We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on our campuses across the country. Much of that trend is the result of faculty members who have taught that free speech itself is a threat to students. The erosion of free speech has come in stages. First, schools began to declare speech to be hate speech while creating “safe zones” from the exercise of free speech. Second, schools began to enforce the ill-defined “microaggressions” to punish speech that is deemed as contributing to hostile environments or fostering stereotypes. Now, faculty and students are increasing declaring opposing views as simply outside of the definition of free speech. That extreme argument was advanced this week by the editors of The Wellesley News who published a column entitled “Free Speech Is Not Violated At Wellesley.” It is chilling message from the Editorial Board composed of Co-Editors in Chief Sharvari Johari and Michele Lee and opinion editors Maya Nandakumar, Genae Matthews, and Tabitha Wilson. Once the champions of free speech, students have become the new censors and have adopted the perfectly Orwellian notion that the protection of free speech requires the denial of free speech. Continue reading “Wellesley Students Editors Endorse Silencing Opposing Speakers And Declare “Hostility May Be Warranted””
Category: Free Speech
We have previously discussed the inherent conflict between Islamic governments and free speech and free exercise. There is also a recognition among extremists that democracy itself is incapable with the dream of an Islamic caliphate. The head of the Tunisian Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir movement made this point vividly clear in calling for all good Muslim to “bury” democracy.
Continue reading “Tunisian Islamic Head Calls For The Death Of Democracy”
Pakistan continues to remind the West that it remains a country struggling with Islamic extremists — encouraged by the country’s lack of separation between mosque and state. The latest victim of such extremism is a college student named Mashal Khan who was accused of merely sharing a message on social media deemed blasphemous. The response of these self-professed godly men in the northern city of Mardan was to beat the victim to death in the name of Islamic morality. What is even more distressing is that the culprits appear to be fellow students. They no doubt learned this particular lesson from the government itself (and our ally) which still makes blasphemy a capital offense.
Continue reading “Pakistani Student Mob Beats Fellow Student To Death For Blasphemy On Social Media”
We have been discussing the alarming rollback on free speech on United States campuses with the active or passive support of university and college administrators (with the exception of schools like University of Chicago). Students now treat free speech as itself a threat and seek to prevent other students from hearing from speakers with whom they disagree. The latest such example is at Claremont McKenna College where students succeeded in preventing other students from hearing from Heather MacDonald due to her pro-police views.
Continue reading “Claremont McKenna Protesters Disrupt Pro-Police Speaker”
The crackdown on free speech and dissent in Russia knows few bounds. Vladimir Putin’s image or name are often treated as virtually sacred as when people were arrested for showing the authoritarian leader in underwear or spitting on his image in protest. Now the Russian Justice ministry has banned this image of Putin as a gay clown as “gay propaganda” promoting homosexuality. Of course, the greater concern may be promoting free speech in a nation rapidly replacing individual rights with a cult of personality.
Continue reading “Russia Bans Picture of Putin As Gay Clown”
I previously wrote a column on the need for academics to rally around the University of Chicago, which has taken a courageous stand in support of free speech by rejecting speech codes and “safe spaces.” Some schools have followed UChicago’s lead. The latest is Northern Arizona University where President Rita Cheng decided to stand firm on the free speech foundations for our academic institutions. The result has been demands from students and faculty that she resign for her fealty to free speech and refusal to create “safe spaces”. It is another example of the rising intolerance and taste of speech regulation on our campuses.Continue reading “Northern Arizona President Under Fire For Refusing To Commit To “Safe Spaces””
While the United States government often discusses the threat of Iran in spreading Islamic extremism, it is often silent on the same influence of our close allies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other countries. Pakistan is reportedly moveing to eviscerate any remaining separation of mosque and state buy making Quran education compulsory in not just public but private schools.
We recently discussed the shocking effort by a California Democratic legislator to curtail free speech in a reckless effort to combat “fake news.” Now the Democratic California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has brought an equally chilling criminal case against two anti-abortion activists responsible for the videotapes that triggered national protests against Planned Parenthood. The 15 felony counts against David Daleiden and Susan Merritt are breathtaking and even warranted a rebuke from the Los Angeles Times. The prosecution could represent a radical shift toward prosecuting activists from environmentalists to animal right activists to pro life/pro choice protesters in their effort to record alleged abuses or violations.
California Assemblyman Ed Chau (Democrat, Monterey Park) appears to be finally running into opposition over one of the most chilling, anti-speech pieces of recent years. Chau is trying to criminalize “fake news” and in the process would curtail free speech for everyone from parodies to comedies to opinion writers. He is the latest example of how some of the greatest threats to free speech around the Western world today appears to be coming from the left of the political spectrum from speech restrictions on campuses to new criminal laws on inciteful or intimidating speech.
I previously discussed the dubious decision taken by former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to order the entire Justice Department to stand down and not to assist the president in the defense of his first executive order on immigration. In a letter to the president, Yates said she was not convinced that the law is just or right. Yates effectively dared Trump to fire her over the immigration order and he did so. Now Yates has volunteered to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — a hearing that was abruptly cancelled by its Chairman. Such an appearance is relatively rare and fraught with difficult constitutional and ethical questions for Yates. She would be testifying in the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. However, she is testifying as someone who was recently in a prosecutorial position about subjects related to an ongoing investigation where no one has yet to be indicted. Even if she can manuever around the privilege issues, she could raise serious ethical issues with her testimony.
Continue reading “Can Yates Testify Without Violating Privilege or Ethics Rules?”
There is a controversy in Montreal where Jordanian cleric Sheikh Muhammad bin Musa Al Nasr was invited to speak at the Dar Al-Arqam Mosque and quoted a version calling for the killing of Jews. The imam recited in Arabic the verse: “O Muslim, O servant of Allah, O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” People have called for his prosecution for hate speech, rekindling the debate over Canada’s roll back of free speech with hate speech and discrimination laws. Continue reading “Group Calls for Prosecution of Muslim Cleric After He Reads Passage Calling For The Killing Of Jews”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
I featured three articles in November, 2015 (HERE, HERE, and HERE) depicting a controversy caused by the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries’ promotion of artwork made by Leonard Peltier, who was convicted for the June, 1975 murders of FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams. The display furthered the controversy in that it marked the 40thanniversary year of the agents’ murder. After considerable outcry on both sides of the issue, the dispay was taken down two weeks prior to its scheduled conclusion date.
Now, a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court by Leonard Peltier and his son Chauncey against the state naming L&I Director Joel Sacks, Governor Jay Inslee, the L&I spokesman, retired FBI Special Agents, and two hundred John Does as defendants, claiming that the Peltiers were denied their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the state’s removal of the artwork.
The lawsuit indicates strongly how controversies such as these can be avoided and that allowing state employees to promote controversial issues often leads to disaster.
Continue reading “Washington State Governor Sued For Removal Of Leonard Peltier Art Display”
This morning, our blog hit 31,000,000 views. We have had an increase in visitors and our new voices are heartily welcomed to our little band of commentators. We try to offer a place for civil but passionate discourse on legal and policy issues of our time (and perhaps a few wacky stories). We continue to rank in the top legal blogs in the world and we are continuing to see a growing international readership. We often use these milestones to look at the current profile of the blog and its supporters around the world.
As always, I want to offer special thanks for our weekend contributors: Mike Appleton, Larry Rafferty, Darren Smith, Kimberly Dienes, and Cara Gallagher. I particularly want to thank Darren who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems.
I also want to thank our regular commentators and readers. We try to keep this blog as an open forum with as little interference or monitoring of the comments as possible. Given our free speech orientation, we try not to delete comments and, for that reason, we are deeply appreciative of how most people avoid personal or offensive comments in debating these issues. The success of this blog is due to the fact that we offer something more than the all-too-common troll-driven, angry, and insulting commentary of the Internet. Thank you for voluntarily assuming restraint over the tenor and content of your comments. Continue reading “RES IPSA REACHES 31,000,000”
It appears that if you are an authoritarian tyrant everyone looks like a Nazi when they oppose your will. Recently, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan denounced the German government for blocking rallies of Turkish nationals — saying that the decision is “no different to those of the Nazi period.: Erdogan has been widely denounced for his destruction of the secular traditions of Turkey and his attack on free speech and the free press. Erdogan somehow missed the global ridicule of his (of all people) objecting to the denial of free speech. Now, undeterred, Erdogan is denouncing the Netherlands as Nazis after the denied permission for a plane carrying Turkey’s foreign minister to land in the country ahead of a rally supporting his notorious expanded powers.
I have great respect for Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe, who remains one of the iconic figures in constitutional law and someone with whom I have had exchanges for years on legal controversies affecting this country. While I was not surprised to see that we disagreed on a constitutional issue related to President Donald Trump, I was surprised to see that he took literally a comment that I made as a joke about impeachable tweets on Morning Joe recently. Tribe ironically responded in a series of tweets to the comment. The more serious problem is that I considered the suggestions of impeachment over Trump’s criticism of President Obama to be laughable. They clearly are not to Professor Tribe. It is something of a reversal of roles since both Tribe and I testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings where he suggested a narrower definition of the constitutional standard while I argued that Clinton could be impeached for an act of perjury.
Continue reading “Impeachable Tweets: A Response To Professor Tribe”