Monday, November 13, 2017
#FREESPEECH IN THE NEWS: NOVEMBER 13, 2017
As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news – and what you should know about – in the past week.
“A Fresno State University professor will pay $17,000 and undergo First Amendment training by Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys as part of a legal settlement after he told students from his class to join him in erasing a pro-life student group’s sidewalk chalk messages.”
“So you think free speech is under attack in the United States today because athletes who don't stand for the national anthem are scorned, or because supporters or opponents of Chief Illiniwek feel threatened?
You should have been here 100 years ago.”
Think free speech is under attack now? Go back 100 years, The News Gazette
“A chef, however brilliant, cannot claim a free speech clause right not to serve certain people at his restaurant, even if his dishes look stunning,” Professor Volokh wrote. “The same is true for bakers, even ones who create beautiful cakes for use at weddings.”
Where to Draw Line on Free Speech? Wedding Cake Case Vexes Lawyers, The New York Times
“Under this way of thinking, all the companies of Silicon Valley had to do was charge that something might hurt ‘innovation’ or threaten the ‘free’ nature of the Internet, and that something would be deemed bad.”
“The governments filed suit shortly after Gov. Greg Abbott signed the bill in May, after the GOP-controlled Texas Legislature passed what’s considered the toughest state-based immigration law in the country.”
"Sanctuary cities" law hearing draws debate on free speech, ICE detainers, The Texas Tribune
"’Intimidation tactics like these are unacceptable,’" ACLU attorney Matt Cagle said. He also seemed to refer to Swift's song, "Wildest Dreams," in the statement. "’Not in her wildest dreams can Ms. Swift use copyright law to suppress this exposure of a threat to constitutionally protected speech.’"
“The case comes from Minnesota, which forbids apparel that seeks to influence voters, even if it does not name candidates or political parties. It was challenged by Tea Party groups that argued they were targeted.”