How the Patriot Act stripped me of my free-speech rights | The Washington Post

Nine years after presented a national security letter by the FBI regarding one of his clients, Nicholas Merrill is still limited on what he can publically say about it.

Will misguided patriotism destroy freedom of speech? | The Rutherford Institute

John Whitehead channels Samuel Johnson in saying the scoundrels in D.C. are hiding behind the flag-draped coffins of American soldiers in an attempt to subvert the First Amendment.

Today, Henry Gates; Tomorrow, You by Kelley B. Vlahos -- Antiwar.com

Why questioning authority is not a crime

Shared via AddThis

FIRE - FIRE Defends a Professor—And One of His Fiercest Critics—On the Same Day

One school investigates professor for anti—Semetic comments while another charges 'security fee' to host one of his critics

Posted using ShareThis

Del. student wins partial victory in free speech case

Wilmington, Del. - A University of Delaware student has won his legal argument that his free speech rights were violated by the school when it suspended him for content on his Web page, but he essentially lost his lawsuit seeking damages.

A federal judge ruled that Maciej Murakowski's Web page of sex jokes, among other topics, was sophomoric and offensive but was protected speech, not a threat to others and not a violation of the school's policies.

However, Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge also found the school's decision to suspend Murakowski for a semester was justified because of his other actions, including ignoring an order not to return to his dorm after he was suspended.

For more on this story, go to The Wilmington News-Journal

3rd Circuit decision in Temple speech-code case has administrators on the run

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit just made hundreds of colleges wonder how long their restrictive speech codes can survive.

On Aug. 4, the Philadelphia-based appellate court affirmed a lower court's ruling against a broadly worded Temple University speech code prohibiting words or deeds whose "purpose or effect [is to create] an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment." Such loose, eye-of-the-beholder standards are increasingly recognized as affronts to the First Amendment, which is right and just.

For more on this editorial, go to The Washington Times

Montgomery colleagues take note - WVU faculty takes stand for free speech

MORGANTOWN - The faculty overwhelmingly defeated another motion that had recommended any faculty member who threatens or intimidates a university employee, board member or other state executive be disciplined or dismissed immediately.

The motion, offered by professor Dallas Branch and rejected 527-23, stemmed from two fliers found in the engineering building last week that used the word "kill.'' The composition and font size were crafted carefully to avoid qualifying as a direct threat, and State Police said last week they did not consider the language criminal.

From a distance it reads, "Kill Joe Manchin,'' although when read closer, does not advocate killing the governor -- just his candidacy for re-election.

But campus Police Chief Bob Roberts said last week he found the language disturbing, as did Branch.

"Faculty colleagues, this is unacceptable. It may be seen as a joke to some,'' Branch said. But after the mass murder at Virginia Tech last year, "Something like this cannot be taken as a joke.''

Two professors opposed the language of the motion as overly broad and warned it could have discourage free speech on campus.

This article is condensed version of a larger Associated Press article found in the May 14 edition of The Charleston Daily Mail. To read that article in its entirety, click here. Also, for more information on what lead to the resolution, click here.