House Releases Transcripts From Recalled US-Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovitch
On Monday, the House committees conducting impeachment inquiries into President Trump released transcripts of testimony from several witnesses, including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and career diplomat and former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Michael McKinley.
Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios
Yovanovitch:
McKinley:
McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department’s unwillingness to support foreign service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent “utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic political objectives.” -Axios
“We’re Just Patrolling Around”: US Troops Give Rare Interview While Occupying Syrian Oil Fields
More footage has emerged of US special forces occupying Syria’s oil fields in the country’s northeast, after Trump’s “secure the oil” policy went into effect this weekend.
“We are just patrolling around,” one American soldier told a regional media outlet outside an oil station under control of joint US-Kurdish forces in a rare interview from the ground. It underscores that in the absence of detailed orders other than to take oil fields in the Deir Ezzor and Hasakah regions, there’s continued confusion over just what exactly the overall objectives are, or even who is the enemy.
US soldier talks to @NPA_English & Rudaw near Girgelege where there is an oil station.
“US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the matter,” CNN reported over the weekend.
Crucially, it’s as yet unclear what the Pentagon response would be should Russia or Syrian national forces approach the oil fields which Damascus sees as part of its sovereign territory.
“Privately, military officials say there is nothing in place to address the possibility that Syrian or Russian tanks or aircraft might approach the oil fields,” CNN continued. “The plan for now, officials say, is to declare the US presence and warn other players not to get close.”
Multiple images surfaced in the past days confirming that Trump’s controversial “secure the oil” policy is now in effect, though not every of Syria’s oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates have witnessed US forces enter.
Indeed it does appear the plan for now is simply for US forces to just “patrol around” while the world looks on at what most will recognize plainly as another Washington Middle East adventure ending dubiously in a big oil grab.
US troops (left) patrolling Syria’s Rumeilan & Eilan oil fields in north Syria over the weekend.
We noted earlier that now years after the utter disaster that was Bush’s 2003 invasion and occupation of oil-rich Iraq, outrage across the Arab world is building at yet more blatant American resource imperialism.
Middle East war correspondent Jenan Moussa, who has covered the Iraq war and other US occupations in the region, voiced the growing outrage over the US resource theft underway in Syria as follows:
Since discovery of oil in the MidEast, many in the region said: the U.S. is only here to steal our oil. U.S. denied it, and claimed it’s about democracy, human rights, women etc.
Not sure if Americans realize but these pictures of U.S. troops in northeast Syria are HUGELY damaging to U.S. image.
This is clearly the case, yet there’s more to the story as retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson argued in an interview with MSNBC last week. The former chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell under the Bush administration said the oil protection rationale is a “manufactured reason”.
According to various reports in last several days US forces were spotted in the following locations in Syria, either patrolling near oil (Rmelan), deploying Bradleys (Deir Ezzor region) or on the road with trucks (i.e to Sarrin and back) pic.twitter.com/FJgQ6HoLNo
“The real reason the Pentagon talked the president into not continuing with his withdrawal and leaving his US forces there is they are positioned to try and keep Iran from gaining any real foothold, vis-à-vis Israel in particular, in Syria and they’re also positioned to keep [Syria President] Assad honest with regard to his deal for autonomy for the Kurds whom we have sort of abandoned,” Col. Wilkerson explained.
It remains that years or decades down the line, after the now eight-year long tragedy that is the Syrian war finally comes to a close, these images will be what marks the final legacy of America’ role in Syria and the broader Middle East.
De Beers Slashes Diamond Prices By 5% Amid Industry Crisis
Update (Nov. 04, 2019): De Beers Jewelers, the world’s largest diamond miner, has slashed rough diamond prices by 5% as global markets remained oversupplied into the start of the holiday season.
DE BEERS CUTS DIAMOND PRICES BY ABOUT 5% AS CRISIS DEEPENS
“The current malaise in the market is due to oversupply,” said Paul Zimnisky, a gem analyst in New York, who added diamond buyers had too much inventory.
Declining demand from the US and China, the world’s largest diamond-consuming countries, has fuelled uncertainties the industry could plunge through 1H20.
It seems that wholesale diamond buyers have finally gotten their wish with De Beers, who have asked the miner to lower spot prices of rough diamonds in the last several months –thanks to waning demand and oversupplied conditions.
While diamonds may be forever, diamond demand from consumers isn’t – and that demand tends to collapse ahead of (and during) recessions.
* * *
As we previously detailed, De Beers’ diamond buyers are furious with the company for not lowering rough diamond prices as markets across the world remained oversupplied. As a result, diamond buyers have pulled back, rejected stones from the most recent De Beers diamond sale, which contributed to a 39% drop in sales for the company this month [Sept.] on a YoY basis, reported Bloomberg.
The global diamond market is in a crisis, currently reeling from oversupplied conditions as demand from consumers evaporate.
De Beers’ Sept. sales totaled $295 million of diamonds, a 39% YoY drop. The latest collapse in sales from the world’s largest diamond miner is a continuing story from summer.
Last month, we noted that De Beers sold just $280 million of diamonds in Aug., compared with $503 million in the same period a year ago, which represents a 44% decline.
A diamond analyst last month said markets remained oversupplied, resulting in weak sales from the miner.
“The current malaise in the market is due to oversupply,” said Paul Zimnisky, an analyst in New York, who said diamond buyers had too much inventory.
Most of the lackluster demand for the rock is coming from the world’s two largest diamond-consuming countries, the US and China, which has fuelled uncertainties for the overall industry.
Macroeconomic headwinds in the global economy have forced consumers in Asia, Europe, and the US to pull back on diamond consumption in the last several years. The proliferation of lab-grown stones has also hurt De Beers’ sales.
De Beers sells diamonds in ten sales per year in Botswana’s capital, Gaborone, and the buyers normally cannot challenge price and quantity. Buyers have become increasingly frustrated with the cost of rough diamonds sold by the company as prices of cut ones have plummeted.
To address oversupplied conditions, De Beers has allowed buyers of rough stones to refuse half during the sales and has agreed to buy back some of the diamonds to ease conditions, according to Bloomberg sources.
“As we approach what is traditionally a quieter time of year for the diamond industry during the Diwali holiday, we have again offered our customers flexibility during this sales cycle,” De Beers Chief Executive Officer Bruce Cleaver said Thursday.
Glancing at a composite of spot diamond prices, the IDEX Diamond Index shows how oversupplied conditions have weighed down prices in the last 12 months.
A 5-year chart of the IDEX Diamond Index shows spot prices have remained in a downturn trajectory.
The larger percentage of cryptocurrency enthusiasts that turn to mining pools, the more dangerous this kind of mining is likely to become. The reason is simple: The potential rewards grow in correspondence with the number of participants and their hash power, and so too does the incentive to profit from it in less-than-legal or acceptable ways for some parties.
In cryptocurrency mining — just like with real-life gold mining — the days of lone-wolf gold diggers drifting from place to place with their trusty tools in tow, following the trail of the elusive gold seams are long gone. While it is true that some of us can still afford to mine solo, it’s not a viable option for most people, as they do not have enough hashing power on their own to mine blocks consistently.
The infrequency of actually finding a block these days when mining individually is what makes mining pools so tempting for many people. In sharing their resources with other miners, they are able to make the returns steadier and more predictable.
The mining difficulty is only going to increase in the future if more people get into crypto — and they most likely will.
Of course, the utility of entering a mining pool is somewhat undermined (see what I did there?) by several factors. First of all, due to the fact that mining resources and power are shared, so too must be the rewards. Every member of the pool gets reimbursed according to their computing power — that’s only fair. Additionally, however, each participant has to pay a fee to the people behind the creation of the pool.
So far so good. Mining pools are definitely not a bad thing in and of itself. But how can they be exploited or otherwise threatened?
Why centralization is unhealthy
Centralization is a bane to everything cryptocurrencies stand for. The initial vision of the crypto environment was one of equality, but the current state paints quite a different picture. Today, it is rife with competition, and often enough, this competition is unfair and dirty.
Centralization is the natural outcome of the competition in gaining crypto. Since crypto mining is now a full-fledged industry, it is being usurped by those with more resources and more hashing power. They are now firmly in charge, and that’s unlikely to change.
This problem being a growing concern in the crypto world was confirmed by Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, who underlined that the levels of centralization are “quite alarming.”
A common spooky tale about centralization is, of course, 51% attacks. They occur when a miner possesses more than half of the network’s hashrate, allowing them to make proof-of-work consensus their tool. This can lead to bad actors enabling double spending — that is, having their coin and spending it at the same time.
If there is one good thing about 51% attacks, it’s how unlikely they are. The cost of securing more than 50% of the network’s hash power is very high, and the more people join the network, the higher that cost gets.
For an individual or a group of miners, such an attack would not be cost-efficient, if not impossible, to carry out. So, unless a state is involved, 51% attacks remain more of a boogeyman than a real threat to larger networks.
Mining centralization also happens based on the location of the pool. As the profitability of the mining operation is highly dependent on electricity costs, it is natural that miners are drawn to regions where such costs are lower. In China, for example, the average household electricity price is at $0.08 per kWh, which is $0.07 lower than in the United States.
Here is what’s scary, though: As of last year,74% of Bitcoin’s hashing power has been distributed across five mining pools located in China. As we all know, China isn’t the freest state on the planet, and the level of governmental involvement in pretty much all spheres of life is quite high there. Despite not being in direct control of this power, the Chinese authorities can absolutely influence the managers of those pools.
So, is China going to perform attacks to spend those coins twice? Not likely. However, it is certainly possible that it could disrupt the functioning of the network, weaken the consensus, and influence economies of other countries that rely on Bitcoin.
Unfortunately, given the relations that China has with the rest of the world — specifically Western powers — such attacks are likely to happen sometime in the future if the situation doesn’t change.
Other security issues
Don’t listen to anyone who tells you that Bitcoin is a completely anonymous currency. It isn’t. A user’sIP address can still be connected to their transactions.
With so many major pools located in China — a state notorious for its surveillance practices — miners should be concerned about thedangers of the exposure of their IPs. This especially concerns Chinese citizens and other people who live in China.
The greatest danger for them is the possibility of deanonymization. If China decides to double down on its cryptocurrency regulations, those of its citizens who have participated in Bitcoin transactions could face legal problems.
Conclusion
Centralization, though a seemingly natural process fueled by competition, has led to Bitcoin straying far from what it was supposed to be. With most of the large mining pools situated under Chinese influence thanks to the country’s lower energy prices, there is a very real possibility of many things going wrong.
The worst thing for regular miners is that there’s little they can do about it. Unless their governments take serious steps to better their relations with China, and unless China is willing to improve its relations with other countries, this situation will not be resolved.
The constitutional showdown over sanctuary cities is now one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court. Late last month, the Justice Department filed a petition asking the Court to hear arguments in United States v. California, a case which asks whether California’s status as a “sanctuary state” is illegally hampering federal immigration law. (Sanctuary states are jurisdictions whose officials refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.)
The case centers on the California Values Act of 2017. Among other things, that law forbids state and local police throughout the Golden State from providing certain forms of assistance to federal immigration authorities, such as “detaining an individual on the basis of a [federal immigration] hold request”; “transfer[ring] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination”; and “providing information” to federal immigration authorities “regarding a person’s release date…or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with” California law.
As far as the Trump administration is concerned, California “openly seeks to undermine federal immigration enforcement” and thus deserves to be slapped down by SCOTUS.
But if the Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, the justices may well take the opposite view. Indeed, if the Court follows a precedent authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Trump administration is likely to lose.
Printz v. United States (1997) dealt with a provision of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local police to assist in the enforcement of federal gun control law. Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana, challenged the provision on 10th Amendment grounds, arguing that it was unconstitutional for the feds to order state officials like him to carry out a federal statute.
The Supreme Court sided with the sheriff. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems,” declared Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, “nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
The same logic that applied in Printz would seem to apply equally well in U.S. v. California. If it’s unconstitutional for the feds to commandeer the states into enforcing a federal gun control scheme, it’s also unconstitutional for the feds the commandeer the states into enforcing federal immigration policy.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NdUBW2
via IFTTT
Attorneys Admit ‘Whistleblower’ Had Contacts With Other Presidential Candidates
President Trump has continued to his attacks on the Democrats’ “impeachment resolution” proceedings, and in particular the so-called ‘whistleblower’ and the irrelevance of his (or her) thoughts and feelings…
” What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is “perfectly” stated. There is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning. This is just another Democrat Hoax that I have had to live with from the day I got elected (and before!). Disgraceful!”
“The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff. He must be brought forward to testify. Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the informant? Con!”
And, interestingly, this follows a statement from the attorneys representing the whistleblower acknoweledging that their client “has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties.”
In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1’s alleged “bias” in order to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts.
First, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate, campaign, or party.
Second, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical, civil servant positions in the Executive Branch.
Third, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.
Fourth, the whistleblower voluntarily provided relevant career information to the ICIG in order to facilitate an assessment of the credibility of the complaint.
Fifth, as a result, the ICIG concluded – as is well known – that the complaint was both urgent and credible.
Finally, the whistleblower is not the story.
To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.
* * *
Except the motivations of the whistleblower are relevant, as Dan Bongino noted on Fox this morning:
“There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump. What he was blowing the whistle on didn’t happen. We have the transcript of the call. This is all a farce and no Republican should forget that.”
The constitutional showdown over sanctuary cities is now one step closer to the U.S. Supreme Court. Late last month, the Justice Department filed a petition asking the Court to hear arguments in United States v. California, a case which asks whether California’s status as a “sanctuary state” is illegally hampering federal immigration law. (Sanctuary states are jurisdictions whose officials refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.)
The case centers on the California Values Act of 2017. Among other things, that law forbids state and local police throughout the Golden State from providing certain forms of assistance to federal immigration authorities, such as “detaining an individual on the basis of a [federal immigration] hold request”; “transfer[ring] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination”; and “providing information” to federal immigration authorities “regarding a person’s release date…or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with” California law.
As far as the Trump administration is concerned, California “openly seeks to undermine federal immigration enforcement” and thus deserves to be slapped down by SCOTUS.
But if the Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, the justices may well take the opposite view. Indeed, if the Court follows a precedent authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Trump administration is likely to lose.
Printz v. United States (1997) dealt with a provision of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requiring local police to assist in the enforcement of federal gun control law. Sheriff Jay Printz of Ravalli County, Montana, challenged the provision on 10th Amendment grounds, arguing that it was unconstitutional for the feds to order state officials like him to carry out a federal statute.
The Supreme Court sided with the sheriff. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems,” declared Justice Scalia’s majority opinion, “nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
The same logic that applied in Printz would seem to apply equally well in U.S. v. California. If it’s unconstitutional for the feds to commandeer the states into enforcing a federal gun control scheme, it’s also unconstitutional for the feds the commandeer the states into enforcing federal immigration policy.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2NdUBW2
via IFTTT
LNG breaks new records either side of the Atlantic in this week’s pick of energy and commodities trends from S&P Global Platts editors. Plus: US crude imports and refining, German power price dynamics and more.
1. US LNG feedgas demand hits new single-day high…
What’s happening? US LNG feedgas demand is trending near record-high levels again this month as production at both Freeport LNG and Elba Island continue to ramp up. In October, demand from the six US LNG export facilities currently in operation has averaged over 6.6 Bcf/d. On October 26, demand reached a single-day record high at over 7.5 Bcf/d, data from S&P Global Platts Analytics shows.
What’s next? Growing export supply from the US and other emerging producers like Australia has put global gas prices under pressure this year. Over the past six months, delivered cargo prices for Northeast Asia’s benchmark JKM have averaged just $4.98/MMBtu, according to S&P Global Platts data. While swaps markets are pricing the JKM in the low $6s/MMBtu for this winter, new supply from the US and other producers is likely to keep the benchmark price well below last winter’s levels around $10/MMBtu.
2. … while UK leads Europe in LNG imports, pressuring prices
What’s happening? The UK was Europe’s leading importer of LNG in October, with supply mainly coming from Qatar. On October 30 the send-out rate rose to 105 million cu m/d, the highest seen in over eight years. This saw the British NBP market switch to a discount to the benchmark Dutch TTF gas market as NBP prices for front-month November tanked.
What’s next? November is forecast to start with slightly warmer temperatures across NW Europe and strong winds in the UK, suggesting the NBP will maintain its current discount to the Continent. Numerous floating LNG cargoes are set to keep the market well supplied in the next weeks, despite recent turndown in Qatari liquefaction.
3. Sweet WTI builds premium over sour Maya ahead of IMO 2020…
What’s happening? The price spread between light, sweet US WTI crude and Mexico’s heavy sour Maya blend has risen sharply in October as US refiners start to avoid sour crudes ahead of the IMO’s low-sulfur marine specs in 2020. This switch from 3.5% sulfur to 0.5% sulfur in bunker fuel at the start of the new year has created consternation for some refiners and opportunities for others, particularly those with high-complexity coking plants along the US Gulf Coast.
What’s next? As US refiners look to blend and brand their own marine fuel for shippers ahead of IMO 2020, they are looking to all parts of the barrel, including blendstocks and feedstocks, giving refiners with cokers yet another advantage over less-sophisticated plants. One fuel they are looking at is HSFO, today’s bunker fuel, which these plants can convert and market as low-sulfur marine fuel before the IMO specs come into force. HSFO, or residual fuel, production has been declining in the US, but it remains a byproduct of less-sophisticated refineries.
4. …and Canada oil exports by rail could rise despite recent low arb
What’s happening? Western Canadian oil sands producers Suncor, MEG Energy and Cenovus said on October 31 they plan to ship more crude by rail as the Alberta government announced a deal to exempt those shipments from its production cap. Alberta set its output cap at 3.81 million b/d for December, but said producers will be able to apply to increase production if that crude is moved by rail. The arbitrage to move crude by rail tightened in October, on a narrower monthly average discount of Western Canadian Select at Hardisty to WCS at Nederland, Texas. However, the daily discount widened October 31 because the Keystone Pipeline was shut due to a leak.
What’s next? Other Canadian producers will likely take advantage of the Alberta rail exemption, so in the long term crude by rail is expected to increase in December, and through 2020. US Gulf Coast refiners are especially keen to rail in Canadian heavy crudes, as US sanctions have cut off the supply of Venezuelan heavies, while Mexican production is limited. The Keystone outage will widen the arbitrage, although it is hard to tell for how long, as Keystone operator TC Energy has not given a timeline on the return of the pipeline.
5. Shrinking German power Q1/Cal spread reflects changing power mix
What’s happening? The spread between Germany’s Q1 2020 and Calendar 2020 power contracts has narrowed in recent days following a decline in forward gas contracts. Denmark’s decision to grant a key permit to the Russia-Germany Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline has wiped premiums off 2020 gas contracts, negating the risk of disruption to Ukraine gas transits.
What’s next? As well as falling gas prices and reduced coal burn, a third factor is at play in the flattening of Germany’s forward curve: the structural shift to renewables. A growing surfeit of wind power can, on windy winter days, reverse the conventional seasonal logic. With coal/lignite generation being pushed off the system by cheap gas, the usual coal/carbon drivers on winter prices no longer apply to same extent. A windy winter will in turn push gas off the system, removing another chunk of fossil/CO2 costs.
6. Iran sanctions cut off India’s biggest market for basmati rice
What’s happening? Harvesting of India’s annual Basmati rice crop is in full swing, although producers have seen sales to their largest market – Iran – fall to almost zero. Exports have dropped due to payment difficulties caused by the lifting of a US sanctions waiver on Iran-India oil imports in May – oil imports are crucial to providing sufficient currency liquidity for the bilateral rice trade to take place. Subsequently, producers are facing up to the prospect of harvesting a larger crop year on year but having to market it without access to their largest buyer.
What’s next? There are no signs that the payment difficulties will be resolved in the near future, while exports to India’s second largest market, Saudi Arabia, may also be complicated. The Saudi Food and Drug Authority plan to introduce more stringent quality checks regarding pesticides and authenticity effective January 2020. Instead, exporters will hope to re-capture market share in the EU, which has been lost to Pakistan, and to target new markets. The current outlook appears bearish for Basmati FOB export prices, and some varieties have already declined by around 15% in value since July.
7. Steel prices in US often hint at GDP strength, or weakness
What’s happening? US real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 1.9% in the third quarter of 2019, according to a recent advance estimate from the US Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. The rate was foreshadowed by declining Q3 steel prices, and reflected a continued slower rate of general economic growth in the US.
What’s next? Steel producers in the US tend to thrive, in terms of pricing, when US GDP growth is 3% or more. Not so in Q3 when the S&P Global Platts benchmark price of US-made steel hot-rolled coil averaged $568.54/st, down 7.7% from the Q2 average of $615.93/st, and down 18.2% from Q1’s average of $694.76/st. Correspondingly, US GDP growth in Q1 was 3.1%, but slipped to 2% in Q2 and further to Q3’s estimate of 1.9%. And if steel prices do portend US GDP rates of growth, Q4 is off to an even more sluggish start. The Platts benchmark averaged about $495/st in October.
Lots of recent free speech debates have come up at colleges. Here are 10 rules for how the freedom of speech applies to college students.
Students at public colleges may not be disciplined for their speech (unless it falls into the narrow First Amendment exceptions, such as true threats of criminal attack, or face-to-face personal insults that are likely to start a fight). That’s true even if the speech is seen as evil or offensive, whether racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, unpatriotic, supportive of crime, or whatever else. For instance, a federal appeals court held that public university students can’t be disciplined for putting on an “ugly woman” skit at a fraternity event, in which one of the students was in blackface.
A public college can’t limit broadly available benefits based on a group’s viewpoint. It can’t, for instance, deny bulletin board space to groups that spread religious views, anti-homosexuality views, racially offensive views, or any other views.
This is also true for student-run newspapers, unless the college so controls the newspaper that it’s seen as being partly the university’s own speech.
Inside the classroom, though, the professor is in charge. Professors may orchestrate class discussions in a way that they think brings out important ideas and facts and promotes student participation. That means they can cut off students who speak off topic or who insult their classmates. Professors can also ask students to make the best argument for a particular viewpoint, and tell students that certain views—say, that the Earth is 6,000 years old—are wrong. We expect professors to be broad-minded on many issues, and not to unduly block student opinions just because they disagree with those opinions. But the First Amendment doesn’t give students a right to speak in the classroom when the professor cuts them off.
Grading of student exams and papers, likewise, can’t be content-neutral or even viewpoint-neutral. Professors shouldn’t grade down students based on mere ideological disagreement, and colleges may forbid outright political discrimination by professors. But grading student work inevitably requires a judgment about the quality of that work. And in many disciplines that will be a subjective judgment, based on more than just objectively determinable facts.
Colleges and college departments can express their own views—or can foster a selected set of views—without giving equal time to others. If a history department puts on a conference, for instance, it can choose the panelists based on their viewpoints, even if that means excluding some viewpoints and preferring others.
People have no First Amendment right to shout down speakers, whether the speaker is a guest speaker in a class or a speaker invited by a student group. Most speeches at colleges let listeners ask questions, including critical ones, during a Q&A at the end; and there’s usually ample room to leaflet or protest on sidewalks outside the building. But it’s perfectly constitutional to have content-neutral rules banning interruptions when a speaker has the floor, and that give invited speakers the opportunity to speak without sharing that opportunity with students or others. Indeed, such rules may be necessary to make such speeches and debates possible.
A public college has no First Amendment obligation to protect speakers against being shouted down, or even against violence. But it would violate the First Amendment for the college to selectively refuse to protect speakers who express some views, while protecting others.
Content-neutral fees and restrictions are likely constitutional, but a public college probably violates student groups’ First Amendment rights when it charges high security fees for invited speakers who express controversial views.
All this, of course, applies only to public colleges, because the First Amendment only applies to the federal, state, and local governments, not to private organizations (even private nonprofits that get tax exemptions and government subsidies). But many colleges voluntarily promise to uphold student free speech rights, as part of the college’s commitment to academic freedom—and as a way of attracting students and donors. And in California, a state statute applies some First Amendment rules to private colleges as well as public ones.
This is the seventh episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder ofThe Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted at Reason.com.
This is not legal advice. If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill. Please use responsibly.
Music: “Lobby Time,” by Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
https://ift.tt/oKTIFM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2C7HtLM
via IFTTT
Lots of recent free speech debates have come up at colleges. Here are 10 rules for how the freedom of speech applies to college students.
Students at public colleges may not be disciplined for their speech (unless it falls into the narrow First Amendment exceptions, such as true threats of criminal attack, or face-to-face personal insults that are likely to start a fight). That’s true even if the speech is seen as evil or offensive, whether racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, unpatriotic, supportive of crime, or whatever else. For instance, a federal appeals court held that public university students can’t be disciplined for putting on an “ugly woman” skit at a fraternity event, in which one of the students was in blackface.
A public college can’t limit broadly available benefits based on a group’s viewpoint. It can’t, for instance, deny bulletin board space to groups that spread religious views, anti-homosexuality views, racially offensive views, or any other views.
This is also true for student-run newspapers, unless the college so controls the newspaper that it’s seen as being partly the university’s own speech.
Inside the classroom, though, the professor is in charge. Professors may orchestrate class discussions in a way that they think brings out important ideas and facts and promotes student participation. That means they can cut off students who speak off topic or who insult their classmates. Professors can also ask students to make the best argument for a particular viewpoint, and tell students that certain views—say, that the Earth is 6,000 years old—are wrong. We expect professors to be broad-minded on many issues, and not to unduly block student opinions just because they disagree with those opinions. But the First Amendment doesn’t give students a right to speak in the classroom when the professor cuts them off.
Grading of student exams and papers, likewise, can’t be content-neutral or even viewpoint-neutral. Professors shouldn’t grade down students based on mere ideological disagreement, and colleges may forbid outright political discrimination by professors. But grading student work inevitably requires a judgment about the quality of that work. And in many disciplines that will be a subjective judgment, based on more than just objectively determinable facts.
Colleges and college departments can express their own views—or can foster a selected set of views—without giving equal time to others. If a history department puts on a conference, for instance, it can choose the panelists based on their viewpoints, even if that means excluding some viewpoints and preferring others.
People have no First Amendment right to shout down speakers, whether the speaker is a guest speaker in a class or a speaker invited by a student group. Most speeches at colleges let listeners ask questions, including critical ones, during a Q&A at the end; and there’s usually ample room to leaflet or protest on sidewalks outside the building. But it’s perfectly constitutional to have content-neutral rules banning interruptions when a speaker has the floor, and that give invited speakers the opportunity to speak without sharing that opportunity with students or others. Indeed, such rules may be necessary to make such speeches and debates possible.
A public college has no First Amendment obligation to protect speakers against being shouted down, or even against violence. But it would violate the First Amendment for the college to selectively refuse to protect speakers who express some views, while protecting others.
Content-neutral fees and restrictions are likely constitutional, but a public college probably violates student groups’ First Amendment rights when it charges high security fees for invited speakers who express controversial views.
All this, of course, applies only to public colleges, because the First Amendment only applies to the federal, state, and local governments, not to private organizations (even private nonprofits that get tax exemptions and government subsidies). But many colleges voluntarily promise to uphold student free speech rights, as part of the college’s commitment to academic freedom—and as a way of attracting students and donors. And in California, a state statute applies some First Amendment rules to private colleges as well as public ones.
This is the seventh episode of Free Speech Rules, a video series on free speech and the law. Volokh is the co-founder ofThe Volokh Conspiracy, a blog hosted at Reason.com.
This is not legal advice. If this were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill. Please use responsibly.
Music: “Lobby Time,” by Kevin MacLeod (Incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
https://ift.tt/oKTIFM
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2C7HtLM
via IFTTT
