Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

It should come as no surprise that Stanford has followed the University at California, Berkeley (UCB), in suppressing free speech, and insulting a distinguished alumnus as well. Just as VDARE.coms conference was cancelled at Tenaya Lodge in Yosemite, (illegally, by the way as Tenaya Lodge is a Federal contractor and on Federal property) so did Stanford University, who once thought they were superior to UCB in academics and sports. But Stanford has been reduced to the also ran to UCBs virulent Cultural Marxism.

Stanford though thinks too much of itself. It is nothing but the obedient servant of radicals like Jesse Jackson who shut down Western Civilization studies at Stanford in 1996 and the puerile student body who recently voted not to bring back Western Civilization.

And this just inVDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelows alma mater, Stanfords Graduate School Of Business, just cancelled a debate between Brimelow and Tim Kane of the Hoover Institution to be held by the Stanford chapter of the Adam Smith Society, citing the destruction of Berkeley as the reason theyve been scared off. [VDARE.com Conference Cancellation Update: Two Rays Of Hope!, Lydia Brimelow, VDare, February 6, 2017]

This is an example of the hecklers veto, or more accurately the terrorists veto of freedom of speech. But just as the Terrorist Veto of the speech at UCB by Milo Yiannopoulos was not so much a Terrorist Veto, but a conspiracy between the terrorists and the UCB administration and the lesbian university police chief to use the threat of violence or violence that was allowed by inaction to occur to squash Milos speech, so the administrators at Stanford did the same.

But just as the UCB Police allowed the violence in Berkeley to happen, and had the resources to quash to violence quickly and effectively, so the Stanford Department of Public Safety(DPS), a private police department, an accredited and authorized law enforcement authority deputized as Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriffs, but could have easily quashed any violence or provided the necessary security, especially given the Departments bragging about their skill and abilities for presidential visits and major events at the 50,0000 capacity Stanford Stadium.

Braggart Chief Laura Wilson, Stanford DPS Suspiciously Like Another Chief of Police

So, if Stanford GSB Dean Jonathan Levin [Email him ] told the student group that Stanford could not provide security, he was lying. I know this because I worked with the Stanford DPS before, and they can get the job done. (And bring a world of hurt on rioters if necessary.) And Stanford could easily forestall any riots or violence by letting students know before hand that such activity would violate the Honor Code and result in expulsion.

Read the rest here:
Stanford Wages War On Alumnus Peter Brimelow And Free Speech - VDARE.com

I recently attended a symposium, held at the University of Toronto and sponsored by a group of politically savvy libertarian and conservative students, on the topic of free speech and expression in the current repressive cultural and political milieu. The audience of almost every other conservative symposium I have attended has been composed chiefly of elderly white men, with a modest sprinkling of women and a sparse handful of younger people. On this occasion I was gladdened to note that the age gap had been bridged, dividing equally between older and younger, while the distaff representation was comparatively prominent.

The fact that the symposium was organized by two student groups worried about their political and economic future, Students for Liberty and Generation Screwed, explained the mixed composition of the conference attendees and signaled a more hopeful future for the nascent conservative movement growing on campus as well as in the non-academic world. This young, right-leaning cohort -- politically active, intellectually engaged, well-educated and civil -- are in marked contrast to their leftist counterparts consisting of a mlange of snowflakes and hooligans, who were soon to make their presence known at the event.

The issues discussed at the symposium largely involved the nature and definition of speech violence, or what is called hate speech, criminalized in several countries and jurisdictions. Both sides of the dispute, left and right, agree that limits to freedom of speech are necessary, but disagree as to where these limits should be placed. The left, whether radical or moderate, regards as felonies forms of speech that offend a privileged identity group, whether racial, ethnic, religious (i.e., Muslims), or gender-based (i.e., women, gays, trans-people), or criticizes the ideological positions such favored groups adopt. Additionally, a prime tactic of the left is what we may call pre-emptive suppression. Speaking engagements are often shut down before or during an address, making debate and discussion impossible. Censorship and repression thus become acceptable methods of dealing with such perceived transgressions as open colloquies, lectures and conferences.

The conservative right believes that speech should be mainly unfettered, except when it damages reputations through lies or urges acts of physical violence. Of course, speech itself can be an act, as philosopher J.L. Austin has shown in How to Do Things with Words: in his most famous example, when the minister states I now pronounce you husband and wife, an act has been performed since it changes the status of the participants.

We should note, however, that words critical of an individual or a group are not performative (or illocutionary, in Austins phrase). If I criticize Islam as a violent faith, I do not thereby make it violent or directly instigate violence against it. My words do not change the reality of Islam, whatever it may be. In the U.S., even words advocating violence (except in official or legally constituted circumstances, or in situations where there is a clear and present danger) are not considered performative. The 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio Supreme Court case ruled that speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action." (Italics mine). In the words of the Legal Encyclopedia discussing the case, the First Amendment protects speech unless it encourages immediate violence or other unlawful action. (Italics mine). In this instance, both the temporal element and unequivocal incitement are crucial. Mere advocacy is another question entirely and is not prohibited, although here the conservative argument tends to draw the line, even if the U.S. Supreme Court did not.

See original here:
Free Speech Vs. 'Hate Speech' - PJ Media

5488558

According to The College Fix, a free speech seminar at UCLA on Feb. 1 became an exercise in censorship when a book on Islamic Totalitarianism was removed from sight after boisterous student protest.

Students are said to have formed a human shield around the table where the offending book, entitled Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism, rested. After shocked and outraged students demanded the books removal, UCLA staff intervened and did just that.

The denial of free speech occurred at an event in support of free speech, sponsored by the UCLA chapters of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute groups that have not been banned thus far at the university.

Though UCLA issued an apology for removing the book, a campus spokesman is downplaying the incident, suggesting no one formed a human shield around the table and that students voiced their objections in a civil tone.

But thats the universitys side of the story. The books author, Elan Journo, who is a director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, told The College Fix that he received a full report on the incident from staff members who were manning the table.

Journo reported that about a dozen UCLA students confronted the staff members to object to the insulting language in the book and then proceeded to surround the table so that no one could view the book or even its title.

He said that based on eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on the scene when the UCLA rep stepped in, my colleagues who were staffing the table tried to point out the absurdity of ban the book. At that point, the rep picked up the stack of books and demanded that all copies of the book be removed, and that either he would take them or they could be put them under the table.

The author was so offended by the conduct of the students and the universitys affirmation of their behavior that he submitted an op ed piece to the The Hill, in which he stated:

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movements global assaults on free speech.

Follow David on Twitter

More:
UCLA Free Speech Event Censors 'Islamic Totalitarianism' Book - Daily Caller

Illinois state representative Peter Breen (R., Lombard) has just introduced HB 2939, which would create the Illinois Campus Free Speech Act. Breens bill is based on the model campus free-speech legislation I recently co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of the Goldwater Institute.

Upon introducing the bill, Breen said:

With everything going on nationally right now, this is a timely bill that will serve as a reminder that the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Our public institutions of higher learning have historically embraced a commitment to free speech, but in recent years we have seen colleges and universities abdicate their responsibility to uphold free-speech principles. This initiative will put Illinois in the forefront of ensuring robust, respectful speech on college campuses.

As recently noted, North Carolina lieutenant governor Dan Forest has announced that his states General Assembly will soon be considering a bill based on the Goldwater proposal, and I will be testifying before the Florida state house next week on the Goldwater model campus free-speech bill at the invitation of Education Committee chair Michael Bileca.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He can be reached at comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com

Visit link:
Peter Breen's Illinois Campus Free Speech Act - National Review

Stefan Molyneux: Free Speech is All That Matters.

Post by Nathan Rinne

Popular libertarian You Tuber Stefan Molyneux argues with all his rhetorical might that Free Speech is All That Matters.

I balk at his insistence. I dont like the way he puts that. While I find his supporting arguments for this persuasive and important when it comes to politics, overall I wonder about the implications of such words, such devotion. It almost sounds religious to me. Molyneux talks about the importance of humility and self-doubt, but of this he is certain!

Why the intensity of such conviction? In a related comment, Rachel Fulton Brown, University of Chicago professor, interestingly argues that:

.the freedom of speech enshrined in our national culture was established first and foremost as a freedom to wrestle with religion. Freedom of speech means little without this religious content, which is why cries for contentless free speech are so vacuous.

Versus Molyneux, I would argue that it is only in cultures influenced by Christianity that you get the fruits he so treasures.

So where is the West, guided thusfar by Christian rails, going? Will speech remain free? Is the artistic expression of a florist speech that should be protected, and not extracted as a mere product to be sold? Should local practices of Christian-only prayer at public meetings be ruled unconstitutional? (see yesterdays unanimous decision at the Washington state Supreme Court and the decision by a federal appeals court) Will Christians remain free not only to believe what they want, but to speak their faith in the public square? To practice it not only on Sundays, but in public? What of their schools and universities?

And should we, like the Apostle Paul, insist on our rights by fighting politically at least to some degree? Or by withdrawing in the hope of being strengthened to give an answer for the hope that we have when the world is finally ready to hear and believe again? This brings us to the ideas of Rod Dreher, the cultural observer at the American Conservative and a thoughtful Eastern Orthodox Christian. A few days ago, the well-known Christian commentator Albert Mohler had Rod Dreher on his show Thinking in Public to talk about Drehers new book The Benedict Option.

It was a fascinating and informative conversation, and one which I would recommend to everyone (I first talked about Drehers Benedict Option a couples years ago here).

The conversation between the two men ended with the following exchange, always a bit biting for folks like me (I need to hear it though!):

DREHER: The Lord gave me a second chance, and I would have all your listeners realize that if theyve got their heads buried in booksI love books, I write booksbut its no substitute for the life of prayer and service.

MOHLER: Well, a classical historic Protestant can only say amen to that. Thank you, Rod, for this conversation; Im deeply indebted to you.

That said, earlier in the conversation both men had clearly dealt with the importance of doctrine (note my bold in particular):

MOHLER: I read the articles that you wrote in the beginning, frankly I follow your column very closely at the American Conservative, and weve been watching you make this argument out loud for some time. And reading the book, it seems to me its significantly different than what I might have expected in terms of some your early articles on the Benedict Option, so let me just spell that out. You began by saying youre not calling for us to head for the hillsyou just used an illustration of heading for the hillsand as I look at those early articles in the American Conservative, it did appear you were calling, more or lessand those are of course partial arguments, just a few hundred wordsbut it appears you were calling to head for the hills. Nuance that a bit in terms of where you are in the book.

DREHER: I appreciate the chance to clarify this, and in fact my own thinking has been clarified through exchanges with my readers, through talking with Catholics and evangelical friends, and sort of working through these ideas. When people hear, Head for the hills, they think, you know, to light out for the mountains and build a compound and sit there and wait for the end. I dont think were called to that. I know Im not called to that; most people arent called to that. But it does mean doing what these monks in Norcia did initially. They were living right there in the town, but they were behind monastery walls. What does that mean for us? It means as lay Christians, we have to build some kind of walls to separate ourselves from the world so that we can continue to go out into the world and minister to people and be who Christ asked us to be. The culture itself is so toxic and so anti-Christian that were just not going to be able to make it if we let anybody and anything come into our hearts, into our imaginations. The monks in Norcia say, Were called to be monks, but we cannot be for the pilgrims who come to this monastery what Christ asked us to be if we dont have that time away behind our walls for prayer and study and work. I want to take that ethic and take it to lay Christian life. We need to have, for example, Christian schools. Not to shelter our kids from any bad idea that comes from the outside, but in order for them to be nurtured and to build that resilience within so when they do get out into the world, they know who they are, they know what they believe and why they believe it. And more importantly, they have participated and built practices necessary to live out this faith and to get the faith in their bones. Because if the faith is only in your head, if its only a series of arguments, youre not going to make it.

MOHLER: You talk about a conversation, rather haunting actually, at a Christian university or college campus where the professors were telling you that so many Christian young people come, and even though they basically hold to some knowledge, genuine knowledge, of Christianity, its so superficial that it tends not even to last very long inside whats defined as a Christian college and university.

DREHER: Thats true. I mean, the situation is horrible with Catholics, but this conversation youre recalling was on an evangelical campus and the professors were saying, We try our best; we can only have these kids for four years. And these are all kids who came out of evangelical schools and evangelical churches. But this is the youth group culture. All it gave them was emotion and having fun. And one of these professors even said to me, You know, I doubt that most of our kids are going to be able to form stable families. That shocked me. I said, Whys that? He said, Because theyve never seen it.

MOHLER: I thought in reading that, once again, place still matters a great dealand I mean place not just in terms of geography, but that and social context and social placementbecause I think of the students at our school and I think the vast majority of them did see an intact family It was still close enough to them, if they didnt come from it, then they saw it. But even in talking with students, you realize in concentric rings of their relationships, you get just one ring out, and then not to mention two or three rings out, and its very hard to find. And I think thats so well documented in something like J.D. Vances work now. Where once you would have thought that respect for family and a traditional Christian morality and sexuality and all of that wouldve been taken for granted, its now hard to find on the ground.

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod President Matthew Harrison shows off his copy of the Book of Concord.

I do not fully share Rod Drehers attitude when it comes to how we as Christians should engage the culture. That said, I can certainly say Amen to this exchange above. Because, to ape Molyneux, Jesus Christ is all that matters.

When I look back at my own life, I have no idea why I am as ferociously Christian Lutheran as I am. Not everyone in my family has kept the faith I hold on to. I think, however, that one thing that was very helpful for me was learning about the history of the Lutheran Church. I am thankful that I learned the content of Martin Luthers Small Catechism as a child, but the importance of the words found therein really changed for me when I learned about the 1580 Book of Concord, otherwise known as the Lutheran Confessions (not even reading Martin Luthers Large Catechism in college really helped me like this did).

Actually, not even that is the full truth. More accurately, the Small Catechism became much more important to me after I learned about the history of the church that produced the Lutheran Confessions. For me, getting in touch with the living history underlying the doctrines in the Book of Concord was essential. As the Reformed commentator Michael Horton likes to put it, the doctrine is in the drama. One notes that this is definitely the case for the churchs book, the Bible. We are creatures who hunger not just for propositional truths, but the meaningful stories that help situate the important things we should know.

To that effect, I cant help but recommend some of the podcasts Pastor Jordan Cooper has been doing on his show lately where he digs into the Lutheran Confessions, giving a good deal of background knowledge along the way. The Small Catechism does indeed cover the core elements of the Christian faith, and we can never get to the bottom of the truths it contains. That said, as we mature and look to get our bearings in life, I think that knowing more about Bible, church history, and the history of the Reformation is critical in these last days to ground us in the faith.

An Introduction to Confessional Christianity

The Ecumenical Creeds and the Augsburg Confession

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Smalcald Articles, and Luthers Catechisms

The Formula of Concord

(Id also be remiss to point out that the fine show Issues ETC. also has done many excellent shows on the Book of Concord).

And that, I think, cant not be good for any nation, including ours.

Now in a revised edition called How Christianity Changed the World.

FIN

Images: Molyneux picture from Wikipedia Commons: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license ; Pastor Matthew Harrison with BOC from http://mercyjourney.blogspot.com/2009/04/minnie-me-book-of-concord.html

Here is the original post:
Want to Save Free Speech? Listen to Rod Dreher, Jordan Cooper, Issues ETC., etc - Patheos (blog)

As a citizen of China, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, I must say that I am disappointed by my fellow liberals indifference toward free speech. My experience tells me that whether or not citizens have the right to free speech is the most important distinction between a democracy and a dictatorship. To give you an idea of what it is like to be a Chinese citizen, for the first 18 years of my life, my typical class schedule included a Politics and Thoughts class that taught Communist Party propaganda, a History class that taught alternative history carefully censored and rewritten by the Communist Party, and a literature class that included only authors and articles the Party deemed appropriate. I was required to memorize key speeches and principles invented by Party leaders in order to pass the ideology test, in which if anyone dared to write anything negative about the Communist Party, he or she would automatically get a zero and not graduate.

In China, online forums and social media are carefully monitored so that counter-revolutionary comments are promptly removed and perpetrators are punished. Human rights lawyers and activists are routinely jailed in secret locations or sent to forced labor camps for their beliefs and activities. It isnt that life is insufferable for normal people without free speech; the brilliance of censorship is that it makes you think only one kind of view can possibly be right, so you dont feel the need to protest, dissent, or even think.

In high school, during a summer at Yale, and my first time in the United States, I took a human rights class and a legal philosophy class. For the first time in my life, I read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. I read John Stuart Mills On Liberty and his belief that everyone should have the absolute right to free speech. I read the landmark Supreme Court case, National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), in which a Jewish lawyer of the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazi Partys right to march in a predominantly Jewish village. I learned about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, on which information was censored in China and where brave college students fought for democracy. They fought for freedom of speech and thought only to face the crackdown of an illiberal regime stuck in its own ways. I learned that liberalism means tolerance and commitment to our inalienable and indivisible rights, no matter what powerful people say, and I began to proudly call myself a liberal. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that most of my liberal friends at Swarthmore not only advocate violence against those who hold a different view, but also believe that freedom of speech is somehow a conservative value.

Most debates about free speech these days are simply confused. The kind of knee jerk reaction that many liberals display toward claims of free speech is largely a response to the hypocrisy of some conservative politicians, who, while arguing that liberals are stifling free speech on campus, are perfectly willing to withhold funding from colleges they deem too radical. Free speech as a constitutional right is different from the kind of campus free speech for which such conservatives are clamoring. Unfortunately, many liberals fail to draw the distinction and end up losing faith in the doctrine of free speech in general. Even more unfortunate are attempts to equate free speech with oppression or even white supremacy. Without freedom of speech, only those in positions of power can speak.

Freedom of speech as a legal, constitutional, and human right is important because it is the bedrock of democracy. Every attempt to undermine this right risks undermining the foundation of democracy and making the U.S. more like China or Russia. You may think I am being alarmist, but plenty of examples exist where free speech restrictions in other liberal democracies have backfired. After a German comedian accused the Turkish President and Dictator Recep Tayyip Erdoan of oppressing minorities and having sexual intercourse with farm animal Erdoan sued the comedian with the support of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, under an old German law. In France, after the terrorist attack in 2015, a Muslim was sentenced to a year in prison for shouting Im proud to be Muslim. I dont like Charlie [Charlie Hebdo, a far-left French magazine previously attacked for mocking Islam]. They were right to do it. As Howard Gillman, the Chancellor of UC Irvine, argues, [d]emocracies are more fragile things than we might like to believe. Free speech is important partly because it allows political minority groups to voice their opinion without fear of retribution.

The constitutional right to free speech, however, is not absolute. Child pornography, obscenity, fighting words, libel, and incitement, for example, are not protected by the First Amendment. But these exceptions are meant to be exactly that exceptions. Some have argued that hate speech is not free speech. It is factually incorrect as a descriptive claim, and practically and legally problematic as a prescriptive claim. Since the issue of hate speech matters deeply to many skeptics of free speech, Id like to set the record straight here. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that banned the placement of a burning cross or Nazi swastika on public and private property. The majority reasoned that the law was unconstitutional because it only prohibited particular kinds of fighting words that involve race, color, creed, religion or gender. In other words, the law constituted both viewpoint and subject matter discrimination. Even though in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952) the Supreme Court upheld a similar law because the Court considered speech targeting racial or religious groups to be group libel, as constitutional law scholars Kathleen Sullivan and Gerald Gunther explain, most judges no longer believe that Beauharnais is good law.

Should the government be allowed to ban hate speech as many free speech skeptics wish? I do not believe this is a good idea. While it is permissible for the government to prohibit speech that incites imminent violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), or increase penalty for hate crime (see Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)), as the Court argues in R.A.V., any specific prohibition on hate speech involves content-based restrictions. If, for the sake of argument, the government is allowed to ban speech based on its content, then who is to stop right-wing politicians from passing laws that prohibit speech, for example, that advocates for the violent overthrow of capitalism or mocks Christianity? As the ACLU argues, 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. Of course, the Court can recognize a hate speech exception to the First Amendment, but as The Economist argues, such an exception will only encourage ideologues to harass those who hold a different view. In India, a psychologist and well-known public intellectual was charged under the countrys hate speech law for making a point about corruption and lower-caste politicians. He has since said that because of the incident, he will have to be careful now. Similarly, a hate speech law may allow Trump to sue Clinton if she had instead said Evangelical Christians or white Trump supporters belong to a basket of deplorables. I am not arguing that instituting a hate speech exception is constitutionally impossible, but I suspect it will either be too broad so as to amount to censorship, or too narrow so as to be utterly indistinguishable from other exceptions such as fighting words.

Speech on campus, of course, is an entirely different matter. Public colleges are required by the Constitution to provide First Amendment protection for everyone. Private colleges like Swarthmore, on the other hand, should protect the most vulnerable members of their communities, but they should also promote diversity of political opinion and speech that has intellectual value. The decision to allow or disallow certain speech is ultimately a balancing act, but colleges should not, for example, disinvite conservative speakers merely because their viewpoints are unpopular or offensive. (I do not, however, believe Milo Yiannopoulos deserves a platform on campus, because I do not believe his speech has any value at all.) Some, however, have argued that hate speech deserves a place on campus. Gillman and UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks, for example, argue that only by subjecting hate speech to examination can we expose the lie and bigotry that it is. I am sympathetic to such arguments even though I believe the line should be drawn where students might begin to feel unsafe.

There is another issue: do some students, because of their privileges, have no right to discuss certain topics or issues? There is a strong case to be made that those who belong to groups that traditionally have less voice should be given more voice to enrich the marketplace of ideas, but I think the answer to this question should be no. A friend of mine told me that when his public policy class was discussing whether catcalling should be made a felony, he was told by a female student that his view does not matter because he is not a woman. However, as a low-income and minority student, he knew that such laws disproportionately affect minorities. Regardless of whether his view was correct, he was capable of making a valuable contribution to the discussion. The point is, in the context of campus speech, more speech is almost always better than less.

See the rest here:
What is Freedom of Speech? - Swarthmore Phoenix

At UCLA earlier this month a book about Islamic Totalitarianism prompted a group of student protesters to allegedly form a human shield around a table holding the publication, a confrontation that ended after a campus official demanded the books be removed.

The incident took place before a panel discussion Feb. 1 on the threat to free speech co-hosted by the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute.

The university has since apologized for the incident and has implemented procedures to ensure it does not happen again, and a campus spokesman disputes the claim that students formed a human shield to block the book.

The book that drew the ire of protesters is Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. Its co-author, Elan Journo, director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, was not at the event but was told by his staffers who were there what happened.

Journo told The College Fix that approximately twelve UCLA students expressed disapproval of the publications insulting language and effectively formed something like a human barricade around the table where his book was presented during a reception prior to the talk.

In an article in The Hill, Journo states that at this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was inflammatory. It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movements global assaults on free speech.

Journo told The College Fix that based on eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on the scene when the UCLA rep stepped in, my colleagues who were staffing the table tried to point out the absurdity of ban the book. At that point, the rep picked up the stack of books and demanded that all copies of the book be removed, and that either he would take them or they could be put them under the table.

Not wanting to escalate the dispute or delay the event, which was about to start, the staff manning the display table decided to put the stack of books under the table. That was about the time the event began, and people entered the auditorium. The protesting students dispersed, except for two who attended the event, Journo told The Fix.

Later, during the panel event, YouTube broadcaster Dave Rubin, who also served as the event moderator, held up a copy of Journos book, bringing to light the irony of the situation.

Rubin placed the book on the table and jokingly stated that its a scary thing filled with words.

He added: Its just a book and its a set of ideas.

Reached for comment, ULCA Laws Executive Director of Communications Bill Kisliuk said in an email to The College Fix that it is true that that a UCLA staffer made an error in judgment and requested that a book be removed from sale in violation of university policy.

The school has since apologized for this action and taken steps to prevent it from happening again. It is worth noting that the evenings event, in which speakers addressed a student audience and exchanged in a free flow of ideas, proceeded without interruption or interference, Kisliuk said.

The speakers included Flemming Rose, author of The Tyranny of Silence, and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute.

In his email to The College Fix, Kisliuk also pointed out that while the institute had permission to have a table in the hallway outside the event, ARI representatives never indicated in multiple discussions with UCLA officials beforehand that they planned to sell materials. University of California and UCLA policy require that third-party organizations obtain advance approval before seeking to sell products on campus.

Kisliuk also disputes the claim that the students formed a human shield.

Prior to the event, several students gathered at the ARI table and engaged in dialogue about the book. They did not seek to impede attendees interested in the book, nor was anyone prevented from entering the room where the panel discussion took place, he said. A member of the UCLA Law staff did ask an ARI representative to stop selling copies of the book. While ARI staff removed copies of the book from the table on request, at least one copy remained visible on the table until ARI packed its materials and stopped staffing the table.

Kisliuk said that in a letter of apology to the Ayn Rand Institute, Law Dean Jennifer Mnookin stated that the request to remove copies of the book was not in keeping with UCLAs Law or her vigorous commitment to support free speech and respectful debate.

Moving forward, Mnookin has partnered with administration to hatch out a plan for enhancing policies and procedures which would prevent this occurrence from repeating. Kisliuk describes how the plan now includes improved student organization training in regard to protection of free speech at events.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGE: Shutterstock

About the Author

Dominic Mancini is an undergraduate student completing Ashford University's online psychology program. Currently working as an intern at the Quicken Loan's Detroit headquarters, his career goals include human resources, journalism and political commentary. He has previously managed a YouTube channel by filming and uploading video blogs and tutorials. During his spare time, Dominic enjoys playing the piano, heading to the gym, and discussing current events.

View post:
At UCLA, book on 'Islamic Totalitarianism' censored at free speech event - The College Fix

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) Words were flowing on the University of New Mexico campus Wednesday afternoon.

Students were given the opportunity to write whatever they wanted on a huge beach ball in the center of campus.

The group behind it, Young Americans for Liberty, said their goal was for students to take advantage of their rights and get the conversation going.

Go ahead and write whatever you like on the free speech ball, Andres Del Aguila, UNM student, said.

UNM student Shaya Golafshani decided to share a positive message Wednesday.

Hello gorgeous world, she wrote, adding she sees too much negativity around her.

I just love to see people smile and so when you tell someone theyre gorgeous, they smile so I just think thats awesome, Golafshani said.

She is just one of dozens of UNM students who wrote on a giant beach ball, exercising their constitutional right.

This is for their freedom of speech, they can say whatever they want, they have a voice, their voice matters, Jessamine Cerron, Young Americans for Liberty, said.

The groups aim is to educate all students, regardless of their political beliefs, about their rights.

I decided to draw an eye with a heart and art next to it because Im an art student and I believe that expression through art is pretty amazing, Ashleigh Ortega said.

Some students used the opportunity to have a little fun.

I put, make slime, smoke drugs, because people need to not take everything so seriously sometimes, Eli Bartlit, UNM student, said.

Others opted for a more political message.

I just felt like writing Mexican American cause thats how I feel right now, J.C. Santistevan, UNM student, said.

The group organizing the event says theyve seen examples of censorship on college campuses lately, citing the Milo Yiannopoulos event at UNM last month.

The event featuring the conservative speaker sparked protests and controversy on campus.

Were against all forms of censorship whether it be from the government or from fellow citizens, explained Del Aguila.

Organizers say they want UNM to remain an inviting campus, open to different ideas.

The Young Americans for Liberty have put on the free speech ball event before.

They say its a good way to get students to interact with each other on campus about important issues.

Go here to see the original:
UNM students express freedom of speech on giant beach ball - KRQE News 13

MOULTRIE, Ga.

Have you ever thought about this? If it wasnt for the First Amendment, then you probably couldnt ride around in your pickup truck with the essence of the Second Amendment on your bumper.

Ive been in the news business for many years. And Ive heard a lot of comments about free speech and the First Amendment. Ive even been amused by some of the utterances.

Ive often heard, He shouldnt be allowed to say that.

That expression typically comes from one who disagrees with another.

And of course wrapped in satire theres, If I want your opinion, Ill give it to you.

That expression is often meant to point out ones ignorance of the very essence of the First Amendment.

Ive even been told in so many words that if I expressed a particular opinion I would suffer retribution. So I said, lets go for it. I think that person put me on double secret probation or something. Ouch!

Not long ago, a person told me I should not be running a particular columnist on the opinion page of our newspaper. So I asked him why? He said because the columnist was stupid. I asked him how did he know that the columnist was stupid. He said, Because I read him all the time. So I asked him if he often indicts himself.

Ive met people who appear to be afraid to read an opposing opinion, as if through some weird process of osmosis they would embrace, against their will, a foreign idea. In other words, dont read Das Kapital. You might wake up a communist.

During the past presidential election, I witnessed some very crude and hateful exchanges over differences of opinion. Im talking about blue-veins-bulging-in-the-temples kind of anger. I thought to myself if this were a vampire, one could hold up a cross and ward it off. But somehow I dont think holding up a copy of the First Amendment would work.

Of course free speech has some parameters bound by law. The old standard to illustrate that point is that one does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Its perfectly all right to yell theater in a crowded fire. Or to yell fire if you fall into a vat of chocolate, because if you yell chocolate! no one is going to come to your rescue. (Tommy Smothers)

Ive collected a few sayings over the years pertaining to free speech.

The granddaddy of them all, of course, is attributed to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Perhaps one quote on free speech that should cause one to do some serious soul searching comes from Leo McKem: It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree.

Thats kind of like saying one can appear really bold while tracking through the woods at night in search of a Bigfoot when you know full well youre not going to find one.

And of course I routinely look for the light side in researching philosophies and thats when I found this one: At no time is freedom of speech more precious than when a man hits his thumb with a hammer. That quote is attributed to Marshall Lumsden.

In the realm of politics, maybe the greatest truth about free speech is expressed by David Joseph Cribbin: Most people do not really want others to have freedom of speech, they just want others to be given the freedom to say what they want to hear.

Think about it.

(Email: dwain.walden@gaflnews.com)

See the article here:
Column: I was just thinking about 'free speech' - Moultrie Observer

By Hunter Gilbert

The opinions expressed by The Maneater columnists do not represent the opinions of The Maneater editorial board.

Hunter Gilbert is a freshman data journalism major at MU. He is an opinion columnist who writes about rights and tech for The Maneater.

The founding fathers did not get everything right when it came to explaining the rights they believed every American should have. For starters, they didnt believe these rights applied to everyone in the nation.

What they were successful in doing was expressing how important specific rights were to their vision of a longstanding democratic republic. This is why the First Amendment includes several tenets, some of those being the freedoms of religion, speech and press. In the event that a sovereign state silences all forms of publication that have conflicting viewpoints with the powers that be, the voice and verbal opposition of a populace in the absence of the press would act as the last vessel for the people. It is essential for democratic processes to occur.

Recently at the University of California-Berkeley, a member of the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulos, had his event canceled due to a concern for his own safety. This was the result of a protest that turned into a riot one that was not controlled by the police even though their purpose was to maintain order. It goes without saying from my past columns that I do not champion or support rhetoric like Milos. He has done some truly despicable things. I do, however, agree with Milo, much like another opponent of his rhetoric, Matt Teitelbaum, when it comes to freedom of speech.

If you have ever actually watched the man speak, he carries himself with an interesting demeanor. He will have a good dialogue with someone with opposing views if they carry their conversation through well-mannered means. If someone is merely screaming at him and calling him names, he will do the same through vicious mockery and heckling. beliefs. It has been that way for over a hundred years and it will remain that way. There is no changing that. So when it was announced that one of the leaders of the UC Berkeley protest believed the protest was successful and that she tolerated the behavior that occurred, it sends a very concerning message. Plenty of protesters acted respectfully, and they deserve praise for doing so. The fact of the matter is the violence and rioting that occurred gave more attention to Milos cause. Milos book is now an Amazon bestseller thanks to the publicity, and it hasnt even come out yet. In part, the protest failed since its goal was to keep people from hearing him speak. Violence or silencing your opponent discredits your own sides credibility.

If you truly want change, make compromises. Talk to people who have different views than your own. Learn about the origins of why they believe in a certain ideology. Dont surround yourself solely with people who think exactly like you. That only creates a hive mind mentality with an echo chamber effect. It doesnt lead to any progress. Free speech is useless when your opponent cant speak for themselves.

He has two sides, one of which I respect. At times, he has openly welcomed actual dialogue from opposing viewpoints. This is rare these days. Society jumps at labeling people without actually listening to them or mislabels a party or person for the shock value or simple discreditation. Its modern day McCarthyism, but instead with buzzwords like fascist and neo-Nazi, even though sometimes it is warranted. It is the equivalent of crying wolf over and over again. No one will listen to you when the truth is applicable. One does not have to agree with Milos beliefs to recognize he values free speech for what it actually promotes: discussion and dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Back to the protest. One can easily watch the videos of rioters clubbing people with iron pipes or punching a bystander several times even though it is apparent she had done nothing to warrant this. What shocked me the most was a man, already unconscious, being beaten by a group of anti-fascist demonstrators.

There was no uproar and no mainstream condemnations from bipartisan groups for what occurred. For the most part, the response was silence. I may not agree with the people who were clubbed and beaten, but suppressing their civil right to free speech should not be so widely accepted.

View post:
Column: Free speech is a two-way street - The Maneater