Monthly Archives: August 2017

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The quotationincorrectly attributed to the French enlightenment writer Voltairesums up the American ideal of free speech. The basic idea is that, in order for freedom to flourish, people of good will must protect even repulsive speechup to and including pornography, racism, sexism, bigotry, and in some cases, generalized calls to violence. Free speech must be universal, the argument goes. If Nazis are not able to speak, we will all be silenced.

This principle was sorely tested over the weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Nazis were permitted to march and speak. The result was not more freedom for all. Instead, the march ended, predictably, in horrific violence. One of the people attending the white supremacist march drove his car into a crowd of peaceful counter-protestors, killing a woman named Heather Heyer and seriously wounding many others. Letting Nazis congregate didnt allow others to speak; it silenced at least one person forever. Defending fascists right to speak their minds resulted in the death of someone else. The violence in Charlottesville bleakly suggests that free speech absolutismwithout anti-fascismleads to less free speech for all, not more.

Free speech defenders vigorously reject the suggestion that, as an ideology, free speech absolutism may fail in some situations. The American Civil Liberties Union has a long history of defending neo-Nazis right to hold marches and rallies. In line with that tradition, the ACLU of Virginia came to the defense of Unite the Right organizer Jason Kessler and prevented the city of Charlottesville from moving the site of the rally from Emancipation Park, despite the citys safety concerns. The ACLUs legal position prompted a board member to resign. It also led many on social media to suggest that the ACLU had paved the way for fascist violence.

Constitutional lawyer and Intercept founder Glenn Greenwald responded by reiterating the tenets of free speech absolutism in his usual polemical style. Purporting to oppose fascism by allowing the state to ban views it opposes is like purporting to oppose human rights abuses by mandating the torture of all prisoners, he declared. Fascism believes in suppressing free speech, he argued; therefore suppressing free speech of Nazis is actually cosigning fascism. Courts rely on legal precedents, Greenwald says. If the ACLU had failed to stand up for neo-Nazis protesting in Charlottesville, the next time marginalized people wanted to march, they could be silenced by the state. We defend the rights of those with views we hate in order to strengthen our defense of the rights of those who are most marginalized and vulnerable in society.

This is certainly a logical and coherent argument. But logical and coherent arguments dont always pan out in practice. Does defending the right of people to spout hateful views consistently protect the marginalized? Writer and activist Julia Serano points out in a Medium post that as a young adult, she could not tell people she was trans because of the likelihood that she would be greeted with freely expressed bigotry and hate. Of course, I technically had free speech, but that doesnt count for much if speaking your mind is likely to result in you being bombarded with epithets, losing your job, being ostracized by your community, and possibly other forms of retribution, she writes. Any unmoderated comments thread on the internet provides similar evidence that free speech for all often means silence for a few. Hateful, bigoted speech, if left unchecked, leaves marginalized people feeling vulnerable and endangeredfor good reason. If you let people spew bile, the folks at whom they spew bile will leave. Youll be left with a safe space for hateful speech in which the only speech on offer is hate.

Free speech absolutism also elides the issue of race. Neo-Nazis may be expressing hated views, but they are still white, and law enforcement, the courts, and the state will treat them accordingly. In Ferguson in 2014, mostly black anti-racist protestors were met with an overwhelmingly militarized response; 155 people were arrested. In Charlottesville, by contrast, despite numerous incidents of violence, police arrested only four people.

Defending free speech rights absent a specific commitment to anti-biogtry and anti-racism is meaningless. Mariame Kaba, founder of Project NIA and an anti-prison activist, noted on Ttwitter that these convos about civil liberties are completely divorced from the realities of living Black in the U.S.Civil liberties and individual rights have different meanings for different groups of people. In a context where black people are denied basic rights and freedom as a group, black people have focused on our collective rights over our individual liberties.As a people, weve always known it is impossible for us to exercise our individual rights within a context of more generalized social, economic, and political oppression. A supposedly color-blind approach to free speech just ends up reinforcing the status quo whereby the state default is to arrest non-violent black people and lets violent white people walk free.

Internationally, its clear that free speech absolutism and defending Nazis is not the only option for people who want to create a just and free society. Germany uses anti-hate speech laws to prosecute people who make bigoted and xenophobic statements. These laws are sometimes used against other kinds of speech too; Germany is not a perfect utopian society. But non-Nazi protestors in the US regularly face draconian punishments as well. If the ACLU had decided not to support the right of Nazis to march wherever they wanted, regardless of safety threat, would the US really descend into (more of a) nightmare dystopia? Im skeptical.

Free speech absolutism is a faith. Though people marshal pragmatic arguments on its behalf, the real argument is a moral one. The ACLU and Greenwald are committed to free speech for all because free speech is their most important idealit is the good thing from which equality, freedom, and all other good things flow.

For people who see themselves as anti-racists and anti-fascists first, however, the insistence that free speech will save us all rings somewhat hollow after this weekend. Given limited energy and resources, maybe defending the rights of violent bigots isnt the noble choice in every caseespecially when those bigots predictably use their platform to silence others. Free speech absolutists insist that free speech is the foundation of anti-fascism. But maybe anti-fascism is the basis of true free speechin which case, defending the speech of bigots can, at least in some cases, leave us all less free.

Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Go here to read the rest:
The case against free speech for fascists - Quartz

wbur

August 15, 2017 Updated August 15, 2017 8:54 AM

Following the fatal violence at a white supremacist gathering in Virginia, public safety officials in Boston are preparing for weekend demonstrations on Boston Common. But they admit they're unsure just what to expect, partly because city officials have been unable to contact organizers of a controversial rally planned for Saturday.

"All we know is what we're seeing on social media," Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said at a Monday press conference during which he and Gov. Charlie Baker denounced the message of hate groups.

The rally,organized by a group called Boston Free Speech, got the attention of local officials because it promoted speakers who were also in Charlottesville last weekend.

"As the police said, as Commissioner [William] Evans said, they're working trying to find out who this group is, what they're all about," Walsh added. "And we're certainly going to encourage them not to march in our city."

As Boston officials look for information about the organizers, they're asking reporters what leads they have. WBUR's Bruce Gellerman has been looking into the planned rally and speakers, and joined WBUR's Morning Edition to discuss what he's found.

Bob Oakes: So an unusual step, asking reporters what information they have.

Bruce Gellerman: Very strange. I've never heard that from any official ever.

Alright, so tell us what you found.

Well it's been frustrating to say the least. I kind of feel like I've been walking on a wet sponge as I've been trying to report this story everything about it feels squishy. You know, I live by an old journalism adage that says: "If your mother says she loves you, you check it out." But every step I've taken trying to track down the facts of this one, even the simple stuff, has been really tough.

How so?

Well, you just heard Steve Brown's story about Boston Mayor Walsh saying the organizers of the Free Speech Rally hadn't filed for a permit. But in The Boston Globe they reported the name of a 23-year-old guy from Cambridge who said he had applied. I tried to check it out, I tried to check him. I called him several times, got no answer. I called the Parks Department, which issues these kinds of permits and wound up getting a call from the mayor's office. They said they'd get back to me but the never did.

So we don't know about the permit regarding the rally on Boston Common.

Right, something that simple. But it gets even a lot stranger. A flier promoting the rally appears on what purports to be the Boston Free Speech Facebook page. It lists several people as speakers and yesterday on Radio Boston, host Meghna Chakrabarti spoke with one of the people, Shiva Ayyadurai.

He's one of the Republicans running for the U.S. Senate seat held by Elizabeth Warren.

That's right. He's got four degrees from from MIT, including an Ph.D., and he's from India. He said he sent Warren a DNA kit, challenging whether she's a Native American Indian. Anyway, Meghna spoke with him:

Meghna Chakrabarti: Just so I can get some clarity here, who specifically invited you to speak this weekend on Boston Common?

Shiva Ayyadurai: I think one of the organizers from there called my assistant. You know, I get a lot of calls as a public figure, and I was just very happy to attend a free speech event.

So he says he didn't even know who invited him. It was tough to find an answer even to a simple question like that.

So we don't even know who's planning the rally?

I don't, and couldn't find out. But let me give you another example. The rally Facebook page responded to my message asking for information and they sent me a press release condemning the Charlottesville, Virginia, violence. They flatly deny any association with groups that organized that event and they say they're going to hold a moment of silence this Saturday. But another person on their Facebook flier listed as a speaker was Augustus Invictus.

Invictus, who ran in the Republican primary against Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio last year?

That's right. You might remember he got about a thousand votes and during the campaign he said he once killed and drank goats blood in a pagan ritual. He runs the website The Revolutionary Conservative. He denies he's a racist, but says he opposes "feminism, deviancy and the futile denial of biological reality." He says "leftism is an ideology of death and must be defeated." So I called him up and asked him who invited him to the Boston Free Speech Rally.

Augustus Invictus: I know who invited me. I couldn't tell you however who is organizing the event. I was invited by someone who was in contact with the organizers and I can't give his name because he's a private citizen, but he just made the connection.

It's bizarre Bob. He couldn't or wouldn't say. And then he told me he had been disinvited.

Augustus Invictus:I found out from yet a fourth person that my appearance was cancelled because of the threats of violence by the left. The right doesn't threaten rallies to shut them down. The right never threatens violence. The right only responds with violence when attacked.

And then he told me he just might show up anyhow in Boston and speak this Saturday because of the statements Mayor Walsh made during yesterday's news conference.

So that's not everyone?

No. There's a guy named Joe Biggs. He was also noted as a speaker on the free speech facebook page. Biggs is a decorated combat war veteran. He was a reporter for Infowars, that's the Alex Jones, kind of far right, conspiracy theorist online blog. And I spoke with Biggs and he couldn't tell me who invited him to the rally.

Joe Biggs: One of the Twitter accounts called Proud Boys USA or something. I saw the flier and I go man, I was like I'd love to go speak at that. I was like I've always wanted to go to Boston, I've never been there before. So they're like well **** man we'll add you onto the thing as a speaker.

Biggs disavowed any support for racists, telling me that his wife was from Guyana. But on his Twitter feed last Saturday he said: "There's nothing wrong with white people being proud of being white." He says he's just all about free speech.

He mentioned the Proud Boys USA when he spoke with you?

Yeah, that's right. That's a group that calls themselves "Western chauvinists." They're led by a guy named Gavin McInnes. I tried to reach him, couldn't. He was named as a speaker at the Boston free speech rally website. He co-founded Vice Magazine and he has a reputation for vulgar, sexist rants. I think he'd make Lenny Bruce blush. But McInnes now says he's not coming to Boston. He accused city officials of trying to incite a riot to discredit right wing activists who planned to rally in Boston.

So kind of strange and frustrating story that you are going to keep on top of this week Bruce?

You bet.

The audio atop this post includes the above transcribed conversation with Bruce Gellerman, as well as a story from WBUR's Steve Brown about the city's preparations for the weekend demonstrations.

This segment aired on August 15, 2017.

Read the original:
As Boston Prepares For Demonstrations, Here's What We Know About 'Free Speech' Rally Organizers - WBUR

(Reuters) - The white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia that turned violent on Saturday, leaving one counter-protester dead and dozens injured, has raised questions about how authorities should balance the right to free speech and public safety.

The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protects free speech very broadly and it has historically set a high bar for courts weighing restrictions on what people can say, and where.

The following explains the U.S. approach to regulating speech and the options available to authorities looking to avoid a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville.

Does the First Amendment protect hate speech?

Yes. A bedrock principle of U.S. jurisprudence is that the First Amendment allows for hate speech, including that which denigrates people on the basis of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its vitriolic "God Hates Fags" anti-gay campaign, could not be prevented from picketing at military funerals. In the landmark 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court upheld the free speech rights of a Ku Klux Klan member.

"The vast majority of speech that could be deemed hateful is protected by the First Amendment," said Will Creeley, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech watchdog group.

The First Amendment only applies to government actors, however. Corporations and private citizens are free to censor speech taking place on their property.

Other countries take a less absolute position on free speech. Britain and Germany are among nations that have criminalized hate speech in various forms.

Can speech be regulated if it encourages violence?

In the Brandenburg case, the Supreme Court said speech loses First Amendment protection if it calls for and is likely to lead to "imminent lawless action."

The operative word is "imminent." Following Brandenburg, the high court clarified that vague threats of violence were protected by the First Amendment.

In 1982 the court said civil rights activist Charles Evers did not incite violence when he said blacks who did not participate in a boycott of white-owned businesses would "have their necks broken" by their own people. The statement was not specific enough to incite violence, the court said.

Creeley said that typical speech at white supremacist rallies falls far short of incitement to violence. He also said carrying firearms or other weapons would not be considered incitements to violence.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, said cities will face uphill battles if they try to prohibit rallies on the grounds that they incite violence.

What Brandenburg is about is literal incitement - 'Im encouraging you to kill somebody,' not just saying something that angers someone. Thats different, he said.

Can U.S. authorities regulate when and how speech takes place?

Yes. The government can place restrictions on the time, place and manner of a protest or rally. But such restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored.

"Government has to do everything possible to respect the right to free speech in public places," said John Jeffries, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "When you think public protest might lead to violence the legal answer is not to say 'No.' The right answer is 'Yes, but...'"

Charlottesvilles city government granted the organizers of Saturdays Unite the Right rally a permit to hold a demonstration in a one-acre park in the citys downtown. Citing concerns over safety and crowd size, the city later sought to move the demonstration to a larger park further from downtown.

A federal judge said on Friday the city could not move the protest, saying the rallys organizer presented evidence that the citys decision was based on the content of his speech rather than public safety considerations.

Could things change in the aftermath of the Charlottesville rally?

Because of what happened in Charlottesville, municipal governments and courts will likely weigh public safety concerns more heavily when considering issuing permits to white-nationalist groups, Jeffries said, which could lead to more time, place and manner restrictions on those groups' rallies.

"Anytime something like this happens, it affects how people view situations like this going forward," he said.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh on Monday suggested his office may place restrictions on a planned Aug. 19 rally which was initially scheduled to bring to the city some of the same far-right figures who spoke at Charlottesville.

Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said at a news conference that the city will take steps to ensure safety, such as keeping opposing protesters separated.

"It is such a shame that we have to be wasting resources on such a group," he said.

Reporting by Jan Wolfe; editing by Anthony Lin and Bill Rigby

Visit link:
Factbox: When can free speech be restricted in the United States? - Reuters

Inside Higher Ed

Free speech a focus as Christ starts year as Berkeley's chancellor Inside Higher Ed New chancellor assumes duties amid debate over and scrutiny of university's response to controversial speakers. and more »

Read more:
Free speech a focus as Christ starts year as Berkeley's chancellor - Inside Higher Ed

TORONTO/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer had its internet domain registration revoked twice in less than 24 hours in the wake of the weekend violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, part of a broad move by the tech industry in recent months to take a stronger hand in policing online hate-speech and incitements to violence.

GoDaddy Inc, which manages internet names and registrations, disclosed late on Sunday via Twitter that it had given Daily Stormer 24 hours to move its domain to another provider, saying it had violated GoDaddy's terms of service.

The white supremacist website helped organize the weekend rally in Charlottesville where a 32-year-old woman was killed and 19 people were injured when a man plowed a car into a crowd protesting the white nationalist rally.

After GoDaddy revoked Daily Stormer's registration, the website turned to Alphabet Inc's Google Domains. The Daily Stormer domain was registered with Google shortly before 8 a.m. Monday PDT (1500 GMT) and the company announced plans to revoke it at 10:56 a.m., according to a person familiar with the revocation.

As of late Monday the site was still running on a Google-registered domain. Google issued a statement but did not say when the site would be taken down.

Internet companies have increasingly found themselves in the crosshairs over hate speech and other volatile social issues, with politicians and others calling on them to do more to police their networks while civil libertarians worry about the firms suppressing free speech.

Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc, Google's YouTube and other platforms have ramped up efforts to combat the social media efforts of Islamic militant groups, largely in response to pressure from European governments. Now they are facing similar pressures in the United States over white supremacist and neo-Nazi content.

Facebook confirmed on Monday that it took down the event page that was used to promote and organize the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

Facebook allows people to organize peaceful protests or rallies, but the social network said it would remove such pages when a threat of real-world harm and affiliation with hate organizations becomes clear.

Facebook does not allow hate speech or praise of terrorist acts or hate crimes, and we are actively removing any posts that glorify the horrendous act committed in Charlottesville, the company said in a statement.

Several other companies also took action. Canadian internet company Tucows Inc stopped hiding the domain registration information of Andrew Anglin, the founder of Daily Stormer. Tucows, which was previously providing the website with services masking Anglins phone number and email address, said Daily Stormer had breached its terms of service.

They are inciting violence, said Michael Goldstein, vice president for sales and marketing at Tucows, a Toronto-based company. Its a dangerous site and people should know who it is coming from.

Anglin did not respond to a request for comment.

Discord, a 70-person San Francisco company that allows video gamers to communicate across the internet, did not mince words in its decision to shut down the server of Altright.com, an alt-right news website, and the accounts of other white nationalists.

We will continue to take action against white supremacy, Nazi ideology, and all forms of hate, the company said in a tweet Monday. Altright.com did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Twilio Inc Chief Executive Jeff Lawson tweeted Sunday that the company would update its use policy to prohibit hate speech. Twilios services allow companies and organizations, such as political groups or campaigns, to send text messages to their communities.

Internet companies, which enjoy broad protections under U.S. law for the activities of people using their services, have mostly tried to avoid being arbiters of what is acceptable speech.

But the ground is now shifting, said one executive at a major Silicon Valley firm. Twitter, for one, has moved sharply against harassment and hate speech after enduring years of criticism for not doing enough.

Facebook is beefing up its content monitoring teams. Google is pushing hard on new technology to help it monitor and delete YouTube videos that celebrate violence.

All this comes as an influential bloc of senators, including Republican Senator Rob Portman and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, is pushing legislation that would make it easier to penalize operators of websites that facilitate online sex trafficking of women and children.

That measure, despite the non-controversial nature of its espoused goal, was met with swift and coordinated opposition from tech firms and internet freedom groups, who fear that being legally liable for the postings of users would be a devastating blow to the internet industry.

Reporting by Jim Finkle in Toronto and Salvador Rodriguez in San Francisco; Additional reporting by David Ingram and Dustin Volz in San Francisco, and Chris Michaud in New York and Alastair Sharp in Toronto; Editing by Nick Zieminski and Lisa Shumaker

Read the original here:
Tech companies in the crosshairs on white supremacy and free speech - Reuters

Gavin McInnes (center) was scheduled to speak at Saturdays planned free speech rally on Boston Common. On Monday, he said he wasnt coming.

Facebook

A Boston Free Speech Rally poster on Facebook.

Three headliners scheduled to speak at a far-right rally in Boston on Saturday backed out Monday, casting doubt on the event amid strong opposition by city officials worried about a repeat of the bloodshed in Charlottesville.

Augustus Invictus, an Orlando activist who took part in the Charlottesville rally, said organizers of Bostons rally texted him on Monday and said it was necessary to cancel the event from a PR standpoint, after the violence in Virginia.

Advertisement

Invictus, who attracted support from white supremacists when he ran for the US Senate as a Libertarian in Florida in 2016, said organizers indicated they were also worried about statements he has made espousing support for a second American civil war.

Im upset that my appearance was canceled, and Im upset the rally was canceled because, to me, it is pure capitulation to the mob of leftists, Invictus told the Globe Monday.

Get Talking Points in your inbox:

An afternoon recap of the days most important business news, delivered weekdays.

Another planned headliner, Gavin McInnes, said he was also backing out. McInnes, who heads a group of self-proclaimed Western chauvinists called the Proud Boys, accused Mayor Martin J. Walsh and city officials of trying to incite a riot to discredit the assortment of right-wing activists who planned to rally in Boston.

A Cambridge Republican candidate challenging Elizabeth Warren plans to speak at a free-speech rally Saturday on Boston Common.

Its a trap! McInnes said in a post on his Twitter feed. And in an e-mail to the Globe, he added: Im out.

A third speaker, Casssandra Fairbanks, also said she was going to cancel. Im not going to speak at the Boston free speech rally, she tweeted. The threats keep escalating and people are unhinged rn, she wrote, using internet shorthand for right now.

Advertisement

A fourth speaker, Joe Biggs, who lives in Austin, Texas, said he was still planning to travel to Boston for the rally, despite the cancellations.

If 10,000 lefties murder me, then so be it, he said in an interview.

A former US Army staff sergeant, Biggs worked until recently for Infowars, a website founded by Alex Jones, the notorious conspiracy theorist. Biggs was among those promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory that claimed a pedophile ring with links to Hillary Clinton was operating out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.

In an interview, Biggs insisted the rally in Boston is designed to promote free speech not hate or violence. These events are not violent in nature at all but people will defend themselves if provoked and thats what happened in Charlottesville, he said.

He disavowed any support for racists, saying, My wife is Guyanese. I have a mixed baby. Im the furthest thing from a [expletive] Nazi.

But in a video posted on his Twitter feed on Saturday, he talked positively about the Charlottesville rally. Theres nothing wrong with white people wanting to preserve their race, he said. Theres nothing wrong with white people bring proud of being white.

See the original post:
Speakers at 'free speech' rally dropping out - The Boston Globe - The Boston Globe

In the US, freedom of speech is a sacred right. But the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, last weekend was not about people exercising that right. What I saw at the University of Virginia, where I am a professor, was an organized campaign to terrorize American citizens and suppress the rights of others.

First of all, white supremacists at Unite the Right mobilized against a town that had democratically decided to move the statues of Confederate rebels to less-prominent locations. There is no Constitutional amendment dictating the types of statues a municipality must display in its town square. At one time, this city chose to erect a statue of General Robert E. Lee, which was legal and their prerogative. At another time in history, we chose to move the statues to another part of the city. This is also within the rights of Charlottesville and its residents.

Second of all, the clear intent of the Unite the Right rally was to incite violence. Its participants mobilized knowing that they were in breach of their permit for 400 people in the small square of Emancipation Park in the center of town. The city, in the interest of public safety, asked them to move to a larger park, where they could exercise their first amendment right to speak their mind. They sued the city to keep the protest in the center of town. There was no way that number of people in such a small space would end peacefully, especially after the alt-right told their people to bring shields and weapons. They came with assault rifles and bullet-proof jackets, ready for battle.

Third, at a peaceful prayer meeting I attended Friday night, where citizens from every faith, denomination, race and sexual orientation, were gathering together to pray, support each other and reaffirm the American values of liberty and justice for allthe white supremacists came with torches. Screaming that they will not be replaced, sieg heil and end immigration, they barred peaceful parishioners from leaving the church where they congregated.

Fourth, mobilizing early in the morning on Saturday, long before their noon-sanctioned assembly time, they started walking the streets toward the central square with guns, AR-15s and shields. Before the demonstration could even get underway, they started punching counter protestors in the face. Violence escalated and Virginia declared a state of emergency. Fearful that the torch-bearing neo-Nazis would come back to campus, the University of Virginia was forced to cancel an entire day of peaceful, civil dialogue programming organized to promote a peaceable democracy.

And then a white supremacist drove full speed into a crowd of peaceful anti-racist counter demonstrators, murdering one citizen and wounding 19 more.

Every American has a right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. The alt-right white nationalists want to deny Americans that right. Carrying firearms to rallies, blocking peaceful counterprotestors from leaving the place where they are gathered, and driving full-speed into a crowd are all distinct choices aimed at inciting fear and making Americans stay silent, afraid to leave their homes. Now white supremacists are trolling counterprotestors online and posting the home addresses of witnesses. These people are not calmly expressing their beliefs about fiscal conservativism or small government. They believe that their fellow Americans are lesser citizens, and they are trying to take our rights away. The white supremacists must be held accountable.

Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Original post:
Neo-Nazis have the right to free speech. They don't have the right to deny it to the rest of us - Quartz

Is Freedom of Speech really free? 2 Sacramento experts explain

Updated: 11:24 PM PDT Aug 14, 2017

Hide Transcript Show Transcript

WEBVTT WANT AS LONG AS WE DON'T INCITEVIOLENCE.BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS FREE USFROM THE FALLOUT.THIS HOT DOG RESTAURANT INBERKELEY IS STAYING BUSY AFTER ANATIONAL CONTROVERSY OVER ANEMPLOYEE, SEEN IN THIS PHOTO ATTHE CHARLOTTESVILLE RALLY.TOP DOG POSTED SIGNS SAYING COLEWHITE RESIGNED.CUSTOMERS SAY IT'S UNFAIR FORTHE RESTAURANT TO BE CRITICIZEDFOR AN EMPLOYEE EXERCISING FREESPEECH NO MATTER HOW HURTFUL TOSOME.>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SOMEPEOPLE WERE THINKING.YOU HIRE THEM BELIEVING WHATTHEY TELL YOU.YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'REREALLY THINKING.DANA: PEOPLE HAVE MADE DEATHTHREATS AND CALLED FOR AUNIVERSITY OF NEVADA RENOSTUDENT TO BE EXPELLED AFTERPHOTOS APPEARED OF HIM ATTENDINGTHE RALLY.>> IT WAS A HUGE TRAGEDY.I DIDN'T GO TO SEE ANYONE HURT,ESPECIALLY ANYONE KILLED.DANA: THE SCHOOL SAYS IT WON'TEXPELL PETER CVJETANOVIC, BUTHE'S WORRIED HE WON'T GET INTOLAW SCHOOL OR GET A JOB.>> THAT'S TOO BAD FOR THEMBECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION ISN'TGOING TO HELP THEM.DANA: MCGEORGE CONSTITUTIONALLAW PROFESSOR BRIAN LANDSBERGSAYS THAT'S BECAUSE THECONSTITUTION ONLY PROTECTSPEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT ACTION,NOT PRIVATE COMPANIES.>> THERE'S SOME PROTECTIONS FORPUBLIC EMPLOYEES BUT EVEN THOSEARE SOMEWHAT LIMITED.DANA: EMPLOYEES CAN TRY TO FIGHTBACK, BUT CHANCES OFSUCCESSFULLY SUING AN EMPLOYERARE RARE.>> THE STATUTORY PROTECTIONS AREPRETTY SPARSE.DANA: AND THEN, THERE'S THECOURT OF PUBLIC OPINION ONSOCIAL MEDIA. >> WE LIVE IN A CONNECTEDSOCIETY NOW.WE CAN FIND PEOPLE LIKE THAT.DANA: THOMAS DODSON EXPLAINSFREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT FREEDOMFROM CONSEQUENCES.>> YOU ARE SAYING, NOT JUST TOTHE GROUP THAT IS THERE, YOU'RESAYING TO THE WORLD, THIS IS HOWI BELIEVE.THIS IS WHAT I THINK.IF YOU ASSOCIATE YOURSELF WITHAN EXTREMIST VIEW, ON ANY SIDE,YOU'RE LIKELY TO COME UNDER THEIRE OF YOUR EMPLOYER.DANA: LATER TONIGHT, WE WILLHAVE MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERSABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH ANDPROTECTIONS FOR EMPLOYEES.THAT WILL BE ON OUR KCRA 3MOBILE APP.BRIAN: WHEN ARE EMPLOYERS NOTALLOWED TO RETALIATE OR FIREYOU?

Is Freedom of Speech really free? 2 Sacramento experts explain

Updated: 11:24 PM PDT Aug 14, 2017

The events in Charlottesville have rekindled debates over free speech and the unintended consequences that come with it.

KCRA 3s Dana Griffin sat down with two experts to talk about the Freedom of Speech and how it works.

Thomas Dodson is co-founder of Above the Fray, a social media awareness organization that empowers safe and responsible social media users.

Brian Landsberg is a Constitutional law professor with the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

Get the full story in the video above.

Read more here:
Is Freedom of Speech really free? 2 Sacramento experts explain - KCRA Sacramento