Daily Archives: June 13, 2020

Nearly 300 students from LSU and Southern University joined together for a "rally for unity" at LSU's Free Speech Alley on Friday, June 12, 2020 to sit and listen to each other about their experiences at each school, and to reconcile tensions between the predominantly white university and the historically black university.

You can view photos from the rally in our gallery below.

Story: 'We matter': LSU and Southern University students find common ground in Friday unity rally

Myron Smothers speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU basketball coaching staff, from left, Bill Armstrong, Will Wade and Tasmin Mitchell attend a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather and listen as Anthony Kenney speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members listen as Alacia Brew speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Alacia Brew speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Daria Coleman sings the Black National Anthem during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

A woman records the crowd as community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU professor David Stamps speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather as they listen to Myron Smothers speak during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

LSU professor David Stamps speaks as community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Metro-councilwoman and mayor-president candidate Tara Wicker attends a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather and listen to Stewart Lockett as he speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Stewart Lockett speaks during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Community members gather during a rally for unity, Friday, June 12, 2020, in LSU's Free Speech Alley on campus in Baton Rouge, La.

Close Get email notifications on {{subject}} daily!

Your notification has been saved.

There was a problem saving your notification.

{{description}}

Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

Close Followed notifications

Go here to read the rest:
Photos: At 'rally for unity,' hundreds of LSU, Southern students sit, listen to reconcile tensions - The Advocate

Living in a society plagued by racism and injustice, many people across the world have taken to social media and their communities, protesting to voice their opinions of violence and injustices being committed.

Although freedom of speech and assembly is granted to all in the United States Constitution, there are things non-citizens should be aware of as they advocate for a better society to protect themselves against unintended immigration consequences.

Today, our lives and beliefs are on display for all to see, nearly everyone owns a smartphone and information is often shared through Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. For those afforded the privilege of U.S. citizenship, clicking post or share will not impact their status as citizens. However, for non-citizens, pressing a button could potentially jeopardize their immigration plans.

Since March 31, 2019, the Department of State has requested additional information about the social media accounts of both immigrant and non-immigrant visa applicants, including the applicants username on numerous social medial platforms. It has become increasingly important for non-citizens to responsibly manage their social media presence.

So, what does responsibly manage their social media presence mean? Generally, just keep in mind that social media accounts may be reviewed by US government officials for visa applications or before granting immigration benefits.

For example, a non-citizen alluding to marijuana use in an Instagram post, even in a state in which marijuana is legal, could face inadmissibility issues, as previously discussed by my colleague, Elizabeth Van Arkel. This does not mean that non-citizens should refrain from using social media, as even the lack of social media presence may raise flags with immigration officers, but it is important to remember that social media content will be subject to review by immigration officers who hold immense discretion in adjudicating most visa applications.

If you have questions or concerns about whether your social media content poses immigration concerns, contact an immigration attorney.

While the right to assemble is also protected by the Constitution, in the last week, protestors have still been subject to arrests. Whether or not the arrest is supported by evidence or the law, and regardless of whether an arrest results in a conviction, non-citizens can face severe immigration consequences. Non-citizens without any immigration status, meaning they are undocumented, could be placed in removal proceedings, potentially leading to deportation. Even for those with some type of immigration status, including lawful permanent residents, arrest and/or criminal charges can create serious immigration consequences.

If you are arrested while protesting and charged criminally, you should ask to speak to a criminal defense attorney and discuss your immigration status with them or ask that they contact an immigration attorney. If you are arrested, even if you are not charged, you should also speak to an immigration attorney. You are not required to discuss your immigration status with anyone other than your attorney.

At Davis Brown, we advocate for equity and denounce racism. We support and encourage the expression of free speech and the freedom of assembly rights afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We recognize and champion immigrants who advocate for the betterment of a county that has not yet accepted them as its own. And we want to help our clients achieve their immigration goals.

Go here to read the rest:
Exercising Free Speech Through Social Media and Assembly While Also Protecting Your Immigration Plans - JD Supra

Two weeks ago, if youd asked what American institution was most intolerant of dissenting opinion, preoccupied with promoting radical ideology, and prone to erupting into disruptive temper tantrums, the answer would have been easy. Now its not so clearthe hysteria on college campuses has spread to Americas newsrooms.

Over the weekend, the opinion page editor of The New York Times, James Bennet, resigned under pressure, and another opinion editor, Jim Dao, was reassigned to the newsroom.

Their offense was soliciting and publishing an op-ed by GOP Sen. Tom Cotton last week on invoking the Insurrection Act. After recent protests in over 700 cities, polling showed a majority of Americans, including nearly 4 in 10 African Americans, were amenable to using the military to restore order.

Whatever you think of the need for the Insurrection Act, which was last used during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, Cottons op-ed had undeniable news value. That didnt matter to the more than 1,000 employees of the Times who signed a letter objecting to the Cotton op-ed.

Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger, was the message that upset Times employees spread across Twitter.

According to Times media columnist Ben Smith, thepapers union advisedthe employeesto make their complaint a workplace safety issue to prevent retribution by management, but its no coincidence their argument dovetails with the illiberal rhetoric emanating from college campuses.

Ironically, three years ago, Bennetpublished an op-edby an academic making the suspect argument that some kinds of offensive speech are literally a form of violence.

And much like campuses, the Times is now on record saying its staff is to be treated like young students who must be coddled and protected from ideas they dont like. Katie Kingsbury, who was made acting editorial page editor following Bennets resignation, has already sent a note to staff indulging their sensitivities.

Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photosyou name itthat gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately,she wrote.

That statement came after the virtual walkout of 300 employees last weekdemanding approval of opinion pieces by the papers diverse staffbefore publication.

Giving every employee a veto over what appears on the opinion page is not a recipe for fostering the kind of intellectually robust debates necessary to sustain democracyespecially when those same employees are intolerant of ideas firmly in the mainstream.

Even though Times employees seized on the revelation that Bennet failed to personally read the op-ed before publication, theres simply not much of an argument that the Times failed to uphold editorial standards with the Cotton op-ed. By all appearances, the Times management is hostage to an impetuous mob enforcing a political orthodoxy.

The lengthy andargumentative editors noteappended to Cottons op-ed cites no meaningful factual concerns, and instead accuses the piece of being needlessly harsh and says it should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny.

But on Friday, the same day the paper tacked the editors note onto Cottons op-ed, the paper published a columncalling Cotton fascistin the headline.

On Saturday, the paperpublished an op-edencouraging readers totext all their family membersand tell them you wont visit or speak to them until they either make financial contributions to support black lives or protest in the streets during a pandemic.

To recap, Cotton is a fascist for an argument most of the country supports, but theres still no editors note explaining why the paper published apiece by a representative of the Talibanin February.

Cotton is needlessly harsh, but the paper published aDonald Trump assassination fantasyin 2018. Cottons op-ed needed the highest level of scrutiny, but somehow a piece urging people to tear their own families apart with accusatory political blackmail was unobjectionable.

Then, for good measure, in the Times article on Bennets resignation, the papermischaracterized Cottons op-edas saying the senator was calling for the use of military force against peaceful protesters. The Times then stealth-edited the articlewithout making a factual correction.

It would be reassuring to think that the Times has an institutional culture that is uniquely politicized. However, the last week has been defined by a wide cross-section of journalists acting completely unhinged.

Saturday was the anniversary of D-Day, and NPR national correspondentMara Liasson declaredthe famous battle was the Biggest [A]ntifa rally in history. Antifa, the black-clad gutter punks and Marxist-anarchist revolutionaries, have been denounced by FBI Director Christopher Wray for bringing violence to the recent protests.

The anti-fascist bona fides of the recent protests are also in doubt. The national World War II memorial in Washington was defaced in the protests last week, and the mobs in London spray-painted racist across a statue of Winston Churchill. (If Churchill is racist, someone might want to tell the vandals about the guy he saved us from.)

Given this context, its staggering that a top NPR reporter equates the heroes of Normandy with some two-bit anarchist thugs,declared journalist Andrew Sullivan. Speaking of Sullivan, he made it clear New York magazine would not publish his regular column last weekleading tomuch speculation he was being censoredfor wrongthink.

Bari Weiss, perhaps the only New York Times employee to publicly oppose the Times editorial putsch, endured vicious personal attacksfor speaking out. This culminated in Daily Beast editor Goldie Taylor asking a Slate journalist why he hadnt hit Weiss in the face. (Taylordeleted the tweet.)

For its part, Slate told its readers violence is an important tool for protesters. Over the weekend, a Washington Post columnist, Karen Attiah, put up a tweet asking people to directly give her money for reparations. (She alsodeleted her tweet.)

When a top editor at Business Insidertold its employeeslast week that giving money to bail funds to support the recent protests would damage the publications credibility, the staff revoltednever mind that at least some of that money is going to people arrested for destructive acts that undermined the message of the peaceful protesters.

Naturally, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan blessed the Business Insider staffers uprising. She did thisin the same columnwhere she argued against publishing Cottons op-ed with a tendentious comparison to publishing the denialist views of, say, Alex Jones of Infowars on the Sandy Hook massacre.

The New York Times isnt even the only major paper that forced out prominent editors over the weekend. Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, resigned days after the paper ran the headline Buildings Matter, Too, which the staff found offensive.

It didnt matter that the point of the column was that buildings matter precisely becauseblack lives matterthe urban decay that results from rioting is going to hurt Americas vulnerable African Americans.

Despite the fact Wischnowski had doubled the number of minorities on the papers editorial staff in the last four years, there was no forgiveness for three supposedly ill-chosen words.

No doubt the media establishment feels like its undergoing an anti-liberal ideological purification reminiscent of Chinas Cultural Revolution. While this may cement power for activist factions within newsrooms, it also legitimizes and empowers conservatives who are openly waging war on the media establishment.

This entire episode could not have gone better for Tom Cotton if he wrote the script himself,concedes New York magazines Olivia Nuzzi. Cotton is a Trumpian populist with presidential ambitions. Being able to take credit for The New York Times self-immolation is quite a feather in his cap.

Meanwhile, lots of serious people arent responding to this crisis of legitimacy by clamoring for media reform. Theyre more worried about which needed American institution will go crazy next.

Remember all those commentators and journalists who smugly informed us that the Woke craziness and suppression of campus speech was being overhyped and it was just a few overzealous students?asks Brookings Institution fellow and Atlantic writer Shadi Hamid. Theyll never admit theyre wrong. But they were very, very wrong.

Originally published by RealClearPolitics

Read the original here:
US Newsrooms Enlist in the Campus War on Free Speech - Daily Signal

Police brutality is a serious issue in the United States one which must be resolved in light of George Floyds horrifying murder and the violence used against those protesting its prosecution. The Emory College Republicans are committed to supporting positive community engagement and upholding fundamental principles of democracy, of which free speech and freedom of the press are foundational. We stand with the protestors in their demands for reform, and we look forward to discussing practical solutions in an upcoming panel sponsored by the Student Government Association, College Council and Bridge Emory.

On May 31, several student organizations penned an open letter addressed to several Emory administrators. The letter raises concerns over several University policies, including demands of continued funding for the office of Belonging and Community Justice (BCJ), expansion of protesting rights and increased training for Emory Police Department officers. The authors have asked all members of the Emory community to sign their names onto the letter in support. As the leaders of Emory College Republicans, we are reluctant to become signatories because we have serious reservations regarding, not the spirit of the letter, but a specific policy demand made therein. We believe that the proposed additions to Section 8.14.5.5 of the Universitys Open Expression Policy present a clear and present danger to free expression on campus.

We understand and support the need of black students on campus to have access to resources and programming opportunities. As strong advocates for the freedoms of speech and assembly, we also support the request to amend Section 8.14.7.3 of the Open Expression Policy. Having more than one official determine the conclusion of a student protest will help ensure that students voices are not unnecessarily silenced. Minority students face a very specific set of challenges on campus and we support policy aimed at mitigating these difficulties. That said, when such actions impede free speech, as they do in the proposed amendment to Section 8.14.5.5, we feel obligated to voice our concerns.

Section 8.14.5.5 of the Universitys Open Expression Policy lists violations of other policies that relate to open expression These include, but are not limited to, violations of federal, state or local law, interference with the general operations of the University and other guidelines that may be influenced by open expression. The letter requests that administrators amend Section 8.14.5.5 of the Open Expression Policy to curb the dangers of threats to deny education based on religion, race, sex, gender or sexual orientation. While we acknowledge this may make students feel more comfortable on campus, we also believe that these guidelines may, in some cases, harm student discourse. Higher education has value precisely as a setting in which students can face and learn from unfamiliar opinions. Confronting ones own beliefs is an essential aspect of an intellectually fruitful environment and is a necessary step one must take to become an active participant in campus dialogues. Stifling such challenging voices not only prevents the community from objecting to their assertions but also allows these individuals to face no social retribution for their prejudiced beliefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which advocates for the civil rights of police brutality victims, stands united with us against restrictions of free expression. As its page on campus speech states, where racist, misogynist, homophobic, and transphobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more speech not less is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values. Ceding the power to punish speech to an institution that minority groups, as is evident in the aforementioned letter, believe to be ignorant of their needs could not possibly result in greater respect for free expression. We share the concerns regarding administrators abilities to resolve issues in an unbiased manner and, as such, we naturally oppose such expansion of administrative power. While we are genuinely empathetic to the feelings of alienation held by many students at Emory, allowing the University to arbitrarily censor speech it deems to be hateful under the vague guidelines provided in the letters request to amend Section 8.14.5.5 is not the answer. It would not only fail to assuage these feelings but also unjustly silence students voices.

Our goals are similar to those espoused in the letter promoting student safety and increasing student body engagement with the community but we are concerned that its approach to doing so will stymie meaningful dialogue. The place for controversial or even provocative arguments is in the classroom and in community demonstration, not ambiguously-phrased restrictions on speech. The University robustly protects political dialogue, yet has shown itself entirely willing to investigate and punish bad actors who intend only harm, such as occurred following anti-semitic vandalism at the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity in 2014. We support many parts of the letter, including continued funding for BCJ, expansion of protesting rights and increased training for Emory Police Department officers, but we are deeply concerned that proposed regulations of student speech and activism will suppress dialogue on a campus that has shown unique respect for student voices.

Jasmine Jaffe (22C), Sean Anderson (22B), Robert Schmad (23C), David Gaviria (23C) and Davis Van Inwegen (22C) are members of the executive board of the Emory College Republicans.

See more here:
Student Letter to Admin Well-Intentioned but Stifles Free Speech - The Emory Wheel

A professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has recently sparked outrage with his words on Twitter, the latest educator to draw a rebuke from his own school.

Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at UNCW, said people who wear masks in public look like "fools," has called North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper a "fascist"(among other criticisms) for Cooper's response to the coronavirus pandemic, labeled women's studies a "nonessential major" and pushed for the separation of states from the county.

That was just in May.

Of the shutdowns caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Adams tweeted, This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina."

He ended the tweet with "Massa Cooper, let my people go!

This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina.

Massa Cooper, let my people go!

His tweets sparked several Change.org petitions with thousands of signatures calling for Adams' removal from the university,andUNCW issued a statement calling Adams tweets vile.

Still, Adams has his job, UNCW confirmed to USA TODAY. Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The university invoked the First Amendment in its statement, but added, These comments may be protected, but that is not an excuse for how vile they are. We stand firmly against these and all other expressions of hatred. We cannot and will not ignore them. The university is reviewing all options in terms of addressing the matter.

Personal opinions, not in the classroom

As it turns out, there arent many options for the university, according to First Amendment experts.

Adams isn't the first professor to generate backlash with tweets, either.

Last year, Indiana University didn't fire a professor whose tweets were called "vile and stupid" by the university's provost.Eric Rasmusen is still an IU professor, and he's still tweeting.

There are a few ways a professor can express his or her own opinions with protection from the First Amendment, Clay Calvert of theMarion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida told USA TODAY.

Even though his specific comments are racist and offensive, the larger subject matter is a matter of public concern, Calvert said, referring to Adams. Therefore, he is going to have some First Amendment protection, but its not unlimited.

Because Adams used his personal Twitter account, he has more First Amendment rights, Calvert said.

The first thing youd have to ask is, is the public employee speaking in his official job capacity or role? If so, then the First Amendment speech rights are very limited," Calvert said, adding, "If he had made a comment like that in the classroom, then the only way it would be protected would be if it was germane to the subject matter.

When you write the university asking them to fire me dont forget to leave a mailing address so I can send you a box of panty liners.

Calvert said the university could fire Adams a stronger statement than just condemning the tweets, he said.

"But the repercussions would be a lawsuit that (the university) would have to defend," Calvert said.

The Wilmington Star-Newsreported Adams has already sued UNCW once. In 2007, Adams filed a lawsuit saying he was denied a promotion when he spoke about his views, violating his First Amendment rights, the newspaper reported. After a court ruled in favor of Adams, UNCW appealed, then eventually settled the case.

Comments that reflect 'actual bias'

David Hudson Jr., a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum Institute, said a professors right to free speech is strong. Citizens, however, have the right to retain their own beliefs, he said.

Now, if those comments do reflect actual bias perpetrated against students, or the professor is violating generally applicable principles and discriminating against students specifically, thats another issue," Hudson said.

He added, "But, the First Amendment imposes pretty strict limitations on universities attempting to punish professors for controversial speech. After all, thats the point of the First Amendment its designed to protect offensive, obnoxious or even repugnant speech. The Supreme Court has termed that a bedrock principle of the First Amendment."

Read the original post:
A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - MetroWest Daily News

It's not that you were at a protest that is the problem. It's what you did or said that could be considered discriminatory or hate speech. Posts are the same.

GREENSBORO, N.C. If you're at a protest or if you posted something about a protest, could your employer fire you? The answer is yes and no on both counts.

Attorney Nicole Patino of the Law Offices of Fred T. Hamlet explains, If you are engaging in a lawful activity, depending on where you work, it's unlikely you could be terminated. However, if you are protesting and engaging in hate speech or your work for a public agency and it appears you can't perform your duties in an impartial manner, that may be a reason your employment could be terminated.

Protesting is a lawful activity. But if your sign or your words or your actions at the protest can be seen as discriminatory, hate speech -- your employer could fire you.

Now, what about if you're not even there at the protest, youre just commenting on it? You're in good company. I looked at just one protest story on the WFMY News 2 Facebook page and there are at least 850 comments. Aren't you allowed to say what you want? Don't you have free speech?

For public sector employees, you have free speech protections. If you work for local, state, or federal government, you have some protections. But those of us who work for a private employer, we dont really get to say whatever we want to. Free speech is great, but your employer has a business interest as well.

How often people get fired over social media posts? Regularly. The most common reason for firing someone over a post is because they call in sick or say their child has something for school and then theyre posting theyre at the beach or a concert or a game that has nothing to do with the reason you said you would need to be away from work. Now your boss has evidence.

Read more:
Can you be fired for being at a protest or posting about it on social media? - WFMYNews2.com