Tag: Free Speech

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Students at Williams College Demand Freedom from Speech

 

Students at Williams College in Massachusetts are angry. According to a petition (PDF) signed by hundreds of students, the faculty is urging the college to enact “reckless and dangerous policies” that will “imperil marginalized students,” and amount to “discursive violence.”

What awful set of policies could Williams College faculty possibly be considering?

It is a version of the policy known as the “Chicago Statement.” Created in 2015 by a committee led by legal scholar Geoffrey Stone at the University of Chicago, the statement “recommit[s] the university to the principles of free, robust, and uninhibited debate.” It explicitly reminds students and faculty on campus that they have a “responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect,” and that “concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be.” The policies that accompany these principles not only protect political expression, but also prevent university administrators from restricting public expression to tiny areas of campus. Often misleadingly called “free speech zones.” This is a distressingly common practice at many universities, and it limits not just political speech but expression of all kinds.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Gab, the Internet, and Free Speech

 

I am not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise, but it has come to my attention that the Gab social media site has been very effectively suppressed out of existence in the wake of the Tree of Life shootings. They have this to say at their home page:

Gab has spent the past 48 hours proudly working with the DOJ and FBI to bring justice to an alleged terrorist. Because of the data we provided, they now have plenty of evidence for their case. In the midst of this Gab has been no-platformed by essential internet infrastructure providers at every level. We are the most censored, smeared, and no-platformed startup in history, which means we are a threat to the media and to the Silicon Valley Oligarchy.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. In Defense of Free Speech, Not Alex Jones

 

There’s a quote in the movie The American President that comes to mind frequently, and did again this week in the wake of the Alex Jones mass-banning across social media platforms. The main character, President Andrew Shepard said,

America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Richard Epstein on Classical Liberalism, the Administrative State, Free Speech, and Silicon Valley Regulation

 

For this week’s Big Ideas with Ben Weingarten podcast, I had legendary classical liberal legal theorist and longtime professor at University of Chicago Law School and now at NYU Law — and prodigious Ricochet podcaster Professor Richard Epstein on the podcast to discuss among other things:

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Member Post

 

So tomorrow night I am going to see Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux speak in Perth I just received a message from the event organisers with the details of the venue, included in the details of the venue was the following message: “We want to thank you for the incredible understanding and patience you’ve shown […]

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.

Member Post

 

From the New York Times (a former newspaper): How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment The Federalist’s obligatory slapdown (at the behest of their shadowy funders no doubt!): The New York Times Beclowns Itself With Fake News About Free Speech Preview Open

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.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombus of Radio America celebrate the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution in two separate cases. They agree with the court’s conclusion that President Trump’s travel ban is within his constitutional and statutory right. They are also glad to see the Court side with free speech in striking down a California law that required crisis pregnancy centers to advertise abortion services. They are also pleasantly surprised that Democratic leaders are condemning Maxine Waters’ calls for the harassment of Trump administration officials.

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Red Hen Is a Canary in the Coal Mine

 

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave the Red Hen Restaurant in Virginia along with her seven guests. They already ordered, but a snowflake waiter decided he didn’t like her because she worked for President Donald Trump.

The owner came in and asked the employees what “they wanted her to do.” They said expel Sanders, so she was asked to leave, and she did. Why did this remind me of the 1960s lunch counters where blacks were refused service based on skin color?

Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Denouncing the Deviationists

 

In her memoirs, Russian combat pilot Anna Egorova remembered her mother ”kneeling before the icons, as she firstly listed all our names, the names of her children, begging God for health and wisdom for us, and then at the end of each prayer repeating: ‘God save them from slander!’” She didn’t understand that word ‘slander’ in her childhood, Egorova wrote, but after her brother was sent away as An Enemy of the People, “it was exposed before me in all its terrible nakedness.”

I was reminded once again of this story by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s agreement to pay $3.75 million to Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for wrongly including them on its now-defunct list of “anti-Muslim extremists.” Sixty other organizations are also considering litigation against the SPLC.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Penn Law’s Amy Wax on Being Ousted from Her First-Year Class

 

Amy Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she specializes in social welfare law and policy as well as the relationship of the family, the workplace, and labor markets.

Professor Wax has become a controversial figure because of her politically incorrect comments advocating in favor of bourgeois values and the WASP culture from which they stem, and in her claims that black students had generally performed at lower levels than other students in her classes in context of a conversation about the downsides of affirmative action — comments that got her ousted from teaching the first year civil procedure class for which she had previously won an award for “teaching excellence.”

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Roberts Court Upholds Free Speech at the Polls. For Now.

 
Minnesotan Andy Cilek wasn’t allowed to vote while wearing a t-shirt that read “Don’t tread on me.”

Last week’s Supreme Court decision striking down a Minnesota law against wearing “political” T-shirts in the polling place might seem a matter of common sense. But that may just be the problem with it. While Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling is certainly correct, it leaves many questions unanswered — something that, unfortunately, can be said about a lot of his decisions.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America celebrate another free speech victory coming out of the Supreme Court as it ruled against a Minnesota law that banned political apparel at the polls. They also remain confused at President Donald Trump’s praise for the murderous North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-Un. And they look at the initial details of the long-anticipated Inspector’s General report about Comey, Lynch, and the Hillary Clinton private server investigation.

Richard Epstein explores the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay marriage ceremony, critiques the judicial style of Anthony Kennedy, and explains how anti-discrimination laws have expanded beyond a useful scope.

Member Post

 

In the NYT today, Bari Weiss has a fascinating look at the “Intellectual Dark Web.” It’s quite a diverse cast of characters, generally drawn together by the ideas of free speech and civil discourse. But the IDW isn’t easily classified as right wing or left wing. There are some names that will be easily recognizable to Ricochet […]

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.

Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Mark Zuckerberg and Conservative Ideals

 

The hassling of Zuckerberg rankled until I was compelled to write a political post, something I have rarely done in almost a decade on Facebook. It’s been up for 15 minutes as of this writing. I foresee either regretting the post, or having it panned. Or both.

There is a Facebook-related issue that is bothering me, so I will opine on Facebook. I have only a surface knowledge of the concerns for which Mark Zuckerberg underwent Senate questioning. What I find disturbing is the optics of hauling in for grilling this private citizen who happens to own a hugely successful venture. In listening to some of the proceedings, I felt like senators were pandering to the public by addressing Zuckerberg as if he were a criminal over a couple of points: a.) a data harvesting practice that I’m sure is widespread over the Internet, and not just a Facebook problem; and b.) an alleged favoring of the left side of the political spectrum in censoring or promoting posts.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America are happy to Republicans senators like Ted Cruz, Ben Sasse, and John Kennedy pin down Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on critical issues like censorship, free speech, and user policies that actually benefit Facebook members. They also react to House Speaker Paul Ryan announcing his retirement, looking both at his record and the increased likelihood that Democrats will take back the House this year. And they have fun with London’s ridiculous new knife control push after 50 stabbing deaths in the city this year, including police confiscating scissors and pliers as deadly weapons.

Member Post

 

Astonishing California bill would shut down free speech, require fact-checkers This was written by Jon Rappaport of The Matrix who allows for his full articles to be reproduced for purposes of education, dissemination and discussion and of course, not for profit. Preview Open

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.

Daniel DiSalvo joins Brian Anderson to discuss public-sector unions, freedom of speech, and the upcoming Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Janus next week. If the justices rule for the plaintiffs, employees of state and local governments across the country will be able to opt out of paying union fees. Public unions are often powerful political players, and a sharp drop in funding or membership could deal a heavy blow to their influence.

Contributor Post Created with Sketch. University and Free Speech – Hope for the Future?

 

Lately, I’ve seen a few encouraging stories about a shifting perspective about free speech on university campuses. Some of the shifts are unhelpful, but others suggest that the leadership of universities is finally recognizing the significant role their institutions can play in supporting and perpetuating free speech.

At first glance, some stories are not positive. A few universities are trying to charge a “security fee” to groups who are inviting what the university defines as “controversial speakers.” Needless to say, the administrators are the very ones who decide that a given speaker is controversial, immediately suggesting that trouble will be brewing before and during a presentation. The University of Alabama imposed a fee of $7,000 on the College Republicans chapter that was hosting Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016. Just before the event, the university revoked the fee with the statement, “the University of Alabama supports free speech and welcomes diverse speakers to our campus. As with all speakers, the views of Mr. Yiannopoulos do not necessarily reflect the views of the University.” It was a wise choice since the chapter could not afford the fee and would have had to cancel the event.

Several colleges are backing down from charging fees and permitting speakers whom they deem controversial due to actions of the Foundation for the Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). When UC Berkeley tried to charge a security fee of $3,732.33 in 2009 for the speaker, Elan Journo, who was scheduled to lecture on “America’s Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.” FIRE wrote: