Monthly Archives: June 2017

As Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar said, perhaps ironically, There are no tricks in plain and simple faith.

Only a fool would fail to see the decaying political discourse in America and the sharp partisan divides. These divides in America have become so overt and tense that the arts have become outlets to express partisan anger in an ever-increasingly distasteful manner.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, Madonna spoke of blowing up the White House, Snoop Dogg assassinated a clown resembling Trump in a music video, and Kathy Griffin held up a severed head that resembled President Trump in a photograph, all under the auspices of the resistance. Last week, the Republican baseball team was nearly massacred by a man who clearly had targeted them for their political views. The escalation of both rhetoric and violence should be alarming to any rational citizen.

Over the past weekend, supporters of Trump aimed to directly combat Shakespeare in the Park in New York City, in which Julius Caesar, dressed to resemble Trump, is assassinated on stage. Their tactic? Rushing the stage and interrupting the performance while yelling things such as stop leftist violence! and, Goebbels would be proud!

Their actions did not calm and tone down the rhetoric: they only furthered it. Ironically enough, these same people belong to a base that was vocal and united against campus protesters who employed the same tactics to shut down and harass conservative speakers.

Its worth mentioning that the very same production did the same thing to an actor resembling President Obama, and no public outcry took place. The directors of the play used the modern context of the presidency to illustrate the plays point, although continuing to do so in the wake of last weeks violence was distasteful and unnecessary.

Laura Loomer, the woman who first rushed the stage, claimed on Fox News: I am protecting the presidents life. I am protecting our Constitution. I am using my constitutional right of free speech and protest to protest against the bastardization of Shakespeare.

These claims are as ridiculous as they are false. The Secret Service protects the presidents life, not stage-rushing playgoers. Shakespeare in the Park is a free event, albeit one that requires tickets from its attendees. As a closed event, any interruption cannot be described as an exercise of free speech, but instead an act that infringes on the rights of those who are attending the event.

The producers of the play had already come under immense pressure and were already losing sponsors. By rushing the stage, the narrative switched from the disturbing act of the play, to silly protesters shouting down the play itself in the name of free speech.

Perhaps these protesters should have better studied Julius Caesar. The play portrays the assassination of the historic Roman leader, but focuses on the infighting and strife that ensues among the assassins. The plays tragedy is not Caesar himself, but rather the friendships, and eventually the lives, of those who wished to seize power. It is itself a condemnation of political violence.

In the aftermath of what was obviously a publicity stunt, Loomer used her airtime on Fox News to bash the never-Trumpers who she claimed are unhappy with President Trump being our president.

They havent accepted it and the only way that they would be resolved is if he was eradicated or taken out, she said.

I voted for Trump. Supporting our president and supporting free speech are not mutually exclusive. Americans who chose to not vote for Trump have the same rights to free speech as those who voted for him. The get in line or else mentality on display is the very sort of behavior that fuels the hyperpartisan rhetoric originally at fault.

Fight fire with fire is the mantra these demonstrators have used to defend their actions.

This sort of logic (if you can call it that) is only furthering the downward spiral of political discourse. After the many times the right has claimed to be the champions of free speech, this sort of behavior is unbelievably hypocritical.

Discourse in America, on both sides, is seriously flawed. Taking away others free speech is not the solution. You can fight back with outrage and strength while upholding decency and respecting the rights of others.

Kassy Dillon is the founder of Lone Conservative blog and has appeared on Fox News discussing issues surrounding free speech and cultural issues on college campuses. @KassyDillon

Views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Continued here:
Backing Trump, Shakespeare and free speech (at the same time) - The Hill (blog)

June 23, 2017 11:41 PM By Lemor Abrams

DAVIS (CBS13) It was one of the wildest political showdowns ever at UC Davis; angry students silencing conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos after a standoff between protesters and police officers.

From what I saw the only violence was from the protesters not from Milo, said Graham Everett.

Graham Everett watched from a distance. The international relations major doesnt care for the controversial speaker either but believes in his right to free speech.

I think theres plenty of ways to express yourself that doesnt infringe on someone elses right to free speech, he said. UC Davis officials agree.

Six months after the protest, a group consisting of students and law professors is out with recommendations to ensure future speakers can go on unhindered.

Among them:

That sounds like an overreaction, said another student.

For this grad student, the school should think twice about allowing speech that may incite violence.

I dont think we should have just unregulated speech, said William Swanson.

But school administrators want to make sure even the most controversial speakers are given a platform, especially in a public university.

What kind of institution doesnt allow freedom of thought? said Everett.

The interim Chancellor has asked the schools general counsel to review the recommendations before replacing the current free speech policy.

Twitter: @LemorAbrams Email: labrams@kovr.com Facebook Lemor Abrams is an Emmy-Award winning news reporter, who has interviewed thousands of people, from key political figures to everyday folks who impact their community. Her very f...

Get Our App

Get The CBS Sacramento Weather AppGet the latest radar, CBS13 AppCasts and hour-by-hour forecasts. You can also send your weather pics.

Follow Us On Facebook

About Us

Advertise

Business Development

CBS Television Public File

CBS Radio Public File

Visit link:
In Wake Of Protests, UC Davis Considering New Free Speech Policy - CBS Sacramento

MADISON, Wis University of Wisconsin students who repeatedly disrupt campus speakers or presentations could be suspended or expelled under a Republican-backed bill the state Assembly debated Wednesday.

The measure, expected to be voted on late Wednesday night, is the latest salvo in the national push among some conservatives to crack down on disruptions they say is quelling free speech on liberal college campuses. Conservatives are worried that right-wing speakers aren't given equal treatment as liberal campus presenters, while other students have complained about free expression fanning hate speech.

Democrats, who didn't have the votes to stop the bill in the Assembly, blasted it as an unconstitutional attack on freedom of speech.

"It basically gags and bags the First Amendment," said Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison.

Republican backers told reporters that the bill would protect speech from those who repeatedly try to quash it.

"We have to lay down some groundwork here and we have to create a behavioral shift so everyone can be heard and has the right to express their views," said the measure's sponsor Republican Rep. Jesse Kremer.

The bill must still pass the GOP-controlled Senate and be signed by Gov. Scott Walker before becoming law.

Walker has voiced support for it.

"To me, a university should be precisely the spot where you have an open and free dialogue about all different positions," he said in an April interview with WISN-TV. "But the minute you shut down a speaker, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative or somewhere in between, I just think that's wrong."

The proposal comes in the wake of incidents on college campuses across the country in which protests or threats marred conservative presentations.

Fights broke out at New York University in February after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist. That same month there were protests at the University of California-Berkley ahead of an appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. That school canceled an April speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter due to security concerns. And in November, UW-Madison students shouted down former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro.

Under the Wisconsin bill, two complaints about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another's freedom of expression would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. UW institutions would have to remain neutral on public controversies and the Board of Regents would have to report annually to legislators about incidents.

"You're hoping to neuter the university from having any stance on things," said Democratic Rep. Cory Mason.

The bill is based on a model proposal the conservative Arizona-based Goldwater Institute put together to address campus free-speech issues. Legislation based on the model has been enacted in Colorado, with others being considered in five states, including Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia, according to the institute.

Democrats argue that the measure could open the door to partisan operatives attending speeches and filing complaints against students to get them thrown out of school.

"We are returning, when we do this, to the witch hunt era of Joe McCarthy," said Democratic Rep. Fred Kessler, referring to the former U.S. senator from Wisconsin who made it his mission in the 1950s to identify Communists.

The only group registered in support of the measure is Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy organization. Opponents include a group representing faculty on the flagship UW-Madison campus, the labor union representing UW employees and the League of Women Voters.

See more here:
Wisconsin Assembly debates bill on campus free speech - Fox News

BBC News

Johnny Depp on Donald Trump: Crime or free speech? BBC News Actor Johnny Depp has caused controversy after he appeared to threaten US President Donald Trump at the Glastonbury Festival. "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?" he asked the crowd. It is a crime in the US to make threats ... Johnny Depp Apologizes for Joking About Trump Assassination: 'I Intended No Malice'PEOPLE.com Johnny Depp jokes about killing Donald Trump in Glastonbury appearanceThe Guardian Johnny Depp apologizes for assassination jokeCNN all 582 news articles »

More:
Johnny Depp on Donald Trump: Crime or free speech? - BBC News

Photo: SARAH GIFFROW /AFP /Getty Images

Yes, hate speech is still free speech

With the left feverishly attempting to squash unwelcome speech on college campuses, with the president of the United States musing about tightening libel laws, with prominent liberals asserting that so-called hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, free speech in America at least has one reliable friend the Supreme Court of the United States.

In a firm 8-0 decision, the court slapped down the Patent and Trademark Office for denying a band federal trademark registration for the name The Slants, a derogatory term for Asian-Americans. The case involves a very small corner of federal law but implicates the broader logic of political correctness, which is that speech should be silenced for the greater good if there is a chance that someone, somewhere might be offended by it.

As it happens, The Slants is an Asian-American band that seeks to reclaim and take ownership of anti-Asian stereotypes (it has released albums called The Yellow Album and Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts). This didnt matter to the trademark office any more than it presumably would to the dean of students at the average liberal arts college. The Slants appealed the initial rejection to the trademark office, got rebuffed again and then rightly made a federal case of it.

The litigation hinged on a provision of federal trademark law referred to as the disparagement clause. This clause forbids registration for any trademark which may disparage persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute. Taken literally, this provision would forbid the disparagement of the KKK, an institution; or Benito Mussolini, a person who is dead; or Vladimir Putin, a person who is living.

The trademark office interprets the clause with all the wisdom youd expect of a federal bureaucracy. As the trademark offices manual puts it, an examiner determines whether or not the mark would be found disparaging by a substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group.

So, merely a plurality of the offended will do, and common sense is no defense: The fact that an applicant may be a member of that group or has good intentions underlying its use of a term does not obviate the fact that a substantial composite of the referenced group would find the term objectionable.

This is classic safe-space reasoning the harm that would allegedly befall some portion of a group from encountering an offending trademark should trump the free-speech rights of the likes of The Slants. The court utterly rejected this posture, deeming it inimical to a free society and untenable under the U.S. Constitution.

In a passage that should be pasted into the student handbook of every college and read aloud by progressives who have convinced themselves that hate speech is not free speech, the court held, Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

As the courts concurring opinion noted, basing the trademark prohibition on the presumed reactions of an offended group doesnt help a speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise.

The practices of the Patent and Trademark Office obviously arent the most significant grounds for contention over speech. But the disparagement clause was the wedge that activists were trying to use to force the Washington Redskins to change the NFL teams name (the team has been fighting the cancellation of its trademark in court). And every effort by the speech police to spread their operations from college campuses to the wider society must be resisted.

In this case, they came for a self-described Chinatown Dance Rock band with a cheeky name, and the Supreme Court said, Sorry, not in America.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

View post:
Yes, hate speech is still free speech - mySanAntonio.com

A spate of terrorist attacks has hit Europe in the past month, not only in Manchester and London but also in Paris and Brussels, where incidents this week were mercifully terminated before they could do any real damage. In Britain, a man seeking vengeance rammed a van into a crowd exiting a mosque, giving rise to real and justified fears of an anti-Muslim backlash. The incidents have left the Continent, and especially Britain, in a state of nervous agitation, fearful of a prolonged period of social unrest and heightened tensions between Muslim communities and their secular neighbors.

On the issue of free speech, the response from authorities has been sad but predictable. Reports the New York Times: In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion, and incitement to racism. Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement. In Sussex, in southern England, a man has been charged with publishing written material intending to stir up religious hatred against Muslims on his Facebook account in 2015; he faces a year in prison. The Sussex police say they hope the lengthy sentence will deter those looking to spread messages of fear and hate on the Internet.

There are two things that come to mind in the wake of this suppression. The first is that Americans should never forget the value of free speech. Free speech not its anodyne, Continental form is by and large a uniquely American institution. It simply does not exist in Europe. Those who yearn for an America that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their mind always.

The second thing to say is that the crackdown on free speech is not occurring in absentia. The ongoing suppression interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other domains of policy and public debate. The most important of those decisions is that politicians and the culture more broadly have chosen not to inquire into the specifically Islamic roots of terrorism. To decline to blame Muslims en masse for terrorism is well and good and should continue. But the unwillingness to ask how Islam may provide a wellspring of justification for terrorist actions is harder to rationalize. It comes with a certain set of implications and corollaries.

Because someone still has to be blamed. Humans are incapable of accepting acts of terrorism or just about any human action that causes mass suffering as quasi-random acts governed by processes too byzantine for us to understand. We still feel the need to pin the blame on somebody or something, so that through punishment we may eradicate the chance of another attack.

In this case, the refusal to query the role of Islam in inspiring terrorism a refusal regarding which my argument is agnostic has directed the blame in the opposite direction, toward those people who make it their business to propagate their hatred of Islam and those who follow it. Not only does this blame-shifting fulfill the political need to shore up Britains international image nobody likes a country of racists and display the requisite concern for Muslim communities. It also fulfills the psychological need to force someone anyone to take responsibility for the heinous crimes.

In fact an entire ideology, that of right-wing xenophobia and racism, can be blamed, and its proponents punished. The energies that might have been directed toward Wahhabi extremism flow instead toward the elimination of an ideology expressing similar hatred but boasting considerably less power to incite actual violence. The logic motivating this suppression is precisely the one that authorities neglect to use in the case of Islam: that certain sorts of rhetoric, however anonymous and innocuous, have a radicalizing effect on the environment and can effect physical violence; therefore they must be prohibited.

That strategy is likely only to backfire. Responding to a terrorist attack by jailing entirely innocent men they are nearly all men who express unappealing and unwelcome views does little more than radicalize the opposition and reduce the size of the acceptable center ground. When a government tells its citizens that they may not hold certain views, those views do not fancifully dissipate; rather, they come to be articulated only by their most radical proponents, thereby polarizing the political climate and stifling the expression of more-moderate and constructive opinions. Had the present system of legal enforcement existed in the 1960s, Enoch Powell may well have faced prison time for his infamous rivers of blood speech. But that would not detract from the attraction of his ideas, or from their popularity: It would only ensure that they became the property of characters far more unsavory.

But that it will backfire does not mean it cannot do its damage. The terms in which the authorities conducting widespread suppression of free speech emanating largely from the right are jarring. Our society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence, and violence either on the street or on the Internet, says the president of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. That would not sound out of place in an Orwell novel, not only for its totalitarian mindset but also for its absurd juxtaposition with the situation on the ground: Idiots spewing their vile thoughts on Facebook are conflated with Islamic terrorists killing hundreds.

Europe has responded to the rise of terror with the tactics of suppression. That these tactics wont work will become obvious soon enough. But until then, there is plenty of reason to fear.

READ MORE: Normalizing Terror Is Worse than Overreacting to It London Attacks Followed the Same Old Stale Arguments Lessons from Norther Ireland

Noah Daponte-Smith is a student of modern history and politics at Yale University and an editorial intern at National Review.

Read more here:
Europe's Free-Speech Crackdown: Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore Terrorists - National Review