Tag: free speech

Free Speech Week, Day 5

Today, we conclude Free Speech Week with Cato articles and blog posts about a variety of current events:

Free Speech Week, Day 4

The New York Times has a column today about free speech on campus.  Here is an excerpt:

Since the 1980s, in part because of “political correctness” concerns about racially insensitive speech and sexual harassment, and in part because of the dramatic expansion in the ranks of nonfaculty campus administrators, colleges have enacted stringent speech codes. These codes are sometimes well intended but, outside of the ivory tower, would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. From protests and rallies to displays of posters and flags, students have been severely constrained in their ability to demonstrate their beliefs. The speech codes are at times intended to enforce civility, but they often backfire, suppressing free expression instead of allowing for open debate of controversial issues.

The author, Greg Lukianoff, is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Since this is Free Speech Week, let me note that two Cato scholars, Nat Hentoff and Harvey Silverglate are also affiliated with FIRE because of their strong commitment to free speech on campus.

Free Speech Week, Day 3

Today, check out Cato work related to the defense of electronic speech:

Free Speech Week

This week Cato is partnering with the Media Institute and others to celebrate Free Speech Week.

Cato has done a lot of work in defense of free speech and we’ll be highlighting some of that work each day this week.

Here’s a sampling of Cato work related to censorship:

U.S. Bends to Protests in Pakistan

To contain mass protests in Pakistan over a now infamous anti-Islamic film, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appear in a $70,000, U.S.-funded ad on Pakistani television denouncing the film and saying America “respects all faiths.”

This joint White House-State Department effort seems terribly misguided, as I would wager that Pakistanis are angrier with Washington dropping bombs on their domes—both cranial and architectural. But what makes this public relations endeavor particularly ill conceived is that, on a basic level, the U.S. Government should be taking this opportunity to promote one of its core foundational principles: the free speech of private citizens.

The ad does not do that. It instead emphasizes America’s tolerance for religious freedom without reference to other fundamental rights. I recognize that Obama and Clinton not only want to stop the anti-American protests, but also challenge the misconception that private and public speech in America are essentially one and the same. But when demonstrators in Peshawar are burning movie theaters and setting fire to posters of female movie stars, our leaders convey the impression that they are kowtowing to radicals. (It should be noted that the savagery perpetrated by radicals in the Muslim world disgusts many moderate Muslims.)

It is bad enough that Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked its American counterpart to have the anti-Islamic film removed from YouTube. It would be worse if Washington fulfilled that expectation by obliging. As writer Salman Rushdie has said of the protests more generally, free speech is at risk because “religious extremists of all stripes” attack people who criticize beliefs.

Americans live under a different set of laws and customs and should never be scared into bending to extremists. And, however offensive the film mocking Mohammed was, there is no excuse for the violent behavior on display.

Obamacare’s Constitutional Defects, First Amendment Division

On May 11, the Department of Health & Human Services finalized rules requiring insurers to tell any of their customers who get premium rebates this summer that the windfall comes courtesy of Obamacare.  Here’s the official required language:  “This letter is to inform you that you will receive a rebate of a portion of your health insurance premiums. This rebate is required by the Affordable Care Act-the health reform law.”

Given that Obamacare is already increasing costs for most patients – insured or otherwise – I wonder who the lucky few will be who get a chance to read the government’s prose.  Moreover, it’s a bit rich to create this “language mandate” when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had earlier advised insurance companies not to speak against Obamacare’s cost-increasing features.  As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader put it:

Obama’s HHS secretary sought to gag insurers that disclosed how Obamacare’s mandates are increasing the cost of health insurance, even though such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment, telling them if they did so, they could be excluded from health insurance exchanges. Prior to that, the Obama administration attempted to gag insurers from disclosing how Obamacare harms Medicare Advantage participants, drawing criticism from First Amendment experts like UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the author of two First Amendment textbooks.

Beyond the unseemliness of it all, however, there’s also a constitutional problem:  The government can’t require people to make politicized statements, whether that’s “Live Free or Die” on license plate or the labeling of consumer products where the labels aren’t justified on fraud-prevention or public health grounds.  See some other examples and legal analysis in Bader’s post at CEI’s blog.

The bottom line is that just like the First Amendment stops the government from censoring speech, it stops it from forcing speech.  And just like there’s no “health care is unique” exception to the Commerce Clause, there isn’t one to the First Amendment.

Case Dismissed!

Yesterday, Federal Judge Kimba Wood dismissed the jury “tampering” indictment against a peaceful jury nullification advocate. Julian Heicklen, an 80-year-old retired chemistry professor, had been indicted for standing outside a Manhattan federal courthouse handing out pamphlets explaining the legal theory that jurors who disagree with a law may acquit a defendant accused of violating that law.

Whew!  It’s safe to hand out pamphlets again.

Rachel Barkow, law professor at New York University, says, “I don’t think sensible prosecutors should have even brought this case.”   Right, but since this case was publicized, we know there’s no sensible supervision of these prosecutors either—so the problem is deeper.

Previous coverage here.