Mediaboss Marketing

The following might be offensive to some.

But that's okay, according to Rep. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond. It's free speech and protected by the First Amendment of our nation's constitution.

A right, he said, that is being infringed upon on many of Kentucky's college campuses.

Morgan is trying to change that with Kentucky House Bill 127, or the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act, which will prohibit publicly-funded universities and colleges from restricting a student's right to free expression.

"I filed the bill because I believe in it, whole-heartedly," Morgan said. "You need to have the freedom of speech on college campuses. Students shouldn't be restricted to a circle 50 feet from the sidewalk."

Morgan said many state universities have policies that restrict student's First Amendment rights by forcing them into so-called "free speech zones."

The representative said these zones are often small areas hidden away from public view.

The CAFE Act will prohibit schools from imposing those types of zones, and defines any "outdoor areas of an institution's campus" as "traditional public forums."

"Students should have the right to express themselves in an open space and have the opportunity to have people listen to what they have to say," Morgan said. "It's a matter of fairness. Students have a right and it should be protected. There are public institutions of higher education that are not allowing students the right to have an open dialogue. You don't want that to continue in the state."

Kentucky House Bill 127 states clearly colleges "shall not restrict the right to free expression." In line with the Constitution, colleges can only place "reasonable" restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of student expression. Even still, these restrictions must be "narrowly tailored... based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria... [and must] provide for ample alternative means of expression."

Inspired by Morgan's efforts to protect students' rights, Eastern Kentucky University's student government association (SGA) passed a bill endorsing HB 127 and encouraging other student governments across the state to do the same.

Sebastian Torres, EKU SGA executive vice president, said the bill passed unanimously and the organization has been working closely with Morgan and others to educate universities about the bill.

"It is a real issue on Kentucky campuses that needs to be addressed," Torres said of the fight to keep free speech. "It's not just Kentucky that has these policies that restrict students' First Amendment rights. At a university in Indiana, a group of students were arrested for passing out copies of the Constitution. This is real and it's happening."

In fact, on a recent trip to Murray State University, Torres said he and other SGA members had difficulty locating the campus' free-speech zone. After a search of the grounds, the students were directed to a small cement circle tucked away out of sight. Torres added students have to apply for a chance to speak in the zone and applications can be denied.

The EKU student said limiting an open exchange of ideas to a certain area on a college campus was "ridiculous" and goes against not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also the nature of higher education.

"Students come here to learn and grow and expand their ideas. We are trying to educate a workforce at this university and create productive citizens, but college is also a chance to have your ideas challenged and see if they stand up against facts," Torres said. "If it doesn't happen on a college campus, where do we expect it to happen."

Torres said you don't have to agree with everything said and you don't have to listen if you don't want to. He added free speech can be uncomfortable for some, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Torres said EKU's student government felt it was especially important to support Morgan's bill, due to the fact that EKU is the first "green light" school in the state.

The university earned that distinction from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awards institutions of higher learning with a green, yellow or red categorization based on the constitutionality of speech policies.

In 2012, the university worked with FIRE attorneys to bring the campus into compliance with the Constitution and make the campus more First Amendment friendly.

Some of the important steps taken by the university included modifying vague wording in the student handbook and policies.

One example was the phrase in the student handbook that stated students should not "engage in a course of conduct intended to harass, seriously annoy and alarm another person." FIRE suggested the university amend the phrase "seriously annoy," as it goes against the First Amendment to regulate student speech in that manner.

Another part of the handbook read: "No one should either offend the wider community or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others."

"Sometimes people might find what you say offensive," Torres said. "However, I think what is becoming prevalent in today's society is the idea that if they find it offensive or uncomfortable then it should be stopped. That's infringing on free speech.

"Why should certain kind of speakers be banned from campus. That shouldn't be allowed, especially if a student group is sponsoring that speaker. Those that don't agree with the speaker don't have to listen to the lecture or they can bring in their own speaker who has a different viewpoint."

Another reason Torres said the SGA is promoting the bill is the fact that while the CAFE act protects students it also will protect universities. He said with budget crunches, it is not a good time for universities to get sued because it didn't have the forethought to not infringe on a student's right to free speech.

Torres said he hopes that other universities step-up and make their campus' more First Amendment friendly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

"I wish that universities and colleges would do it on their own, but that is why it is so important for the state house to step in and go ahead and do it for them," he said. "Our SGA feels that this is an important issue for students and we feel compelled to let our legislators know that we are invested in our First Amendment right. I'm very proud of the SGA for endorsing this and we encourage every other student government to jump on the bandwagon."

Both Morgan and Torres said the new bill does not do away with university protections against hate speech, harassment or incitement of violence.

The CAFE Act provides universities with the ability to enforce certain restrictions on acts of free speech in an outdoor area of campus regarding reasonable time, place and manner. The bill makes it very clear these restrictions must have a clear, defendable basis, Torres said.

Torres said in no way does the bill encourage or enable hate speech and harassment by promoting the right of free speech for students.

"You are protected from any kind of violence or mistreatment," he said. "That doesn't mean you are protected against different ideas, views, cultures or opinions that you might not like."

Reach Ricki Barker at 624-6611 or follow her on Twitter @RickiBReports.

Continue reading here:
Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students' First Amendment rights on campus - Richmond Register

Forbes

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight Forbes Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The tech titan has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in ...

See the original post:
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight - Forbes

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Speech is free, but not consequence-free. Milo Yiannopoulos managed to skirt this reality for years, but eventually it comes for us all.

A quick recap for those who have not been following this sordid tale: MILO, as hes best known (all-caps his own), is an Internet personality and now-former Breitbart News senior editor best known for his glibly offensive remarks about minority groups, his hatred of political correctness and his support of Donald Trump.

Many on the right hailed Milo as a much-needed iconoclast, one of the few brave enough to defend free speech, speak uncomfortable truths and push back against the simpering social justice warriors of the left. After his charmingly titled Dangerous Faggot speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, including some most notably at the University of California at Berkeley this month that turned violent, he was invited to speak at this years Conservative Political Action Conference.

This weekend, however, video emerged of Milo joking about pedophilia and molestation. In short order he was disinvited from CPAC, his book deal was canceled, and he resigned from Breitbart.

[If college liberals are so naive, why did the campus right fall for Yiannopoulos?]

It is interesting to consider that while the right championed his racist, misogynist invective as a much-needed tonic for our stifled public discourse, discussions of child sex abuse were not seen the same way. The defense of free expression seemed to go only so far as be free to insult those we already disagree with, but please, no further than that. For all the invocations of the First Amendment, there is apparently still a line. Milo crossed it, the end, goodbye. I, for one, do not look forward to his apology tour and inevitable transformation.

Yet the fact that a line exists at all brings to light a point often overlooked when free speech is bandied about as a hallowed but somehow threatened ideal. Yes, speech is free, but not free from dissent. You can say what you like, but no one has to listen to you. The fact that you have spoken something controversial in public does not make your provocation correct or worthy of acclaim.

The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That is all. It does not say that private companies such as Facebook must promote all kinds of content equally, or that Simon & Schuster is obliged to hand out book contracts to everyone who wants one. It should not be stretched to imply that institutions must provide a platform for every opinion that comes their way. And while the First Amendment often makes it possible for individuals to challenge the dominant discourse, it gives them no more help than that.

Some myself included have argued that the best remedy for hateful speech is more speech, not less. But it is worth pointing out that more speech can take a number of forms. It could be the addition of other, opposing speakers to a lineup featuring a contentious guest. It could be a petition asking for the guest to be disinvited. It could be protesters telling said speaker to shut up and get off of their campus, or even calling the speaker a racist or Nazi. Some of these methods are far more productive than others, and some are less likely to promote useful discourse. But free speech also means that such responses must be allowed to occur and may well bring about consequences that the original speaker might not enjoy.

[At CPAC, conservatism betrayed]

Positive freedom relies on prudence. If the things you say provoke an intense and unpleasant reaction, it may be worth wondering whether your critics have a point. And if youre in favor of free speech when it comes to some topics but not others, perhaps you should investigate why your limits lie where they do.

The Milo debacle helpfully illustrates the limitations of invoking free speech to cast a benevolent glow on any and every injudicious statement, and the bind created when any opposition is cast as unjust, illiberal silencing. It may finally be time to stop flogging the First Amendment as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for foolish talk. Were wonderfully free to say whatever we want to. But that doesnt mean we should.

See the original post:
Milo learns the First Amendment isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for foolishness - Washington Post

A recently enacted California law, AB 1687, requires websites that provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment to stop publishing a subscribers age whenever the subscriber so demands. In practice, this law was aimed at IMDb, which lets people in the entertainment industry post various rsum information online (via its IMDb Pro service) but also publishes biographical information about people subscribers or not including their ages. The law wasnt limited to information that IMDb learned through its relationship with subscribers; it also covered information that IMDb independently acquired.

Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that IMDb was likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim:

Its difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment. The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. This is a restriction of non-commercial speech on the basis of content. Therefore, the burden is on the government to show that the restriction is actually necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Footnote: The government has not argued that birthdates or other age-related facts implicate some privacy interest that protects them from public disclosure, and its doubtful such an argument would prevail in any event.] The government is highly unlikely to meet this burden, and certainly nothing it has submitted in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion suggests it will be able to do so.

To be sure, the government has identified a compelling goal preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. But the government has not shown how AB 1687 is necessary to advance that goal. In fact, its not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all.

And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal antidiscrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end. For example, although the government asserts generically that age discrimination continues in Hollywood despite the long-time presence of antidiscrimination laws, the government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website. Because the government has presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that its necessary to combat age discrimination), there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.

[Footnote: The government casts AB 1687 as ordinary economic regulation falling outside First Amendment scrutiny. But IMDb Pros commercial relationship with its subscribers has no connection to IMDbs public site, which relies on data obtained from third parties or from the public record. The government would perhaps be on stronger ground if AB 1687 were limited to preventing IMDb from misappropriating the data furnished by subscribers to its industry-facing site.]

Sounds right to me, though Id go further and say that such a restriction on publishing truthful information would be unconstitutional even if it did combat age discrimination more effectively than other alternatives would. (Note that I signed on to an amicus brief in the case that supported this position; the brief was written by M.C. Sungaila, and was signed by, among others, noted liberal professor and University of California at Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky, our own David Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Go here to see the original:
IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people's ages - Washington Post

Olivier DoulierySpeaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos promised to back school choice policies while fighting for the free speech rights of college students.

DeVos focused on education reform during her brief remarks, stressing that the Obama administration's spending on school improvements did not yield encouraging results.

"Today we know the system is failing too many kids," she said. "Our nation's test scores have flatlined."

DeVos then turned to free speech issues on college campuses.

"They say if you voted for Donald Trump, you are a threat to the community," said DeVos, referring to the climate on campus. "But the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree."

Unfortunately, DeVos avoided specifics. She did not discuss the Education Department's role in fostering a climate of censorship via guidance from the Office for Civil Rights, which has stepped up anti-harassment measures over the last five years. Civil libertarians hope DeVos will reform the agency.

She also dodged a question about her alleged dispute with Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the decision to rescind the Obama administration's protections for transgender students. DeVos had opposed taking this step, but caved due to pressure from President Donald Trump.

It was not a very revealing interview, all told. If DeVos has big plans to fix schools and colleges, she certainly isn't showing her hand.

Read the original post:
CPAC: Betsy DeVos Thinks First Amendment Rights of College Students Are Under Attack - Reason (blog)