Aomawa Shields Ted Transcript
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Free Speech in Peril
Cover Free Speech in Peril College—Where You Can’t Say What You Think pg. 1 MindingtheCampus.org Title Page FREE SPEECH IN PERIL College: Where You Can’t Say What You Think MINDING THE CAMPUS pg. 2 MindingtheCampus.org TABLE OF CONTENTS One: Exploiting Diversity as a Political PAGE 07 Wedge TK essays describing how once well-intentioned policies became corrupted by identity politics and bloated administrative staffs. The articles, like all others in this publication, were written primarily by professors and educators. Two: Rejecting the First Amendment PAGE 124 Today’s colleges and universities have mastered the art of intimidation—not only silencing students who might deviate from the current orthodoxy on campus, but also making it clear that professors risk their tenure if they don’t toe the political line. Three: Silencing Conservatives PAGE 207 In a powerful essay, author Charles Murray describes how protestors tried to stop him from speaking about his new book at Middlebury College, despite being invited by students. His experience was mirrored by many other conservative professors and analysts, including Heather Mac Donald and Professor Amy Wax. Four: Indoctrinating Students PAGE 260 It’s clear from the moment they set foot on campus that students have entered a monoculture. Everyone must believe in the same basic tenets—that if something or someone makes you “feel bad,” it’s evil. pg. 3 MindingtheCampus.org INTRODUCTION By John Leo “If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.” — George Washington, first U.S. -
CIPA Trial Concludes
v51n3.qxd 05/08/2002 4:01 PM Page 109 ISSN 0028-9485 May 2002 Volume LI No. 3 The U.S. Congress’s third assault on Internet pornography appears likely to meet the same ignoble end as the previous two. A two-week trial over library filtering ended April 4 with a trio of judges criticizing the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) as an unreasonable intrusion into the rights of Americans to view legal material online. “We are fortunate to be in the Third Circuit Court, whose judges have confronted these issues before and are familiar with many of the interests at stake,” said Judith Krug, direc- tor of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “This morning, the judges asked prob- ing and detailed questions in preparation for their deliberations.” CIPA, which supporters view as the government’s best shot yet at reining in online pornography, requires public libraries to install filtering software on all computers or lose federal technology funding. Attorneys for a plaintiffs’ coalition of libraries, library patrons and Web site operators, led by the American Library Association, who want CIPA overturned, said in closing arguments for the two-week trial that libraries cannot imple- ment the law without denying patrons their First Amendment right to free speech under CIPA trial the U.S. Constitution. “We’re stuck right in the heart of the First Amendment when we’re talking about concludes libraries,” observed U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Chief Judge Edward Becker as testimony and argument concluded. Becker heads a three-judge panel that will rule by early May on the plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction against CIPA. -
Connecticut Librarians Drop John Doe
ISSN 0028-9485 July 2006 Vol. LV No. 4 www.ala.org/nif Four Connecticut librarians who had been barred from revealing that they had received a request for patrons’ records from the federal government spoke out May 30 expressing frustration about the sweeping powers given to law enforcement authorities by the USA PATRIOT Act. The librarians took turns at the microphone at their lawyers’ office and publicly identi‑ fied themselves as the collective John Doe who had sued the United States attorney gen‑ eral after their organization received a confidential demand for patron records in a secret counterterrorism case. They had been ordered, under the threat of prosecution, not to talk about the request with anyone. The librarians, who all have leadership roles at a small Connecticut consortium called Library Connection in Windsor, Connecticut, said they opposed allow‑ ing the government unchecked power to demand library records and were particularly librarians drop incensed at having been subject to the open‑ended nondisclosure order. “I’m John Doe, and if I had told you before today that the FBI was requesting library John Doe gag records, I could have gone to jail,” said one of the four, Peter Chase, a librarian from Plainville who is on the executive committee of Library Connection’s board. The organization won part of its court fight when a three‑judge panel of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan dismissed the government’s appeal and allowed a lower court judge’s revocation of the nondisclosure order to stand. But the four librarians say they remain concerned that other provisions of the PATRIOT Act could deter people from using libraries. -
Why First Amendment Oppression Is Not the Path to Racial Justice
EDUCATION LAW AND POLICY FINAL NOTE FREE SPEECH IN THE QUAD: WHY FIRST AMENDMENT OPPRESSION IS NOT THE PATH TO RACIAL JUSTICE By: Anna S. Morrissey I. INTRODUCTION “Congress shall make no law . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”1 The touchstone of the First Amendment, and any of free society, is freedom of expression – and the most important aspect of free speech is being able to express what may be controversial or unpopular. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”2 Free speech allows for individual freedom of mind and promotes a “marketplace of ideas,” while placing an important check on those in power.3 This freedom however, is not one-sided. “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and . inflict great pain.”4 Therefore, each time a speaker is someone with whom an individual disagrees, the value placed on free speech is tested most.5 *J.D. Candidate, May 2016, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. 1 U.S. CONST. amend. I. 2 EVELYN BEATRICE HALL, THE FRIENDS OF VOLTAIRE 199 (Putnam's, May 5, 2008). 3 Campus Rights, THE FIRE: FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION, https://www.thefire.org/campus-rights/ (last visited May 3, 2016) [hereinafter Campus Rights, THE FIRE]. 4 Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 460-61 (2011). -
Congress Debates PATRIOT Act Renewal
ISSN 0028-9485 July 2005 Vol. LIV No. 4 www.ala.org/nif In a closed-door meeting May 26, the Senate Intelligence Committee failed to agree on a proposal that would renew the USA PATRIOT Act and expand the FBI’s powers to obtain records in terror investigations. A bill proposed by committee Chair Pat Roberts (R-KS) would permit the FBI to subpoena records without a judge’s approval. Committee members refused to discuss details of the two-and-a-half-hour session, although officials voiced confidence that the senators would eventually reach an agreement. Senate Republican leaders and the Bush administration argue that the legislation congress would give the FBI essential tools to fight terrorism, while civil liberties advocates and some Democrats maintain it would open the door to fishing expeditions. debates Although House and Senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings on the PATRIOT Act provisions set to expire at the end of the year—including Section 215, which eases restrictions on searches of library and bookstore records—the Senate Intelligence PATRIOT Committee is the first to consider formal legislation to renew the measures. The American Civil Liberties Union decried the secretive meeting. “These are propos- Act renewal als that demand a full, vigorous, and public debate and vote, not secret meetings,” said Lisa Graves, ACLU Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy. “If adopted, these broad new powers would sidestep time-honored checks and balances. Lawmakers should reject this reckless disregard for the Fourth Amendment.” Just a few weeks earlier, critics and supporters of the sweeping antiterrorism law had reduced their differences to only a handful of substantive issues, and the two sides were talking openly about finding room for compromise in renewing the law.