Tag: Freedom of Speech

Saving the Republic from the Heckler’s Veto: The Moral Imperative to Elect Trump

By genferei

Member

genferei

| May 26, 2016

87 COMMENTS

burningtrump — Photo credit: Russell Contreras.

We know that freedom of speech is under attack in America. Whole areas of discourse are off limits in the public square; wrongthink is punished by federal or state investigation; and any attempt to puncture the illusions of the unhinged Far-Left is increasingly met by violence which — in the classical statist two-step — leads to official censorship on the grounds of public safety.

Preview Open

Now That’s Real Progress: Conservatives Win in AZ

By Doug Kimball

Thatcher

Doug Kimball

First posted in August 2011 and I've been subjecting the Ricochetti to my conservative opinions for a long time. I also contribute as my alter ego, El Colonel, with offerings of poetry, stories and even serialized novels. Peter Robinson and I attended Dartmouth together, but I'm two years his senior, not nearly so genteel, and did not know him at the time. I abandonned my BA in English, got an MBA and pursued commerce with modest success. Ricochet has provided a kind and like minded audience and… [more]

| May 19, 2016

33 COMMENTS

My adopted state (one can never be a true Arizonan unless native born) has gone and done it again. This time it’s not about concealed carry — No permit? No problem! — immigration (we E-Verify everyone), tent jails and bologna sandwiches (were you expecting the Ritz and caviar?), guns set loose by the Feds so the Mexican Cartels can be properly armed (every proper drug lord should have a genuine, made in USA, semi-automatic rifle!), or our tendency to be a little hard headed. This time it’s about reeling in the academy’s political correctness coercion coalition.

It is now illegal in Arizona to restrict free speech in any way on our college campuses. Anyone can say anything, anywhere, anytime, even if someone’s precious PC ears find it distressing. This is all within reason, of course, holding to the “fire” exclamation and threats exceptions. We also made it illegal to attempt to obstruct the rights of others to speak or to listen to political speech anywhere, anytime. It will be interesting to see how that particular law will be enforced.

There’s been little reaction to this from the Left thus far, other than to say that both these new laws were totally unnecessary (that goes without saying). I can, however, tell you this: When my youngest returned from Northern Arizona University last weekend, despite my years of dogged conservative tutelage, she was quick to introject political correctness into our household conversations. For example, did you know that it is impolite to point out that heterosexual boys must overcome a “gay” bias when considering joining a high school chorus? (Me: Facts can’t be impolite), or that eating meat with every meal is boorish (Me: So what?). We’ve now ignored her for a week and she’s re-acclimated. Thank goodness.

Preview Open

The Assault on Science

By Robert Zubrin

Inactive

Robert Zubrin

Dr. Robert Zubrin is president of <a href="http://www.pioneerenergy.com/">Pioneer Energy</a> and of the Mars Society. He is the author of eight books, including <em>The Case for Mars</em> and <em>Merchants of Despair: Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudoscientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.</em>

| May 18, 2016

25 COMMENTS

Recently, the Attorneys General of a number of states launched an effort to use the RICO anti-organized crime statute to prosecute opponents of climate change alarmism. This truly shocking action is nothing less than an all-out attack on science.

There are several vital issues involved here, involving not only substance but, even more importantly, process. Let’s start with the latter. Science is not a collection of facts, but a process of discovery. Alongside its sister, conscience, it is based on the signature western individualist belief that there is a fundamental property of the human mind that — when presented with sufficient information — is able to distinguish right from wrong, justice from injustice, truth from untruth. Matters of science must therefore be determined by reason, not by force. To attempt to prevail in a scientific dispute through the use of force is equivalent to the use of a gun to prevail in a courtroom, or, for that matter, of rape to prevail in courtship. It is nothing less than a criminal rejection of a basic principle of our civilization.

It is also prima facie evidence that the case requiring such enforcement is severely defective. No valid scientific theory has ever required the use of police powers to prevail. No Ptolemaist was ever burned at the stake by Copernicans, nor did the Relativists ever find the need to round up the hard-core Newtonians or Etherite dead-enders. Even counter-intuitive theories like quantum mechanics and the Big Bang have done just fine without the assistance of Gestapo raids directed against their detractors. In the courtroom of science, you don’t need a gun if you have the facts on your side, and juries would be well-advised to distrust the case of those parties who choose to use weapons to silence adversarial witnesses.

Preview Open

Video: “Does Free Speech Offend You?”

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

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

| August 31, 2015

12 COMMENTS

Today I’m pleased to announce the release of a new video I made with Prager University. The video — Does Free Speech Offend You? — discusses the threats freedom of speech faces worldwide.

In the video I talk about both old and new threats to freedom of speech, including European governmental censorship, campus speech codes, and novel issues posted by newer theories and practices like trigger warnings and microaggressions. I also cover these topics in more detail in my short book Freedom From Speech and The Coddling of the American Mind, the article I co-wrote with Jonathan Haidt for The Atlantic. Check out the video (after the jump) and let me know what you think!

Preview Open

Setting The New Yorker Straight on Freedom of Speech

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

Greg Lukianoff

| August 21, 2015

11 COMMENTS

Earlier this month, The New Yorker ran an article by Kelefa Sanneh called, “The Hell You Say,” which purports to examine “the current free-speech debate.” Unfortunately, the article is chock full of inaccuracies and flawed arguments. We simply could not let this slide, so I, along with other staff members at FIRE, have carefully compiled A Dozen Things ‘The New Yorker’ Gets Wrong about Free Speech (And Why It Matters). Why is criticizing this one magazine article important, you might ask? As I say in our rebuttal:

First of all, in a time when people seem increasingly comfortable with book banning, blasphemy laws, hate speech laws, and amending the Constitution to limit the First Amendment, it’s important to take every opportunity we can to correct common misconceptions and explain some of the basics of the deep and profound philosophy behind free speech and the wisdom inherent in First Amendment law. Second, it’s important to take on the growing tide of critics, including authors and even journalists, who rely on freedom of speech but want to dismiss it as something unsophisticated or even dangerous. Whether from Eric Posner, Gary Trudeau, or Noah Feldman, there is a push to dismiss freedom of speech that seems to lionize the fact that other countries limit it. Every single one of these critics should sit down and read Flemming Rose’s book on international censorship, The Tyranny of Silence, before assuming that “enlightened censorship” is either justified or working out well for anyone.

There are ten more things the intrepid staff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education believes The New Yorker got wrong about free speech. Here’s the first:

Preview Open

The Wrong Kind of Renaissance: A New Age of Campus Censorship

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

Greg Lukianoff

| May 19, 2015

2 COMMENTS

When I published my first book, Unlearning Liberty, in 2012, I felt optimistic that the situation for free speech on campus, though not good by any means, was improving. A lot of the campus censorship efforts had become less ideological and more of the old-fashioned, “Don’t you dare criticize my university” type of censorship. Even the scourge of campus speech codes seemed to be eroding—albeit very slowly in the face of Herculean efforts.

Still, I knew from experience that things could turn around—and, sadly, turn around they have. In the last two years, the intense political correctness of the late 1980s and early ’90s has returned with a vengeance, and we are now experiencing the wrong kind of renaissance.

Yesterday, I examined the contributing forces to this “renaissance” in my latest essay on Minding the Campus. As I write in the piece:

Preview Open

Are College Campuses to Blame for the Explosion of Social Media Outrage?

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

Greg Lukianoff

| April 8, 2015

4 COMMENTS

I just finished reading Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed which has been getting a ton of press ever since it came out in March. All throughout the book I couldn’t help but see the correlation between the modern social media outrage machine and what colleges seem to be teaching their students.

I posted a review of Ronson’s book over at The Huffington Post, but I wanted to share a snippet of it with my fellow Ricochet readers to see what you think:

Preview Open

Must Read: University Ex-Admin Alleges She Was Pressured to File False Harassment Claim Against Faculty Critic

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

Greg Lukianoff

| March 23, 2015

9 COMMENTS

Ever since FIRE launched its Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project last summer, I have been telling everyone to keep an eye on the Chicago State University case. And last week, we were able to learn a little more about why the Chicago State administration needs more public scrutiny. As the Chicago Tribune reports:

The president of Chicago State University tried to pressure a high level administrator to file false claims of sexual harassment against an outspoken professor to help the college try to silence him, according to court documents filed Thursday as part of an ongoing lawsuit. In a sworn statement, LaShondra Peebles, the college’s former interim vice president of enrollment and student affairs, said before she was fired that President Wayne Watson pushed her to accuse Phillip Beverly of sexual harassment, though Peebles said she was never harassed.

Preview Open

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

By Greg Lukianoff

Contributor

Greg Lukianoff

| September 9, 2014

1 COMMENTS

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:

Preview Open

Michigan Town Issues $200 Fine for Swearing

By Jon Gabriel, Ed.

King

Jon Gabriel, Ed.

Jon Gabriel (a.k.a., @ExJon on Twitter) is the Editor-in-Chief of Ricochet. He is a political writer and marketing consultant, contributing articles to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and USA Today among others. Until 2012, he served as Director of Marketing for the free-market Goldwater Institute, where he converted policy initiatives into compelling stories. In the private sector, Jon led marketing efforts for Cold Stone Creamery, Honeywell, and several technology companies. In his… [more]

| May 22, 2014

23 COMMENTS

What the flaming heck is going on in Brighton, Michigan? If you curse near one of their city-owned playgrounds, the cops will give you a ticket and a steep fine. That just burns my biscuits.

Colin Andersen, age 19, swore at a police officer for giving his buddy a skateboarding ticket. (I guess skateboarding is a crime after all.) For some reason Andersen was surprised that the officer didn’t approve and was shocked to receive a ticket and a $200 fine for disorderly conduct.

“What got me to start arguing a little bit, they were asking all of us to leave because he got a ticket,” Andersen said. “That’s not fair. We’re just standing around.”

Preview Open