Archives for category: Freedom of Speech

It has often been said that the true test of free speech is whether you protect the speech you disagree with. Popular speech does not need protection. Dissent does.

David French is a senior writer at the National Review and a military veteran. He wrote this article for The New York Times. It is titled “Conservatives Fail the NFL’s Free Speech Test.”

I love this article.


The United States is in the grips of a free-speech paradox. At the same time that the law provides more protection to personal expression than at any time in the nation’s history, large numbers of Americans feel less free to speak. The culprit isn’t government censorship but instead corporate, community and peer intimidation.

Conservatives can recite the names of the publicly shamed from memory. There was Brendan Eich, hounded out of Mozilla for donating to a California ballot initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. There was James Damore, abruptly terminated from Google after he wrote an essay attributing the company’s difficulty in attracting female software engineers more to biology and free choice than to systemic discrimination. On campus, the list is as long and grows longer every semester.

It is right to decry this culture of intolerance and advocate for civility and engagement instead of boycotts and reprisals. The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship. Take that message to the heartland, and conservatives cheer.

Until, that is, Colin Kaepernick chose to kneel. Until, that is, the president demanded that the N.F.L. fire the other players who picked up on his protest after he was essentially banished from the league.

That was when the conservative mob called for heads to roll. Conform or face the consequences.

On Wednesday, the mob won. The N.F.L. announced its anthem rules for 2018, and the message was clear: Respect the flag by standing for the national anthem or stay in the locker room. If you break the rules and kneel, your team can be fined for your behavior.

This isn’t a “middle ground,” as the N.F.L. claims. It’s not a compromise. It’s corporate censorship backed up with a promise of corporate punishment. It’s every bit as oppressive as the campus or corporate attacks on expression that conservatives rightly decry.

But this is different, they say. This isn’t about politics. It’s about the flag.

I agree. It is different. Because it’s about the flag, the censorship is even worse.

One of the most compelling expressions of America’s constitutional values is contained in Justice Robert Jackson’s 1943 majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. At the height of World War II, two sisters, both Jehovah’s Witnesses, challenged the state’s mandate that they salute the flag in school. America was locked in a struggle for its very existence. The outcome was in doubt. National unity was essential.

But even in the darkest days of war, the court wrote liberating words that echo in legal history: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Make no mistake, I want football players to stand for the anthem. I want them to respect the flag. As a veteran of the war in Iraq, I’ve saluted that flag in foreign lands and deployed with it proudly on my uniform. But as much as I love the flag, I love liberty even more.

The N.F.L. isn’t the government. It has the ability to craft the speech rules its owners want. So does Google. So does Mozilla. So does Yale. American citizens can shame whomever they want to shame.

But what should they do? Should they use their liberty to punish dissent? Or should a free people protect a culture of freedom?

In our polarized times, I’ve adopted a simple standard, a civil liberties corollary to the golden rule: Fight for the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself. Do you want corporations obliterating speech the state can’t touch? Do you want the price of participation in public debate to include the fear of lost livelihoods? Then, by all means, support the N.F.L. Cheer Silicon Valley’s terminations. Join the boycotts and shame campaigns. Watch this country’s culture of liberty wither in front of your eyes.

The vice president tweeted news of the N.F.L.’s new policy and called it “#Winning.” He’s dead wrong. It diminishes the marketplace of ideas. It mocks the convictions of his fellow citizens. And it divides in the name of a false, coerced uniformity. Writing in the Barnette decision, Justice Jackson wisely observed, “As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be.”

The N.F.L. should let players kneel. If it lets them kneel, it increases immeasurably the chances that when they do rise, they will rise with respect and joy, not fear and resentment. That’s the “winning” America needs.

E.J. Dionne writes here about the lessons of Memorial Day for NFL owners, who have agreed that their players are not allowed to “take a knee” when the National Anthem is sung to protest police brutality, although it is allowed in the privacy of the locker room.

It is, unfortunately, appropriate that the National Football League’s owners decided to issue their rule attacking free expression the week before Memorial Day.

A holiday dedicated to those who gave their lives for our nation’s freedom has itself been mired in political controversy almost from the beginning. The latest round of posturing and pandering around patriotism should not surprise us.

Samuel Johnson saw patriotism as “the last refuge of a scoundrel.” Let’s qualify that. An honest love of country is a virtue, not a vice. And nothing should sully the honor of the men and women whose sacrifices make it possible for us to speak and worship freely, and to exercise democratic control over our government.

Nonetheless, Johnson was onto something, because patriotism often is manipulated in the name of power, advantage and, in the case of the NFL’s wealthy overseers, money. And the contested history of Memorial Day is a story not only of innocent local pride but also of political and cultural clashes.

It took until 1966 for Congress to grant official recognition to Waterloo, N.Y. — it first decorated the graves of Union soldiers on May 5, 1866 — as the originator of the holiday.

But there are many other claims. The great Civil War historian James McPherson told the story of a Northern abolitionist who traveled to Charleston, S.C., to organize schools for freed slaves. On May 1, 1865, a year before Waterloo, he led a group of black children to a cemetery for Union soldiers “to scatter flowers on their graves.”

In the meantime, Southern women began organizing ceremonies for those who died doing battle for secession, culminating in the practice of Confederate Memorial Days. Gen. John A. Logan, the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, the politically influential Union veterans group, is widely credited with taking the holiday national. He called on the GAR’s posts to hold decoration rites on May 30, 1868, for those who died to keep the country together. By 1891, every Northern state had established May 30 as a holiday.

It’s no shock that the holiday’s many currents of regional and racial tension rose to the surface during President Barack Obama’s time in office. In 2009, a group of scholars, including McPherson, wrote Obama, urging him to abandon the practice that began with President Woodrow Wilson of sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery.

As was his way, Obama responded with what he hoped would be unifying gestures. He lay the traditional wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, had a wreath delivered to the Confederate Memorial and became the first president to send one as well to the African American Civil War Memorial in Washington . It commemorates the service of more than 200,000 people of color who fought for the Union.

Oh, yes, and in 2010, when Obama chose to honor the war dead in Chicago, some of his conservative critics intimated he was the only president not to lay a Memorial Day wreath at Arlington.

That was flatly untrue. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and others had all been elsewhere on Memorial Day at least once during their terms.

So phony claims and nasty innuendo built around imagined sins against patriotism and our veterans predate President Trump. But Trump’s attacks on NFL players who have knelt during the national anthem to protest police brutality and racial injustice represent a particularly vile effort to mobilize political support by implying that the dissenting athletes, most of them black, lack a devotion to country.

The privileged NFL owners chose to capitulate to this divisive propaganda. The anthem at the heart of this discussion celebrates our country as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Yet the owners’ action is the opposite of bravery and a blow to freedom. Many on the right have spoken out forcefully for free speech on college campuses. But do they now propose to turn stadiums into “safe spaces” where conservatives deny others the liberties they claim for themselves? (And kudos to conservative writer and Iraq War vet David French for calling out this contradiction.)

Democrats fret that even engaging with Trump on all of this risks placing progressives on the wrong side of patriotism. But the history of Memorial Day should teach us that the meaning of our patriotism has long been a matter of necessary struggle.

We should not let the divider in the Oval Office keep us from joining together in profound appreciation of our fallen. They perished under a flag that represents “liberty and justice for all.” The living cannot surrender either of these commitments.

Just in:

 

From: NYSEDP12 <NYSEDP12@nysed.gov>
Date: March 15, 2018 at 6:05:57 PM EDT
To: NYSEDP12 <NYSEDP12@nysed.gov>
Subject: Advisory Regarding School Walkouts

Colleagues,

Over the past several days, the New York State Board of Regents, Chancellor Rosa and Commissioner Elia have publicly expressed our support for New York State’s students who express themselves through free speech. We again commend students for seizing this moment to exhibit true leadership.

We are mindful and supportive of the importance of local control, and note in this regard that school districts’ codes of conduct should address situations such as school walkouts, providing for students’ right to speech, and these codes should be followed. We also remind you that a process exists through which aggrieved parents and guardians may appeal disciplinary actions taken against their students to the Commissioner of Education pursuant to Education Law section 310. Information on that process is available on NYSED’s website at: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/appeals.

Thank you for your work to ensure that our schools are safe and supportive environments for students, and for including their voices in this meaningful and important dialogue.

Thank you,

Chancellor Rosa and the New York State Board of Regents

Commissioner Elia

Confidentiality Notice
This email including all attachments is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is protected from disclosure under State and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this communication in error and delete this email from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

 

Apparently there are places in the U.S. that never heard of the First Amendment and its guarantee of freedom of speech. Vermillion Parish in Louisiana is one of them. A teacher was arrested for speaking out against the renewal of the superintendent’s contract. Probably, if she were a parent, no one would have touched her. But she was a teacher and she was treated like dirt.

I hope the NEA, the AFT, the ACLU, or some other group hires a lawyer for her.

“The Vermilion Parish School Board is comprised of eight members. For the better part of two years, four members were in favor of renewing Puyau’s contract and four were against. On November 20th of last year, one of the board members against the contract renewal, Luddy Herpin, passed away. The board president, Anthony Fontana, took advantage of the situation and brought an interim member who would support the contract before the board for approval to fill the seat until an election can be held. The appointment passed with a 4/3 vote.

“On January 8, 2018, the board held a special meeting to vote on the contract renewal and provide Puyau with a $38,000 raise. The teachers of Vermilion Parish filled the room in opposition. The teachers of this parish have not received a raise in ten years. Puyau was hired as superintendent in 2012; however, the district has maintained a rating of B, or above, since the inception of the school grading system.

“One of the teachers present, Deyshia Hargrave, was given permission to speak to the board on the issue. After she finished speaking, she sat down. Chatter and protests could be heard among the board members and the attendees. At some point, President Fontana addresses Hargrave, who is seated to his right, directly. She stands to respond. Fontana is distracted by the increased chatter to his left and comments to the effect that things are getting out of hand. At that exact moment, the City Marshall officer on duty enters the room. Seeing Hargrave standing and speaking, he approaches her and asks her to leave. In disbelief that she is being asked to leave while responding to a question directed at her, Hargrave initially resists. After realizing what is going on, she walks out of the room, and into the hallway, with the officer where he pushes her to the floor and handcuffs her.

“Meanwhile, this publicly elected board sits quietly and allows this to happen not only to a taxpaying citizen engaged in a public meeting, but a teacher employed in their district who is calmly explaining why the raise is opposed.”

One of our readers called Threatened Out West told us that schools cannot force students to participate in patriotic exercises, based on a court case from the 1940s. He/she was right.

TOW wrote:

“I know that it’s not quite the same situation, but is this even legal?

“Legally, schools CANNOT force students to stand or pledge. See West Virginia v. Barnette: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

“So would this be the same for the National Anthem?”

This item appeared in Politico.

“KNEELING UNDER FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS: As President Donald Trump has escalated a war with the NFL during the past week, student athletes may be tempted to also take a knee in protest on the football field tonight – and they have a constitutionally protected right to do so. Despite that, at least one school district has attempted to curb protests by threatening punishments ranging from extra running during practice to being kicked off the team, drawing the attention of the ACLU (and many people on Twitter and Facebook).

“- All high school principals in Bossier Parish in Louisiana are sending letters to student athletes and their families “making their expectations known as it pertains to proper decorum when the National Anthem is played at sporting events,” Sonja Bailes, a district spokeswoman, told Morning Education. Superintendent Scott Smith said in a statement: “In Bossier Parish, we believe when a student chooses to join and participate on a team, the players and coaches should stand when our National Anthem is played in a show of respect.” He added, “It is a choice for students to participate in extracurricular activities, not a right, and we at Bossier Schools feel strongly that our teams and organizations should stand in unity to honor our nation’s military and veterans.”

“- The directive was sent “in light of the national conversation currently taking place,” Smith said. Trump has been at war with the NFL, where players have chosen to kneel during the anthem – first to protest police brutality and racial injustice, and increasingly as a response to the president’s calls for them to be fired. Trump has said team owners should force players to stand for the anthem, and fire them if they don’t. We have the full story here.

“- The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate” – and that extends to the football field, Frank LoMonte told Morning Education. LoMonte is the director of the University of Florida’s Brechner Center for Freedom of Information and the former director of the Student Press Law Center. School officials can only limit speech if it’s impeding the school’s ability to conduct business by causing a substantial disruption – something that would be very difficult to prove at a sporting event, he said.

“- “In a classroom, we expect everyone to stay silently in a seat, but in the stadium, there are people turning cartwheels and doing backflips on the sidelines, there are people waving banners and painting their faces, there are people getting up to buy hot dogs and talking on their cellphones,” LoMonte said. “In that atmosphere, it would be exceptionally challenging to say that a silent display of dissent is a substantial disruption.”

“- The principal of Parkway High School in Bossier Parish wrote in a letter that the school “requires student athletes to stand in a respectful manner” during the anthem, and that those who don’t comply could be kicked off the team. A picture of the letter was posted to Twitter by Shaun King of the Intercept and was retweeted thousands of times. Another district official told the Shreveport Times that potential punishments range from “extra running to a one-game suspension.” The school’s Facebook page was flooded with angry comments, as well.

“- The ACLU of Louisiana issued a statement calling the Bossier Parish school officials’ threats to punish students who protest “antithetical to our values as Americans and a threat to students’ constitutional rights.” Marjorie Esman, the executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, told Morning Education in an interview that “the Supreme Court has been very clear that schools, government officials, cannot suppress a student’s right to protest – even on a team, even during a game. To refuse to salute the flag, say the pledge, all of those thing – they are protected by the United States Constitution.”

Question: do students in schools have rights that athletes in pre-game ceremonies do not have?

museum

Sound familiar?

Read it again.

Think about it.

Which side are you on?

Snopes says the poster was once available in the gift shop of the Holocaust Museum.

Snopes says:

The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of the list often attribute it to “Dr. Laurence Britt,” the author said that he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accurately described as an amateur historian

It quotes this note about the poster:

Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini’s Italy, Francisco Franco’s Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar’s Portual, George Papadopoulos’s Greece, August Pinochet’s Chile, Mohamed Suharto’s Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can!

This is a sordid story with a happy ending. It tells how the deep-pocketed charter industry tried to silence and discredit a scholar who disagreed with them. The story appears in the Nonprofit Quarterly.

Professor Julia Sass Rubin is an associate professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. She has researched charter schools in New Jersey, and one of her studies concluded that charter schools in the state were not serving the same demographic as public schools. She is also an active leader in the Save Our Schools New Jersey organization.

The New Jersey Charter Schools Association did not like her research. They particularly did not like a study she published in October 2014, demonstrating that charter schools enrolled smaller numbers of students with disabilities, English language learners, and poor children as compared with the public schools in the same school district.

They might have challenged her to a debate. They didn’t. They might have published a response, challenging her facts. They didn’t.

Instead the New Jersey Charter Schools Association registered complaints against her with the New Jersey State Ethics Commission charging that she had violated the state’s Conflict of Interest Law and its Uniform Ethics Code. It also complained to Rutgers University that she had violated the Rutgers Code and Policies for faculty employees.

In other words, they sought to destroy her reputation and her career.

The state board of ethics made no ruling. The university reported that there was no evidence for the charges against Professor Rubin. She was vindicated but it took two years.

Professor Rubin was the intended victim of a SLAPP lawsuit. This is defined in Wikipedia as:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

“The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.”

As Martin Levine writes in TNQ, more was at stake than Professor Rubin’s reputation.

“This story came to a happy end. After the state board made no finding, the university found none of the allegations were supported by the evidence. Yet, this remains a cautionary tale. The ease with which political opponents can make the debate personal can have a very chilling effect.

“We ended our piece two years ago with a challenge to others to speak out in defense of free, fact-based speech: “We’re waiting for state and national nonprofit associations to speak out against this travesty, as they should, and stand up for the core nonprofit value of free speech.” While Professor Rubin’s reputation and ability to freely go on with her important work has been upheld, it is more important than ever for others to speak loudly. As we see scientists removed from advisory panels and facts that don’t support political beliefs discarded, the collective voice is still critical.”

For her refusal to be intimidated, for defending the rights of others to write and speak without fear, I add Julia Sass Rubin to the honor roll of this blog. She really should be honored by the American Association of Universities, the ACLU, People for the American Way, and others who are passionate about protecting our freedoms.

Shades of McCarthyism. The principal of a small high school in Brooklyn is under investigation after someone tipped off the Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations that she might be a Communist.

“It was early March when a representative from the New York City Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations sat down with Jill Bloomberg, the longtime principal of Park Slope Collegiate in Brooklyn, a combined middle and high school, to inform her that she was under investigation.

“The representative told Ms. Bloomberg that she could not tell her the nature of any allegations, nor who had made them, but said that she would need to interview Ms. Bloomberg’s staff.

“Then one of her assistant principals, who had met with an investigator, revealed to her exactly what the allegation was, one that seemed a throwback to another era: Communist organizing.

“I think I just said, ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. This is something O.S.I. investigates?’” Ms. Bloomberg said, using an abbreviation for the Office of Special Investigations. “I mean, what decade are we living in?”
But after the initial shock, she said she realized she had been waiting for something like this to happen for a long time.

“Over the years, Ms. Bloomberg has become one of the most outspoken and visible critics of New York City’s public schools, regularly castigating the Education Department’s leadership at forums and in the news media. Most of her criticism is aimed at actions that she says perpetuate a segregated and unequal educational system and that penalize black and Latino students. Through the years, she has helped organize protests and assemblies to push for integration and equal resources and treatment for her almost entirely black and Latino student body.

“Last Friday, Ms. Bloomberg filed a lawsuit against the school system saying it violated her rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects an individual’s civil rights and the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Ms. Bloomberg was seeking an injunction to stop the investigation until her lawsuit is resolved.”

Do employees of the New York City Department of Education have freedom of speech?

More on this subject: See here.

PEN International represents artists and writers around the world. I am a member. It advocates for freedom of expression. It recently issued this condemnation of Trump’s travel ban.

https://pen.org/interrogation-us-border/

It begins like this:

“The Trump Administration’s draconian immigration policies, from the Muslim ban to the deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers of hard-working parents who have no criminal record and young adults who know no other home, have drawn widespread criticism and protest.

“In addition to these heart-wrenching, horrifying stories, more and more reports are emerging of travelers—including U.S. citizens returning home—being subjected to aggressive interrogations at the border that leave them humiliated, angry, and bewildered. Several prominent writers have spoken out in recent weeks about such experiences, which have altered their views of the United States and what it stands for.

“The bestselling children’s book author Mem Fox, an Australian citizen, was detained in late February at the Los Angeles International Airport while en route to a conference in Milwaukee. She was detained for nearly two hours by Customs and Border Patrol officials who reportedly believed she was traveling on the wrong visa, although Fox says she has traveled to the U.S. over 100 times before without any incident. Her interrogation was so aggressive that she said she “felt like I had been physically assaulted.” Fox, whose most recent book I’m Australian, Too is a celebration of immigration and Australia’s multicultural heritage, eventually received an apology from the U.S. embassy in Australia. But in reflecting on her ordeal, she emphasized its broader ramifications, noting, “They made me feel like such a crushed, mashed, hopeless old lady and I am a feisty, strong, articulated English speaker. I kept thinking that if this were happening to me, a person who is white, articulate, educated, and fluent in English, what on earth is happening to people who don’t have my power?”

“Also in late February, Henry Rousso, a celebrated French historian of the Holocaust who was born and raised in Egypt, was detained for 10 hours at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Rousso, author of The Vichy Syndrome, about France’s struggle to reckon with its World War II history, was traveling to a symposium at Texas A&M University. Border officials questioned him about his visa and accused him of attempting to work illegally in the U.S. Rousso was first told that he would be deported, but was eventually released after Texas A&M learned of the situation and intervened. Like Mem Fox, Rousso’s experience has altered his view of the United States, as he wrote:

This incident has caused me some discomfort, but I cannot stop thinking of all those who suffer these humiliations and legal violence without the protections I was able to benefit from. …How can one explain this zeal if not by the concern to fulfill quotas and justify increased controls? That is the situation today in this country. We must now face arbitrariness and incompetence at all levels. I heard recently that “Paris isn’t Paris anymore.” The United States seems no longer quite the United States.

“Aaron Gach, an American media artist and founder of the Center for Tactical Magic, contacted PEN after he was detained on February 23 on his return home to San Francisco from an art show in Brussels. Gach was subjected to detailed questioning regarding an art exhibition in which he had participated in Belgium, including questions about why he was invited, who invited him, and how often he takes part in such exhibits. Gach’s pieces included in the exhibition focused on issues related to incarceration in the United States; he is unsure whether he was detained in connection with his work. Gach was repeatedly asked to allow CPB agents access to his personal phone by turning it over and providing his password; when he finally agreed, the phone was removed from his sight for several minutes before being returned to him.

“In the wake of reports like these and the expectation that a new travel ban will be issued at any moment, PEN America is hearing from artists, writers, poets, and other cultural and intellectual figures who are newly worried about making trips to the U.S., afraid of being turned away at the border, made to submit to invasive searches of their smartphones, interrogated about their political opinions and religious beliefs, or being subjected to arbitrary tests of their abilities. In a few short weeks, a pervasive fog of fear has encircled our borders, and it will deter countless people from even attempting to visit the country….”

Cedar Riener is a professor of psychology at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia. In this post, he debates the dilemmas of free speech. What stance do you take when confronting fascists? Do you ignore those who bully the vulnerable in public? He uses the example of a rightwing provocateur who humiliates a transgender student at the University of Wisconsin by displaying photographs of her as part of a public lecture. Should hate speech be protected? Should incitement to violence be protected?

These are issues that once seemed antique. They no longer are.

As a reader pointed out recently, I wrote a book called “The Language Police,” which is a strong affirmation of free speech. I believe in the free marketplace of ideas. But, as this angry reader told me, I block content on this blog that uses certain four-letter words, that insults me, and that I find offensive. I am walking a fine line here.

Cedar Riener tries to redefine the line. We are in new times. Should we protect the speech of fascists? Racists? Misogynists? Issues we once thought were settled no longer are.