Student Free Speech

Sohrab Ahmari had an op-ed in a recent Wall Street Journal describing the travails of a Brandeis University (of their cowardice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali infamy) student because he committed the horrible crime of speaking his piece regarding Israel and a fellow…student’s…attitude to that country.

RTWT; it’s an excellent piece in its own right.

My takeaway, and Ahmari’s, is that, in order for a student to protect his own free speech rights—much less to recover any school to its duty of fostering open inquiry and debate, no matter where that debate might lead or how uncomfortable the outcome might be for students, faculty, or administration—it’s necessary to engage a lawyer and pursue the matter in open court (or in the Brandeis student’s case, convince the school that that’s where the rest of the free speech discussion will occur).

That’s expensive, and not all students will be able to afford that. A few things about this, though.

One is that the cost of generating publicity can range from cheap to free. Continue speaking out, writing letters to editors—to newspapers outside the school, also—talking to reporters and to any radio and TV station talk show who’ll listen: keep the injustice in the eye of the school’s public. The school—Brandeis, for instance—may well threaten to expel such a misbehaving student? OK. Is such a school worth the student’s time and money—especially a high-priced private school like Brandeis? Is the student really going to get a decent education at such an arbitrarily restrictive school?

Another is to demonstrate the absurdity of the “free” speech and hurt feelings rules. Conservative students should invoke the same rules, loudly, vociferously, and determinedly every time they come under fire for the things they say.

The last is go ahead and do the lawyer and lawsuit bit. There are organizations like FIRE that often are in a position to help, and there are occasional lawyers will to take on such cases at a discount or even pro bono. Even if forced to pay full freight, though, where possible, bring the suit, and bring it hard.

The Brandeis student’s case didn’t come to fruition because the student whose feewings had got hurted dropped his university beef when he realized he’d have to defend his feelings in open court. That helped the victim student, but it helped only him.

In general, I don’t think it’s useful to settle with such schools. If those administrators had any integrity, the (threat of) lawsuits to protect free speech wouldn’t be necessary in the first place, and so such administrators cannot be trusted to honor any settlements that their mouths might speak or their pens sign. Bring the suits. Don’t give quarter; those administrators aren’t offering any. Burn such dishonesty to the ground, and scatter the ashes.

Perjury?

This is the oath that witnesses before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requires of its witnesses, when those witnesses are sworn (and if one witness is required to be sworn, they all must be) (scroll to Rule 9, para (g)). It’s not the same oath for all committees, but it’s typical.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I mention this because it turns out

Then-Deputy Commissioner Steven Miller wrote in an email in June 2012, about a month before a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing….

“I am beginning to wonder whether I should do [the hearing] and affirmatively use it to put a stake in politics and c4 [regarding IRS targeting of conservative organizations applying for 501(c)(4) status].”

Miller also was never directly asked about the targeting. That removes the legal aspect of perjury: Miller would seem not to have perjured himself.

But morally? Yew betcha.

Misunderstanding

…by Howard Kurtz in his recent Fox News piece.

Sony’s unforgivable blunder was in making this misbegotten movie in the first place. I mean, an assassination “comedy” that includes Kim Jong Un’s head being blown up, with an internal debate over how much his hair should be on fire? As Greta Van Susteren tweeted, “Anyone who has been to NK knows how dangerous it is and would not have been so stupid to make that movie.” Sony Pictures and Seth Rogen didn’t even have the wit to make it about a fictional regime with a short leader.

No. Sony and Rogen had plenty of wit—they had the wit to skewer a living, breathing thug who’s starving his own people.

Kurtz misunderstands completely. The quality of the movie, the degree of its comedy, are wholly irrelevant. Folks like Kim “Bébé Doc” Jong-un are exactly the ones who need to be called out, satirized, ridiculed, caviled, and by name.

The point of free speech, the reason it’s at the center of liberty, is to allow men to speak their minds on any subject—especially including calling out, to facilitate their removal, political thugs.

Sony’s unforgivable blunder was not in making a movie but in collapsing into their fetal ball in the face of some threats.

Is Sony Dissembling?

President Barack Obama said Sony “made a mistake” when they decided not to release their movie in surrender to northern Korea’s hacker threats.

Sony had this in response to Obama’s recognition:

Let us be clear: the only decision that we have made with respect to release of the film was not to release it on Christmas Day in theaters, after the theater owners declined to show it. Without theaters, we could not release it in the theaters on Christmas Day. We had no choice.

Let me be clear: releasing the movie and theaters then showing it (or not) are two different things. Sony “leadership” knows this full well. Sony easily could have released the movie. Some theaters might have shown it, others might not (and several major ones had, in fact, chickened out and said they wouldn’t show it), but absent the release, no theater has the opportunity to show the movie.

Sony had a choice.

Update: Sony has backtracked its backtracking, and it has released its movie this Christmas to some 300 theaters in the US, and it’s streaming the movie online via Google Play, YouTube Movies, Microsoft’s Xbox Video and its own website, http://www.seetheinterview.com.

Sony’s Fold

Sony made a movie about two journalists scoring an interview with northern Korea’s Bébé Doc, Kim Jong-un, the CIA convincing the journalists to assassinate Kim, and the comedic aspects of such a thing.

This offended Baby Kim and his sycophants, and they threatened mayhem against Sony’s executives and those US movie theaters with the temerity to show the movie.

Rather than letting us Americans make up our own minds about whether to go see the movie, rather than letting movie theater managers determine for themselves whether to show the movie (some had), those threatened Sony executives collapsed like yesterday’s tissue and made the executive decision to not release the movie at all.

This decision can’t even be masqueraded as empathizing with our enemies.

This abject, craven surrender by Sony executives can only encourage terrorists: make threats, get their way. This abject, craven surrender by Sony executives has exposed American companies and American citizens to further terrorist extortion and mayhem.

Way to go, Sony. I’ve lost interest in any more of your movies.