Mediaboss Marketing

Gage SkidmoreWhat do professional provocateur Ann Coulter and an irreverent student publication called The Koala have in common? Both have seen their unpopular speech shut down by the supposedly "viewpoint neutral" actions of public universities in California.

In a series of legal maneuvers, the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, San Diego are attempting to blur the lines between viewpoint-neutral and viewpoint-discriminatory in ways that, if allowed to stand, will give colleges and universities much greater leeway to suppress speech they don't like.

Berkeley's College Republicans filed a lawsuit in April following the cancellation of Ann Coulter's planned speech at the university. The organization accused Berkeley of using an unwritten "high-profile speakers" policy as pretext for discriminating against conservative speakers by limiting them to times of day and locations where they were unlikely to be heard.

According to the College Republicans, Berkeley has applied its vague, disputed high-profile speaker policywhich seems to have been hatched in March at a meeting of school administrators, police officers, and city officials, but never actually written down"in a discriminatory fashion, resulting in the marginalization of the expression of conservative viewpoints on campus by any notable conservative speaker."

In a motion to dismiss filed last week, Berkeley argues its actions with regard to Ann Coulter's planned appearance were viewpoint neutral. University officials claim, unbelievably, that they were concerned only about "clashes between opposition groups of protesters...any suggestion that the University was motivated by a particular protester's message or view is demonstrably false."

But those "opposition groups" materialized (at an event billed as a "free speech" rally) after Berkeley utterly failed to prevent left-wing demonstrators from shutting down a speech by conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. So in effect, Berkeley is arguing that if you let angry protesters from one side run so rampant that it draws angry protests from the other side, you now have a "viewpoint neutral" right to suppress controversial speech in the name of public safety. If the court were to accept this argument, it would hand California universities a giant club with which to hammer unpopular speech.

The KoalaIn fact, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) is already trying to wield a similar club to bludgeon unpopular speech on its campus. Earlier this year, a court upheld a "Media Act" passed by the school's student government that eliminated student activity funding for all print media on campus.

The student government passed the act just two days after the publication of a controversial article in The Koala, a student humor publication that bills itself as "The Worst in Collegiate Journalism Since 1982!"

On November 16, 2015, The Koala publishedwithout a trigger warning!an article that satirized the concept of "safe spaces" and made use of numerous stereotypes and epithets in the process.

Two days later, on November 18, UCSD issued an official denouncement of The Koala, calling it "profoundly repugnant, repulsive, attacking and cruel." On the same day, student government representatives explicitly denounced the article before pulling funding for print media on campus.

The Koala has long drawn the ire of the campus' more politically correct elements for its provocative and intentionally offensive humor. As a result, over the past 15 years, the UCSD student government has attempted on at least three separate occasions to cut The Koala's student activity funds (money collected from students by the university and given to the student government to distribute, on a viewpoint-neutral basis, to student organizations).

This time The Koala sued the university for First Amendment violations. Despite what clearly appeared to be the targeting of their publication, a judge ruled the student government action was viewpoint neutral because it applied to all print media, not just The Koala.

The Koala is currently appealing the decision.

In both cases, if the courts ultimately side with the schools, California universitiesand other emboldened schools around the countryare nearly certain to continue pushing the envelope, restricting an ever-increasing sphere of speech by disfavored speakers and student groups.

Read this article:
California Colleges to Ann Coulter and Student Satirists: Shut Up - Reason

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

Around the country, state lawmakers have been talking aboutand legislatingways intended to protect free speech on college campuses.

The Wisconsin State Assembly, for example, recentlypassed a campus speech billthat would require public colleges and universities to punish students who disrupt campus speakers. The legislation is now heading to the State Senate for consideration.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

As a higher education law researcher and campus free speech supporter, I view some requirements in these new campus speech laws as positively reinforcing legal protections for student free speech. However, I believe language in several pending state bills,including the punitive legislation proposed in Wisconsin, does more to impede free speech than protect it.

College students at the University California San Diego demonstrate against President Donald Trump's current immigration orders in La Jolla, California. REUTERS/Mike Blake

Free Speech Zones

In an effort to keep campuses safe and avoid disruption, some universities have restricted student speech and expressive activitysuch as handing out leaflets or gathering signatures for petitionsto special speech zones.

These free speech zones have been subject tocriticism and legal challenges. In one illustrative case, a federal court invalidated aUniversity of Cincinnati policythat limited student demonstrations, picketing and rallies to one small portion of campus.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has not ruled definitively on the legality of designated student speech zones. Consequently, legal battles over their constitutionality continue, as shown bypending litigationinvolving a Los Angeles community college student who claims he was allowed to distribute copies of the U.S. Constitution only in a designated campus speech zone.

Some states have recently enacted laws that prohibit public colleges and universities from enforcing such free speech zones against students. At least seven states have passed anti-speech zone laws:Virginia, Missouri, Arizona,Colorado,Tennessee,UtahandKentucky.

Public institutions in these states may impose reasonable rules to avoid disruption, but officials cannot relegate student free speech and expression to only small or remote areas on campus. Instead, they must permit free speech in most open campus locations, such as courtyards and sidewalks.

Along with the pending legislation in Wisconsin, which also wouldban speech zones,North Carolina,Michigan,TexasandLouisianaare considering similar legislation.

Striking down these free speech zones seems a sensible way to promote student free speech: In my opinion, institutions shouldnt seek to restrict students First Amendment speech rights to strict borders on campus.

Punishing Protesters

If the Wisconsin bill passes in its current form, the state would do more than ban designated free speech zones. It would also become the first state requiring institutions to punish student protesters. The North Carolina House of Representatives has passed a similarbill, now under review in the State Senate, but this legislation seems to leave institutions morediscretionover dealing with students disrupting speakers than the Wisconsin legislation.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter is No. 13 on Right Wing News's list of the "20 Hottest Conservative Women in New Media." (Mark Mainz / Getty Images)

Much of the push for campus speech bills has come from lawmakers who believe that college campuses arehostile to conservative speakers. They point to incidents such as those involvingAnn CoulterandMilo Yiannopoulosat the University of California at Berkeley as indicative of an overall resistance to conservative speakers on campus.

Provisions in campus speech bills, including ones mandating penalties for students who disrupt speakers, can largely betracedtomodel legislationfrom the Goldwater Institute, based in Phoenix, Arizona. The group aims to correct what it views as a left-leaning bias in American higher education regarding campus free speech.

In my view, forcing colleges to take punitive action against all disruptive protesters is troublesome. Such a requirement would mean that institutions would be faced with devising overly cumbersome rules for when punishment should or should not occur. But what counts as a punishment-worthy disruption?

A more problematic outcome would be if free speech werechilled. Students might understandably refrain from speech and expressive activity based on fear of punishment, particularly if the rules around such punishment are necessarily vague and difficult to understand.

Based on such concerns, theFoundation for Individual Rights in Educationan influential group that promotes, among other things, student free speech in higher educationhascome out against this particular requirementin the Wisconsin bill. The American Civil Liberties Union has alsoexpressed concernover the similar provision under consideration in North Carolina.

Moving Forward

The Wisconsin bill isdescribed by supportersas intended to protect the right of campus speakers to be heard. However, it seeks to accomplish this goal in a way that undermines student free speech of all types.

Hopefully, lawmakers in Wisconsin and in other states considering legislation will stick to workable measures that actually promoteas opposed to hindercampus free speech.

Neal H. Hutchens is Professor of Higher Education, University of Mississippi.

Read more here:
New Legislation Could End Free Speech on College Campuses - Newsweek

With a heavy reliance on the word fantastic, conservative firebrand Ann Coulter was intensely supportive of President Donald Trumps volatile tweets about MSNBCs Mika Brzezinski heard round the world.

which Coulter sees as fighting back in a what has been a one-sided war with the press.

Critics argue that Trumps tweeting has essentially hijacked his agenda, as described by Fox Business Networks Stuart Varney, who rattled off policy gains this week being overshadowed.

Ive heard that argument, Coulter told Varney on Fridays program. I love the tweets and yesterdays tweet was fantastic.

She went on to say even friends who disagree with her support of Trump called to say the president has got to keep tweeting.

We finally have a president whos going after the press, Coulter said. The idea that the aggression, the war between the president and the media, its fantastic. Its been a one-sided war until now.

And she was emphatic that his tweeting is not a distraction.

It makes the media look even sillier, Coulter insisted, adding that theyre not talking about the administrations agenda anyway.

I think its fantastic, she said of Trump social media efforts. The people get to hear from the president directly.

They are attacking him nonstop, Coulter added. Theyre staging assassination plays in Central Park, holding his head up. It is non-stop, it is vicious.

I cant even watch MSNBC and CNN anymore, Id rather have them talk about some dumb facelifts than have them talk about this nonsense with the Russian conspiracy theory.

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.

See original here:
Ann Coulter bursts with excitement over 'fantastic' tweets about Mika, saying we 'finally have a president fighting ... - BizPac Review

There are mounting concerns President Donald Trumps tweeting is hijacking his agenda and distracting from the administrations focus on its economic growth plan. But In Trump We Trust author Ann Coulter disagreed, telling the FOX Business Networks Stuart Varney, Ive heard that argument, I love the tweets and yesterdays tweet was fantastic.

Coulter then weighed in on the presidents controversial tweet about MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski, saying, Even my friends who disagree with me on whether the president should tweet were all calling yesterdays thing, okay youre right, after the Mika tweet hes got to keep tweeting, it was fantastic.

Coulter agreed that the president should be able to use Twitter to defend himself against the media.

The idea that the aggression, the war between the president and the media, its fantastic, its been a one-sided war until now.

When asked if the presidents tweets will enhance the presidents agenda on health care and tax reform, Coulter responded,

Yes, it makes the media look even sillier than the Russia conspiracy theory. Do you think theyre talking about any of the presidents agenda on CNN or MSNBC because youre not watching if you think they are?

Continue Reading Below

ADVERTISEMENT

Coulter then said the media should, rename themselves the smirking network, thats all they do about Trump.

When asked if the administration would be more effective without the tweets, Coulter reacted, No, I do not think they could. I think its fantastic, the people get to hear from the president directly.

According to Coulter the medias coverage of Russian meddling has grown tired.

I cant even watch MSNBC and CNN anymore, Id rather have them talk about some dumb facelifts than have them talk about this nonsense with the Russian conspiracy theory.

The rest is here:
I love Trump's tweets, yesterday's Mika tweet was fantastic, Ann ... - Fox Business

Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity represent two types of President Trump supporters.

The Coulter faction's principal loyalty is to the ideas Trump embodied during the campaign. The Hannity group's primary allegiance is to Trump himself.

The split has always been there, but now it is widening as Coulter and those in her camp grow impatient for Trump to make good on his promises, and become frustrated by the Hannity bloc's lack of interest in holding the president accountable.

Tensions erupted on Wednesday when Coulter ripped Hannity for editing an interview that aired on his Fox News show last Thursday in which Coulter criticized Trump's inclusion of Goldman Sachs alumnisuch as chief economic adviser Gary Cohn in his administration. Here's some of what Coulter wrote in a columnpublished by Breitbart News.

Sean Hannity, bless his heart, has the zeal of the late Trump convert. He would endorse communism if Trump decided to implement the policies of The Communist Manifesto. (Which the GOPs health care bill actually does!)

On his show last Thursday, he tried to get me to defend Trumps rich person remarks about Cohn. I wish you could see the segment, but, unfortunately, Hannity decided no one would ever see it NOT, I hasten to add, because he would ever censor criticism of Trump, but simply because he ran out of time.

In a pretaped interview. It was a time problem. (It may not be evident to most viewers, but three minutes MUST be left at the end of every Hannity show for Nerf ball throwing.)

With the zealotry of those who came late to the Trump party, Hannity fully endorsed Trumps faith in Cohn, adding, I never got a job from a poor man!

Those of us who have been here for a while unlike Cruz- and Rubio-supporting Hannity know how to party responsibly. The best way we serve the people we admire is to tell them the truth. (Someday, no doubt, Nancy Pelosi will wish she had been surrounded by fewer Yes Men.)

The motto of we longtime Trump supporters is: NO TREATS FOR DOING NOTHING!

Hannity, who called Coulter a friend and said we love having you on during the part of the interview that made air last week, quickly returned fire on Twitter.

Hannity added that he was not late to what Coulter called the Trump party. Late is a subjective term, but recall that Hannity strongly protested Ted Cruz's accusation, during the Republican presidential primary, that Hannity favored Trump over the rest of the GOP field.

Hannity did not formally endorse Trump until the billionaire was the last Republican standing. He wanted to be seen as neutral while the race was in progress, but now he wants to be seen as a longtime Trump backer.

Anyway, the nature of Trump support not the duration is at the heart of this feud. Coulter might not be ready to jump off the Trump Train, but she has publicly vented her dismay at the president's lack of progress on his populist, nationalist agenda.

Meanwhile, Hannity seems to value Trump's personal qualities so highly that he is not bothered by the absence of funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the presence of Wall Street bankers in high-ranking jobs or the details of a GOP health-care plan that does not amount to a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Unless Trump starts delivering more of what he pledged on the campaign trail, the segments of his base that supported him for different reasons represented by Coulter and Hannity are likely to drift further apart.

Read more here:
The feud between Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity is bigger than them - Washington Post