documentYet signatories of the letter -- which never once criticizes the censoring Muslim Union students while condemning those who wanted to hear the speaker -- include ""Chuck AndersonHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
documentThe students themselves have been more honest about their intentions than the ACLU leaders. . For instanceHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
one student leader refused to acknowledge that Mr. Oren had First Amendment rights of his own by interrupting him and shouting
documentThe students were disciplined by the university for their actionsHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
though the nature and degree of the discipline has been kept confidential. Campus sources have characterized it as a ""slap on the wrist."" Since the students had to be arrested to prevent the speech from being drowned out
documentForty years laterHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
I tried to get the Southern California branch of the ACLU to apply these same guidelines to another case involving the disruption of a speaker who had been invited by a university—this time the University of California at Irvine
document“[I]f the Board concludes that Professor Franklin intentionally engaged in concerted activity designed to silence Ambassador Lodge—that isHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
to prevent him from speaking at all—then it is the Civil Liberties Union’s position that some discipline would be appropriate.”
documentThe Bruce Franklin case also included this alleged exception to the First Amendment—namelyHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
that although there is a constitutional right to heckle speakers (at least in some context)
documentLyman rejected my invitation to debate and continued to attack me—both personally and through his surrogates—in highly personal terms. The hostility toward me and toward the ACLU spread quickly among the established faculty. Not surprisinglyHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
it soon reached the Faculty Committee that was considering the Franklin case.
documentA small rag-tag band of Nazi thugs became the focus of worldwide attention as a result of being censored by Skokie. They were interviewed by the mediaHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
their numbers and influence grew and they received a degree of legitimacy they had never previously had.
documentThere are two basic types of expression that incite. The first is reactive—that isHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
the speaker so deeply upsets or offends the person (or persons) to whom he is speaking that he reacts to the speech by attacking the speaker. This comes under the legal rubric of “fighting words”—words that cause the listener to fight back....
documentPornography consumed in private does not require a balancing of rights—as explained in Chapter 6—because no one should have the right to tell an adult what to readHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
documentThe committee spent more than a year trying to come up with a code of prohibited expressionsHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
but it could not come to any agreement. The “N” word itself could not be prohibited because a black professor had written a brilliant book entitled “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word”. We tried to define the circumstances und...
documentI strongly favor a narrow code to a potentially broad common-lawHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
because it provides advanced fair warning and an opportunity to challenge the provisions of the code before they are enforced. (That’s why I also favor a narrow code criminalizing the publication of only the most dangerous state secrets).
documentYet despite my strong opposition to censorshipHouse Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)1 pp.
I have surprised both my supporters and detractors by calling for precise and narrow “speech codes” on campuses. My reasoning is simple: censorship is inevitable on all university campuses in extreme situations; if a professor used the “N”....
