Category Archives: Free Speech

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

Unless we stop corporate greed, we are going to see continue to see new COVID variants. Vaccine producers are blocking underdeveloped countries from using their vaccine so Pfizer and Moderna can make super profits.

Lori Wallach is the Executive Director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. She joins Thom Hartmann to discuss how the greed of Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers and distributors are leading to wave after wave of new, more contagious COVID variants.

--

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

Big Pharma Corporate Greed Corporations Moderna Omicron Pfizer Public Health The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Vaccine

Read more from the original source:
Will Corporate Greed Kill Another 800000 Americans? - Free Speech TV

Proposed legislation to protect free speech on campus could have prevented the harassment that drove Kathleen Stock to leave UK academia, the former University of Sussex professor has claimed.

Asked if the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, which iscurrently passing through the House of Commons, would have affected her situation at Sussex if it was already in place, Professor Stock insisted that it would have made a real difference because there is a real lack of understanding of the value of free speech and academic freedom on British university campuses.

It may sound draconian but [legislation] is needed because universities have failed to grasp this problem, Professor Stock told an audience at the Legatum Institute in London on 30 November.

Professor Stock announced on 28October that shewas leaving her post as professor of philosophyafter being targeted by protesters, who accused her of transphobia which she denies over her insistence that individuals cannot change their biological sex. The author ofMaterial Girlshas sincespoken outabout the exhaustion she felt after years of negative treatment by colleagues that she believed amounted to reputation trashing, claiming some academics at Sussex have publiclysupported student effortsto have her fired for her views.

Speaking to an event organised by the right-leaning thinktank in London, Professor Stock stated that the proposed legislation to strengthen existing free speech duties at English universities and extend them to student unions would have made students and peers feel less emboldened to act against her.

If my detractors at Sussex had been warned about [the importance] of academic freedom and knew what it was for, it is possible they would not have been emboldened as they did, said Professor Stock, who spoke alongside Niall Ferguson, the Stanford University historian. Both have joined the University of Austin, a private liberal arts institution in the US, in response to what he called the growing illiberalism on campuses.

Professor Stock also criticised a raft of national higher education frameworks and policies including the National Student Survey, teaching excellence framework and the research excellence framework for worsening the general fear of speaking out, against the grain, in controversial areas.

Student satisfaction is a big measure of what universities are, said Professor Stock, who said the importance of these scores in the NSS and TEF had created expectations among students that their views on certain academic matters would be accommodated.

Students had also been encouraged to become involved with the co-creation of curricula, which was a reimagining of the pedagogic relationship, and it is giving students a lot more power, she continued.

The Office for Students [the English regulator] is very supportive of this but you have to think how this impacts on the ability of staff to say things that people might not like, Professor Stock said.

The REFs growing emphasis on impact and research that found an audience outside universities may also be detrimental to scholars wishing to challenge long-held beliefs, she added.

Its quite conservative because universities prioritise work which will have impact and promote research that will find a receptive audience, said Professor Stock.

Universities massively increased focus on equality, diversity and inclusion a concept that was construed very narrowly also had implications for free speech and academic freedom because those who did not subscribe to a specific interpretation were treated as heretics, she added.

Universities have been told they have to go beyond the law and actively embody EDI which creates an intensely moralising atmosphere, said Professor Stock, who said this agendas inclusion into promotion structures incentivises people to become very moralised.

On the need for legislation, she concluded that it was a shame that we have to use such a big stick to get universities to recognise the value of academic freedom which should be seen as an end in itself.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

See the original post:
Kathleen Stock: free speech bill could have saved my Sussex career - Times Higher Education

To her eternal credit, Meghan Markle stands up for what she believes in. But when she joined the Royal Family, there were certain expectations of her that she seemed to believe she could dodgewhich simply was not the case, a royal expert has claimed.

In the second episode of the BBC's controversial documentary The Princes and the Press, which aired on Nov. 29, host Amol Rajan asked Daily Mail columnist Amanda Platell, "In so many ways, Meghan is a welcome breath of fresh air but the last thing Britain needs is an over-confident, virtue-signaling American actress using her position in the Royal Family to promote her right-on views. What did you mean when you said the issue was that she's over-confident and virtue-signaling?" (via Express).

Platell answered, "I think that it shows the utmost navet of any intelligent woman, which she is, to think that you'd join an organization like the Royal Family and have free rein and free speech."

It's cool that women can't have opinions, I guess? Very 21st century of everyone involved.

(Image credit: Getty Images)

In the same documentary, columnist and broadcaster Rachel Johnson reinforced this sentiment, implying that Markle was too opinionated for the "patriarchal" culture of not only the royals but the United Kingdom, too. She explained that, by contrast, Kate Middleton exemplified the "perfect" female royal in the eyes of the press.

"There are women journalists, who basically say, 'Kate is perfect, she's our English rose,'" Johnson said (via Express). "They have a perfect template of what they want a royal female to be: not political, doesn't open her mouth very much in public, who makes very short, scripted speeches on very safe subjects.

"Whereas Meghan Markle will talk about period poverty. She will talk about racism. She will talk about female empowerment.

"These are trigger subjects in this country, where the Royal Family, despite being led by the Queen for 70 odd years is still a very patriarchal, hierarchical country." Ugh.

Follow this link:
Meghan Markle Was "Naive" to Expect "Free Reign and Free Speech" in the Royal Family, Expert Claims - MarieClaire.com

Dec 4th 2021

TO UNDERSTAND THE culture wars, it is worth considering what happened between Jordan Peterson and a large red lobster in Cambridge University on a recent evening. Namely, nothing. Which doesnt mean it wasnt important. On the contrary: how it came to pass that nothing was allowed to happen between Mr Peterson and a student dressed as a lobster matters a lot.

Your browser does not support the

Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

First, the lobster. For those (non-lobsters) who have been living under a rock for the past five years, a primer. Mr Peterson is a Canadian academic who, depending on your viewpoint, is either monstrous or magnificent, but who is, all agree, a phenomenon. His book, 12 Rules for Life, has sold over 5m copies and is an intriguing read. It passes briskly from the biology of lobsters to Eden, original sin, Buddhism and the suffering soul. It is peppered with admonitions to stand up straight with your shoulders back and tell the truth. The effect is as if St Augustine had been reincarnated as a life coach, with added input from your mum.

For those who like this sort of stuff (mainly young men), it is wonderful: bracing; inspiring; manly. For critics (of whom there are many) Mr Peterson is propping up the patriarchy with cod biology about lobsters. (At one point he uses lobster hierarchies to explain why men should walk tall.) While the sides bickered, Mr Peterson became a sensation. He speaks in arenas, appears on talk shows and news programmes and almost always manages to annoy. His interviews (one in 2018 with Cathy Newman, a news anchor for Channel 4, was particularly excruciating) are tense, taut and watched by millions.

In 2018 Mr Peterson happened to sit opposite Douglas Hedley, a Cambridge professor of the philosophy of religion, at dinner. Mr Hedley invited him to take up a visiting fellowship. It seems likely that neither quite knew what they were getting themselves into: the invitation was prompted not by lobsters or talk shows but a shared interest in Jung and Biblical symbolism. What happened next was a textbook cancellation.

Not many complaints are needed to constitute the quorum of a controversy today. Earlier this year a podcaster criticised Brian Wong, Who was Never, Ever Wrong, a story by David Walliams, a comedian turned childrens author, for reinforcing harmful stereotypes about Chinese people. His publisher, HarperCollins, said it would remove the story from reprints. Mr Walliamss series has sold 2m copies, and that book had 6,691 reviews on Amazon, almost all five-star. Yet a single complaint ended in censorship.

In Cambridge, problems began when some students complained about Mr Peterson. The faculty reneged on the invitation in an inept Twitter announcement before Mr Peterson had even been told. The pretext was that he had been photographed next to someone wearing a T-shirt reading Im a proud Islamophobe. When asked to clarify, the divinity faculty remained silent; a press officer for the university explained that they dont wish to be interviewed about events that happened nearly three years ago. The department is home to students of Thomas Aquinas, original sin and early Judaism. Perhaps three years ago was just too fresh.

Little of this is surprising. British universities are, as is clear from the treatment of Kathleen Stock, hardly distinguishing themselves as bastions of free speech. Ms Stock recently resigned from a professorship in philosophy at Sussex University after a years-long campaign of harassment by students and faculty. But in Cambridge there are signs of a pushback. In 2020 a group of academics led by Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor, rejected an amendment to university regulations that would have restricted their free speech. They forced the university to accept that academics should not have to respect everyones views, but merely tolerate them. More recently they kicked an attempt to set up an anonymous online-reporting tool into the long grass.

Then a handful of academicsincluding Mr Ahmed and James Orr, a divinity lecturerturned their attention to Mr Peterson. Not because they are diehard fans (they arent) but because, as Mr Ahmed says, there had been a grotesque violation of academic freedom and a stain on our reputation. Bureaucratic cogs started to turn. Committees were dealt with, halls booked, security organised and invitations issued. The vote to ensure tolerance helped: now critics had to put up with Mr Peterson. Nonetheless, says Mr Orr, it took an awful lot of time.

The bloody history of the 20th century can lead to a misapprehension about free speech. It is thought to be lost suddenly, to stormtroopers in the night. In fact, freedoms are almost always first removed bureaucratically, with processes made steadily more onerous, whisper campaigns started by colleagues, a word in the bosss ear. Bertrand Russellanother academic kicked out of Cambridge, in his case for pacifismwrote that the habit of considering morality and political opinion before offering a person a post is the modern form of persecution, and it is likely to become quite as efficient as the Inquisition ever was.

The academics persisted. The cogs turned. And on a cold, clear Tuesday evening, a talk took place. There were trestle tables and people ticking off names. Mr Peterson, slender and brittle as a blade in a sharp blue suit, spoke for over an hour to a satisfied audience. The lobster appeared, shouted something about feminism and scuttled through a side door. No one expired from offence. The sky did not fall in. Votes of thanks followed. Mr Peterson was thanked. The audience was thanked. The lobster was thanked.

It was all quite humdrumand that was the point. When people think of defending freedom of speech, they also turn to the dramatic: to Voltaire and defending to the death. But that is rarely necessary. Speech can be silenced by bureaucracyor saved by it: by cogs turning; by trestle tables and people with lists; by insisting on clearly stated rights. And by votes of thanks to lobsters.

Read more from Bagehot, our columnist on British politics:Boris Johnson should pick fights with conservative institutions (Nov 27th)Britains establishment has split into two, each convinced it is the underdog (Nov 20th)How Boris Johnsons failure to tackle sleaze among MPs could prove costly (Nov 10th)

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Jordan Peterson and the lobster"

Read more:
Jordan Peterson and the lobster - The Economist

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Restrictions on speech by public colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. Such restrictions deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive. An open society depends on liberal education, and the whole enterprise of liberal education is founded on the principle of free speech.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When we grant the government the power to suppress controversial ideas, we are all subject to censorship by the state. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. 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.

But the right to free speech is not just about the law; its also a vital part of our civic education. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1943 about the role of schools in our society: That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. Remarkably, Justice Jackson was referring to grade school students. Inculcating constitutional values in particular, the value of free expression should be nothing less than a core mission of any college or university.

To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis. Restricting such speech may be attractive to college administrators as a quick fix to address campus tensions. But real social change comes from hard work to address the underlying causes of inequality and bigotry, not from purified discourse. The ACLU believes that instead of symbolic gestures to silence ugly viewpoints, colleges and universities have to step up their efforts to recruit diverse faculty, students, and administrators; increase resources for student counseling; and raise awareness about bigotry and its history.

A:The First Amendment does not require the government to provide a platform to anyone, but it does prohibit the government from discriminating against speech on the basis of the speakers viewpoint. For example, public colleges and universities have no obligation to fund student publications; however, the Supreme Court has held that if a public university voluntarily provides these funds, it cannot selectively withhold them from particular student publications simply because they advocate a controversial point of view.

Of course, public colleges and universities are free to invite whomever they like to speak at commencement ceremonies or other events, just as students are free to protest speakers they find offensive. College administrators cannot, however, dictate which speakers students may invite to campus on their own initiative. If a college or university usually allows students to use campus resources (such as auditoriums) to entertain guests, the school cannot withdraw those resources simply because students have invited a controversial speaker to campus.

A:In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it intentionally and effectively provokes a crowd to immediately carry out violent and unlawful action. This is a very high bar, and for good reason.

The incitement standard has been used to protect all kinds of political speech, including speech that at least tacitly endorses violence, no matter how righteous or vile the cause. For example, in NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware, the court held that civil rights icon Charles Evans could not be held liable for the statement, If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, were going to break your damn neck. In Hess v. Indiana, the court held that an anti-war protestor could not be arrested for telling a crowd of protestors, Well take the fucking street later. And In Brandenburg itself, the court held that a Ku Klux Klan leader could not be jailed for a speech stating that there might have to be some revengeance [sic] taken for the continued suppression of the white, Caucasian race.

The First Amendments robust protections in this context reflect two fundamentally important values. First, political advocacy rhetoric meant to inspire action against unjust laws or policies is essential to democracy. Second, people should be held accountable for their own conduct, regardless of what someone else may have said. To protect these values, the First Amendment allows lots of breathing room for the messy, chaotic, ad hominem, passionate, and even bigoted speech that is part and parcel of American politics. Its the price we pay to keep bullhorns in the hands of political activists.

People often associate the limits of First Amendment protection with the phrase shouting fire in a crowded theater. But that phrase is just (slightly inaccurate) shorthand for the legal concept of incitement. (Although, if you think theres a fire even if youre wrong youd better yell!)The phrase, an incomplete reference to the concept of incitement, comes from the Supreme Courts 1919 decision in Schenck v. United States. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, which authorized the publication of more than 15,000 fliers urging people not to submit to the draft for the First World War. The fliers said things like: Do not submit to intimidation, and Assert your rights. As a result of their advocacy, Schenck and Baer were convicted for violating the Espionage Act, which prohibits interference with military operations or recruitment, insubordination in the military, and support for enemies of the United States during wartime.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Justice Oliver Wendell HolmesJr. held that Schencks and Baers convictions did not violate the First Amendment. Observing that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic, Holmes reasoned by analogy that speech urging people to resist the draft posed a clear and present danger to the United States and therefore did not deserve protection under the First Amendment. This is the problem with the line about shouting fire in a crowded theater it can be used to justify suppressing any disapproved speech, no matter how tenuous the analogy. Justice Holmes later advocated for much more robust free speech protections, and Schenck was ultimately overruled. It is now emphatically clear that the First Amendment protects the right to urge resistance to a military draft, and much else.

A:The Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that the First Amendment does not protect fighting words, but this is an extremely limited exception. It applies only to intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation that is likely to provoke a violent reaction. For example, if a white student confronts a student of color on campus and starts shouting racial slurs in a one-on-one confrontation, that student may be subject to discipline.

Over the past 50 years, the Supreme Court hasnt found the fighting words doctrine applicable in any of the cases that have come before it, because the circumstances did not meet the narrow criteria outlined above. The fighting words doctrine does not apply to speakers addressing a large crowd on campus, no matter how much discomfort, offense, or emotional pain their speech may cause.

In fact, the Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot prevent speech on the ground that it is likely to provoke a hostile response this is called the rule against a hecklers veto. Without this vital protection, government officials could use safety concerns as asmokescreen to justify shutting down speech they dont like, including speech that challenges the status quo. Instead, the First Amendment requires the government to provide protection to all speakers, no matter how provocative their speech might be. This includes taking reasonable measures to ensure that speakers are able to safely and effectively address their audience, free from violence or censorship. Its how our society ensures that the free exchange of ideas is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.

A:Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if theyre worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment protects symbolic expression, such as swastikas, burning crosses, and peace signsbecause its closely akin to pure speech. The Supreme Court has accordingly upheld the rights of students to wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War, as well as the right to burn the American flag in public as a symbolic expression of disagreement with government policies.

But the First Amendment does not protect the use of nonverbal symbols to directly threaten an individual, such as by hanging a noose over their dorm room or office door. Nor does the First Amendment protect the use of a non-verbal symbol to encroach upon or desecrate private property, such as by burning a cross on someones lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, for example, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a city ordinance that prohibited cross-burnings based solely on their symbolism. But the Courts decision makes clear that the government may prosecute cross-burners under criminal trespass and/or anti-harassment laws.

A:Yes. Speech does not merit constitutional protection when it targets a particular individual for harm, such as a true threat of physical violence. And schools must take action to remedy behavior that interferes with a particular students ability to exercise their right to participate fully in the life of the university, such as targeted harassment.

The ACLU isnt opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment, or threats. To the contrary, we believe that these kinds of conduct can and should be proscribed. Furthermore, we recognize that the mere use of words as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation, or invasion of privacy does not immunize that act from punishment.

A:Historically, restrictions on speech have proven at best ineffective, and at worst counter-productive, in the fight against bigotry. Although drafted with the best intentions, these restrictions are often interpreted and enforced to oppose social change. Why? Because they place the power to decide whether speech is offensive and should be restrained with authority figures the government or a college administration rather than with those seeking to question or dismantle existing power structures.

For example, under a speech code in effect at the University of Michigan for 18 months, there were 20 cases in which white students charged Black students with offensive speech. One of the cases resulted in the punishment of a Black student for using the term white trash in conversation with a white student. The code was struck down as unconstitutional in 1989.

To take another example, public schools throughout the country have attempted to censor pro-LGBT messages because the government thought they were controversial, inappropriate for minors, or just wrong. Heather Gillmans school district banned her from wearing a shirt that said I Support My Gay Cousin. The principal maintained that her T-shirt and other speech supporting LGBT equality, such as I Support Marriage Equality, were divisive and inappropriate for impressionable students. The ACLU sued the school district and won, because the First Amendment prevents the government from making LGBT people and LGBT-related issues disappear.

These examples demonstrate that restrictions on speech dont really serve the interests of marginalized groups. The First Amendment does.

A:Bigoted speech is symptomatic of a huge problem in our country. Our schools, colleges, and universities must prepare students to combat this problem. That means being an advocate: speaking out and convincing others. Confronting, hearing, and countering offensive speech is an important skill, and it should be considered a core requirement at any school worth its salt.

When schools shut down speakers who espouse bigoted views, they deprive their students of the opportunity to confront those views themselves. Such incidents do not shut down a single bad idea, nor do they protect students from the harsh realities of an often unjust world. Silencing a bigot accomplishes nothing except turning them into a martyr for the principle of free expression. The better approach, and the one more consistent with our constitutional tradition, is to respond to ideas we hate with the ideals we cherish.

A:Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyones rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend civil rights workers, anti-war protestors, LGBT activists, and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-Semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLUs defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and 1970s.

A: Universities are obligated to create an environment that fosters tolerance and mutual respect among members of the campus community, an environment in which all students can exercise their right to participate meaningfully in campus life without being subject to discrimination. To advance these values, campus administrators should:

Read the original:
Speech on Campus | American Civil Liberties Union

CAPE CORAL, Fla. Should Florida doctors be able to spread information that isnt medically accurate?

A new bill could give your doctor more free speech and make it harder to discipline them for spreading questionable information. While free speech is a right it does have its limits.

Some medical experts say House Bill 687 could make it harder to discipline doctors for spreading misinformation.

Sometimes they can base opinions on their religious beliefs or their background, said Teresa Melendez who has concerns with the bill.

She, like many, feels a doctors right to free speech should not affect her health.

We want something that is scientifically proven for the sake of my health and anybody else, Melendez stressed.

The new bill would give doctors more free speech on social media and it makes it harder to discipline medical experts for spreading misinformation.

Barbara Garret of Fort Myers called it horrible.

Its scary and we trust them for science and information. Thats why you go to them because you feel like youre safe, Garret said.

Dr. Sue Hook runs The Samaritan Health Clinic in Cape Coral and also has concerns with the proposed bill.

Personally Im not going to tell my patients something that I dont know for sure, Hook said.

Dr. Hook, a nurse practitioner with a doctorate degree and specializes in family medicine said she fears HB 687 could muzzle licensing boards meant to hold doctors medically accountable.

If somebody is out there touting untruths and we can prove that is not true and its hurting people they should definitely be placed under some kind of discipline, Dr. Hook said.

The bill requires licensing boards to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the medical experts post was harmful.

I think this particular bill may have gone a little bit too far, said Dr. Pamella Seay

FGCU Constitutional Law Professor Dr. Pamella Seay stresses that free speech has limits and causing harm is one of those limits.

How far do we go in saying you can talk about everything. Are we going to have snake oil salesmen again? What is it that were going to have, Dr. Seay asked.

The bill also applies to nurses, dentists and massage therapists. The house bill does not have a companion bill yet in the senate, something needed before it could proceed to becoming law.

Follow this link:
Should doctors be allowed to spread medically inaccurate information under free speech? - WZVN-TV

After a jury awarded more than $26 million in damages in a lawsuit against White nationalists who organized and participated in a violent rally in 2017, the mother of a woman who was killed there said the verdict proves speech may be protected but violent actions are not.

Heather Heyer was killed and dozens were injured when James Alex Fields Jr. drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters to the rally. Fields is serving multiple life sentences for killing Heyer.

The jury in a civil trial on Tuesday found the defendants, which included some of the most prominent figures of the alt-right -- Jason Kessler, Matthew Heimbach, Richard Spencer and Christopher Cantwell -- liable on a state conspiracy claim and other claims regarding the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

"The defendants seemed to want to argue that their speech was protected by First Amendment rights, and I would say speech is protected. Action from that speech is not protected," said Susan Bro, Heyer's mother. "So when you speak and you, yourself and others act on that speech, it is no longer protected."

Half of the punitive damages awarded were against Fields. In addition, the jury awarded punitive damages against Kessler, Spencer and Cantwell at $700,000 each, and Heimbach for $500,000.

The events surrounding August 11-12, 2017, saw White nationalists and supremacists marching through Charlottesville and the University of Virginia campus chanting, "Jews will not replace us," "You will not replace us" and "Blood and soil," a phrase evoking Nazi philosophy on ethnic identity.

The violence -- which enveloped the rally to protest the planned removal of a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee -- reached a crescendo when Fields, who was protesting the statue's removal, sped his car through the crowd, injuring dozens and killing Heyer.

Bro said she wanted people to "stop putting Heather on a pedestal."

"She was a normal 32-year-old, feisty woman," Bro told CNN's John Berman. "She had rough edges, just like anybody, and she was a random murder in a mass car attack. She just happened to be the one that took the brunt force."

"So what I want you to take away from that is, stand up and do the right thing. You don't know what kind of impact that will have," Bro said.

Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

The jury's decision "speaks volumes to trying to set things straight" in her daughter's murder, Bro said.

"This is the first, and God knows I hope, the only murder in my life," she said. "I don't know that you ever feel complete justice. But I don't know what else could be done."

The plaintiffs included town residents and counterprotesters injured in the violence, and Bro said she was proud of them "for not buckling under pressure when questioned by the defendants."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said on Tuesday they were "thrilled" with the verdict.

"Today's verdict sends a loud and clear message that facts matter, the law matters, and that the laws of this country will not tolerate the use of violence to deprive racial and religious minorities of the basic right we all share to live as free and equal citizens," plaintiffs' attorneys Robert Kaplan and Karen Dunn said Tuesday.

Despite the large jury award, there's the question of whether the plaintiffs will see much of that money. While Fields is serving multiple life sentences, some of the other defendants -- individuals and White supremacist organizations -- have indicated they are financially stressed.

"The defendants in the case are destitute, none of them have any money," said attorney Joshua Smith, who represented three defendants. "I don't know how any of the plaintiffs are going to get anything for any of this."

& 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

Excerpt from:
Heather Heyer's mom on Unite the Right verdict: Free speech is protected, but violent actions are not - jacksonprogress-argus