Mediaboss Marketing

Inside Higher Ed

Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far Inside Higher Ed He also praised a new free speech law in Tennessee that's been lauded by FIRE and other groups for strengthening the First Amendment on campuses without requiring punishments for disrupters. The bill abolishes designated free speech zones for ... Is free speech fading at colleges? - Chicago Law BulletinChicago Daily Law Bulletin Freedom of Speech Attacked, Defended During Public Hearing ...MacIverInstitute all 5 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far - Inside Higher Ed

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (NEWSPLEX) -- The First Amendment, at its core, protects all forms of speech. That includes hate speech.

So while people are taking issue with the rallies this weekend in Charlottesville over the Robert E. Lee Statue, under the First Amendment, those rallies are protected even from city permits.

"Under the First Amendment, free speech is free," explained John Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead said the creation of the First Amendment was to empower people to speak up, and protect people from their own government.

"The government cannot target one specific group or several groups and say 'You don't have the right to speech because we don't agree,'" he said.

According to Whitehead, even though certain forms of speech make people uncomfortable like hate speech, it is still protected by the Constitution.

"You can say 'I hate this. I hate that. I don't like these people.' Whatever, but that's protected," Whitehead said.

The reason for allowing hate speech, explained Whitehead, is because that type of speech can actually drive a conversation about an issue.

"If I say something to you that really offends you out there listening to this program, it makes you think. It makes you want to debate. And that's what the founding fathers wanted," he said. "They wanted a debate."

However, Charlottesville city code states people should get permits for large gatherings like Saturday's alt-right rally in Lee Park.

"People are suppose to get permits when they do these things on public property," said City Councilor Bob Fenwick. "No permit was applied for. It was an ambush, a sneak attack. It was one of the dumbest things I have seen in my life."

Regardless, the First Amendment lets demonstrators hold rallies without getting the proper permission from localities.

"While we prefer protesters get permits like any other event, such assemblies are protected by the First Amendment and we do not interfere unless we perceive a legal or safety issue," added a Charlottesville city spokesperson.

But there is a point at which the First Amendment stops protecting speech.

"If you're advocating violence, that's where it stops," said Whitehead. "In other words, you're saying 'Lets go out, blow them up, lets shoot them, kill them,' That's no longer protected under the law."

Reflecting on the rallies over the weekend, Whitehead said people who did not like what they saw should speak up and express their opinions. He said that is why the First Amendment was created.

Originally posted here:
Weekend rallies protected by First Amendment, including torch burning - The Charlottesville Newsplex

FrontPage Magazine

The Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment FrontPage Magazine Over the past two weeks, the David Horowitz Freedom Center has named 10 prestigious college and university campuses to its list of the Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment. These campuses ... and more »

See the rest here:
The Top 10 College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment - FrontPage Magazine

Blogs | May. 13, 2017

Unjust discrimination against individuals who identify as LGBT is a real problem. So is eroding religious freedom but in some cases another First Amendment right may be even more relevant.

Yesterday the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released a statement announcingthat a Christian business owner finally won a case brought against him by gay plaintiffs alleging a civil rights violation:

A Kentucky court championed free speech today, ruling that the government cannot force t-shirt printer Blaine Adamson to create gay-pride t-shirts in violation of his religious beliefs. The court agreed with Becket, top legal scholars, and LGBT business owners, who all stood up for the rights of artists to choose what messages they would promote, without fear of government punishment. Todaysruling emphasizedthat the service [the printer] offers is the promotion of messages. The conduct [the printer] chose not to promote was pure speech.

Adamson is the owner of Hands On Originals, a small print shop in Lexington, Kentucky. Adamson regularly employs and serves LGBT individuals, and serves everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. He also cares deeply about the messages he promotes. Just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, Adamson does not print messages that violate his beliefs. Following common printing industry practice, he only creates messages that align with his views, and has declined to create t-shirts promoting strip clubs, violence, and sexually explicit videos. Thats why LGBT business ownersstood upfor Mr. Adamsons right to choose the messages he promotes.

It doesnt matter what the speech is pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-immigration, anti-immigration the government cant force you to print it, saidLuke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm.Thats the beauty of free speech: It protects everyone.

This seems to me an important case that may have implications for the wedding-industry wars.

So far as I know, Christian wedding industry professionals photographers, cake decorators and caterers have always lost in court for declining to provide services to same-sex weddings.

While I dont know a lot about the legal reasoning in those cases, whenever I see Christians discussing such casesthe issue seems to be framed as a question of the First Amendment right of religious freedom. I wonder this isnt a mistake.

As the Hands On Originals T-shirt print shops successful defense illustrates, religious freedom may thewrong First Amendment right at least in the case of photographers and cake decorators. (Caterers are probablyout of luck, at least as regards this line of thought.)

The strongestFirst Amendment defense for wedding photographers and cake decorators, I suspect, is not religious freedom, but freedom of speech.

Wedding photography is a service, but photography is also patently an art form, a form of communication. For the purposes of First Amendment constitutional law, it is a form of speech and speech, in First Amendment constitutional law, with very few exceptions, can be neither suppressed nor compelled.

An important caveat: Freedom of speech does not negate the principles of public accommodation and antidiscrimination law, which I support. I do not take the laissez-faire libertarian view that any business should have the right to refuse to transact with any potential customer or employee for any reason.

For instance, I dont believe that restauranteurs who are racists should have the right to refuse service to patrons of color or to relegate them to a separate counter, for instance. Nor do I support Christian business owners (or Muslims or Jews) with traditional beliefs about sexual morality refusing to serve individuals who identify as LBGT.

In saying this, Im going somewhat beyond federal antidiscrimination law, which prohibits discrimination against protected groups defined by race, color, religion, national origin, and disability, but does not protect individuals singled out for their sex or sexual orientation. (Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in many areas at the state and local level.)

When it comes to discrimination and bigotry based on sexual orientation, both sides typically claim too much and concede too little. Christians should be willing to recognize and concede that while terms like hate and homophobia are overused to stigmatize all disapproval of homosexual acts, hatred and unjust hostility toward LBGT-identifying individuals is a real and important problem a problem too often found among individuals wrapping themselves in the mantle of traditional morality and traditional marriage.

To adhere to and to profess traditional Christian sexual morality, including the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong, is not hate or bigotry,but hatred and bigotry are very much alive and well among those who profess to adhere to traditional Christian sexual morality.

The Catholic faith tells us that homosexual attraction and homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, but it also tells us that same-sex attracted persons must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).

The Catechism wouldnt bother to say this unless such individuals had often not been accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and had often been treated with unjust discrimination.

When Christians meet with hostility and anger from LBGT individuals and their defenders, therefore, it behooves us to understand that behind that hostility and anger may often be painful experiences of mistreatment, rejection, stigma, ostracism and more. When this occurs in the Church, and still more when it involves the clergy, it can be even more devastating.

In view of this difficult reality, I believe Christians have a particular duty to oppose homophobia and gay-bashing in their own ranks and to stand up for dignity and respect for all human beings, including and even especially individuals who identify as LBGT.

We should also recognize that it is understandable for the state to take an interest in protecting LBGT individuals from unjust discrimination for holding, for instance, that peoples sexual self-identification or lifestyle, along with their race, color, religion and so on, is not grounds for refusing to serve them a meal at a restaurant, or for denying them other services at public accommodations.

Among other things, this would mean that a store that sells T-shirts cannot (and I would add should not) refuse to sell T-shirts to anyone because of their race or ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identification or lifestyle. A racist cannot refuse to sell to people of color, an atheist or a gay activist cannot refuse to sell to conservative Christians, and a Christian cannot refuse to sell to sell to atheists or gays.

By the same token, a T-shirt printer who printed a particular design or message for one customer should be willing to print the same design or message for a customer whose lifestyle he disapproves of.

In the case reported by the Becket Fund, though, another principle comes into play: free speech.

The Hands On Originals case highlights that not every kind of service in the public square is equivalent to buying a meal at a restaurant. Some types of services involve a form of artistic expression or speech that is protected under the First Amendment and these protections protect us all.

Free speech means a pro-choice graphic designer or commercial artist cannot be forced to print pro-life materials, nor can a pro-life graphic designer or commercial artist be forced to print pro-choice materials. A gay Web developer cannot be forced to create a website for a conservative Christian group, nor can a Christian Web developer be forced to create a website for a gay group.

This is a principle well understood and appreciated by the LGBT business owners cited in the Becket Fund press release, who supported Hands On Originals right to refuse to print pro-gay materials. All sides and all parties to this discussion should recognize the wisdom of Thomas Mores line in A Man For All Seasons about giving even the Devil benefit of law for my own safetys sake. (N.b. Like More, Im merely illustrating a principle, not comparing anyone to the Devil!)

Because photography is patently a form of artistic expression, Im troubled that the courts not so far found that a wedding photographer, or any other wedding industry professional other than clergy,has the right to decline to provide services for a same-sex wedding. Could this be because such cases have generally been predicated on religious freedom rather than free speech? I dont know, but I wonder.

I believe the principle that speech should be neither repressed nor compelled is so important that I would even defend the right of a white supremacist photographer not to photograph an interracial wedding. His views are despicable so despicable that I would want nothing to do with patronizing such a photographer, whether or not he had a problem with me but photography is speech, and speech should not be compelled.

The same considerations seem to me to apply to cake decorators, at least where the cake involves any kind of messaging, even figures of two grooms or two brides on the top. Im not talking about refusing to sell a cake to an LGBT person or couple, but to decorating the cake with a specific message.

I dont believe this principle should be controversial, although it is. In 2015 no less patently liberal and pro-LGBT a celebrity than Patrick Stewart offered a thoughtful defense for a baker who was sued for declining to put pro-gay messaging on a cake. The backlash was intense, obliging Stewart to clarify his remarks though he didnt back down on his opinion.

This line of thought would not, however, exempt caterers from catering the reception for a same-sex wedding. That would fall into the same sphere as a restaurant selling someone a meal, and would be regulated by applicable antidiscrimination laws.

Its no secret that free speech itself is under attack in many quarters of American life, notably in academia. The Hands On Originals case seems to me an important affirmation of a foundational principle that protects us all and is worth defending.

Read this article:
Gay Rights and the OTHER First Amendment Right - National Catholic Register (blog)

In campus clashes from California to Vermont, many defenders of the First Amendment say they see signs that free speech, once a bedrock value in academia, is losing ground as a priority at U.S. colleges.

As protests have derailed speeches by controversial figures, including an event with Ann Coulter last month at the University of California, Berkeley, some fear students have come to see the right to free expression less as an enshrined measure of protection for all voices and more as a political weapon used against them by provocateurs.

"I think minority groups and those who feel alienated are especially skeptical about free speech these days," said Jeffrey Herbst, leader of the Newseum, a Washington group that defends the First Amendment. "But the powerful can get their message across any number of ways. It's those who feel powerless or alienated who really benefit from enshrined rights."

On Wednesday, students at the historically black Bethune-Cookman University in Florida tried to shout down a commencement address by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who said during her speech, "Let's choose to hear one another out." Students and alumni had previously petitioned to rescind her invitation, saying she doesn't understand the importance of historically black schools.

While some cast the debate as a political battle, pitting protesters on the left against conservative speakers on the right, First Amendment advocates warn the line marking acceptable speech could slip if more college students adopt less-than-absolute views on free speech.

When UC Berkeley canceled Coulter's April 27 speech amid threats of violence, it was only the latest example of a speaker with controversial views being blocked from talking. Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 30 campus speeches have been derailed amid controversy, according to the Foundation For Individual Rights In Education, a group that monitors free speech on campuses.

In many cases, speakers have been targeted for their views on race and sexual identity.

At Middlebury College in Vermont, author Charles Murray was shouted down by students who accused him of espousing racist views. An event featuring Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley was called off after protests over his views on race and transgender people turned violent.

In the past year, other speeches have been disrupted or canceled amid student protests at the University of Wisconsin, UC Davis, Brown University, New York University and DePaul University, among others.

Today's students have developed a new understanding of free speech that doesn't protect language seen as offensive to minorities or others thought to be disenfranchised, said Herbst, also a former president of Colgate University, a liberal arts school in Hamilton, New York.

He sees it as a generational divide, a notion that's supported by some polling data. A 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that 40 percent of people ages 18 to 34 supported government censorship of statements offensive to minorities. Only 24 percent of people ages 51 to 69 agreed.

The literary group PEN America has also warned free speech is being threatened at colleges.

As students and administrators strive to make campuses more hospitable to diverse student bodies, some have wrongly silenced speech that makes certain students feel uncomfortable, said Suzanne Nossel, the group's director.

"The university has dual imperatives. It has to be a place that is welcoming and open to students of all backgrounds, cognizant of the barriers that impede students from marginalized groups," she said. "But that cannot and must not come at the expense of being an open environment for speech."

The events at Berkeley and Middlebury have drawn scorn from observers across the political spectrum, including some founders of the free speech movement that took root at Berkeley in the 1960s. Jack Weinberg, who was arrested on campus in 1964 for violating school codes on activism and sparked a wave of protests to change them, said he found "the whole thing despicable."

"When you suppress ideas, you also increase interest in those ideas," Weinberg said. "It's understandable that people want to stop it, but it doesn't work."

Still, some students don't see a problem with disrupting provocative speakers. Some say they're simply invoking their own First Amendment rights, while others say they're appealing to higher principles that take priority over free expression.

"If your goal is to come onto university campuses and put communities at risk, and your goal is to bash and spew hateful, racist rhetoric, then we don't want that," said Richard Alvarado, a junior at Berkeley who protested both recent speeches. "We as a community have a moral obligation to hold you accountable for it."

Colleges need to take a harder stance against students who disrupt speeches, some say. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are pushing a bill that would force state universities to suspend or expel students who repeatedly interfere with others' free speech. Similar legislation was recently approved in Virginia and Colorado, and is being considered in California, Michigan and North Carolina. The bills are modeled after a proposal by the Goldwater Institute, a conservative think tank in Arizona.

Others are calling for colleges to adopt stronger policies in support of free expression, and for primary schools to bolster lessons on the First Amendment.

"We are seeing things on an all-too-regular basis which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago," said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment attorney in New York City. "One can only hope that tempers will cool and people will come to accept the virtues of living in a society where even offensive speech is fully protected by the First Amendment."

Original post:
First Amendment backers see free speech fading at colleges - Clinton Herald