scholarly journals Academic Freedom: a Choice Between Conservative or Liberal Perceptions – the Case of the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-218
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Teresa Maćkowska
Keyword(s):  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
The One ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

It is only the minimum extent to which the law becomes the instrument of coping with social tautness regarding the academic freedom. On the one hand, legal provisions significantly limit the number of cases related to hate crimes but on the other, they sometimes narrow a discussion due to difficulties in harmonizing individual’s rights and campuses’ perception - a phenomenon, which in the U.S. had been called as “chilling” the freedom. Undoubtedly, the enactment of free speech or academic freedom regulations at universities is necessary as it helps to prevent from a “hate speech” but the legal shape of this process has been strictly connected to a determination for either liberal or conservative description of the academic freedom. Regarding the newest Niche’s rankings, ten universities have been selected, five out of the most liberal and five the most conservative public ones. Furthermore, two catholic universities have been added to describe differences in defining the academic freedom. Moreover, some references have been made to the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the very fundamental documents, namely the 1940 Statement and Harvard Free Speech Guidelines. In the separate article a problem of legislative acts that had been enacted for the past two years in a response to Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression by the University of Chicago of 2014 will be covered. A few remarks upon this matter have been hereby made, though. The article is based on a dogmatic legal method, including quotations of legal sources and their subsequent analysis.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Anushka Singh
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
University Of California ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Mob Violence ◽  
A Chain ◽  
The Right ◽  
The University ◽  
Public Lecture

On 1 February 2017 at the University of California, Berkeley, USA, mob violence erupted on campus with 1,500 protesters demanding the cancellation of a public lecture by Milo Yiannopoulos, a British author notorious for his alleged racist and anti-Islamic views.1 Consequently, the event was cancelled triggering a chain of reactions on the desirability and limits of freedom of expression within American democracy. The Left-leaning intellectuals and politicians were accused of allowing the mob violence to become a riot on campus defending it in the name of protest against racism, fascism, and social injustice. In defending the rights of the protesters to not allow ‘illiberal’ or hate speech on campus, however, many claimed that the message conveyed was that only liberals had the right to free speech....

THE POLITICS OF FREE SPEECH

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-47
Author(s):  
Scott D. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Free Theory ◽  
Legal Theorist ◽  
The U.S

Freedom of speech long has been regarded as one of the “preferred freedoms” in the United States: one of the freedoms the U.S. Supreme Court deems “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” However, what freedom of speech does—and should—mean is a highly charged question in American constitutional law. I will explore this question by examining how several prominent constitutional theorists have proposed particular approaches to free speech law in order to further their political objectives. I will examine the free speech theories of the nation's leading feminist legal theorist (regarding pornography), critical race theorists (regarding hate speech), libertarian (regarding commercial speech), and legal republican (regarding deliberative democracy). I also will discuss the principal criticisms of each of these theories, whether the courts have been influenced by any of them, and, in conclusion, whether it is possible to advance a nonpolitical (i.e., a purely law-based or value-free) theory of free speech.

From Honor to Dignity: Criminal Libel, Press Freedom, and Racist Speech in Brazil and the United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Hoffman French
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
World War ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Human Rights Organizations ◽  
The U.S

Reports on violence against journalists in Brazil have captured the concern of international human rights organizations. This article discusses a case involving another such concern: the use of criminal defamation laws in Brazil to punish journalists for criticizing public officials. At the same time, Brazilian media sources regularly report on crimes of racism, which most often involve derogatory name-calling and hate speech. By examining the intersection of these apparently contradictory concerns, this article sheds new light on speech rights in Brazil and the United States and argues that a comparative perspective is crucial to contextualizing and harmonizing free speech and its limitations under modern democratic constitutions. By considering the infusion of traditional notions of honor and status with post-World War II views of dignity, this article argues for a comparative consideration of how best to combat racism and whether hate speech regulation in the U.S. should be reconsidered. As such, the type of law often used to protect the powerful in Brazil could come to be used to protect the vulnerable in the United States and opens the possibility that the irony of free speech could become more than just a scholarly debate.

scholarly journals Un-Chartered Waters: Ontario’s Campus Speech Directive and the Intersections of Academic Freedom, Expressive Freedom, and Institutional Autonomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-78
Author(s):  
Alison Braley-Rattai and Kate Bezanson*
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Assistant Professor ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
College Campuses ◽  
University Of Chicago ◽  
The University

In August 2018, the Ford Government in Ontario introduced a ‘Directive’ entitled “Upholding Free Speech on Ontario’s University and College Campuses” (the Directive).1 The Directive required all publicly supported universities and colleges2 in Ontario to create a free speech policy by January 1st 2019 that applies to “faculty, students, staff, management and guests,” and includes a) a definition of free speech, and b) reference to various “principles” of free speech similar to those elucidated by the University of Chicago (Chicago Principles).3 According to the Directive, speech that is otherwise illegal is not permitted. Illegal speech includes hate speech and uttering threats that are proscribed by Canada’s Criminal Code,4 defamatory speech which can give rise to both criminal5 and civil6 actions, as well as workplace harassment.7   * Dr. Alison Braley-Rattai is Assistant Professor of Labour Studies at Brock University. Dr. Kate Bezanson is Associate Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Brock University. 1 Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities, “Upholding Free Speech on Ontario’s University and College Campuses” (30 August 2018) online: Government of Ontario Newsroom <https://news.ontario.ca/ opo/en/2018/08/ontario-protects-free-speech-on-campuses.html> [perma.cc/7VXR-K4RB] [Directive].2 This piece is only concerned about the university sector. There are noteworthy differences between colleges and universities with regard to topics discussed in this piece that are unexplored here.3 The Committee on Freedom of Expression, “Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression” (2014) online (pdf): University of Chicago <provost.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/documents/reports/FOECommitteeReport.pdf> [perma.cc/LAA4-RW43].4 Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 319(1).5 Ibid, ss 297-304.6 Libel and Slander Act, RSO 1990, c L.12.7 Occupational Health and Safety Act, RSO 1990, c O.1; Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H.19.

Is There a LatAm-US-China Economic Triangle?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Rosales
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Bilateral Approach ◽  
Growth Prospects ◽  
Economic Relationship ◽  
Near Term ◽  
The One ◽  
Investment In China ◽  
The U.S

Latin America experienced economic ups and downs in the past decade, and faces a gloomy outlook for 2015–2020. This chapter first delineates the near-term growth prospects for the region, examining the subregional patterns closely with three national cases—Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela—and analyzing the external constraints for the region’s economic growth. It then examines the major challenges ahead for the region with analysis of Latin America’s economic relationship with the United States and China, respectively. On the one hand, while the U.S.’s current bilateral approach leaves the economic relationship with the region fragmented, the economic and trade cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America can be strengthened through fostering productive integration and the development of regional value chains oriented toward the U.S. market. On the other hand, China’s growing presence in the region poses challenges to Latin America countries, namely achieving export diversification, diversification of Chinese investments in the region, and Latin investment in China and Asia-Pacific.

United States: Exceptional Freedoms, Fabricated Fears

Hate Spin ◽  
2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherian George
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
High Degree

The United States has exceptionally strong Constitutional protections for free speech, but also for religious freedom. This chapter considers how this unique legal framework affects hate spin in the country. It finds that although hate speech can be expressed with a high degree of impunity, strong anti-discrimination laws limit the harms caused by such speech. Hate spin can, nonetheless, succeed in fostering fear and cultivating prejudice against minorities. The chapter examines how a network of anti-Muslim activists have used hate spin to campaign against mosque building, to oppose multi-cultural textbooks, and to introduce legislation protecting states from the fabricated threat of encroaching Muslim law. Beyond their stated goals, which may be frustrated by courts, these campaigns often have the symbolic purpose of spreading Islamophobia.

Education and the University of North Carolina Pre-Flight School

Home Front ◽  
2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Military Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
The State ◽  
Chapel Hill ◽  
Trained Teachers ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

Primary and secondary schools were hard hit by the war, with a dearth of supplies and trained teachers. Many colleges and universities, vacated by men off to war, would have had to close were it not for the U.S. military training units at the schools. Each institution in the state had some sort of government activity on their campuses, but the preeminent center was the Navy Pre-Fight School at UNC-Chapel Hill, where two future presidents of the United States, George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford trained.

The Nature of Offence

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-34
Author(s):  
Nicholas Hatzis
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Special Problem ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
State Coercion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Offensive Speech

The experience of suffering offence relates to a constellation of unpleasant feelings stirred up when one’s expectations of being treated in a certain way are frustrated. This chapter explores how the nature of offence matters for the way the law responds to offensive conduct. Prohibiting speech which offends poses a special problem because it clashes with the free speech principle, i.e. the idea that there is something particularly important in being allowed to speak our minds, which sets free expression apart from a general liberty claim to choose a way of life. It is suggested that when deciding what should count as properly offensive for the purpose of exercising state coercion, only a very narrow definition of offensive speech is compatible with the values underlying freedom of expression. Then, offensive speech is distinguished from hate speech. As the two are morally different, it is inappropriate to borrow arguments from the hate speech debate to justify restrictions on offensive speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document