Disinviting right-wing provocateurs isn't a suppression of free speech.

Hanlon is correct in this, much as I might disagree with his political views. Freedom of speech does not mean that a college (or anyone else) is required to provide a platform for everyone who wants one.

What does violate freedom of speech is physical attacks on speakers whom a college has invited. I wonder if Hanlon would acknowledge that, but I don't feel like reading his piece to find out.

"Traditionally, the government was seen as the biggest threat to free speech. But well-established constitutional protections and case law in the US largely protect us from direct censorship.

The bigger threat today is from ourselves – from fellow-citizens and maybe us personally who seek to silence opinion they/we don’t like. We see this in everything from the “no platforming” movements on campus, to various activists looking for any tweet they can use to get you fired from your job. (See the famous case of Justine Sacco as one example). In this environment, too many of us are even silencing ourselves, afraid to speak out for fear of retribution."

From:
http://www.urbanophile.com/2016/11/20/our-war-on-free-speech/

Just as an aside, but I notice that there are a number of these articles that you post that have no space for responses or comments. That, of course, is no fault of yours, Amy.

I just think it's a shame that so many of these websites don't support responses. It's as if they know they're going to get skewered, so they preempt this by not allowing comments from those who read them.

I agree, Patrick.

PS I'm in the final throes of the polish on my book, rewriting part of a chapter. I should be done with this in the next few weeks. It's been grueling, but it's the best thing I've ever written. It'll be out in January 2018.

"Freedom of speech does not mean that a college (or anyone else) is required to provide a platform for everyone who wants one."

Er, yeah, they are, if they are publicly funded schools. Any restrictions on speech adopted by a public institution must be viewpoint-neutral; there's a long history of jurisprudence on this. Don't forget, we're talking about invited speakers here -- Ann Coulter was invited to Berkeley by the College Republicans. If a university disinvites an invited speaker because the administration doesn't like the speaker's views, that's absolutely a viewpoint-specific restriction, which is absolutely prohibited. Even the Ninth Circuit isn't going to go along with the university on this.

Disinviting a speaker is also, as Eugene Volokh pointed out yesterday, an act of prior restraint. Coulter hasn't delivered her speech yet; nobody but her knows what she's going to say. If Berkeley disinvites her based on their assumptions about what she is going to say, that's prior restraint, which American courts have always taken an extremely dim view of. Even in the case of someone who announces that they are going to leak top-secret defense information, they can't be enjoined or prosecuted until they actually do it.

Now, for private colleges, the rules might be different. However, rightly or wrongly, current court precedent (Grove City College v. Bell) holds that private schools which accept students who are receiving federal aid are in effect publicly funded, and must comply with all of the mandates laid on public institutions. There are only a handful of schools (mostly the Ivies) in the U.S. which are privately funded and accept no students who are receiving federal aid.

Freedom of speech does not mean that a college (or anyone else) is required to provide a platform for everyone who wants one.

Yes, actually.

If they have speakers by invitation of the students, then they have to permit all speakers who receive invitations, or none at all.

If they ban Ann Coulter, they also have to ban Bill Maher. But that's not what they want. They want to ban people they disagree with.

Patrick was on to something in some of the previous discussions surrounding the language being used: the intent is to move the language of PTSD treatment from therapy for those who need it into everyday life for everyone.

Because then they can shut you down and perhaps even prosecute you for wrong-think.

There are only a handful of schools (mostly the Ivies)

Ah, but most of the Ivies are getting federal funds. Here it is, emphasis mine:

A nonprofit government watchdog group has determined that the nation’s eight Ivy League universities in recent years have taken in more money in taxpayer-funded government support than undergraduate student tuition.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31917/

Darth, interesting... The funding in question is, of course, research grants and contracts. I can't think of any court decision that has ruled on the issue of whether a school that accepts federal research money is considered to be publicly funded. They might be able to legally insulate themselves by creating a not-for-profit research corporation that acts as a subsidiary, which is something that a lot of schools do.

Cousin Dave,

Yes, they could go the subsidiary route.

The funding agencies could also reject proposals from those subsidiaries until such time as the parent corporation agrees to certain stipulations.

Remember, that's how they got the "Dear Colleague" letter with regard to Title IX: threaten the funding .

Interesting, now that Trump is threatening money going to sanctuary cities that's suddenly a threat to the Republic. But it wasn't with Title IX or with setting the minimum age for drinking.

The company I work for owns wind power assets in a few states, so I occasionally have to dial in and take notes on calls held by one of the industry groups of which we're a member. You'd think the Kochs are demons sent straight from hell to shit all over America, from the way these people talk. I don't think you're allowed to mention the name "Koch" without a sneer and an eyeroll in renewables circles. I don't believe the Kochs or their organizations are anti-wind or anti-renewable: They're anti-subsidy. So clearly the Kochs are evil because they don't think it's appropriate to take tax money from people in a certain Plains state and put it in the pockets of developers (who absolutely WOULD NOT be building windfarms if it weren't for subsidies).

Just as in the Charles Murray case, the haters have no idea what the positions of their enermy are. The Koch brothers are merely a symbol for the right, which makes everything they do/say wrong. We can show the absurdity of this smearing by using other examples. Hitler was a vegetarian therefore being vegetarian is wrong. Mussolini made the trains run on time, therefore punctuality is wrong. etc. It is laziness.
But free speech isn't just about improving your debating skills. Many many social issues have flipped over the years, from women voting to civil rights to gun rights. Some, such as gun rights, have gone back and forth over the years. Without the ability to talk about controversial issues, it all comes down to raw power. If raw power had prevented "unpleasant" discourse, the civil rights movement would never have happened. If we can't discuss the fact that windmills are killing thousands of birds, especially raptors (like eagles), then how can we make intelligent decisions? Might we not want to ponder Maine's welfare program, where they made working (just a little, volunteer or other) a requirement to get it and the rolls dropped 80% (maybe 90%--can't recall)? Isn't that interesting? But only if you can discuss it.

[...] how can we make intelligent decisions?

Nobody wants intelligent decisions. They want things their way.