the constitution No part of American society is supposed to value free speech more than our colleges and universities, but the University of California is now rethinking that idea.

University of California President Mark Yudof assembled a team earlier this summer to assess “campus climate” in response to a series of Anti-Zionist protests and demonstrations.

Yudof’s fact-finding team made a series of recommendations after visiting campuses, including banning hate speech.

“When you ban speech, it has a funny habit of boomeranging back at you,” says Will Creeley, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. “Instead of pulling these often noxious or repellant ideas out from behind closed doors and debating them in open sunlight, you see these kind of fears silenced. And that kind of silencing builds a kind of repression, hate, fear, paranoia.”

The prospect of a ban on free speech has students up in arms, including members of the Jewish community.

“Jewish students, Muslim students, students of all creeds, faiths, colors, national origins, religions, sexualities can be trusted to defend their own point of view, to speak and enunciate their ideas clearly enough, to have good ideas triumph over ill-founded ones,” Creeley says.

President Yudof has said that he is currently reviewing the recommendations, but understands the first amendment concerns. However, he is still considering the report.

About 3 minutes.

Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Shot by Josh Swain and Zach Weissmueller.

Music by Case Newsom.

Go to for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV’s YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Duration : 0:3:21

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “Free Speech Fight: Campus Anti-Zionism May Result in Hate Speech Ban”

  1. mattydigs says:

    Amen brotha
    Amen brotha

  2. VonHOG says:

    That’s retaliation …
    That’s retaliation not prevention.

  3. mattydigs says:

    So people whom are …
    So people whom are against a certain government and protest about it are now hate mongers? Like how stupid are some of you people? These people are speaking out against the murder of innocent, men, women and children by the Israeli government. It’s noble, just, and true. What the are you doing except casting your shallow, ignorant judgement upon them? Nothing. I’m assuming you’d rather pretend it’s not happening. You’re part of the problem.

  4. mattydigs says:

    They shout clearly …
    They shout clearly “Anti-racism” then “Anti-Israel”. There is no conflict between those 2 ideas whatsoever. The only conflicts that exist between them are manufactured, made up. Not real.

  5. runelord37 says:

    incorrect. they …
    incorrect. they could not stop him from his free speech regardless of whether they shouted over him or not. But in this instance and the circumstances of University property being a factor, they could not remain and therefore he freely resumed his speech.Thus, they prevent the protestors from drowning out his speech and allowed the event to go on unhindered. if they have destroyed the mic or let off a smoke bomb,then you would have ground for 1st amendment violation. the event would have stopped

  6. apburner1 says:

    Since when does …
    Since when does rudely interrupting someone giving a speech equal “free speech”? Free speech does not give you the right to stop others free speech. Rebut in the proper forum, don’t be a dick.

  7. HELLFIREGIR says:

    @TheMecius say …
    @TheMecius say that to an Arab inthe middle east and our tongue would be cut out

  8. HELLFIREGIR says:

    And blaming Jews …
    And blaming Jews for all the problems in the world when they barely exist compared to everyone else is childish. And stuid

  9. HELLFIREGIR says:

    ….thatis racism
    ….thatis racism

  10. kingBohemund1 says:


    1. I NEVER …

    1. I NEVER said that they were hate mongers. I didn’t even imply it.
    2. My personal opinion about the debacle that is now the middle east is that both sides are at fault, but it is completely unfair and unjust to pin the blame mostly or entirely on Israel.
    3. Next time, before you react with hate and venom, please attempt to have an adult conversation. Hey, you might find out a bit more about someone’s views than you first assumed.

    Have a good day

  11. ConstantSploosh says:

    Hate crimes are …
    Hate crimes are thought crimes.

  12. mattydigs says:

    Well if that’s the …
    Well if that’s the case how can you not support a movement for truth? I’ve made it clear in my other posts that Palestine is not innocent but their transgressions are mostly plain to see. Israel gets to carry out whatever they like with a gestapo-esque air of secrecy as far as the west is concerned. If you wanna get more into the zionism thing.. Palestine was ethnically cleansed and had their land stolen from them are now living in oppression. At the very least U.S. Should not support this.

  13. VonHOG says:

    So attempted murder …
    So attempted murder is fine because the target continued living. Speakers, audiences and planners do not have all the time and money in the world which is why they schedule things like this and intend to keep that schedule. Enough people can popup and scream sporadically to where they lose their schedule and cannot complete their forum. It can get that bad. If then, the speaker may not continue speaking and many people will have lost time and money. Organized interruption is not free speech.

  14. qualityrkc says:

    nobody is blaming …
    nobody is blaming jews. These people are talking about Israel and Zionism.

  15. qualityrkc says:

    You haven’t …
    You haven’t explained why “organized interruption” isn’t free speech. Are they speaking words?hmm

  16. necropolis71 says:

    Let the speakers …
    Let the speakers have their say, but heed this warning: the more you bring free speech under the umbrella of “Hate Speech,” the more you taketh away.

  17. runelord37 says:

    suppression is the …
    suppression is the ability through force and/or force of cercion to prevent this person from speaking. they did not prevent and could not. therefore you fail in your conclusion. Plus its wasnt his property. It the univerisities, so regardless your point is silly illogical.

  18. VonHOG says:

    Passionate young …
    Passionate young people is not a reason to suppress the free speech and property rights of others. It’s reactionary authoritarianism to not allow people to speak or allow people to do what they may in the confinds of their property.

  19. runelord37 says:

    they did prevent …
    they did prevent it. they escorted them out.

  20. VonHOG says:

    They can’t prevent …
    They can’t prevent it because they’re afraid people like you are going to scream authoritarian when Universities start penalizing these dweebs.

  21. VonHOG says:

    Not allowing …
    Not allowing someone to speak because you’re screaming your head off is a suppression of speech. Universities provide security to eject disrupters. Student’s agree to terms when they join a university.

  22. UTubekookdetector says:

    So-called “hate …
    So-called “hate speech” (and numerous entities use this loaded-term to prohibit speech they find offensive or don’t like) should not be banned & those that have to interrupt speakers are basically saying, “We cannot compete in the arena of ideas, our paradigm is so weak we must shut you up because we think you’ll convince people that we’re full of…”

  23. UTubekookdetector says:

    Aside from your …
    Aside from your very crude (possibly offensive?) language (and no, I will NOT seek to ban your right to speak), you sir are correct. :)

Leave a Reply