The Left's New Target-Free Speech

[Kathianne]

Gun nuts=free speech nuts.

Go progressives! :rolleyes:

On why they are https://img0.etsystatic.com/000/1/5875200/il_570xN.246375200.jpg

http://www.wsj.com/articles/speech-nuts-1439319100


<header class="article_header module" style="margin: 0px 10px 6px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-size: 10px; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; background: 0px 0px;">‘Speech Nuts’Does the left like anything in the Bill of Rights?

</header>
By JAMES TARANTO






Aug. 11, 2015 2:51 p.m. ET

“The First Amendment has something in common with the Second Amendment,” writes the New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-hell-you-say): “Both are unusually broad legal guarantees that mark a difference between America and the rest of the world.”
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-JU679_botwt0_TOP_20150811125037.jpgENLARGE
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES


Swells you up with patriotism, doesn’t it? (Or envy, if you’re from Canada, France or one of the other non-U.S. countries too numerous to mention.) But Sanneh means it as an invidious comparison. He writes: “Speech nuts, like gun nuts, have amassed plenty of arguments, but they—we—are driven, too, by a shared sensibility that can seem irrational by European standards.”


As that parenthetical “we” suggests, Sanneh’s essay—which is about free expression, and mentions the Second Amendment only for the sake of this comparison—is more nuanced than the “speech nuts” epithet might suggest. He counts himself among the nuts, but only equivocally: “Perhaps America’s First Amendment, like the Second, is ultimately a matter of national preference.”

One further similarity between the First and Second amendments is that these days the political left is relatively hostile to both. That’s long been true of the Second but is a relatively recent development with regard to the First. Although we were not reading the New Yorker in 1987—when, as now, it was America’s leading forum of middlebrow left-liberalism—we feel fairly confident in saying an article like this would not have appeared there then.


In those days, by and large, liberals were the “speech nuts,” and they reacted with outrage when conservatives argued that free expression had in some respects gone too far. In a 1971 law-review article, Robert Bork (http://bit.ly/1P4h53v) described pornography as “a problem of pollution of the moral and aesthetic atmosphere precisely analogous to smoke pollution.” The left pilloried him for that during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1987. By 2013, as we noted at the time (http://bit.ly/1zdcepW), no less than the New York Times editorial page was demanding federal action against “polluting” speech (though not pornography).


Meanwhile, Sanneh’s piece is a critical response to two pro-free-speech books—one by a pair of conservative authors (Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson) and one by a dissident liberal (Kirsten Powers). Powers, incidentally, turns out to be less of a dissident than we thought. We learn from Sanneh that she “disagrees” with what he rightly calls “probably the most consequential free-speech ruling of the modern era,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/08-205.html), “which explains why she wrote a book about free speech without mentioning it.”


By 1987 the campus left was beginning to turn against free speech, as we learned from personal experience (http://bit.ly/1zDvADX). But even the liberal media generally treated political correctness as an object of curiosity and mockery. These days it isn’t hard to find articles so silly they could have been put out by some diversity administrator at Podunk State. An example, from Vox’s Amanda Taub (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118339/political-correctness-respect):

...

[Kathianne]

https://www.thefire.org/10-things-the-new-yorker-gets-wrong-about-free-speech-part-1/


10 Things ‘The New Yorker’ Gets Wrong About Free Speech (Part 1)By FIRE (https://www.thefire.org/author/guruji/) August 11, 2015



The August 10, 2015 issue of The New Yorker contains an article by Kelefa Sanneh, “The Hell You Say (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-hell-you-say),” that purports to examine “the current free-speech debate.” Unfortunately, the article contains a number of incorrect assertions and flawed arguments—we’ve identified 10—that require response. Today, we’ll start with the first five.

...

If you are unfamiliar with FIRE, here's the mission statement:

https://www.thefire.org/about-us/mission/


The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE’s core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.

FIRE was founded in 1999 by University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and Boston civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate after the overwhelming response to their 1998 book The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America’s Campuses (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0060977728/ref=as_li_tf_til?tag=thefireguides-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0060977728&adid=0G5SB5GDG46ZTFZV37DE).

[Kathianne]

Had to make decision where to post, here or fake rape. Chose here:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-emotional-reasoning-informs-current-campus-sexual-assault-hysteria/article/2570020


How 'emotional reasoning' informs current campus sexual assault hysteria

By ASHE SCHOW (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/ashe-schow)
• 8/11/15 3:19 PM

The notion that one's negative feelings reflect reality is permeating our college campuses when it comes to free speech and sexual assault.


In an informative article (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/) for the Atlantic, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education president Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt tackle "The Coddling of the American Mind" — specifically how "microagressions" and "trigger warnings" are leading to mental health problems on college campuses.


While discussing the reality distortions identified by cognitive behavioral therapy, Lukianoff and Haidt invoke the concept of "emotional reasoning," defined by adjunct psychiatric professor David D. Burns as assuming "that your negative emotions necessarily reflect the way things really are: 'I feel it, therefore it must be true.' " The distortion is also defined by other cognitive therapy experts as letting "your feelings guide your interpretation of reality."


Internet commenters might recognize this as "the feelz." Although Lukianoff and Haidt restrict their explanation of "emotional reasoning" to college speech codes, it also applies to the way campus sexual assault is now treated.

...

[Kathianne]

Related, again the universities:

http://popehat.com/2015/08/24/old-dominion-university-offensive-messages-on-private-property-will-not-be-tolerated/


<header class="entry-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: jaf-facitweb, Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 26px;">Old Dominion University: Offensive Messages On Private Property "Will Not Be Tolerated"<time class="entry-time" itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2015-08-24T08:21:48+00:00" style="box-sizing: border-box;">AUGUST 24, 2015</time> BY ADAM STEINBAUGH (http://popehat.com/author/adam-steinbaugh/) 14 COMMENTS (http://popehat.com/2015/08/24/old-dominion-university-offensive-messages-on-private-property-will-not-be-tolerated/#comments)
</header>As the summer of August burns away into September's fall, traditional parades of parents escorting their sons and daughters off to college are in full swing. After a long, relatively uneventful summer, students and administrators alike have returned and are eager to resume their own tradition: indulging their basest impulses.


Kicking things off this year are the luminaries at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Having rented an off-campus apartment just across the street from campus, these polite young gentlemen put their best foot forward and hung signs from their balconies to make sure that everyone had a proper introduction to who and what they were (http://hamptonroads.com/2015/08/signs-welcoming-freshmen-women-odu-offering-good-time-erupt-social-media):


http://popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Old_Dumbinion-480x223.jpeg
"We are upstanding gentlemen. We can't even think of any clever phrase with words starting with the letters 'ODU.' You should date us and/or employ us someday." (Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/banners-old-dominion-university_55d90270e4b04ae49703769d?ncid=tweetlnku shpmg00000067))


Crass, crude, and clever only in that they managed to convert their message from its natural medium — scrawled on a bathroom stall — to a new canvas: what are probably their only bed sheets.1 (http://popehat.com/2015/08/24/old-dominion-university-offensive-messages-on-private-property-will-not-be-tolerated/#wsa-endnote-1)


This is, for all involved, a teachable moment: for incoming freshmen, a reminder that their peers may be prone to be inconsiderate creeps; for parents, an opportunity to teach their sons that this is exactly how not to treat women; for the campus community, a chance to roundly condemn and make a lasting example of these guys. ODU's student government did that, more or less (https://www.facebook.com/Old.Dominion.University/posts/10152963497017234).


Old Dominion itself went a step further, posting on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/Old.Dominion.University/posts/10152963470087234):



Messages like the ones displayed yesterday by a few students on the balcony of their private residence are not and will not be tolerated. The moment University staff became aware of these banners, they worked to have them removed. At ODU, we foster a community of respect and dignity and these messages sickened us. They are not representative of our 3,000 faculty and staff, 25,000 students and our 130,000 alumni.



It's not clear what Old Dominion's staff did in working to "have [the banners] removed." A subsequent post by Old Dominion's president noted (vaguely) that (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10152964450977234&id=20650727233) the "incident will be reviewed immediately by those on campus empowered to do so" and that "[a]ny student found to have violated the code of conduct will be subject to disciplinary action."2 (http://popehat.com/2015/08/24/old-dominion-university-offensive-messages-on-private-property-will-not-be-tolerated/#wsa-endnote-2) The threat that an administrator of a public institution, apprised that offensive speech will be removed and punished, is concerning, whether that speech takes place on campus, and more so when it takes place off campus. Were Old Dominion to follow through on its threat, it would certainly run afoul of the First Amendment.

...

[Abbey Marie]

When we arrived to move our daughter into her dorm for her freshman year of college, we passed a house full of guys with a bed sheet hanging from a window, that read, "Drop off your daughters here".
Yes, we got the "hidden" message. They want to have sex with a new "crop" of college girls.

And guess what we the parents of exactly such a nice, college Freshman girl did about this awful, crude message? We laughed!

Liberals will not be satisfied until the last remnants of a free and generally happy society are squashed, and we are all sad, serious Socialists looking for new ways to be offended. It all reminds me of Dr. Zhivago.

[Perianne]

When we arrived to move our daughter into her Dorm for her freshman year of college, we passed a house full of guys with a bed sheet hanging from a window, that read, "Drop off your daughters here".
Yes, we got the "hidden" message. They want to have sex with a new "crop" of college girls.

And guess what we the parents of exactly such a nice, college Freshman girl did about this awful, crude message? We laughed!

Liberals will not be satisfied until the last remnants of a free and generally happy society are squashed, and we are all sad, serious Socialists looking for new ways to be offended. It all reminds me of Dr. Zhivago.

I have never seen that movie. Do you recommend it? Is is full of profanity and/or nudity?

[Abbey Marie]

I have never seen that movie. Do you recommend it? Is is full of profanity and/or nudity?

Yes, no and no. It's a beautiful, sad, eye-opening movie, IMO.

[Perianne]

Yes, no and no. It's a beautiful, sad, eye-opening movie, IMO.

I will try to see if my daughter will watch it with me tonight. Thanks, Abbey.

[Kathianne]

Great idea:

https://www.thefire.org/ny-daily-news-to-ny-colleges-adopt-u-of-chicago-statement-on-free-speech/


‘NY Daily News’ to NY Colleges: Adopt U. of Chicago Statement on Free Speech By Will Creeley (https://www.thefire.org/author/willc/) August 24, 2015

Back in January, FIRE proudly endorsed (https://www.thefire.org/fire-endorses-university-of-chicagos-new-free-speech-statement/) the excellent free speech policy statement (http://provost.uchicago.edu/FOECommitteeReport.pdf) issued by the Committee on Freedom of Expression at the University of Chicago. In the months since, we’ve been pleased to see Purdue University (https://www.thefire.org/purdue-university-eliminates-all-of-its-speech-codes-earns-fires-highest-rating/) and Princeton University (https://www.thefire.org/princeton-students-debate-limits-of-free-expression/) follow suit by adopting the statement as institutional policy—and this fall, FIRE will mount a national campaign calling on colleges and universities nationwide to do the same.


Happily, when it comes to New York State, the New York Daily News beat us to it.


In an editorial (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-freeing-free-speech-article-1.2333906) today, the Daily News asks the Empire State’s institutions of higher learning to adopt the University of Chicago statement. As the Daily News notes, doing so would “re-enshrine the highest goals of higher learning: unfettered free inquiry and free speech.”


After quoting the University of Chicago statement—which demands that students, faculty, and administrators forego censorship in favor of “openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose”—at length, the Daily News writes:



So perfectly did this capture the spirit of open debate that the statement was adopted word for word by private Princeton University in April and by public Purdue University in May.


Don’t stop there. SUNY, with its 64 campuses, and CUNY, with its 24 campuses, should adopt the Chicago model — as should Columbia, NYU, Fordham and St. John’s and all the rest.


We at FIRE couldn’t agree more, and we applaud the Daily News for leading the charge. Of course, FIRE stands ready to work with students, faculty, and administrators at New York institutions statewide to reform repressive speech codes and adopt the University of Chicago statement.


Stay tuned in the weeks to come for more on FIRE’s national push on behalf of the University of Chicago statement—and how you can help.

[Kathianne]

https://www.thefire.org/students-interrogated-for-organizing-free-speech-event-file-first-amendment-lawsuit-against-university-of-south-carolina/


Students Interrogated for Organizing Free Speech Event File First Amendment Lawsuit Against University of South CarolinaFebruary 23, 2016


COLUMBIA, S.C., February 23, 2016—The University of South Carolina’s (USC’s) marketing materials claim “No Limits” on the student experience—except, it seems, when it comes to constitutional rights. That’s why today, student Ross Abbott and the campus chapters of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and College Libertarians filed a First Amendment lawsuit (https://www.thefire.org/complaint-and-exhibits-a-t-in-abbott-v-pastides-et-al/)against USC with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE (http://thefire.org/)).


Last fall, the student groups held an outdoor event displaying posters with examples of expression that had been censored on campuses across the country. Three other students filed formal complaints, claiming that some of the posters were “offensive” and “triggering.” In response, USC served Abbott with a “Notice of Charge” letter and launched an investigation for “discrimination,” threatening him with punishment up to and including expulsion for his protected speech.


Abbott and the campus chapters of YAL and the College Libertarians are now suing USC for violating their free speech rights. FIRE is sponsoring the lawsuit, the twelfth in FIRE’s undefeated national Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project (http://www.standupforspeech.com/).



“The University of South Carolina is so intolerant of free speech that students can’t even talk about free speech,” said Catherine Sevcenko, FIRE’s director of litigation. “Ironically, the university’s current marketing campaign features the slogan ‘No Limits (https://www.sc.edu/usctimes/PDFs/2012/12340_USC_times_Special.pdf).’ But as Ross and his fellow students learned, that does not extend to their free speech rights.”

...