Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

My critique this week of a free-speech watchdogs roster, ostensibly of efforts to silence speakers on college campuses because of their views, has drawn blood. The sponsor of the disinvitation database, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, struck back Tuesday to defend its work.

FIREs willingness to engage in debate, via an article by Ari Cohn, director of its individual rights defense program, is a commendable nod to its stated mission of defending freedom of speech and other such rights on campus. But Cohns response actually makes my case that its database, which encompasses 331 disinvitations of campus speakers since 2010, including 43 last year, is shallow, overly inclusive, and dependent on anecdotes that dont support its claim that freedom of speech on campus is in decline.

It is utterly illiberal to demand that anyone who would like to hear from the speaker not be allowed to do so, Cohn writes. Thats true, as far as it goes. But many of the cases FIRE includes in its roster dont involve demands to prevent speakers from speaking at an event or others from attending. As I pointed out in my original column, many involve simply protests or the airing of objections that themselves amount to expressions of free speech.

Lets examine Cohns defense.

First, Cohn takes issue with my point that even if the database did comprise every attempt to silence speakers or force them to withdraw, it represented a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands of speaking invitations issued every year by Americas more than 4,000 colleges. Therefore it cant serve as evidence of a trend toward more exclusion. While there may be 4,000 colleges and universities, he writes, the universe of schools to which controversial, big-name speakers are invited is likely significantly smaller.

That may be so, but FIREs universe is fairly inclusive. Its database includes big campuses like Berkeley and the University of Michigan, but also places like Earlham College of Indiana (enrollment 1,019) and Anna Maria College of Massachusetts (1,462). So whats the real size of the universe? Cohn doesnt say. Nor are all the targets appearing on his list big name speakers: They include state legislators, authors of self-published political screeds, and local activists unknown outside their homes and surrounding counties.

The bigger issue, however, lies with FIREs claim that its database tracks calls to silence or disinvite a speaker. Cohn writes that disinvitation teaches students the wrong lesson: that keeping anyone on campus from hearing views with which some people disagree, rather than the more difficult task of engaging in critical thinking and refuting those views, is an acceptable and successful tactic. The truth is that many of FIREs cited incidents are nothing of the kind.

I mentioned a couple in my original piece, including a protest against the joint appearance of former Vice President Joe Biden and former House Speaker John A. Boehner at Notre Dames 2016 commencement. FIRE listed the event but didnt cite any evidence of an effort to disinvite the speakers. Cohn defends the inclusion by arguing that some students wrote that they strongly objected to the invitations. Whether this is an implicit call for the revocation of the invitations is a matter upon which reasonable minds can disagree.

But there can be no disagreement about the letter Cohn cites. It says, We do not wish to endorse or refute either awardees worthiness to receive this honor, but simply call on dissenters of the Universitys decision to acknowledge the importance of all Catholic Social Teachings, not simply those they believe are the most important. In other words, it doesnt come close, even implicitly, to calling for disinvitation indeed, it explicitly disavows any such intention. Why is this episode on FIREs list?

There are other such examples. Appearances by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at Scripps College and Syracuse University made the database. But neither seemed to involve a call for disinviting her. At Scripps, her commencement appearance inspired a commentary in the campus newspaper about her supposed role in fostering genocide; but that free expression of opinion should hearten, not disturb, the people at FIRE. At Syracuse, FIREs evidence for disinvitation is a report of a small protest outside the hall while Albright was speaking inside. How is that a disinivitation attempt?

Cohn takes issue with my argument that commencement speakers should be distinguished from those invited to participate in a campus discussion or panel or give a substantive talk. My point was that a colleges invitation to address commencement confers an implied institutional imprimatur on the speakers career or views. Thats especially so when it comes packaged with an honorary degree, as is typically the case. Under the circumstances, the selection of a commencement speaker should be subject to the most vigorous debate and even reconsideration by the campus community.

Cohn writes, Commencement speakers are generally invited because they have a message to students that would be valuable as they move forward with their lives, often drawing upon their own histories and experiences. Uh-huh. Would that the average commencement keynote met this high standard. But Ive been to a few such events, and I know, as I bet Cohn does too, that his Pollyanna-ish statement could have come right out of a college press release.

Finally, Cohn disputes my assertion that a speakers fitness to appear on campus at all should be a legitimate topic of discussion, debate, and reconsideration. He writes: Those extending campus speaking invitations are surely tasked with determining from whom they would like to hear. Once the inviting party has determined that they would like to hear out a particular speaker, it is certainly not the place of others on campus to determine for them whether or not such a speaker is qualified.

Here he begs an important question. Tasked by whom? At many campuses, almost anyone can invite a speaker, provided that a free classroom or hall can be found for the event. Surely not everyone tendering an invitation is doing so in the name of the university. Judgments of whos qualified to speak at a campus venue are made all the time on virtually every campus. Why any one individuals decision to offer a platform to any speaker should necessarily be the last word, immune from criticism, objection, or revocation, is a mystery, and Cohn doesnt solve it.

Keeping an eye on efforts to suppress free speech on college campuses is a worthy calling. But FIREs assertions that such efforts are on the rise indeed, that they set a record in 2016 cant survive scrutiny, at least not based on the evidence it provides. Anecdotes can be useful, but not when they deflate at the slightest poking.

Keep up to date with Michael Hiltzik. Follow @hiltzikm on Twitter, see his Facebook page, or email michael.hiltzik@latimes.com.

Return to Michael Hiltzik's blog.

Read the original post:
'Political correctness' on campus: A free-speech watchdog defends its questionable evidence - Los Angeles Times

|

Posted: Mar 16, 2017 11:13 AM

In a simpler age, one major argument for a young scholar going to college was the exposure he or she would receive to a wide spectrum of viewpoints, vigorously and freely debated. Sadly, many institutions of higher learning now seem determined to protect students from free speech, especially if controversial views run counter to progressive orthodoxy.

Thus, a culture of censorship now grips many universities via such mechanisms as minuscule free-speech zones, restrictive speech codes, safe spaces for those taking umbrage to criticism (so-called snowflakes), mandatory diversity training, and speaker dis-invitations.

A nonprofit group that tracks threats to free speech in academe and often litigates in support of liberty is the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). On February 7, FIRE released its first-ever survey of yet another illiberal technique for speech suppression: Bias Response Teams (BRTs). They work like this: College administrations actively invite students to report other students or professors whose speech they subjectively deem to be biased.

Comments by the snitches, who may remain anonymous, commonly concern political or social speech that is constitutionally protected. For example, a University of Northern Colorado professor found himself in a BRTs crosshairs in summer 2016 simply for suggesting in a classroom discussion that students consider opposing viewpoints. (He also commended to students a FIRE officials article on free speech.) The professor received an administrative warning that he could be more aggressively investigated if he continued to broach controversial subjects.

In addition to such interventions, transgressors can have reprimands placed in their records or even more explicit punishment, according to Adam Steinbaugh, a FIRE senior program officer. FIRE identified 232 colleges, both public and private, that use this fast-spreading method of stifling speech. Most of these Star Chamber entities have student-conduct administrators on board, but a shocking 42 percent of BRTs include law enforcement personnel. Thus, the idea of speech police has broken out beyond the fictional works of George Orwell.

At issue is not hate speech by deranged people deliberately seeking to foment violence. That kind of speech forfeits constitutional protection. At stake is the right to speak out on questions and issues of public importance, even in a provocative manner.

Can government compel universities to honor and protect the First Amendment right of free speech instead of regulating it virtually out of existence? Following the February 1 violent protest at the University of California-Berkeley that shut down an invited speaker, former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos, and caused $100,000 of property damage, President Donald Trump tweeted NO FEDERAL FUNDS? as a possible penalty for universities disrespecting free speech. But would it really be a good idea to make Washington, DC the omniscient enforcer of free expression on all campuses across the land?

The First Amendment applies to state legislatures and public colleges and universities through the 14th Amendment. Given that reality, a solution consistent with federalism might well lie in each states consideration of a Campus Free Speech Act (CFSA), such as the one the Goldwater Institute has prepared with the help of eminent scholars.

Some of CFSAs key points, as outlined by one of its draftersStanley Kurtz, of the Ethics and Public Policy Centerinclude: require public universities to adopt a declaration of the centrality of free speech; nullify all speech codes; declare campus podiums open to all speakers invited by student organizations or faculty members; forbid disruptions of invited speakers and punish disruptors; prevent the designation of limited free speech zones; and require university stewards to adhere to policies of institutional neutrality on public-policy controversies of the day (lest students and professors disagreeing with official policy be under heavy pressure to conform).

In a February 1 article for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Kurtz strongly criticized the idea of letting those who shout down campus speakers escape unpunished: Legitimate protest must of course be permitted and protected. Yet interrupting, physically assaulting, or shouting down speakers is tyranny, pure and simple and cannot be tolerated by any community that cherishes and protects free expression.

Quoting a 1929 opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that defined genuine freedom as freedom for the thought that we hate, Kurtz added this cogent thought: Far from being license, true freedom is an act of self-control, a refusal to physically extinguish even the speech we abhor. Freedom is a refusal to attack our opponents with everything weve got. Campus demonstrators have mistakenly elevated what they think of as sensitivity and civility over the principle of free expression. Yet the truth is, freedom of speech itself is the ultimate act of civility.

Legislatures taking this proposed measure under consideration might well seek to improve upon it or develop their own approaches. Private universities would not be subject to state controls; however, their trustees could draw many ideas for application to their campuses, such as retooling freshman orientation to ensure students know from the outset that the free and respectful exchange of competing ideas will be central to their learning experience.

The rest is here:
Entire Campus Should Be Safe Space for Free Speech - Townhall

Steve Helber, AP Images

Teresa A. Sullivan, president of the U. of Virginia

And that includes speech that some find intolerant and offensive, she said here Sunday at the American Council on Educations annual gathering. Her half-hour keynote, When the Middle Ground Is the High Ground: Free Speech and the University, served as a call for institutions both public and private to uphold freedom of speech.

Any restriction on it seems incompatible with the fundamental values of higher education, said Ms. Sullivan, who has been UVas president since 2010 and plans to step down next year.

Students, she added, can be the biggest opponents of free speech without realizing it when they demand to be protected from speech they find offensive. But doing so does them a disservice, she said, because were leaving them unprepared for the intellectual and social fray that they will enter the moment they step off our campuses.

Any restriction on it seems incompatible with the fundamental values of higher education.

In a letter, Ms. Sullivans critics had questioned why she would use Jefferson as a moral compass, given his connection to slavery, and asked to her to avoid quoting him again. Later, she said she had to push back against efforts from a surprising number of people who urged her to fire the faculty members who signed the letter and expel the students. Again, the audience laughed, one of the few times it made itself known during Mrs. Sullivans lecture.

I had to explain that, in a free-speech environment, those faculty and students had just as much right to express their opinions as I did, Ms. Sullivan said.

In her speech, Ms. Sullivan also touched on recent campus shakeups, including the violent protest at the University of California at Berkeley last month ahead of a planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos.

Whats all so troubling is that the protesters wanted to shut down Murray without even knowing what he would said, potentially robbing themselves of the opportunity to refute his views, Ms. Sullivan said.

Ms. Sullivan also mentioned cases in which conservatives had protested campus visitors with views they opposed. Those included a February 2015 incident at Texas Tech University involving Angela Davis, a political activist and a professor emeritus at University of California at Santa Cruz, in which some students pushed the university to rescind an invitation for her to speak. She also pointed to an April 2015 incident in which Kean University backed away from its choice of the musician Common as its commencement speaker. Keans decision came after the choice drew protests from state police officers.

As leaders in higher education, when free expression seems to be under attack from all sides of the political spectrum, we can set the right example by standing in the middle ground to defend it on all sides, Ms. Sullivan said.

To that end, she encouraged university leaders to denounce racist, sexist or homophobic insults and other forms of bias on our campuses. She also said efforts to increase diversity among faculty, staff and students should continue. And Ms. Sullivan said continuing conversation about the issues we face as educators is necessary.

Candid discussion is the first step toward solutions, she said.

Chris Quintana is a breaking-news reporter. Follow him on Twitter @cquintanadc or email him at chris.quintana@chronicle.com.

Read more:
In Defending Free Speech, Says Teresa Sullivan, 'the Middle Ground Is the High Ground' - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

COPENHAGEN Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom and one of Europes most influential politicians, likes to express his admiration for the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. Thats no coincidence. The First Amendment provides the best legal protection of speech in the world, including the kind of speech that in December 2016 led to the conviction of Wilders in the Netherlands for having insulted Dutch Moroccans and having incited discrimination during a political rally a few years back.

I suppose thats why Wilders is seen by some as a politician willing to stand up for freedom of expression and speak his mind about uncomfortable issues that others have refrained from doing. He insists on his right to unfettered criticism of Islam and Muslim communities as fundamental to free speech. In the wake of terrorist attacks in Europe and clashes of culture and values, these issues have risen to the top of the political agenda in most European countries.

Recently, one of Wilderss supporters in the U.S., the right-wing activist David Horowitz, lauded the anti-Muslim Dutchman as the Paul Revere of Europe ... a hero of the most important battle of our times, the battle to defend free speech. Its true that this is a crucial battle. Its outcome will have long-term consequences for the protection of freedom in liberal democracies. Free speech is under attack from many quarters. Wilders himself has to live with round-the-clock security because of his stance on Islam and immigration.

I am fully on Wilderss side when it comes to the speech crimes he has been accused of. I am against hate speech laws as a matter of principle but also for practical reasons. They are not the most effective way to fight bigotry. They tend to be enforced selectively and express a social norm, not a genuine will to fight bigotry. One mans hate speech may be another mans poetry. I also believe its important to defend Wilderss right to speak out in light of the threats against his life.

Nevertheless, I disagree with people like Horowitz, who see Wilders as a defender of free speech. Let me explain why. Wilders has called for banning the Quran. He wants to close mosques and ban the building of new ones, and he has proposed a change to the Dutch Constitution that would outlaw faith-based schools for Muslims but not for Christians and citizens committed to other religions and life philosophies.

As a justification for his position on Islam, Wilders often quotes Abraham Lincolns words from a letter written in 1859: Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. But one could turn Lincolns words against Wilders himself. By calling for a ban on the Quran and for the closing of mosques and faith-based schools for Muslims, he insists on denying freedom of speech and religion to Muslims.

Does that mean that Wilders, contrary to Lincolns claim in a very different context, deserves freedom of speech for himself? It does, I believe, though Wilderss position on Islam makes his support for the First Amendment and calls for a European First Amendment ring hollow. A couple years ago, when I debated Wilders on the legitimate limits of free speech in a democracy, I told him that all his proposals to restrict freedom of speech and religion for Muslims would be denounced by the U.S. Supreme Court with reference to First Amendment protection. They wouldnt stand a chance to become the law of the land. Wilders responded that if thats the case, then we need to adopt a slightly different version of the First Amendment in Europe.

It became clear to me that Wilderss support for the First Amendment was based on the fact that it would protect his own speech, but when he found out that the First Amendment would also provide a robust protection of the freedom of speech and religion for Muslims, he was reluctant to support it.

In doing so, he failed the acid test for the support of free speech in a democracy. It was first formulated by the legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who issued a famous dissenting opinion in 1929: If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

Freedom for the speech that we hate. Thats the acid test. This principle embodies the essence of tolerance. You do not ban, intimidate, threaten or use violence against speech that you deeply dislike or hate.

So, on Islam and Muslims, Wilders comes down on the wrong side of democracy when it comes to three of its key principles: freedom of speech and religion, equality before the law and tolerance.

Wilders tries to escape accusations for discrimination against Islam and Muslims by saying that Islam just isnt like any other religion. Its a totalitarian ideology like fascism and Communism, he insists. He has compared the Quran to HitlersMein Kampf, and for a while, he justified his call for banning the Quran with a reference to the fact that Mein Kampf was banned in the Netherlands. In recent years, he has insisted on outlawing the Quran independent of the fate of Mein Kampf,which was recently published in Germany for the first time since the fall of the Nazis.

Some people would be inclined to support Wilderss claim about Islam as a totalitarian ideology. However, it doesnt improve his argument significantly. The works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and other ideologues of totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies are accessible in the majority of democratic states. The classical texts of Communism werent banned during the Cold War. In many Western democracies, there were Communist newspapers and publishing houses. Communists had their own schools and controlled unions, and Communist parties were running for Parliament. If Communist parties became targets of bans, they were usually short-lived or not enforced.

Why treat Islam any different, even if you think its not a religion but a totalitarian political ideology?

Here is what Wilders replied when I said that it is fundamental to a democracy to make a distinction between words and deeds if one wants to safeguard free speech and provide space to a diversity of opinions: We have to not only criminalize actions but the source legitimizing actions as well that is the Quran. If we dont do it, we provide those who want to kill our freedom with the means to do so.

Wilders insists that its impossible to separate words and deeds when it comes to Islam i.e. between what the Quran says and what Muslims quoting the Quran say, and violence committed by Muslims in the name Islam. That is very problematic. This is the way a dictatorship operates. It treats words as if they were actions and therefore they put people propagating unwelcome opinions in jail. Authoritarian regimes state explicitly that these kind of people represent a threat to the public order, social harmony or security.

Wilderss argument for limiting the rights of Muslims shares other similarities with unfree societies. When he calls for banning the Quran and shutting down mosques and faith-based schools, he refers to opinion polls taken from among the Muslim population he bases his call for restrictions on what Muslims think and believe, not what they actually do or plan to do. In other words, Wilders accuses Muslims of being guilty of thought crimes, and he believes that this is sufficient to justify restrictions of their civil rights.

I am not saying that widely spread opinions among Muslims on apostasy and blasphemy, on equality between men and women, on homosexuality and freedom of speech and religion and other issues arent problematic, to say the least. I am saying that in a democracy, you cannot restrict freedoms based on what people think. In a democracy, you criminalize quite a few deeds like tax evasion, shop lifting, fast driving, fraud and murder but you ban only words that directly incite violence or crimes.

Wilderss quote of Abraham Lincoln Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves is incomplete. It continues: and under a just God, cannot long retain it. In the context of Wilderss selective defense of free speech, those words are worth remembering.

Continue reading here:
Geert Wilders Is No Hero Of Free Speech - Huffington Post

What is old is new again. Government surveillance is in the news, again. The cycle started with President Trump alleging former President Obama wire tapped Trump Towers. The cycle continued when Wikileaks released a trove of documents relating to the Central Intelligence Agencys hacking tools.

Whether President Trumps allegations have merit, or whether they are baseless should not matter. Whether the CIA spied on United States citizens or whether it did not should not matter. What should concern citizens is the governments ability to spy on them.

Consumers place confidence in the ability of a manufacturer, whether Apple, Google, or others, to secure electronic devices from prying eyes. Gone are the days when secure storage meant purchasing safes, lockboxes, or lockable file cabinets. Now, secrets are hidden within complex strings of ones and zeros. The most secure electronic systems cannot offer perfect privacy, but operate to obscure meaningful data better than the competition.

Technology can help obscure meaningful information. Technology also provides government increased access to a citizens private life, habits, and private thoughts. Instead of serving warrants and physically searching houses, computers, and other tangible items, government officials can remotely install malware, access electronic devices and seize photographs, document files, and contact lists. The Vault 7 revelations, along with Edward Snowdens prior leaks, demonstrate the government can remotely activate microphones and cameras embedded in electronic devices, including televisions. The government can turn all types of devices, including televisions, into spying tools.

Assuming the government follows proper procedures, it has a number of options minimally to comply with Fourth Amendment warrant requirements if it invokes national security as an excuse for surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) provides the executive branch broad leeway when conducting surveillance for national security purposes. The first option permits the President to authorize warrantless surveillance in certain circumstances. The second options allows the Attorney General to authorize warrant applications in other circumstances.

Both warrantless and warranted surveillance are classified. FISA requires the Attorney General to submit semi-annual reports to Congress. Those reports, though, do not need to contain detailed information. The reports need only list the total number of applications, the number of applications approved, and the criminal cases where information gathered is used.

Technology does not just provide governments increased access to a citizens private information; it also provides the government the ability to conceal any unauthorized access. The government can spy on citizens without even the most savvy technology expert knowing. And if the government believes it can completely avoid detection, or make it look like a foreign government was behind a hack, why should it apply for warrants? After all, the government could attribute the information gleaned to other sources, just as it has with cell site simulators.

Government surveillance relating to national security poses a unique threat compared to other criminal investigations. The president possesses significant authority to investigate foreign threats. The exercise of that authority, though, threatens U.S. citizens First Amendment freedom of speech rights. When conducting surveillance for national security purposes, it is likely the government will both record protected speech and will use its authority to monitor groups with politically incorrect viewpoints.

Well before technology permitted widespread surveillance, Supreme Court Justice Powell wrote,

History abundantly documents the tendency of governmenthowever benevolent and benign its motiveto view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies. Fourth Amendment protections become more necessary when the targets of official surveillance may be those suspected of unorthodoxy in their political beliefs. The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect domestic security.

Government surveillance, of political right or political left groups, makes people think twice before speaking contrary to the political establishment. State surveillance of Black Lives Matter allegedly chilled members desire to engage in political discourse about the issues of our time. Similarly, surveillance of Trump officials was used to impeach the credibility of Lt. Gen. Flynn, attack Attorney General Sessions, and generally to delegitimize President Trump. Progressive groups, right leaning groups, and individuals in the government who threaten its power are equally subject to government surveillance and potential that surveillance will be used to silence their dissent.

Government may use technological advances to operate on the edges of Constitutional permissibility. The threats government surveillance pose to First Amendment freedom of speech rights should overshadow any discussion on the propriety of the surveillance state, just as they did before the proliferation of modern technologies, such as the computer and smartphone.

The Fourth and First Amendments are inexorably linked. Ignoring one will threaten the other. In the words of Justice Powell, The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society.

Jonathon Paul Hauenschild, J.D., is a technology policy analyst. He is the founder and principal of Franklin Adams & Co., LLC.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Go here to see the original:
How the surveillance state threatens free speech | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

Once in America, people stopped and listened to what others had to say. Once, freedom of speech was for everyone. Now the norm is to shout at people, interrupt them, call them names, bully them, censor them, threaten individuals' livelihood/reputation, berate them on social media, close ones mind before you have all the facts, or just dont bother to listen, all because they hold a different opinion.

Contrary to what some think, the Constitution has not changed. Freedom of speech is not based on gender, religion, race or even political party. It guarantees that each of us has the right to be ourselves, to have our own opinions and to voice those opinions. Nowhere does it state that if you dont think like or hold the same opinion as me, you are stupid, you should shut up, or you dont belong.

Citizenship in America isnt easy. You need to stand up and fight for what is right. You need to defend everyones right to free speech, even the opinions of those who you disagree with. You need to make your voice heard by communicating with those elected or by getting involved in our political system. You need to be civil.

I realize that there are those who hate that America is made up of different cultures, races and religions. I realize that these individuals not only fear the freedoms we have but would like to take it all away. But this should not stop us from exercising our rights and freedoms. What it means is that we need to stand up for what is right, and defend her against those who would deny these rights and freedoms both here and abroad. And to those who disagree with all that I said, I will defend your right to disagree.

Lois Clark Oakville

Read more:
Stand up for everyone's freedom of speech - STLtoday.com

If Pastor Martin Niemllers poem First They Came was rewritten for todays free-speech battles, would the Ku Klux Klan be in the first line? Its hard to think of a more unsympathetic group, yet tyranny often starts small, sometimes targeting first those that are liked the least. A current court case involving the KKK serves as a warning: We are slowly, incrementally losing our freedom of speech.

At issue is the story of 22-year-old William D. Schenk, who spent five months in a Vermont jail after leaving Klan recruitment fliers at the Burlington homes of two women, one black and one Hispanic. Authorities accuse him of targeting the ladies, and in April 2016 he pleaded no contest to two counts of disorderly conduct, enhanced by a hate crime penalty based on prosecutors belief that Schenk was motivated by the victims race, reported the Burlington Free Press.

This plea was entered, however, under the condition that Schenk could appeal a judges decision to not dismiss the charges. That appeal is now being heard by the Vermont Supreme Court.

Unsurprisingly, the facts of the case are in dispute. Schenk claims he distributed the fliers to 50 homes; police say they found no recipients but the two minority women. Deputy Chittenden County States Attorney Aimee Griffin said it could be inferred that he targeted the women; Associate Justice John Dooley noted that theres no evidence Schenk knew the two women were minorities.Schenk is a North Carolina native and states that he conducted a similar recruitment drive in his home state.

Whats not in dispute is that if Schenk had been recruiting for the Republicans or Communist Party USA, he never would have landed in the dock. As the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)put it in papers filed on his behalf, [T]he government seeks to punish Schenk based solely on the content of his speech.

Furthermore, ACLU Staff Attorney Jay Diaz wrote in a prepared statement that while his organization considers the KKK a despicable hate groupthe Constitution does not allow the government to pick and choose which speech it will permit.

Another troubling aspect of this case is prosecutor Griffins insistence that, somehow, a government inference of motive makes otherwise lawful speech a crime. Its reminiscent of how the courts inferred that President Donald Trumps initial travel ban unfairly targeted Muslims based partially on comments he made in the past, on the campaign trail.

In other words, increasingly, the state is not judging acts and policies on their substance, but on what it divines their actuators motives to have been. But is this a government of laws or a sideshow telepathist routine? Its the thought that counts only applies to disappointed gift recipients.

Addressing the dangerous precedent suggested by Griffins inference that Schenk targeted the women, Associate Justices Harold Eaton and Marilyn Skoglund both asked whether, under Griffins argument, anti-abortion groups that distribute fliers to pregnant women could face charges, reported Seven Days.

Griffin rejected the analogy, stating that the KKKs history of violence created a more profound threat. Of course, given that left-wing groups have often unfairly, but successfully, portrayed pro-lifers as historically violent, the judges question was apt.

Lets try this on for size: What about Marxists putting recruitment literature on bankers stoops? Given that communists murdered 94 million people during the 20th centuryand target capitalists in particularcould we view this as a hate crime? And what if the New Black Panther Party put fliers on whites doorsteps?

Upon accepting the precedent that government can stifle speech based on content and motivation, playing mind reader, who will be allowed to say what would be determined by political favor.

Is this even remotely responsible, undermining our constitutional freedoms in the name of stifling the speech of a scorned and reviled .001 percent of the population? The First Amendments purpose is to protect unpopular speech; popular speechs popularity is usually all the protection it needs.

The Schenk case reflects the increasing acceptance of the notion of actionable hate speech, something explicitly criminalized in other Western nations. With hate always defined to be, quite curiously, synonymous with political incorrectness, such laws have claimed victims ranging from politicians to pundits to performers to pastors to peons, all targeted mainly for criticizing Islam and, less frequently, homosexuality. Worse still, were on the road to embracing these laws ourselves.

The problem began when the term hate speech originated (circa 1990) and then was cemented in our culture as a separate category of speech (years later). People would say things such as, to use the example of attorney Gloria Alreds hysterical 2006 shriek about a comedians epithet-laced, on-stage meltdown, This is not free speech; this is hate speech!

If you continually differentiate hate speech from free speech, people will begin to view the former as a separate species of speechnot protected by the First Amendment.

Now, for just about as long as weve had the hate-speech species, weve punished it situationallywhen associated with hate crimes. Consider: Something is generally identified as a hate crime by way of whats expressed during its commission. An example is assaulting somebody while directing racial epithets.

Its also considered an aggravating factor. For instance, if the assault would normally involve only four years incarceration, the hate-crime enhancement might bring an additional six. In other words, were already punishing hate speech within a certain context.

The problem is that upon establishing hate speech as a category and punishing it within one context, its just a short leap to punishing it within other contexts.

The Schenk case represents this (d)evolution. Where once the speech had to be uttered during a crime to implicitly be deemed unlawful, now the speech alone may be considered unlawful when directed at a certain type of person.

None of this is any surprise, with politics being downstream of an ever-degrading culture. When I was in elementary school we still heard the rhyme, Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Oh, words can hurt feelings, draw tears or even start wars, but thats not the point. The saying instilled tolerance for unwelcome speech, a prerequisite for maintaining respect for free and open discourse.

Its clear that todays kidser, snowflakes, dont hear the rhyme much anymore. Instead, their fragility is nurtured as theyre taught about triggers, microaggressions, or whatever is the latest Oh, the humanity! term describing things that just shouldnt offend their ethereal ears. They are provided safe spaces where, at least momentarily, their delusive bubble wont be burst. Is it any wonder they want to turn the whole country into a safe space? (This recent survey finds growing intolerance for controversial speech among the young.)

It should be mentioned that hate-speech prohibitionswhether foreign laws or domestic campus codesrarely affect Klansmen, partially because there are so few Klansmen. Rather, they mainly stifle substantive debate over Islam, race, immigration and fashionable sexual agendas. Theyre also dishonest: Their main focus isnt hate, but what the Thought Police hate.

A good way to start draining the legislative swamp is to get the government out of the doubleplusgood thought business and rescind hate-crime law. Barring this, all we can do is ask: Whose principles will become tomorrows hate?

Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke)has written for The Hill, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American Thinker. He has also contributed to college textbooks published by Gale Cengage Learning, has appeared on television and is a frequent guest on radio.

See more here:
The KKK Canary: How We're Losing Our Freedom of Speech - Observer

A lot of folks in our society today dont seem to respect or fully understand our constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Ideologically-driven leftists who refuse to let those with whom they disagree speak at university/college campus events, town hall meetings, and other public venues epitomize that selfish lack of respect. And there are often no negative, personal consequences for their impudent (sometimes violent) behavior.

Fortunately, the silent majority prefers a saner society and wants no part of any movement that promotes and/or tolerates such flagrant disregard for constitutional principles (including the right to peaceably assemble, which does not cover looting, destroying property, throwing rocks at cops, etc.). Leftists will continue to lose support because of this.

Having the audacity to believe that none of us should be allowed to speak or write in a manner that offends others is simply delusional. Can you imagine what our society would be like if that idea were to somehow be enforced? Who would decide what is offensive? Communist dictatorship, here we come.

We should all cherish our First Amendment right of free speech. For example, I not only disagree with probably 80-plus percent of what William Windsor writes, I find much of it to be quite offensive. Does that mean I would advocate prohibiting him from expressing himself the way he does? Of course not!

Make a note, Linda Nash. Nobody can hurt my feelings (or yours) unless I (or you) allow it. Like it or not, we adults cannot legitimately blame another person for how we feel. Thats our responsibility. And nobody else can be held responsible if some adult stops talking or writing due to fear of being criticized in no uncertain terms.

Some would say that we should all be able to disagree without being disagreeable. What about those whose limited communication skills preclude their always being able to do that? Should they not be allowed to express their opinions? Walking on eggshells is (as often as not) ineffective, unhealthy, and unrealistic.

Attempts to control others via what is politely termed political correctness has been carried to ridiculous extremes by guess who? Leftists, of course. Another reason they are losing ground.

Freedom of speech is a very broad concept in America. Only certain narrowly defined categories of speech are considered illegal e.g., credible murder or terrorist threats, sedition (such cases are rare), and (sometimes) incitements to violence. Hate speech per se is actually legal.

Our First Amendment right of speech is precious. Its there to protect those with whom we disagree. And since nobody has ever had a single idea that we would all agree with, arent we lucky our constitution is there to protect us from tyrants would choose to stifle us?

A few of my favorite quotes:

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. Salmon Rushdie

So long as they dont get violent, I want everyone to say what they wish, for I myself have always said exactly what pleased me. Albert Einstein

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Benjamin Franklin

How brave a thing is freedom of speech, which made the Athenians so far exceed every other state in Hellas [ancient Greece] in greatness. Herodotus

Fred Bindewald

Fort Madison

Read the original post:
Freedom of speech is a precious right - Fort Madison Daily Democrat

Carson-Newman Political Science major Mickey Shelton II got some real life experience when he attended a post-election protest rally at UT dressed as President Trump complete with wig.

I believe students shouldnt have to have a permit from a university to exercise their right to freedom of speech, claims Shelton.

Last month, Shelton continued to explore the right to freedom of speech on campuses. He went to a press conference at the Tennessee State Capitol and spoke in favor of State Rep. Martin Daniels bill, the Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act.

He told his story about the five-hour UT campus protest attended by over 100 students and faculty. Trump supporters were outnumbered and police were called in after several reports of physical violence, including one involving Shelton.

In addition to the bills author, the Carson-Newman student got to hear the opinions of others including Senator Joey Hensley and political commentator Scottie Nell Hughes at the press conference.

The bill states that students enrolled in a university should be able to exercise their first amendment right. Members of the public who are not enrolled as students or employed by the institution may be required to obtain a permit.

Tennessee Students Free Speech Protection Act mainly outlines ways all state institutions of higher education can confirm their commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate by students whether on or off campus. It states that institutions shall include such policies in the student code of conduct that guarantees students the broadest possible latitude to speak, write and discuss any issue that presents itself on campus.

The bill continues with the statement that a state university shall not shield individuals from opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive as long as activities do not disrupt the essential processes of the institution.

Shelton says he thinks it is a public universitys job to provide an environment where freedom of expression and thought can thrive Students can hear both sides of any issue and formulate their own educated opinions.

See the original post:
CN student helps push 'Free Speech' legislation - The Standard Banner

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate

A conservative student group at the University of Lincoln in the UK criticized their students union over a lack of free speech over criticism of an online magazine. In response, the students union shut down the groups social media accounts, thus proving their point.

A student paper called The Linc reported:

Conservative Society suspended from Twitter by SU after criticising their record on freedom of speech

The University of Lincoln Conservative Society has been forced to hand over control of their twitter account to the Students Union.

It follows a tweet sharing a report which said the University of Lincoln had a bad record on freedom of speech.

The university as a whole was given a red status by online magazine Spiked, which means the institution has banned and actively censored ideas on campus.

On Monday afternoon the society tweeted confirmation their twitter account will be suspended until May, however they plan to appeal the decision by the SU.

A spokesman for the student group made this statement:

On the 6th March 2017, the University of Lincoln Conservative Society, in compliance with a decision by the Student Union (SU) disciplinary panel, handed over control of all social media accounts to the University of Lincoln Students Union, with the accounts to be suspended until the 1st of May 2017.

This decision was reached by the SU following an anonymous complaint over two tweets by the society account. The first, in relation to freedom of speech, linking an article from Spiked and the second was in relation to an SU questionnaire that had to be completed before voting in recent SU elections

We feel the decision that was made is misguided and disproportionate, as the society was simply trying to raise the important issues of free speech and democracy, and the tweets in question have been taken out of context.

Here is part of a statement by the Students Union, also courtesy of The Linc:

Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union. The SU is built on a foundation where students can express opinions and ideas freely within the law.

The Students Union is run by students for students. There are agreed policies in place based on national guidance for charities which protect students and aims to provide a safe environment in which complex issues can be discussed and debated.

Ahh, a safe environment. That almost sounds like a safe space doesnt it?

Robby Soave of Reason has more on this:

University of Lincolns Conservative Student Group Censored for Complaining About Censorship

Talk about proving a point. The University of Lincolns student union has suspended a conservative student groups social media accountsan act of retaliation against the group for daring to criticize the student unions hostility toward free speech.

In effect, the British universitys student government is censoring students because they objected to censorship.

Just to reiterate the irony of this situation, wrote a different conservative club at another university, their student union, upon being criticized for being anti-free speech, have silenced those complaining about a lack of free speech!

The story has gone international as concerns over free speech are growing throughout academia. Heres a video report from the BBC News:

Even though the group being censored is conservative, there are student protests being planned.

Heres more from The Linc:

Protest organised against SU over freedom of speech clampdown

A sit-in protest is being organised at the Engine Shed a student union venue on Friday in opposition to the University of Lincoln Students Union (SU).

It follows the SUs decision to suspend the Conservative Societys social media accounts after they tweeted a link to a report which criticised the universitys approach to freedom of speech.

Lincoln MP Karl McCartney has also described the SUs actions as intolerant, illiberal and totalitarian.

The SU have defended the suspension saying there was a suspected breach of the code of conduct and freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the Students Union.

The event is called the UoL Free-Speech/Repeal the Conservative Society Ban Protest.

Featured image via YouTube.

Read the original post:
U. Lincoln | students censored | over lack of free speech - legal Insurrection (blog)