Tag: First Amendment

Do You Think “Liberals Are Stifling Intellectual Diversity on Campus?”

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| February 20, 2015

Ricochet readers, I’d like your help. Next week, I’m doing my first ever Intelligence Squared U.S. debate defending the following resolution: Liberals Are Stifling Intellectual Diversity on Campus. This may strike some readers as a little surprising, as you all know FIRE not only defends people all across the spectrum, but also employs people across the spectrum (not to mention I myself identify as a political liberal, as does my debating partner Kirsten Powers). But, I have also never hidden the fact if you’re going to be censored on campus these days, it’s far more likely that you’ll be censored from your left.

Ricochet readers in the D.C. area should come in person. Those who can’t attend should tune in online. The winner is determined by how many people decide to change his or her vote, and given that I’ll be doing this debate at George Washington University, I wonder how many will be willing to do that!

Why Marriage in America Is Wrong

By Liz Harrison

Liz Harrison is a writer and media executive from Pennsylvania, who had been involved in political campaign work for over 20 years. She turned to political and news writing in late 2008 and since then, her writing has appeared on various sites, including Townhall.com, The Federalist and Ricochet. Currently, Liz is working on a book on sexual freedom activism, and is Editor-in-Chief at Practical Politicking. Her writing on the intersection of politics and culture can be found at Sub-culture.

| February 13, 2015

Marriage equality has become a sticking point for many Americans, primarily from the conservative side of the spectrum. As we get closer to the point where SCOTUS could arguably settle the dispute, I have been thinking about why we have ended up with the entire argument in the first place.

The basis of the marriage equity camp’s argument is the 14th Amendment, while those opposed tend to argue on the basis of the First Amendment (even though we haven’t really gotten to the point where lawsuits are being filed to force religious organizations to recognize same-sex marriage.) Ben Carson ended up in a minor situation with the Southern Poverty Law Center over the fact that he publicly stated that gay rights organizations should not be able to define marriage. Sadly, I can’t bring myself to agree with him, at least not in the context of state recognition of marriage.

What Were Your Favorite Books of 2014?

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| January 28, 2015

Back in early January, I was just about to publish a list of some of my favorite books of 2014 when the free speech world exploded due to the horrible murders in Paris. I wrote a little bit about my thoughts on the issue for The Huffington Post about a week later, pointing out that the decision not to publish the Mohammed cartoons almost a decade ago may have been a fateful error. I decided to put off my review of books 2014 until today.

As you can see, like I do all my book reviews, I try to focus on how the book’s arguments or findings relate to my work defending free speech on campus and in the larger world. In this case I focused on The Upside of Your Dark Side: Why Being Your Whole Self—Not Just Your “Good” Self—Drives Success and Fulfillment. The book is fascinating, as it argues for the psychological benefits of “negative” emotional states. It took me 2000+ words to do the book justice, but I thought Ricochet readers might like this excerpt:

Bask in the Crazy: Hate Speech

By Done

Done is a member of Ricochet.

| January 6, 2015

Though the bulk of a conservative’s time engaging liberal arguments is best spent addressing their most pointed and nuanced positions, I believe we should occasionally indulge ourselves by reveling in their worst arguments and fringe elements. Arguments such as this piece by Tanya Cohen which flips George Orwell the proverbial bird.

Published on the site Thought Catalogue — a name is straight out of an Orwell novel — Cohen makes the case that the United States trails far behind such paragons of virtue as Turkey, Jordan, Russia and India when it comes to basic human rights.

Campus Speech Codes Decline, But Federal Government Threatens to Impose Censorship Codes at 100% of Colleges

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| December 14, 2014

The Wall Street Journal penned a great staff editorial about my organization’s (FIRE’s) 2015 speech code report, which was just officially released today. There is some good news in the report, as the Journal reports:

55% of the 437 colleges it surveyed this year maintain “severely restrictive” policies that “clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech.” They include 61 private schools and 180 public colleges. Incredibly, this represents progress from Fire’s survey seven years ago when 75% of colleges maintained restrictive free speech codes.

Arguing Maher: Can We Just Assume for the Sake of Argument That Everyone Who Disagrees with Me is Hitler?

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| November 4, 2014

I’m sure Ricochet readers who know my work are surprised it has taken me this long to write something about the disinvitation push at UC Berkeley against comedian Bill Maher. After all, it’s one of the major topics in my latest short book, Freedom From Speech, and even the term “disinvitation season” was an internal FIRE term until this year. The truth is, I was waiting to hear back on an op-ed I’d written about Maher which fell through as the case developed.

But today, at the Huffington Post (I think it’s important not to just preach to the choir), I outline five major points that people should keep in mind even as UC Berkeley seems to be doing the right thing. But, one point I thought Ricochet readers would enjoy in particular, was my criticism of Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR for trying to shift the debate about Bill Maher over to a hypothetical about the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. Here’s my take on that in full in the fifth point of my piece.

The NAACP Leads the Charge Against Free Speech

By Adam Freedman

I've been writing about law, politics, and language for some years now. My book on states' rights, A Less Perfect Union, is published by HarperCollins. My book on constitutional originalism, The Naked Constitution, came out in 2012.

| October 14, 2014

Last year, a pro-life blogger posted an essay at LifeNews with the title “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People.” The author, Ryan Bomberger (an African-American) took the NAACP to task for its cozy relationship with Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups:

They’ll beat the drums of economic, social and environmental “justice” while over 360,000 black babies, annually, never get a chance at one of the few Constitutional rights that actually exist—the right to Life. . . .At a time when 72.3% of black children are born into homes without fathers and (in some places like Philadelphia) 50% of viable black pregnancies end in abortion one would think protecting future generations would become a national emergency for this historic organization.

How did the NAACP respond? They sued Bomberger’s organization, the Radiance Foundation, for trademark infringement because the essay’s title took the NAACP’s name in vain. The title, of course, was good old-fashioned parody, akin to calling the ACLU the “Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.”

Berkeley Chancellor’s Anemic Conception of Free Speech and My New Book: ‘Freedom From Speech’

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| September 9, 2014

Late on Friday, University of California—Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks sent around a message claiming to honor the 50th anniversary of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, but not only was the message poorly written, it also entirely missed major concepts about freedom of speech.

As I write today in The Wall Street Journal:

My Statement Regarding the Abuse of Harassment Codes on Campus

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| July 25, 2014

Today I addressed the United States Commission on Civil Rights to talk about the role that federal law and regulations have played in encouraging campus speech codes. Here is my testimony:

If you had told me before I started working at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the leading defender of free speech rights on college campuses, that I would routinely battle the startling misapplications of harassment codes to punish speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment, I probably wouldn’t have believed you.

Member Post

By Leigh

I regret being just young enough to have missed out on any memory at all of the Reagan presidency. I am saved by grace through faith in Christ. That comes first in my life.

| May 29, 2014

In light of recent attempts to delegitimize conservative speech — from the firing of Brandon Eich to the string of attacks on conservative commencement speakers and their subsequent withdrawals, did you ever fantasize about what you would like to say to those college grads if you got the chance? No need to do so any […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Harvard Gives the Devil More Than His Due

By Louis Beckett

"Louis Beckett" is the pseudonym of an attorney on the West Coast. He studies and writes about political philosophy.

| May 12, 2014

Tonight, Harvard University will host a “black mass” at Queens Head Pub, a space beneath Memorial Hall usually reserved for hangouts over pints of 1636 Ale. The Harvard Extension School’s “Cultural Studies Club” has decided to put on an “historical reenactment” of Satanic worship, purportedly only simulating the desecration of a consecrated host. It is unclear exactly what the “reenactment” involves, but, as a mockery of the Holy Mass, it is unavoidably an affront to Catholicism and every Catholic in the Harvard and Cambridge communities. If a consecrated host is used (and despite administrators’ assurances it will not be, it is difficult to say for sure), this would be an extremely grave and troubling event for Catholics anywhere. It would be, quite literally, a physical assault on Jesus Christ.

Despite the fact that the event comes precariously close to an horrific offense against God, it is hard to take these Harvard Satanists too seriously. The “Extension School” is just what is sounds like — an entity far from the heart of the Harvard community, originally designed to give locals around campus a chance to attend classes. It is absurd that a group of a few Extension School students have been allowed to represent “Harvard” as an institution here. Also, the event will feature a talk by Harvard Kennedy School lecturer (not professor), Christopher Robichaud. If you’re interested in writings by Robichaud, you’ll only find him published in volumes of Superheroes and Philosophy, Supervillains and Philosophy, Superman and Philosophy, Batman and Philosophy, Iron Man and Philosophy, X-Men and Philosophy, and Game of Thrones and Philosophy. Comical indeed. Satanic worship may be the least of our worries when it comes to the Father of Lies, who is at his strongest when he tempts souls by an almost imperceptible influence, not by agents wearing spooky masks while they attempt to vivify gargoyles.

St. Thomas More wrote that “the devil . . . the proud spirit . . . cannot endure to be mocked.” And G.K. Chesterton: “Satan fell by force of gravity, by taking himself too gravely.” Good reminders, since this is about Satanists being “recognized” as legitimate in the public square — and they deserve no such recognition by any decent society. That view may not sit well with the secular libertarian streak in today’s conservatism, let alone with liberalism’s devotion to multiculturalism for its own sake. But the fact that the First Amendment may permit certain activity (and we’re very close to courts recognizing Satanism as religion for free exercise purposes) does not legitimize that activity — it does not make it good or worthy of our respect and association. Just ask the NBA about why it banned Donald Sterling.

Misguided Priorities on First Amendment Fights

By John Yoo

John Yoo is professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2001 to 2003, he served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department of President George W. Bush. He also served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary… [more]

| May 6, 2014

Yesterday, in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court upheld ceremonial prayers at the start of a town’s board meetings, as noted in Adam’s earlier post. Two thoughts occurred to me while reading the decision.

First, I continue to be impressed at how much effort both sides put into fighting over simple, symbolic signs of religion that do not come remotely close to running afoul of the Establishment Clause. It is hard to believe that the Town of Greece — or any of the many cities and states that have been sued over similar religious symbolism — is trying to found a mandatory state religion of the kind commonly seen in Europe.

SCOTUS Decision on Legislative Prayer Doesn’t Go Far Enough—Adam Freedman

By Adam Freedman

I've been writing about law, politics, and language for some years now. My book on states' rights, A Less Perfect Union, is published by HarperCollins. My book on constitutional originalism, The Naked Constitution, came out in 2012.

| May 6, 2014

Yesterday was a good day for religious liberty at the Supreme Court, where five justices beat back an attempt to declare prayers at town meetings unconstitutional. It could have been a great day, however, if only the Court had accepted Justice Thomas’ invitation to declare the Establishment Clause completely inapplicable to state and local governments. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

The decision in Town of Greece v Galloway involved a small city in upstate New York (Greece) in which town board meetings open with a roll call, a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, and – brace yourself – a prayer given by a rotating selection of local clergymen. Two town residents sued, arguing that the predominately Christian nature of the prayers (reflecting the composition of the local clergy) violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Court’s liberal bloc (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would have banned the town’s prayer tradition, relying on a dominant theory in many earlier cases that the First Amendment prohibits any government action that might appear to “endorse” religion.

SCOTUS Campaign Finance Ruling: Right Outcome, Wrong Reasoning

By John Yoo

John Yoo is professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. From 2001 to 2003, he served as deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department of President George W. Bush. He also served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as general counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary… [more]

| April 3, 2014

Yesterday, the Supreme Court occasioned much gnashing of liberal teeth by striking down one more piece of the federal campaign finance laws. At issue was the fact that, while the law limited an individual’s contributions to any candidate to $2,600 per election, it also sets a ceiling of $48,600 in cumulative giving to candidates.

A Debate on Free Speech

By Richard Epstein

Richard Epstein

Known to students at the University of Chicago and NYU law schools as “the libertarian,” Richard Epstein has established himself as an expert in constitutional law, contracts, corporate law, real estate law, torts, labor law—and even Roman law. He is reputed to be more knowledgeable about Justinian’s Code than anyone since the Emperor Justinian himself. The Peter and Kirsten Bedford senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Richard Epstein is the author of several books including, The Cas… [more]

| March 26, 2014

I recently accepted an invitation from Jeffrey Rosen at the National Constitution Center to talk with my University of Chicago colleague Geoffrey Stone about the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, establishing the standards by which reporting about public officials can be considered to be defamation or libel.

In this conversation, we discuss whether this was a positive step forward for the free press or whether it needs to be revisited. Hear the debate below:

Protip from Dartmouth Student to UCSB and Stanford: Run Over Free Speech with Your Car — Greg Lukianoff

By Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff is the president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and has been with FIRE since 2001, when he was hired to be the organization's first director of legal and public advocacy. Greg is a member of the State Bar of California and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Greg is the author of both Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate and Freedom From Speech. @glukianoff

| March 21, 2014

Being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged. And if you make it through four years of college without having your deepest beliefs challenged, you should demand your money back.

I have been saying that in speeches on campus for more than a decade. Even though the line often gets a laugh, the idea that students have a “right not to be offended” seems more entrenched on campus than ever.

1 2 3 45

@