook comments by Chrissy Nelson, a program assistant for Marquettes Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, encouraging people at the behest of one of the directors of diversity to reserve all the seats for the hall and then not show up. The purpose of this was to take a seat away from someone who actually would go.

So students who wanted to hear a speaker with alternative views would find themselves unable to get a seat, because a university employee had made fake reservations. All, apparently, in the name of diversity.

Likewise, when conservative Gavin MacInnes (a founder of Vice.com) appeared to speak at New York University, he was met by an angry mob that forced him to cut his talk short, while a woman who identified herself as an NYU professor urged police, whom she said were protecting the Nazis by keeping the crowd away from MacInnes and his entourage, to "kick their ass instead of protecting them.

This stuff all looks terrible so bad that Democrat operative Robert Reich was reduced to blaming outside agitators for the violence, a trope that, as law professor Ann Althouse noted, has unfortunate resonance with the Jim Crow era. And President Trump even tweeted that Berkeley should lose federal funding for its inability to ensure free speech rights for everyone on its campus.

Well, the rioters may or may not have been Berkeley students as Althouse notes, since they were wearing masks, theres really no way Reich could tell but I think its safe to say that the rioting happened because they thought they could get away with it. (And with no arrests, I guess they did.) Likewise, I think that the staffers at Marquette didnt entertain any thought that what they were doing might get them punished. (Nor, as far as I can tell, have they been).

Thats because there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior. This double standard is of a piece with many campuses openly taking sides over the election, treating Trumps win like a terrorist attack, while investigating Trump supporters for racist allegations only to find no evidence that they had done anything except say Make America Great Again, as Babson College, a small school in Massachusetts, did.And as CNN's Marc Lamont Hill acknowledged, right-wing rioters are absent on college campuses.

Whether or not Berkeley loses its federal funding over the Milo riots (and it wont), I think its time for action to address this double standard. First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech. In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

Second, perhaps its time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus. Many states (including California) already have laws banning discrimination in hiring and firing based on political viewpoints. Perhaps we need a federal civil rights law providing that colleges that receive federal funds (which is pretty much all of them) can lose those funds if they discriminate against students because of their political views.

Some colleges may complain that this is federal interference in their internal affairs, but given the limited resistance theyve mounted to intrusive Title IX regulations, it will be hard to take such complaints seriously. Americas colleges and universities have a free speech problem. Its appropriate for the federal government to take action to protect the civil rights of those affected.

Glenn Reynolds is a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors.

Read or Share this story: http://on.app.com/2mCvuiX

See the original post here:
REYNOLDS: End conspiring to stifle free speech - Asbury Park Press