Mediaboss Marketing

A Northwestern University professors op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is disturbing - not only in its conclusions, but also its assumptions. Sociologist Laura Beth Nielsen calls for restrictions on hate speech, because she contends that speech is violence.

We are currently seeing the results of confusing speech and political violence. Its not pretty.

As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment - I tell my students - local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech, Nielsen writes. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some cant grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we dont also restrict hate speech.

Shes only partially right there; government doesnt regulate libel, for example, but victims can win compensation from perpetrators in a civil action. Incitement to violence is certainly restricted, but advertisings relationship with the First Amendment is more complicated.

But the real problem with Nielsens piece is her assumptions.

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences, she writes. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies These negative physical and mental health outcomes - which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression - mean that hate speech is not just speech. Hate speech is doing something.

Certainly, harassment is bad. And in many cases, its already illegal. There are remedies in place. But the fundamental truth here is that words are not actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed the freedom of speech - and ruled that hate speech is covered.

For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or hateful are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest, writes John Daniel Danielson for The Federalist.

The reason is simple. Once Congress can start banning hate speech, then unpopular political opinions will become illegal.

As Danielson points out, By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? Thats hate speech Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

And of course that could be turned against the left. Their ideas and values easily could be labeled hate speech. Think of black lives matter.

Were in the midst of a great confusion in our society. Political violence - from punching Nazis to attacking protestors to shooting conservative members of Congress - seems to be on the rise.

We must get back to the belief that ideas are to be countered with better ideas, not with violence. Words have consequences, but we cant ban them just because we dont like them.

More:
Editorial: First Amendment affirms that words aren't violence - Tyler Morning Telegraph

The North Carolina legislature is the counter-argument against the story of the mule and the two-by-four. No matter how often you hit them over the head, and various courts have done it 12 times in the past year, you still don't get their attention. Sometimes, the mule is just dumb.

Getty

From there, we skip up to Wisconsin, where the state's university system remains stubbornly unimpressed with the Republican legislature and with the leadership of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage this particular Midwest subsidiary. You may have been following the various fights on college campuses regarding "controversial" speakers and the reaction against them. (If you're a regular reader of right-wing media, you believe that mere anarchy has been loosed upon the world. Just lie down with a cold compress for a while.) There are "free speech" advocates on both sides of the big ditch here, exercising their First Amendment rights at the top of their lungs and, occasionally, exercising their First Amendment right of assembly in a fashion thought to be too vigorous.

Luckily, the Wisconsin Republicans have a solution: Throw out the latter group. From The Capital Times:

The controversial legislation has drawn criticism from those who say it would curb free speech rather than expand it and that it would stand in the way of the UW System's authority to manage its own campuses. Its supporters say its goal is to encourage free expression and to ensure all viewpoints can be heard at public universities. "Today we are ensuring that simply because you are a young adult on a college campus, your constitutional rights do not go away," said bill author Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum.

Watch now as Kremer deftly ties his own shoes together.

Under the measure, students who repeatedly engage in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would be subjected to discipline that, on a third incident, would result in expulsion. The bill requires UW System campuses to launch investigations and hold hearings the second time a student is alleged to have interfered with the expressive rights of others. The hearings and their outcomes would be reported annually to a newly formed Council on Free Expression.

You see the joker in the deck there, right? "Other disorderly conduct." As defined by what"a Council On Free Expression."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

A what? Thought police! Somebody wake up Ben Shapiro. There's work to be done in Madison! Of course, Wisconsin is not the only test case.

Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, said the country has faced free speech struggles throughout its history, but they have been resolved without legislative intervention. "This is really part of a political program," Berceau said. "It's part of the continuing effort to really establish a conservative stronghold in our country on every institution, and now they're going after or universities." The bill is similar to others being considered throughout the country, modeled after sample legislation prepared by the conservative Goldwater Institute, and takes some pieces from a provision members of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee removed from Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal.

Of all the techniques of artificial victimization common to modern conservatism, the whole "political correctness" thing is one of the most threadbare, and this attempt at legislating away the parts of the First Amendment you don't like is the best evidence of that we've seen in a while.

And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Oil Well Artist Friedman of the Plains brings us the tale of Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton, who is not working and playing well with others, as the Tulsa World explains.

The telephone exchange stemmed from a May 25 incident in which a deputy with the Rogers County Sheriff's Office drove past Officer Craig Heatherly, who attempted to flag down the deputy for backup in a gun-related traffic stop, according to an internal police email. However, dash cam video allegedly shows the deputy driving past without stopping to help In the cellphone audio, Walton can be heard telling Heatherly that he "handled it wrong" and he "owe(d) the man an apology" in reference to the deputy. Heatherly responded that he and Walton would have to "agree to disagree on that one." "We'll agree to disagree," Walton said, "but I do agree that you're a f---- coward. OK."

I have to agree with FOTP here. What makes it art is "We'll have to agree to disagreeyou fcking coward!" From NPR to Deadwood in one complex sentence. Awesome.

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.

The Constitution Simply Was Not Built for This

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

See the original post:
In Scott Walker's Wisconsin, the First Amendment Only Applies to Certain People - Esquire.com

The Detroit News 11:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2017

The court ruling upholds the principle that the First Amendment protects even hateful speech.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Americans shouldnt need constant reminding that under the First Amendment, they can say what they want, when they want and to whom they want, no matter how hateful or offensive.

And yet as longstanding as is that principle, the U.S. Supreme Court had to affirm it again this week when it ruled unanimously that an Asian rock band could trademark its name the Slants even though it is a derogatory term sometimes used to demean Asians.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied the bands request to register and protect its name, deeming it amounted to hate speech. The office similarly stripped the Washington Redskins football team of its trademark because it is offensive to Native Americans.

The courts ruling basically upheld the principle that all speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment and should not be restricted.

Thats the right call. The obvious danger of allowing the federal government to be the arbiter of free speech is that restrictions are easily manipulated to suit political agendas.

And offensiveness is very much in the ear they beholder. What shocks one person may not faze another.

The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

Alitos opinion provides important clarification for the so-called disparagement clause of federal law, which forbids registration of a trademark that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

Thats an overly broad carve-out that, again, relies on subjective interpretations influenceable by the regulators own experiences and biases.

Its not the appropriate role of the government, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, Kennedy wrote in concurrence. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

There are, of course, marketplace consequences when speech oversteps societal norms and broadly offends. Products can be boycotted and individuals shunned. Thats the appropriate regulator.

This court has been a good friend to the First Amendment at a time when there are many who would shred it to stifle dissent and control the national political debate.

That the Slants opinion came on an 8-0 vote is a powerful affirmation of the foundational right of free speech and its sacred role in a democratic society.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tUR4iG

Read the rest here:
Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment - The Detroit News

What can powerless, concerned citizens do in response to President Trump's move to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement?

Here's a pretty good answer from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.:

If you haven't joined an environmental group, join one. If your voice needs to be heard, get active. If you are a big corporation with good climate policies that has shied away from engaging politically, it's time to engage.

Taken from his official statement on the withdrawal, Whitehouse describes exactly the type of activity the First Amendment was written to protect. When government takes action that citizens find objectionable, the First Amendment protects their right to organize, petition, and speak out. In other words, it protects the right to "get active."

Unfortunately, Whitehouse has spent his political career promoting efforts to hamper just this sort of civic engagement.

He uses the megaphone that comes with his position of power to rail against the rights of advocacy groups that choose to respect the privacy of their donors. And he supports bills that would cripple all but the most well-funded groups.

Whitehouse has introduced the so-called "DISCLOSE Act" multiple times now. DISCLOSE is a contrived acronym for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections."

Whitehouse and his allies say this bill would increase transparency. But the "light" that would be cast would not shine on those in power, such as senators. We wouldn't know anything about what groups or persons he meets with behind closed doors.

Rather, the bill targets citizen groups that seek to hold those in power accountable. Whitehouse would like us to believe that the legitimate interest in government transparency necessitates exposing the personal information of private citizens who choose to join groups and advocate for social change.

Disclosing the names, addresses, occupations, and employers of citizens who give to advocacy groups exposes people to potential intimidation and harassment. So if his bill became law, fewer are likely to want to join an environmental group. The loss of privacy increases the costs of civic engagement.

The laws drive up compliance costs for groups too. Disclosure laws are very complex. They require groups to file frequent, detailed reports to government agencies. To stay in compliance, groups must hire expensive lawyers and spend resources on exhaustive record-keeping. As a result, Whitehouse is promoting laws that would directly hinder citizens' willingness and ability to "get active."

The DISCLOSE Act is just one part of Whitehouse's endless crusade against the free speech rights of groups he likes to call "dark money" organizations. The pejorative term "dark money" refers to money spent on speech by groups that do not have to publicly report the private information of their donors to the government.

One such "dark money" group is the Sierra Club. Among the most well-known environmental advocacy groups in the nation, it is presumably one of the groups Whitehouse would encourage concerned citizens to join.

The Sierra Club explicitly offers to protect the privacy of its donors, including corporate donors. So, it clearly has supporters who desire anonymity and with good reason. Surely, some of those supporters would choose not to donate if they no longer had this option.

Whitehouse's call for increased political engagement from corporations highlights his apparent myopic view that the First Amendment only applies to advocacy he agrees with as well.

Whitehouse makes no attempt to hide his animus toward corporate political speech. He has repeatedly co-sponsored a constitutional amendment that, among other abominations it would do to the First Amendment, seeks to grant Congress unlimited power to prohibit any corporate entity from spending money on political speech.

No word on whether he favors an exception for corporations with "good" policies on climate change.

It is heartening to see that Whitehouse is now encouraging citizens (and corporations) to engage in political speech instead of yet again attempting to silence opposing viewpoints.

His statement demonstrates that he does indeed understand the value of First Amendment-protected advocacy. However, the statement is also an example of the far too common tendency among many politicians to view only friendly advocacy as legitimate.

The First Amendment protects the right of every American to privately support an environmental group. It also supports the right of every corporation to speak in opposition to the president's actions regarding climate policy.

But Whitehouse must realize that the First Amendment also protects the right of citizens, nonprofit groups, and corporations to engage in political speech he opposes. In the end, his anti-speech objectives will harm the First Amendment rights of his allies as much as his opponents.

Alex Baiocco is a Communications Fellow at the Center for Competitive Politics in Alexandria, Virginia.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

View post:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is a hypocrite on the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

When Zachary Wood arrived at Williams College his freshman year, he had high hopes for an academic environment that challenged his views. Now going into his senior year, Wood says he has faced backlash from students and administrators for inviting controversial speakers to campus.

Wood appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, part of a panel discussing free speech on college campuses.

Wood describes himself as a liberal Democrat, but he brought provocative speakers representing diversepolitical ideologies to campus. He wanted to expose students to ideas they disagree with.

One such speaker invitation prompted the Williams College administration to cancel the event and revise the campus speaker policies.

Wood said this was impermissible, undemocratic, and antithetical to the intellectual character of the college

Williams College is not alone in disinviting speakers. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has tracked attempts to disinvite college speakers since 2000. It documented an upward trend. In 2016, FIRE recorded 43 incidents in which students or administrators attempted to cancel a planned speech.

Senator Ted Cruz lambasted college administrators for acting as speech police.

If universities become homogenizing institutions that are focused on inculcating and indoctrinating rather than challenging, we will lose what makes universities great, Cruz said.

The issue of disinviting speakers gained national attention in February when violent protests broke out at the University of California, Berkeley in response to a scheduled talk by alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

More recently, Berkeley cancelled a talk by commentator Ann Coulter amid more threats of protest.

Ranking Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein pointed to these violent demonstrations as justification for college administrators cancelling speeches. The senator from California said university police forces often do not have the training and resources needed to handle these situations.

Feinstein argued that Berkeley has a right to protect its students from demonstrations once they become acts of violence.

While there was consensus among panel members on the importance of free speech on campus, the issue came to the application of that right in practice.

UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh said it was important to punish violent protesters to ensure that they dont continue to disrupt speeches. He said this will sometimes require bringing in more law enforcement.

If you violate the law and by this I mean laws against vandalism, laws against violence, laws against physically shouting people down, then in that case you will be punished rather than having your goals be achieved, Volokh said.

Feinstein pushed back on the suggestion of more law enforcement to control college protests. She asked whether any lessons were learned fromthe 1970 Kent State shooting, in which Ohio National Guardsmen shotand killed four students and injured nine others.

Frederick Lawrence, secretary and CEO of the Phi Beta Kappa Society, said colleges must start with a strong presumption in favor of the speech but make judgements based on the circumstances. As a former president of Brandeis University, Lawrence said it is greatly exaggerated to expect colleges to have the resources to deal with all types of violent protests.

Lawrence said that no matter the speakers beliefs, colleges should find ways to host the event. He suggested making speeches private events if needed, closed to people outside the university community.

Over the past few months, several states have taken up the issue of free speech on campus. A bill passed the North Carolina House in April that would ensure public universities be open to all speakers. It also would require sanctions on protesters who disrupt events.

Panelist Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, said he was apprehensive about state legislatures getting too close to the university campuses. Abrams said state legislatures should not dictate what colleges can teach or cannot teach.

On the federal level, a bipartisan resolution calling for the protection of free speech was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in May. If passed, the resolution would condemn university free speech zones and restrictive speech codes. The Senate does not have any similar legislation.

Calling himself a small government guy, Sen. Ben Sasse said he wants to see as little of this adjudicated by coercion and power and possible. The Nebraska senator and former college president called on college administrators to defend free speech on their campuses.

Following the hearing Sen. John Kennedy agreed with Sasse, making clear to reporters that federal intervention was not needed to solve the problem.

I dont want the government to have to come in and say this is acceptable and this isnt, Kennedy said. I want a university president to do his job and to have the guts to do it. And if he cant do it he ought to quit.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Visit link:
Balancing the First Amendment and Students' Safety - Roll Call