Mediaboss Marketing

Tuesday marks the second day of pro-Palestinian protests at both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee. The groups have pitched tents and created an encampment on each campus, joining protestors at universities nationwide demonstrating against the war in the Middle East. Those protesting at UW-Milwaukee said they will not leave until the university meets their demands. Read those demands here. "Throughout all of these student movements, it's really inspiring to see students mobilize and come together, but we don't want to distract from the fact that we are all here for Palestinian liberation," UW-Milwaukee junior Sania Syed said Tuesday.In Milwaukee, the encampment's atmosphere remained relaxed. UW-Milwaukee police patrolled the area outside Mitchell Hall, but WISN 12 News did not see any police interact with protestors during the day. The right to protest is protected by the First Amendment, but Wisconsin law prohibits camping on university grounds. WISN 12 News Hannah Hilyard asked a First Amendment legal expert which one takes precedent. "The First Amendment right of assembly does not extend to a right to trespass, and as long as the rules limiting that process are neutral and provide adequate alternative grounds to be heard, which is key, then those rules are permissible," UW-Madison professor emeritus of political science Howard Schweber explained. "We clearly have students on both campuses camping out with tents, and we're not seeing any arrests. Why is that?" Hilyard asked. "What universities may do, that's very different than what they should do," Schweber answered. "To be a university administrator, to be a good one, requires exercise of discretion, knowing your campus, knowing the people. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to enforce a rule, again, as long as it is for a good reason and done neutrally."Protest organizers said they will fight back legally if forced out. Late Monday, the university responded to the protestors' demands. Read their response here. Organizers call the response disappointing. UWM released its latest statement Tuesday afternoon. It reads: "UWMs first priority is the safety and well-being of our students, employees and visitors. UWM Police will continue to monitor the encampment on the lawn south of Mitchell Hall. Members of the UWM administration are having conversations with students and community members in the background and are working on peaceful resolutions. Though we understand the encampment is unsettling for many in our community, the encampment has not disrupted any events, classes or programs on campus. UWM Police will remain present at the encampment but cannot publicly disclose law enforcement procedures."

Tuesday marks the second day of pro-Palestinian protests at both UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee.

The groups have pitched tents and created an encampment on each campus, joining protestors at universities nationwide demonstrating against the war in the Middle East.

Those protesting at UW-Milwaukee said they will not leave until the university meets their demands. Read those demands here.

"Throughout all of these student movements, it's really inspiring to see students mobilize and come together, but we don't want to distract from the fact that we are all here for Palestinian liberation," UW-Milwaukee junior Sania Syed said Tuesday.

In Milwaukee, the encampment's atmosphere remained relaxed.

UW-Milwaukee police patrolled the area outside Mitchell Hall, but WISN 12 News did not see any police interact with protestors during the day.

The right to protest is protected by the First Amendment, but Wisconsin law prohibits camping on university grounds.

WISN 12 News Hannah Hilyard asked a First Amendment legal expert which one takes precedent.

"The First Amendment right of assembly does not extend to a right to trespass, and as long as the rules limiting that process are neutral and provide adequate alternative grounds to be heard, which is key, then those rules are permissible," UW-Madison professor emeritus of political science Howard Schweber explained.

"We clearly have students on both campuses camping out with tents, and we're not seeing any arrests. Why is that?" Hilyard asked.

"What universities may do, that's very different than what they should do," Schweber answered. "To be a university administrator, to be a good one, requires exercise of discretion, knowing your campus, knowing the people. There's nothing wrong with choosing not to enforce a rule, again, as long as it is for a good reason and done neutrally."

Protest organizers said they will fight back legally if forced out.

Late Monday, the university responded to the protestors' demands. Read their response here.

Organizers call the response disappointing.

UWM released its latest statement Tuesday afternoon. It reads:

"UWMs first priority is the safety and well-being of our students, employees and visitors. UWM Police will continue to monitor the encampment on the lawn south of Mitchell Hall. Members of the UWM administration are having conversations with students and community members in the background and are working on peaceful resolutions. Though we understand the encampment is unsettling for many in our community, the encampment has not disrupted any events, classes or programs on campus. UWM Police will remain present at the encampment but cannot publicly disclose law enforcement procedures."

Link:
Day 2 of pro-Palestinian protests on Wisconsin campuses, First Amendment expert weighs in - WISN Milwaukee

OPINION:

Tyrants dont like people who speak truth to power. Cue the rise of protest laws, which take the governments intolerance for free speech to a whole new level and send the resounding message that resistance is futile.

In fact, ever since the Capitol protests on Jan. 6, 2021, state legislatures have introduced a broad array of these laws aimed at criminalizing protest activities.

Subscribe to haveThe Washington Times Higher Grounddelivered to your inbox every Sunday.

There have been at least 205 proposed laws in 45 states aimed at curtailing the right to peacefully assemble and protest by expanding the definition of rioting, heightening penalties for existing offenses, or creating new crimes associated with assembly.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, these protest laws, along with free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, and a host of other legalistic maladies have become a convenient means by which to punish individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

In Florida, for instance, legislators passed a no-go zone law making it punishable by up to 60 days in jail to remain within 25 feet of working police and other first responders after a warning.

SEE ALSO: One-third of adults say the First Amendment goes too far

Yet while the growing numbers of protest laws cropping up across the country are sold to the public as necessary to protect private property, public roads or national security, they are a wolf in sheeps clothing, a thinly disguised plot to discourage anyone from challenging government authority at the expense of our First Amendment rights.

It doesnt matter what the source of that discontent might be (police brutality, election outcomes, COVID-19 mandates, the environment, etc.): protest laws, free speech zones, no-go zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, etc., aim to muzzle every last one of us.

To be very clear, these legislative attempts to redefine and criminalize speech are a backdoor attempt to rewrite the Constitution and render the First Amendments robust safeguards null and void.

This is the painful lesson being imparted with every incident in which someone gets arrested and charged with any of the growing number of contempt charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers-that-be.

Journalists have come under particular fire for exercising their right to freedom of the press.

According to U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, the criminalization of routine journalism has become a means by which the government chills lawful First Amendment activity.

Journalists have been arrested or faced dubious charges for publishing, asking too many questions of public officials, being rude for reporting during a press conference, and being in the vicinity of public protests and demonstrations.

Its gotten so bad that merely daring to question, challenge or hesitate when a cop issues an order can get you charged with resisting arrest or disorderly conduct.

These incidents reflect a growing awareness about the state of free speech in America: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights, and you risk fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

Case in point: Tony Rupp, a lawyer in Buffalo, New York, found himself arrested and charged with violating the citys noise ordinance after cursing at an SUV bearing down on pedestrians on a busy street at night with its lights off. Because that unmarked car was driven by a police officer, thats all it took for Mr. Rupp to find himself subjected to malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation and wrongful arrest.

The case, as Jesse McKinley writes in The New York Times, is part of a growing debate over how citizens can criticize public officials at a time of widespread reevaluation of the lengths and limits of free speech. That debate has raged everywhere from online forums and college campuses to protests over racial bias in law enforcement and the Israel-Hamas war. Book bans and other acts of government censorship have troubled some First Amendment experts. Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments about a pair of laws in Florida and Texas limiting the ability of social media companies such as Facebook to ban certain content from their platforms.

Ultimately, what the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who dont talk back, dont challenge government authority, dont speak out against government misconduct, and dont resist.

What the First Amendment protects and a healthy constitutional republic requires are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

Yet there can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest books The Erik Blair Diaries and Battlefield America: The War on the American People are available at http://www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at http://www.rutherford.org.

Originally posted here:
First Amendment under attack: How the Police State muzzles our right to speak truth to power - Washington Times

Joe Biden, Far Left Democrats, and morally bankrupt university leaders have allowed antisemitic, pro-terrorist mobs to overrun colleges and universities across the country. Enough is enough. It is time to restore law and order, academic integrity, and moral decency to Americas higher education institutions. That is why on Tuesday,Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) launched a House-wide probe into campus antisemitism. This probe will not stop until Jewish students can feel safe on campus and the leadership of these universities are held accountable. Today, as part of that effort, House Republicans are bringing to the floorH.R. 6090 the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, which was first introduced by Rep. Michael Lawler (R-NY). This bill expresses the sense of Congress that discrimination against Jewish students may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and requires the Department of Education to take into account the 2016 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliances (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its contemporary examples as part of its assessment of whether antisemitic discrimination transpired. FACTS ABOUT THE ANTISEMITISM AWARENESS ACT OF 2023 (Courtesy of House Judiciary Committee Republicans):

Excerpt from:
House Republicans Are Standing Up Against Antisemitic Mobs That Have Overrun America's Colleges & Universities - GOP.gov

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the article here:
What the First Amendment Means for Campus Protests - myheraldreview.com

Social Security income is a necessity for most retirees. Based on more than two decades of annual surveys undertaken by national pollster Gallup, no fewer than 80% of then-current retirees rely on their monthly benefits to cover some portion of their expenses. The mere existence of Social Security ensures that most seniors can make ends meet.

That's what makes this next statement such a gut-check: Social Security is in trouble.

Although America's top retirement program is in no danger of going bankrupt or becoming insolvent, the foundation that supports the existing payout schedule, including annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), may be less than a decade from breaking. Social Security needs attention, and the American public is counting on their elected officials in Washington, D.C., to get to work.

While lawmakers on Capitol Hill have laid out no shortage of Social Security reform proposals, it's one completely off-the-wall approach from the current highest-ranking Republican, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), which could raise eyebrows.

Image source: Getty Images.

Before diving into the nuts and bolts of Johnson's proposal, it's important to understand why America's leading retirement program is facing an ever-widening funding obligation shortfall estimated to have reached $22.4 trillion through 2097.

The biggest concern is that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund (OASI), which pays monthly benefits to over 50 million retired workers and roughly 5.8 million survivors of deceased workers each month, will exhaust its asset reserves by 2033. If and when these asset reserves are depleted, sweeping benefit cuts of up to 23% may be necessary to sustain payouts, without the need for any further reductions, through 2097.

While social media message boards are rife with fairy tales about "Congress stealing funds" and "undocumented workers receiving benefits," the reality is that visible and off-the-radar demographic shifts are responsible for Social Security's struggles.

For example, most people are likely well aware that baby boomers are retiring from the workforce and that longevity has increased since the first retired-worker benefit was mailed out in January 1940. But people may not realize that a historically low U.S. birth rate, a more-than-halving in net legal immigration into the U.S. since 1998, and a steady rise in income inequalityhave also contributed to the program's growing long-term funding obligation shortfall.

Although Social Security will absolutely be there for you when you retire (assuming you've earned the requisite number of work credits to receive a benefit), the amount you receive each month could be far less than expected if Congress doesn't act soon.

The OASI's asset reserves are on pace to be exhausted by 2033. US Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund Assets at End of Year data by YCharts.

Despite being relatively tight-lipped about Social Security since becoming House Speaker, Mike Johnson has historically not been shy about supporting proposals designed to reduce the program's long-term outlays.

During the 116th Congress, Johnson was the Chair of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a conservative caucus of House Republicans. For fiscal 2020 (the federal government's fiscal year ends on Sept. 30), the RSC and Mike Johnson released a nearly 200-page budget that aimed to reduce costs in all facets of government -- including Social Security. The RSC's budget proposed implementing the Social Security Reform Act that former House Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) first introduced in 2016.

The 10 Social Security changes Mike Johnson's budget supported are as follows:

These sweeping reforms supported by the RSC and then-Chair Mike Johnson were estimated to reduce spending on America's top retirement program by $756 billion over 10 years.

Image source: Getty Images.

Although the scope of the RSC's proposal is unlike anything we've seen before from Capitol Hill, it, like other legislation before it, would struggle to get off the ground in the House and/or Senate.One of the biggest issues with Social Security reform is that all proposals result in some group of people being worse off.

For example, President Joe Biden and his Democratic colleagues have proposed reinstating the 12.4% payroll tax on earned income above $400,000. Currently, only earned income (wages and salary but not investment income) between $0.01 and $168,600 is subject to the payroll tax. Though reinstating this tax would provide Social Security with an immediate influx of revenue, it wouldn't provide an added cent in benefits for the high earners paying this extra payroll tax.

On the other hand, Republicans (including Mike Johnson) have often touted a gradual increase to the full retirement age as a viable solution to reducing long-term outlays. The problem is that raising the full retirement age will lower the long-term benefits collected by lifetime low-earning workers.

Fixing Social Security means making a hard decision and putting a certain group of Americans on worse financial footing than they were prior to reforms.

What's more, both parties' proposals have unique flaws. The GOP plan takes decades to yield significant cost reductions, which wouldn't provide any help to the OASI's impending asset reserve depletion in nine years. Meanwhile, taxing the rich by itself doesn't come close to overcoming Social Security's $22.4 trillion funding shortfall.

Just as we witnessed when the Social Security Amendments of 1983 were signed into law, the best approach to strengthen Social Security's foundation will be one that incorporates solutions from both parties. Since it takes 60 votes in the Senate to amend Social Security, fixing this program will require collaboration.

Though Mike Johnson is unlikely ever to gain bipartisan support for his broad-reaching Social Security plan, it serves as a reminder that off-the-wall solutions from both parties may be necessary to shore up this program for future generations of retirees.

View post:
This High-Ranking Republican Supports an Off-the-Wall Solution to Tackle Social Security's $22.4 Trillion Cash Shortfall - The Motley Fool