US democracy: most American universities discourage free speech

According to a new study carried out by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), most US universities establish rules that severely restrict free speech on the campus. Out of 427 schools surveyed in the report, one in six enforced "free speech zone" policies, which means that student protests and other "expressive activities" are restricted to small and isolated parts of the campus.

"The US Supreme Court has called America's colleges and universities 'vital centers for the Nation's intellectual life.' However, the reality today is that many of these institutions severely restrict free speech and open debate. Speech codes - policies prohibiting speech that would, outside the bounds of campus, be protected by the First Amendment - have been repeatedly struck down by federal and state courts for decades," the executive summary of the report states. "Yet they persist, even in the very jurisdictions where they have been ruled unconstitutional." The report provides some examples of free speech zones. The University of Southern Mississippi, for example, requires students to hold their demonstrations in one designated place – the Speakers’ Corner – unless they register the demonstration at least one month ahead. Longwood University in Virginia limits speeches, demonstrations and distribution of literature to one place and requires the area to be reserved five days in advance. Another method employed by many colleges and universities so as to restrict free speech is by charging demonstrating students for the cost of providing security at such events. The FIRE report indicates that some schools impede upon free speech rights in an attempt to stop harassment against particular groups and organisations. Athens State University in Alabama is a good example. The university has a long list of groups that any protesting students must be careful not to offend or criticize. That university prohibits "any conduct consisting of words or actions that are unwelcome or offensive to a person in relation to race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion, genetic information, or veteran status". Director of the FIRE Policy Research Samantha Harris said in a statement that the Department of Education should explain to universities that prohibiting harassment does not mean restricting free speech rights. FIRE breaks down schools’ speech codes by the colors on a stoplight: red, yellow and green. Over 250 schools receive FIRE’s ominmous red-light rating. A red light means that a school has a speech code that “clearly and substantially restrict protected speech,” according to a FIRE press release. Another 36 percent of the schools (so just over 150 schools) have yellow-light policies. This rating means that the schools over-regulate campus speech. Only a couple dozen schools receive a green-light rating, which means they actually enforce the First Amendment’s guarantee against government restrictions on freedom of speech. Voice of Russia, RT, Source: Article

Read More........ → January 24, 2014

David Cameron's speech: 'appalling jokes' fail to rouse crowd

Political commentators unimpressed by PM's speech – but was it down to the conference hall?

DAVID CAMERON'S speech failed to rouse the crowd at the Conservative Party conference today, with complaints of "appalling jokes" and an overwhelming focus on Ed Miliband. The Prime Minister's one liners included a joke about driving the two-millionth Mini off the production line ("I turned the wrong way but you'll be relieved that on this occasion I turned right not left"). He also made light of unflattering topless photographs of himself to mock Miliband's plans to freeze energy bills ("You keep your shirt on; I'll keep the lights on.") But the Tory leader drew few laughs. "The Cam jokes are beyond lame, even by the dismal standards of conference speeches," tweeted The Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland. "Conference speeches [are] often forgotten within a week. That one will be forgotten within the hour." In The Independent, John Rentoul bemoaned the "appalling jokes" and "clunky joins between prefabricated sections", but conceded that the speech "did the job, positioning the Conservatives as the party of the progressive centre". The Times columnist Gaby Hinsliff described the speech as "tired, subdued, under-rehearsed". She added: "It wasn't a speech so much as a long, furious, open letter to Ed Miliband. When the man worrying much of the hall is [Nigel] Farage." The word count reveals it all, said the BBC's Nick Robinson. Labour was mentioned 25 times in the speech and the Lib Dems just twice, while Nick Clegg, UKIP and Farage were not mentioned at all. Meanwhile the new Tory mission - building a "land of opportunity" - was mentioned 13 times. "It will be interesting to see if the phrase lasts any longer than many previous conference phrases that die almost as soon as they're uttered," said Robinson. "What will stay in the memory from this conference is the Tories' laser-like focus on the threat from Ed Miliband which they once laughed off." The Daily Mail's deputy political editor Tim Shipman said "it is not a terrible speech, but it isn't terribly important either", describing it as a "series of TV soundbites delivered straight down the barrel of the camera". But perhaps it was down to the conference room. According to Shipman, Cameron's aides were worried that the Manchester hall was a "dead zone for speeches, like an aircraft hanger". Either way, Shipman said the delegates were "content but not roused". For further concise, balanced comment and analysis on the week's news, try The Week magazine. Take advantage of our Autumn sale and get 12 issues of the magazine for just £1. Don't delay - offer ends 31 October. Source: The Week UK

Read More........ → October 26, 2013

David Cameron sounds nice - until his eyes narrow and his cheeks go red

'Don't you dare lecture anyone on the NHS again,' he threatens Labour – before heaping praise on his team

Column DAVID CAMERON started his 2013 party conference speech with the emphasis on hard work. 

ANNALISA BARBIERI

Indeed "hardworking people" was in the very first sentence. You could tell that the entire speech had been tweaked to be more inclusive of the ordinary person ("don't forget the man in the street Dave, they're angry and fed up") – as long as that person wasn't a skiver, stupid or a foreign prisoner, in which case he had plans for you. Cameron delivered the speech in front of a motif made from the Union Jack. Fitting, as his speech was deeply patriotic; he mentioned the word British or Britain nearly two dozen times. But if you shut your eyes you could imagine the whole first half of the address taking place in the headmaster's office. It was full of tale-telling. "Labour did this, Sir, Labour did that. Labour made the mess Sir, I was just helping to clear up Sir. I was just helping the boy up Sir, not kicking him to the floor." It was defensive, brittle and at times, petty. Cameron has quite a nice voice, I'll give him that. If you keep your eyes shut some more, you could imagine him voicing over an M&S ad. It's plummy and juicy. He always sounds like he's keeping some spittle in reserve, just in case. He sounds 'naice'. So it's hard to take him seriously, even once you've opened your eyes and seen his eyes narrow and his cheeks go red and how he jabs the air with his finger, looking into the camera and getting all "I'll take you down to Chinatown" when talking about Labour. "Don't you dare lecture anyone on the NHS again," he threatened, when talking about everything the Conservatives have done for the health service and how little Labour did. As for the "the casino economy meets the welfare society meets the broken education system" that the last government left us with, he promised the Opposition: "We will never let you forget it." Like an Oscar acceptance speech, Cameron also thanked his team. Which was a nice touch. He thanked Theresa May for getting the terrorist Abu Qatada out of the country; praised George Osborne's "brilliant" speech on Monday; said William Hague was the finest foreign secretary he could ask for; Iain Duncan Smith is, apparently the "most determined champion for social justice" the party has ever had. And then there was Michael Gove. Michael Gove got a lot of praise. I thought at one point it was building up to a marriage proposal but instead we learned that Gove is "a cross between Mr Chips and the Duracell bunny" and a man with a "belief in excellence". As Cameron ejaculated over each of them in turn – and I use that word in its more historical context – each allowed themselves a tight, smug little smile. Hague's forehead beamed. There was a lot in this speech. Whereas Miliband seemed to brush over things like education, Cameron said it was the very reason he had come into politics. He talked about schools, colleges, debt, hospitals, Thatcher, children, decency, planting trees, oak beams, buying your own home, jobs, immigration, social workers (clap for them please), soldiers in Afghanistan (clap and stand for them please), adoption, setting up your own business (300,000 have since Cameron came to power, how many are still left he didn't say) and two ordinary people called Emily and James who had just bought their own home, and a lawnmower, thanks to him and his team. Wonderful stuff! My God, it all sounds so good, why is everyone so miserable? It took 30 minutes for Cameron to mention the coalition, which he did in relation to tax cuts and then, in disparaging fashion "anyone see their conference? I missed most of it" - guffaw, guffaw. Interestingly, no mention of them at all in the official version of the speech; you can almost imagine someone reading through it and saying at the last minute: "Dave, Dave, you haven't mentioned them." Source: The Week UK

Read More........ → October 16, 2013

Indian Express Editor Stuns PM Modi

At the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards held on 2nd of November, Prime Minister Narendra Modi honored 37 journalists across the country. The announcement of the PM giving away the awards this year did not please two journalists. Senior journalist from TOI Akshaya Mukul won the award for his non-fiction books ‘Gita Press and the making of Hindu India’. He said, “I cannot live with idea of Modi and me in the same frame.” to The Caravan. He was against the power of the government over Freedom of Speech. The second journalist to boycott the event was Anna MM Vetticad. She was awarded in the Commentary and Interpretative Writing category for her report on the stereotypical portrayal of women in TV and films. She has criticized Modi and his government over the times, hence, no surprise there. Apart from this, what caught the audience’s attention was Indian Express’ Editor Raj Kamal Jha’s speech. He, very conveniently said what is wrong in today’s journalism. He said that Ramnath Goenka once had ‘sacked’ a journalist  when he received appreciation from a Chief Minister. What he said next stunned the PM. He said, “Criticism from a government is a badge of honour”. An excerpt from his speech: “Thank you sir, for your speech. You made some wonderful points. I think the most important point was credibility. We cannot blame the government for that. That is our job, we need to look within and we will surely reflect on your remarks. …those who say that good journalism is dying, that journalists have been bought over by the government, good journalism is not dying; it is getting better and bigger. It’s just bad journalism makes lot more noise than it used to do five years ago. And that is why I think the remote control should get the R&G award for excellence in journalism.“ With this powerful speech he sure did send a strong message to the ‘loud’ journalists and also to the government. Source: http://yovizag.com/

Read More........ → November 07, 2016

John Kerry’s “soft power”

.

The new US Secretary of State John Kerry has hinted that during Barack Obama’s second presidential term, the US’s foreign policy will change to the side of the so-called “soft power”. 

Mr. Kerry said this during his speech in the Virginia University on February 20, which was his first public speech since he was appointed Secretary of State. In fact, only a few points in Mr. Kerry’s speech were directly linked with the US’s foreign policy. The speech was addressed, first of all, to representatives of the Republican Party in the Congress. In his speech, the new State Secretary made rather transparent hints that the main obstacle for success of US diplomacy is not China’s foreign policy or instability in the Middle East, but… the activities of the US Congress. Until the Congress manages to settle the country’s financial problems, the US’s prestige in the world will only decrease, Mr. Kerry believes. The State Secretary also believes that the “traditional” US practice of solving problems (or what is perceived as problems by US politicians) in various parts of the world with military force is practically always more expensive for the US than trying to solve these problems by diplomatic means. Thus, the US authorities should not be afraid of financing the country’s diplomatic institutions more generously – in any case, this would be cheaper than post factum attempts to correct mistakes of diplomacy by military means, Mr. Kerry is convinced. Russian analyst Andrey Kortunov comments on this: “I won’t say that the fact that Mr. Kerry is calling on the US authorities to solve problems in various parts in the world by diplomacy rather than by force is a cardinal change in the US foreign policy. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Barack Obama promised that under him, the US’s foreign policy would be less aggressive than it was under George W. Bush. However, during his first presidential term, he – either because of certain objective reasons or something else – didn’t fulfill this promise to the full. Now, Mr. Obama has nothing to lose, because, in any case, this is his last presidential term – and now, he can afford a milder foreign policy.” John Kerry is right – the former policy of “tough power” turned out to be too expensive for the US. For example, in 2012, the US authorities had to allocate as much as $ 115 bln for the war in Afghanistan, while the State Department and the Agency for International Development (a US institution which renders help to developing countries), in total, received only $ 51 bln. Source:Voice of Russia

Read More........ → February 25, 2013