1. Free Speech

Category Archives: Free Speech

Religious Freedom Debates Make Evangelicals More Tolerant, Study Finds

Posted on by

April 10, 2015|4:46 pm

Protesters against U.S. President Barack Obama's health care overhaul gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, June 28, 2012. The Supreme Court is set to deliver on Thursday its ruling on President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul, his signature domestic policy achievement, in a historic case that could hand him a huge triumph or a stinging rebuke just over four months before he seeks re-election.

When Evangelicals are exposed to arguments defending their own free speech and religious freedom, they become more accepting of extending similar rights to their political foes, a new study found.

"Rights, Reflection, and Reciprocity: How Rights Talk Affects the Political Process," by political scientists Paul Djupe, Denison University; Andrew Lewis, University of Cincinnati; and Ted Jelen, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, will be presented this month at the Midwest Political Science Association's annual meeting in Chicago.

The researchers sought to understand if the recent culture war battles between sexual freedom and religious freedom (see, for example, here, hereand here) would lead to greater or lesser division and intolerance among the combatants. (This paper focuses on the conservative side but they suggest they will also be studying the liberal side.)

In an article for the political science blog The Monkey Cage, the authors explain that their research "has identified a fascinating silver lining [to those culture war battles]. We find that evangelical Christians who are exposed to claims about religious rights actually become more willing to extend First Amendment rights to their ideological opponents. That is, the campaign to reinforce religious liberty might actually increase political tolerance in the long run."

(Photo: The Christian Post/Sonny Hong)

Paul Djupe, associate professor of political science at Denison University, presenting "The Choice That Matters: Politics in the Role of Leaving Congregations," at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Aug. 30, 2014.

The study used a survey experiment. A sample of 2,141 respondents, including 274 Evangelicals and 1,867 non-Evangelicals, were divided into groups exposed to different messages from hypothetical political candidates and clergy. These messages were about pro-life protestors, the Obama administration's birth control mandate, teaching creationism, and a photographer declining to work at a same-sex wedding. Each group had messages based upon either morality, free speech, religious liberty, and a less specific message that was used as the control group. The study also used a number of control measures that are common in studies of tolerance education, ideology, political interest, gender, age, and democratic norms.

The respondents were also asked to identify which groups they either "like the least" or "disagree with the most" from among these options: immigrants, Tea Party members, Muslims, homosexuals, Christian fundamentalists, or atheists. For the full sample, the non-Evangelicals chose Christian fundamentalists as their least liked group, followed by the Tea Party. Evangelicals chose atheists as their least liked group, followed by Muslims and the Tea Party.

Read this article:

Religious Freedom Debates Make Evangelicals More Tolerant, Study Finds

Indian top court strikes down free speech curbs

Posted on by

NEW DELHI: Indias top court Tuesday struck down a controversial law that made posting offensive comments online punishable by jail, a rare victory for free speech campaigners in a country criticized for a series of recent bans. The Supreme Court said the 2009 amendment to the Information Technology Act known as section 66A was an unconstitutional curb on freedom of speech. Section 66A is unconstitutional and we have no hesitation in striking it down, said Justice R.F. Nariman, reading out the judgment. The publics right to know is directly affected by section 66A. The Supreme Court had been asked to examine the legality of the amendment, which makes sending information of grossly offensive or menacing character punishable by up to three years in jail. In 2012 two young women were arrested under the act over a Facebook post criticizing the shutdown of financial hub Mumbai after the death of a local hard-line politician. The charges were later quashed by a Mumbai court, but the case sparked outrage and fierce debate about online censorship in India. Law student Shreya Singhal, who filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the amendment after the two women were arrested, welcomed Tuesdays ruling as a big victory. The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it that it is very important for us to protect this right today, now, she said. Governments have their own political agenda. A law has to be for the people. Farooq Dadha, father of one of the young women, Shaheen Dadha, also welcomed the ruling against what he called a black law. Credit must go to everyone who fought against this law, including my daughter, he said. A series of bans in India have sparked accusations of a growing climate of intolerance under Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi. They include a ban on screening a BBC documentary on the gang-rape of a Delhi student that sparked mass protests in Delhi. Communications and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said the government would respond to Tuesdays ruling after reading the judgment in full, but that it was not in favor of curtailing honest criticism. The government had issued guidelines on enforcing the law, and argued in court that it could not be declared unconstitutional just because of the possibility of abuse. But the two judges hearing the case said the amendment could not be saved by the assurances of the government that it will not be misused. The court said the terms used in the act such as grossly offensive were too vaguely worded and open to abuse. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another, said the judgment. Dozens of people have been arrested under 66A since its introduction in 2009, although no one has been convicted. Only last week, 19-year-old student Vicky Khan was arrested and thrown in jail in northern India for posting a quote on Facebook that he attributed to a local minister, after the politician denied making the comment. The charge was later dropped, but Khan described his experience as a nightmare for me and my family.

Go here to read the rest:

Indian top court strikes down free speech curbs

Teachers sue to join union without paying for political activities

Posted on by

An advocacy group has filed a lawsuit seeking to stop teachers unions in California from using member dues for political purposes unless individual instructors provide their permission.

The effort, if successful, could weaken the influence of these unions by limiting their spending.

The lawsuit was filed Friday in federal court by StudentsFirst, a Sacramento-based organization that has opposed candidates and measures backed by teachers unions nationwide, while also working to pass laws that curtail union power.

In the suit, four teachers, including two from the Los Angeles Unified School District, assert that union rules and state laws violate their 1st Amendment rights to free speech because they cannot belong to the union unless they allow a portion of their dues to be spent on political activity. The teachers claim they should be able to join without subsidizing viewpoints they may oppose.

As part of protecting the right to free speech, the 1st Amendment does not permit forcing an individual to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support, the suit states.

The defendants are the two largest teachers unions in the country as well as the two largest in California. Also being suedare two union locals where three of the teachers work, including United Teachers Los Angeles. The suit also names the superintendents of L.A. Unified, West Contra Costa Unified and Arcadia Unified school districts.

Union leaders characterized the legal action as an attempt to limit what labor can accomplish against well-funded business interests and other opponents by cutting off funding.

Thislawsuit is attempting to use the 1st Amendment to stifle speech, not enhance it, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement.

In California, although teachers are not compelled to join a union, they must pay a portion of membership dues as agency fees to cover their estimated share of costs when the union negotiates contract terms on their behalf.

The remaining portion, which the plaintiffs pegged at 30% to 40%, can be spent on political activities. Union leaders pointed out that contributing this portion is optional.

Read the rest here:

Teachers sue to join union without paying for political activities

Malaysia government seeks to strengthen Sedition Act

Posted on by

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia's government plans to strengthen its Sedition Act, fresh after enacting an anti-terrorism law denounced by the opposition and rights groups as a threat to civil liberties.

Ittabled on Tuesday (Apr 7) amendments to the Sedition Act 1948 for its first reading in parliament.As with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill passed early Tuesday, the amendments to the Sedition Act have been slammed by human rights activists.

Prime Minister Najib Razak had once pledged to repeal the controversial law introduced during British colonial rule to curb dissent. But the government said increased harmful and malicious comments jeopardising Malaysian ideals such as racial and religious harmony contributed to the change of heart.

However critics said the amendments silence free speech and cannot be justified."They're using a nuclear bomb to kill a mosquito or a fly. It's overdone. It's a terrible, terrible piece of legislation, terrible amendments," saidAmbiga Sreenevasan from the Movement to Abolish the Sedition Act and who is a former Bar Council president.

Under the amendments, comments on religion that could spark hostility would be an offence - one that would carry harsher penalties, including a compulsory jail term.

The government intends to remove subclauses that regulate criticisms of the government or the justice system. Still, many lawmakers are skeptical - even those from the ruling coalition.

Bung Moktar Radin is an MP from Sabah - where there has been talk of secession from Malaysia. He fears Sabahans will unwittingly be charged as Sedition Act amendments include a subclause criminalising this.

He said: "That's why I asked the minister, 'how about if the kampung (village) people put a statement on Facebook and they put 'like'. Are those people also going to be ditangkap (arrested)?' So, it's no good. "

But it's now unclear if the amendment Bill can or should even be debated. Critics argue that amendments should not have been proposed in the first place because of an ongoing court challenge on the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.

Ambiga Sreenevasan said: "Subjudice is one thing. But it's also totally disrespectful to the Federal Court. The Federal Court, the highest court in the land, is deciding whether it's constitutional and you don't care about that. You carry on and amend it. And of course it is a total waste of time, because if the Federal Court decides it is unconstitutional, the Act falls, the amendment falls."

See original here:

Malaysia government seeks to strengthen Sedition Act

Student: University presidents should take stronger stances against racism

Posted on by

How should a university president balance the Constitutional right to free speech against the responsibility to ensure students feel safe on campus after finding something as shocking as a noose, for example, hung by an undergraduate at Duke University?

Many students have demanded a strong response to show the university will not tolerate bigotry, while others caution that the First Amendment protects even the most hateful of speech. In every recent case, university leaders have unequivocally condemned the speech in question. But their other actions have varied.

Riley Brands, the editor-in-chief ofThe Daily Texan, the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin, has this take:

Just this semester, several racially-charged incidents have shaken universities. These incidents have tested university leaders resolve to promote an inclusive learning environment on their campuses.

In at least one case, a university president has been bold and stated unequivocally his intolerance for intolerance.

In others, however, fear or weakness has held university presidents back.

Last week, University of Maryland President Wallace D. Loh announced that a vile e-mail sent by a fraternity member violated no university rules and was protected by the First Amendment. The e-mail contained racial slurs and dismissed the idea of sexual consent.

Read more about the e-mail here.

In early February, my paper,The Daily Texan, broke the story of a racially insensitive party at the Phi Gamma Delta, or Fiji, fraternity house just off campus. The theme party, which the president of the fraternity told us was western, saw attendees in hard hats with the names Jefe and Pablo Sanchez written on them as well as reflective vests and work gloves. Some at the party said the theme was border control.

The uproar online was swift and vigorous. Many called for severe action against the fraternity.

View post:

Student: University presidents should take stronger stances against racism

Editorial: Political speech or corruption?

Posted on by

By Editorial Board April 5

IN THE Supreme Courts landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission , the court declared that corporate independent political expenditures are protected free speech under the First Amendment and cannot be constrained. The court wrestled with the possibility that unlimited spending might have a corrupting influence on politics, but in the end it decided that free speech was the overriding goal and that as long as the expenditures were independent of candidates, and transparent, they would not increase corruption. The campaign cycles since then have been increasingly awash in this spending, much of it going to super PACs.

Now comes a disturbing set of facts that call into question the courts logic and conclusions about corruption. The April 1 indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on bribery charges alleges a chronology that should worry everyone who cares about integrity in national politics. According to the indictment, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, Salomon Melgen, who was seeking Mr. Menendezs support on matters before the U.S. government, wrote two checks for $300,000 each in 2012 to the Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC devoted to supporting the election of Senate Democrats.

The donations were earmarked for use in the senators state of New Jersey. The senator was the only Democrat running for the Senate then in New Jersey. The doctor handed over one of the checks to a close friend of Mr. Menendez at the senators annual fundraiser. Is this what the court envisioned as independent?

The super PAC has said it acted within the law. It will be up to a jury to decide whether the doctor and the senator engaged in corruption. But the facts asserted in the indictment are sufficient to call into question the courts underlying thinking in Citizens United. The court declared that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. The court added that there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.

In this case, the money may have earned the doctor more than just gratitude. The indictment describes a flurry of e-mails, calls and requests for meetings by the senator on behalf of the Florida doctor. The senator aimed his efforts at cabinet members, regulators and fellow senators. There is no evidence of a direct quid pro quo, but the timing is suspicious. For example, on June 1, 2012, the doctor issued a $300,000 check, through his company, to the super PAC, earmarked for New Jersey politicking. On June 7, the senator met with the acting administrator of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to advocate for a resolution of a Medicare billing dispute involving the doctor to the tune of nearly $9 million. Just coincidence?

Whats at stake here is more than just one case. The Supreme Court has created an environment pregnant with possibility for corruption. The principles of independent expenditure are being routinely subverted. The reality of corrupt politics money for favors is growing more evident by the day.

Continue reading 10 minutes left

Read the original here:

Editorial: Political speech or corruption?

Paul Marshall: The Aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Freedom of Religion – Video

Posted on by


Paul Marshall: The Aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Freedom of Religion
In the heart of New York City, The King #39;s College is an accredited, Christian liberal arts college. Using a biblical worldview and great works in politics, philosophy, and economics, we are...

By: The King #39;s College

Go here to read the rest:

Paul Marshall: The Aftermath of Charlie Hebdo, Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Freedom of Religion - Video

The Skanner News – Commentary: Free Speech Hypocrisy

Posted on by

Details Written by Lee A Daniels, NNPA Columnist Published: 03 April 2015

This winter the medias been ablaze with stories about racist, homophobic and sexist slurs being hurled this way and that by college students and other adults.

Revealingly, those that have captured the most attention all involve Black Americans as the targets of the racist speech or action: the members of the University of Oklahoma chapter of one prominent White fraternity singing a racist ditty that referenced lynching a Black man; the sexist slur hurled against adolescent baseball star MoNe Davis by a college baseball athlete, and the attempt by the Sons of Confederate Veterans of Texas to force that state to produce a license plate with their symbol, the Confederate battle flag, on it. This latest effort by Confederate sympathizers to obscure the racist rebellions ineradicable stain of treason in the defense of slavery, as one analyst wrote, has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case last week.

The controversies have provoked a growing volume of commentary and opinion columns. Most of those Ive seen have declared that, while offensive speech and ideas are despicable, they must be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression so that society can benefit in the short- and long-term from the free flow of ideas.

Im a free-speech advocate myself. But in recent years, whenever these free-speech controversies have burst into the open, Ive increasingly noticed some important things missing from the general run of commentary and opinion columns. For one thing, I dont see them grappling with the question of why those who spout the slurs do so.

For example, shouldnt we be examining why a group of White college students, most of whom come from middle-class and upper-middle-class families, would gleefully traffick in expressions of racism?

And why a White college baseball player would feel the need to use a slur of sexual degeneracy against MoNe Davis, the 14-year-old Black American girl whose athletic prowess and off-the-field poise has won her well-deserved national attention?

Why should any public entity sanction the lies Confederate sympathizers continue to spout? The Confederacys own documents among them, the Confederate Constitution of 1861, and the individual ordinances of secession of each of the Confederate states make clear its driving force was the maintenance and expansion of its slave empire. If states that have these revenue-generating vanity-plate programs must open them to Confederate sympathizers, must they also accept the requests of drivers who want plates bearing the flags of other systems of extraordinary evil such as the Nazi flag, or the flag of ISIS too?

Part of whats bothering me is that when these controversies explode, I dont see the fierce condemnation of the values of the wrongdoers and their parents, neighborhoods and entire racial group thats standard procedure whenever some Black youth has done something wrong. Instead, I see many free speech advocates rush right past any consideration of the pain the offensive words cause to loftily order the individual and the group targets of the hate speech to ignore it or be better than the bigots.

In doing so, they deliberately ignore the reality that the old saying sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you has always been only partially true. Black American history is replete with many tragic episodes of racist slurs used to provoke and sustain racist violence. And now, the virulent online expressions of hatred against women whom misogynists feel are too assertive underscore the fact that sometimes offensive speech isnt just expression. Sometimes its used as a weapon to intimidate its target into silence.

Link:

The Skanner News - Commentary: Free Speech Hypocrisy

Chris Hedges on Roots of Terrorism, Free Speech Hypocrisy & Translating #JeSuisCharlie – Video

Posted on by


Chris Hedges on Roots of Terrorism, Free Speech Hypocrisy Translating #JeSuisCharlie
Abby Martin Breaks the Set on Boko Haram Apathy, Clash of Civilizations Falsehood Chris Hedges Breaks the Set. LIKE Breaking the Set @ FOLLOW Abby Martin. Abby Martin Breaks the Set on...

By: Verdefsa Nuyyer

Follow this link:

Chris Hedges on Roots of Terrorism, Free Speech Hypocrisy & Translating #JeSuisCharlie - Video

US Slams Russia for Closure of Crimean Tatar TV: ATR channel was shut on Monday – Video

Posted on by


US Slams Russia for Closure of Crimean Tatar TV: ATR channel was shut on Monday
The US has slammed Russian-occupying forces in Crimea for snuffing out free speech on the peninsula. The US State Department Spokeswoman condemned Russia #39;s closure of various Crimean Tatar ...

By: UKRAINE TODAY

See the article here:

US Slams Russia for Closure of Crimean Tatar TV: ATR channel was shut on Monday - Video


  1. Free Speech