Sadness, shame and blame at Yale over First Amendment repeal video

[Tab]

Source: Fox news

Members of the Yale University community on Thursday responded with a mix of embarrassment, sadness and literal disbelief to a viral video showing students there freely signing a petition that calls for the repeal of the First Amendment.

“It numbs the mind that dozens of Yale students could sign a petition to revoke the First Amendment,” freshman Grant Richardson wrote FoxNews.com in an email. “Besides the fact that the First Amendment lists the most fundamentally important rights we hold as Americans, it is rather embarrassing to think Yalies could not see the irony that they were petitioning away – their right to petition.”
---
In the video, in which he is shown clearly explaining to several students that the petition calls for repeal of the First Amendment, Horowitz said he was able to quickly collect nearly 60 signatures in less than an hour. Among those who signed were students who appeared to enthusiastically support the abolition of their First Amendment rights.

“I think it’s really awesome that you’re out here,” one man says in the video.

Horowitz said he shot the video at Yale in an effort to gauge the true level of anti-free speech sentiment on college campuses. Yale is among a number of schools around the country where students or faculty members have lobbied for “safe spaces” where ideas, statements and persons deemed disagreeable or offensive aren’t welcome.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/18/sadness-shame-and-blame-at-yale-over-first-amendment-repeal-video.html

[pnwmom]

1. This is truly frightening. n/t

[virgogal]

2. I'm appalled. My grandchildren are of this generation

and it makes me wonder what on earth they learned in school?

[840high]

34. ....x10+

[4lbs]

3. Aren't "safe spaces" themselves against the idea of the First Amendment?

It's not freedom of speech only for those ideas you agree with and like.

Freedom of speech needs to allow for those ideas and persons that you vehemently disagree with and even find offensive.

[alfredo]

35. I see study areas as a safe place where disruption could be forbidden.

We used to have free speech areas at University of Ky where anyone could come and speak. Too often it was dominated by a group of Christian conservatives that would try to goad us into reacting to them. They targeted women for much of their attention, whore, trollop, and slut were words one would hear out of them. This was during the women's liberation movement.

Trying to ban them because of their constant insults and disruption would only bring lawsuits, the university shut down the free speech zone.

[cheapdate]

4. As truly awful as the idea of aboloshing the First Amendment is,

I might suggest that it's a counter reaction to the extensive and extreme racism, hostility, and nationalism that is being seen all across this nation.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Whatever happened to the best remedy for hate speech being more speech? (nt)

[alfredo]

36. My example of that is above. One voice dominated to the point where all others were silenced.

[christx30]

7. I'd rather deal with those things

than having to watch my speech for fear of offending someone and ending up in jail. Or executed for blasphemy like in Saudi Arabia.

[crim son]

9. Thank you.

In this country, the "news media" are free to lie and call it fact. I find it very disturbing and am tired of our right to free speech being used as it has been.

[christx30]

11. What do you propose as an alternative?

Government censors working at media outlets, looking at each report, deciding on what are facts and what are not?

[cannabis_flower]

63. We used to have an FCC rule..

called the Fairness Doctrine that required presenting different viewpoints. That went away during the Reagan years.

[GGJohn]

67. The Fairness Doctrine is a dinosaur of a bygone era with the advent of

the internet, cable and sat. TV, of which the FCC has no authority over.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of different sources for viewpoints, news, opinions, etc, the FD is no longer needed and it would be irrelevant in today's world.

[cannabis_flower]

69. There are plenty..

Of people (mostly old and poor people) who don't have internet access and get all their news from TV. I'm not sure but I believe that is a Republican talking point.

Fairness Doctrine. We don't need no Stinking Fairness Doctrine"

[GGJohn]

70. Almost everyone has at least basic cable these days, of which the FCC has no authority over,

The FD is a dinosaur of a bygone era, there are literally thousands upon thousands of news sources out there,
even if the FD was reinstated, it would affect very, very few stations, only those on broadcast airwaves, and very few people actually get their news from broadcast news anymore.

[LanternWaste]

71. A bygone era when and only when broadcast networks no longer exist.

A bygone era when and only when broadcast networks no longer exist. Though no doubt, it stands to reason your premise would rest on another inaccurate allegation, it being the very reason the GOP lobbied for years to repeal it. Indeed.

[GGJohn]

73. My point stands, and even if they reinstated the FD,

it would only apply to broadcast networks, and most people don't get their news from there, it's either cable, sat., or internet.

[Taitertots]

65. At some point, blatant lies disguised as news should become fraud

The American people should be able to file lawsuits against media corporations that are making provably false statements.

The definitely don't need government censors. We should have a legal mechanism to address grievances against corporations that are defrauding us.

[Oneironaut]

22. Glad you're not in charge.

The concept of using Free Speech in the 'wrong way' is Orwellian. No one is "yelling fire." I want people to be able to voice their opinion no matter what that is.

[LanternWaste]

72. privilege allows a much greater latitude of speech.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Though she never defended to her death the racist on the corner yelling epithets at minorities... as privilege allows a much greater latitude of speech, regardless of the petulant and absurd irrelevancy of invoking Orwell (though no doubt, doing so allows the half-wit a more effective pretense of cleverness-- not that you're a half-wit by any means, that would off by half).

[Bernardo de La Paz]

24. Free speech protects speech you don't like because somebody doesn't like your speech

cheapdate wrote:

I might suggest that it's a counter reaction to the extensive and extreme racism, hostility, and nationalism that is being seen all across this nation.

Rest assured that there are racists, hostiles, and nationalists out there who do not like the speech of cheapdate.

That is why we protect all speech, outside of extremely limited areas such as child exploitation and the proverbial "fire in a crowded theater".

[cheapdate]

25. I'm with you.

The First Amendment is the absolute bedrock of not just our democracy, but of liberalism itself.

To say I disagree with these students is a great understatement. But again, we're talking about a smallish group of twenty-something college kids.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

40. +1

[Leontius]

42. Bullshit it's all about silencing anyone with a different opinion.

[niyad]

6. this is utterly disgusting. apparently, none of those nitwits read voltaire:

‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’

on the other hand, this is also a bastion of "learning" that saw fit to give der chimpenfuhrer a BA.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Voltaire didn't write that, however

Someone else used the phrase to sum up Voltaire's attitude: http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_voltaire/didnt_say.pdf

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Did Fox News get worried by Trump wanting to break the 1st Amendment

by singling out Muslims to be banned from entering the country? Or many Republican voters wanting to break it by declaring Christianity the official religion of the USA?

The First Amendment isn't as popular in the USA as many people think.

[TeddyR]

26. While reprehensible

Trump's proposal does not violate the First Amendment since that amendment wouldn't apply to non-citizens. At least that's my understanding.

[melm00se]

29. It does

once you are in the country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Where does 'citizen' come into the first amendment?

It's about laws; and the legal take on it is about government regulations in general (which is why public schools have to take it into account for religion, even though that's not about legislation).

Though a Trump spokesman did at first say it would also apply to American Muslim citizens who went abroad and then wanted to return to their country. When it was pointed out this would include Muslims serving in the military and sent abroad by their country, Trump said he'd make an exception for them; what he'd do to Muslim Americans not in the military is still unclear, as far as I know.

[Adrahil]

51. Yeah.... NO.

The FA applies to anyone wherever the USA has juristdiction.

[treestar]

64. The Founders thought of them as the "rights of mankind"

I don't think foreigners don't have human rights. If we believe in it for ourselves, we believe in it for all mankind.

[7962]

38. Many times its not popular HERE. nt

[Yo_Mama]

46. First Amendment does not apply to immigration/visa decisions.

Congress sets the rules for that. Under certain exigent circumstances the President might have emergency authority.

[metalbot]

47. Why do you think it would not apply?

As written, the amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I'm not sure I understand where the carve out is for "except on immigration issues". As you say, it's Congress that sets the rules, and the amendment starts out by saying that Congress shall make no rules that have religious tests.

[philosslayer]

12. That's what its come to huh?

We're posting made-up news stories from Fox News now? Guess I'll head on over to the National Enquirers website and see if they have any breaking news i can share.

[ProfessorGAC]

30. Not To Mention The Involvement of Horowitz

That guy is nothing but a muckraker. He's reprehensible. I question whether the encouragement to sign a petition wasn't done with smoke and mirrors, and i question whether the signatories weren't plants who were already buying into the Horowitz line of thinking.

As is "Let's show a video that Fox News can use to show how the PC police want to destroy the 1st amendment."

I wouldn't put that past a horrible person like Horowitz. or Faux.

[7962]

39. These things happen to both sides all the time. Ever watch Jimmy Kimmel?

And just yesterday I saw a story that said 30% of republicans support bombing Agrabah, which is actually Aladdin's hometown and fictional! I doubt they were plants.
They're not plants, they're just gullible. So many want to go along in order to appear as though they know best.

[ProfessorGAC]

52. It's Horowitz

I don't need to say any more, do i? He's been pulling these tricks for 2 decades.

[7962]

53. Yes, I was simply pointing out that a LOT of people do these silly things.

Horowitz has no corner on the market.
And these days I wouldnt be THAT surprised to see a bunch of college kids actually support something like this if they thought it would stop "hate speech". Which lately is "anything I dont like"

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Got Ya!

We're essentially in agreement here. And i like your part about people thinking it might stop hate speech. (Which of course, it wouldn't.)

My biggest point is that Horowitz has been distorting information, data, and interviews from college kids for a really long time. He may not have cornered the market, but he has dug himself quite the permanent bunker.

[Person 2713]

45. My thoughts too. Saw FN & Horowitz and thought oh I already see what they want from this piece

[turbo_satan]

13. Call me a Pollyanna, but...

...I don't think this video shows what it purports to show. I think it has been heavily edited. We never see a complete exchange between Horowitz (the narrator) and the Yalies. We hear voice-over from Horowitz or, in the case where the audio coincides with the video, his mouth is blurred, and then we hear the respondent say something like "I think what you're doing is great." In other words, we never actually see him say "This is a petition to repeal the first amendment" followed by a contiguous (un-edited) reaction shot of the purported "I agree and I'm signing." This appears to deserve as much credibility as one of O'Keefe's hit-jobs.

[Buzz Clik]

15. +1!!!!!!

This whole story stinks of fraud. Consider the source, for God's sake!

[MisterP]

28. that's a very strong possibility here--many people don't read before signing anything

but if you're picking cherries you go for the lowest-hanging ones

[vorgan24]

14. Odd

I saw this story yesterday, and then it was saying that he'd only collected 50 signatures.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Fox News does a hit piece on unAmerican behavior of Ivy League students, and DUers gulp it down.

That's the embarrassing part.

Do we ever learn? Do we not remember the lengths to which FoxNews will go to manipulate and deceive?

Was the "selling baby parts" video released 100 years ago and we simply forgot?

[Skittles]

16. fox news?

[lobodons]

17. 2nd Amendment

I would not be surprised if the students were confused and thought they were signing petition to repeal 2nd Amendment. It does not however excuse their ignorance on Bill of Rights, but does their explain why they would sign a repeal petition.

[Ms. Yertle]

23. You are kidding, right?

This is YALE. If students aren't educated enough to know the difference between the 1st Amendment and the 2nd, they have no business being there.

[Skittles]

43. George W. Bush

'nuff said

[lynne]

19. From Horowitz's Youtube page -

- here's the link. Very scary and disappointing.

[vorgan24]

21. A almost hour long video...

Chopped down to 3 minutes.

I'm having flashbacks to a previous scandal involving heavily edited videos.

[Demit]

41. A lot of quick cuts in that vid. A lot of voiceover work too.

Places where his face is obscured as he is ostensibly explaining to the students what they are actually signing. A lot of "Hey, man that's great" comments disconnected from any previous interaction. I am highly skeptical of this video. I mean, we've seen this done how many times now??

[EL34x4]

20. 50 signatures in about an hour.

Certainly someone told him to go pound sand, right?

[rockfordfile]

27. Fox news the right wing extremist mouth piece

[NaturalHigh]

32. How did these idiots get into Yale?

[Tab]

33. And I thought Yale was supposed to be liberal one, and Harvard the conservative one

Of course, I didn't go to either but jes' sayin'

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. Uh, no

Harvard business is conservative. Harvard rankin file mostly liberal.

Though not like Brown.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. Well, George W Bush went to Yale

so there must be a way in.

[artradley]

50. See some of the other responses

There's nothing in this video to suggest anybody actually signed a petition to repeal the First Amendment. It's a hoax.

[NobodyHere]

44. Didn't Penn and Teller do pretty much the same thing?

[TipTok]

48. That was a ban on dihydrogen monoxide...

It's in everything you know...

[NobodyHere]

56. There's was another petition

It's in the Mount Rushmore episode season 5 episode 8. You can watch it for free if you have Amazon Prime.

They circulated a petition in front of the capitol building to ban protesting in front of the capitol building. It's at about the 16:00 mark.

[TipTok]

60. Loved that show...

[artradley]

49. Folks - this is a fake

Did this prankster provide a copy of the petition, with its exact wording, and the signature? No. Watch the video, do you ever see an actual exchange where he explains what the petition is for, followed by a person agreeing and signing? No. It's a carefully edited video that shows nothing, with zero documentation to support the claim.

Did not happen.

[GreatGazoo]

66. It was done by Fox News so it must be true and we can quickly go right to bemoaning and debating

this as if it was 100% true, as shown above. Every video shows clearly exactly what the title of the video tells us it does, that's how we know that "Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts"

[JI7]

54. how do we know this isn't some okeefe type thing

[Blue_Tires]

55. I'll wait and see a full, unedited video with sound before passing judgement...

I've seen this stunt before...

[PersonNumber503602]

68. Reasonable position to take

These videos are made with a specific goal in mind, and they are edited to to reinforce whatever message is being said. Most people should know that by now.

That being said, I won't be surprised if there are not more than a few who would readily hush up opposing speech over there. I read a reply from one of the students saying they wanted the Christakis' to stop trying to further discussion and debate. That and the "it's not about creating an intellectual place" comment from another student really baffles me. I'm usually able to readily see other people's perspectives, but I am finding that mindset difficult to comprehend.

[hughee99]

59. If it was presented the right way, I could see this petition as being quite popular among many

different groups. Show them examples of speech they don't like, suggest that it will negatively impact some people, suggest that it needs to be stopped, and present the petition as the only way to do that. If you can get people to focus on what they don't like, it's often relatively easy to get them to temporarily forget what they'd have to give up to stop it.

[proverbialwisdom]

61. BINGO! Homepage article today on http://jurist.org/forum/ by Mary Holland on the very subject.

Graphic/link associated with Holland article is one of four cycling at top of homepage: http://jurist.org/forum/
Incidentally, I didn't capitalize the header for her article versus the lower case version in the earlier commentary. Simple cut & paste, as is.

http://jurist.org/forum/2015/11/hodge-campos-vaccines-speech.php

[center]Academic Commentary Op-eds on legal news by law professors and JURIST special guests[/center]
Legally Limiting Lies About Vaccines
Tuesday 17 November 2015 at 9:40 AM ET edited by Marisa Rodrigues

JURIST Guest Columnists James G. Hodge Jr. of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and Doug Campos-Outcalt of the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix discuss the potential to legally limit anti-vaccination messages widely disseminated by political candidates...

http://jurist.org/forum/2015/12/mary-holland-vaccines-autism.php

[center]ACADEMIC COMMENTARY OP-EDS ON LEGAL NEWS BY LAW PROFESSORS AND JURIST SPECIAL GUESTS[/center]
Legally Censoring Speech on Vaccines and Autism: A Response
Friday 11 December 2015 at 8:52 AM ET edited by Maria Coladonato

JURIST Guest Columnist Mary S. Holland from the New York University School of Law discusses the legality of censoring speech on vaccines and autism...

...Are those who make a connection between autism and vaccines yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Or, alternatively, are those who seek to suppress free speech trying to restrict people from yelling "fire" in a theater when there is indeed a fire, thus escalating potential harm? Can we possibly hope to establish truth without robust public discourse? I for one do not think so. The US embraces free speech more fully than any other country in the world precisely to ensure that the marketplace of ideas, and not government censors, ultimately decide what constitutes truth.

<>

...The First Amendment and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the US Supreme Court, stand squarely behind free speech:

The constitutional right of free expression is ... intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us...in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests. (internal citations omitted).

Mary S. Holland, Research Scholar and Director of the Graduate Lawyering Program, New York University School of Law.

Posted by: John Stone | December 18, 2015 at 10:12 AM

Fine article Mary.

Just to be clear what was not disclosed in the original article by James Hodge and Doug Campos-Outcalt - and which Mary could only apparently allude to in general terms in her response - was that the authors were professionally tied up with the CDC.

This is Hodge:

"June 30, 2009 - the Centers is pleased to announce that James G. Hodge, Jr., J.D., LL.M. has been appointed as a Centers' Senior Scholar. Professor Hodge, who previously served as Executive Director and P.I. of the Centers, has been named the Lincoln Professor of Health Law and Ethics at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (effective August 16, 2009)."

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/

Campos-Outcalt is on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP): http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/min-archive/min-2015-06.pdf

Strange that they didn't think to mention this and even the journal seem to have been a little sensitive about it.

[beam me up scottie]

62. Anything done by Horowitz is suspect.

This is a right wing smear from Fox News.