Lenin v. Roosevelt

Tonight, I want to compare the perspective of Vladimir Lenin to that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But first I need to set the stage.

For well over a month now, various Butler offices, from that of the president through those of various vice presidents to many in the public relations office, have been saying fairly incredible things about me and The True BU. Regularly, they say that the blog threatened the safety of the campus. They say that the blog intimidated senior administrators on campus. They have regularly talked negatively about an email they admit they have no evidence I wrote at the same time they talk of The True BU in an attempt to conflate the authorship of the two. They note that “Butler does not tolerate racial and sexual epithets in the name of free exchange of ideas,” while discussing The True BU, but never once have they pointed to any such slurs.

From what I’ve seen on campus, and frankly from what I’ve seen through many contacts off campus, most people have not actually read what I’ve written in The True BU. Many people, having heard or read the Butler message, say that what I’ve done was wrong. They say it isn’t right to threaten people or to intimidate people or to use racial and sexual slurs. Who could argue with that? Certainly not me. But I didn’t actually do any of those things – despite the message repeated loudly and often by Butler to the contrary.

Which brings me to Vladimir Lenin – or to a quotation that has regularly been attributed to him. (I have been unable to track down the actual source of the quotation so, despite the frequency with which the attribution has been made, I don’t actually know if he said it or not.) “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

The Butler administration seems to have wholeheartedly endorsed that sentiment. They present no evidence, but they keep repeating their statements. This is as cynical a way to influence public opinion as possible.

While I can’t stop their repetitions, I can embrace an alternative and far less cynical philosophy – one articulated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a radio address on October 26, 1939: “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.”

I know what the truth about The True BU is and no amount of repetition will change the truth into something else. I am also very pleased by the fact that when people actually have taken the time to read what I’ve written, they too have overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion as I have.

You’d think that those in charge of an institution of higher education would come down on Roosevelt’s side of the divide – or at least you’d hope that they would. After all, education is about knowledge, about reducing ignorance. Or, as Anatole France has said (in yet another quotation that I can’t verify beyond pointing to the fact that “everyone” says it’s real): “An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't.” Unfortunately, some at Butler seem to want you to confuse the two.

A "Measly" Student Blog

Since I’ve been gone, a few more newspapers from around the country have picked up this troubling story. I’ve linked to them on the right. Two of these new pieces comes from Minnesota State’s Reporter, which ran both a news story about this situation and an editorial criticizing the Butler administration’s actions with respect to The True BU. In their news story, the Reporter quotes a professor who teaches Mass Communications Law. Here’s that part of the story.

“Ellen Mrja, an associate professor in the mass communications department at Minnesota State, does not agree with Butler's actions in the matter.

"’This was over-reaction on the part of the administrators that makes them look weak, not strong,’ Mrja said. Mrja teaches a class in Mass Communications Law. ‘You can not stop someone from speaking their truth.’"

Unfortunately, I feel that I must disagree with Professor Mrja just a drop. In fact, Butler did stop me “from speaking the truth,” at least for a while. After being threatened and intimidated by Butler’s attorneys I closed The True BU and removed it from the internet. But, from the bigger perspective, the professor is absolutely correct. Because of Butler’s heavy handed administrative actions, many, many more people have now read The True BU than had ever before and people all over the world are now upset about how Butler deals with free speech.

As Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and host of the nationally syndicated talk show Culture Shocks, said on the air with me, “how many people outside of the Butler community even saw this blog? But for Butler University’s filing of a lawsuit, this would have been a footnote to history, the history of a university many people know nothing about.”

Let me go back to the editorial at Minnesota State University since it does such a good job of explaining why Butler’s actions are important – and dangerous. Here are parts of the long editorial:

“The lawsuit against Jess Zimmerman of Butler University could happen anywhere. Clearly an attempt to censor online speech, it could have also impact students' rights to speak freely everywhere.”

“The blog barely got any hits initially; it wasn't until Butler administrators spoke against it that more people were popping on the site to check out the controversy. So the school actually drew more attention to the criticism by attacking it.”

“They are trying to silence this blogger's voice and the message it sends seriously threatens free speech. Zimmerman could face major repercussions on-campus for speaking his mind, a problematic blow to the freedoms U.S. citizens have been granted.”

“The student was simply being critical of the ethics and morality of a situation. His opinion didn't defame the university; it called out university officials on alleged wrongdoing, a shining example of the importance and need for the First Amendment.”

“Butler's efforts to chill free speech online - the communication hub of the world - are the real problems facing their university.”

“It seems that while Butler attempted to contain its opposition using Zimmerman as an example, it tampered its image on a national level, much more damage than a measly student blog could create.”

Even though they characterize The True BU as “a measly student blog,” I couldn’t agree more.

I find it fascinating that students and faculty members from around the country have consistently come to a conclusion so much at odds with the extreme position the Butler administration has taken. You’d think that that should give Butler’s administration something to think about.

I'm Back

I apologize for taking such a long break. I just needed a little bit away from everything and, luckily, I got it over the last week. While I did spend my time off of campus playing golf and eating turkey, I certainly did not forget about what the Butler administration is trying to do. And I promise, especially to those of you who Emailed me over the last two weeks, that I will not forget and that I will continue to fight. Together, we can make a difference.

I hope that you, if you haven’t already, will sign the petition and continue to spread this story to your friends and colleagues. As I’ve said, and as organizations like Reporters Without Borders have said, what Butler’s administration is doing can set a dangerous and frightening precedent in higher education.

I hope my break didn’t alienate too many of you!

A Different President, a Different Precedent

Perhaps we can find a way to encourage President Barak Obama to pay a visit to the Butler campus so he can repeat some of the things he said in China on Monday. Unfortunately, I suspect he might be unwilling to come to Indianapolis thinking that his welcome from Butler’s leaders might well be far icier than the one he received from Chinese leaders in Shanghai.

The BBC, in a story with the two-tiered headline of “Obama presses China over rights: US President Barack Obama has told China that individual rights and freedoms should be available to all,” quoted Obama as saying, “certain freedoms were universal - and not just limited to Americans.”

The story went on to say, “’We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation, but we also don't believe that the principles we stand for are unique to our nation,’ he said.

"’These freedoms of expression and worship, of access to information and political participation - we believe are universal rights.’"

The article then noted that “Media outlets and the internet are heavily censored, and those who speak out against the government are often imprisoned.

“Mr Obama added: ‘They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities, whether they are in the United States, China or any nation.’

“After his main speech, he addressed the issue again in a question and answer session with Chinese students - many of whom spoke English.

“Mr Obama said freedom of information - including open access to the internet - was important.

"’That makes our democracy stronger because it forces me to hear opinions that I don't want to hear - it forces me to examine what I'm doing,’ he said.

“He said the internet was a powerful tool to mobilise people and had helped him win the presidency last year.”

So, President Obama is telling leaders that they shouldn’t be using the legal system to shut down internet speech that they don’t want to hear. In fact, he’s arguing that hearing such criticisms improves the democratic process and “forces me to examine what I’m doing.”

If only members of the Butler administration could hear, understand and appreciate what President Obama had to say. Obviously, Butler has chosen a completely different path, a path that many have found objectionable. It is very hard to feel comfortable with the company that Butler is deciding to keep on this issue.

Guest Blogger: Anti-SLAPP.org

Today, I bring you a guest blogger. Samantha Brown is the legislative director of the Federal Anti-SLAPP Project which is an organization based in Washington DC that works to end SLAPP lawsuits and promote free speech. Ms. Brown wrote a piece about this case for their blog a few weeks ago titled, "Butler University's Lawsuit Textbook CyberSLAPP." Here, she explains a little bit about SLAPP suits and the dangerous precedent that Butler's actions are setting. I encourage you to check out the links that she provides and to comment on what she has to say.

Teaching Moments from BU’s Suit Against Jess Zimmerman

by Samantha Brown

Federal Anti-SLAPP Project

Institutions of higher learning remain our country's bastions of cutting-edge thought and expression, and a student’s entry to college is marked by an expectation that they will, perhaps for the first time, think critically about the world around them, while taking steps toward intellectual and social independence. With some exceptions, even dissident student voices should be welcomed and encouraged, as a rite of passage, and as an important step in the path toward adulthood and responsible citizenship.

Butler University seems to have forgotten about this important role in the development of their students. When one of its own operated an anonymous blog featuring comments critical of some University faculty, the University opted not to engage with the blogger, respond to his concerns, or even take them in stride as participation in university life that should be encouraged.

Instead, Butler threatened the blogger with a lawsuit if the blog wasn’t taken down. The blogger, confronted with the vast resources of a university, complied, removing the blog and all posts.

Butler sued anyway.

Several months into the litigation, Butler learned the identity of the anonymous blogger – a 20-year-old sophomore named Jess Zimmerman. Butler offered Zimmerman the chance to drop the lawsuit if he would agree to an internal university sanctioning process. Zimmerman declined that offer, and Butler pressed ahead for several more months, despite calls from faculty to stop the lawsuit, and despite some scholarly and media opinion finding the lawsuit groundless and very unlikely to win.

Unfortunately, Zimmerman is not the first to face a groundless lawsuit because he spoke out about an issue important to his community. Such lawsuits are so common that they have earned a descriptive acronym: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. SLAPPs are meritless lawsuits brought against a person or organization for urging a government result or speaking out on an issue of public interest.

Butler's lawsuit against Zimmerman has characteristics of a CyberSLAPP, a particular type of SLAPP, wherein a defendant brings an often completely frivolous or groundless lawsuit against an anonymous speaker, in order to have the court force the speaker to reveal his or her identity. Once a SLAPPer learns the identity of an anonymous speaker, it can drop the meritless lawsuit and proceed with other methods of harassment or retaliation. Employers who suspect that employees may be leaking unfavorable information may use this tactic to discover the identity of an online poster, for example. And Butler seems to have used this model in seeking Zimmerman's identity.

The threat of a lawsuit alone often causes citizens to censor themselves, as when Zimmerman first took down his blog in the face of Butler’s litigation threat. And once someone is sued, even a mertiless lawsuit can take years and thousands of dollars to defend against. Judge J. Nicolas Colabella, of the New York Supreme Court, has said of SLAPPs that, “Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment freedoms can scarcely be imagined.”

But while Zimmerman is not alone in being sued for exercising his first amendment rights, his continued exercise of those rights may put him in the minority of SLAPP victims. Perhaps because his first attempt to avoid trouble by taking down the blog was unsuccessful, or perhaps because he is backed by well-known First Amendment advocates such as FIRE (The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) and Reporters Without Borders, or perhaps on principle alone, Zimmerman has remained steadfast. He now operates this blog to chronicle the on-going dispute with the university.

State legislatures, judges, practitioners and academics have recognized and documented the disturbing use of SLAPPs as a scare tactic by those who wish to stifle participation in government or expression about matters of public interest. Twenty eight states have anti-SLAPP protections that vary widely in scope and level of protection, and the extent to which the state laws apply in federal courts is unclear. Existing federal doctrine and Rules of Civil Procedure provide only partial protection against SLAPPs in federal court. The current lack of uniformity in SLAPP protection encourages SLAPP plaintiffs to shop for a friendly court, and results in disparate first amendment protections depending on where the suit is filed.

To provide uniform, comprehensive protection for first amendment rights, the Federal Anti-SLAPP Project (FASP) has written and is working to secure federal anti-SLAPP legislation. The proposed Citizen Participation Act (CPA), which Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) plans to introduce this year, provides the tools to combat SLAPPs: a substantive right of immunity for petition activity, a uniform method of identifying, dismissing and remedying SLAPPs in federal courts, and a procedure to protect SLAPP defendants who are SLAPPed in state court. The CPA would further provide special protections for anonymous speech, by requiring those who seek an anonymous speaker’s identity in a CyberSLAPP to prove that their case has minimum merit before being allowed to do so.

Civics 101 teaches that free expression is the foundation of our democracy and is essential to public health, community well-being, and economic prosperity. Rather than stress the importance of civic engagement, however, Butler University opted in this instance to punish it, and sought to silence it with the egregious use of the courts as a gag.

For more information about the Federal Anti-SLAPP Project, please see our website or contact Samantha Brown at (sb)[at](anti-slapp[dot]org).

Lessons to be Learned

With so much of my attention focused on the actions the Butler administration keeps directing toward me, at times I almost forget the fact that I’m a student. Then I read something for a class that really helped me to remember what college is supposed to be about. I want to make it clear from the beginning that I'm not comparing myself to Dr. King nor am I comparing my situation to the struggle that characterized much of the 20th century: I simply aim to point out that many of his teachings are still very applicable, in a variety of places and situations, today.

Recently, I had the opportunity to read some of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s writings and they really moved me. Like so many great writers and impressive leaders, Dr. King was able to craft arguments that went far beyond the specific instance he was writing about. One of those pieces was his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written on April 16, 1963. He wrote this open letter after being arrested for participating in a protest against racial segregation in Birmingham, Alabama.

He said, in part, “I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial ‘outside agitator’ idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.”

He went on to say, “You may well ask: ‘Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?’ You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

And he said, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

The racial justice he was fighting for, and for which so many are still fighting, is absolutely essential if we are to live in a fair and equitable society. His words are so incredibly powerful because they teach us about all sorts of injustice – and how to fight those injustices. Even more importantly, his words explain why we must fight against injustice when we see it.

President Bill Clinton quoted Dr. King on March 5, 2000 when he was in Selma, Alabama commemorating the 35th anniversary of the 1965 voting rights march. President Clinton chose to quote words Dr. King wrote in 1962, “It is history's wry paradox that when Negroes win their struggle to be free, those who have held them down will themselves be free for the first time."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has been gone for over 40 years but his words still have much to teach us about injustice and the remarkable benefits that occur for all when injustice is finally overcome.

I wish that many in our community, and beyond, could learn the lessons that Dr. King was preaching.

Wouldn't it be nice?

When Butler University became, according to The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), the first institution of higher education to file a lawsuit for online speech, it didn’t have to be that way. In fact, just up I-65, at Purdue, a professor wrote an unpopular blog that angered a large part of the campus. Instead of acting rashly, the administration at Purdue recognized that the words of this professor, though unpopular, constituted free speech. Like the ACLU has said, “The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution.” Indeed, free speech may not always be popular speech, but it’s the free part, not the popularity part, that we need to defend.

Consider the difference between the press that Butler has been getting for its free speech stance and the press that Purdue has been receiving for its. I don’t think I need to point out again what people have been saying about Butler: Just look at my last few posts and any of the links on the right. As for Purdue, the Indianapolis Star wrote an editorial this past Friday titled, “A Messy Test of Free Speech” where the editorial board praises Purdue’s actions.

The Star writes:

“One of the beauties of the First Amendment is that it protects the right of any citizen to freely express an opinion, even an unpopular opinion. It also protects the right of critics to offer counter arguments. And so, in an often messy but crucial process, public debate about wide-ranging issues -- including politics, religion and sex -- advances.”

And later:

“Chapman's opinions might not fit within the often narrow range of viewpoints deemed acceptable on many college campuses, but so far all that he has done is present an argument. It may be an offensive argument to many, but the professor didn't come close to advocating violence against anyone or to resorting to slurs to demean his opponents in the Oct. 27 blog post that stirred the controversy.”

The editorial concludes:

“The university has taken the right stand on the matter, pointing to the First Amendment and its powerful protections. They're protections all Americans should embrace, even when the arguments get messy.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if these kinds of things could be written about the Butler administration?