A letter has surfaced from the National Education Association (NEA) that raises disturbing questions over the organization pushing social media companies to censor critics. The advocacy of the three-million-member organization for censorship is a chilling position for any group representing educators. It seems that nothing says “excellence in public education” like private censorship. Continue reading “Teaching Censorship: National Education Association Called On Social Media Companies to Silence its Critics”
Category: Free Speech
We recently discussed the controversy at Emory Law Journal over the decision to withdraw an offer of publication for an article after a law professor refused to make substantial changes to content discussing race issues that the editors found “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” Now the school is embroiled in another free speech controversy after the Student Bar Association (SBA) denied recognition for a free speech group in part out of concern over the “potential and real harm that could result from these discussions[.]”
Continue reading ““Potential and Real Harm”: Emory Law SBA Refuses Recognition of Free Speech Group”
There is a major fight unfolding over free speech and academic freedom at the University of Washington where computer science Professor Stuart Reges has been ordered to remove a statement from his syllabus. After the university encouraged faculty to add a prewritten “Indigenous land acknowledgement” statement to their syllabi, Reges decided to write his own statement. He has now been told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement is unacceptable because it questions the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Continue reading “UW Professor Triggers Free Speech Fight Over “Indigenous Land Acknowledgement””
During the oral arguments over the Biden vaccine mandates last week, two largely disconnected views emerged from the right and left of the Supreme Court. Conservative justices hammered away at the underlying authority of the Biden Administration to issue these mandates, particularly after President Joe Biden’s own Chief of Staff admitted that the agency rules were “workarounds” of his constitutional limitations. Conversely, the liberal justices used the “equity” aspects of an injunction to raise more emotive, if not apocalyptic, arguments on the dangers of Covid-19. That led Justice Elena Sotomayor to make a claim about children with Covid that even the Washington Post called “absurdly high” and worthy of “four Pinocchios.”
Continue reading “Will Justice Sotomayor Be Banned On Twitter? Don’t Bet On It.”
There is a major controversy brewing over free speech and censorship at Emory Law Journal this month after the student editors refused to publish an essay by San Diego’s Warren Distinguished Professor of Law Larry Alexander. The publication was a Festschrift (or a publication honoring the work) of Emory Professor Michael Perry. (For full disclosure, Perry was my professor at Northwestern University and I edited a prior article by him on the law review. I have also been published by Emory Law Journal). Alexander was solicited for the publication but the editors later demanded that he make extensive deletions (including an entire section) in his essay on systemic racism because they found his “words hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” He refused and they removed his essay from the issue. In response, two professors withdrew their essays in protest.
The great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” New York State Democrat Senator Brad Holyman is one of those “men of zeal.” With the approaching anniversary of the Jan. 6th riots, he has proposed a new law that would legislate an even greater level of censorship to prevent the “social media amplification” of views that are deemed harmful or “disinformation.” It is only the latest example of our “whatever it takes” politics.
Continue reading “New York Considers Legislation to Curtail Free Speech in the Name of Democracy”
Over the years, we have discussed the prosecution of people who encourage friends or strangers to commit suicide. I have raised free speech concerns over prior prosecutions in the ambiguous line often drawn by prosecutors. The most recent case of Inyoung You, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter last week after repeatedly telling her boyfriend, Alexander Urtula, to kill himself. Both were students at Boston College and had a tumultuous 18 month relationship. Continue reading “Former Boston College Student Pleads Guilty to Manslaughter After Encouraging Her Former Boyfriend to Commit Suicide”
We have been discussing the growing attack on free speech in this country, including a widespread movement in academia to curtail free speech rights. Indeed, this movement largely began on college campuses and spread to social media, politics, and journalism. It is now an article of faith for the left to demand censorship or the regulation of speech in the name of social justice. University of Miami’s Mary Anne Franks has a simple solution, and The Boston Globe wants people to consider it: just gut the First and Second Amendments. That’s right, the problem with the Bill of Rights, according to Franks, is that it is too “aggressively individualistic” so the solution is to “redo” the work of the Framers to be more woke compliant. All of those pesky constitutional rulings in favor of free speech rights will then fall away and society can move on with social justice unimpeded by constitutional niceties. Continue reading ““Aggressively Individualistic”: Miami Law Professor Proposes a “Redo” of the First and Second Amendments” 
The University of Southern California is under fire this week after a student tweeted that she wants “to kill every motherf–king zionist” as well as other postings denounced as anti-Semitic. The student, Yasmeen Mashayekh, is listed as a diversity and inclusion (DEI) senator for the University of Southern California Viterbi Graduate Student Association. The school has refused to take action against Mashayekh, but other students have objected that the school would not have been so circumspect if Mashayekh said that she wanted to kill others like BLM supporters.
Continue reading “USC Under Fire Over Student’s Anti-Zionist Threats on Social Media”
The Livingston County (Mich.) Sheriff’s Office is seeking criminal charges against a Howell woman who posted nasty attacks on Twitter to criticize recent public meeting comments by anti-maskers. Kasey Helton seems an entirely unhinged and uncivil person. However, as will come as no surprise to regulars on this blog, I do not see the basis for such a criminal referral, which creates a chilling effect on free speech. Continue reading “Michigan Woman Criminally Investigated for Social Media Attacks on Anti-Maskers”
We recently discussed the move by Stanford student representatives to block funding for a speech by former Vice President Michael Pence. The denial of $6000 in funding was an act of raw viewpoint discrimination by the students and is currently being appealed. Now, however, former United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Judge Michael Luttig has written to Stanford to offer to pay the money to allow faculty and students to hear from Vice President Pence. Continue reading “Former Federal Judge Michael Luttig Offers To Pay For Pence Speech After Students Block Funding”
We have repeatedly addressed how social media companies now openly engage in censorship of political and social viewpoints. The latest example is from the company TikTok which reportedly censored a video from the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) group supporting Kyle Rittenhouse. The video discusses the effort of Arizona State University (ASU) students to ban Rittenhouse from campus. TikTok then banned the pro-Rittenhouse statement from its platform, an act that should be offensive to anyone who supports the values of free speech. Continue reading “TikTok Reportedly Censors Pro-Rittenhouse Video as “Hate Speech””
One of the free speech issues that we have previously discussed is whether universities are effectively curtailing free speech through student surrogates on campus. We have seen student government bodies and boards engage in blatant content-based discrimination in exercising their control over budgets or publications (here and here and here). The latest example comes from Stanford University where the student government voted against approving a $6,000 grant request from the College Republicans to help host former Vice President Mike Pence for a campus speech. That’s right, they voted against supporting the right of other students to hear from a former Vice President of the United States. Continue reading “Stanford Student Government Blocks Funding For Pence Speech”
There is a new free speech case filed against a university this month. A former Illinois State University (ISU) assistant football coach, Kurt Beathard, has sued IS head coach and the school’s former athletic director. Both are being sued in their official capacities for Beathard’s termination after he removed a Black Lives Matter poster from his door and replaced it with poster that read, “All Lives Matter to Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” The case raises significant free speech issues and could result in an important ruling under the First Amendment. Continue reading “Former ISU Football Coach Sues After Being Allegedly Fired Over the Replacement of a BLM Poster on his Door”