1. Free Speech

Category Archives: Free Speech

Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy – Video

Posted on by


Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy
On Black, White and Politically Incorrect, Susan Patton and I discuss the recent controversy over Trevor Noah, the man slated to take over for Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. We also ask whether...

By: Boyce Watkins

See the article here:

Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy - Video

Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats

Posted on by

TOMORROW, the Malaysian cartoonist Zunar is expected to be charged with sedition over an illustrated tweet critical of his nations judiciary. If found guilty, he could face several years behind bars.

Last week, Turkish cartoonists Bahadir Baruter and Ozer Aydogan of the publication Penguen were sentenced to 14 months in prison for satirically insulting the nations president, before their sentences were commuted to fines.

And last month, while visiting Washington for a free-speech talk at Freedom House, Ecuadorian cartoonist Bonil told me that he cant spend his creative energy thinking about death threats, as well as a preliminary criminal investigation over his artwork, when he returns to his country. He faces accusations of socioeconomic discrimination, and he is fighting to stay free in body as well as in speech.

Elsewhere around the world, some political cartoonists also face arrests and threats at best, and disappearance and death in the darkest scenarios, over their commitment to exercise the power of the pen.

As Zunar says in a statement this week about the true power of the politically charged cartoon: The truth is seditious.

Coming to the aid of these artists the globe over, though, is the Cartoonists Rights Network International, which for one more week is running an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for its numerous fights for cartoonist rights and protection.

The Virginia-based organization is buoyed by many of the industrys American brethren, including such Pulitzer-winning cartoonists as Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader and Matt Wuerker of Politico. And at the center of the human-rights group is executive director Robert Russell, a former Peace Corps worker who founded CRNI a quarter-century ago.

Comic Riffs caught up with Russell to talk about the mission and movements of CRNI, as well as how to best aid, protect and rescue cartoonists who risk life and liberty in the name of free speech, and in the visual pursuit of truth.

MICHAEL CAVNA: CRNI has been on the front lines of helping support cartoonists under editorial and personal attack for a quarter-century now. How much are threats against, and persecution of, cartoonists always a constant and roughly how many cartoonists around the globe would you say need your help at any given time?

ROBERT RUSSELL: At any given time, anywhere from three to five cartoonists are very high on our radar. For some of these cartoonists, the problems are just temporary and usually settled positively and without too much fanfare in the civil courts. Other of our cartoonist clients have been in and out of trouble with their antagonists for years. We also find that a consistent group of usual suspects keeps making the rounds on our radar screen. Recidivism amongst some particularly hard-hitting cartoonists can be very high.

Continue reading here:

Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats

Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?

Posted on by

The Institute for Justice had petitioned the Supreme Court to take an interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit involving the suppression of free speech protesting a taking of private property. Here is the press release:

Case Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Shows How If We Lose One Right, We Can Lose Them All

First the Government Tried to Illegally Take Their Land, Then the Government Silenced Them So They Couldnt Hang a Protest Banner on Their Own Property

Key Facts This case started with government abusing its power of eminent domain. 10 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamousKeloruling eviscerating constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse. Company hung a protest banner; the government demanded they cover it up.

Arlington, Va.Ten years ago, in its infamousKelodecision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a radically broad interpretation of the governments power to take private property through eminent domain. But the Court recognized that the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain are matters of legitimate public debate. Central Radio Company attempted to participate in that debate when the government tried to take its property through eminent domain. The city of Norfolk, Va., however, prevented it from doing so, barring the company from hanging a protest banner on the land in dispute. Now Central Radio is taking its fight to the U.S. Supreme Court,asking the Court to review a major case at the intersection of free speech and property rights.

This case demonstrates just how intertwined our constitutional rights arehow protecting free speech is essential to protecting our other fundamental liberties, including property rights, noted Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Central Radio.

Central Radio has been a Norfolk institution for more than 80 years, but in 2010 the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority moved to take its land and building through eminent domain and turn it over to nearby Old Dominion University (a land grab Central Radio would ultimately defeat). In response to the threat, Central Radio hunga 375-square foot protest banneron the very building the government was trying to take. It read: 50 years on this street/78 years in Norfolk/100 workers/Threatened by eminent domain!

Acting on a complaint made by an official at Old Dominionthe very entity that stood to acquire Central Radios propertythe city quickly cited Central Radio and ordered the banner be taken down. Yet, under Norfolks sign code, the banner would have been allowed if it had fallen into one of the various favored categories of signs that Norfolk exempts from regulation. For example, a banner of the same size, in the same location, would have been perfectly permissible if, rather than protesting city policy, it depicted the city flag or crest.

In the fall of 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the citys attempted taking of Central Radios property was illegal, vindicating the companys property rights. Unfortunately, however, the federal courts refused to vindicate Central Radios free speech rights. When the company challenged the citys sign code under the First Amendment, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld it. And in January 2015, a divided 2-1decision of the U.S. 4thCircuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.

According to the 4thCircuit majority opinion, it was irrelevant that the sign code drew distinctions between different types of banners based on their content so long as those distinctions were what the court deemed reasonable. Moreover, restricting Central Radios banner was warranted, according to the majority, because some passersby had reacted emphatically to the sign by waving, honking and shouting in support when they saw it. The majority claimed that these expressions of support were evidence that motorists [we]re distracted by [the] sign while driving.

The rest is here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?

UN body tells Russia to act against human rights abuses

Posted on by

GENEVA: United Nations experts on Thursday called on Russia to repeal laws limiting free speech and targeting homosexuals and urged action to prevent torture, racist crimes and a wide range of other human rights abuses.

The 18-member Human Rights Committee also told Moscow it should move to prevent violation of U.N. pacts that it has signed by insurgents in eastern Ukraine and by the authorities in the Chechen republic, and in Crimea.

The calls came in a report that indirectly drew a picture of a country rife with persecution of critics of the government and of groups that do not conform to its political and social views, and that gave no recourse to a proper judicial system.

The 12-page document largely referred to reports of abuses and violent activities, including by what it called "ultra-nationalist, racist and neo-Nazi groups", and of torture of suspects by police.

The Committee, which monitors signatory countries' performance under the 1976 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, issued the report after examining Russia's record and hearing comments by Moscow's delegation.

During discussion in the Committee late last month, Russian officials denied the truth of the many of the reports cited by the body's members, who include non-government lawyers and academics from developing and developed countries.

The U.N. report said laws signed by President Vladimir Putin - including on limiting Internet activity and restricting links between Russian non-governmental organisations and foreign groups - "appear" to violate the U.N. Convention.

The Committee said it was concerned by reports of hate speech and violence against gays and called on Moscow to "clearly and explicitly state that it does not tolerate any form of social stigmatization of homosexuals".

It also noted "under-representation of women in decision- making positions" in political life and urged Russia to fight "patriarchal attitudes" on the role of women and men in the family and society at large.

(Editing by Stephanie Nebehay and Louise Ireland)

Read the original post:

UN body tells Russia to act against human rights abuses

Student Prevented from Distributing Flyers without Free Speech Badge – Video

Posted on by


Student Prevented from Distributing Flyers without Free Speech Badge
In this February 4, 2015 video, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona student Nicolas Tomas is stopped by campus police from distributing animal rights flyers. Tomas was told that...

By: TheFIREorg

Read the original here:

Student Prevented from Distributing Flyers without Free Speech Badge - Video

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech – Video

Posted on by


Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech
http://www.AskAttorneySteve.com Most people think "I can say whatever I want its a free country" or "with free speech I can say whatever is on my mind." While this may be physically true,...

By: Steve Vondran

Excerpt from:

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech - Video

Ruling on U.S. flag raises questions about students' free-speech rights

Posted on by

The Supreme Court rejected a free-speech appeal Monday from several California high school students who were told they could not wear a shirt emblazoned with an American flag on the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

The court's action has the effect of upholding school officials who said they acted because they feared an outbreak of fighting between white and Mexican American students.

The court's actionsets no legal precedent, but it raises questions about whether students have meaningful free-speech rights on matters that may provoke controversy.

One parent whose son was sent home for wearing an American flag said he was disappointed by the decision. I found it shocking. The flag represents the nation as a whole. It is about respect for the United States, said Kendall Jones of Morgan Hill, Calif. We can embrace a multicultural celebration at school, but that is no excuse for excluding the flag.

Many school officials in recent years have told students they may not wear the Confederate flag on their clothing at school or display anti-gay messages. The case of Dariano vs. Morgan Hill Unified School District drew greater attention because an American flag was considered the provocative message.

Los Angeles lawyer William Becker, who sued on behalf of the parents, called the courts decision a victory for bullies and a defeat for free speech. This opens the door for a school to suppress any viewpoints that are opposed by a band of vocal and violent bullies, he said.

The Live Oak High School south of San Jose had seen at least 30 fights between white and Mexican American students. And the annual celebration of the Mexican holiday on May 5 had heightened the tension.

On that day in 2010, the principal told several white students they must remove their shirts featuring an American flag or go home.

They went home but, with the help of their parents, later sued the school officials for violating their rights under the 1st Amendment.

Federal judges in San Francisco rejected their free-speech claim on the grounds that the school officials had a reasonable fear that their shirts could provoke fighting or a disruption of the school's activities.

Read the original here:

Ruling on U.S. flag raises questions about students' free-speech rights

Supreme Court turns away Bay Area students free-speech case

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal Monday by high school students in Morgan Hill who were barred from wearing American flags on their T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, a year after an angry confrontation between flag-waving Anglo and Mexican American students.

Heeding warnings in 2010 by students from both ethnic groups that clashes could erupt again, the principal at Live Oak High School told the students to either turn the U.S. flag shirts inside out or go home. Some reversed their shirts, others left, but three students and their parents sued the Morgan Hill Unified School District, claiming a violation of free speech. They cited a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld students right to wear black armbands to class in a silent protest against the Vietnam War.

But the 1969 ruling also said school officials could limit student expression in order to prevent disruption of education or school activities. Federal courts said the Morgan Hill principal had taken reasonable steps to prevent possible violence, and the Supreme Court denied review of the students appeal Monday, without comment.

The Rutherford Institute, a libertarian organization representing the students, said the courts action was a blow to the First Amendment.

When public school students cant wear an American flag on a T-shirt because it might be disruptive, then free speech as weve known it is dead, the institutes president, John Whitehead, said in a statement.

The students also drew support from John and Mary Beth Tinker, the brother and sister whose Vietnam War protest in an Iowa high school led to the Supreme Courts 1969 ruling. In a brief that urged the court to take up the Morgan Hill case, the Tinkers said students speech on controversial subjects often provokes hostile and even potentially violent reactions and should nevertheless remain constitutionally protected.

But the court may have retreated somewhat from the First Amendment stance it took in the Tinker case. A later ruling upheld a school principals authority to censor a student newspaper to promote what the principal described as school values. Another ruling upheld an Alaska schools suspension of a student who unfurled a banner outside the campus reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus, a slogan that the court said could be interpreted as promoting drug use.

The Morgan Hill case arose in an ethnically charged atmosphere that dated from May 5, 2009, when a group of Mexican American students walked around with a Mexican flag to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, and a group of white students responded by hoisting a makeshift American flag up a tree, chanting USA and exchanging profanities and threats with the Latino youths.

A year later, after a confrontation between Latino students and three youths wearing U.S. flag shirts, school officials told the youths in the T-shirts to conceal the flags or go home. They issued no similar orders to students wearing Mexican flag colors to commemorate the holiday, saying there was no evidence that those youths were in danger.

In a 3-0 ruling in February 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the students free-speech claims, saying the schools actions were tailored to avert violence and focused on student safety. Three conservative judges later argued unsuccessfully for a rehearing and accused their colleagues of catering to the will of the mob.

See the rest here:

Supreme Court turns away Bay Area students free-speech case

In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech

Posted on by

From nooses to swastikas and repulsive chants, college campuses in the United States have had no shortage of racial tensions. But where is the line drawn between racism and free speech?

In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian, President Amy Gutmann, who is trained in political philosophy and political science, discussed the balance between fighting racism while protecting free speech. Gutmann has written extensively about deliberative democracies and has been a vocal supporter of having all beliefs even the most unpopular ones openly expressed.

Even for an expert like Gutmann, its a tricky issue.

There is no simple way of drawing a line. Its not that you can draw a line and something is on one side or the other, and thats all you have to do. Gutmann told the DP. I begin with the time-tested belief that free speech is the lifeblood of a thriving democratic society, and it is also the lifeblood of universities and institutions of higher education like Penn.

We can only succeed in addressing complex and controversial issues if we commit ourselves as a community to respecting diverse perspectives or beliefs of others, she added.

Gutmann believes that freedom of speech is most vulnerable when it involves unpopular speech.

The challenge of free speech is when there is speech you really dont like and we have to live up to that challenge, Gutmann said. We have to stand by free speech when its offensive speech, as well as when its speech we like.

Gutmann conceded, though, that there are limitations to free speech that must be considered, including threatening others or falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. She added that the context in which the statements are taken must be examined carefully.

Regardless of whether certain speech is protected by the first amendment, Gutmann says that everyone has a responsibility to respond to speech they do not like.

The right to free speech is often defended without the understanding that it comes along with the responsibility, when we can and as long as were protected, to speak our minds in response to offensive, sometimes disgusting and demeaning speech, she said.

See the original post here:

In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech


  1. Free Speech