Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category
Michael Isikoff’s article is a big revelation:
Attorney General Eric Holder signed off on a controversial search warrant that identified Fox News reporter James Rosen as a “possible co-conspirator” in violations of the Espionage Act and authorized seizure of his private emails, a law enforcement official told NBC News on Thursday.
The disclosure of the attorney general’s role came as President Barack Obama, in a major speech on his counterterrorism policy, said Holder had agreed to review Justice Department guidelines governing investigations that involve journalists.
“I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable,” Obama said. “Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs.”
That’s major news with huge anti-Obama and anti-Holder implications. President Obama’s credibility on First Amendment issues is practically nonexistent because his attorney general signed off on search warrants on reporters. AG Holder’s credibility is shot now that it’s known that he signed off on a search warrant accusing a reporter of committing a crime he didn’t commit. This is the type of revelation that gets the attorney general terminated.
The US attorney general is the chief law enforcement office in the nation. He’s the chief protector of the Constitution, too. He’s useless when he’s wildly accusing reporters of breaking laws they didn’t break. He’s worthless if he isn’t fiercely defending the Bill of Rights.
Rosen, who has not been charged in the case, was nonetheless the target of a search warrant that enabled Justice Department investigators to secretly seized his private emails after an FBI agent said he had “asked, solicited and encouraged … (a source) to disclose sensitive United States internal documents and intelligence information.”
This is President Obama’s worst nightmare. On the day when he tried convincing the American people that he’s defending the nation and the Constitution, his attorney general is proven to have signed off on a search warrant that trampled a reporter’s First Amendment rights.
President Obama’s difficulties aren’t going away anytime soon.
This past week, lots of pundits from across the political spectrum have warned Republicans not to overreach on the AP story. They’re warning that this is a national security issue. That isn’t exactly accurate. It’s time to unravel the DOJ’s disgusting behavior.
At the heart of the scandal is this statement from Attorney General Holder:
Here’s what Attorney General Holder said that isn’t accurate:
HOLDER: This was a serious leak, a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976 and I have to say that this is among, if it isn’t the most serious leak, it is among the top 2 or 3 leaks I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk and trying to determine who was responsible for that required very agressive action.
First, this wasn’t a leak. Here’s the real story:
Although the Justice Department has not explained why it sought phone records from the AP, Pruitt pointed to a May 7, 2012, story that disclosed details of a successful CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Usama bin Laden.
The AP delayed publication of that story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security.
“We respected that, we acted responsibly, we held the story,” Pruitt said.
Pruitt said the AP published the story only after officials from two government entities said the threat had passed. He said the administration still asked that the story be held until an official announcement the next day, a request the AP rejected.
This wasn’t a leak. The AP apparently got word that the CIA asset wasn’t in danger. The CIA said they wanted another day to issue a press release on spoiling this terrorist plot. At that point, the AP decided that they didn’t need to hold their story any longer.
It’s believable that the CIA was upset that they didn’t get to issue their press release first. Based on the fact that the DOJ hasn’t disputed the AP’s statements, it’s fair to assume that the AP acted appropriately in terms of taking the national security and intelligence gathering needs of the nation into serious, sober consideration.
That’s the front end of this scandal. The next part is what makes this one of the most disturbing scandals in recent history. Based on what we know from the first part of the scandal, we know that there wasn’t a need for urgency in stopping a leak that might’ve compromised a CIA asset in the Middle East. That means the DOJ wasn’t entitled to grab the records it did without telling the AP about this massive grab of AP phone records. That means the DOJ was obligated to going to court to apply for a search warrant and for the AP to contest the scope of DOJ’s phone records grab.
The federal government’s need to protect intelligence-gathering assets in harms way isn’t disputed. In fact, the AP apparently acted responsibly in this respect.
Now that we’ve determined these basic, undisputed facts, it’s time to question DOJ’s actions. Did the DOJ need to sieze 2 months of the AP’s phone records? Did DOJ need 2 months of phone records of over 100 AP reporters and editors? If it didn’t, why did DOJ sieze these sensitive records, especially without giving the AP the chance to contest the DOJ’s actions?
Unless new facts emerge that support DOJ’s actions, Americans of all political stripes should question DOJ’s ham-handed behavior in this matter.
UPDATE: Follow this link to read more on the DOJ-AP scandal.
I’ve been tracking the childcare unionization debate for about an hour. First, it’s important to summarize what’s happened thus far. First, Rep. Kresha submitted an A-39 amendment, requiring a size 14 font. Rep. Nelson, DFL-AFSCME, said that the union’s literature met that standard so the amendment was frivolous. Rep. Nelson then urged a red vote. After a long round of questioning from Rep. Kresha, Rep. Franson and Rep. Peppin.
Rep. Nelson’s standard line was that this was covered by BMS regulations and that “the BMS has been doing this for 40 years and they’ve been doing a fine job.”
Later, Rep. Peppin returned from talking with child care providers outside the House floor. She held up a card that didn’t meet the standard Rep. Nelson said it would meet.
Finally, Rep. Sarah Anderson asked if any audits had been done on the elections. When Rep. Nelson said he wasn’t sure if the BMS had audited these elections, Rep. Anderson then asked how Rep. Nelson knew that they’d been doing a fine job. Rep. Nelson didn’t have an answer for Rep. Anderson’s question.
3:35 — Rep. Peppin: “There’s nothing in the BMS (Bureau of Mediation Services) rules that address font size.” She then asks why Rep. Nelson won’t agree to the amendment.
3:38 — Rep. Franson offers an A-78 amendment. Rep. Franson says that SF778 disenfranchises child care providers if they don’t care for CCAP children.
3:45 — DFL votes to disenfranchise potential childcare voters.
4:30 — Rep. Sarah Anderson just finished giving a stirring speech in which she said Rep. Nelson was “rigging the election to get the result you want.”
Kirsten Powers’ op-ed exemplifies why she’s my favorite liberal:
In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington’s partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,”If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
President Obama has gotten adulation from the Agenda Media since before he’d been elected to the Senate. Books have been written about the media’s slobbering love affair with President Obama. Still, that isn’t enough for the messiah.
Anything less than constant adoration isn’t acceptable with this administration.
Here’s a warning from Ms. Powers that liberals should pay attention to:
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal, as I am, you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren’t calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.
That’s the same message being sent by FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. Mr. Lukianoff is a proud liberal who’s fought the good fight against campus censorship. Whether it’s fascists implementing ‘speech codes’ or whether it’s the fascist staff in the White House, the result is the same: censorship.
There’s no such thing as acceptable censorship.
This is particularly appalling information:
What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.”Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn’t a news operation?
A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.
It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.
Whether it’s this administration, MMFA or other hardline fascist/progressive organizations (think ABM in Minnesota or ProgressNow nationally), the goal is the same: to stop informed debate.
That’s why I’ll proudly join with Kirsten Powers and Greg Lukianoff in fighting against the tyranny of censorship.
I just published this post about progressive fascism in Minnesota, which is a good start on what’s wrong with public debate in Minnesota but that doesn’t go far enough in talking about what’s the heart of the problem.
What’s wrong is illustrated with this disgusting depiction of progressive fascism:
It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This video highlights what’s at the heart of the problem:
What caught my attention is Prof. Rauch’s statement that “Minorities aren’t delicate flowers” that need protection. Later, his statement that an attitude of “Bring it on” is what changes people’s minds. Pluralism, not purism, he said, is the way to change people’s minds. He’s exactly right.
What’s interesting is that Prof. Rauch isn’t a hardline conservative. He’s a gay rights activist and proud liberal. He isn’t interested in shutting down debate. He’s advocating for passionate, respectful debate.
The gay rights activists that spat on Rep. Hamilton weren’t interested in passionate, respectful debate. Their shouting down people they disagree with is the opposite of debate. That might win elections but it doesn’t win mandates. It simply says that one side did a better job of turning out voters than the other side.
This review of Greg Lukianoff’s book hits at the heart of what’s wrong with progressive fascism:
Lukianoff tells me of a recent survey conducted by the American Association of Colleges and Universities: ‘Out of 24,000 students who were asked the question, “Is it safe to hold unpopular positions on campus?”, only 35 per cent of students strongly agreed. But, when broken down, the stat indicates something even worse. Forty per cent of freshmen strongly agreed, but only 30 per cent of seniors.’ In other words, students unlearn freedom of speech during their studies.
It’s troubling to think that dissent is discouraged on college campuses. What’s worse is that students aren’t the only people who are told that they shouldn’t express dissent:
‘Even worse, only 16 per cent of university faculty strongly agreed with this statement. It’s not even a particularly strong statement, and if we’ve reached a point where only 16 per cent of faculty strongly agree with it, then we’re doing something wrong.’
When the vast majority of faculty say that holding unpopular positions” is dangerous for them, then something’s seriously wrong with university administrators.
It’s time for debate-loving people of all political persuasions to join together in fighting the latest version of fascism.
This LTE contains a disturbing scene:
I attended both Voter ID public hearings in the city of Rochester during this election year. I went there hoping to learn more about the proposed amendment, along with hearing more from the opposing point of view.
I didn’t realize I was in for such a rude awakening. Most of the hearing consisted of people shouting and talking over the representatives from both sides on the issue.
I completely respect the idea of the First Amendment and the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, people seem to believe it applies only when the speaker’s point of view agrees with their own.
When speaking with Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer after the hearing in Rochester, she stated this was the worst reception she had ever received. One lady verbally attacked her right in front of me, along with a young man grabbing her arm on the way out of the forum.
I decided, with a group of like-minded individuals, to escort her out of the building.
This is the face of DFL activism. Though this incident involved the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment, this isn’t the only time DFL activism has gone way past the line. I wrote about another incident where the DFL activists’ behavior was disgusting. This is a firsthand report from a legislator:
What became unnerving was that last night as we moved closer to the vote they got louder and faster. There was one woman who screeched every time the main doors opened. Made me long for a pair of socks. It was an experience I will remember a long time. Especially seeing the backs of the state troopers–as they lined up shoulder to shoulder to keep the crowd from touching us. And the screaming, “Shame! Shame!” at us. Doesn’t really go with earlier in the evening when they were singing Amazing Grace, and shouting “No Hate”. Of course, they seemed to think it was perfectly loving to scream “Bigot” 10 inches from my face and spit on one of the other reps. (By the way, he has MS, walks with a cane and is a little slower. No hate, right?
This past session, the DFL spoke in public about the need for compromise. They spoke of it as the political Holy Grail. The DFL’s hypocrisy was exposed because they took a my-way-or-the-highway approach when they were the majority party in the legislature. From 2007-2010, there weren’t calls for civility and compromise. Those words were quickly forgotten.
Thanks to ABM’s lies and the Twin Cities’ media’s unwillingness to call them on their disgusting pattern of lying, progressive fascism has displaced Minnesota Nice. Here’s hoping that Republicans take principled stands against the DFL’s bad policies.
More importantly, here’s hoping the GOP articulately explains why they’re opposing the DFL’s counterproductive policies. Only through clear articulation of our principles will we win debates. We won’t win elections if we don’t win the debates.
The good news is that positive solutions will quickly discredit progressive fascism’s chalking points.
This article makes lots of sense in saying the ACA might well go the way of the BCRA, aka McCain-Feingold. First, here’s what Catron said about the process that got rid of the BCRA:
Another provision of Obamacare being challenged in court is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). IPAB, you will recall, is Obamacare’s rationing board. When PPACA was signed into law, Congress transferred much of its power to this committee, which will decide what services will be approved by Medicare and how much the providers of those services will be paid. The Goldwater Institute has filed a lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, which challenges the constitutionality of IPAB under the separation of powers doctrine.
Congress has sole authority on setting the parameters of service. Congress essentially said that they were getting out of the oversight business and that they were giving future presidents a blank check on health care.
This might be the biggest sticking point in the ACA:
And, no list of Obamacare lawsuits would be complete without mentioning the Oklahoma lawsuit challenging the illegal IRS rule by which the Obama administration will attempt to funnel tax credits and subsidies through federally-created exchanges, despite the law’s stipulation that such premium-assistance can only be offered via state-run exchanges. This litigation is, in many ways, the most important of all the lawsuits. Without its insurance exchanges, and the accompanying subsidies, Obamacare will crash and burn.
The bill’s language is quite clearly written. Only those people who purchase their health insurance through state-run exchanges can get premium-assistance subsidies. If the Obama administration can’t extend these subsidies to exchanges run by the federal government, they’re in a difficult position because tons of states have said that they aren’t establishing state-run exchanges:
Over the past week, the list of states not participating in the system has grown to nineteen as the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Nebraska chose to join sixteen others in rejecting the state health insurance exchange that is called for under the Obamacare law.
Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin announced his choice in a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday writing, “No matter which option is chosen, Wisconsin taxpayers will not have meaningful control over the health care policies and services sold to Wisconsin residents.”
Maine Governor Paul LePage wrote to Sebelius explaining why his state won’t implement the state exchange saying, “In the end, a state exchange puts the burden onto the states and the expense onto our taxpayers, without giving the state the authority and flexibility we must have to best meet the needs of the people of Maine.”
It’s clear that at least 19 states are opting not to establish state-run exchanges, meaning the federal government must implement fed-run exchanges. That’s without undecided states making their decisions. Those states include Florida, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Arkansas and Iowa.
NOTE: That’s the status as of Nov. 16. It’s likely that at least half of the states that are undecided will reject state-run exchanges, driving the total north of 25 states. If all those states reject establishing state-run exchanges, that represents approximately 162,616,000, which is significantly more than half of the U.S. population of 309,000,000.
Not only wouldn’t those people get subsidized health insurance but it would force the federal government to foot the bills for the exchanges. That will dramatically drive up the federal government’s annual deficits. If you think they’re outrageous now, you’re right. If the federal government has to run 25-28 individual exchanges, these deficits will seem like the good old days.
Killing the PPACA can’t happen soon enough. Once that’s done, serious people can implement real health care reform.
If there’s a more intolerant bunch than elitists on college campuses, it’s difficult to think who it might be. The anti-First Amendment, pro-censorship crowd is getting exposed thanks to Greg Lukianoff’s book and George Will’s column about Mr. Lukianoff’s book. Here’s something from Lukianoff’s book that Will highlighted in his column:
In recent years, a University of Oklahoma vice president has declared that no university resources, including e-mail, could be used for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary.” The College at Brockport in New York banned using the Internet to “annoy or otherwise inconvenience” anyone. Rhode Island College prohibited, among many other things, certain “attitudes.” Texas Southern University ‘s comprehensive proscriptions included “verbal harm” from damaging “assumptions” or “implications.” Texas A&M promised “freedom from indignity of any type.” Davidson banned “patronizing remarks.” Drexel University forbade “inappropriately directed laughter.” Western Michigan University banned “sexism,” including “the perception” of a person “not as an individual, but as a member of a category based on sex.” Banning “perceptions” must provide full employment for the burgeoning ranks of academic administrators.
There’s no more passionate defender of the First Amendment than George Will, though it’s apparent that Mr. Lukianoff isn’t a slouch in that respect either.
The censorship police’s intrusion into campuses must stop ASAP. They simply don’t have the right to limit speech. That’s what makes this next part especially appalling:
Many campuses congratulate themselves on their broad-mindedness when they establish small “free-speech zones” where political advocacy can be scheduled. At one point Texas Tech’s 28,000 students had a “free-speech gazebo” that was 20 feet wide. And you thought the First Amendment made America a free-speech zone.
It’s apparent that progressives don’t like the First Amendment. Their tactics are geared to shut down discussions. In the past 4 years, we’ve heard progressives talk about how the First Amendment should be restricted. That’s what McCain-Feingold, aka BCRA, sought to do. Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right with its Citizens United ruling. Thankfully, BCRA is now gutted. Thankfully, a portion of the First Amendment was restored.
Now it’s time to start picking fights on college campuses about the progressives’ censorship campaign. It’s time to start stripping the censorship police’s authority. It’d be great if the censorship police can be stripped of their authority in a quick ruling.
Most likely, though, it’ll be a lengthy, hard-fought fight. The thought/censorship police accumulated their power over time. They won’t willingly let go of that authority.
However long it takes, the fight must start today. It isn’t overstatement to say that the left has been waging war against the First Amendment for a generation. It’s time for First Amendment advocates, whether they’re constitutional conservatives like Mr. Will or free speech liberals like Mr. Lukianoff, to mount a full frontal assault against the censorship police. More accurately, it’s probably best that We The People join Mssrs. Will and Lukianoff in their fight for the Constitution and the First Amendment.
The police officer in this video makes it exceptionally clear that he was acting on the city attorney’s request:
The video also shows that the Protect My Vote people were respectful, polite and willing to obey the law. That speaks volumes about the character of the Protect My Vote movement.
This article shows that the Bloomington city attorney, Sandra Johnson, doesn’t respect the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, the way that ordinary citizens respect the rule of law:
St. Paul – Although the Bloomington Police officers could not cite any statute or ordinance to justify their actions, they ordered the ProtectMyVote.com van to leave the City Hall parking lot, Thursday night.
The officer in charge, Sergeant Lewis said he was directed by the city attorney to remove ProtectMyVote.com personnel and supporters from city property and had no knowledge of any ordinance or statute to justify the action. He said he was representing the city attorney.
Earlier in the week, ProtectMyVote.com’s chairman, Dan McGrath took a phone call from the Bloomington city clerk, who explained that there was an active polling place for absentee balloting in City Hall. Knowing that state statute prohibits political signs within 100 feet of a polling place, McGrath assured her that the campaign would observe and respect the 100’ rule, even though the polling place and city hall would be closed by the time the campaign was scheduled to be there. The city clerk wasn’t satisfied. She went on to explain that the city of Bloomington didn’t want the ProtectMyVote.com campaign on city property at all, regardless of the polling place regulations.
McGrath wasn’t looking for a fight. “Not a problem. I’ll let the driver know and we’ll park near City Hall, off the grounds, instead,” he told her. McGrath thought that was the end of it.
First, the 100′ rule prevents electioneering, something the Founding Fathers would’ve frowned on. Second and more importantly, Bloomington’s city attorney, Sandra Johnson, should’ve known that she can’t limit free speech in the way she tried limiting it.
This email from Ms. Johnson bothers me, too:
Thank you for your cooperation. Nonetheless, police have been alerted to make certain that there is no illegal use of City property.
Dan McGrath had just verified that the Protect My Vote volunteer wouldn’t be on city-owned property:
I spoke with the city clerk already and agreed to keep the vehicle off city
property. This email seems like a bit of an overreaction. Surely you (and the mayor and the city council and the chief of police) have better things to do with your time.
Some of your legal rationale doesn’t hold water, but as I said, we aren’t going to be on your precious blacktop, so that’s irrelevant.
The strongest argument against Ms. Johnson comes from the first email she sent to Mr. McGrath:
The dedicated purpose of the Civic Plaza parking lots is to serve
the parking needs of the employees and members of the public using the facility. Any private use of the property that interferes with that purpose can be prohibited.
Based on this description of the facility, the parking lots are used for many things, including, but not limited to, “the parking needs of the employees and members of the public using the facility.” Ms. Johnson’s email indicates that activities that don’t interfere with the theatre’s parking shouldn’t be prohibited.
What you’re about to read is BS only a fascist could appreciate. This article isn’t just bizarre. It’s disgusting. Here’s the article’s intro:
If you thought college was a place for young people to speak out, challenges one another’s deeply-held beliefs and grow intellectually, chances are you’ve never been to Indiana University Southeast.
The school, located just 10 miles north of Louisville, Ky., is the latest college to see its speech code come under fire from a group that advocates freedom of speech on campuses. One stipulation in the code requires that students may only “express opinions” within a free speech zone, which is antithetical to what a college should stand for, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy organization which defends the free speech and due process rights of college students.
In the Sixties and early Seventies, college campuses were hubs where debates happened, theories were challenged and the First Amendment was cherished. What’s happening on today’s campuses is a disgrace. Students get lower grades because they refuse to say what their professor wants them to say. FIRE has dealt with that before.
The fascists/progressives can’t even provide a coherent excuse for their censorship policies:
“[The guidelines] were intended to provide some guidance on the issue so that those wishing to gather and express an opinion could do so without endangering people or property,” the school told FoxNews.com in a statement. “The guidelines also were intended to protect the rights of all students to have unfettered access to educational activities on campus (in other words, the exercise of free speech rights should not result in blocking access to buildings or disrupting classes or campus events).”
That’s BS. If the little dainties can’t handle hearing an opinion that challenges their worldview, they’re destined for failure. The fascists/progressives don’t care about that, though. They’re obsessed with indoctrinating as many students as possible. Exposing them to opinions that contradict the fascists’ worldview might destroy the fascist movement and they certainly can’t have that.
This paragraph is proof that a little paranoia goes a long way:
“We have to regulate other groups who come from off campus. Some come and preach a lot of hate. We just can’t have them wandering around campus with bullhorns over here,” Joseph Wert, associate professor of Political Science and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Indiana University Southwest, told FoxNews.com.
Wert didn’t specify which groups “from off campus” enter IUS’s campus for the purpose preaching hate. Based on how progressive media villifies conservatives and the TEA Party, I’m betting that Prof. Wert is talking about conservatives and TEA Party activists.
The thing is that I’ve never watched a report of conservatives or TEA Party activists stomping across college campus. I’ve never watched a report of them preaching hate or using bullhorns, either.
I’m betting Prof. Wert is lying through his teeth to justify (rationalize?) the university’s unjustifiable policy of censorship. Unfortunately, IUS isn’t the only campus to practice censorship:
It’s not just Indiana University Southeast. Colorado College, in Colorado Springs, prohibits “any act of ridicule…or embarrassment,” and Northeastern University, in Boston, prohibits the use of university computer resources to “transmit or make accessible material, which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive.”
“This gives the university carte blanche to censor any electronic communication of which it disapproves,” Shibley noted. “You’re teaching [college students] that they’re not equipped to live in a free society.”
It isn’t free speech if colleges are the sole arbiters of what students can and can’t say. That’s censorship, which is the first step towards full-blown fascism.