Category Archives: Free Speech

A bill introduced by Republican state lawmakers would punish Wisconsin state universities and technical colleges for free speech or academic freedom violations. Campuses found to be in violation of the law would face financial penalties and potential lawsuits and would be forced to notify incoming students of any violations for the 10 years following the incident.

Wisconsin Republicans have been pushing the UW System to get tougher on students who disrupt free speech events on campuses since 2017. A prior bill, which failed, aimed to expel students who shout down or disrupt speakers, invited by student organization, three or more times.

In 2017, the UW Board of Regents passed a resolution that mirrored the bill. The regents vote and legislation were spurred by incidents at places like the University of California, Berkeley, where protests broke out after former Breitbart news editor Milo Yiannopoulos was invited to speak on campus.

But the latest Republican initiative focuses on punishing colleges and administrators rather than students.

Under the new bill, any campus that restricts when and where speech can happen or charges a fee for "additional security based on the anticipated content of speech or anticipated reaction to speech" more than one time within 10 years will face a litany of sanctions. Those include a potential loss of student grants from the Wisconsin Higher Educational Aids Board, which would have to instead be paid using campus funds for one year or until the university or technical college "administrator is permanently removed from his or her administrative role."

The bill would also allow state or federal courts, the state Higher Educational Aids Board, or state lawmakers to weigh evidence and decide if a university or technical college violated free speech rights.

In addition to losing state scholarship funds, a campus found to be in violation of the law would be forced to include a disclaimer on admissions documents going to potential applicants. The disclaimer would read:

"NOTICE: We are required by the State of Wisconsin to inform you that within the last 10 years [insert name of UW institution or technical college] has violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes."

Lastly, the bill would allow the state attorney general, district attorneys or individuals whose "expressive rights were violated" to sue the UW Board of Regents or a technical college district board. If a court finds a violation occurred, the presiding judge would be required to award plaintiffs a minimum of $500 for the violation and $50 for each day after the complaint is served if the violation continues. The maximum award for plaintiffs would be $100,000 plus legal fees. The bill mandates that such awards would come from a campus' administration budget.

Policymakers respond to bill, criticize student aid component

The legislation, authored by state Rep. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, received a public hearing Wednesday with the Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities.

Cabral-Guevara taught at UW-Oshkosh. She said the proposal stems from conversations she had with former students who said they wished everyone could feel comfortable speaking up for what they believe in. Students told her they wished she spoke up more on campus and that they were afraid of voicing certain beliefs out of fear they would not be allowed to graduate, Cabral-Guevara said.

"If I wasn't strong enough, how can I ask my students to be strong also?" Cabral-Guevara asked. "And so overall, when we look at this bill here, what we're doing is trying to protect, and we're trying to promote an environment where students can be free with their thoughts and their ideas."

Committee chair state Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, also testified in favor of the bill. He said empowering legislative committees, like his own, to take disciplinary actions against colleges violating the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions was appropriate because "government is supposed to protect our free speech rights."

Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point, took issue with that assertion and noted that Republicans were granting themselves powers to act like a court, weighing evidence and assigning penalties.

"You talked about the constitution at length in your testimony," said Shankland. "How does the ability to bring a cause of action to a legislative committee comport with our constitution?"

Murphy referred the question to a Wisconsin Legislative Council attorney at the hearing, who said that part of the bill "very well could be subject to separation of powers issues" and that "it's kind of questionable" whether a legislative committee could restrict financial aid to colleges.

State Rep. Robert Wittke, R-Racine, said he supported protecting free speech at state colleges but was a "little wary" about using state grant funding meant for student scholarships to punish universities.

"I would also prefer to hold those that guide these institutions accountable rather than limiting financial aid, because I'm concerned that there would be too many unintended consequences for students that aren't wrapped up in this," Wittke said.

After hearing concerns about the grant fund punishment, Murphy stated he was open to amending the bill at a later date.

Jeff Buhrandt, UW System vice president for the Office of University Relations, pointed out to the committee that state universities have always strived to promote free speech and diversity of thought on campus.

"Our current policy recognizes that each institution has a solemn responsibility not only to promote lively and fearless exploration, deliberation and debate of ideas, but also to protect those freedoms when others attempt to restrict them," said Buhrandt.

Joe Cohn is the legislative and policy director for national the campus free speech organization Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He told the committee there are things he likes in the latest iteration of the Republican campus free speech bill and some things he doesn't like.

Cohn said he's glad lawmakers are working to codify campus free speech protections in statute, but he's unhappy with the provision that would restrict state grants to colleges until a campus administrator associated with a policy violating the law is fired. Cohn, who is usually a critic of college administrators, said he was glad to hear lawmakers were open to amending the bill and said if the grant restriction provision was still included during a final hearing on the legislation, he would recommend a no-vote.

The rest is here:
Republican bill would punish universities, technical colleges for free speech violations - KPVI News 6

Could the Feds "accidentally" trigger a recession just in time for the 2022 election? Richard Wolff warns that our economy is in "serious trouble."

Biden reconfirmed Trump appointee Jerome Powell as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Some are speculating that Jerome Powell is planning to trigger a recession to tank the economy so the Democratic Party and President Biden take the blame.

Richard Wolff is an economist, co-founder of Democracy at work and the author of numerous books. His latest is "The Sickness is The System: Why Capitalism Fails to Save Us From Pandemics and Itself."

--

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

Donald Trump Economy Federal Reserve Jerome Powell Joe Biden Recession Richard Wolff The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann

See the original post:
Will the Feds Trigger A Full-Blown Recession? - Free Speech TV

When Chad Sabora started working in harm reduction, he worked out of his car on the streets of St. Louis, Mo. Saboras beat-up sedan was a familiar sight in neighborhoods frequented by people who use drugs. Sabora, an attorney and former prosecutor in Chicago, had been in recovery for years and experienced addiction firsthand. Based on decades of research and his own experience, he knew sterile syringes prevented infectious disease transmission, naloxone saves lives by reversing overdoses, and that a well-timed pep-talk or caring gesture could profoundly help someone in the throes of addiction. He took a boots-on-the ground approach to helping others in his hometown.

As Americas unprecedented overdose crisis became a national issue, Sabora thought of ways to scale-up his operation. Like many people do, he took to social media, where he tried spreading the gospel of harm reduction and sharing simple strategies to help people survive their substance use disorder.Never use alone. Carry naloxone. Use new syringes.Statistically speaking, there are millions of drug users and people with addiction online. Tragically, over 200 people die from drug overdoses every day in America, and over 100,000 Americans died in the last year alone. But on Facebook, Sabora felt something was keeping him from reaching the masses. Then he noticed his posts ran afoul of the almighty algorithm.

Ive been put in time-out just for posting about naloxone, Sabora said. When he created educational posts about the risks of illicit fentanyl, teaching people how to use fentanyl test strips, his account would be disabled. He realized that by mentioning drugs, his account was dinged by Facebooks automated content censors meant to curb drug sales on social media platforms. The algorithm couldn't distinguish his content from that of a suspected drug dealer. The algorithm picks up particular words, phrases, or speech patterns that are flagged and suppressed. Entire groups of harm reduction activistshave disappeared, along with scores of informational posts and threads. Some accounts have been banned for life.

Sabora was confident he could use social media tools to make a difference and help educate people about harm reduction. Instead, he found himself silenced by social media censors.

An obscure regulation called Section 230 shields social media companies from being held liable for the questionable content generated by users. Naturally, some politicians and activists are calling to rewrite Section 230 in order to incentivize tech giants to do a better job at moderating content that users post. While there is unquestionably a credible argument to do so, we must also be careful. Re-writing Section 230 could backfire. Instead of ending online drug sales, these new rules could further censor activists like Sabora who are trying to use social media to save lives during an overdose crisis. Congress must be cautious when crafting content moderation regulations around substance use disorderas companies are likely to shut down all related conversations to avoid liability.

Section 230is a decades-old law that regulates speech online and governs nearly every interaction on social media. The law is part of the United States Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 also protects social media platforms from being held responsible for the content users post. For example, ifa QAnon group plans and enacts a traitorous insurrection in Washington, DC, the website that hosted this group has immunity. They cant be prosecuted for what people post online. However, advocates have often tried to alter Section 230 to support their own political aims.

Sex trafficking is one of the most recent and thorny instances of Congress rewriting Section 230. Claiming to want to protect children and vulnerable people from being abducted and trafficked, advocates pressured lawmakers to pass a package of laws known as FOSTA/SESTA. This law amended Section 230 by holding websites and online platforms responsible for user content that might facilitate sexual exploitation. Although the Department of Justice went on record warning that FOSTA/SESTA would make it more difficult to prosecute sex trafficking cases, it was passed anyway. Disaster ensued. Instant crackdowns were implemented by websites, and some websites that were a safe haven for sex workers to vet their clients shutdown entirely. These measuresfailed to slow sex trafficking. In fact,the law has only been usedonceby federal prosecutorswho said they didnt really need it; they were able to use other, already existing laws to prosecute sex-trafficking offenses in the past. While FOSTA/SESTA did nothing to help potential victims or catch traffickers, it had an immediate, negative effect on another vulnerable group: sex workers.

A similar crackdown could harm people who use drugs and harm reduction advocates like Sabora who are trying to broadcast lifesaving information. Just as advocates urged Congress to rewrite Section 230 to prevent sexual exploitationa similar campaign is underway to prevent drug sales and curb Americas soaring overdose death rate. Horrificstoriesinvolving young adults buyingdrugs on Snapchatand TikTok abound. Some parents and advocates want Section 230 rewritten to increase liability of social media companies for drug sales on their platforms. But efforts to clamp down on online drug sales through Section 230 carve outs are somewhat misguided. Without careful considerations, these reforms would endanger the recovery community and harm reduction advocatesand threaten to stifle productive speech that is critical for progress to combat the overdose crisis. Current proposed230 carve-outs could undermine access tolifesavingresources, mandating takedowns of broad categories of content, and forcing vulnerable populations, including those navigatingsupportive services, off-platform. For criminalized communities, the risk for exploitation and harm offline is significant, and support and resources can be limited.

Harm reduction effortsand conversationsare often nuanced and specific to the individual, aiming to minimize harms of substance use. Blanket content bans, prescribed without consideration of context and nuance, could punish those seeking helphamstringing legitimate, proven approaches to combatting overdoses.

Instead of broadly crushing free speech and pushing social media companies to eliminate our ability to share resources, the U.S. government should focus its efforts on things that work. To save lives, policymakers must develop a realistic national strategy to combat the overdose crisis, including implementing evidence-based prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and recovery support services on the community-based level. Dont kill the conversation. Instead, we need to coordinate with localities to identify authentic places for support.Most leading platforms where these conversations take place have clear rules prohibiting the online sale and promotion of drugs and controlled substances,and companies must do a better job at policing those efforts.The federal government must work together with online platforms to coordinate a more effective strategy to remove bad actors, and work with law enforcement to prosecute drug traffickers.

Theres a world of difference between a syringe exchange and a drug deal. Until our governmentand our social media companiesrecognize that, we will continue to lose friends, loved ones, neighbors, and family members to preventable overdoses. Not because they wanted to die. But because they were silencedand separated from the people who were trying to help them.

Ryan Hampton is a nationally recognized recovery advocate, community organizer, and person in long-term recovery from addiction.He is the author of "Unsettled: How the Purdue Pharma Bankruptcy Failed the Victims of the American Overdose Crisis."Follow him on Twitter:@RyanForRecovery

Read the rest here:
Free speech restrictions on social media could squash harm reduction and addiction recovery efforts | TheHill - The Hill

Three Texas universities received the harshest, or "red light", rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, also known as FIRE. The national survey issued by the organization was published Tuesday and studies free speech policies at institutions of higher education.

The report included 481 U.S. four-year colleges and universities.

Red light-rated Texas schoolsUniversity of Texas, Dallas

Rice University

University of Houston, Downtown.

We disagree with this assessment," the University of Texas, Dallas said in a statement. "We make every effort to create an environment that supports and encourages free speech while protecting students, faculty and staff from harassment."

The University of Houston, Downtown said while they have long promoted constructive conversations on campus among students, faculty and staff, they do maintain email and anti-discrimination policies.

"Such policies are in place not to limit freedom of expression or speech but rather to ensure that UHD Community members can continue to work and learn in a safe environment," the university said in a statement.

Rice University did not respond to a request for comment.

Green light-rated Texas schools

Texas A&M University

What warrants a red light rating?

Laura Beltz, the author of FIRE's report said red rated schools have severely restrictive policies that constitute a serious threat to protected expression. She said the University of Houston, Downtown maintains an IT policy that students shall not send messages or make postings that could be construed as offensive. That could include anything from a rude tweet about a sports theme or an off-color joke. And that's protected speech.

FIRE said 86% of colleges restrict free speech in some capacity.

Middle of the pack

Beltz said 16 Texas schools, like Texas State University, scored a yellow rating, which is average. She said Texas State for example, prohibits information resource use for political purposes because the state school itself cannot legally advocate for politicians. But she said, students can.

So we flag this one, explained Beltz, because students could read this and think, oh, I'm not allowed to engage in any political expression over the university's IT resources, and that's just not the case.

The lone green light

Beltz said that among the rated Texas colleges, only Texas A&M earned a green light rating, meaning the school doesnt maintain any policies that compromise student expression. Only 12% of FIREs rated schools, 58 nationwide, scored a green light.

KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, considermaking a tax-deductible gifttoday. Thank you.

Got a tip? Email Reporter Bill Zeeble atbzeeble@kera.org. You can follow him on Twitter@bzeeble.

Read the original here:
3 Texas universities receive 'red light' rating for freedom of expression - KERA News

We hope you found this article interesting, enough to read to the bottom. Help us publish more in 2022.

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles well post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

Theres a reason why our site is unique and why we dont have to rely on those tactics our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past two years, weve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Help us hit our year-end target of 650 new monthly supporters and join Tyee Builders today.

Go here to read the rest:
Comedy, Free Speech and Navigating the Culture Wars - TheTyee.ca

The Duchess of Sussexs complaint against The Mail on Sunday was upheld by the Court of Appeal

MICHELE SPATARI/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Only in a mythical utopia are all good things compatible with each other. A free society needs to judge how to trade them off. There is no obvious right answer on how best to arbitrate between both free speech and personal privacy. It should be the prerogative of parliament to resolve the conflict and make laws setting out the protection of each. There are worrying signs that the law is instead being made by judges. The dangers are illustrated in a ruling by the Court of Appeal last week upholding a complaint by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, against The Mail on Sunday.

The duchess complained that the newspaper had breached her privacy in publishing parts of a letter she had written to her estranged

Originally posted here:
The Times view on free speech: Privacy and the Press - The Times

A Minnesota man is accused of intimidating the judge and interfering with the judicial process in the manslaughter trial of former police officer Kim Potter. The activist was arrested and charged with harassing the court official, and now his past relationship with the judge could have an effect on his new case.

A group of protesters assembled outside of an apartment building thought to be the residence of Hennepin County Judge Regina Chu on Nov. 6. They gathered to express their objections to Potters trial not being televised or streamed live. Local activist Cortez Rice participated in the action to persuade the judge to reconsider letting cameras in the courtroom.

Potter is a white female former police officer in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center who is charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter in the shooting death of Black motorist Daunte Wright in April. The former officer claims she mistook her handgun for a taser and fatally shot Wright during a traffic stop.

In August Chu ruled that the media would not be allowed to record, broadcast, or livestream the trial because Potter and her legal team did not want the cameras inside of the court. Under Minnesota law, either the defendant or the prosecutors can withhold consent for a trial to be broadcast. Chu further believed the additional people would elevate COVID-19 risks.

She did, however, afford the press (and others from the public) an opportunity to view the trial from a designated overflow room.

Chu ruled at the time that while concerned citizens and media have a right to access public trials, Potters right to ban TV cameras trumped the public interest value of any telecast.

By October a coalition of media outlets had filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider. One precedent the group could point to was this years murder trial of Derek Chauvin in the same county, where the judge in the case ruled that the proceedings could be telecast despite the objections of lawyers representing the former Minneapolis police officer.

Rice as well chose to press the case for televising the Potter trial, and the route he took was demonstration.

At some point in the Nov. 6 protest, Rice streamed himself not only going into the building but making his way up to the 12th floor to an apartment where he believed the judge lived.

As he approaches a door that he believes is Chus apartment, he shouts to others, I think this is her crib right here. After leaving what he thought was her doorstep, he went to the lobby with the other protestors, informing them, Thats her window on the 12th floor.

A criminal complaint was filed in Hennepin County citing Rices alleged harassment.

The document stated, The Defendant live-streamed on YouTube while doing so.

The complaint quotes Rice, who says he was also a friend of George Floyd, in the video as saying, We on her heels We want cameras. The people deserve to know.

Later in the video, according to the complaint, he shouts, We demand transparency. Wed hate you to get kicked out of your apartment.

A version of the now-deleted video cited in the filing can be seenhere.

In the complaint, Chu expresses that she believed she was the target of the Defendant and the other protesters and further stated that it was her belief the intention was to intimidate her and to interfere with the judicial process.

Rice was been arrested. He was picked up in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, transferred on Tuesday, Dec. 7, to the state of Minnesota, and is now in the custody of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Office. He is charged with a felony count of harassment involving retaliation against a judicial officer, according to WCCOTV.

Originally, a judge named Bill Kochin considered the prosecutions suggestion of setting his bond at$50,000 without conditions and the $30,000 with conditions on charges related to Chu. After appearing in a Hennepin County court, his bond was set at $20,000 and a court hearing was set for Dec. 20. That was later rescinded and bond was denied once more after information about Rices previous legal troubles emerged.

Three days after the protest, Judge Chu reversed herself and agreed to allow cameras in thecourtroom.

Chus history with Rice extends before the Nov. 6 protest. The 32-year-old Black man appeared in her courtroom in October to answer charges of probation violation for a 2017 weapons conviction. The Star Tribune reports that Chu continued his probation rather than send him to prison that day.

Judge Gary Bastian has ruled that because Rice traveled to Wisconsin he violated for the third time his probation, complicating his current charge.Because of this, he denied the Black Lives Matter activist bond on this new charge.

Rices attorney Jordan Kushner states that his client was attending a funeral. He attempted to contact his probation agent but was unable to, opting to go without permission. Kushner also rejects the claim that Rice harassed Judge Chu, saying Rices action First Amendment-protected free speech.

More news from our partners:

Ohio Man Who Didnt Say Anything Before Shooting Into Car and Killing Two of Three Teens Found Smoking In His Garage Was Convicted In Their Deaths, Faces Life Sentence

California Couple Sues Appraiser Over What They Say Was Racial Bias In Home Valuation Lowballed By $500K

Serena Williams To Miss Second Consecutive Major | The GOAT Will Not Play Australian Open; Are We At The End Of The Line?

See the original post:
Man Accused of Harassing Judge In Trial of Cop Who Killed Daunte Wright Says He Was Exercising Free Speech When Protesting at Her Home - Atlanta Black...

The First Amendment protects the right to speak freely, but there are limits. Sometimes, citizens go too far, but sometimes so does the government.

Deborah Fisher| Guest Columnist

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Deborah Fisher

Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, spoke with Tennessean opinion editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

I was recently on a panel that discussed where free speech ends and dangerous speech begins.

The topic is a recurring one in U.S. history and plays out in debates about hate speech, about burning crosses in peoples yards, about burning American flags, and about what is uttered by teachers in public schools.

Most Americans know that the First Amendment protects the right of speech in the United States that the government cant make laws controlling or punishing what you say.

Of course, there are limits to this liberty.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

If you publish something untrue that damages a persons reputation, you could be sued for libel.

We also have laws that punish threats, harassment, fraud, conspiracy to commit crimes and incitement of lawless action.

In all of these laws, the right of free speech and free expression is balanced against the need for public health and safety and other state interests, such as national security and respect for fundamental rights.

One place this has played out is in public meetings where the governing body is permitted to make rules to maintain the safety and orderly proceeding of the meeting.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

In Ohio, a school board, in its efforts to control its meetings, adopted a policy limiting what citizens could say during the public comment period.

The policy allowed the school board presiding officer to terminate a persons right to participate in public comments if the persons comments were too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, off-topic, antagonistic, obscene, or irrelevant.

The school boards president used the policy to remove a resident who he said was being basically unruly, not following the rules, being hostile in his demeanor.

Billy Ison, whose children and grandchildren had graduated from local schools, had been upset about the school boards actions after a school shooting that injured four students. During the the public comment period, he criticized the school board for suppressing opposition to pro-gun views.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

After Ison was kicked out for his comments, he sued the school board, saying his removal violated his constitutional First Amendment rights to free speech.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said a citizen cannot be thrown out of a public meeting simply because he or she offends, antagonizes or harshly criticizes a governing body or members of a governing body during a public comment period.

The court, whose jurisdiction includes Tennessee, said that the school boards policy prohibiting personally directed, abusive and antagonistic comments violated free speech rights.

The government cannot prohibit speech purely because it disparages or offends, the court said. Doing so would be discriminating based upon a particular persons viewpoint.

The ruling was a victory for citizens who have felt muzzled by government for speaking out at public meetings. The court noted that Ison spoke calmly, used measured tones, and refrained from personal attacks or vitriol, focusing instead on his stringent opposition to the Boards policy and his belief the Board was not being honest about its motives.

Is it any surprise that our most contentious public debates somehow end up at school board meetings?

Here in Tennessee, weve recently seen impassioned and fiery comments in school board meetings over COVID-19 masks and about how to teach children about American history, particularly history involving racism and slavery.

Sometimes parents show up in large groups and carry signs.

As these debates continue, parents would do well to balance their shouting with listening, and school boards to separate the disagreeable comments and criticism from the type of behavior that truly threatens others or disrupts a meeting in such a way that it cannot be continued.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1927, fear breeds repression; ...repression breeds hate; ...hate menaces stable government; ...the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

Deborah Fisher is executive director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. This column is part of a series that explores transparency in government in Tennessee. More information at http://www.tcog.info.

Read this article:
How government regulations controlling what people say can be dangerous | Opinion - The Tennessean

On Nov. 23, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute selected its new president to take the helm from outgoing president Shirley Ann Jackson: Martin A. Schmidt, currently the provost of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As Schmidt comes into office, it is time for him to speak up for free speech and for RPI to put freedom of expression front and center the important soul searching that Jacksons administration didnt have the character to undertake because it was too busy censoring its critics.

RPI has a long history of illiberalism under Jacksons 22-year watch, dating back to its suppression of faculty criticism of the Iraq war and censorship of student critics. Even today, the institute is facing allegations that it suppressed negative faculty and staff feedback in an employee climate survey the latest in RPIs depressingly long line of failures to uphold principles of free expression.

The Times Union obtained an internal email purporting to show RPI officials trying to suppress the results of the survey, which found a general fear-based, unhealthy, stifling culture across the RPI campus. A conversation between a school official and the alumnus who conducted the survey saw the official repeatedly stress how the survey findings needed to be presented in a positive manner, the alumnus wrote in the email, which was sent to RPI faculty.

The surveys findings, and the schools conduct in trying to spin them dishonestly, both track with the work of my organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a campus rights group, regarding RPI. As a private institution, RPI is not bound by the First Amendment, but it still makes strong promises of freedom of expression to its students promises the school has repeatedly failed to uphold, leading to disturbing effects.

RPI has earned itself a red light rating FIREs worst rating for its speech policies. This, as well as the fact that the school placed 149th out of 154th nationally in FIREs 2021 College Free Speech Rankings, reflects a hostile environment for the expressive rights of students and faculty alike.

That chill has come from the top of RPIs administration, which has gone to absurd lengths to censor student critics. In 2018, school security officers blocked students outside a hockey game from passing out buttons and literature related to an initiative to preserve a student-run union on campus. When the students argued that they were on a public sidewalk and not on RPIs property, the officers cited eminent domain. (Thats not how eminent domain works.)

The incident was one of a number of conflicts over a movement on campus for the preservation of a student-governed union that saw students who advocated for its independence subjected to extreme censorship measures. Students filmed school employees tearing down pro-student union flyers, and RPI hired Troy police to film student demonstrators all while building a fence through a significant part of campus to keep student demonstrations away from Jacksons black-tie fundraiser.

When civil liberties advocates raised questions, RPI did worse than ignore their advice; it actively made things worse. After the institute suppressed student speech under a solicitation policy, FIRE and the New York Civil Liberties Union pointed out that RPI had no such policy and that, even if it did, it would imperil the freedom of speech RPI promises its students. So, told that they were enforcing a non-existent policy, RPIs administration told students in public, on video that administrators need a controlled environment for speech. Then they set out to write the policy, requiring students to get administrators express permission to hand out anything in writing on campus.

Repeated suppression of student speech has consequences for the campus climate, as demonstrated by the responses of RPI students surveyed for FIREs rankings about the campus environment.

I feel that the administration at RPI actively fights against its student's [sic] rights to free speech, one student said.

I have never felt unable to express myself but I know those who have had campaign posters or articles in the newspaper taken down, said another.

FIRE has been on RPIs case for years. Early last year, FIRE traveled to the schools campus to give RPI a Lifetime Censorship Award for pervasively censoring its students, and also named the school one of the worst 10 colleges for free speech in the country.

How the institute will fare under Schmidt remains to be seen. He recently faced a controversy over academic freedom at MIT when he defended the disinvitation of Dorian Abbott, a geophysicist who has criticised aspects of affirmative action.

There is no point to having promises of free expression if the school will not uphold them. Repeated violations of free expression have real chilling effects on both faculty and students alike. Its time for RPI to live up to its promises and make itself a better place for free speech.

Graham Piro is a program officer for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Educations Individual Rights Defense Program (FIRE). https://thefire.org/alarm

More:
RPI needs to live up to the promise of free speech - Times Union

Gun owners are responsible for their weapons

About school shootings where do the guns come from? I suspect from the parents or a friend or relative, or stolen, or bought on the street. So, in part, I blame the gun owners. If you own a gun that is used, you are part of the reason and hold some blame for the deaths and injuries. Thus, as a gun owner, it is your responsibility to make sure no oneexcept you can gain access to it.

I understand teenagers are clever about stealing and figuring out where you might keep it, but it is your responsibility to find a way to be ahead of them, or dont own a gun.

This is true even if you dont have kids because a stranger or neighbor kid could and would be willing to steal your gun. Everyone who owns a gun is responsible, period.If your gun is used in a shooting, or a crime or ends up in the wrong hands you, as the owner with rare exceptions are a large part of the blame.

No matter how safe you think your gun is, please make it safer today.I am not against gun ownership or hunting, but I insist on much better responsibility

Kathy E Wilson,Brunswick

Free speech pushes US into divisiveness

Maybe Freedom of Speech and of the Press in our time has become a liability and danger to our very Democracy. How ironic that it may be our Achilles heel.

We have gone, over the decades, from newspapers, radio and three television networks that reported the news to a multitude of cable outlets, Facebook and social media that make, spin and sensationalize the news. Foreign actors and our enemies are even involved. Bad news is everywhere and good news is marginalized. We no longer know what is true or false. Conspiracy theories abound and are believed by many.

Recent polls show President Bidens popularity is falling. Even mainstream liberal news downplays his efforts to pass positive legislation through a divided Senate with two Democrats seemingly in the wrong party. Take over of both houses by the Republicans in the mid-terms is already predicted.

Homelessness and drug addiction is rampant in our country. Child hunger, affordable housing and the environment need immediate solutions. Wealth inequality continues to expand as the middle class disappears. Doing anything about these issues is assailed by the right as socialism. Voters complain that nothing is getting done yet they dont want taxes raised, even on the wealthy, to pay for anything.

Are polls suggesting that voters want a repeat of 2017-2020 and the end of our Democracy? Trump promised many things like improved infrastructure and medical care and delivered on neither. He cut taxes, strengthened the Plutocracy and alienated us with our allies. Then there was the attempted coup. Biden is trying to remedy those mistakes, around the Republican Blockade with his popularity dropping even though he has been in office for less than a year.

America is in a State of Information Confusion where black is white and white is black and grey no longer exists. Our free speech rights, pervasive free press and media sources are continually pushing this country into a divisive state of bewilderment and irrationality. As we fracture and disintegrate, our adversaries rejoice and wait for our Democracy to collapse.

Jeffrey Runyon,Brunswick

More:
Letters: Gun owners are responsible for their weapons; Free speech pushes US into divisiveness - pressherald.com