Mediaboss Marketing

NICK EICHER, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Free speech on campus.

As we know, speech rights and obligations can be complicated. Private universities are facing legal questions that are different from the questions government institutions face. Its difficult to know whats protected and whats not.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Joining us now to help sort it out is Tyson Langhofer. He serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Tyson, good morning.

TYSON LANGHOFER, GUEST: Hey, good morning. Thanks for having me.

REICHARD: Glad youre here. Well, lets start with the baseline. What is the legal definition of hate speech?

LANGHOFER: There actually isn't a legal definition of hate speech, which is what really creates the problem in First Amendment context, because what might be hateful to one person may not be hateful to another person. And so we have taken the approach in America to have a very broad protection of speech so that the government doesn't get to define whose speech they think is hateful and thus prohibited and whose speech they think is okay and thus not prohibited.

EICHER: Okay, so going beyond the legal definitions which don't exist, are there uniform policies about hate speech on college campuses? Or is this just an ad hoc kind of case by case thing?

LANGHOFER: It is an ad hoc case by case thing, which is what creates the problem. So what the Supreme Court has said is that the government cannot look to the content or the viewpoint of somebodys speech in order to prohibit that speech. And so when a government official looks at somebody's speech and says, Well, that viewpoint is hateful, therefore, I'm going to prohibit it, the government or the Supreme Court has said that that is unconstitutional. And so what you see is there is no uniformity across the college campuses, because it is a subjective determination, which is what the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment prohibits.

REICHARD: You know, we've heard the chants "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" from those who are supporting Hamas, meaning Palestinian control over the entire territory of Israel's borders, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Now, some say that is not anti-semitic, it's only anti-zionist, Tyson, what do you make of that argument?

LANGHOFER: Well, I mean, I think that if you're advocating for the complete annihilation of a people group from a certain, you know, country, that that makes it difficult to argue that, you know, your that your argument against simply a country as opposed to, to a people group. But I mean, I think that the debate that we're having here, about what type of rhetoric that we can engage in, in a very, very politicized and highly inflammatory environment, is the very debate that the First Amendment is designed to protect. And what the Supreme Court has said, is that the highest principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence is to protect the thought that we hate. But I think that's what our First Amendment calls us to, is to protect those things. Now, obviously, there are certain limits. So if there are people calling for imminent violence against anyone, regardless of who they are, that's not protected. But if they're arguing in general for broader principles, then that is protected, even if we think that principle is hateful or wrong.

EICHER: So maybe that's the way to do it, because I intended to ask, how do you sort of make that balance between protecting free speech but also condemning ideas that justify abhorrent action? So that's the line whether it's sort of inciting or how do you make that distinction?

LANGHOFER: That's absolutely the line as the Supreme Court has drawn it. They've said there's there's very narrow areas that are unprotected speech, one of them would be a true threat. So if I'm threatening somebody in the moment and saying, I'm going to commit some act of violence against you that's not protected, you know, actually engaging or encouraging people to go engage in imminent violence that's also not protected, but advocating for principles that might lead people in the future to take some acts which are unlawful, that is protected. And that's sort of the line that we've drawn. And I think it's really important to understand that if you have a conservative originalist view of the Constitution, you have to understand that it is going to require us to allow people to say things that we vehemently disagree with, that we think are wrong and immoral, but that also protects us as Christians to engage in speech that we believe is consistent with our biblical worldview, that many people would say it is hateful or shouldn't be protected as well.

REICHARD: I have to ask this question: why are some of our most prestigious campuses inundated with these pro Hamas views? What's going on?

LANGHOFER: Well, I think when you see that they have been taught this the issue of of critical theory, where everything is intersectional. And and it's all about who we deem as the bigger victim. And there's not a broader justice, there's not an absolute, that's it's the victim, and it's based upon identity rather than actual actions. And I think that has led them to stop looking at the actual facts on the ground, and just looking at whose identity do we believe is more oppressed? And in that, in that framework, I then determine who is the victim and who we should be supporting, as opposed to looking at it broader, what is the truth of the situation, and what is just in this situation, regardless of what their identities are? Everybody should be, you know, advocating for a just result, regardless of the identity of the individual who's being victimized.

EICHER: Tyson, I know you've been paying very careful attention to this for many years. What is your assessment of what's missing from the conversation about free speech and mitigating harm on campus? What's missing?

LANGHOFER: Yeah, I think what's missing is this. There's a large and growing portion of campus which is advocating for social justice. And we want justice as well as Christians, we desire justice. But what they don't understand is that you cannot achieve justice without obtaining the truth. What is the truth, truth and justice are inextricably linked. We must arrive at truth and then we can get the justice and everybody I think can agree we want a just society. But shutting down certain viewpoints is not going to get us to truth. And it's not going to get us to justice. And I think that's what's missing is this ability to to engage with people that we very, very much disagree with, but to do it in a way that where it's a dialectic rather than a debate, right? It's the ability to learn and to listen to the other side, and explore what they're saying. All right, at the same time, of being able to give them your viewpoint and recognize they're both created an image of God and that they're both we all have that inherent human dignity and we should respect them as a person, even if we disagree with their viewpoint.

REICHARD: Tyson Langhofer serves as senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Thanks for joining us!

LANGHOFER: Thank you for having me.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Read more:
The right to disagree matters | WORLD - WORLD News Group

Both sides agreed to federal mediation after a district judge suggested the constitutional claims had merit.

The new policy strikes the prohibitions on teachers and strikes a statement that the violation of those policies is insubordination. It clarifies that school district employees are free to express themselves in their private capacity but cant divulge deliberative and confidential information until that information has already been shared by the district to someone outside the district. The teachers union said the new policy protects the First Amendment rights of educators in Woodland Park.

Since the ban on speaking to the press, multiple teachers told CPR they were terrified of speaking on-the-record and asked to be anonymous without any identifying features in news reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has twice found such restrictions on public school employees speech unconstitutional. In a spring interview with CPR, Superintendent Ken Witt was asked about the ban.

I think the policy speaks for itself, he said.

Owen, the plaintiff, who is also a science teacher in Woodland Park, said its critical that teachers are able to share their voice to advocate for their students.

Its a victory for the community at large, which deserves to know whats happening in our childrens schools.

The district does not have a collecting bargaining agreement with the union but as part of the agreement the unions president will meet with Superintendent Witt monthly as a way to hear union concerns.

WPSD is committed to continuing its practice of seeking input and perspectives from educators directly rather than through union organizations, the district said in a statement.

See the rest here:
Woodland Park teachers win their fight to restore First Amendment ... - Colorado Public Radio

The man who was issued two traffic citations after he flipped off a Flagler County Sheriff's Office deputy on Aug. 8 has had his day in court, with both tickets dismissed by the judge.

FCSO Master Deputy Kyle Gaddie issued two citations one for following too closely and one for impeding traffic in the left lane to St. Augustine resident Jeff Gray, who calls himself a civil rights investigator and First Amendment auditor. Gray, a retired truck driver, regularly posts about his interactions with law enforcement on his YouTube account, HonorYourOath Civil Rights Investigations.

Gray said the citations were retaliatory because he'd flipped Deputy Gaddie the middle finger as Gray passed the FCSO agency vehicle on Interstate 95.

The case was overseen by Judge Andrea Totten at the Kim C. Hammond Justice Center in Flagler County on Oct. 30. Totten dismissed both citations levied against Gray.

Gray has already uploaded a video of the dismissal to his YouTube account. In Gray's video, Gray's attorney, Eric Friday, said Gaddie attempted to use Gray's own video of the incident to prove Gaddie's case.

Gray's video includes an audio recording of Gaddie's testimony, referencing Gray's YouTube video of the incident.

"Before I even finished," Friday said in Gray's video, "the judge said she didn't need to hear anymore."

Read more from the original source:
Flagler County judge dismisses traffic tickets against 'First ... - Palm Coast Observer and Ormond Beach Observer

(The Sentinel) In a victory for free speech rights, a federal jury recently sided with Olathe resident Jennifer Gilmore who was removed from an Olathe Board of Educationmeetingin 2022.

Gilmore, who ran for a seat on the Olathe Board of Education in 2021 and lost by 65 votes, was awarded $1 by the jury.

TheKansas City Starreportsthat after a four-day trial earlier this week, a jury found that her First Amendment rights were violated when she was prevented from speaking during the meeting last year when then-president of the board Joe Beveridge disliked her views.

The award comes after the Olathe school district spent some $300,000 on attorneys fees.

The Board majority sought to cover up Beveridges wrongdoing by spending over $300,000 and counting of the taxpayers dollars in this lawsuit, Gilmores attorney, Linus Baker, said in a statement. In the end, the board majority spent $300,000 to avoid paying Ms. Gilmore one dollar.

TheStararticle states the jury did not find that punitive damages should be assessed against Beveridge. In order to find that Beveridge should pay damages to Gilmore, the jury would have needed to agree there was proof he acted with evil motive or intent, or reckless indifference to her rights, according to court documents.

U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter had previously denied Gilmores attempt to ask for damages against the district and school board, but the $1 in nominal damages acknowledges that her rights were violated.

In the fall of 2021, Gilmore was running for a seat on the board, campaigning partly against mask mandates andcritical race theory, but was narrowly defeated by Julie Steele who earlier this yearsuggestedparents who are critical of diversity, equity and inclusion training should leave Kansas.

Gilmore attended the January 2022 Board of Education meeting, where new board members were to be sworn in.

During the public comment section, she stated, Good evening. I didnt buy my board seat, but Im still here because I care about this district.

Beveridge started to interrupt her at that point but let her continue.

Gilmore then said: We were told prior to enrollment that masks would be optional. Were doing the same thing year after year. I agree that liars lie, but the only liar that lied in this election was Jim Randall.

Randall, who is a former Olathe City Council member, is Steeles father and Beveridges father-in-law.

Beveridge, at this point, cut Gilmore off and said, Ok, youre done, and asked to have her removed, stating she was done talking and that she had mentioned a person.

TheStarreports that at this point, Gilmore said: Your father-in-law that spent $37,000 for her (Steeles) board seat? Gilmore replied to Beveridge, and noted that Steele raised nearly double the amount that Gilmore did leading up to the 2021 election, reporting about $60,000 in contributions, more than half coming from loans Steele made to her own campaign.

The boards public comment rule at the time said the board would not hear personal attacks or rude or defamatory remarks of any kind about any employee or student of the School District or any person connected with the School District.

The policy also allowed the board president to interrupt any comments that were not germane to the business of the board.

A new policy, adopted in April of 2022, retains the germane language but omits the language about personal or defamatory remarks.

Earlier this summer, Teeterthrew outmost of the claims by Gilmore in denying in part a request for summary judgment.

Teeter dismissed the claims against the board and the district and also dismissed as moot Gilmores claim against the revised policy for lack of standing, as it was not in force at the time Gilmore was removed from the meeting.

However, Teeter let stand Gilmores primary claim, saying a jury could reasonably conclude her First Amendment rights had been violated because she had been blocked from speaking because of her views.

Teeter had also said in court documents a reasonable jury might conclude Beveridge acted in anger because of Gilmores criticism of his father-in-law rather than because of board policy.

The judge and both parties did agree that a board meeting is what is called in law a limited public forum where governmentcanput reasonable restrictions on speech, so long as they are not being used to prevent viewpoints from being expressed. The jury found Beveridgedidengage in viewpoint discrimination against Gilmore simply because he disliked or did not want to hear her opinion.

Visit link:
Kansas resident removed from meeting wins First Amendment case ... - Heartlander News

If you want to see how the nutty, biology-defying gender ideology of the radical left has infected school boards and administrators even in conservative, saner parts of the country, you need only read the recent opinion of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Parents Defending Education v. Linn Mar Community School District.

A three-judge panel of the court overruled a district court and instructed it to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of a school board policy in Iowa that would have disciplined students for expressing opinions that diverge from leftist gender orthodoxyspecifically, for refusing to respect a students gender identity.

In April 2022, the Linn Mar school district board passed a policy intended to address the needs of transgender students, gender-expansive students, nonbinary, gender nonconforming students, and students questioning their gender.

The policy prohibited school administrators, teachers and counselors from informing parents that their children were having to cooperate with or were undergoing gender support accommodations for transgender students regarding names, pronouns, restroom and locker facilities, overnight accommodations on school trips, and participation in activities.

>>>Liberal Hypocrites Are Destroying Womens Sports

Any refusal to respect a students gender identity would violate the schools prohibitions against bullying and harassment, which could lead to suspension and expulsion. Gender identity was defined by the favorite psychobabble of progressivesnamely, a students deeply-held sense or psychological knowledge of their own gender.

Parents Defending Education sued on behalf of parents with students in the Linn Mar system. They claimed violations of the First and 14th amendments for violations of their substantive due process right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children and violation of their childrens right to freedom of speech.

Fortunately, the school boards secrecy provision was overridden when the Iowa General Assembly passed a bill, signed by the governor, in the middle of the litigation that prohibited school districts from hiding information from parents or giving them false or misleading information about a students gender identity or intention to transition to a gender different from what is listed on his or her birth certificate.

The new law requires school administrators to notify parents of a students request for gender accommodation.

As for the First Amendment claim, the court determined that at least one student in particular was being prevented from speaking his mind out of fear that he would be disciplined, thus giving him and his parents standing to sue.

The school boards contemptuous attitude toward the free-speech rights of students was evident. As the 8th Circuit summarized in its opinion, one of the parents explained that her son wanted to state his belief that biological sex in immutable, disagree with another students assertion about whether they are male or female, state that biological males should not be allowed to compete in female athletics, and express discomfort about sharing bathrooms with teachers or students of the opposite biological sex.

Yet the school board argued that the suggested activity and speech of the student was not affected with a constitutional interest because harassment or bullying on the basis of gender is not protected speech within the school environment.

Fortunately, the appeals court didnt buy it: A school district cannot avoid the strictures of the First Amendment simply by defining certain speech as bullying or harassment.

The court concluded that the parents would likely succeed in their claim that inflicting punishment on students for failing to respect a students gender identity is void for vagueness and thus a violation of the First Amendment.

>>>Hiding Students Gender Identities From Their Parents Is Immoral

A government policy, the court said, is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide adequate notice of the proscribed conduct and lends itself to arbitrary enforcement.

The failure of the school board to define respect, the court concluded, means that the policy could cover any speech about gender identity that a school administrator deems disrespectful of another students gender identity.

Students cannot know whether they are violating the policy when expressing discomfort about sharing a bathroom with someone who is transgender, argues that biological sex is immutable in a debate in social studies class, or expresses an opinion about the participation of transgender students on single-sex athletic teams.

Moreover, the lack of clarity over the meaning of respect left the policy open to differing interpretations by teachers and administrators and created a substantial risk of arbitrary enforcement.

The school board has the right to appeal this decision by either asking for an en banc review, which is when the entire appeals court reviews the case, or to go directly to the Supreme Court to ask it to review the decision.

What the school board should do instead is realize that it made a grievous error in implementing this restrictive, unconstitutional policy and get rid of it in its entirety.

Read the original:
Woke Iowa School Board Disrespects Parents, Students and the ... - Heritage.org