Daily Archives: July 21, 2017

The University of California, Berkeley's decision to block another conservative lecture, this time featuring popular author Ben Shapiro, rightfully sparked a fresh round of disgust among free speech advocates on Wednesday.

The school is under heavy fire from conservatives for a series of First Amendment controversies that unfolded over the course of the last school year, even facing a lawsuit from Young America's Foundation and the Berkeley College Republicans over Ann Coulter's canceled lecture in April. Between the riots that blocked Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking and the university's decision to cancel Coulter's lecture, Berkeley has become a high-profile battleground of the contemporary campus speech movement.

During a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the school in his remarks decrying the state of free speech in higher education. In response, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., ardently defended her state's flagship university.

"I know of no effort at Berkeley, at the University of California, to stifle student efforts to speech," she said at the time, continuing, "And if there is a specific effort, I would certainly appreciate it if people brought that to my attention."

Ben Shapiro is happy to help.

"If there is no effort to stifle free speech at Berkeley," Shapiro responded in an email to the Washington Examiner, "why has Berkeley failed to protect Milo Yiannopoulos' event, cancelled Ann Coulter's event, and now makes excuses about lack of availability for a speech already cleared by the College Republicans?"

"If Feinstein is so unconcerned about this, she should push her fellow Democrats in California to sponsor legislation requiring the suspension or expulsion of students who utilize violence to prevent others' free speech," he concluded.

Easy enough. But will the senator agree?

In a statement to Young America's Foundation (my previous employer), the organization set to sponsor his lecture, Shapiro indicated he won't accept the university's excuses. "Using ridiculous pretexts to keep conservatives from speaking is unsurprising but disappointing. We'll find a way to get this event done, and UC Berkeley has a moral and legal obligation to ensure we do so," he declared.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Excerpt from:
Thanks to blocked lecture, Ben Shapiro has a message about free speech for Berkeley defender Dianne Feinstein - Washington Examiner

There is a cartoon making the rounds on Facebook accompanied by comments announcing that Rick Friday, the cartoonist who drew the panel, had been fired by The Farm News, a Fort Dodge, Iowa, publication, after 21 years on the job.

The cartoon depicts two guys in bib overalls standing at a fence row. One of them says, I wish there was more profit in farming and the second guy says, There is. In the year 2015, the CEOs of Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer and John Deere combined made more money than 2,129 Iowa farmers.

Not exactly knee-slappingly funny, but apparently the companies named in the cartoon are also big advertisers with The Farm News.

The posting quotes the fired cartoonist as saying, When it comes to altering someones opinion or someones voice for the purpose of wealth, I have a problem with that. Its our constitutional right to free speech and our constitutional right to free press.

Although I can understand Fridays frustration at being let go, his objection that being fired is a violation of his constitutional rights of free speech and a free press shows a remarkable ignorance about those rights.

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment says that the government cannot pass laws prohibiting cartoonists from making fun of companies, but with respect to its employees, The Farm News can and is completely within its rights to fire the cartoonist.

The First Amendment outlines a relationship between the government and the people, not between a publishing enterprise and its employees. The management of The Farm News has an obligation to its owners and employees to maintain the financial integrity of the company. When one employees behavior threatens the finances of the company, management may discipline or even terminate the employee without violating his freedom of speech and press rights.

The constitutional protections of speech and press freedom do not guarantee that people may express themselves any way they want. You cannot post on the company bulletin board a notice declaring that the boss is an imbecile and then expect to be protected from being disciplined or fired because of your First Amendment rights. There is nothing in the Constitution compelling companies to spend advertising money in a particular publication, nor is there any provision in the First Amendment that requires a particular company to employ someone.

The government may not constrain Friday from drawing and having his cartoons published, but his employers are within their rights to fire him without violating his First Amendment rights.

Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who refused to stand for the National Anthem last year, was completely within his rights not to stand. However, just like Kaepernicks relation with the NFL, Fridays dismissal from The Farm News is not a violation of his First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from silencing individuals and the press in most cases, but it is silent on work arrangements voluntarily entered into between both employees and management.

The Farm News has since rehired Rick Friday.

http://www.myjournalcourier.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/web1_web-freespeech.jpg

Jacksonville resident Jay Jamison writes each Friday for this page.

.

Read the original post:
Commentary: Free speech far from free - Jacksonville Journal Courier

DENVER | Education Secretary Betsy DeVos offered a reminder Thursday to state legislators frustrated by protests shutting down free speech at public universities: You control the purse strings.

Ms. DeVos, who delivered her remarks at the American Legislative Exchange Council annual meeting, said that we all have a role to play in reversing the trend toward campus intolerance, which has been manifested in recent years with the muzzling of conservative speakers and viewpoints.

For state legislators, you have the power of the purse, she said. And I wouldnt hope to suggest how you might approach that, but I think that really bringing some of the most egregious examples to the forefront we all have the opportunity to use our bully pulpits to talk about these things and bring light to places of darkness where speech is not being allowed to be free and open and heard.

Her comments came with state lawmakers increasingly exasperated by campus melees, including last semesters University of California, Berkeley rioting and the student takeover at Evergreen State College, driven by students unwilling to brook dissenting opinions.

Let me say I think this is a really, really important issue, one that has become even more important in the last couple of years, said Ms. DeVos. We have seen in far too many cases an intolerance toward listening to and at least hearing from others that have different perspectives than ours.

State lawmakers have begun to react. In Washington, a pair of Republican legislators introduced bills in June to defund Evergreen State and transform it into a private college.

For those who might find such a solution extreme, ALEC unveiled last month the Forming Open and Robust University Minds Act (FORUM), a piece of model legislation aimed at reopening debate on increasingly close-minded campuses.

The model policy eliminates campus free-speech zones, reaffirms First Amendment rights, allows those whose free speech rights may have been violated to bring causes of action and requires free speech education for students as well as administrators and campus police.

The measure also empowers legislators to hold universities accountable by requiring each institution to report on free speech issues prior to the legislatures appropriations process.

Shelby Emmett, director of ALECs Center to Protect Free Speech, said the proposed policy differs from others that require free speech education only for incoming freshmen.

Obviously, theres a problem with free speech on campus well before freshmen arrive if you have administrators or campus police officers who think you can detain or arrest or suspend a student because they passed out a Constitution, said Ms. Emmett. I think its easy to go after the students, but this is a cultural problem.

The focus today lies with progressive students suppressing conservatives, but this is not at all a political issue, said Ms. Emmett.

This happens on both sides, she said. It goes back and forth. Free speech is one of those things where people say they love it until they dont love it.

Universities have seen their reputations take a hit as a result of their apparent opposition to conservative views.

A survey released last week by the Pew Research Center found 58 percent of Republicans believe higher education has a negative effect on the nation, compared with just 36 percent who say the effect is positive.

The reverse was true two years ago, when 54 percent of Republicans found higher education positive and 37 percent said it was negative.

In between those two surveys, there have been massive student demonstrations, notably the campus shutdown in 2015 at the University of Missouri, as well as incidents at private institutions such as Yale University and Claremont McKenna College.

Ms. DeVos can speak from personal experience: In May students booed and interrupted her graduation address at Bethune-Cookman University in Orlando, Florida.

The education secretary typically draws a protest crowd driven by teachers unions wherever she speaks, but there were no demonstrators Thursday outside the Hyatt Regency Denver for her ALEC address.

The day before she arrived, however, several hundred foes of her school choice agenda held a rally at the state capitol and then marched to the Hyatt Regency, chanting resist and holding signs with messages like ALEC Leave Our Kids Alone!

The marchers were greeted by ALEC staffers who passed out water bottles in the nearly 100-degree heat. The message on the water bottles: Quenching your thirst for free speech.

Thats perfect, said Ms. DeVos.

Free speech is a very important issue, and one which I plan to continue to talk and speak out about, and I hope all of you who have opportunities to do that in your states will do the same, she said. Because the value of hearing and learning from others is an invaluable, invaluable thing.

Link:
DeVos urges state legislators to take on foes of campus free speech - Washington Times

TheBlaze.com

Berkeley's First Free Speech Debate of 2017-18 Inside Higher Ed Sure, it's still summer. But the University of California, Berkeley, site of intense debates over free speech and campus security during the last academic year, is being hit with the first such debate for the coming academic year. Young America's ... No, Cal Isn't Blocking the Ben Shapiro SpeechCALIFORNIA Now UC Berkeley will ensure conservative Ben Shapiro can speak on campus, will even waive venue feesTheBlaze.com Ben Shapiro to UC-Berkeley: 'This Bullsh*t Will NOT Stand'PJ Media all 6 news articles »

Read the original here:
Berkeley's First Free Speech Debate of 2017-18 - Inside Higher Ed

Conservative college students are getting more than just a four-year degree when they graduate. They're also getting a top-notch education in the persecution tactics and overt discrimination of their left-leaning peers.

Members of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC), who met last month in the nation's capital, were exposed to ideas and tactics that will prepare them for the political battles theyll likely continue to face during their working careers.

Panelists discuss leftwing attacks on conservative free speech on America's college campuses at the recent meeting of the College Republican National Committee. Photo by Rachael Herbert-Varchetto

The day's best-attended panel, Free Speech on Campus, featured Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom, Grant Strobl of Young Americans for Freedom, Benji Backer of Conservatives for Energy Reform and Alex Staudt of Young Americans for Liberty.

Mattox opened the session by explaining why free speech is vital.

It matters that your free-speech rights are being violated, he said. You have ideas you want to get out there, and you want to be able to express those ideas. The other big problem that we're seeing is that [leftist students] are not going to stay on campus. The reality is, whatever lessons you're learning right now about how the First Amendment works, the things they're learning are lessons they are going to apply outside.

You have ideas you want to get out there, and you want to be able to express those ideas. Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending FreedomBacker built on that thought by explaining that the liberal students squelching speech now will go on to become teachers of children, members of Congress, entrepreneurs and community leaders throughout the country.

Free speech zones are dangerous for the country, and even the fact that we have free speech zones is dangerous for the country, Backer said in response to the restrictive practice of limiting conservatives to small, out-of-the-way places to protest or hand out materials. The campus is telling you, You can have this little piece of America and the rest of it is controlled by us. We need to make sure this is not happening on college campuses.

Alex Smith, national chair of the College Republican National Committee, corroborated the experiences of the panel.

If you're a conservative organization, they'll find any reason to shut down your table, shut down your event, Smith said. You didn't check the right box off on the paperwork, so therefore we have to cancel the event with 400 people because you didn't do the right thing.

All four panelists agreed that conservative students must use the law and follow it to the letter to catch administrators in the act with their own paperwork and legalese. They alsosaid that students should use social media to share their experiences, and should join student senates and governing organizations within their schools in order to change the narrative by continuing to act as a sane voice.

Staudt recommended tipping off local media to any ridiculous restrictions and aggression by administrators. In addition, he reminded attendees about the power of a unified letter signed by student organizations to oppose such restrictions. Between private and publicly funded institutions, students must also be wary of the fine print in their student handbooks, which can differ vastly regardingwhat is tolerated and what isnt.

During the discussion, students around the room told of varied experiences with discriminationsome hadnt experienced any issues, while others had dealt with intimidation or aggression. Two students spoke anonymously on concerns of being targeted or having legal action taken against them. One student stated that at Rutgers University after the presidential election, students and professors appeared morose, consoling each other at sympathy events to recover from the shock of President Donald Trumps win.

A second student alleged during a Q&A session with former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich that the reason she had been suspended from her sorority was for working as a campaign volunteer for Trump's team last fall. That revelation came from fellow sisters, who spoke quietly to her after sorority leadership failed to give a substantial reason for the dismissal.

The troubling trend to stifle speech now includes citing security concerns, according to Smith. Colleges and universities will sometimes say that a conservative event must be canceled because campus security is unable to ensure the safety of the students, or, in other cases, demand College Republican chapters pay fees for security to ensure the event goes on.

If you're a liberal student or liberal organization, you get more leeway from administrators to do what you want. Alex Smith, national chair of the College Republican National CommitteeThese are the weapons that are used against conservative students by and large, she explained. If you're a liberal student or liberal organization, you get more leeway from administrators to do what you want.

Campuses have always been liberal, but they were never as hostile or violent as they are for center-right groups, especially College Republicans," Smith added. After the 2016 election, it was polarizing. We've seen a huge backlash against conservative students. College Republicans were feeling threatened on campus for wearing a T-shirt or holding a meeting.

Attendee Alana Heines explained that during the election fallout, her college handed out tissues to students who suffered severe emotional distress. Another student, Kaitlyn Lee, was verbally accosted the day after the election. Her professor at the time stood in front of the class discussing the results. Speaking up, Lee stated that the students should try to maintain a peaceful and respectful manner while speaking their minds, regardless of their political stances. A classmate screamed at her from across the room, You're wrong! Later, the professor apologized to Lee, hoping the encounter would not make her feel as though she could not safely express her opinions during their instructional time.

Smith believes a large portionof the silencing efforts constitutesan organized plan by shadowy individuals such as George Soros with the capability to influence generations and systems.

In terms of what the goal is, some of it is people in schools, sometimes its just liberal administrators who are trying to get across their ideology to a susceptible group of students, Smith said. In other cases you see big-money figures like Soros and Tom Steyer. In some cases, its just a deep-seated hatred for conservatives.

Free Speech on Campuss Mattox had one of the pithiest lessons to share with the students. If you're spending all your time talking about draining the swamp in Washington, D.C., and not about the swamp in your student affairs office, then you're missing the boat, Mattox said.

In addition to the panel discussion, students at the gathering were treated to visits from Sean Spicer, White House press secretary; Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos; and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Rachael Herbert-Varchetto is the Assistant Editor for Americas 1stFreedom magazine at NRA Publications. A proud Hoosier, she lives and works in Virginia.

Read the original:
Battling The Free Speech Assault On Conservative College Students - America's 1st Freedom (press release) (blog)

Ads That Perpetuate Gender Stereotypes Will Be Banned in U.K., but Not in the Good Ol USA! reads a recent headline on the website Jezebel. Yay to the good ol USA for continuing to value the fundamental right of free expression, you might say. Or maybe not.

Why would a feminist or anyone, for that matter celebrate the idea of empowering bureaucrats to decide how we talk about gender stereotypes? Because these days, foundational values mean less and less to those who believe hearing something disagreeable is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Sometimes you need a censor, this Jezebel writer points out, because nefarious conglomerates like Big Yogurt have been targeting women for decades. She and the British, apparently dont believe that women have the capacity to make consumer choices or the inner strength to ignore ads peddling probiotic yogurts.

This is why the U.K. Committee of Advertising Practice (and, boy, it takes a lot of willpower not to use the clich Orwellian to describe a group that hits it on the nose with this kind of ferocity) is such a smart idea. It will ban, among others, commercials in which family members create a mess, while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up, ones that suggest that an activity is inappropriate for a girl because it is stereotypically associated with boys, or vice versa, and ones in which a man tries and fails to perform simple parental or household tasks.

If you believe this kind of thing is the bailiwick of the state, its unlikely you have much use for the Constitution. Im not trying to pick on this one writer. Acceptance of speech restrictions is a growing problem among millennials and Democrats. For them, opaque notions of fairness and tolerance have risen to overpower freedom of expression in importance.

You can see it with TV personalities like Chris Cuomo, former Democratic-party presidential hopeful Howard Dean, mayors of big cities, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is Senator Dianne Feinstein arguing for hecklers vetoes in public-university systems. Its major political candidates arguing that open discourse gives aid and comfort to our enemies.

If its not Big Yogurt, its Big Oil or Big SomethingorOther. Democrats have for years campaigned to overturn the First Amendment and ban political speech because of fairness. This position and its justifications all run on the very same ideological fuel. Believe it or not, though, allowing the state to ban documentaries is a bigger threat to the First Amendment than President Donald Trumps tweets mocking CNN.

Its about authoritarians like Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University and research professor at the American Bar Foundation, who argues in favor of censorship in a major newspaper, the Los Angeles Times. She claims that hate speech should be restricted, and that racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies. Nearly every censor in the history of mankind has argued that speech should be curbed to balance out some harmful consequence. And nearly every censor in history, sooner or later, kept expanding the definition of harm until the rights of his political opponents were shut down.

You can see where this is going by checking out Europe. Dismiss slippery-slope arguments if you like, but in Germany, where hate speech has been banned, police have raided the homes of 36 people accused of posting illegal content. A law was passed last month in Germany that says that social-media companies could face fines of millions of dollars for failure to remove hate speech within 24 hours. When debates about immigration are at the forefront in Germany, the threat to abuse these laws is great.

In England, a man was recently sentenced to more than a year in prison after being found guilty for stirring up religious hatred with a stupid post on Facebook. There are hate-crimes cops who not only hunt down citizens who say things deemed inappropriate but also implore snitches to report the vulgar words of their fellow citizens.

When I was young, liberals would often offer some iteration of the quote misattributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. This was typically in defense of artwork that was offensive to Christians or bourgeoisie types a soiled painting of Mary, a bad heavy-metal album, whatnot.

You dont hear much of that today. Youre more likely to hear I disapprove of what you say, so shut up. Idealism isnt found in the notions of enlightenment but in identity and indignation. And if you dont believe this demand to mollycoddle every notion on the left portends danger to freedom of expression, you havent been paying attention.

David Harsanyi is a senior editor of the Federalist and the author of The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. 2017 Creators.com

Read more from the original source:
Left & Free Speech New Danger | National Review - National Review