Monthly Archives: May 2017

Vice Media co-founder and conservative speaker Gavin McInnes reads a speech written by Ann Coulter to a crowd during a conservative rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 27. Coulter canceled a planned appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, saying she had lost the backing of the groups that had sponsored her talk. Josh Edelson /AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Vice Media co-founder and conservative speaker Gavin McInnes reads a speech written by Ann Coulter to a crowd during a conservative rally in Berkeley, Calif., on April 27. Coulter canceled a planned appearance at the University of California, Berkeley, saying she had lost the backing of the groups that had sponsored her talk.

On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.

It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.

In other cases as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week the event is called off.

Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.

The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.

Attorney Jim Manley, who co-wrote the bill, says the institutional neutrality provision serves as a reminder to public universities that they are funded by taxpayers, who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with. He says the other provisions are important because the students who have engaged in these protests have not been adequately disciplined by universities.

"We think those are incredibly important because what we've seen is that universities haven't really taken this seriously and discipline students who engage in these sorts of belligerent protests that are designed not to present an alternative viewpoint, but to shut down the speaker," Manley says.

In a Wall Street Journal column, Stanford University professor Peter Berkowitz echoes this point by arguing universities are slow to shut down these protests because they often want to protect minority groups who may be offended by a provocative speaker.

"The yawning gap between universities' role as citadels of free inquiry and the ugly reality of campus censorship is often the fault of administrators who share the progressive belief that universities must restrict speech to protect the sensitivities of minorities and women," Berkowitz writes. "They often capitulate to the loudest and angriest demonstrators just to get controversies off the front page."

The goal of this model bill is to protect free speech on campus broadly, Manley says, so it provides protections for both invited speakers and students who want to protest. He says the discipline provisions work by shutting down those activities that are designed to prevent an exchange of ideas.

"If I started yelling every time you asked a question, that wouldn't be a very good way to have a conversation," Manley says. "And that's basically what's happening with these shout-downs and violent protests on campus, and those are the sorts of things that our bill goes after and tries to prevent."

North Carolina is one of the states considering a campus free speech bill, but state Rep. Verla Insko, a Democrat, criticized the legislation as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right."

Manley says the legislature's job is to protect constitutional rights, which is what this bill is designed to do. He argues collaboration between legislatures and universities is needed to protect free speech on campus.

"Even if the university is a doing a fine job today, that doesn't mean that there's no role for the legislature to play here," he says. "And if the university is truly committed to protecting free expression, then it should be a collaborative exercise between the legislature and the university to create a piece of legislation that works for everybody."

Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus, and Manley says this is possible because hate speech is not well-defined in the law.

"The point of having free speech protection in the Constitution is to protect unpopular ideas," Manley says. "We don't need the First Amendment for ideas that everybody agrees with. We need to protect minority views, even if those views are repugnant to most people, and maybe especially if those views are repugnant."

Read the original:
States Consider Legislation To Protect Free Speech On Campus - NPR

Chinas market economy with socialist characteristics rose from the ashes of Mao Zedongs failed experiments with central planning. Under that repressive regime, private enterprise was outlawed and individuals become wards of the state. When Deng Xiaoping became Chinas paramount leader, he abandoned Maos class struggle as the centerpiece of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and embarked on economic liberalization. There was hope that greater freedom in trading goods and services would also lead to a freer market in ideas.

That hope was dashed when troops cracked down on protesters in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Dengs famous Southern Tour in 1992 resumed economic reformand China has become the worlds largest trading nationbut protectionism in the market for ideas remains intact. Under President Xi Jinping, who advocates globalization but has cracked down on the free flow of information, China has become less free.

In the just released World Press Freedom Index, published by Paris-based Reporters sans Frontires (RSF), China is ranked 176 out of 180 countries, just a few notches above North Koreaand President Xi is referred to as the planets leading censor and press freedom predator. In preparation for the 19th CCP Congress later this year, there has been an uptick in the war on free speech.

Without notice, in January the Beijing Municipal Cyberspace Administration shut down the internet of the Unirule Institute of Economics, one of Chinas leading free-market think tanks, co-founded by Mao Yushi, a strong critic of the one-party state and the lack of a free market in ideas. Without access to the global flow of ideas, Unirules work has been all but cut off. Other internet sites have been shut down and Chinas cyber bullies have gone after virtual private networks (VPNs) that allow users to circumvent the Great Firewall.

Beginning on June 1, new rules governing the news content permitted on various internet platforms will be implemented, and editors will be subject to stronger oversight by the state and the Party. Cyber security law is intended to ensure that the CCPs overriding objective of stability and order is realized. Yet that goal conflicts with the creation of a dynamic civil society and with innovation and globalization.

Xi Jinping, in his belief that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom, fails to understand a basic tenet of liberalismnamely, that individual freedom is the source of an emergent order. That idea was known in China long before it was stated by Adam Smith in 1776. In the 6th century BC, Lao Tzu explained that when the ruler leaves people alone (the principle of noninterference or wu wei), people are spontaneously transformed and increase their wealth. They do so through voluntary market exchanges under a just rule of law.

China has allowed greater economic freedom, which has enabled millions of individuals to lift themselves and their families out of poverty, but the CCPs monopoly on power has prevented a corresponding expansion in freedom of the presseven though Article 35 of the PRC Constitution states that Citizens enjoy freedom of speech.

Top-down control of ideas must eventually clash with bottom-up economic reform. China cannot become a global financial center, like Hong Kong, without the free flow of information. Insulating the political elite from the competition of ideas is not a recipe for long-run prosperity and peace. As Liu Junning, an independent scholar in Beijing, has noted, Whether China will be a constructive partner or an emerging threat will depend on the fate of liberalism in China.

The Western liberal ideas that President Xi and the CCP reject place the individual before the state and see the state as the protector of individual rights, including free speech. A just rule of law is designed to limit the power of government and enhance individual freedom. By expanding marketsboth in goods and ideassuch an institutional arrangement increases the range of choices open to people, which is the true measure of development.

If China is to become a beacon for globalization and free trade, as President Xi advocated at the Davos World Economic Forum, there will have to be movement toward a free market in ideas. China cant continue to be near the bottom in terms of freedom of the press and speech without losing ground in the information age.

Continued here:
China's War on Free Speech - Cato Institute (blog)

If you were wondering why young Americans are less enthralled with the idea of free speech than their elders, look no further than this weeks appalling conviction of Desiree Fairooz.

Fairooz is a 61-year-old woman from Bluemont, Va., and an activist with Code Pink, the antiwar group well-known for its theatrical protests.

During the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions, our current attorney general, Fairooz was sitting in the hearing when she heard something she felt was ridiculous: an assertion from Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., that Sessions had a track record of treating all Americans equally under the law.

Fairooz was right about one thing the assertion is ridiculous. Sessions, who was considered too racist in the 1980s to be elected to a federal judgeship, has a well-documented history of discrimination.

So she did what plenty of Americans who believe in the idea that they have a right to free speech might have done: She laughed.

Officers came over and pulled her out of the hearing, and the Justice Deparment now under the purview of the apparently thin-skinned Sessions decided to prosecute her.

They won, too: Fairooz was convicted of disorderly and disruptive conduct and parading or demonstrating on Capitol grounds.

For laughing.

Theres been a lot of smug, self-righteous chatter about free speech for Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter in the Bay Area lately. Im not buying it, and Im not the only one.

Forty percent of people age 18-34 believe the government should be able to censor offensive speech toward minorities, a larger proportion than any other age group.

These young people dont feel this way because theyre fragile or delicate far from it. Its because they grew up in a society that expects them to cede the floor to racists and hatemongers, while accepting violent pushback against activists on the other end of the spectrum.

While Baby Boomers are lecturing them about tolerance for hateful speech and misrepresenting the history of Berkeleys Free Speech Movement, young people are thinking about the Occupy protesters who were pepper-sprayed by police at UC Davis.

Theyre thinking about the hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters tossed in jail for demonstrating against police brutality.

Now, theyll be thinking of Desiree Fairooz.

If free speech applies only to some Americans, its hardly free.

When I point this out, some (comfortable, reasonable) people like to tell me that free speech is a must in a liberal society. They tell me it ensures a marketplace of ideas from which people can pick the strongest ones. The assumption, of course, is that people will inevitably pick the best ones.

That assumptions based on an Enlightenment-era idea about the rationality of human beings. It makes my heart swell with nostalgia.

Look, kids, we used to imagine everyone had a fair chance in the marketplace! We used to believe people would make rational judgments!

The marketplace doesnt mean much to a generation facing staggering levels of student debt and a society mired in wealth and income economic inequalities.

For this generation, its an easy leap to recognize that the marketplace of ideas is unequal, too. Todays public squares are owned by businesses, and Facebook and Twitter can do whatever theyd like with your free speech. What those platforms certainly dont seem to be doing is much to drown out the trolls and abusers who plague outspoken women and people of color in particular.

As for the inevitability of rational judgment, its past time to put that old chestnut to rest.

If you believe in science, you may be aware of the growing body of research about the profound limitations of the human mind to successfully integrate facts contrary to our long-held belief systems. (If you dont believe in science, well, this might be why.)

Usually, people are swayed not by facts but by our emotions and our social group. Which brings me back to our current debate around free speech.

Its easy to believe in free speech if youve always had a platform for your own. Its easy to talk about speech as a universal right if youve never been dragged to jail for your laughter or your protest. Its also easy to tolerate hateful speakers if their vitriol isnt directed at you.

The younger generation more diverse and more disadvantaged than their parents is less interested in free speech because they see its benefits accruing only to those who want to do them harm. I understand where theyre coming from.

Personally, I believe that free speech is a right worth having and protecting. But like all rights, free speech needs to have equal worth for everyone. At the moment, it doesnt.

Sadly, the reason it doesnt is quite simple: Far too many Americans believe our countrys less-enlightened values of prejudice, greed and power are more important right now. A country where Desiree Fairooz can be convicted for laughing at a lie is a country where young people quickly learn whose rights have worth and whose do not.

Caille Millner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: cmillner@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @caillemillner

See the article here:
Free speech is a joke when laughing is a crime - San Francisco Chronicle

Steve Post, Guest columnist 7:29 p.m. ET May 5, 2017

Steve Post(Photo: Steve Post)

I could certainly offer some personal political perspective on the current milieu where opposing voices are shouted down, where riots are threatened to block speakers whose words constitute hate, and where some would need healing from even hearing anothers viewsor safe spaces to avoid them altogether. Americans were thought-leaders on an increasingly endangered liberty free speech and sober voices, even some on the Left, lament this state of affairs.

To be sure, the battle has been hard fought, and many have given their lives or livelihood in defense of this and our other considerable freedoms. And, as these freedoms seem to be waning in part, we recognize the potential for our own expense as we try to practice them as weve become accustomed ask the bakers, florists and photographers who have discovered that their religious convictions are read as bias and hate, and have paid for it.

American Christians are right to continue to fight for these liberties and against the erosion of the values which hold them in place. That said, it is not a biblical right for believers to be unaccosted in speaking their mind, whether speaking against God or for Him.

In Numbers 16 is the story of Korah, who led a rebellion with 250 other familial heads against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. As the Lords chosen leaders, Moses and Aaron stood in the gap between the Lord and the people. Suffice to say, God didnt look kindly on this attempted usurpation. Even after the Lord showed his displeasure by having the Earth swallow Korah and his clan, and sent out fire to the clans of the 250, the Israelites murmured against Moses for he killed the Lords people. Moses and Aaron interceded to mitigate Gods further response.

On the other hand, the New Testament is full of examples of speaking for God as Hes directed. Jesus whole missionary bent was to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of God. He declared His obedience thusly: For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandmentwhat to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life (John 12:49-50a).

Jesus directed the Apostles to do likewise, saying you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8) They were ultimately commanded to share the Good News of His person and work all that He taught and all that he did (Matthew 28:19-20).

The cost of speaking for God in this way, for both Jesus and his Apostles, was similar to that of speaking against God temporally speaking, it cost them their lives. Jesus words were twisted to fit the narrative of those whom he upset with his claims and accusations, but He ultimately gave away his life in service to the Truth.

Likewise, ten of the eleven remaining Apostles (after Judas left) died for their proclamation of the Truth about Jesus Christ, as did Paul for his free speech in sharing the gospel a fate far better than if he had not (1 Corinthians 9:16). So, while we biblically follow the governing authorities (that is, obeying them as long as they dont command what God forbids or forbid what He commands see Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2), we can feel free as Americans to fight for the liberties others have won for us, but we should understand that we, like those in many other countries, may suffer consequences, and pay dearly for our free speech.

Steve Post is a Tallahassee resident, armchair theologian, and past local ministry lay leader. Contact him at sepost7678@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.tdo.com/2peNRI5

Visit link:
Free speech isn't free - Tallahassee.com

News & Observer

NCCU, UNCG get high marks for free speech efforts News & Observer Two UNC system campuses have revamped their policies and earned higher ratings by a free speech watchdog organization. N.C. Central University and UNC Greensboro were given a green light, the highest designation, according to the ... and more »

More:
NCCU, UNCG get high marks for free speech efforts - News & Observer

BELLE PLAINE, Minn. A veterans memorial park in Belle Plaine will soon include a satanic monument among its tributes, as an unintended consequence of a free-speech debate.

The city of Belle Plaine, about 45 miles southwest of the Twin Cities, is allowing the monument in its Veterans Memorial Park after the Freedom from Religion Foundation threatened to sue over another statue that features a soldier praying over a grave marked with a cross. The cross was removed once the issue was raised, but more than 100 residents rallied to put it back.

City Administrator Mike Votca said the city knew it had to include everyone, so it created a free speech area for all as long as the tributes honor veterans.

The memorial from the Satanic Temple in Salem, Mass., features a black cube with inverted pentagrams, a soldiers helmet and a plaque honoring veterans who died in battle.

Doug Mesner is founder of the Satanic Temple and its nonprofit group Reason Alliance. He said the group doesnt worship Satan, but is a nontheistic religious group.

Its certainly better to preserve the First Amendment than to preserve your notions of religious supremacy on public grounds. Thats certainly not what America was founded on and certainly not what our soldiers fought for, he said.

Some residents of this town of about 6,700 felt the citys initial decision to remove the cross was an insult to veterans who sacrificed their lives, and they accused groups like the Satanic Temple of preying on small towns. For nearly a month, protesters occupied the park daily and put their own handmade crosses in the ground.

The residents feel a sense of duty, Andy Parrish, a Belle Plaine resident who led the effort to restore the cross, said at a city council meeting. Our veterans defended us and its our duty to defend them.

While some residents arent fans of the satanic memorial, Parrish said everyone understood something like that was a possibility.

Its more annoying than it is offensive, he said.

See the article here:
MN town set up 'free speech' vets tribute area and got a satanic monument - TwinCities.com-Pioneer Press

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE / campus culture wars May 5, 2017 05/05/2017 3:23 pm By Jesse Singal Share Photo: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

College students, you may have heard, are increasingly opposed to free speech. Especially liberal ones they just cant handle views they disagree with, especially conservative ones. Except: It might be more complicated than that. Thats the takeaway of a new survey of Yale University students who made national headlines for an uproar over a Halloween-costume email back in 2015 summed up by James Freeman in The Wall Street Journal.

The survey was commissioned by the William F. Buckley Jr. Program at Yale, and there were 872 respondents. Freeman, who is on the board of that organization, notes that 72 percent of respondents were opposed to the idea of Yale having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty. And when presented with an either-or question about controversial views, 84% opted for intellectual diversity and just 5% favored muzzling people with controversial views.

Freeman cites this as both good news, from his point of view, and as a novel finding: The first sentence of his column is At last, theres hopeful news on intellectual liberty from a college campus. But this isnt entirely new, even for Yale. Last year, in the course of debunking some claims about how ostensibly anti-free-speech college students are, I highlighted a previous iteration of that same survey of Yale students which found that they generally reported being staunchly supportive of free-speech rights, at least when the question was asked in certain ways (the slide deck I reference doesnt appear to be available online anymore, unfortunately):

Now, surveys are complicated and susceptible to rather wild swings based on question wording, so it would be wrong to cherry-pick any limited set of findings and then make sweeping generalizations about college students these days. Plus, there were some items on the survey where students werent quite so free-speech-friendly. And it goes without saying that what happens at Yale might not be applicable to the rest of the college population.

But whats striking is, zooming out a little, just how little empirical evidence there is to suggest college students differ in big ways from the broader population when it comes to their support for free speech, despite how often we hear confident assertions that campuses are free-speech no-go zones. People clearly think there is a big difference and will sometimes point to survey evidence to support this view, the best recent-ish example being a Pew survey from a year and a half ago finding that 40 percent of students favored government bans on certain forms of offensive speech. I initially covered that finding as though it were alarming, but when I looked around at other past surveys of Americans views on free speech, it was clear that the 40 percent number wasnt an outlier. In other words, as I wrote in a subsequent mea culpa:

Part of whats going on here could come down to preference intensity and opportunity. By which I mean that college students who are in favor of expanding restrictions on free speech might feel relatively more strongly about it than do their pro-free-speech peers, and they have highly visible opportunities to express those views by attempting to no-platform speakers they dont like, or responding assertively to instances of perceived administrator insensitivity. Whenever they do so, of course or whenever they engage in any other act that can be portrayed as yet another instance of out-of-control college activists it gets blown up to the status of a national news story. Twenty years ago, no one would have heard of a small group of Oberlin students protesting about the cultural appropriation of Banh Mi going on at a dining hall there, or about any of the dozen other similar blowups that seem to occur on a monthly basis.

Furthermore, its very hard for stories that buck the trend stories about how most college students arent sent into conniptions by appropriated Banh Mi to get much traction because of the whole dog-bites-man thing: No one wants to write about college students who are acting like everyday American adults with fairly standard views on free speech. So while the phrase silent majority has some unfortunate political baggage affixed to it, it might accurately capture whats going on here. There may not have been much real, substantive movement in the anti-free-speech direction on campus a lot of kids dont see the need to ban or no-platform offensive speakers, but they arent in the streets about it, and may simply not want to bother stating their own views during those instances in which things get out of hand. Because theyre quiet, they dont get much coverage, skewing everyones view of college students as a group.

In Trumps America, Being Sexually Assaulted Could Make Your Health Insurance More Expensive

Why Is Stan Lees Legacy in Question?

Museum Donors Are Pissed Celebs Were Smoking in the Met Gala Bathrooms

This Is What a Modern-Day Witch Hunt Looks Like

Trumpcare Destroys Any Notion That American Conservatism Gives a Damn

Republican Blurts Out That Sick People Dont Deserve Affordable Care

Star Wars Superfan Adam Scott Quivers With Panic and Joy After Being Surprised by Mark Hamill

Exclusive! Sebastian Gorka Leaves a Note for His McDonalds Server

Whats New on Netflix: May 2017

One Personality Trait Predicts Domestic Nudity

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

In the new issue of its magazine, the terror group implores would-be jihadists to take advantage of Americas lax gun laws.

In rough justice for GOP candidate and voting-rights pariah Karen Handel, a judge has extended registration for her runoff contest with Jon Ossoff.

Oh gosh I dont think any individual has read the whole bill.

The Senate Intelligence Committee finally appears to be getting to work.

In 2018 Democrats can take advantage of millennial antipathy toward Donald Trump. But first they must address millennial antipathy toward voting.

Heres why House moderates voted for a more unpopular, right-wing version of a bill that was too unpopular and right-wing for them just weeks ago.

White House: The president didnt mean he loves socialized medicine. Trump: Yes, I really meant it.

Who needs the truth?

A new survey highlights the lack of good empirical evidence to suggest that college students are the free-speech enemies many suppose them to be.

Thats Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D.

While House passage of Trumpcare was essential for GOP plans, Senate concerns and procedures will make the next stage of the debate very different.

The position is not political and firings are extremely rare.

Murders are down about 13 percent compared to this time last year.

Whatever else it means, passage of Trumpcare spells trouble for the House Republicans especially Californians in tough districts who voted for it.

Despite the big bump in hiring, wages remained stagnant.

The presidents Twitter engagement has been on a steady decline since the inauguration.

North Korea accuses America of a lot of things. But this allegation is unusually detailed.

A callous abandonment of the American people.

Albany is considering a bill that would publish the state returns of certain elected officials.

He tells the public one story, while his staff tells the judge another.

Visit link:
What If College Students Have the Same Views on Free Speech As Everyone Else? - New York Magazine

John Kass, Tribune Content Agency 11:44 a.m. CT May 5, 2017

Tensions were high after both President Trump supporters and critics showed up. Veuer's Emily Drooby (@emilydrooby) has the story. Buzz60

Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass(Photo: Bill Hogan)

The lie we were told as kids was this: The end of American liberty would come at the hands of the political right.

Conservatives would take away our right to speak our minds, and use the power of government to silence dissent. The right would intimidate our teachers and professors, and coerce the young.

And then, with the universities in thrall, with control of the apparatus of the state (and the education bureaucracy), the right would have dominion over a once-free people.

Some of us were taught this in school. Others, who couldn't be bothered to read books, were fed a cartoon version of the diabolical conservative in endless movies and TV shows. The most entertaining of these were science fiction, sometimes with vague references to men in brown shirts and black boots goose-stepping in some future time.

Women would become handmaids, subjugated and turned into breeders. And men would be broken as well. The more lurid fantasies offered armies of Luddites in hooded robes, hunting down subversives for the greater good.

But the lie is obvious now, isn't it?

Because it is not conservatives who coerced today's young people or made them afraid of ideas that challenge them. Conservatives did not shame people into silence, or send thugs out on college campuses to beat down those who wanted to speak.

The left did all that.

It's there in front of you, the thuggish mobs of the left killing free speech at American universities. The thugs call themselves antifas, for anti-fascists.

They beat people up and break things and set fires and intimidate. These are not anti-fascists. These are fascists. This is what fascists do.

Some wear masks to cover their faces, or hide bike locks in scarves and swing them at the heads of any who disagree. They're all about intimidation. And intimidation on a national scale, so angry and violent, is a fascist thing of the left.

Many liberals journalists, senators, television comedians and others are properly appalled at what their political children, born of the hard left, have done. Many liberals have warned about this, and so many must wince as the fruits of their labor turn bitter in their mouths.

But they are also complicit, because they've taken advantage of the anger and energy of this hard-left fascism to leverage their own politics. And Democratic operatives still hope to use this emotional frenzy and muscle for political gain in the next elections.

What is the cost for all this?

Free speech, without which there is no republic.

American universities were once thought to be the last great refuge of ideas, where ideas could flourish and be challenged and debated. But today, the university is the place where liberty and ideas go to die.

The American university is where intellectuals with dissenting views are silenced even physically assaulted by mobs. And administrators sit by and watch, afraid to anger those mobs.

What has been the general liberal response to Americans who insist on speaking after being threatened?

Annoyance. The response sounds like this: Hush. Go away. Come back later when it's quiet. Why cause trouble? Shhh.

Right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter has been silenced at Berkeley, where the free speech movement was born. And other intellectuals, including Charles Murray and Heather MacDonald, have been silenced at other colleges, attacked by mobs.

If the left agrees with your views, you may speak. If the left doesn't agree, they will shut you down. This is America now.

Some liberals also have seen their careers ruined by mob rule. Those two professors at Yale, a husband and wife, come to mind. She told Yale students not to worry if some other student wore a sombrero as a Halloween costume, that there were more important things to worry about than political correctness and a student wearing a sombrero.

But a Yale student, a woman, a minority, screamed in response, weeping in hideous self-indulgent theatrics captured on video. And all of this caught fire on the internet and sparked the virtual mob on social media. The professors, the husband and wife, with decent records and obvious care for the intellectual development of their students, were shamed out of Yale.

And all educators across the country took note.

University administrators have made a show of wringing their hands. But they're hypocrites. They're part of this. They are of the same cloth. They allowed this seed to bloom. They watered it, by giving in to the young who demanded a safe space from intellectual challenge.

Safe spaces are not about learning or critical thinking. Safe spaces belong to education camps, where future bureaucrats are trained in the Orwellian shaping of language and the culling of threatening ideas.

The universities molded the federal education bureaucracy, which turned out teachers that shaped the minds of American children. And some of those children are in college now.

Surveys suggest that many young Americans think the First Amendment should be amended so as to not allow offensive speech. So the students have learned their lessons well.

All speech challenging the status quo is offensive to the establishment. And free speech is what American liberty is about.

Unless, of course, you're of the hard left, and can hunt free speech at American universities and crush it.

That's not fiction. That's not fantasy. And it is not a lie. It's happening now, in the United States.

JOHN KASS is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Twitter: @john_kass

Read or Share this story: http://dmreg.co/2p4SARs

Go here to read the rest:
The lies we were told about who would silence free speech - DesMoinesRegister.com