Taxi drivers ordered to remove the Cross of St George from their cabs

Taxi drivers ordered to remove the Cross of St George from their cabs

Over at the Express, a really quite disgraceful story. Apparently, taxi passengers in Southampton had complained foreign drivers could not understand English. So a group of drivers put St George’s Cross stickers in their cars, bearing the slogan “English Speaking Driver”.
Southampton Council has called them racists, and said that they will remove their licences.

Read The rest Here

Obama May Censor ’Net In Effort to Shut Down ‘Conspiracy Theorists’

By Victor Thorn

Big Brother is running scared, and it’s the double-edged sword of technology that pursues him. Most certainly science can be used to control, but just as powerfully it can be utilized to expose. That’s why the moneyed elite have historically been so horrified of allowing information to be freely released to the masses, and why they so desperately try to conceal it.

The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once propounded, “Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy—censorship. When any government or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression.”

Read The Rest Here

The Joke Ban

by Mike Adams




The University of Northern Colorado (UNCO) has decided it's time to prohibit "Bias Motivated Incidents." When you hear about a "bias motivated incident," maybe you're thinking about a cross burning, or something of that nature. But at UNCO the "bias motivated incident" could simply be an "inappropriate joke" that is motivated by some form of bias.

The UNCO policy also says that "Any discriminatory act is a violation of the Housing & Residence Life Student Code of Conduct." Well, what do they mean by "any discriminatory act"? According to the UNCO handbook this includes, but is not limited to, "racism, ageism, sexism, and/or homophobia." And (get ready for this!) included in the definition is "intentionally, recklessly or negligently causing physical, emotional, or mental harm to any person."

In my view, there are at least three fundamental dangers associated with the UNCO speech code.

Read The Rest Here

Why free speech advocates are angry

by Mark Bauerlein

Sometimes people who don't work in academia wonder why colleges are often the object of debates over free speech. Sure, some observers know that campuses are liberal enclaves, and they regard professors and administrators as easily intimidated by identity politics. But most people remember their college days as pretty much apolitical, and they continue to put the ideological elements in a small box.

That's why it's important to go back to the sources and hold them up to public scrutiny. Take campus speech codes. They have a bad name in public life, but they stand firm in student handbooks and campus policies in black and white. Here is a list of some of them, all taken from the list assembled by Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (www.thefire.org). (Some of them may have been altered by now, but the fact that they ever existed is sufficient cause for response.)

Read The Rest Here

UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.

Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

Two officers corralled the film crew and one officer can be seen on tape threatening the cameraman. The Guard can also be heard warning that if the crew did not stop filming their would seize the equipment and the journalists expelled from the conference.

McAleer says he has made an official complaint tabout the incident.

“I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.”

“This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC.”

Professor Schneider was interviewed for McAleer’s “Not Evil Just Wrong” documentary but lawyers later wrote to McAleer saying he was withdrawing permission for the interview to be used.

McAleer, who is from Ireland, has gained quite a reputation for asking difficult questions of those who have been promoting the idea of man-made Global Warming.

His microphone was cut off after he asked former vice-president Al Gore about the British court case which found that An Inconvenient Truth had a nine significant errors and exaggerations. Almost 500,000 people have watched the incident on youtube.

Source: Big Government

I Guess We Fought the Nazis so that Someday We Could Emulate Them…

Posted by David Kramer on December 10, 2009 09:18 PM

…at least according to the twisted mind of Nobel “Peace” Prize winner (and former Nazi concentration camp prisoner) Elie Wiesel.

WIESEL TO HUNGARY: MAKE HOLOCAUST DENIAL ILLEGAL

Elie Wiesel urged Hungary’s leaders to do more to combat racism and anti-Semitism, and also to consider banning Holocaust denial…”I urge you to do even more to denounce anti-Semitic elements and racist expressions in your political environment and in certain publications,” the 81-year-old Holocaust survivor and human rights activist said. “I believe that they bring shame to your nation, and they bring fear to its Jewish community and other minorities, such as the Roma.”

He added, “I ask you, why don’t you follow the example of France and Germany and declare Holocaust denial not only indecent but illegal? In those countries, Holocaust deniers go to jail.” [Emphasis mine]

Read The Rest Here

Help draft the “Internet Bill of Rights”

Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström is drafting an Internet Bill of Rights for introduction into the European Parliament, and he’s seeking your advice on the language:

I will give a first draft of an answer to the first question: What sections should be in the Internet Bill of Rights?1. Fundamental rights. The European Convention on Human Rights should be respected on the net as well, including Article 8 (the right to privacy) and Article 10 (information freedom).

Read The rest Here

Report Shows 70% of California Public Universities Violate Free Speech Laws

Yee: Report Highlights Need to Continue Efforts to Protect Student Speech Rights

California State Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D

While California may lead the nation in providing legal protections for student speech rights, a report released today showed nearly 70 percent of our public universities are violating state law or the US Constitution through policies restricting free expression.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted a rigorous study of restrictions on speech at America's colleges and universities. Within California, ten California State University campuses and five University of California campuses received a "red light" rating, meaning the schools have at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech in violation of law.

"It is certainly disheartening that rather than serving as public forums of free expression, many of our public universities are restricting speech and violating state law and the Constitution," said Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). "This report clearly highlights the need to continue our efforts in protecting student speech rights and prohibiting retaliation against students, faculty and workers."

"Shockingly, FIRE's research demonstrates that a majority of California's public universities are restricting student speech protected by both the Constitution and state law," said Will Creeley, FIRE's Director of Legal and Public Advocacy. "If challenged in court, these policies will fall. The fifteen UC and CSU campuses earning a 'red light' rating from FIRE should consider themselves on notice."

Yee has authored two laws to protect such rights at California campuses. AB 2581 (2006) made California the first state in the nation to specifically prohibit censorship of college student press and explicitly granted free speech rights to students. SB 1370 (2008) further protects school employees from retaliation for assisting students in exercising such speech rights.

One of the more egregious violations has taken place at Southwestern College, a community college in Chula Vista. Campus administrators deemed the entire public campus a censorship zone except for a narrowly defined area referred to by FIRE as a "free speech patio." FIRE has referred to the policy as "utterly indefensible."

San Francisco State University also had policies that attempted to restrict student speech activity to narrowly defined "public forum areas," as well as prohibited distribution of literature to the "Student Union Plaza behind the blue lines marked on the pavement" and required students to "obtain authorization from the Student Activities Office."

Earlier this year, a student club at UC Berkeley faced a $3,200 security fee to host a controversial speech about the Arab-Israeli conflict. In clear violation of a Supreme Court decision, students were told that uniformed officers would be required for the event because of the subject matter of the presentation. As a result of public criticism and possible legal action, university officials withdrew the unlawful security fee.

To read the full report titled "Spotlight on Speech Codes 2010: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation's Campuses," visit www.thefire.org. FIRE works to protect fundamental rights on campus including the freedom of speech and expression; religious liberty and freedom of association; freedom of conscience; and due process and legal equality.

For his efforts to protect student speech rights, Senator Yee has been honored with several awards including the Freedom of Information Award by the California Newspaper Publishers Association; Distinguished Service to Journalism Education Award by the Journalism Association of Community Colleges; Champion of Journalism Education Award by the California Journalism Education Coalition; Beacon Award by the First Amendment Coalition; and the Friend of Scholastic Journalism Award by the Journalism Education Association

Source: FIRE

“Free” Country Criminalizing Thought?

“Will Congress Criminalize Anti-Semitism and Israeli Criticism? – by Stephen Lendman

In the current climate, perhaps given:

– America’s police state laws;

– no due process or judicial fairness for any state target;

– mass illegal surveillance;

– targeting dissent; and

– the power of the Israeli Lobby over Congress, the media, academia, the clergy, and most anyone confronting them.

During Israel’s war on Gaza, only 5 of 535 congressional members dissented on pro-Israeli resolutions.

On January 8, 2009, the Senate unanimously passed S 10: “A resolution recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process.”

On January 9, the House, by a 390 – 5 vote, passed HR 34 “Recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian (no peace) peace process.” More on this below.

Then on October 28, Obama signed the expanded 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act, some call a stealth war on free expression and civil liberties. More on this as well.

Also consider events in Canada, initiated by a body called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA), a voluntary association of 22 MPs investigating anti-semitism because, it says:

Its “extent and severity is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War,” despite contrary evidence and much to show how Israel twists opposition to Zionism and its international law violations to be an attack on Jews.

On October 29, in fact, Reuters reported that:

“Anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States are at a historic low, with 12 percent of Americans prejudiced toward Jews, an Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey found” based on polling done from September 26 – October 4 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8%.

ADL said the level of anti-Semitism matched 1998’s as the lowest in the poll’s 45-year history. Yet in his 2003 book, “Never Again? The Threat Of The New Anti-Semitism,” national director, Abraham Foxman, said he’s:

“convinced we currently face as great a threat to the safety of the Jewish people as the one we faced in the 1930s – if not a greater one,” contradicted by Cato Institute research fellow Leon Hadar (writing in the January 2004 Chronicles) that public opinion polls “indicate anti-Semitism (both its racial and religious versions) has been in steep decline in most of Western Europe….”

Yet various Canadian Jewish organizations, including Hillel, B’nai Brith, and the Canadian Jewish Congress cite rising anti-Semitic incidents. On March 31, 2009, for example, B’Nai Brith Canada claimed Canadian anti-Semitic incidents rose 8.9% in 2008 over 2007, with “more than (a) four-fold increase in incidents over the past decade.”

The result gets bodies like CPCCA to exploit it, with disturbing implications of where this may lead, including calling opposition to Zionism and Israeli crimes anti-Semitism, and criminalizing them at a time the global BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is gaining traction in the wake of Operation Cast Lead and 42 years of military occupation.

CPCCA’s web site (cpcca.ca) says:

“In February 2009, parliamentarians from around the world gathered in London for the inaugural conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Committee for Combatting Antisemitism.” Over 125 legislators attended from nearly 40 countries, after which “The London Declaration for Combating Antisemitism call(ed) on all governments to face the problem….”

CPCCA is a Canadian body, formed in March 2009 by 22 parliamentarians from all parties in the House of Commons. An inquiry was begun on June 2 calling for written submissions followed by public hearings (excluding anti-Israeli groups) running from November 2 – December 8. When concluded, the Steering Committee will produce a report for the government, anticipating a response “no later than the fall of 2010.”

Its web site asks: “What is the new anti-semitism,” saying:

“Anti-semitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways. For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for anti-semitism.”

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)

Founded in 2002, CJPME (cjpme.org) promotes “justice, peace, prosperity and security for all peoples of the Middle East,” and believes “all positions should respect international law….violence is not a solution, (and) all parties in a conflict must be held to the same standard.”

On August 31, 2009, it issued a “Written Submission to (CPCCA) Concerning Anti-Semitism in Canada,” saying:

– it opposes anti-Semitism;

– Israeli criticism must not be linked to it; and

– because of how it’s vilified, CJPME fears it will result in:

– “a terrifying attack on civil liberties (and free expression) in Canada, and

– a total silencing of debate on Israel out of fear of legal action.”

Yet both outcomes would violate “fundamental protections enumerated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” so efforts must be made to prevent them.

Israel is a secular state, not a proxy for Judaism or Jews. Many Jews globally, including Israelis, are extremely critical of government policies with regard to Occupied Palestine and its own Arab citizens. According to Ryerson University’s Social Justice and Democracy Professor Judy Rebick:

– equating Israeli criticism with anti-Semitism “is based on a claim that the State of Israel is the single outcome of the history of the Jewish people, the final end of generations of diasporic existence. It attempts to make the Zionist project of a Jewish nation the only legitimate project for all Jews,” when, in fact, many Jews publicly oppose Zionism and Israeli policies. Doing so isn’t anti-Judaic, anti-Israeli, or anti-Semitic because they, like Martin Luther King, believe that:

“True peace is not the absence of violence, but the presence of justice,” an element entirely absent in how Israelis treat Palestinians and their own Arab citizens.

Asking why Israel is heavily criticized, CJPME cites the following:

– its continued defiling of “the international consensus for respect for human and humanitarian rights – as reflected in international law….;”

– its maintenance of “one of the longest military occupations in modern history” over Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan, and Shebba Farms area of Lebanon;

– its repeated violations of international law and UN resolutions; and

– its imposition of “elements resembling those of South African Apartheid.”

As a result, it’s unsurprising that anti-Semitism accusations are made to stifle Israeli criticism as a way to diffuse and perhaps criminalize them. The possibility worries CJPME enough to say they can’t be used “to infringe on fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms comprising Part I of the March 29, 1982 Constitution Act. CJPME formally petitioned to participate in CPCCA’s inquiry that so far excludes Israeli critics.

“America’s Last Taboo”

It was distinguished Palestinian American activist/scholar Edward Said’s title for his New Left Review November-December 2000 article citing the “near-total triumph for Zionism in the United States.” Then and now, Israel is cast as victim in a dangerous neighborhood acting only in self-defense against “rock-throwing barbarians (comprising) what is essentially an invasive force. (It’s the) Palestinians who are encroaching on Israeli territory, not the other way around.”

The message is so ingrained that the media repeat it ad nauseam, and Said more than once said that the entire US Senate can be marshaled in a matter of hours to support Israel on virtually anything – even a wanton attack as malicious as Operation Cast Lead and numerous previous ones for many decades.

Exhibits A and B: S 10 and HR 34 with near-identical language saying:

– “Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel.”

Fact Check

Hamas was founded in 1987 during the first Intifada to resist repression and occupation through negotiation and international consensus, not war or terrorism as falsely portrayed. Yet as international law allows, it strongly defends itself when attacked.

– “Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

Fact Check

True because any organization or group opposing imperial aggression and dominance is so designated.

– “Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Fact Check

Hamas repeatedly called for peace and an end of violence and expressed willingness to negotiate on the basis of “hudnah” or temporary truce. Its founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said Hamas would end its liberating struggle “if the Zionists ended (their) occupation of Palestinian territories and stopped killing Palestinian women, children and innocent civilians.” More recently, Hamas offered peace and Israeli recognition in return for a Palestinian state inside pre-1967 borders, its Occupied Territories.

– “in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today.”

Fact Check

On June 25, Palestinians, including Hamas, responded to repeated Israeli attacks by striking an Israeli military post near Kerem Shalom crossing, southeast of Rafah, killing two IDF soldiers, injuring several others, and capturing (not kidnapping) a third, corporal Shalit. Israel’s long-planned Operation Summer Rain followed resulting in mass killings and destruction ahead of its horrendous July war on Lebanon, causing over 1,000 deaths and destruction comparable to Operation Cast Lead.

– “Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005.”

Fact Check

Many dozens, not thousands, of crude homemade rockets and mortars were used only in self-defense in response to repeated Israeli attacks with the most technologically advanced weapons, mostly from Washington, including F-16s, helicopter gunships, and powerful munitions, some clearly illegal.

House and Senate resolutions also cite, but don’t substantiate, Iranian help; Hamas locating “elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields,” a practice Israel has used for decades; the threat “hundreds of thousands of Israelis” face from rocket attacks, giving them no alternative but to respond.

Dismissive about Gaza’s two and a half year siege, the resolutions stress how “Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since December 26, 2008.”

It also says “the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel….”

Fact Check

After Hamas’ democratic January 2006 election, Israel, with Western support, collectively punished Gazans maliciously. It denied all outside aid, imposed an embargo and sanctions, and stepped up repression, repeated attacks, killings, targeted assassinations, and property destruction, followed by a medieval siege since June 2007 causing grave humanitarian harm by restricting essential to life foods, medicines, and medical equipment as well as electricity, fuel, construction materials, and virtually everything needed to function normally.

Israel facilitates misery, not humanitarian aid, peace or Palestinian self-determination it’s spent decades to deny through violence, intimidation, naked aggression, confrontation over diplomacy and peaceful coexistence, and what scholar Joel Kovel calls “a machine for the manufacture of human rights abuses,” facilitated by Washington’s financial, military, and political support.

Ending “America’s last taboo” is the way forward toward a viable, sustainable Middle East peace, possible only when 42 years of occupation end and Palestinians are again free – so far, what Israel and Washington won’t allow or even consider.

The 2009 Hate Crimes Prevention Act

The Department of Justice FBI web site (fbi.gov) defines them as follows:

“A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.”

On April 29, the House passed HR 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 “To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”

On April 28, S 909: Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act was introduced “to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.”

On July 15, 2009, the measure was adopted as an amendment to S 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. On July 23, the full measure passed.

On October 8, the House passed HR 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 containing hate crimes prevention provisions.

On October 22, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed, then on October 28, it became law after president Obama signed it. A same day New York Times Jeff Zeleny article titled, “Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill” said it:

“expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim’s (actual or perceived) sexual orientation (or identity). Under existing federal law, hate crimes are defined as those motivated by the victim’s race, color, religion or national origin,” even though, short of reading an offender’s mind, there’s no way to know if a crime was committed for other reasons besides “hate.”

Further, the bill doesn’t repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, banning gays from the military if they admit their sexual orientation, or the Defense of Marriage Act, defining legal marriage to be between a man and a woman.

In addition, it doesn’t address universal civil and human rights; patients’ rights to effective health care; students’ rights to a good education to the highest level; and everybody’s right to the essentials of life, including safe food, water, and clean air; adequate shelter; full protection under the law; and democracy for everyone, not just the elite few.

Nonetheless, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group praised the bill as the “nation’s first major piece of civil rights legislation” for LGBT. Others called it advancing civil rights, but critics expressed concerns.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a conservative legal alliance partnered with over 300 ministries and organizations, fears that pastors calling homosexuality a sin may be linked to a hate crime if a parishioner harms someone for their sexual orientation. ADF says it’s seen:

“evidence of where ‘hate crimes’ legislation leads when it has been tried around the world: It paves the way for the criminalization of speech that is not deemed ‘politically correct.’ (These laws) fly in the face of the underlying purpose of the First Amendment, which was designed specifically to protect unpopular speech.”

Others fear an attack on dissent against anyone expressing politically unpopular views at a time of disdain for human rights and eroding civil liberties putting everyone at risk.

The new law, however, prosecutes “crimes of violence,” defined by section 16, title 18, US code as:

(a) “an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or

(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

Whether new measures will follow bears watching given a severe economic crisis and the fragility of American democracy at a time it’s transitioning toward a full-blown police state with noted trends watchers like Gerald Celente predicting the “greatest depression” unleashing violence, street crime, and mass civil unrest because “when people lose everything, and they have nothing else to lose, they lose it.”

If so, government repression will follow with harsh police state measures because when powerful people fear losing what’s taken them decades to achieve, they’ll do anything to defend it, including criminalizing protected speech, dissent, and whatever threatens their privilege or important allies, none more valued than Israel.

Thanks to Orwell's Dream where we first saw the post.

Check them out HERE

Yale Putting Muhammad Above Free Speech

Sixteen organizations will accuse Yale today of failing to stand up for free speech with its decision not to print satirical images of the prophet Muhammad in a book published by Yale University Press last September.

The organizations, which include the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the International Publishers Association, appear as signatories on a statement that will be sent to Yale, chastising the University for not printing Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard’s controversial cartoons. The statement, written by National Coalition against Censorship Executive Director Joan Bertin, argues that by capitulating to threats of violence, Yale has fed a climate in which people will be afraid to speak and publish freely. Yale’s decision drew widespread criticism and debate from professors, students and alumni in the past three months.

“The situation is extremely disturbing because Yale is a very prominent university, and their doing something like this might justify other institutions doing so,” Bertin said. “This action compromised the book, the press and an important principle: not only should academics be able to discuss these things among themselves, but in this country we’re entitled to talk about and view the images.”

The statement is the latest development in a controversy that began last August, when the Press announced it would print Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen’s book, “The Cartoons that Shook the World,” without the cartoons that incited violent riots when they were first published in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

“Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult,” the Yale University Press said in a statement in August. “The decision rested solely on the experts’ assessments that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims.”

A representative of the Press declined to comment further on the issue earlier this month.

When Bertin sent a letter to University and Press officials earlier this month to notify them in advance about the statement released today, University administrators responded by posting a copy of the August statement on Bertin’s blog.

Although some of the signatories of Bertin’s statement have expressed skepticism that reprinting the cartoons in a scholarly book would actually cause bloodshed, Vice President and Secretary Linda Lorimer said two weeks ago that there is evidence the cartoons are still inflammatory. She pointed to an October incident in Chicago, in which two men were arrested for plotting to kill Flemming Rose, an editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which printed the cartoons in 2005.

Today’s statement, which Bertin co-authored with Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, appeared in print earlier this fall. Bertin and Nelson gave Duke University professor Gary Hull, another signatory, permission to use their statement in his book “Muhammad: The ‘Banned’ Images,” released two weeks ago. The book reprints the images stripped from Klausen’s.

“In my view and the view of the other signatories, what Yale did was really cowardly,” Hull said earlier this month. “There are a lot of smart people at Yale. They should know that for them to cave to what I regard as barbarian behavior leads to nothing but emboldening barbarism and a further erosion of free speech.”

The statement already had more than a dozen signatories — among them Rose, University of California, Los Angeles law professor and first amendment expert Eugene Volokh and Sarah Ruden, a professor at the Yale Divinity School — when Hull published it in his book. Bertin spent several months recruiting additional signatories before sending the statement to Yale.

Source: Yale Daily News

Woman Wants Book About Sex Banned From Library

PATASKALA, Ohio — A woman is campaigning to permanently take a book off library shelves, 10TV's Cara Connelly reported Thursday.

Marti Shigley said she found the book on the shelf at her local library - according to her - available right at a child's eye level.

"When I opened it, I could not believe how graphic it was, and I thought my word if one of those kids had picked this up and looked inside of it they would have been ruined for life," Shigley said.

SLIDESHOW: Images From Report

The library's director, Matt Nojonen, said the book in question, a sexual health manual, is in the adult section and he stands behind the book.

"There is a demand for them the other manuals and the books that we have on the subject are frequently borrowed," Nojonen said.

Shigley said she does not just want the book out of a child's reach, she wants it gone for good.

Nojonen said he fears when you take every book off the shelf that someone objects to, you may have nothing left.

"Our policies very clearly state that we will buy books that represent all sides of issues," Nojonen said.

Pataskala resident John Glaze said he wants the shelves at his library to stay full.

"When you start yanking books off the shelf then we all need to start wearing swastikas," Glaze said.

Leah Swan disagrees and said she brings her daughter, Caroline, to the library, and worries the book could fall into the wrong hands.

"I think free speech can sometimes be abused in the name of getting weird and bizarre," Swan said.

The library's advisory board heard Shigley's complaint and decided to keep the book in the collection if they can get it back, Connelly reported.

Shigley checked it out and said she does not plan to return it.

"It may cost me a little bit of money but I don't want anyone else to see this book," Shigley said.

The library said that if Shigley fails to return the book, they may revoke her library card.

Contact Matt Nojonen, Library Director, to Show Support at : Mattnoj@hotmail.com

Source: 10 TV News

David Irving, the Thought Criminal

How is it possible, in these United States, that a group of people, who wish to get together to discuss a historical topic, must relentlessly hide their intention, obfuscate their meeting place, and keep their identities secret, if they don't wish to be hounded like wanted criminals? How is it that citizens who wish to meet peacefully do not have the protection of the law, in order to practice what the law supposedly guarantees, that is, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

It's not unusual for one party of citizens to be roused to anger by the beliefs and practices of others. This is to be expected. But in this supposed land of the free, we do not expect that opponents of particular views will be allowed license to destroy websites, steal email information, and confiscate personal correspondence, while threatening hotel managers with violence, if they rent space to certain groups or events. It is not anyone's responsibility to provide a platform for the public expression of opinions, but it is the responsibility of the government to protect citizens from those who would prevent such expression.

Whatever became of that bold white American man, descendant of the Founders, who proudly declared, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it?" Is he too busy these days playing with his ever-increasing array of techie toys, gadgets and gizmos, to give a damn about the ongoing loss of one freedom after another, freedoms originally conceived by those 18th century men, who foolishly believed that their singular creation could be entrusted to these very descendants?

These are rhetorical questions to which I expect no answers. I've also ceased expecting indignation from that once watchful and attentive white American man, as he passively accepts the ongoing demise of constitutional principles meant to enforce laws to be obeyed by the high and the lowly.

On November 13, 2009, Professor David Irving was scheduled to give a talk on World War II history, this one to focus on Hitler, Himmler and codebreaking. Irving is a meticulous historian and the author of several acclaimed and respected works of history, including Nuremberg and Churchill's War.

He is despised by a coterie of adversaries for his dissenting views on aspects of World War II's Holocaust, a subject he does not lecture on, but for which he was sentenced in Austria to three years in prison. That is, a historian was imprisoned for expressing opinions that conflict with a standardized version of events that took place during the middle of the 20th century.

Throughout Europe, powerful interest groups have managed to get laws enacted that forbid historians from engaging in further research or exploration of the forbidden Holocaust topic, for which there is now an established "official" text. You see, Europe is full of the types of countries whose oppressive traditions the Founders of this nation strove to avoid. In their time, it was Kings who could throw you into prison for refusing to conform to the Royal Imperatives.

On November 13, the date of Irving's first intended lecture in New York, hackers broke into his website and AOL email account, confiscating lists of the names of those scheduled to attend his forthcoming lectures. The miscreants then published his email correspondence, along with the user name and password for his website and AOL accounts, and the names and email addresses (in some cases, street addresses) of donors and purchasers of Irving's books. His books, by the way, are not furtively published samizdat, and can be bought in most bookstores, as well as from Amazon.

Well aware of the danger he and his lecture participants are in whenever he speaks, Irving has been forced to establish an elaborate system of subterfuge where he keeps the meeting place secret until almost the last minute, and then emails the location to the interested parties. Due to the damage done to the website, this first meeting was necessarily curtailed.

On November 14, Irving's second scheduled lecture, at the Double Tree Hotel in New York, was invaded and disrupted by a band of self-appointed "anti-fascists," who maced one of the attendants. The offending thugs very proudly published an account of their exploits on websites, bragging about how Irving "just got his ass handed to him."

What we have here are self-elected Enforcers, who have usurped powers never granted to one citizen over another, yet who go unchallenged by any legal authority. These are Enforcers who claim the right to judge which points of view should be permitted to prevail, and which ones shall be banned from the public square.

In their attempts to be credible, Enforcers purposely, with malice aforethought, mischaracterize their perceived enemies in the most extreme fashion, and venomously misinterpret their theses or positions. The dissenting sinner must not be allowed to bring his views directly to the public, or be given the opportunity to offer any type of clarification.

Knowing that volatile terminology is bound to rouse the hackles of average people, most of whom are not paying attention anyway, the Enforcers load their charges against their opponents with such extreme epithets as "Nazi," "racist," "white supremacist." Once so labeled, the targeted subject matter, or group, or individual, is supposed to be doomed.

For example, in the case of the labeling of "Holocaust deniers," this is a lie in itself, since none of these researchers deny that a movement against Jews took place during World War II. However, in our country, a nation ruled by the Constitution, the truth or invalidity of a researcher's position on some historical subject is of no consequence. In the land of Jefferson, Madison and Jay, we have the right to be misguided or simply wrong.

If some intrepid soul wishes to give lectures on how Africans enjoyed being slaves and that enslavement was a great favor done for them, his right to lecture is not dependent on whether or not his thesis is correct. That part of it is not the government's business. Its only business is to see to it that this individual, no matter how benighted he might be deemed by foes of his viewpoint, is protected from those who would do him harm, by stealing his property or endangering his person. We do not search for ways to eradicate his freedoms, nor should we set up phony legal mechanisms to imprison him.

In his own version of that aforementioned declaration, i.e., to defend another's right to speak, even when in disagreement, Thomas Paine wrote, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." Today, these 18th century warnings are nothing but corny words, not to be taken seriously by a people who would disgrace themselves by permitting the passage of unconstitutional "hate crime" laws. When a people indicate that they're ready to punish citizens as "Thought Criminals," then nothing that follows can be surprising.

Although I have never attended an Irving lecture, I have read one of his impressive books, and I am on his mailing list. Over the years, I have written on the topic of European repression of scholars, academics and researchers for the Issues & Views website. I list links to some of these articles below:

Free speech still struggles to survive, in Europe and in the USA

Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part I

Europe's Hypocrites and Liars - Part II

When Truth Is No Defense

Related:

David Irving - Biography

Irving Describes His Austria Arrest and Imprisonment

Who Is Ernst Zundel, And Why Is He In Jail?

Source: Issues and Views

James Madison University Revises Speech Code of the Month After FIRE, Students Challenge Unconstitutionality

We have good news from the front in the fight to eradicate speech codes from our nation's campuses. James Madison University has revised its policy on Obscene Conduct, no longer banning "lewd, indecent or obscene...expression." Yet the university's strained relationship with First Amendment principles has recently manifested itself in another way, with students charged with offenses for investigating newsworthy events on campus.

First the good news. Torch readers will remember that FIRE expressed concern in September that JMU's policy on obscene conduct had been changed to include not only on-campus but also off-campus expression, threatening a large volume of student speech—including online expression. The policy was already problematic, banning expression that could be constitutionally protected. (Can you say for certain what is lewd, indecent, or obscene expression as opposed to what is just offensive? Would you trust JMU to always agree with you? I didn't think so.) The revision drastically expanded the policy's reach, giving the administration the power to censor online and off-campus speech. Certainly, as Sam pointed out at the time, there's a great deal of speech on Facebook and other sites that is lewd and indecent but does not reach the high legal standard for obscene expression. In fact, legal "obscenity" is a term generally reserved for hard-core pornography.

Sam's post caught the attention of the JMU student paper The Breeze, which published an article on the policy change. Josh Bacon, director of JMU's Judicial Affairs, told the paper that "the intention is not to police social networking sites," but to protect students from "people who have been exposing themselves off campus." The university may certainly have a legitimate interest in prohibiting such conduct, but as FIRE and JMU students pointed out, the policy need not prohibit "expression" to reach behavior like indecent exposure. Initially, the administration stuck to its guns; Mr. Bacon told The Breeze that "It's an interpretation of how you say expression; is it physical expression? Again, to me, it says obscene conduct, not obscene expression." As Sam responded, "But of course, as anyone who can read the policy knows, what it says is ‘obscene conduct or expression.'" Why a policy that Bacon always insisted was meant only to reach conduct also originally included the word "expression" was never explained. After all, few people consider episodes of indecent exposure like public urination to be legitimate examples of expression.

JMU student and CFN member John Scott penned an excellent essay in The Breeze on the policy change, challenging the ethics and constitutionality of such a policy. The administration promised that the policy would never be enforced to censor protected expression, which was another way of saying it would never be enforced as written. Yet even if the current administration did respect student speech rights in practice, there's no guarantee its successors would follow suit. As John writes, "This is exactly why personal guarantees do not hold the same legal weight as written policy."

FIRE then added to the pressure by naming the policy its Speech Code of the Month for October, writing,

Eliminating two words—"or expression"—from this policy is a simple change that would leave the administration with full power to punish the kinds of activities it is ostensibly concerned with, and at the same time remove the threat to free expression. The fact that the administration seems unwilling to do so-and is instead resorting to verbal chicanery to try and convince concerned students that the policy doesn't actually prohibit free expression-should be of great concern to anyone who cares about student rights. We hope that JMU students will find Bacon's answer as unsatisfactory as we do and will keep the pressure on the administration to revise this unjust policy.

Today, we are pleased to say that JMU students did not stand down, the pressure continued, and the JMU administration has officially changed the offending policy, deleting "or expression" from the policy. In an e-mail sent to all students, the Office of Judicial Affairs wrote,

University Policy Obscene Conduct J24-101 has been revised and now states: No student shall engage in lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, regardless of proximity to campus.

For more information on this and all University policies please refer to the Student Handbook at: http://www.jmu.edu/judicial/handbook/index.html

The new policy can be viewed here. We are glad to announce the policy change and we commend the JMU administration for moving to preserve the constitutional rights of its students to free expression in its policies, just as The College of William & Mary and the University of North Texas, where coalitions of students have worked with FIRE to change their unconstitutional policies, recently did. We also congratulate the JMU students who have done so much to expose the unconstitutionality of the policy, and will be offering further analysis of the change in upcoming blog entries. If you would like to challenge the unconstitutional policies at your school, register for the Campus Freedom Network and contact us at cfn@thefire.org.

Yet this incident is unfortunately not the only way in which JMU's administration has demonstrated a questionable understanding of students' rights. Indeed, JMU Judicial Affairs--the office of the aforementioned Josh Bacon, in fact--is currently charging two student journalists from The Breeze for trespassing, disorderly conduct, and failure to follow the order of a university official while investigating a story about trespassing in one of the residence halls, despite the fact that it appears that they did not actually break any college regulations. If the reporters' accounts hold up, JMU's actions would constitute a clear violation of the freedom of the press by punishing student journalists who were investigating a story of general concern while following residence hall policies.

Liberty will not be secure at JMU as long as the administration is willing to unjustly punish student journalists. Unless the facts of the case are different than we have been led to believe (and JMU has provided no countervailing facts), the administration must immediately drop the charges against the students and cancel the hearing currently scheduled for November 5.

Source: FIRE

Community College in California Suspends Four Professors Without Explanation Following Peaceful Protest

Inside Higher Ed reports that four faculty members at Southwestern College, a San Diego community college, were suspended without explanation following their participation in a peaceful student protest over state budget cuts that would eliminate over 400 of the school's courses. The faculty union—whose current and former president were among those suspended—is demanding a hearing, which the college must provide within seven days.

Inside Higher Ed's Scott Jaschik writes:

Southwestern officials could not be reached to explain why they took this action. The college's spokeswoman was recently laid off and she has not been replaced. The college's president, Raj Chopra, is reportedly on vacation and his e-mail reply says that he will be off campus until November 13. Chopra's executive assistant gave local reporters a statement that said that the reason for the suspensions could not be made public, and that "the college shares our students' concerns about reductions in state funding for the college. The college respects, values and is committed to freedom of expression."

Philip Lopez, an English professor who is president of the faculty union, said that there is no other possible explanation for the suspensions except the rally. "Nothing else happened the day before," he said.

Despite the school's vague, noncommittal statement, Southwestern's actions certainly do not indicate that the college is committed to free expression.

Source: FIRE

Italian Professor who doubts Auschwitz gassings faces legal action

Rome, 23 October 2009 (AKI) - The Holocaust-denying views of an Italian academic at the University of Rome 'La Sapienza,' Antonio Caracciolo, has sparked calls for him to resign. The 59-year-old philosophy of law researcher's blogs have described the World War II Nazi Holocaust - or extermination of six million Jews - as "a legend" and claim the gas chambers "are one of many 'truths' which need to be verified."

The head of Rome's Jewish community, Riccardo Pacifici, said it will take legal action against the academic. "We are waiting for the university to take measures to protect students and will certainly be taking action against Caracciolo," Pacifici said. "We are confident the university won't be the only institution to act and that the whole of civil society will react."

In 2007, Italy's previous centre-left government, headed by Romano Prodi, passed a law making Holocaust-denial a crime.

The rector of 'La Sapienza', Luigi Frati has announced the university "will consider taking disciplinary action" against Caracciolo, without giving any further details. "He would do well to visit Dachau, which I visited when I was 16, or if he can't manage that, the Ardeatine Caves," said Frati. He was referring to the former Nazi concentration camp in southern Germany and to the notorious World War II massacre of 333 Italian civilians in Rome by Nazi troops.

Rome's mayor Gianni Alemanno has stated his opposition to university lecturers with such views. "I don't think a professor who holds Holocaust-denying views can teach at 'La Sapienza," he stated.

The president of the Lazio region surrounding Rome, Piero Marazzo, and of the Province of Rome, Nicola Zingaretti condemned Caracciolo's views.

'La Sapienza' professors and students also expressed shock and dismay at the content of Caracciolo's blogs. The head of the Political Science Faculty, where Caracciolo teaches, Gianluigi Rossi, said it was "a very bad day." Social sciences undergraduate Massimo, from Florence, described Caracciolo's Holocaust-denying views as "extremely serious."

Caracciolo has denied he is a "historical revisionist" and says he believes in freedom of thought and expression which are guaranteed under the Italian constitution.

It is not the first time that an Italian academic has expressed such views. In November last year, Roberto Valvo, a high-school history teacher was suspended after he claimed there was "no proof" of the Holocaust.

In May 2007, authorities barred a visit to Italy by the French Holocaust-denying historian Robert Faurisson, on the invitation of Claudio Moffa, a lecturer at the Univerity of Teramo in Italy's central Abruzzo region.

The move came after heated protests from Italy's Jewish community. Caracciolo had defended the planned debate.

Source: On the Contrary

Stop the Slippery Slope of Speech Bans

Under campaign finance law, corporations are prevented from spending their own money to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates. Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a second round of arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to consider righting this First Amendment wrong by overturning two prior rulings.

Supporters of campaign finance laws are predicting a disaster for democracy from the influence of corporate funds. But the truth is that campaign finance "reformers" do not care about corporate speech itself; they want to clamp down on all speech during elections.

Take Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, who says that only individuals vote for candidates, so "only individuals should provide the private financing to elect these officeholders, not corporations or other artificial entities."

If true, Wertheimer and his outfit should welcome SpeechNow.org and more groups like it to the political debate.

SpeechNow.org is a group of individuals who want to pool their money to buy ads opposing candidates who do not support freedom of speech and supporting those who do. The group is not a corporation and will accept no corporate or union funds. Nor will it contribute any money to candidates. In fact, its bylaws require it to be completely independent of candidates and political parties. It is a group of individuals who simply want to spend their own money on their own speech.

Nonetheless, Democracy 21 filed a brief in federal court opposing SpeechNow.org. SpeechNow.org is challenging federal campaign finance laws that require it to register as a "political committee" and bar it from accepting any more than $5,000 from any donor each year. Television and radio ads are not cheap, so these limits make it impossible for SpeechNow.org to function. As a result, it sued the FEC, claiming the contribution limits violate its rights to freedom of speech and association.

According to Democracy 21, lifting contribution limits for SpeechNow.org would allow "wealthy donors" to "contribute hundreds of thousands" of dollars to "sophisticated committees often run by Washington political operatives."

The FEC takes the same position and has even claimed that SpeechNow.org-an unincorporated nonprofit association-should be treated exactly like a business corporation.

So much for the claim that only individuals should be allowed to fund political advocacy.

This should not surprise anyone. For over three decades, campaign finance reformers have been advocating draconian restrictions on all spending for speech during elections.

In the early 1970s, they passed restrictions on individual spending for speech during elections. The Supreme Court struck these down in Buckley v. Valeo, but they resurfaced again years later in a case out of Vermont that campaign reformers cheered.

In Buckley, the Supreme Court upheld restrictions on so-called express advocacy-that is, speech calling for the election or defeat of candidates-but not on issue advocacy. When speakers flocked to issue advocacy, reformers claimed that it was all a "sham" and passed McCain-Feingold's electioneering communications ban.

When reformers restricted donations to political parties, donors gave more to independent groups, so reformers are now claiming that independent groups, too, must be restricted.

The fact is, to campaign finance reformers, there is always too much money in elections. They oppose the very idea that individuals should be permitted to spend as much money on their own speech as they want. If it is not corporations spending too much money, then it is independent groups. If it is not them, then it is wealthy people and so on.

There is no end to this argument. If the government can ban ads that say the wrong thing during an election-as it does under McCain-Feingold-then it can ban films like Hillary: The Movie, the film at the heart of the Citizens United case. If it can ban films, then it can ban books, as the government admitted during the first oral argument in the case. If it can ban books, then it can ban newspapers, magazines and Internet commentary.

All of this speech must be funded by someone, and most of it is funded by corporations. Speech costs money, so restricting the money that anyone can raise or spend-whether corporations, wealthy people or anyone else-is censorship, pure and simple.

The only way to avoid this slippery slope is to start treating freedom of speech as an inalienable right, not a privilege that the government can restrict as it sees fit. The Supreme Court can take a critical step in the right direction by overturning bans on corporate speech.

C.U. policies could limit free speech

by Dani Neuharth-Keusch

The Cornell Daily Sun

Student activism is a long-standing tradition at Cornell, and the University's creed pledges full and equal protection of students' rights; but there is a devil in the details.

Cornell's policies on harassment, tolerance, respect and civility contain so-called speech codes - "Trojan horses" embedded within University guidelines that limit the scope of free speech on campus.

William Creeley, director of legal and public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, addressed this topic, and the overlying issue of students' First Amendment rights, yesterday evening in Goldwin Smith Hall. "There's a discrepancy," he said. "They promise with one hand and take away with the other."

Cornell's commitment to free expression is clear: "Because it is a special kind of community, whose purpose is the discovery of truth through the practice of free inquiry, a university has an essential dependence on a commitment to the values of unintimidated speech," University policy states. "To curb speech on the grounds that an invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil or that such ideas will offend some listeners is therefore inconsistent with a university's purpose."

Yet, Cornell received a "red light" rating from FIRE on the grounds that it "has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech."

"Most universities maintain policies that limit free speech on campus," Creeley said. "The numbers really are shocking." 67 percent of private universities and 77 percent of public institutions have unconstitutional speech codes.

Public universities, as government entities, are bound by the First Amendment. Private institutions draft their own codes of conduct that students must comply with upon matriculation.

Though Cornell is openly in favor of student expression, harassment violations under University policy like "making bias-motivated jokes or statements" are not included in protected speech. This stipulation, among others, could be easily stretched.

"They would not and do not match up to strict legal standard," Creeley said. "If you tell a joke from The Daily Show to your fellow student you are engaging in bias-motivated jokes or statements. Is an administrator necessarily going to punish a student for that? Perhaps not. The problem is that Cornell gives them the discrepancy to do so."

"You put your academic career in the hands of an administrator who may not be inclined to agree with you and he has a policy to back him up," Creeley said.

Though administrators currently do not appear to be taking liberal advantage of the loopholes in Cornell's policy, they would be complying with University codes if they chose to.

The legal basis for university policies that interfere with the freedom of speech is the freedom of assembly. Private institutions have a constitutional right to establish a university under a specific creed.

Konstantin Drabkin '11 stressed the importance of free expression, even when one's views are in the minority. "[We] have the right to the freedom of speech," Drabkin said. "Professors are going to tell you things you don't believe. ... It can be difficult when you're sitting in a lecture of 300 people to raise your hand and speak for your beliefs, but that's what you've got to do."

Creeley responded that generally professors are entitled to their own opinions but these opinions cannot influence a professor to lower a student's grade because of his or her own biases.

"We believe in students being strong enough to participate in the rough-and-tumble of democracy," Creeley said. "We have a saying at FIRE: If you go through four years of college and you're never offended by something, you should ask for your money back."

FIRE is non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. They coordinate legislation in defense of freedom of speech, due process, legal equality, religious liberty and sanctity of conscience.

"We really practice what we preach and that's what makes us unique," Creeley said.

FIRE is broad in its representation, defending groups as diametrically opposed as evangelical Christian organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The great thing about free speech is that sooner or later everyone's free speech gets challenged, no matter what side of the political spectrum you're on."

Details about the University's FIRE rating can be found at www.thefire.org.

Source: FIRE

Bucknell's Oppression of Free Speech in Today's Issue of 'Human Events'

When will Bucknell University realize that trying to suppress free speech is one of the best ways to help the speakers get their message out? Human Events is the latest publication to shine the light of shame on Bucknell's frequent actions to shut down the expression of the Bucknell University Conservatives Club (BUCC). The article, coauthored by FIRE Program Officer Peter Bonilla and BUCC President Travis Eaione, describes how Bucknell administrators flouted its commitment to free speech and bent its policies out of shape in order to shut down BUCC's satirical "affirmative action bake sale" and BUCC's distribution of "Obama stimulus dollars" in protest of government spending on the federal economic stimulus.

FIRE takes no position on the social, economic, and political issues that BUCC was protesting, but we have brought all our resources to bear on exposing Bucknell's outrageous violations of freedom of expression. Peter and Travis do a wonderful job describing what happened after BUCC's bake sale was shut down over a technicality:

BUCC dutifully reapplied to hold the bake sale again, taking special care to get the paperwork exactly right. This time, however, [Dean Gerald] Commerford said that the bake sale violated Bucknell's discrimination policies — even with optional, satirical pricing — and that BUCC would never, ever be able to hold such an event at Bucknell. In a conversation BUCC recorded, Commerford said, "It's a political issue, ok; it needs to be debated in its proper forum, ok, and not on the public property on the campus."

Bucknell is certainly no "marketplace of ideas" like universities are supposed to be. Commerford insists that BUCC may never raise any kind of discussion on affirmative action unless it occurs in exactly the time, place and manner that Bucknell dictates. By controlling the forum, Bucknell is trying to control the message, too. Affirmative action, it seems, may not be the subject of spontaneous debate at Bucknell.

Peter and Travis add:

It is a sad day when universities use speech codes and other means to make student debate less free on campus than on the public sidewalk. It is even worse when they do so selectively, as Bucknell has done with its singling out of conservative speech for censorship.

Perhaps worst of all, however, is the condescension that Bucknell has shown its own students by deciding they just aren't adult enough to openly debate important issues. Are we really to believe that the students of this well-regarded university are so brittle that they must be protected from such upsetting controversies?

Indeed, Bucknell administrators made quite a mess of interpreting the "Sales and Solicitation" policy in order to find ways to shut down BUCC's expression. When administrator Judith Mickanis was asked about shutting down the distribution of Obama stimulus dollars, she wrote:

I said that consistently permission was needed to hand out anything from Bibles to other matter. You just can't hand things out without approval. ... [G]roups can solicit only from behind tables, not out in the open like they were doing.

That's right: according to her, students were not allowed to distribute any literature of any kind to other students in one of the most public areas of campus—except with prior permission, and certainly not "out in the open"! Bucknell made such a hash of the policy that recently it changed the name of the policy to "Sales and Promotions." (Stay tuned for more on the revisions to the policy.) We have yet to see whether Bucknell students will once again be allowed to engage in one of America's oldest free speech traditions "out in the open."

Bucknell is on FIRE's Red Alert list because it is truly one of the worst universities in the country when it comes to oppressing speech. (See FIRE's full-page ad in U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Colleges" issue.) Peter and Travis conclude:

Bucknell is getting a new president next year, and BUCC plans to keep engaging students on issues that affect them. In the meantime, citizens who care about freedom of speech should join the many alumni and others who have written President Mitchell at brian.mitchell@bucknell.edu urging him to truly level the playing field for conservatives on campus.

Thanks to Human Events for running the article. Now it's up to Bucknell to start behaving like a true marketplace of ideas—and up to us to keep pressing Bucknell to do so.

Source: FIRE

The CHRC is ethically challenged

Recently, Canadian Human Rights Commission chief Jennifer Lynch criticized me for relying on "one source that is full of misinformation," in my parliamentary study of the CHRC ( "Canadians 'misinformed' on hate speech," June 22). It may surprise Ms. Lynch to learn that the source of my "misinformation" is her own commission and its companion body, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Every question I raised in committee about the lack of due process and an ethics code for commission employees, and the absence of rules of evidence, came from commission and tribunal documents, many of which are currently available on the commission's own website ( www.chrc-ccdp.ca).The transcripts of tribunal hearings provide telling evidence of the wayward approach the commission's investigators take in prosecuting their cases. Recent hearings, such as the Marc Lemire case, have revealed that current CHRC investigator Dean Steacy and former CHRC investigator Richard Warman regularly posted neo-Nazi diatribes under assumed names on white supremacist web-sites. Further, uncontradicted expert evidence presented before the hearing demonstrated that investigator Steacy illegitimately used an unsuspecting private citizen's wireless Internet service to post his offensive comments.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the commission asked the tribunal to exclude the media from the hearing that day. Fortunately, for the sake of accountability, a secret hearing was rejected and we know more about the CHRC's inner workings.

However, other hearings have been held in secret, as Ms. Lynch has admitted, supposedly for the "safety" of a witness but contrary to the ancient right of being able to face one's accuser in court. Indeed, in the ongoing case of beachesboy@aol.comvs. drumsaremybeat@aol.com,the commission hasn't even revealed the identity of the complainant. Interestingly, the commission's website does name the complainant for 12 of the 14 hate speech cases that have come before the tribunal in the last eight years: Richard Warman. Ms. Lynch's deputy appeared before my committee in Parliament recently and admitted that the commission does not have to follow rules of evidence or legal procedure, but merely has "operating procedures" that identify the timelines for addressing complaints. To put that in plain English: defendants have no guarantee of a fair hearing.

A 2003 internal government review of the CHRC found that the commission scored only 2.5 out of five on an ethics test. The review recommended the commission adopt an ethics code, which it has still not done. Given the questionable activities of its investigators, perhaps it is time for Ms. Lynch to revisit this recommendation.

I'll let the readers decide who is "misinformed." - Russ Hiebert is the Conservative Member of Parliament for South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale.

Source: The National post

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: There is no First Amendment in America: no right to free speech, no right to peaceably assemble

The Fading American Dream: The Constitution Circumvented: There is no First Amendment in America: no right to free speech, no right to peaceably assemble: "There is no First Amendment in America: no right to free speech, no right to peaceably assemble


Well, you want free speech? Go home, go into your closet, shut the door, and talk about whatever you want to! That is about the only place you will get away with it anymore.

WE DO NOT EVEN HAVE A RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND SPEAK FREELY IN OUR NATION'S CAPITOL ANYMORE! Do you get it? How can we reign in our government when they gag us at their capital city limits?

This is outrageous! Why doesn't the American public wake up and realize they have lost their Constitution, their Bill of Rights, and the very country they THINK they live in?

Once again, let me inform you. YOU do NOT have free speech. YOU do NOT have the right to peaceably assemble. PERIOD.

Those rights have been rescinded, via some nonsense federal regulation that has somehow trumped the Constitution, just like every other piece of garbage, unAmerican and unConstitutional legislation that comes out of our government.

Brace for impact..."