Table of Contents
Article Highlights Partisanship of Campus Speech Codes
Former FIRE president David French has an article on speech codes on National Review Online today. He explains the “mental agility” of the 1960s free speech activists who have become the architects of today’s campus speech codes. David writes:
Those who formerly glorified dissent clamp down on campus with a mind-numbing level of intellectual conformity. Scientific inquiry is welcome, unless it results in tough questions about possible innate gender differences. Open debate is the hallmark of the academy, unless of course that debate intrudes into areas where policy should be settled and morality decided (like when dealing with race, class, gender, war, peace, and sexuality).
FIRE exists to counteract this suppression of dissent and to “defend and sustain individual rights on America’s increasingly repressive and partisan colleges and universities.” From College Republicans holding affirmative action bake sales to PETA groups tabling the campus quad, we will protect everyone’s freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and due process rights no matter where they land on the political spectrum.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from FIRE.
Why is the Chinese government dictating who speaks at a religious event in Texas?
Chinese officials pressured a U.S. Catholic group to drop a Texas conference speaker. What the episode reveals about censorship on American soil.
This federal case against Minnesota protesters is worth watching if you care about your civil liberties
The tentacles of the Trump administration’s domestic spying apparatus are being revealed — and their reach is alarming.
Federal court rules the statutes the Trump admin used in its speech-based deportation scheme are unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that the provisions Secretary of State Marco Rubio used in an attempt to deport legal immigrants for their speech are unconstitutional.
That $17B Meta settlement comes with a catch: Your online speech rights
The lawsuits, which accused the company of harming young people through the design of their speech platforms, relied on untested legal theories that faced serious First Amendment challenges.