Mediaboss Marketing

On MSNBC yesterday, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard Dean elaborated on his argument that Ann Coulters upcoming speech at Berkeley does not have to occur because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment:

Okay, several things to think about. One, the United States has the most far-reaching protections on speech of any country in the world. Two, its not absolute. Three, there are three Supreme Court cases you need to know about. One, the most recent, a John Roberts opinion, the Phelps people, that church out in Kansas, had a right to picket horrible offensive signs at military funerals. Well, two, in 2002, the Supreme Court said cross burning was illegal because it could incite violence. And three, Chaplinsky, the Chaplinsky case in 1942 said that speech was not permitted if it included fighting words that were likely to incite violence.

This is not a clear-cut carrying on the way the Right does. The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is. Well, Ann Coulter has used words that you cannot use on television to describe Jews, blacks, gays, Muslims immigrants, and Hispanics. I think that theres a case to be made that that invokes the Chaplinsky decision, which is fighting words, likely to cause violence. I think Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. Ill be the first to admit its a close call.

Actually, its not a close call; Dean is making the wrong call under the Constitution. Deans entire answer piles wrong argument atop wrong argument until he completes a Dagwood sandwich of wrong.

Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Churchs freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the reverse of his position.

The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his action as a threat.

Criminal threats, intimidation and criminal harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.

The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as of late. Eugene Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky precedent hasnt yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically narrowed its definition of fighting words. In 1971, the court ruled that a vulgar phrase on a jacket didnt fall within said definition because it was unlikely that any individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words to be a direct personal insult. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech to a certain time, place, or manner, but only if those restrictions were justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. (I.e., the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)

Without knowing what Coulter would say in her speech, Dean suggests that it would contain fighting words, given her history of using words you cant say on television to describe minorities. Given the words you cant say on television have no bearing on the constitutionality of an (as-yet-undelivered) speech at Berkeley, the one-time front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be insisting that just by being offensive, Coulters words incite violence and must be restricted and banned. It is fair to ask Dean and his ilk why they are so focused on restricting and punishing speech that supposedly incites violence and much less focused on punishing those who actually commit violent acts.

If Deans real desire is to ban speech that he doesnt like, he should just say so.

Jim Geraghty is National Reviews senior political correspondent.

READ MORE:

Read the original:
Ann Coulter Berkeley Address: Howard Dean's Legal Argument ... - National Review

On Wednesday, officials of the University of California-Berkeley announced they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then on Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we always have gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself. Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse. And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of black students went on the attack, claiming white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech. Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

Susan Estrich is a columnist,

commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

Continued here:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Hays Daily News

Herbst identifies a surprising source for this new understanding of the First Amendment, and identifies factors in students' development that could reinforce it as students move from high school to college. Citing research from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Newseum Institute, PEN America, the Pew Research Center and other sources, Herbst paints a comprehensive picture of student free expression issues that goes beyond episodic analysis of campus speech incidents.

The paper provides a set of recommendations for increasing student tolerance of offensive speech, and helping them become stronger advocates for free expression. Among Herbst's recommendations: first and secondary schools must educate students on the First Amendment; colleges and universities must make an absolutist case for free speech; and schools must continually make the case that free speech helps minorities and those who are alienated.

Now, when the younger generations make up the largest age demographic in America (Millennials now outnumber Boomers), it is more critical than ever to educate students on the First Amendment and the full rights it affords. The danger in not doing so, writes Herbst, would lead to nothing less than restrictions on our core freedoms.

Generous support for this project was provided by the Knight Foundation.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUMThe Newseum promotes, explains and defends free expression and the five freedoms of the First Amendment: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Headquartered on historic Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., the Newseum's compelling, dynamic and engaging exhibits, programs and education initiatives help ensure that these fundamental freedoms remain strong and protected both today and for future generations. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseum.org and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newseum-finds-alternate-understanding-of-the-first-amendment-among-young-adults-300445408.html

SOURCE Newseum

http://www.newseum.org/

Here is the original post:
Newseum Finds 'Alternate Understanding' of the First Amendment ... - PR Newswire (press release)

The First Amendment Foundation is a highly visible and accessible source of authoritative information, expertise and assistance to the public and news media.Founded as a non-profit organization in 1984 by The Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of Newspapers Editors and the Florida Association of Broadcasters to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

Floridas Sunshine Laws guarantee our right to open government, but government officials can get downright creative to keep their decision-making in the dark. Like the state agency that demanded $3,200 to copy a single page of a public record, or the city commissioner who accidentally dropped her government phone in the toilet after a reporter asked her to see her text messages. And of course, you, the taxpayer footed the $1.3 million legal tab to keep our Governor and his cabinet out of court over secret emails. Fortunately, we have the Florida First Amendment Foundation fighting on our side. I urge you to support the First Amendment Foundation and keep Florida government by the people, for the people and in the Sunshine.

Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald columnist and author ofSkin Tight,Strip Tease, Skinny Dip, Nature Girl, Star Island,Bad Monkey, Razor Girl and many more.

Thepurpose of the First Amendment Foundation is to protect and advance the publics constitutional right to open government by providing education and training, legal aid and information services. Funding is based on voluntary contributions from various organizations and concerned individuals.

You know, the critical research of my book would not have been possible without access granted by law via Floridas longstanding Open Government laws. Without Sunshine, stories like the injustice I uncovered in Central Florida could not have come forward. The Florida First Amendment Foundation has been protecting your citizen right to know for the past 31 years. Support the First Amendment Foundation. Support Open Government. It pays dividends.

Gilbert King, February 2016. Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

Our actions get results. In the past year, we led a broad coalition of open government advocates anddefeated a billthat would have made it harder to hold agencies accountable for public records violations. In dozens of courthouses and government offices around the country, citizens with FAFs help won access to the recordsand meetings.

Still,our job has never been more challenging and,with your help, we will continue to fight efforts to erode Floridas long-standing tradition of open government.

Find out more about the First Amendment Foundation.

Read the original:
First Amendment Foundation

Former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidateHoward Dean offered his flawed interpretation of the First Amendment last week during the Ann Coulter-Berkeley controversy. The schoolcancelled Coulter's scheduled appearanceon campus after they decided the conservative speaker would createtoo dangerous of an environment. They then re-invited her, but rescheduled her speech. Coulter insists she's coming on the original date - this Thursday.

Between all the back and forth, Dean defended Berkeley's initialdecision to nix the speech,tweeting that "hate speech" is not protected by the Constitution. Putting aside the fact that Dean thinks conservatism amounts to hate speech,Guy explained just howwrong Dean was - not to mention hypocritical.Dean once joked that Trump peddled drugs.

Instead of admitting his mistake and saving face, Dean is doubling down on his ridiculous tweet.

"It's actually true" the First Amendment does not protect hate speech, he said on MSNBC Sunday.

Sigh.

Again, this constitutional scholar was a governor and ran for president.

Visit link:
Howard Dean Doubles Down on Misinterpretation of First Amendment - Townhall