Monthly Archives: July 2017

Grant Strobl Published 10:48 p.m. ET July 4, 2017 | Updated 10:48 p.m. ET July 4, 2017

The Michigan Daily editorial not only has a perverted understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence but also ignores the University of Michigans current policy, Strobl writes.(Photo: John T. Greilick / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

The Michigan Daily recently published an editorial voicing opposition to two free speech bills pending in the Michigan Senate on the grounds that hecklers should be allowed to veto speech.

The editorial not only has a perverted understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence, but also ignores the University of Michigans current policy.

The Michigan Daily is wrong to suggest that our Constitution does not protect the right to listen to a speech classified as freedom of speech. In less confusing words, students have no right to listen to speech.

This is absurd. Public university facilities are considered limited public forums, meaning they cannot discriminate based upon viewpoint. Constitutionally, administrators must provide equal access to campus facilities for all students. They have an obligation to protect the freedom of expression of speakers sponsored by student groups in university venues. When the university allows hecklers to veto speech of only one viewpoint, they are de facto suppressing speech based on content.

In fact, the University of Michigan has a policy Standard Practice Guide 601.1 on Freedom of Speech and Artistic Expression to protect the free speech rights of speakers and the students hosting them. That policy states, when hecklers try to subvert a speech on campus, the effect is just as surely an attack on freedom of speech or artistic expression as the deliberate suppression or prohibition of a speaker or artist by authorities. Hecklers subverting an event, according to existing University of Michigan policy, can also be removed.

Although some sections of Standard Practice Guide 601.1 need improvement, the policy is largely sound free speech policy.

The editorial also wrongly supports the university for allowing Black Lives Matter activists students and outsiders alike to subvert a Michigan Political Union debate. The university should have abided by its policy and removed the protesters who prevented the event from occurring as planned. Instead, university leaders stood silently as hundreds of protesters invaded and shut down the scheduled debate. This is why there are needed improvements to Standard Practice Guide 601.1, and why the State of Michigan needs to take further action to protect speech on campuses statewide.

The Michigan Daily ends its editorial by implying that the two Senate bills uphold free speech for speakers, but not for students. Their argument suggests that speakers exist on campus against the will of the students. This could not be further from the truth. Liberal student groups host leftist speakers without interruption, but when students hosts a conservative speaker, then it is okay to veto speech.

This mentality is antithetical to free speech and the mission of the University of Michigan. This is exactly the reason why Michigans legislators must act to ensure free speech for all students.

Michigan universities should be forced to remove disruptors who unduly interfere with events held by student groups, regardless of speakers viewpoints. When the radicals break the law, they should face the consequences. It is imperative to prevent situations in Michigan, like those at the University of California, Berkeley, where campus police have issued stand-down orders for protests against conservative speakers and have outright denied conservative student groups access to university venues.

Young Americas Foundation is currently suing Berkeley to secure the free speech, due process, and equal protection rights of students.

The two proposed bills, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Colbeck, will help protect students right to free speech and expression on campus, conservative and liberal alike. As a side benefit, if enforced, the two laws just might save taxpayers thousands of dollars in attorneys fees to defend future violations of free speech on campus.

Grant Strobl is the national chairman of Young Americans for Freedom.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tKjQpk

Read this article:
Column: UM paper should support free speech - Detroit News - The Detroit News

This Fourth of July, many solemnly salute our nations independence, but for 91 years, satire and parody have ruled the Ancient and Horribles Parade in Chepachet.

Even the parades name is a spoof on the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the nations oldest chartered military organization. Parade floats take aim at local and national politics, with costumes and flashy signs.

Last year, the Parade sparked controversy when a local landscaping company included the Confederate Flag on its float. But parade chair Mike DeGrange says the event is a celebration of free speech.

Its a good side. Its a bad side. Its all sides of freedom of speech. DeGrange said.

Just what issues the floats will take on this year are a mystery until the day of the parade.

Controversy aside, DeGrange said the parade faces shrinking numbers of sponsorships and volunteers.

Hopefully well be getting more volunteers and more donations. And if we do that, I hope it continues the way it is keeps on going for a very long time, DeGrange said.

Read the original here:
Freedom Of Speech Reigns At The Ancient And Horribles Parade - Rhode Island Public Radio

I long for the days of perspective. When a wise voice could step to the fore with a calm, reasoned approach; when common sense prevailed and a settling demeanor won the day.

That's what I kept thinking recently after reading what later turned out to be yet another politically-charged, wildly inaccurate story in one of our nation's leading newspapers. It was opinion masquerading as straight news, only giving fodder to the term Fake News which is so prevalent today.

Richland Source managing editor Larry Phillips

The topics span from politics to news to religion to pollution to sports to the weather and beyond. There are polarizing, extreme opinions in all of them. You think LeBron James is great? Obviously you are spitting at Michael Jordan, or vice-versa, right?

Too often I've blamed social media for this distressing landscape where so many run to their echo chamber. Others of my generation have blamed the younger generation, following an incredibly consistent and equally ignorant tradition that dates to the dawn of time.

Unfortunately, we're all wrong.

Perspective has rarely been part of the equation in the United States since the Founding Fathers put pen strokes to the Constitution, and well before that.

As a history minor in college, I've often found comfort and answers to today's questions in yesterday's newspapers, magazines, TV shows, movies and books. The older I get the less patient I become with those who repeat mistakes we've seen so many times in history.

But the truth is knee-jerk evaluations and stubborn, wrong-headed thinking are simply the residue of freedom of speech. Thank goodness it's a right, one we all enjoy. Yet there's a price for it.

I especially enjoy the way writer Aaron Sorkin put it during his 1995 movie The American President.

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad 'cause it's gonna put up a fight," said Michael Douglas in his portrayal of fictional president Andrew Shepard. "It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

It has always been this way. Perspective has too often been locked in a closet with time the only key.

You think politics are nasty today? At least Trump and Hillary didn't pull pistols on each other. Yes, we've had national political rivals do exactly that.

The hottest Broadway musical of the day is Hamilton, based on the life and times of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton. Spoiler Alert, Hamilton's incredible political career ended far too early. He died on July 12, 1804 at age 47 (or 49 depending on your preferred source) after a political feud led to a rash pistol duel with vice president Aaron Burr.

Unfortunately, that's not an outlier. Ever heard of the Civil War?

Ah, those were the days, when slavery was clearly wrong. Everyone can agree with that, right?

Hardly.

Contrary to popular opinion today, Abraham Lincoln was not beloved in his lifetime. His critics were everywhere. Much of the press despised him, and teed off at the slightest provocation. Sound familiar?

When Lincoln, a Republican, delivered his landmark speech at Gettysburg, it was immediately ripped by the Chicago Times, a Democratic, pro-slavery newspaper with ties to the president's former political rival Stephen A. Douglas. The Chicago Times reporter covering Lincoln's Gettysburg Address filed this masterpiece of a sentence, which has long lived in journalism infamy:

"The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flab, dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the president of the United States."

How would you like to have your byline attached to that review of what is generally considered one of, if not the greatest speech in U.S. history? That's a 154-year-old embarrassment, and the count will continue as long as students are taught those eloquent words.

My father worked as a barber and owned a bar among other business interests. He had a standing rule in all of his establishments: Never discuss politics or religion. You're not going to change anyone's mind. You're only going to make someone mad. You will lose customers.

He wasn't trying to convert anyone. He had no political interest. He simply wanted his business to succeed.

We can't operate that way in the media. We shouldn't if we're going to hold our public officials responsible for our tax money and trust.

However, there's a difference between being a watchdog and being an instigator. I sigh at our lack of perspective in identifying that difference today. I see far too many examples of our refusal to learn the lessons of past failures from our country's brief, glorious, tumultuous history.

But the truth is we've had few examples of perspective through the years.

It's not the fault of social media, or the Baby Boomers or Gen X, Gen Y, Gen Z, or the Millennials. It's not the I-Phone or text messaging, radio, TV, newspapers, chat rooms or the internet.

It's all of us. This is the price we pay for freedom of speech. It's a love-hate relationship. Long may it live.

But it will be a lot easier to live with if we can find room for that elusive element of perspective that has evaded us for far too long.

See the article here:
From Lincoln to LeBron, freedom of speech defeats perspective - Richland Source