Daily Archives: May 2, 2017

California Assemblywoman Melissa A. Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) has just introduced the California Campus Free Speech Act. Melendezs bill is based on the model campus free speech legislation I co-authored with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizonas Goldwater Institute.

Upon introducing her legislation, Melendez released a statement that said: Liberty cannot live without the freedom to speak and nowhere is that more important than on college campuses where we educate the leaders of tomorrow. The institutional silencing of individuals because of differing political ideology threatens the very foundation upon which our country was built.

Although the California Campus Free Speech Act is closely based on the Goldwater proposal, it has a couple of strikingly distinctive features. While the Goldwater proposal and the bills based on it to date apply only to public universities, the California Campus Free Speech Act applies to both public and private colleges. That means this new legislation would apply not only to the University of California at Berkeley, where the Yiannopoulos and Coulter fiascos played out, but also to Claremont McKenna College, where Heather MacDonalds talk was cut short.

The California Campus Free Speech Act accomplishes this by conditioning some (but not all) state aid to private colleges and universities on compliance with the Act (and by including an exemption for private religious colleges). In this, the legislation is clearly inspired by Californias Leonard Law, the only law in the country that extends First Amendment protections to private as well as public high schools and colleges.

The California Campus Free Speech Act is also framed as an amendment to Californias state constitution, which means that it can pass only with a two-thirds majority vote, and would then have to be ratified or rejected by a majority of state voters. A two-thirds majority requirement for a campus free speech bill is a high bar in a legislature dominated by Democrats. That said, I dont think it will be easy for legislators of any party to openly oppose this bill.

There is also another route this proposed amendment could take. Its relatively easy to place amendments to the California state constitution on the ballot. In lieu of a two-thirds majority in the legislature, signatures from the equivalent of 8% of the votes cast for all candidates in the last gubernatorial race suffice to place an amendment on the ballot. At that point, it requires only a simple majority vote for the measure to become part of Californias state constitution.

I wonder if some enterprising folks in California might decide to organize and finance an initiative campaign to place Melissa Melendezs campus free-speech measure on the 2018 ballot. Once it got there, I believe it would have a very real prospect of passage. After the embarrassments of the last academic year, 50% plus one of Californias voters would likely act to restore freedom of speech to their states college campuses.

Momentum for state-level campus free speech bills based on the Goldwater model is clearly building. Late last week, Goldwater-inspired bills were introduced in Michigan and Wisconsin. With California now in the mix, the debate over the Goldwater proposal is becoming truly national. I much look forward to the battle over Melissa Melendezs California Campus Free Speech Act. California has been ground zero for the campus free-speech crisis. Maybe now California can contribute to the solution.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

Read more:
Melissa Melendez's California Campus Free Speech Act - National Review

Recently I finished up 27 years as a judge at the 8th Circuit Court in Jaffrey. When you observe anything for that long, you cant help but reach opinions about what youve seen. During all that time, however, I was unable to voice any of those opinions because of the restrictions imposed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. While I already miss the wonderful people who work so hard on the courts behalf, Im happy to have my freedom of speech restored, and I have a few things to say.

Firearms and restrictions on them have been emotional issues for a long time, but primarily since the National Rifle Association radicalized its position during the 1970s and adopted the stance of opposing virtually all regulations and restrictions, however reasonable. One of the loudest arguments advanced for unfettered gun ownership is that people need firearms for self-defense against criminals who have guns. Nevertheless, during 27 years on the bench, I never even once heard a case where a firearm was used for that purpose. Rather, firearms were frequently used nearly always by men to threaten, intimidate or injure their family members or partners. If America doesnt want even reasonable gun control, thats a choice it can make, but it needs to base that decision on the facts, not unsubstantiated propaganda.

The recent change in the law to take away the ability of local police to deny concealed carry permits to their residents whom they dont think are suitable for that privilege will only make matters worse. Local officers know who is a reckless hothead, a domestic abuser or bully, or too mentally or emotionally unstable for such a permit. When a permit was denied, the resident had the right to appeal that determination to the local court. In 27 years I heard perhaps four such appeals, and I can recall overturning a permit denial only once. The permit law was protecting everyones rights in a reasonable manner and should not have been changed.

Thankfully, capital punishment is not an issue I had to deal with during my judicial career. Still, the idea that in the 21st century our nation would continue to endorse the eye for an eye retribution of the Old Testament is appalling. And the problem with it is not that we may be executing innocent people. Despite widespread concern about that risk, were doing much better at avoiding questionable executions with the help of DNA testing and multi-level review of the evidence and trial process. Its also not that the death penalty fails to provide an effective deterrent to serious crimes though it doesnt, because people who commit crimes dont consider the consequences before acting. Its not even that botched executions are cruel and unusual punishment, or that opposing this sanction is being soft on crime or coddling our worst criminals at the expense of their victims. No, the problem with the death penalty is that its just plain wrong for a civilized society to kill people. Thats why all our close friends in the community of nations have abolished the practice or no longer impose it, and why only places like China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and Syria continue to use it. Using it diminishes us as a moral country. People who commit our most heinous crimes should be removed from society for the rest of their lives, but they shouldnt be killed.

Over and over Ive seen the critical importance of a basic safety net for our most vulnerable and defenseless citizens. Suffice it to say that there are just some of us who cant make our way in the world without help from the rest of us. Sometimes the fault clearly lies with the people themselves, and there are certainly abuses that should be eliminated. Still, those arent valid excuses for abandoning our neighbors in real need. Until the Affordable Care Act, the culprit was often uninsured medical expenses that could bury a family for years after one serious illness. Now its primarily that the out-dated minimum wage just isnt nearly enough to live on. Yet the only ones we seem to worry about are the job creators, most of whom are doing just fine and would likely be better off if their employees werent pre-occupied and overwhelmed with financial problems.

What weve never realized in this state and most of the country is that providing a meaningful safety net is much less expensive in the long run than telling those in need to fend for themselves and then having to mop up when that approach doesnt work. If New Hampshire increased its minimum wage to lift full-time wages above the poverty level, its young people might not feel they had to leave to support themselves, and new businesses might be attracted by a more abundant workforce. If you analyze the most successful businesses in this country today, theyre the ones who pay their employees the most generously and get the most from them in return.

Freedom of speech is just one of the things that makes this a great country, and no one appreciates that more than someone who hasnt had it for a long time.

L. Phillips Runyon III lives in Peterborough.

The rest is here:
Freedom of speech regained - Monadnock Ledger Transcript

5628108

College presidents, the lambs of administrators, stand silent on the matter of free speech unless, of course, it is far left speech, with which they agree. Thats cool.

It is only differing opinions, which they label as hate speech, that they want to silence and of which they are the sole arbiters. This is yet another term they have manufactured in order to silence opposition.

UC Berkeley was the home of the 1964-65 protests, gaining fame as the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. Provocateurs like Ann Coulter, hardly an extremist, salivate at the chance to speak there. Her speech on reasons to halt illegal immigration was bureaucratically strangled and then canceled by the administration at Berkeley.

The left does a great job of moving the goalpost with wordsmithing that suits them. If you are against raising taxes, you dont want to pay your fair share. If you do not want illegal immigration, you hate Mexicans. If you are against sanctuary cities, which ignore federal law and do not arrest illegals, you are xenophobic. The only way to get arrested in California these days is to wear a Make America Great Again baseball cap or not recycle your grocery bags.

Soon they will say if you have a black iPhone and tell Siri to do something, you are OK with slavery.

The lefts articles of faith are that the U.S.A. is redneck, homophobic, supportive of white privilege, racist, xenophobic, and treats immigrants horribly. Thus, we should allow any and all illegal immigrants to come here to enjoy all sorts of benefits. The left must be really surprised they want to come here so badly.

Comic Hasan Minhaj predictably went after Trump as being a pawn of Russia at the self-congratulatory nerd party called the White House Correspondents Association dinner. Of course, they never made any jokes about Obama. It is said in Moscow that every comedy club has an adjoining, state-owned graveyard. We have the equivalent of it here: entertainment industry retribution and the DOJ.

Hasan had one Hillary joke, at which the press hissed, proving again that you can only joke about Republicans, never Democrats.

Offering no proof or examples, Hasan closed with the lie that Trump does not believe in the First Amendment. Of all people, Twitter-happy Trump believes in free speech. It was his ability to get around the medias historic censorship and contorting of speech that got Trump elected. And the media are mad. Historically, they control the narrative, so this was upsetting.

With their own credibility sinking, the big media met and made fun of Trumps 45% approval rating. The day after the Correspondents Association dinner, a poll came out; only six percent of those polled said they have a great deal of confidence in the press. Six percent! Bill Cosby still polls in double digits.

In a country of hyper-partisan political discourse, no one uses free speech more than the left; they call Trump a fascist, Nazi, racist, and pawn of Russia. One would think they would look inward and contemplate who is really engaging in hate speech.

About free speech, The New York Times said, The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view. In short, you have the right to their opinion, not your own. That isnt how it works.

Kids today are owed a college experience, and campuses are a fun place to spend four years while your parents pay your tuition. But an important part of the mission of colleges, and especially UC Berkeley, is to encourage free speech. The tenured, liberal professors who fought university power to protest the Vietnam War are now the ones in power, shutting down the free speech of others. Nothing changes in America without free speech; often initially unpopular ideas like gay rights, civil rights, and ending stupid wars come to mind.

Robust free speech with competing ideas vets out what is best for America. If Ann Coulter cannot come to promote her book to a few college Republicans, what does that say about our expensive and unaccountable higher education system?

The left, who have stifled free speech, live in a world of hypocrisy. Can the left put a price on free speech? Obama just did: He charged a Wall Street firm $400,000 for one speech and signed a $60 million book deal.

A syndicated op-ed humorist, award winning author and TV/radio commentator, you can reach him at [emailprotected], Twitter @RonaldHart or visit RonaldHart.com

Read the original post:
Free Speech Suffocated On Campus: The Silence Of The Lambs - The Daily Caller

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

This is a moment of extreme hyperbole in America, with words like "fascism" and "Russian coup" mixing in seamlessly in our superlative-heavy political discourse with "creeping sharia" and "Mexican invasion." But perhaps no phrase is deployed as recklessly as "hate speech," a nebulous non-legal term of which there is no agreed-upon definition.

While neither red nor blue America has a monopoly on trying to use the force of government or the violence of the citizenry to silence its opponents, the idea that the most vulnerable among us can be protected from the wounds of "hate speech" through loopholes in the First Amendment has been gaining disquieting momentum among liberal thinkers who should really know better.

Howard Dean recently demonstrated his mangled misunderstanding of Supreme Court jurisprudence when he followed up a widely mocked tweet asserting hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment with later tweets and media appearances in which he repeatedly cited a Supreme Court decision that deemed certain speech to constitute "fighting words." The physician and former DNC chair was arguing that conservative gadfly Ann Coulter's well-worn shtick constitutes both "hate speech" and "fighting words," and is therefore not constitutionally protected.

That is simply nonsense.

"Hate speech" as a legal concept does not exist, which is a good thing, because hate is subjective and anything from the most vile forms of bigotry to opposition to abortion to support for gay rights to criticism of religious institutions have all been deemed beyond the pale of public discourse by various groups and individuals. Offensiveness lies in the eye of the beholder. Thankfully, the right to express offensive ideas persists.

To be clear, there are jerks out there who have no desire to engage in good faith debating and who profit off of deliberately causing offense, the receipt of which only makes them more popular with their audiences. They promote noxious ideas and stand on "free speech" the way a child would claim to be standing on "base" in a backyard game of tag. Coulter is one of these jerks, and one only needs to recall the outrage she helped stoke over a Muslim community center opening a few blocks from the World Trade Center back in 2010 to be aware of how little she truly values free speech, freedom of religion, and private property rights when she and her comrades demanded the "Ground Zero mosque" be stopped.

These characters might not "deserve" free speech, but they are entitled to it. Rights are not earned by the righteousness of one's values. They're just rights. And the right to freedom of expression is the tool that cultivated the fight to win every civil right in this country's history. There is no civil rights movement, no gay rights movement, no feminist movement, and no anti-war movement without broad free speech protections for unpopular expression.

The good isn't safe unless the bad is, too.

Considering the former governor of Vermont made his name on the national stage as the most strident anti-war candidate of the 2004 presidential campaign, it's particularly ironic that Howard Dean would cite Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, a case centering around a Jehovah's Witness named Walter Chaplinsky who had been passing out anti-WWII materials, attracted a hostile crowd, and then was arrested after a town marshal deemed him to be the cause of the unrest. What "fighting words" did Chaplinsky utter? He called the marshal "a damned fascist."

Never mind the details of the case or how many anti-war protesters have used that other "f word" to describe any number of people both in and out of government. Dean's citing of Chaplinsky ignores the history of the Supreme Court repeatedly clarifying and narrowing the definition of "fighting words," as well as the fact that the Court has never cited the case as a precedent to curtail freedom of speech. In fact, some legal scholars even consider the fighting words exception to be for all intents and purposes a pile of dead letters, if not explicitly overturned by the Court.

Though Dean would like to believe Coulter's tasteless musing about wishing Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh had instead targeted The New York Times is unprotected speech, it is. Like a great deal of Coulter's output, it is mean-spirited and if intended as a joke of miniscule satirical value. But the right to speech does not require a value test. And yet, a value test is exactly what was advocated in The New York Times recently by NYU vice provost and professor Ulrich Baer:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. [The New York Times]

This appears to be a wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of Baer, because the freedom of speech requires no "balance" or "obligation to ensure" anything, primarily because someone would have to determine when sufficient "balance" had been achieved. Who does Baer think should be the arbiters of such balance? Why, right-thinking administrators like himself, who breathlessly determine that "there is no inherent value to be gained from debating" certain ideas in public.

Australian professor Robert Simpson, in a recent article at Quartz, also advocated for benevolent authority figures separating "good speech" from "bad speech." After cursory nods to the value of the right to free expression unencumbered by government interference or violent mobs ("Free speech is important However, once we extrapolate beyond the clear-cut cases, the question of what counts as free speech gets rather tricky"), Simpson argues for putting "free 'speech' as such to one side, and replace it with a series of more narrowly targeted expressive liberties."

Like Baer and Dean, Simpson assumes that those in power will always be as right-thinking as he, and that if the price of squashing the Ann Coulters of the world is abandoning the principle of universal free speech so long as it doesn't rise to direct threats or incitement to violence, well, that's a price they're willing to pay.

Erstwhile anti-war presidential candidates and distinguished professors should know better than to put their faith in authority when it comes to the competition of ideas. That they don't shows how little faith they have in the ability of the "good" to beat the "bad." Call me a hopeless optimist, but the value of robust free speech especially the right to offend has helped to facilitate the changing of minds regarding civil rights and has helped end or stop wars. That's why free speech, and not well-meaning censorship, will continue to be perhaps our greatest bulwark to tyranny.

This country has seen bigger threats to the republic than Ann Coulter and her ilk, and we should resist the urge to use state power or approvingly wink at masked, firework-wielding LARPers from creating "security threats" that prevent her from plugging a book to a few dozen young Republicans and a few hundred protesters on a college campus.

Visit link:
Liberals' free-speech amnesia - The Week Magazine

The German novelist Regula Venske was selected as president of the German branch of the PEN organization (Poets, Essayists, Novelist) last weekend after her predecessor, Josef Haslinger, chose to not to stand for re-election. Known for her 1995 political thriller, "Opernball," Venske was already active in the writers' organization as secretary general.

Founded in 1921 in England, PEN has expanded across the globe, working to give a voice to those writers and authors who are threatened. DW's Stefan Dege spoke with Regula Venske shortly after her election to speak about the road ahead.

DW: Ms. Venske, is PEN still a necessary organization today?

Regula Venske: More than ever. Of course it's our aim to make our work superfluous. But as long as freedom of speech is threatened, as it is in more countries than ever, then we still have to take action.

You've been the PEN secretary general since 2013, which has given you a unique understanding of the situation of writers around the world. Where do you see the situation being especially threatening?

Josef Haslinger was PEN Germany's president from 2013 to 2017

One of the focuses of our work - even before the failed coup - has been Turkey. China, Eritrea, Iran, Mexico - there I was a part of a delegation that protested the trinity of violence, corruption and impunity. In Mexico, for example, there are no authors in prison:"We have writers in graves," the president of PEN Mexico told me. It looks a little different in every country. In Russia, there's a focus on May 3, the International Day of Press Freedom. But we also have to pay attention to what's happening right at our own front door.

Freedom of speech: Why is it such an important topic?

Words are the weapons that those leaders of authoritarian regimes fear the most. The first people to be imprisoned are the writers and journalists. Maybe we aren't so clear about that in this country because we have lived in relatively peaceful circumstances for several decades. Here, literature has been put a bit into the corner, something for nice chats by the fireside, something to do in your free time. But words are an elementary part of the way people live together; they arefundamental to freedomand truth. That is what distinguishes us.

Interestingly, a recent report from Reporters Without Borders lists many Northern European countries as the best for press freedom. Where do you think this stems from?

That's a good question. I'm not sure. Certainly, it has something to do with prosperity, with stability. Perhaps also with the emancipation of women, who already during the Viking Age were busting things up (laughs). Scandinavian countries are very strongly engaged in PEN worldwide. Perhaps there are many explanations.

You said earlier that we should also have a look at what's happening at our doorstep as well, so let's have a look at the situation in Germany. What dangers do you see threatening freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of thought?

Freedom of speech is being threatened by people who are using it as a pretence and see themselves as martyrs. At our annual meeting this year, we discussed adopting a resolution on the topic of AfD (Eds.: the Alternative for Germany far-right political party) and right-wing populism, increasing nationalism, even in western democracies, which one might have thought was long past. We're positioning ourselves.

If you were to look at the success of your organization, what would you point to?

Enoh Meyomesse, recipient of a stipend from PEN Germany

Sometimes it's the little things, like when a poet imprisoned in Qatar sends you a poem that he has written for PEN Germany from a jail cell to thank you for your support - apoem which references the Loreley and Heinrich Heine. Sometimes that brings you to tears. And sometimes it's the little successes, when you can help free someone from prison.

Or as our stipend recipient Enoh Meyomesse(Eds: A Cameroonian author)said,because of PEN's support, he became a VIP, a Very Important Prisoner, while imprisoned. The humiliation and torture stopped because the prison warden saw that people were watching. They knew they couldn't do anything they wanted to him anymore. Those are individual successes that keep you from lacking courage. Looking at the numbers of writers who are being persecuted, it is easy to sit on the couch, depressed and helpless. Being able to make a difference in individual cases gives you the energy for continued resistance.

As PEN president, you don't have much time left for your own writing, or do you?

There's a bit of a time problem, that's true. But I'm working on a novel. It will just take a bit longer. And will be all the better for it.

Read the original:
PEN Germany president warns of threats to freedom of speech ... - Deutsche Welle