Federal Court: Speech restrictions on students unconstitutional

Students and free speech win over University of Cincinnati!

Press Release:

Federal Court: University of Cincinnati Speech Restrictions on Students Unconstitutional

Students supporting "right to work" amendment cannot be arrested for discussing amendment and gathering signatures on campus

Cincinnati, OH - A federal court today ruled that the University of Cincinnati's blanket prohibition on student political speech on campus violates the First Amendment. The ruling, made by Judge Black of the Cincinnati division of the Southern District of Ohio, paves the way for members of the student group Young Americans for Liberty ("YAL") to advocate and collect signatures for the Ohio Workplace Freedom Amendment on campus.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which also drafted the Workplace Freedom Amendment, took up the students' case and challenged UC's policies after UC threatened to arrest student members of YAL if they attempted to gather signatures for the right-to-work cause on campus.

The lawsuit sought recognition that (1) the First Amendment applied to public university property, such as the University of Cincinnati; (2) signature-gathering for petition drives is a protected form of political speech; and (3) UC's requirement that all UC students register up to 15 days ahead of time before engaging in any political speech on campus violates the First Amendment.

In his decision, Judge Black emphasized "It is simply unfathomable that a UC student needs to give the University advance notice of an intent to gather signatures for a ballot initiative. There is no danger to public order arising out of students walking around campus with clipboards seeking signatures." The order, an across-the-board rebuke to UC's policies, enjoins UC from:

* "Requiring prior notification for the solicitation by students of signatures for petitions;"

* "Prohibiting all solicitation by students of signatures for petitions in any designated public forum, including the Free Speech Area, the outdoor spaces described in the MainStreet Event Guide, and campus sidewalks;"

* "Requiring that all student 'demonstrations, picketing, or rallies' occur only in the Free Speech Area;"

* "Requiring 5 to 15 days prior notification for any and all student 'demonstrations, picketing, or rallies' without differentiations;"

* "Imposing or enforcing any policy restricting student speech in any designated public forum, including the Free Speech Area, the outdoors spaces described in the MainStreet Event Guide, and campus sidewalks, that is not individually and narrowly tailored to serve a compelling university interest.

The Court further ordered UC to craft "more narrowly tailored regulations that regulate student expressive activities . . . only as are necessary to serve a compelling government interest." "UC is an arm of the state that has chased and received state and federal tax dollars since its inception, all in the name of 'public education,'" said Maurice Thompson, Executive Director of the 1851 Center.

"UC mistakenly seeks to advance its mission of public education by shielding its students from actual education on public policy issues that affect all Ohioans. Fortunately, the First Amendment allows us to protect the education of UC students from their educators; it further protects the right of students to calmly address facts and arguments that UC would rather suppress, and to do so without prior permission."

The 1851 Center and UC students endured four months of procedural tactics, harassing depositions, and frivolous daily letters by UC's attorneys, after Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine authorized $200,000 in state funds to the private law firm of Crabbe Brown, a campaign contributor of Mr. DeWine's, to defend the clearly unconstitutional University of Cincinnati policies. The 1851 Center represents clients at no cost.

Multiple Ohio colleges and universities maintain speech restrictions similar in kind, although not as extensive, as those of the University of Cincinnati - - the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recently named UC's speech policies the worst in the nation. However, these policies are suspect in light of the Court's clear ruling.

Click here to view the court's decision.

Click here to read more about the case.

Going dark to urge congressional action: Who will protect the freedom to blog?

I wanted to share with you an action that many bloggers are participating in:

Going dark to urge congressional action: Who will protect the freedom to blog?

As I committed to covering the Future of Journalism Summit sponsored by Heritage Foundation and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, including tonight's Breitbart Awards Dinner, I cannot go dark. But I can share with you Michelle Malkin's column and urge you to do and bloggers are doing and contact your members of Congress to help protect the freedom to blog.

This is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue - this is about our fundamental right to free speech.

Here is the start of her column. I hope you'll read the entire post and use her links to contact members of Congress and help protect everyone's First Amendment rights.

My syndicated column today covers the crucial battle between truth-telling bloggers versus convicted bomber Brett Kimberlin and his band of malicious online thugs. In honor of the National Day of Blogger Silence called by Ace of Spades, this blog is going dark. But far from shutting up, I’ll be spending the day calling, e-mailing, and tweeting members of Congress, GOP leaders, journalists, and influencers to ask them what they are doing to defend the First Amendment rights of bloggers. This is a day of action, not inaction. Below my column, I’ll list some contact info for elected officials who need to hear from you. Please join us and act for free speech. Thank you.

***

Who will protect the freedom to blog?
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2012

Free speech is under fire. Online thugs are targeting bloggers (mostly conservative, but not all) who have dared to expose a convicted bomber and perjuring vexatious litigant now enjoying a comfy life as a liberally-subsidized social justice operative. Where do your elected representatives stand on this threat to our founding principles?

On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) bravely stepped forward to press this vital issue. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Sen. Chambliss decried the “harassing and frightening actions” of Internet menaces who have recently gone after several conservative new media citizen journalists and activists. (VIDEO here.)

GOP Rep. Ken Marchant of Texas also added his voice, telling Holder in a statement that he is “very afraid of the potential chilling effects that these reported actions may have in silencing individuals who would otherwise be inclined to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech.” And the American Center for Law and Justice, a leading conservative free speech public interest law firm, announced it was providing legal representation to the National Bloggers Club – a new media association that has provided support and raised funds for targets of this coordinated harassment. (Full disclosure: I volunteer on the National Bloggers’ Club board of directors.)

The ACLJ described the importance of the case very simply: “Free speech is under attack.”

Read more.

There is also this column on National Review Online: Defending Bloggers from Attacks, Intimidation and Frivolous Lawsuits.

Here is an on-line petition, if you'd like to show your support.

Link Roundup - taxes, tyranny, tortoises and free speech

Here are some interesting stories from around the Internet that I came across and wanted to share:

* Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech - it's hard to believe but a union in Indiana is arguing in court that the state's new right-to-work law, which makes union dues voluntary and not a requirement for employment, impedes their right to free speech because it cuts the amount of money they have to 'communicate' that speech.

They're claiming that free speech depends on funding. As the article says:

The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech. The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself. It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

* Mojave Solar Project Killing Threatened Desert Tortoises - Environmentalists and conservations have documented that the have documented that the have documented that the BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah solar power project in the Mojave Desert has directly caused many desert tortoise deaths, in addition to disturbing the natural environment of all the reptiles in the area.

It's bad enough that the project is costing more than $2 billion. Shamefully, the solar energy from Ivanpah will be three times more expensive than natural gas or coal. What's even worse is that the state's Public Utilities Commission has estimated that customers will see their bills increase up to 50% for renewable energy as a result.

But the kicker is the hypocrisy of all who support the project. Could you imagine the outrage, outcries and demonization that would come from politicians and the media if this was an oil or coal plant doing the same thing?


* Women vs. the State - the National Center for Policy Analysis has summarized a recent Reason Magazine article on how women fare under many laws. What I thought was particularly interesting was the tax ramifications which many people don't think about:

• Unless a wife makes more than her husband (and 72 percent do not), the government will tax the first dollar the wife earns at her husband's highest marginal rate.

• This tax policy and the steep jump in the marginal rates as a couple's income rises discourage women from working, as they receive disproportionately low after-tax compensation.

• The effect is a marriage penalty on women's desire to work.

• According to economists Nada O. Eissa and Austin Nichols, married women increased their employment substantially in response to reductions in marginal tax rates following the 1986 tax reform, and similar results were seen again in the 1990s.

• It also explains why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead.

And speaking of taxes, since they're are due by April 15th, this article from Cato is especially timely...

* American Income Tax Tyranny - This article details several types of tyranny in the tax code, including the lie that our taxes are imposed by the 'consent of the governed':

The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.

But this is only one such tyranny. I hope you'll read the entire article.

If you enjoy your freedom, thank a Vet!

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." ~ Thomas Paine

Last night, I slept very soundly. I had no fear of being pulled out of my bed in the middle of the night and carted off to some detention center.

I awoke this morning and turned on the radio - talk radio, that is - and listened to news and opinion that hadn't been filtered through the state. And it came from a station broadcasting publicly without fear of reprisals for doing so.

I drove my husband to the plant where he's working this week. It's a privately-owned company that makes a product of its choosing and employs willing workers - all benefitting from a (relatively) free market.

I crossed a state line and didn't need papers of any kind. I passed through no checkpoints and had no curfew. I was free to travel where I wanted, when I wanted and no one questioned me about where I was going or what I was doing.

On the way home, I considered stopping for carryout - or maybe doing some grocery shopping. I had no fear of shortages, lines or rations.

And now, I'm connected to the entire world through the Internet, posting my opinions on line and I have no fear of being arrested for what I write or say.

I'm an American - with all the freedoms and benefits of liberty promised and established by our nation's founders - but guaranteed by those who have served to protect them: our Veterans.

For all these things, the simple words, 'Thank you!' just don't seem like enough, though they convey the eternal gratitude of so many.

So to all the Veterans, thank you so very much for ensuring my freedom and for safeguarding our nation, our rights and our liberty!

Happy Veterans Day!

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." ~ Ronald Reagan

Conflicts of interest vs. free speech

Maricopa County, AZ, is the talk of the blogosphere today after the County Manager decided he wanted to know who was talking to bloggers.

Apparently, there is a dispute between the Manager/County Supervisors and the County Attorney's office (which is supposed to represent the other elected officials) and, as part of lawsuits between the two, the 'client' wants to know if the 'legal representative' has a conflict of interest.

In order to determine that, the County Manager wants to know if any staff person in the Attorney's office has ever communicated with bloggers, various conservative groups or certain media - under any name, on their time, on any subject.

What they've done, in effect, is drag the public and various constituencies into their internal dispute. In doing so, they are trampling on the First Amendment rights of individuals. Now, I'll be the first to admit that attorneys have special rules when it comes to representing their clients. But if you're the Public Information Officer for the Attorney's office, you're going to have conversations with all kinds of people, including bloggers, as part of your job, so this seems like more political posturing than true concern over potential conflicts of interest.

Blue Collar Muse has more details, but lest you think this is a partisan issue, know that the primary offenders are Republican.

Now comes the editorial on Fairness Doctrine

As I predicted, a couple of stories and then an editorial. The Blade's standard operating procedure when they get stuck on an issue is probably well-known to most by now, but that doesn't stop them.

The issue de jour is the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.' You see, unlike just about every other medium, conservatives dominate talk radio. The Blade (and many liberals) think it's because of some sort of concerted effort to keep liberals off the air. The reality, despite their protestations to the contrary, has to do with profit. Radio stations are for profit corporations and if it sells, or makes the owners money, it gets on the air.

Liberal talk radio just isn't profitable - at least not yet. There are some areas, like Portland and Los Angeles, where liberal talk show hosts are successful. That fact alone proves the point about profitability and completely defeats The Blade's argument, but never let logic interfere with your editorial perspective.

Most of the public isn't really in support of a 'Fairness Doctrine' so the problem is how to present regulation of free speech in a way that will garner the support needed to shove it through. I know - we won't say we're trying to control what YOU say - just trying to provide an opportunity for others to say what they want, as well! Voila! Enter 'balance' as the prevalent term, closely followed by 'local control' and 'public good.'

Radio frequencies and their use are controlled by the government under a licensing scheme. Once government 'owns' something on behalf of the public, it controls it and gets to dictate how it is used. Could you imagine the outrage if such licensing laws were directed at public newspapers? Of course, that would never happen - nor should it. But before you can dictate content, you have to establish control - and that's just what we've got with radio. And then we're back to the argument about 'who' gets to make the decisions.

So government, by fiat, declares something to be 'publicly owned' and then begins regulating its use.

(Side note: I'm sure there's a separate post on public versus private ownership and the push by many to eliminate private property rights - but it will have to wait for another day.)

By claiming that they have to ensure certain rights on behalf of the public, they gain control over not only the method of speech, but also the content. I guess we've forgotten that government doesn't grant us our rights, but is supposed to protect them - and regulating what people can say or telling them that their opinions have to be 'balanced' with opposing ones is certainly not protecting a right to free speech.

This concept then leads us into the situation where you may have a right to speak, but I don't have to listen. Certainly liberals have the OPPORTUNITY to be on the air - Bill Press and Stephanie Miller can be heard on WNWT-AM 1520. So, if liberal talk radio is present in Toledo, what's the problem?

Well, as with most liberals, it's not about ensuring equal opportunity. It's all about ensuring equal OUTCOME. While Press and Miller are on the air, they're not the dominate voice in the Toledo market. And since this area elects primarily Democrats, it must mean that Toledoans are victims of evil conservatives, so those evil conservatives must be restricted and/or stopped.

Never mind that Press and Miller haven't been on the air anywhere near as long as others and are just beginning to develop their audience and advertisers - something WSPD has been doing for decades. Never mind that their ratings are not very high. If they're not doing well, it cannot be because of anything they, themselves, are doing. It must be because WSPD is too big... or isn't being 'fair'... or isn't 'balanced'... or isn't locally owned... or any number of excuses that are used to protect those who, through their own failings, don't succeed in an open market.

Of course, that brings up the so-called liberal logic - the market isn't 'open' if someone else controls it, therefore government must control it in order to make it 'balanced' or 'fair' or 'open.' But that argument, too, rejects reality in that a government-regulated market is, by the very act of government regulation, not open. So if a semi-regulated market doesn't ensure our side with the success we want, it must be because there isn't enough regulation, so let's add more! By the time government finishes with its regulations to create 'balance' of outcomes, it completely controls everything and our free speech rights are dead.

So, having failed, and rightly so, when it comes to regulating the content of talk radio, they're taking a new approach - regulate the owners. That 'evil' Clear Channel owns soooo many radio stations and all they feature are - gasp! - conservatives. We must regulate them more if we're going to ensure the public has access to our perspective - after all, government must ensure the 'public trust.'

It is this concentration of ownership that is really at the center of the problem. He who controls the broadcast licenses controls the content of what goes out over the air, and any notion of a "public trust" be damned.

What could be more characteristic of a totalitarian state than limiting information to a narrow range of options? Democracy's very survival depends on a public that is well-informed, sometimes whether they wish to be or not.

(Of course, this statement, "He who controls the broadcast licenses controls the content of what goes out over the air, and any notion of a "public trust" be damned." applies to government as well, but I guess to The Blade editors, that's not really a problem. Additionally, they seem to have no issue whatsoever with other media 'limiting information to a narrow range of options,' only talk radio. Here's a thought: if a narrow range of options is to be avoided, how about if they start with their own paper???)

Having a private company decide what to broadcast does not lead to a "totalitarian state" which is defined:

1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

In fact, if government gets to decide what goes out over the airwaves, that is, indeed, exactly what The Blade is so afraid of. But again, let's not let facts and logic get in the way of our editorial...

And let me emphasize their last point: the public has to be informed of liberal ideas "whether they wish to be or not." If you don't want to listen to our liberal perspectives, we must force you to hear us. Talk about totalitarian!

Information is certainly not limited in today's world. With newspapers, television (don't forget the massive spending of our limited tax dollars to ensure that everyone will get the new digital signal mandated by government, as if watching TV is some sort of 'right'), radio, Internet, and magazines, people have access to more information than they know what to do with. Radio is the one place left that isn't dominated by liberal opinions. And our local Blade is just the closest example of how the liberal perspective permeates not only their editorial pages - where is certainly belongs - but their 'news' stories as well.

Talk radio is the equivalent of a newspaper's editorial pages. It is the opinion of author/speaker and, as opinion, doesn't require an 'opposing view.' Callers to talk radio are the equivalent to writers of letters to the editor.

Just like The Blade, which has rules about their letters to editor, talk shows have rules about callers. The Blade requires a real name and address and verifies you are the author. Callers to Eye On Toledo (and WSPD in general) can remain anonymous. Letter writers are limited in the number of words they can use. Callers are limited only to time in terms of breaks and how long they can stay on the line. Interesting calls have often be carried over the breaks in order to continue the discussion.

Unlike The Blade which gets to see the entire content of your letter prior to publishing, callers can tell us they're going to talk about one thing and then change the subject. While that might end up in them being let go, it's after the fact - not prior restraint.

Once you've written your letter to editor, there is no assurance it will be printed. Unless there's an unusually high volume of callers, you're pretty much assured of getting on the air on WSPD if you've got the time to wait on the line.

Furthermore, unlike the one-way action in which a paper prints an editorial and then you submit a letter to the editor, talk radio is a discussion. The caller makes a point, I respond. I ask a question, the caller responds. The back and forth of caller and then host gives the listener a more in-depth understanding of both sides of the issue and often leads to points or perspectives not previously mentioned.

How is that not a good thing - and better than the lack of interaction you get from a newspaper? Should a newspaper be mandated to publish all letters to the editor? Or is it okay for them to pick and choose what opinions will be heard?

(Side note: Today's Letters to the Editor section includes one that says "Progressives are, by definition, more open-minded than conservatives" and 'want to expand their knowledge.' Really? If that's the case, then why are they so insistent that the last - and only - vestige of conservative opinion be eliminated???)

In the end, The Blade calls for hearings - as if Congress doesn't have more important issues like, say, trillions of dollars of debt to address:

It's time for Congress to ask why the AM airwaves continue to be dominated by a narrow viewpoint and what effect that has on issues of public concern. And if broadcasters do not willingly provide listeners the range of opinions they need to figure out where they stand on these issues, perhaps it is time for the FCC to require that they fulfill the public trust.

See - there's that totalitarian mandate again: 'the range of opinions you need so you can figure out where you stand on issues' ... because without the government mandating what opinions you NEED, you might actually form an opinion all on your own and we certainly can't have that.

Other perspectives:

Tim Higgins has an interesting take on the editorial The Blade's push for 'balance."

Toledo Blade: Return of Fairness Doctrine Just Silly Conspiracy Theory...But We Want It Back

The Un-Fairness Doctrine

Toledo Blade Resorts To Cry Baby Censorship As It Ignores Its Own Bias