Many on this list were just heckled, which I agree is in poor taste but is not the same as disinviting.
This said, I'm ready to admit that this PC business and all these talks of 'micro-aggressions' have gone way too far. PC is all about repressing free speech, when you think of it.
I knew it was a monstrous joke when you French gave the US the statue of liberty.
You were already around, and passionately anti-american by the end of the 19th century, JTT? What pact with the devil have you made?
There were actually "people" who gave you thumbs up for such a childish response, Olivier. Why can't you and your hangers on illustrate intellectual honesty?
It would be the protesters and/or counter-protesters who would potentially endanger the security. Some of the lecturers that I've heard about have offered to pay for security and get certification of security plans from local police. Ben Shapiro specifically comes to mind.
You can't even see what a stunning hypocrite you are, maporsche, running around making grand pretense that you believe in free speech when all you and your cohorts do is try to stifle free speech.
You are like children with your cat calling. Why not try being adults and addressing the facts, the truth, reality?
You don't like being laughed at, I guess. And yet you keep calling for it.
there is no such thing as complete freedom of speech. every organization has rules of what is acceptable to air on their organizational site both physically and electronically. violence, discrimination and obscenity is not allowed by the majority of organizations.
Supreme Court decisions could curb campus censorship
By Fred Lucas | Fox News
UC Berkeley conservative students face threats of violence
Dodging insults to defending against violent attacks, students at UC Berkeley open up about the dangers and fears of being conservative on a campus famous for its liberal culture.
Recent First Amendment rulings by the Supreme Court could force courts and university administrators to take a closer look at controversial practices that have marginalized certain political views – often conservative ones – on campus.
Free speech on campus has emerged as a hot debate in recent years, amid a rash of speakers being disinvited or violently protested. These issues are often handled in-house – but now, the courts could hold sway.
“We should expect college campuses to truly be marketplaces of ideas where students learn to value free speech and open inquiry and take that lesson with them as they become the next generation of judges, legislators, teachers and voters,” Casey Mattox, senior fellow for free speech and toleration at the libertarian Charles Koch Institute, told Fox News.
One key ruling could be in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, which struck a direct blow to public-employee unions by holding government workers don’t have to pay certain fees to labor groups.
But it included a free-speech component that could have a ripple effect on campus.
Liberty Justice Center Senior Fellow Mark Janus on the fallout from the Supreme Court's ruling on union dues.
Most public universities require students to pay student activity fees, which in some cases support lopsided politics, according to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a campus free speech legal group.
The Supreme Court had rejected a 2000 challenge to such fees, determining a school could require students to pay for the expression of views with which they disagree, as long as the university doesn’t engage in viewpoint discrimination when allocating funds. However, the Janus decision more broadly prevents forcing one person to pay for someone else’s political expression.
Mattox argued schools may have to then take a close look at whether their student fees are used in a partisan way. Ironically, cracking down on these fees could free up student groups to bring more speakers onto campus – in turn, representing a more diverse set of views.
“Currently, many universities limit student group fundraising and prohibit dues – essentially requiring groups to be funded from these mandatory fees,” said Mattox, also the former senior counsel for academic freedom at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty group. “If student groups could raise their own funds for speakers and have members pay dues, they could fund their own speakers even without mandatory dues.”
Public universities have long made news for blocking speakers, mostly from the right, such as Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager and Ann Coulter -- but also some on the left including Bill Maher and William Ayers. FIRE, the legal group, even assembled a “Disinvitation Database” of blocked speakers.
Similar to Janus, other recent cases don’t directly speak to campus free speech, but could establish new precedents, Mattox said.
The Supreme Court, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, struck down a Minnesota law that prevented anyone in close proximity of a polling place from wearing certain political-oriented clothing and apparel. The high court held the Minnesota law gave too much discretion to the interpretation of a polling worker or election judge. But, it said states can regulate expression near polling places if it is “guided by objective, workable standards.”This could push public universities and colleges to set more finite guidelines to determine how student fees are spent to avoid viewpoint discrimination, Mattox said.
“The Mansky decision means that universities will need to guarantee they have systems in place to prevent discrimination against student groups seeking recognition, funding, or to reserve meeting space,” Mattox said.
The states of Missouri, Arizona, Virginia, Utah, Colorado and Tennessee, North Carolina and Wisconsin all passed free speech laws for college campuses, according to an American Association of University Professor report in April. Most of these laws prohibit limiting speech to free speech zones and bars viewpoint discrimination.
However, the AAUP opposes these laws and proposals.
New survey shows dip in number of schools restricting free speech.
“Even if the current political environment poses significant problems for free speech, the view that the free exchange of ideas no longer occurs on campuses is grossly exaggerated,” the AAUP’s April report concludes. “Many of the most difficult issues surrounding free speech at present are about balancing unobstructed dialogue with the need to make all constituencies on campus feel included.”
The Supreme Court, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, also struck down a California law regulating professional speech by requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to provide information on abortion. Mattox anticipates this could impact how certain professional schools and university degree programs have used professional ethics codes as speech codes for students.
Casey Mattox, senior fellow for free speech and toleration at the libertarian Charles Koch Institute, told Fox News.
How much free speech does Charles Koch allow among his employees or people protesting Koch Industries lack of concern for the environment?
this season's debate was just announced
Steve Bannon will take centre stage in Toronto at the November Munk Debate, days after being dropped from the New Yorker magazine’s festival.
U.S. President Trump’s former White House chief strategist will debate Atlantic senior editor David Frum at the prestigious debate on Nov. 2 at Roy Thomson Hall, organizers announced Wednesday.
should be interesting
Atlantic senior editor David Frum
Oh great, the rank propagandist for the war criminal Bush cabal is going to debate in Canada when he should be sharing a cell with the folks whose appendages he was sucking.
In spite of Bannon chats being cancelled at a number of other events recently, the Munk Debate went ahead.
I'll definitely listen when it's broadcast (it was streamed live on FB last night) on the CBC.
the CPAC stream on youtube
if interested, I'd suggest watching it sooner rather than later as the Munk Debates don't tend to hang around free for long (n.b. there is a closed captioning option)
Before the debate, 28% of people supported Bannon, and 72% of people supported Frum. After the debate, 28% of people supported Bannon, and 72% of people supported Frum.
No one changed their mind at all.
I watched a chunk of this debate.
I thought David Frum did a great job, and that Bannon looked like a stumbling fool. At one point Bannon bragged that Brexit won by some percentage and that Trump won 301 electoral votes... the crowd laughed and his face indicated he understood he just lost the point.
I am on the side of David Frum (for the most part). I think that having this type of debate is great. It is good for society, and for the people who attend. The protesters trying to scream it down are being ridiculous.
Good little interview with David Frum on As It Happens tonight
10 minutes so not a hard listen
But Bannon wasn't the sole target of the protests. Frum, too, is a controversial figure.
As a former speechwriter for ex-U.S. president George W. Bush, he helped coin some of the key language used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the war on terror.
He says he has no regrets about that either.
"I am not a believer in expressing regrets for things because you have to live with the action of what you've done. I was a supporter of the Iraq war. I was a supporter of the Bush presidency. That's part of the writing that I've put on my time and place, and it's part of my story," he said.
"And when you evaluate me, you have to evaluate my story in full."
I was/am an enormous fan of David Frum's mother. She was a terrific journalist. She laughed a lot but she was also a pitbull interviewer. I think she'd be proud of how he owns all that he has done.
Apparently no one has been able to determine if the 28% at the beginning is the same 28% at the end. Kinda like thumbs here