Teaching about Pornography and Free Speech

As someone who teaches a free speech course, I have been following closely the case of a tenured professor of sociology at Appalachian State University who showed a documentary about pornography in her class and, due to student complaints, has been suspended from teaching.  According to an article in Inside Higher Ed, there is a back story to the case--student athletes complaining about how the professor discussed athletics in a prior class, a claim by the professor that she is being punished for earlier criticisms of the university administration etc.  So, it is likely a complicated mix of issues and concerns. For more on the case see the coverage in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

But, it is the impact on what happens in the classroom--and the implications for all faculty--that I find the most compelling.  What is amazing to me is that she checked the video out of the university library, suggesting it is okay there but not in the classroom.  I guess we should be clear here.  She did not show pornography in class--but a documentary about the pornography industry called The Price of Pleasure.  

You can watch the trailer here. Be forewarned: As the site suggests, "This trailer contains scenes of sexual activity and aggression from pornographic videos."   I warn you, dear reader, in part because the professor in this case was supposedly suspended because she did not warn students about the content of this film and a few students went to the administration to complain.  Is my own hesitancy what chilled speech looks like?  Or am I just being responsible?  Good question to think about ....

So, really two issues for me: the potential silencing of faculty speech in the classroom by administrators (academic freedom) and the potential impact on faculty speech when students don't "like" what they hear in a class--prompting administrators to react.  The latter, and this may be a stretch, strikes me as an example of "student as consumer and the customer is always right" attitude that is seeping into higher education.  Since I am of the school that sometimes real learning comes from uncomfortable moments--when you disagree with someone, find something offensive and have to think about why, or are just confronted with a world-view that is unfamiliar.  As the Inside Higher Ed article about the case notes, "discussion of how professors present relevant but potentially objectionable course materials -- and how colleges respond when students complain."

Gail Dines, a scholar who has been very critical of the porn industry and was involved in the making of the film in question reacted to the case in an article in Counterpunch.  As Dines claims, the suspension can't be separated from the content of the film shown. "Price’s crime." writes Dines, "was to provide a progressive critique of the porn industry, rather than wax lyrically about how porn empowers women sexually."  And, as Dines also notes:

"I think we should be speaking about porn in the classroom, but not as a fun industry that sells fantasy, but rather as a global industry that works just like any other industry with business plans, niche markets, venture capitalists and the ever-increasing need to maximize profits."

Now I am not sure this is at issue in the case as much as Dines makes out, but she does raise an interesting question about the content of faculty speech in the classroom--and what happens when that content challenges those in power.  Isn't that what academic freedom is supposed to protect?

Cigarettes, Warning Labels and Free Speech

Last year, the FDA issued new rules requiring tobacco companies to use graphic images on cigarette packages to educate consumers about the dangers of smoking and the "risks they are taking," as Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said in May 2011, as reported in the following PBS Newshour story at the time:

Watch Cigarette Warnings Get Graphic, but Will Smokers Be Deterred? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Tobacco companies have been challenging these regulations as an unconstitutional infringement of their First Amendment rights to free speech--yes here we go with corporate free speech again!  As NPR recently reported, a case working its way through the courts was argued in a Washington DC federal appeals court in mid-April.  The FDA's implementation of the new regulations has been blocked by a judge because the rule would "violate the First Amendment by unconstitutionally compelling speech."  "Requiring a corporation to state something against its will," as Ken Paulson from the First Amendment Center notes, "is called compelled speech, and is only permissible with the narrow purpose of warning consumers."  The question of course is whether such regulations go "too far" and do, in fact, compel tobacco companies in an unconstitutional way.  On the other hand, should not public health concerns trump these corporate interests?

As a New York Times editorial on the case suggests, courts have often upheld regulations on commercial speech, which enjoys much less protection than political speech, as a general rule, under the First Amendment. One court has suggested that these warning labels are not "compelled speech."  The Times linked to a story about the case in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the government had a "significant interest in preventing juvenile smoking and in warning the general public about the harms associated with the use of tobacco products," as the judge in that case noted.  Here's another account about the case. 
 
Of course, this sounds like a preview of a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, given not only the constitutional implications but also the sheer power of Big Tobacco.  Can't imagine they won't give up without a fight.

Free Speech in the Military

A case involving a U.S. Marine who created a Facebook page criticizing President Obama is raising questions about the degree to which military personnel enjoy a full range of free speech protections. The Facebook page, "Armed Forces Tea Party" included a statement from the Marine that he would "not follow unlawful orders from Obama" according to a report about the case.  Apparently, there has been a policy, since the Civil War, about what active duty military can express themselves, including criticism of the President.  As the San Francisco Chronicle story about the situation notes:

"According to Pentagon directives, military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement. Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials, including the defense secretary or the president."

 For a video about the case from the Associated Press see here.  This raises some interesting questions for not only about free speech in the military, but also for employees in general.  Public employees have more limited protections than others, but what about in the private sector?  How is social media changing the terrain for these questions?  Much to think about here...

Free Speech, Farrakhan and UC Berkeley

Last week, an Afrikan Black Coalition Conference that was organized by the Black Student Union at UC Berkeley invited Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam, to be the opening speaker for the gathering.  Among other things, according to coverage in the Daily Californian, the campus newspaper, Farrakhan suggested Jews were responsible for the slave trade, claimed that other ethnic groups did not compare in terms of African-American protest traditions (mimicking a Chinese accent then asking whether the audience could imagine "Ching Lee Joong with a picket sign") and claimed that opposition to his speaking on campus was motivated because “they’re so fearful that you’re going to hear a word that will break the chain off your mind.” The Daily Californian solicited student views on the matter, posting this video on their YouTube site.

Image: SF Gate (San Francisco Chronicle)

This is just the kind of controversial remarks Farrakhan has been known for over the years and it surely tests the mettle of a campus like Berkeley, home to the Free Speech Movement. UC President Mark Yudof issued a statement denouncing and defending Farrakhan at the same time: “Louis Farrakhan is a provocative, divisive figure with a long history of racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic speech. It was distressing in the extreme that a student organization invited him to speak on the UC Berkeley campus... But, as I have said before, we cannot, as a society or as a university community, be provoked by hurtful speech to retreat from the cherished value of free speech” (reprinted in the LA Times blog). 

The question is, of course, the degree to which a university campus should be a space for debate and discussion, even of the most unpopular ideas.  What happens when the kind of speech (and response) in question does not open debate, but may shut it down?  While some call for not allowing someone like Farrakhan to speak, others urge "more speech" to counter what is being said.  Despite the vocal opposition by some students to Farrakhan's speech, according to a San Francisco Chronicle account of the speech, only one student protested on the day it was delivered, a student Senator from (presumably) Associated Students.  Makes you wonder why... Perhaps Farrakhan is just old news.

Espionage Act of 1917.... in 2012

Every once and a while, you realize that old laws really can play new tricks.  Take the recent U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.  This case was brought by the plaintiffs under the Alien Tort Statute (part of the original Judiciary Act of 1789), a law originally intended to combat piracy, but now being used by human rights activists to seek justice for victims of human rights abuses under international law.

Today, the Obama administration has been making active use of the old World War I era Espionage Act of 1917 to police the leaking of information by government workers to the press.  As the New York Times reports, the Obama White House has been using this law to "silence" government workers more than others in the past, giving the following example:

"In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration’s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison. His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would." (NOTE: more on Drake's case here)

Activist and writer Naomi Wolfe has warned in recent years about the potential of the Espionage Act to silence critics of government policy, particularly war. In a 2010 article reflecting on the Wikileaks scandal, Wolfe noted back in 2006 (before the Obama victory in 2008) that "forces that wish to strip American citizens of their freedoms, so as to benefit from a profitable and endless state of war -- forces that are still powerful in the Obama years, and even more powerful now that the Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate contributions to our leaders has taken effect -- would pressure Congress and the White House to try to breathe new life yet again into the terrifying Espionage Act in order to silence dissent."

So once again, the question of security versus freedom returns.  I wonder if this tension will ever resolve itself...

Monitoring Muslim student speech

I came across this article in the New York Times today about how the New York City police department monitored websites created by Muslim student organizations on college campuses.  While the mayors office has been trying to justify such monitoring--suggesting that the NYPD Cyber Intelligence Unit was perfectly justified in monitoring public websites as a way to "guard" the city against possible terror threats, university officials were less happy.  The article notes how Yale University President Richard Levin sent a memo to students, staff and faculty condemning such practices saying that "in the strongest possible terms, that police surveillance based on religion, nationality or peacefully expressed political opinion is antithetical to the values of Yale, the academic community and the United States.”  One of the universities monitored, Rutgers, issued a statement that it had been unaware of the monitoring. "While all the facts are not known and the reasons for actions of the NYPD have not been shared with the university," they noted in a somewhat cautious response, "it is important to state that Rutgers does not condone the surveillance of any members of our community based on their race, gender, ethnicity or religious beliefs.

The story, first brought to light by the Associated Press, is gaining traction.  According to NPR (from the Associated Press reporting) this surveillance of websites was part of a larger project:

"The student monitoring was part of a much larger intelligence operation that has put entire Muslim neighborhoods under scrutiny. The NYPD built databases showing where Muslims lived, worked, shopped and prayed. Plainclothes officers known as rakers eavesdropped in cafes, and informants known as mosque crawlers reported on weekly sermons."

Democracy Now provided some great reporting on this, including an interview with one of the students monitored by the NYPD and mentioned in its report.

Of course, Muslim student organizations and Muslim communities are also weighing in.  According to one report, the Rutgers University Muslim Student Association, in their response, noted "There is absolutely no justification in religiously profiling university students who attend this institution to attain intellectual liberation and positively contribute to American society." The Muslim Student Association of the University of Pennsylvania responded with a statement and is holding a public meeting to discuss the issue.The Harvard Crimson reported that the campus Islamic community was "dismayed" by the reports. Other Muslim student organizations are also posting responses--including Yale.

This issue raises many free speech questions for me--the impact of 9/11 on civil liberties, the degree to which so-called "security" should be balanced by freedom, the protection of student speech, and the protection of academic freedom on campus.  Seems to me that such actions--and now being more aware of those actions--might have some chilling effect on student organization willingness to post controversial issues on websites or in their publications. However, the revelation also seems to be prompting more speech on the matter, with responses on a spectrum from outrage at potential civil liberties violations to a deep defense of universities as spaces for the free exchange of ideas.  So, we will see where the story goes... I will be interested to see the fallout.

Political advertising and Super PACS

An article in the New York Times today highlights an issue that really concerns me--not only since I am teaching a free speech class, but also as someone who follows political campaigns with great interest.  I have long been concerned about the flow of money--especially money from corporations and extremely wealthy individuals--in our elections.  And, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United in 2010 is really now showing its impact in the current Republican primary campaigns. As Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo note, these "Super PACS" are really shifting the landscape in terms of who spends and who knows who spends.  As they suggest,

Groups supportive of each party employed a technique that allows them to cloak the identities of many of their donors. Those groups, including Crossroads and Priorities USA, have affiliates that are organized as nonprofit organizations known as 501(c)(4) groups, which can raise unlimited money but do not have to reveal their donors. Donors wishing to remain anonymous have the option of making their contributions to those nonprofit groups, which raised tens of millions of dollars in 2011, according to officials at the groups.

While Citizens United limits the degree of regulation governments can use to restrict the flow of such money, it seems important to know who is donating to these organizations which are flooding the media with all kinds of advertisements about candidates, all with limited accountability.  It seems to be enhancing the situation where those who have such super PACS on their side really benefit--making it difficult for candidates to remain viable in the face of such resources.  This may be especially concerning if such super PACS are bankrolled by wealthy individuals.  Here's an example from a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich slamming Romney. 

Given how expensive it might be to produce and distribute these kinds of ads, does this not limit access?  Give certain people unfair advantages?  I really question this free market approach to elections.  It just seems to highlight how much they really are becoming like any other commercial transaction.  Something to buy.

Maybe that's not news, but I suggest it should be of great concern to us all if we are to have really free and fair elections. While defending a marketplace of ideas really seems important, should we not also be figuring out how to prevent elective offices going to the highest bidder?  At least it seems like this to me.

Getting Started

Its the first day of the semester for me and I am shortly to meet my free speech class for the first time.  This blog, which I am creating for the the class, will be a place for me to share news and views related to free speech and ethics, the subject of the course.  For the past few years, I have been following the growing use of social media and other digital platforms where ordinary people (non-professional journalists) have been able to publish and disseminate their views on a host of issues.  This semester, I am tasking my students (and myself) with exploring just what this "citizen journalism" looks like.  This blog will be my contribution.

Here, look for reflection and commentary on free speech issues as I see them, informed by my own professional teaching interest in the subject and my (hopefully) wider reading about free speech issues that are coming to the fore today.  In the wake of the Citizens United decision in 2010, expect more on campaign finance and corporate political speech.  At least that will be one issue I hope to cover.

Welcome!