Campus Threats

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-university-of-chicago-gun-threat-met-20151130-story.html


On November 20, 2015 a student at the University of Chicago threatened to kill 16 students and staff at the University. This engineer was charged for making online threats that shut down the University for the day. Saturday night after threatening to kill the student, staff, the university campus police at 10 am.m, he also threatened to kill himself. He told the federal officials on the scene that this was his response to the police shooting of Laquan McDonald.

The student took his anger to another level by expressing his emotions. In the book Free Speech by Warburton, he discusses the four features that identify the dangers of the internet.  The lack of quality control and huge potential audience were the main factors in this students posts, but that was what he was aiming for. He wanted to make a point by saying that the officer that shot McDonald was wrong and he shouldn't get away with it. He was stating that is was "an eye for an eye". Using the first amendment as a way out only works if you don't take advantage of it and keep people out of harms way.

Campus Threats - Alissa Apecechea

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/11/columbine-massacre-rpg-creator-banned-from-college-campus-film-festival/

           On November 18, 2015, the Columbine Massacre RPG video game maker, Danny Ledonne, was not allowed to attend the film festival at Colorado Adams State University. They did not let him attend the festival because the university felt that he was considered unsafe and a threat to the university. Adams state came out saying that “the game is about shooting students” and that is why they felt it would be unsafe to bring him to a college campus. This video game is said to recreate the terrible event of a high school shooting that once took place. When trying to decide if they should let this man come to the festival, there were many avenues people had to consider. The letter banning him said, “In this post – Columbine, hypersensitive world of mass shootings and violence on college campus’ nationwide, it is my duty to balance the free speech and individual rights against the public safety of the many. Although, Mr. Ledonne’s behavior has not yet breached the realm of violation of our laws, my recommendation to ban him from campus is sound, rational and errs on the side of public safety” (arstechnica.com)

            Ledonne ended up responding to this by saying that his “goal in creating the game it to help everyday audiences understand the world of the killers because in doing so, we might move closer to understanding and reaching actual solutions to the ongoing epidemic of school shootings” (arstechnica.com)

            For these reasons, the school was worried about the safety of their students if this man was to come to campus and attend their film festival. Although he claims not to be violent and that he is just trying to express what he believes would help create solutions to stop these violent shootings and killings in schools across the nation.

            Lewis mentions in his book on free expression that, “the constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed to intend to remove governmental restraints from the area of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of each freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more polity in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests” (Lewis pg 132). This passage can relate to this situation because although there has not been a governmental restraint to this video game and it indirectly is free speech since he is not physically hurting or killing anyone, some may argue that he is just using his right to try to help society. Others can argue that it could potentially threaten the safety of the college campus as people could then get ideas from his video game, even though that was not the intention of his game. This was a very controversial issue that involved campus threats of free expression.

The Amherst "Lord Jeffs" and "Institutional" Racism

The University of Amherst mascot isn't the lamest, but students are still asking for Lord Jeffery Amherst to leave even more than TU students with Captain 'Cane, and for good reason. "Lord Jeff," as he's colloquially known, was a pre-Revolutionary War British commander who advocated the use of smallpox blankets to kill off Native Americans. Germ warfare is a large part of what contributed to the widespread death of most Native American tribes–obviously having a proto-white-supremacist "Lord Jeff" as a mascot is a touchy subject for many students of minorities.

But the mascot is, ironically, only the representative of the real problem at the school: a wide acceptance and toleration of racism. In response to "Black Lives Matter" protests, anti-protests of the thinly veiled racist slogan "All Lives Matter" and the disgustingly petulant/ironic "Free Speech" sprang up.

Those complaining about how dismissing "Lord Jeff" would be a crime against free speech are missing the point: students who love Amherst and want to continually make it a better place wish to distance themselves from an awful figure of history, not sanitize that figure. In fact, leaving Lord Jeffery Amherst as the mascot would do more to sanitize his image than taking him down. I am sure that if this conversation were about historical figures more widely recognized as unsavory, it would be a much shorter conversation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/us/with-diversity-comes-intensity-in-amherst-free-speech-debate.html?_r=0

–Kyle Doud

A NY Times Opinion Piece: Feigning Free Speech on Campus

Since the 1980s, college campuses have started instilling speech codes for their students and faculty to abide by. This has imposed on people's intrinsic rights that was given to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Private universities can easier get away with enacting these speech codes because they are privately funded. However, it is a person's given right to freedom of expression and if need be, they have the opportunity to fight against what is stripping them of it.

This article stated, "In a study of 392 campus speech codes last year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education... found that 65 percent of the colleges had policies that in our view violated the Constitution's guarantee of the right to free speech." Then the article used an example saying, "Last year, incoming Harvard freshmen were pressured by campus officials to sign an oath promising to act with 'civility' and 'inclusiveness' and affirming that 'kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment'." These speech codes are in some ways controlling people's thoughts and actions, which is, in fact, not true freedom, at all.

It is understandable for colleges and universities to want their students to act kindly and justly, but by having these stringent speech codes in place, it hinders them more. A closing sentence that the article stated was, "Students can't learn how to navigate democracy and engage with their fellow citizens if they are forced to think twice before they speak their mind." This topic can and obviously has caused debate, but for the free expression advocate, it is not right to impose on what was given to someone in the First Amendment to try and get the specific behavior a university is wanting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/feigning-free-speech-on-campus.html?_r=1

-Bailey Clampitt

Jena Six

Johnell Celistan

Jena six was about six African American students that attended a high school in a town called Jena which was located in Louisiana. They were arrested after being involved in a fight that was caused by a racial act that was being performed. There were some white students at the high school who decided it was ok to hang nooses from a tree in the high school courtyard. Two violent confrontations between white and black students had taken place. The threat to free expression in this case was taken too far by the white students who thought it was ok to offend the African American students at the high school by hanging nooses from the tree. Even though they were expressing a freedom of expression that was not ok because it caused problems and it caused a huge uproar in the city of Jena. Freedom of expression applies only if it doesn’t offend someone or can potentially start a riot. In this case the white student’s intentions was to offend the African Americans by being racist towards them. This happen back in 2006, and it hit the media hard, because the black students were being criminally charged for beating up the students who were involved with the hanging of the nooses. They were facing charges of second-degree murder.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/10/the_case_of_the_jena_six

Texas university professor amends his 'God bless you' ban

By Ruiming Li

FoxNews published news on September 14, 2015 which mentioned a Texas university professor forbade students say "God bless you" in class.

This professor issued a syllabus which told students should avoided some behaviors in class, include using electronic devices and saying "God bless you." Texas university provided statement that this professor tried to avoid some potentially disruptive behaviors which can influnce the learning environment in classroom, such as using cellphone. However, the ban of saying "God bless you" caused some people's criticize. A student said that syllabus violate the freedom of religion in First Amendment, but some students had no objection of that syllabus, because they thought "it's the teacher's classrooms".


Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/14/texas-professor-orders-students-to-refrain-from-saying-god-bless-calls-it/

Abortion Debate Censored at Christ Church College

By: Megan Grier

At Christ Church College, which is part of the University of Oxford in England, a group called Oxford Students for Life was going to host a debate about “abortion culture," with the pro side being argued for by historian Tim Stanley and the opposing side argued for by editor Brendan O’Neil. A protest was planned by OxRev Fems, but the day before the debate, college censors voted to rescind the group’s permission to use the Blue Boar Lecture Theatre, causing the Oxford Students for Life to cancel their event. The OSFL invited WomCam to co-host a debate with them, but they were not open to the idea, instead suggesting they find alternative events. It was wrong of the censors to vote to rescind their permission. First of all, the debate was voluntary, so if people didn’t want to hear it, they didn’t have to. Secondly, it was a debate, so both sides were being presented. This actually would have been the fairest, most intellectual way to talk about this issue on the campus, but instead they were shut down because some people didn’t agree with the group that was putting it on. This definitely goes against Lewis’ idea about freedom for the thought we hate. OSFL should not have been silenced just because a lot of people disagreed with them, especially when they were giving equal speaking time and privileges to the arguments that they themselves disagreed with.

The article that I got this information from is here: http://www.cherwell.org/news/college/2014/11/17/christ-church-refuses-to-hold-quotabortion-culturequot-debate

Campus Threats to Freedom of Speech - Mizzou

In a society fueled upon technological advancement, social media has created an outlet for individuals to freely voice their opinions while taking away the element of confrontation. On social media, many individuals feel that they are free to express themselves in a fashion that is, perhaps, more blunt than if they were to confront an individual face-to-face. This is because social media takes away the element of interpersonal confrontation. Therefore, social media allows for individuals to abuse their rights to freedom of speech in a harmful way.

Earlier this month, a Mizzou student abused his freedom of speech in a threatening way, through making "terrorist threats" against another student, which resulted in his arrest. The student used Yik Yak, an anonymous social media site in which users are not held accountable for their speech. On the site, his post proved to be harmful through stating that he was going to "shoot every black person I see". Another post read "Some of you are alright. Don't go to campus tomorrow."

Although individuals should have the right to express themselves freely on campus, without being overly monitored and repressed by the university, this form of speech should be monitored and banned. There is a prominent difference between freedom of speech and hate speech, and as John Stuart Mill argues in his Harm Principle, individuals do not have the right to harm others through their speech. In this case, students at Mizzou were indeed harmed through having their feelings and rights of safety on campus violated.

source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/11/social-media-threats-increase-tension-at-university-missouri/

Carly Chalmers

Wesleyan Cuts Funding for School Newspaper

     Mason Morgan      


             The restrictions of free speech should not be used as a symbol; they should be used as a response to a continued trend of misuse of communication privilege. This article is about the student government at Weseleyan University cutting funding for the student newspaper, The Argus. This was in response to the paper publishing an op-ed piece that criticized the Black Lives matter movement. The student government is cutting the budget from $30,000 to $13,000 and dividing those savings to fund more work-study positions among the school’s publications, including the Argus. This will most likely limit the newspapers issues to one a week rather than two. Many students are worried about this reaction as a symbolic gesture. Some say that they are worried about the future student governmental process and the precedent that they have to quickly revoke free speech.

            The interesting part here is that The Argus said that they would not apologize. They say that the published opinion of a student is nothing that they should have to be regretful of. This follows the marketplace of ideas. It appears that the student government is accepting of all ideas and opinions, even though they may be generally unfavorable. Overall, this was a rash decision, in my opinion, that was made to avoid controversy like what is currently happening at Mizzou and Yale.

http://www.courant.com/community/middletown/hc-middletown-wesleyan-argus-1021-20151020-story.html

The NSA's Global Threat to Free Speech

The issue at hand is that America's National Security Agency (NSA) has been undermining people's right to privacy on the Internet to secure information about people that they think is relative to them and the nation. When one thinks about this, it is, without a doubt, taking away one's freedom of expression. As it says in the article, "It is as the NSA were to mount video cameras in our bedrooms while assuring us that we have nothing to worry about until it looks at  the film." It is irrelevant that these conversations aren't happening face to face or over the phone. These conversations are being held over the Internet, which doesn't make them any less private. It is an invasion of someone's privacy and imposing on their individual rights. Now, does it make it okay to undermine someone's intrinsic rights to ensure safety to a nation? My personal belief says yes. This is completely opposite of what a free expression advocate might say, but sometimes decisions need to be made to ensure peace. There are boundaries and implications when it comes to this process, but I think if we can avoid an imminent threat to our country by invading someone's privacy, then it is well worth it.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/18/nsas-global-threat-free-speech

-Bailey Clampitt

ACLU steps in at Univeristy of Missouri

The case that I looked at was very broad about the University of Missouri and the issues that they are facing right now. The ACLU has stepped on campus at the University of Missouri with the local police and have made the statement that the university is  "Mistakenly addressing symptoms — instead of causes — and doing it in a way that runs counter to the First Amendment is not the wise or appropriate response," which I found to be a very interesting concept. I think that what the ACLU is saying is very important because the university is facing several issues right now with the first amendment with protests and journalist covering the events at the university due to their lack of action when students reported forms of hate speech on campus. If university work hard to make sure that students who feel threatened are protected then there wouldn't be a backlash of all of these extra cases. In the article I read about the ACLU stepping in also offered the opinion of the president of the Libertarian Club's thoughts on this issue and his differ from the ACLU quite a bit. This students expressed that if we start addressing every single person that says something that offends another person then things get dangerous, students say things every day that offend each other but that does not call for the action of administration just because it offended someone. This student does have a point and I would agree with him to an extent, students shouldn't being calling the campus or local police every time they feel they've been stepped on but the events that were happening prior to this were more than offensive and from what I understand were form of hate speech towards the black students on the campus of the University of Missouri. I think that the university definitely has the right to not tolerate students who make other students feel unsafe or threatened while on campus. I think the ACLU is completely right in its advising that the University of Missouri should address the causes and not the symptoms of these kind of issues, the original forms of hate speech should've been addressed and then we wouldn't be having first amendment issues with the protests.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/12/aclu-urges-university-missouri-to-better-protect-students-free-speech/



Brooke Randels

Speech Controversy at Wesleyan University

Students were outraged at Wesleyan University when Bryan Stascavage wrote an opinion column in the school news paper concerning the Black Lives Matter movement. Not about what the Black Lives Matter movement stood for, but its anti-cop approach. It had no name calling or any racial slurs, but the student body was out raged. Bryan was a 30 year old sophomore, and a returning war veteran. The students held protests, and burned newspapers.

But ultimately, the president of the school did not punish Stascavage for his words. He ended up having to transfer because of the distaste of the student body. Personally I see Stascavage's piece for what it is; an opinion piece. Yes, it is very opinionative, and lines were close to being crossed. But he has the right to that opinion. Do I have to agree with everything he has to say? No. But for college students to act this way towards someone with a different view point is simply unfair. I think these situations have to be handled differently, and that responsibility does need to come from the student body in certain situations such as this one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.htm

--Madi Smith