Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When A Free Press Opposes Free Speech
Townhall.com ^ | June 22, 2017 | Mike Adams

Posted on 06/22/2017 6:26:56 AM PDT by Kaslin

The Charlotte Observer recently ran an editorial, which seeks to intentionally misinform the public about HB527 – a bill to restore free speech on campuses in the UNC system. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: The editors who wrote this piece are not confused about what HB527 says. They are intentionally misrepresenting what it says because they oppose free speech. That’s a bold statement, which I intend to back by reprinting the worst parts of their editorial followed by my own observations:

"…(T)he move by North Carolina and a handful of other states to enact laws that enhance punishment for students who disrupt speeches is a solution that would be worse than the problem. Despite what happened to (Ann) Coulter and the likes of Tom Tancredo over his immigration views, UNC Wilmington Professor Mike Adams and his conservatism, and Spike Lee, who faced death and bomb threats when he spoke in North Carolina years ago, free speech is well-protected on college campuses. The proposed law, which passed the House in Raleigh late last week, may end up undercutting some forms of free expression to purportedly enhance the protection of other forms."

The editors have managed to put three unsupported assertions into the same paragraph. They twice assert that HB527 may hurt free speech but they don’t tell us how. As bad as that is, it pales by comparison to the utterly absurd assertion that “free speech is well-protected on college campuses.” Such nonsense is on a par with saying that due process is well protected in North Korea. If the editors really believed that they would need to be hospitalized for severe intellectual hernia. But they don’t really believe that. In fact, no one believes that. The question is not whether there is a free speech crisis on our campuses. The question is whether it is a problem. The answer to that question depends upon two factors: 1) Your politics and 2) Your character.

If you are a conservative or an honest liberal you know there is a free speech problem on college campuses. Obviously, there are no conservatives or honest liberals working on the editorial board of The Charlotte Observer.

"There has to be space for Coulter, despite her ugly rhetoric, which included saying Muslim countries needed to be invaded, their leaders killed and Muslims forced to convert to Christianity after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There also has to be room for students and others to confront her – as long as violence and other threats are not used. Coulter has the right to make audiences uncomfortable, and those audiences have the right to make her uncomfortable, too."

That last paragraph was written as if the editors did not even read HB527. Of course, we know that they did read it – but they are just misrepresenting what it says. Furthermore, the paragraph has no relevance to the HB527 debate – unless, of course, the bill purports to provide a constitutional right of comfort for conservatives like Coulter while denying a corresponding right to those who “confront” her.

The plain language of HB527 says, “It is not the proper role of any constituent institution to shield individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.” In other words, HB527 nullifies campus speech codes that purport to create a constitutional right to comfort - and it protects potentially offensive speech on a viewpoint neutral basis. Thus, the editors use feigned support of a specific provision of HB527 as a reason to oppose HB527. This is Soviet style journalism.

"Critics of House Bill 527, also called “Restore/preserve campus free speech,” rightly note that it is based on model legislation from a conservative think tank and is overly vague, leaving too much room for abuse. Who gets to define how “disruptive” is too disruptive? Some of the country’s most important and effective social movements have involved in-your-face activists disrupting meals while sitting at segregated lunch counters, disrupting the flow of traffic, disrupting speeches on campus and elsewhere."

There are two dangerous admissions in this paragraph. 1) The editors admit that their real reason for opposing HB527 is that it came from conservatives. According to the editors, free speech is not a problem on campuses. But if there was one the editors couldn’t let conservatives solve it because that would deprive them of the ability to depict conservatives as the real enemies of free speech. 2) The editors actually equate lying down in the middle of a public road and blocking the flow of traffic with protected speech. It must hurt to be this intellectually constipated. Nothing more need be said.

"There are already plenty of laws against violence and trespassing, as well as court-based remedies for those who have been wrongly silenced. (Adams sued and won when he was denied a promotion.) Colleges and universities everywhere have conduct codes that deal with unruly students."

The “Adams won and so can you” argument is simply hysterical. The editors do not mention that it took me seven years and over a million dollars in attorney fees to win in federal court. Nor do they mention that before I went to court I was already a campus free speech activist connected with the best First Amendment attorneys in America. The average student does not have my connections or my resources. In fact, none of them do.

Furthermore, by claiming that “conduct codes” are a solution (to the free speech problem they already denied) the editors show their deep ignorance of university policy. Codes such as UNCW’s “disorderly conduct” policy have been used as weapons against free speech.

Case in point: In 2015, a UNCW student faced expulsion for sending a single campus email referring to UNCW administrators as “punk asses.” While crude, this is constitutionally protected speech. Fortunately, the student contacted me asking for assistance. I called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education who came in and saved the day by defending the student and getting the charges dropped.

Obviously, the “disorderly conduct” code was there to protect university administrators from being offended. HB527 does away with that. Under the new bill, students can’t be prosecuted for offending government agents with their speech. They can only be prosecuted for disrupting the speech of other citizens simply because they were offended. This distinction is so simple that even a newspaper editor could understand it.

"The solution isn’t another ill-advised law; it’s better education about why free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy and a more robust adherence not only to the letter of the First Amendment, but its spirit."

This is more intentional deception by the editors. HB527 states that, “All constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina shall include in freshman orientation programs a section describing the policies regarding free expression consistent with this Article.” In other words, HB527 educates incoming freshman about proper respect for free speech as well as the university’s refusal to tolerate those who obstruct it.

These editors are not confused. They are in bed with corrupt administrators and rioting “progressives.” They have no journalistic integrity.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; collegesandunis; editors; freespeech

1 posted on 06/22/2017 6:26:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: alarm rider; alrea; Albion Wilde; Apple Pan Dowdy; Auntie Mame; BatGuano; Battle Axe; ...
Mike Adams Column

Please Freepmail me, if you want to be added, or removed from the ping list.


2 posted on 06/22/2017 6:28:05 AM PDT by Kaslin (The harder thYou mean e conflict, the more glorious the triump. Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Mike Adams...clubbing the left like baby seals.


3 posted on 06/22/2017 6:41:40 AM PDT by gogeo (When your life is based on a false premise...you are indeed insane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The left is very good at lying to themselves.

It is a primary way they advance their agenda.

They agenda, primarily, is tearing down the pillars of society, under the theory that any change is better than what exists.

This is insane, considering that we live in the most prosperous and most free nation on earth. Any change is very likely to make things worse, not better.


4 posted on 06/22/2017 6:46:20 AM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
They agenda, primarily, is tearing down the pillars of society, under the theory that any change is better than what exists.

Critical Theory (Frankfurt School) in a nutshell.

5 posted on 06/22/2017 6:53:14 AM PDT by bankwalker (Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

To all liberals, “Free Speech” is what WE define Free Speech to be; and “we” will let “you” enjoy Free Speech only so long as you agree with us on what is Free Speech, and only say the “free Speech” in accordance with our laws restricting Free Speech!


6 posted on 06/22/2017 6:57:31 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Here is how bad my local press is: in the past week, neither of the following stories appeared above the fold on the front page of The Seattle Times.

1. The attempted assassination of up to a dozen Republican congressmen, leading to the hospitalization of five people, including one congressman who suffered critical injuries.

2. Two Republican victories in special elections, one of which attracted national attention as a "referendum" on Trump, and which also attracted record-setting levels of out-of-state contributions for the Democratic candidate.
7 posted on 06/22/2017 6:59:20 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
 photo DenialSign_zpsx0fpsqtr.jpg
8 posted on 06/22/2017 7:21:34 AM PDT by HotHunt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The motto of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, seen in their famous “roaring lion” title frame, is “Ars gratia artis.” Translated from the Latin, it means “Art for art’s sake.”

I don’t know Latin well enough to write it, but the motto of the destructive, anarchic Left should be “Change for change’s sake.” Change is not the same as improvement, and different isn’t always better.


9 posted on 06/22/2017 7:28:03 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Obviously, there are no conservatives or honest liberals working on the editorial board of The Charlotte Observer.

We knew this already.

10 posted on 06/22/2017 7:28:04 AM PDT by Tax-chick (The Golden Rule. Just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

NC has been down this road before... http://northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/speaker-ban-law/

But when it was leftists being refused, the C&O was all up in arms...

Sadly, there are people who urge censorship and agree it is right to deny speech they do not want to hear....

You are not going to change their minds...it is time for a major reset.


11 posted on 06/22/2017 7:34:24 AM PDT by Adder (Mr. Franklin: We are trying to get the Republic back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Best guess:

English: Change for the sake of Change

Latin: mutata causa mutare

Maybe a Latin scholar can tell us if that is correct.

I used Google translate.


12 posted on 06/22/2017 7:46:53 AM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain; IronJack

Possibly more appropriately stated as: “change for the sake of change”.

A subtle, yet salient, difference when applied to the media and hollywood.
Watch the “award” shows.


13 posted on 06/22/2017 12:20:14 PM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic, Anthropogenic Climate Alterations: The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Latin: mutata causa mutare

just as ‘art’ (ars) is in the nominative, so must ‘change’ be nominative (mutatio)...there is no need whatever to meddle with (gratia, ablative singular), and finally, just as ‘of art’(artis) is in the genitive, so must ‘of change’ be, (mutationis)...thus (mutatio gratia mutationis)...


14 posted on 06/22/2017 7:38:50 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Thanks!


15 posted on 06/22/2017 7:43:00 PM PDT by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson