Free Speech on Campus: Old Battles and New Challenges

Controversies over speech are not new at American colleges, but the issue has become more public—and more heated—in the past several days because of some ugly racial incidents at Yale and the University of Missouri, Columbia.

The Washington Post published this update today on the complicated issues surrounding campus speech, academic freedom and the desire to curb hateful rhetoric on college campuses. The article looks at some of the conflicting values that confront administrators, faculty and students as they try to balance the right to speak with the need to maintain a just and welcoming campus community.

The Post link is here: 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/can-colleges-protect-free-speech-while-curbing-voices-of-hate/2015/11/10/daac2b8c-87ca-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html

--John Coward 

Texas Flag-Desecration Law Unconstitutional

The government threat to free expression:

Within the past few months there has been much talk about Texas' Flag-Desecration Law. It has been struck down by a State court, "invalidating this seldom-enforced ban that lawmakers enacted in 1989. This law came into conversation when Terrance Johnson, 20, was arrested and thrown into jail after grabbing a flag outside of a store and throwing it onto the ground. Some state that his actions were not an act of free expression but an act of anger, but many believe that throwing a flag to the ground is protected by our first amendment right. Johnson's attorney, Joshua Liles, said: "anyone who respects free speech should welcome the law being knocked down."

This law has been ruled unconstitutional because it infringes on American citizen's First Amendment rights of free expression. Due to the destructive actions towards a patriotic symbol, the flag, many are up in arms for protecting this form of speech. 

A link to the NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth article is here.

Principles and discussion: 

This law should outrage and concern citizens across the United States. This is a blatant disregard for the First Amendment and is an over-reach of the government's power over free expression. The United States of America was founded on liberty and the pursuit of freedom for all citizens. This argument that supports this law is that the American flag represents patriotism for the United States and the liberty provided by being an American citizen. The flag is a blatant symbol for freedom of speech, including the freedom to desecrate a beloved symbol.

As Anthony Lewis states in his book, to protect the freedom of speech/expression, we must first seek to protect the speech we hate. Once we start on the path of limiting speech and expression it becomes a slippery slope in which we cannot pick and choose which we protect and which we do not. If we want the American flag to symbolize true freedom we must allow all forms of speech to be protected under the law.

—Submitted by Laci Lynn

FBI seeks new powers to hack into computers worldwide, news report says

The government threat to free expression: A British newspaper, The Guardian, reported last year that the FBI is seeking new powers "to hack into and carry out surveillance of computers in the U.S. and throughout the world." According to civil liberties groups cited by the paper, this power represents "a power grab by the agency that would ride roughshod over strict limits to searches and seizures laid out under the fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution, as well as violating first amendment privacy rights."

The FBI request is part of a proposed change in its rules of engagement that critics say is an unconstitutional power grab. The newspaper quoted Ahmed Ghappour, an expert in computer law at UC Hastings college of law, who said, "This is a giant step forward for the FBI's operational capabilities…." To be seeking these powers at a time of heightened international concern about U.S. surveillance is an especially brazen and potentially dangerous move."

Under the proposed rule change, a judge can issue a warrant that will allow the FBI to hack into any computer no matter where it is located. Critics say this capability will give a green light for the FBI to hack into any computer in the country or around the world.

A link to the Guardian story is here.

Principles and discussion: This is an extremely troubling report because it expands the federal government's power to spy on U.S. citizens. Indeed, the critics cited by the Guardian find this extremely alarming. This kind of government surveillance, even if it's motivated by legitimate anti-terrorism concerns, appears excessive. As Geoffrey Stone notes in War and Liberty, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to guarantee "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches…" (xvi). On the face of it, the new FBI powers appear very broad and easily abused, which is cause for concern. Moreover, as Lewis notes in Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, President George W. Bush "secretly ordered wiretapping of Americans' international telephone calls without obtaining the warrants required by law" (151). In short, the federal government in recent years has increased (and abused) its powers to spy on Americans and, at the same time, repeatedly failed to protect the civil liberties of citizens guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.

--Submitted by John Coward

To Kill a Mockingbird- Banned Books

I chose To Kill a Mockingbird because I had to read this in high school and I really enjoyed it and learned a lot from it. It was banned because of the innapropriate content involving violence, racism, and rape. The section of the book that I read is when someone is trying to explain what the difference between a black and white person, and that blacks are always wrong regardless if they did a crime or not.

Harry Potter- Banned Book Report

I chose Harry Potter and The Sorcerers Stone by JK Rowling. This book allows children to broaden their imagination. Isn’t that what being a child is all about? Harry Potter is an orphan whose parents were killed by Voldemort. Voldemort represents the evil in the book, while Harry represents the good and the pure heart of his parents. From owls delivering letters, talking hats, and magic wands, Harry Potter brings wizardry to life in the most enlightening way. Although this is what makes the book great, it does not settle well with people of religious affiliation, as well and some private and public school systems. 

Banned Books Project: The Perks of Being a Wallflower

My banned book was The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky. The book was banned for multiple reasons, including sexual conduct, homosexuality, drug abuse, and profanity. It was third on the ALA's list for 2009. I chose this book because I read it a couple years back. I think this story is  sad, yet insightful and it does a good job of making the reader feel.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Alissa Apecechea

I chose the book Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling. I read this book back in high school and I read a decent amount of the book for this assignment. Harry Potter books are known for witchcraft, satanism, and anti family values. This book has been criticized by many parents and schools saying that children should not be having access to these themes, where some argued that it is good for their imagination.