Daily Archives: April 3, 2017

Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College, has sued the school after he said he was barred from handing out copies of the United States Constitution outside of the colleges designated free speech zone.

The college actually maintains an area about the size of three parking spaces where students can exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Its a whole process for students to secure the area because they have to submit paperwork to receive passes, and there are only a few given out at one time.

Shaw says that at the time, there were no spots available for him to exercise his free speech rights.

Related: Students Demand Free College Tuition to Make Up for Slavery

He and a few other students were stopped back in November while they were handing out Spanish-language copies of the Constitution and talking with other students about their rights. Since they were outside of the free speech zone, the students were violating school policy. Shaw is suing the school for violating his civil rights by restricting his speech.

This is a pretty weird policyfor an institution of higher learning, in my opinion. While I agree that there should be a certain levelof decorum while exercising freedom of speech at a college, it shouldnt be restricted to a small space. Students who are peacefully exercising their constitutional rights shouldnt have to jump through hoops to be able to do so.

It seems like colleges across the United States have been doing more to limit what students are doing and saying, from canceling speakers they dont agree with to creating safe spaces.

College is a place where adults go to develop their knowledge and share ideas. Whether or not the ideas are popular opinion, students should still be allowed to speak freely and not check to make sure they're within thefree speech zone. Even having a designated free speech zone implies that there's something wrong with speaking opinions on campus and that students will face consequences for speaking. When did everything get so caught up in political correctness? Where was the free speech zone when rioters were tearing up Berkeley?

Related: Rioting and Violence on Parents' Dime at UC Berkeley

I would hardly call handing out copies of the United States Constitution disruptive to the learning environment.

In any case, I'm sure this has become normal for many colleges and universities across the United States. Especially with the current political climate, there seem to be quite a few headlines coming out of the woodwork where teachers are pushing their own political agendas not only in colleges, but even inelementary and middle schools. Teachers are getting caught up in pushing anti-Trump ideas.

Those areas should be given more attention and regulated.

Related: Cop's Daughter Told to Remove Her 'Blue Lives Matter' Flag

I dont think colleges need this type of policing. All of the students are adults and are perfectly capable of handling the exchange of ideas and dialogue without the establishment's telling them where to speak and where to think. Thats completely counterproductive to those who are paying large sums of money to attend these schools.

Angelina Newsom is a U.S. Army veteran and an OpsLens contributor. She served 10 years in the military, including a deployment to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. She studies criminal justice and is still active within the military community. This OpsLens article is used by permission.

Read more at OpsLens: Respect the RankPolitical Football

View post:
College Student Sues School for Hampering His Freedom of ... - LifeZette

There is a new liberal pejorative for describing what is an essential aspect of our political system: anonymity in political speech. Some candidates for City Council are complaining that they don't know who are funding political campaigns so they are trying to impugn the messages by using the sinister-sounding "dark money" as a descriptor for anonymous donations that fund political speech.

"People deserve to know who's spending money to influence their vote," said Colorado Ethics Watch executive director Luis Toro inthe March 26Gazette. "It helps them understand who benefits from possible policies. And it also helps identify possible conflicts of interest with legislators and City Council members and the industries that are supporting them."

Colorado College political science professor emeritus Bob Loevy is quoted in the same article saying "The real mystery is who are the nameless, faceless persons or person who are behind the attempt to take over City Council. The voters have no way of telling what's really going on."

What's going on is anonymous political free speech, which has a long and honorable tradition extending clear back to Publius and the authors of the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. In their day, political speech could get you hung by the British for sedition. Today it can get you attacked by masked thugs or destroy your business.

People do not deserve to know who is trying to influence their vote. The whole purpose of campaigning is to influence people's votes and it is the argument that is important, not the author. Wrote the Supreme Court, "Far from enhancing the reader's evaluation of a message, identifying the publisher can interfere with that evaluation by requiring the introduction of potentially extraneous information at the very time the reader encounters the substance of the message.The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."

"Don't underestimate the common man," the Court goes on to say, "People are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They know it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they must be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is 'responsible,' what is valuable, and what is truth."

Inoverturning an Ohio law that required name disclosure the Supreme Court said "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." The court went on to say, "It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation - and their ideas from suppression - at the hand of an intolerant society."

And that is why people form and contribute to nonprofits to act as political speech surrogates. Such organizations provide a shield against an intolerant and increasingly violent leftist/liberal cadre of cowardly masked thugs who are willing to commit assault, arson, criminal mischief, riot and general disorder to suppress the speech of their political opponents. The gravity of the violence of these thugs was seen in Washington D.C. at President Trump's inauguration and again at a speech by Milo Yianopolous at UC Berkeley and many other places since.

The fear of persecution and violence is today, as it was in the past, a genuine physical threat that makes anonymity critical to protecting freedom of speech. That a group must by Colorado law register and be identified to band together and contribute financially to speak politically puts them at personal risk. Anonymity is all that protects those who want to engage in free speech and expression without fear of retribution and violence.

Nobody required Publius to register as a 401(c)3 nonprofit corporation and list the names of contributors before James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay were allowed to publish the Federalist Papers. We are entitled to the same protection of anonymity our forefathers enjoyed under the First Amendment.

-

Scott Weiser is an award-winning journalist

Go here to see the original:
WEISER: So-called 'Dark money' is plain free speech - Colorado Springs Gazette

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

The former president of the ACLU and co-founder of FIRE are featured speakers at RIT symposium

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Staff report 6:27 p.m. ET April 3, 2017

Nadine Strossen, Alan C. Kors(Photo: provided)

The former president of the American Civil Liberties Union and a co-founder of a group advocating free speech will be featured speakers at Rochester Institute of Technology's Center for Statesmanship, Law and Liberty's annual symposium Tuesday and Wednesday.

The symposium, "The University as a Marketplace of Ideas? The Debate over Free Speech and Fundamental Fairness on Campus," is free and open to the public.

Nadine Strossen will give a talk, "Title IX: Hostile Environment Policies that are Hostile to Free Speech and Due Process," at 7 p.m. on Tuesday in Liberal Arts Hall, Room A205, on the RIT campus.

Strossen, who is a professor of law at New York Law School, was president of the ACLU from 1991 through 2008.

Alan C. Kors will give a talk, "No Freedom of Speech, No Higher Education," onWednesday at 7 p.m., in the Ingle Auditoriumof the RIT Student Alumni Union.

Kors,a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, is co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He isthe 2005 recipient of the National Humanities Medal.

Read or Share this story: http://on.rocne.ws/2nCLZZA

0:31

0:20

1:11

0:49

0:56

0:32

0:38

1:09

0:55

1:00

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the rest here:
Former president of ACLU and co-founder of FIRE featured at RIT - Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

VERNON SMALL

Last updated11:14, April 4 2017

NZN VIDEO

It is important that strong views are expressed in NZ: Bill English

A group of 27 high-profile New Zealanders, including unlikely allies such as Don Brash and Dame Tariana Turia, have penned an open letter warning freedom of speech is under threat in the country'suniversities.

It was the brainchild of Auckland University of Technology's History Professor Paul Moon, and rejects"the forceful silencing of dissenting or unpopular views" on university campuses.

It also insists debate must not be suppressed because the ideas put forth "are thought by some or even by most people to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed".

PHIL WALTER/GETTY IMAGES

Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy is keen to see Police gather hate-crime statistics.

It comes after a group called theEuropean Students Associationat Auckland University was closed down after threats to its members and accusations of racism.Its leaders had denied it wasracist.

READ MORE: *Prominent Kiwis pen open letter saying free speech is under threat in NZ universities *Academic calls for better recording of hate crimes *MasseyUni chancellor steps down after sexism controversy * Editorial: There's no need for hate-crimes law in New Zealand *Susan Devoy preaches free speech not hate speech on race relations

The letter also follows Human Rights CommissionerDame Susan Devoy's February call for a review of"hate speech" law and Police Commissioner Mike Bush suggesting an examination of the pros and cons of a specific crime.

The open letterhas been signed by academics, business leaders, community representatives and controversial commentators including Sir Bob Jones, former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, Maori educationalistSir Toby Curtis, poet Albert Wendt and former MP Luamanuvao Winnie Laban.

Moon saidfreedom of speech was the foundation of a modern, diverse and democratic society and it protectedreligious freedom and individual expression.

"Kneejerk calls from Police and the Human Right Commission to introduce hate-speech laws after recent attacks on ethnic communities will have the unintended consequence of suppressing free speech. Education, open debate and understanding will change racist and intolerant views not censorship," he said.

DEAN KOZANIC/FAIRFAX NZ

Former National leader Don Brash has joined Dame Tariana Turia in opposing restrictions on freedom of speech.

Freedom ofspeech was intimatelyconnectedwith freedom of thought,he said.

"There is no inalienable right not to be offended. It is dangerous and wrong to silence someone because you takeoffenceor don't like what they say. Of course there are limits; that is why inciting hatred or violence is already a crime."

The current law was working well.

JASON OXENHAM/FAIRFAX NZ

Paul Moon, Professor of History at the Faculty of Maori Development at AUT coordinated an open letter defending free speech at universities

Police Minister Paula Bennett has poured cold water on the idea of a new crime, sayinghate speech can be an aggravating factor in sentencing but going further was not a Government priority.

But Moon said Devoy's ideaseemed tobe her legacy project. "It'snot dead in the water yet as far as we can tell."

In a speech ata Holocaust Remembrance Day event,Devoy said that free speech was one thing, hate speech another.

HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES

Former Maori party co-leader Dame Tariana Turia one of 27 signatories to letter defending free speech.

"I believe online hatred is something we can get better at calling out. I believe we need better restrictions when it comes to the online forums" as well as social media accounts.

It was obvious to her when freedom of speech became a cover for threatening and harmful language.

She was also keen toseePolice gather hate crime statistics.

Meanwhile Moon pointed to the forced closure of the Europeanstudent club at Auckland Universityand threats to itsmembers,describing it as a slippery slope to be wary of.

"History shows that fear and intolerance drives suppression of free speech, not that free speech causes fear and intolerance," Moon said

Universities must remain places forrobust debate and the free exchange of ideas, not a place where unpopular views were censored.

But there was a "tsunami"withuniversitiesin the UK, Australiaand the United States facinghuge restrictions on freedom of speech.

"The question is when, rather than if, that happens here. Once it happens it's very difficult to undo, so we would like to head it off," he said.

"Where it becomes dangerousterritoryis where they criminalise ideas. Where they say if you criticise someone thatpotentially constitutes hate speech and therefore you shouldn't do it.

"And that goes against two or three hundred years of European traditionand even longer in the Maori tradition where divergent views are expressed and people reach a sort of synthesis eventually... a unified or agree-to-disagree position in the end."

Being accused of hate speech would also "put a brand on your forehead - you are guiltyof hate speech... without really knowing what your motives are or looking at the arguments".

"The preparedness of the state to curtail free speech in the (name) of either good race relations or order or whatever else is a very dangerous step. Becauseit doesn't actually solve any problem it, it really just suppresses it."

He said the signatories to the letter included those diametrically opposed on some issues, such as Brash and Turia on the Treaty and Maori rights.

"But what unites them is that they areall prepared to have their say and have others have their say, even if it's a very different imposing argument. That really is the essence of how free speech works."

Moon said he planned to send a copy of the letter to all party leaders in Parliament seeking their response to it."

It was not about influencinga particularstatute, but his hope was "they will take that as guidance when they are considering any hate speech legislation".

Those who put their name to the letter were:

Assoc Professor Len Bell, Dr Don Brash, Dr David Cumin, Sir Toby Curtis,Dr Brian Edwards,Graeme Edwards, Dr Gavin Ellis, Sir Michael Friedlander,Alan Gibbs, Dame Jenny Gibbs,Bryan Gould,Wally Hirsh,Professor Manying Ip,Sir Bob Jones, Professor Pare Keiha,Assoc ProfessorLuamanuvao Winnie Laban, Dame Lesley Max,Gordon McLauchlan,Professor Paul Moon, Sir Douglas Myers,Assoc Professor Camille Nakhid, Sir Geoffrey Palmer,Professor Edwina Pio,David Rankin,Philip Temple,Dame Tariana Turia, and ProfessorAlbert Wendt.

-Stuff

Go here to read the rest:
Prominent Kiwis pen open letter saying free speech is under threat in NZ universities - Stuff.co.nz