Tag Archives: free speech

Universities and “Free” Speech

Posted on by
Reply

From the Volokh Conspiracy, via The Washington Post.

In a then-latest in a long line of speech intolerance in the name of tolerance (is this what they’re teaching in these institutions of “higher” “education” these days?), ex-Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, chose to withdraw from giving the commencement speech at Haverford this spring (just what do these pupils think they’re commencing on receipt of their parchments of achievement?). A loud minority of pupils and putative professors objected to Birgeneau’s use of police to break up an Occupy protest while he was at Berkeley, on the odd theory that it’s somehow inappropriate to enforce laws and regulations on college campuses.

Birgeneau’s replacement speaker wasn’t shy about this PC nonsense, however.

Ex-Princeton President William Bowen had this to say on speech “correctness” during the course of his commencement address at Haverford:

I am disappointed that those who wanted to criticize Birgeneau’s handling of events at Berkeley chose to send him such an intemperate list of “demands,” said Bowen, who led Princeton from 1972 to 1988 and last year received the National Humanities Medal from President Obama. “In my view, they should have encouraged him to come and engage in a genuine discussion, not to come, tail between his legs, to respond to an indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without hearing counter-arguments.”

And

In keeping with the views of many others in higher education, I regard this outcome [the withdrawal of Birgeneau from the commencement address] as a defeat, pure and simple, for Haverford—no victory for anyone who believes, as I think most of us do, in both openness to many points of view and mutual respect.

What he said.

Either we’re a nation whose citizens are free to speak, and where we are free to choose for ourselves to what speech we will listen, or we’re a nation whose citizens are free to speak and to hear only those messages that have been approved for us by our Betters. There is nothing in between.

Government and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the milieu of the Internet. And it’s not good, if the FCC’s latest “rule” proposal is allowed to stand.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are “reasonable.” That’s bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Government, once again, is deciding that it’s better suited to determine what a proper business arrangement is than the participants in the business. Only this time, since it’s the Internet that’s at stake, and the Internet plays such an enormous role, not only in business per se, but in speech of all forms—political, business, communication of innovations, the list goes on—the FCC is plainly inserting itself into the business of government determiner of what appropriate speech is.

If this rule stands, government will be able to pass on the Internet-based “business arrangements” regarding, oh let’s say, a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. Worse, it’ll be able to do this, not overtly because it objects to the politics of the movie, but more sotto voce, under the guise of objecting to the appropriateness of the business arrangements surrounding its Internet distribution. And by allowing the States to get in on the censorship, the FCC is looking to broaden government…management…of permissible speech.

The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed points out a myriad of other objections to this harebrained scheme of the FCC, but this will do for this post.

Another Correct Court Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

And, again, it comes in the area of free speech.

The 7th Circuit has ruled in Wisconsin Right to Life State v Timothy Vocke, a Wisconsin case concerning the permissible State government-imposed limits on political speech that Wisconsin’s law and a host of implementing rules are unconstitutional.

The Court’s unanimous ruling held, among other things, that

  • the state’s corporate-speech ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling
  • the cap on the amount a corporation may spend on fundraising for an affiliated political committee is unconstitutional
  • the lengthy disclaimer requirement under state Government Accountability Board’s regulation is unconstitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads and ads of shorter duration
  • the statutory definition of “political purposes,” section 11.01(16), and the regulatory definition of “political committee,” GAB § 1.28(1)(a), are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in the sense meant by federal court precedent.

This also is likely to cut the underpinnings out from beneath the Democrats’ secret John Doe investigations of exactly these sorts of organizations, which Star Chamber “investigations” are centered on exactly these now acknowledged to be unconstitutional grounds.

The ruling can be seen here.

A New McCarthy Era

Posted on by
Reply

[Gina “Joe”] McCarthy told an audience at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday morning the agency will go after a “small but vocal group of critics” who are arguing the EPA is using “secret science” to push costly clean air regulations.

Because we can’t have all this dissent. It gets in the way of our Agenda. It’s unseemly. McCarthy claimed,

Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science—but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets. It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.

No, Madam, it’s about challenging their conclusions and methodology—which is what science, real science, honest science, does.

And

It’s about claiming that research is secret if researchers protect confidential personal health data from those who are not qualified to analyze it—and won’t agree to protect it. If EPA is being accused of secret science because we rely on real scientists to conduct research, and independent scientists to peer review it, and scientists who’ve spent a lifetime studying the science to reproduce it—then so be it.

This is patently false—no one has asked for the confidential personal data, which are metadata, anyway, and not the raw data. No, Madam, only those raw data, data the scientists used to reach their conclusion are being sought.

And that peer review bit? On what basis do you ignore the peer reviews that dispute the conclusions of your chosen scientists? On what basis do you ignore the efforts of these…scientists…to suppress dissenting papers?

Relatedly, even, arguendo, were confidential personal data called for, the Federal government has procedures in place for safeguarding them, even while briefing members of Congress in detail about them. The security agencies, the NSA, CIA, etc are well experienced, with sound procedures in place, in doing this. McCarthy knows this; her demurral here is just another cynical red herring.

And there’s this:

McCarthy promised she would make such data publicly available during her confirmation process last year. Now her refusal to cough up the data has angered Republicans.

This is another McCarthy era tactic—just make stuff up, then refuse to follow through when it becomes inconvenient to do so.

Finally,

“Those critics are playing a dangerous game by discrediting the sound science our families and our businesses depend on every day,” McCarthy said. “You can’t just claim the science isn’t real when it doesn’t align well with your political or financial interests.”

Nor can you claim it is real just because it aligns well with your political or financial interests, Madam.

More Fear of Competition

Posted on by
Reply

..in the arena for ideas, again by Progressives.  This time as they attack children in New York for having a different idea.

A 13-year-old at Orange-Ulster BOCES in New York was suspended for two days last week for the heinous crime of telling her classmates and friends that they did not have to sit for Common Core examinations.  Never mind that she was telling the truth—the exams are entirely voluntary.  Never mind that the word had to come from her because the school administration, in their transparency, had withheld this information from parents.

These Progressives are so terrified of opposing speech that the school’s principle hadn’t even found the courage to talk with the girl’s parents at the time this story broke.

What is it with Progressives that they’re so terrified of contesting their ideas against those of others?  Again, I ask: might it be because they know their own principles are so inadequate?