Toby Young on zero hour contracts (24Mar15)
The Spectator #39;s Toby Young talks about zero hour contracts. Recorded from BBC3 HD, Free Speech, I #39;m A Conservative, 24 March 2015.
By: liarpoliticians
Go here to see the original:
Category Archives: Free Speech
Free speech n opinion – Video
Free speech n opinion
Freedom most important.
By: Qian Zeng
Excerpt from:
Face of free speech is back – Video
Face of free speech is back
Face of free speech is back: SC scrapping Section 66A is a triumph of democratic dissent Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. It #39;s the lifeline of democracy. As the Universal Declarati...
By: Crazy Easy Broadcast Chat
Read this article:
Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected – Video
Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected
It was a coincidence that this week saw both the news of an undisclosed million and a half dollar political contribution, and a public hearing on the need to revise state laws on political...
By: Channel 3000 | News 3
Here is the original post:
Free speech rights of independent political groups must be protected - Video
Cash leads to controversy
The old conundrum of "free speech for me, but not for thee" is back before the nation's highest court.
Legislative lust for cash led to a program in Texas that allowed motorists, for a $30 fee, to put their own group messages on their license plates.
But the free exercise of speech ran into a heckler's veto, the result of which is a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the state can veto the presence of a Confederate flag logo on a motorist's plates.
In oral arguments this week, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller said the state can veto the flag because "the First Amendment does not mean that a motorist can compel any government to place its imprimatur of the Confederate flag on its license plate."
R. James George Jr., who represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans, countered that it's not the state speaking, but the individual who carries his own personal message on his license plate. Besides, the state allows more than 400 specialty plates and all those messages can't reflect state speech.
Does that means Nazis or dopers could put "Swastikas" or "Make Pot Legal" on Texas license places, asked Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Sure does, George replied. Freedom means freedom for everybody, he contended, and the state policy allowing individual groups to design their own messages applies equally to all groups.
News accounts indicate that Texas specialty license plates tout everything from favorite schools to political slogans. The state has rarely rejected a proposed design, and it might not have rejected the Confederate logo if opponents hadn't protested at a motor vehicles department board meeting. When they said they found the logo personally offense, board members unanimously voted to prohibit it.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans sued, alleging the state is engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Under the viewpoint discrimination doctrine, government is not allowed to pick and choose the speech it will allow.
The Confederate flag means different things to different people. It's no surprise that a lawyer for the NAACP calls it a "powerful symbol of the oppression of black people." After all, the Confederate flag was the symbol of the Southern slave states during the Civil War.
Go here to read the rest:
THROWDOWN THURSDAY: Trigger Warning!
By JULIUS KAIREY
Warning: Article may contain principled defenses of free speech as well as ideas and language that may be considered offensive to some readers. Read at your own risk.
One symptom of the hypersensitivity slowly rotting away at liberal education in America is the recent push for trigger warnings. If some students get their way, objectionable material in classroom lectures, discussions and presentations would include warning messages. Giving in to such demands, schools like Oberlin College have instructed faculty to scrub their syllabuses of offensive material that does not contribute directly to the course learning goals. Like proponents of the closely-linked speech code movement, trigger warning advocates equate controversial speech with violence in order to make it seem more regulable. This is a natural extension of a worldview that instructs students to prefer intellectual safety and security over a rigorous educational experience. In this paradigm, the quest for truth is deemed less important than making sure the wrong views are not heard.
When listening to the advocates of trigger warnings attempting to make their case, the careful listener is immediately struck by their boundless capacity for self-pity. They incessantly demand that society recognize their pain and acknowledge their status as a victim. Underlying this mindset is a paranoid fear that certain privileged societal groups are out to get them. Consequently, they cry oppression while censoring the speech of others and some universities are letting them get away with it. The same organizations that once wanted to keep administrators out of the business of regulating speech are now begging, even demanding, that they intervene. To give just one example, hundreds of students and faculty at Miami University last year demanded the university cancel a scheduled speech by syndicated columnist George Will.
A safe campus is a sterile one where we would lose what makes our universities great: innovative thinking, creativity, and a willingness to boldly reach for the next frontier.
The irony of this movement is that it bases its claims on the need to protect certain minorities from discrimination. They most aggressively target speech (and speakers) deemed racist or sexist, supposedly to protect groups they consider particularly vulnerable. Yet, there is a certain bigotry inherent in their line of reasoning. Trigger warning proponents unjustly portray minorities as uniquely fragile and incapable of dealing with controversial and hotly contested issues. They are rarely asked why their own degraded perception of minorities is not tantamount to the racism they so eagerly denounce.
It should hardly be surprising that such policies end up encouraging students to frequently claim offense. The taking of offense is an entirely subjective and utterly manipulable standard, such that a student cannot be made to prove that he really is offended by something he sees or hears. By enabling students to change the behavior of others by demanding to feel safe, students are encouraged to avoid the tough issues raised in class and retreat to the comforts of identity politics and victimization theory. Students must prove themselves capable of an education that prepares them for reality.
Professors have particular cause for concern with the rising popularity of this movement. The burden will naturally fall on them to ensure that students are not triggered from the contents of their lectures and assigned readings. This is an impossible task. Faculty members cannot possibly know the varied personal experiences of each student that could cause them to find material particularly objectionable. Should they refrain from giving a hypothetical involving a house fire for fear that a student might have experienced one? How about teaching law regarding violent assault or rape? It will become increasingly difficult for professors to teach and for students to learn in a context that puts student sensibilities above a free academic environment.
It is not entirely true that trigger warning proponents want the university to closely regulate all speech. Their speech is exempted. The right not to be censored is only conferred on those with the correct ideas. It is precisely the politicization and selective application of hypersensitivity that threatens to make our universities closed to those with unpopular ideas.
Imagine the Bible with warnings like may include homophobia and novels like Huckleberry Finn with the declaration may include racism. And why not make our campus an even safer space by removing such books entirely? After all, who knows if an impressionable young freshman might one day wander into the library, only to be traumatized by these books while innocently browsing the catalog? Do his sensibilities not deserve to be protected?
Read more:
Free speech dialogue 3/3 – Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD – Video
Free speech dialogue 3/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD
This is part 3 of 3 of Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi discussing freedom of speech or right to insult at the Islamic Society in University College Dublin on 5 March 2015. You can view...
By: Atheist Ireland
Link:
Free speech dialogue 3/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD - Video
Supreme Court upholds free speech on the net – Video
Supreme Court upholds free speech on the net
In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court strikes down the draconian Section 66(A) of the IT Act. It is a huge win for free speech in India, but ironically, the political parties that supported...
By: NDTV
Originally posted here:
Ed Miliband on competing with his brother – Free Speech – BBC Three – Video
Ed Miliband on competing with his brother - Free Speech - BBC Three
http://www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech Ed Miliband answers questions from a BBC Free Speech audience in the run up to the May 2015 general election. This is his response to the question: Do you think...
By: BBC Three
The rest is here:
Ed Miliband on competing with his brother - Free Speech - BBC Three - Video
Citizens question Stockton CA Police Chief Eric Jones about officers assaults on free speech – Video
Citizens question Stockton CA Police Chief Eric Jones about officers assaults on free speech
Community forum, Stockton California Police Chief Eric Jones community forum 2015. Citizens question why fellow citizens in Stockton California have been unlawfully harassed, detained, and...
By: Stockton Street Press
Originally posted here:
Citizens question Stockton CA Police Chief Eric Jones about officers assaults on free speech - Video
Langston Galloway: 19 PTS, 7 REB, 5 AST VS Memphis 3/2315 – Video
Langston Galloway: 19 PTS, 7 REB, 5 AST VS Memphis 3/2315
http://obglobal.net/board/1/knicks-forum JOIN US! Best Knicks site out there. Free speech, lazy moderators. http://newyorkjetsglobal.proboards.com/ Jets Fans! Best Jets Forum on the web right here.
By: The Knicks Channel - OBG
View original post here:
Langston Galloway: 19 PTS, 7 REB, 5 AST VS Memphis 3/2315 - Video
Senior Lawyer Sanjay Hegde On Section 66A – Video
Senior Lawyer Sanjay Hegde On Section 66A
The SC is expected to seal the fate of free speech in its verdict on the validity on Sec 66A of the IT act. The controversial section empowers the police to arrest those who post #39;objectionable...
By: Headlines Today
Read more here:
Union Minister Reacts To Supreme Court Verdict On Section 66 A – Video
Union Minister Reacts To Supreme Court Verdict On Section 66 A
The Supreme Court verdict on section 66 A of the Information Technology Act has been hailed as victory for free speech. Union Minister for Communication and Information Technology, Ravi Shankar...
By: Headlines Today
Follow this link:
Union Minister Reacts To Supreme Court Verdict On Section 66 A - Video
Justices Struggle With Free Speech Case Over License …
In a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate, the Supreme Court struggled Monday to balance worries about government censorship and concerns that offensive messages could, at worst, incite violence.
Nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the justices heard arguments in a case over Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the battle flag. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag, which remains both a potent image of heritage and a racially charged symbol of repression.
Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from, from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.
The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing.
The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.
If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad," and a call to make marijuana legal?
Yes, lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded each time on behalf of the veterans group.
"That's okay? And 'Bong hits for Jesus?'" Ginsburg said, reaching back to an earlier case involving students' speech rights.
Again, George said yes, and remained firm even when Justice Elena Kagan added in "the most offensive racial epithet you can imagine."
He told the justices that "speech that we hate is something that we should be proud of protecting."
Here is the original post:
Win for Free Speech
In a victory for proponents of free speech, the Supreme Court today struck down Section 66 A of the IT Act, which had permitted the arrest of people for posting offensive content on the internet. However, the Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.
What are your views on this ruling? Join us for a live chat today at 5.30 pm with:
Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.
Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression.
Lawrence Liang, Lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.
and G Ananth Krishnan, Coordinating Editor with The Hindu
The Hindu: Hi all, welcome to the live chat on the Supreme Court's much-celebrated decision to strike down Section 66 A of the IT Act. There are caveats of course: For instance, the Court has upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block websites based on a set of rules.
5:30
The Hindu: Welcome to Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of "Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the constitution" forthcoming in OUP.
5:31
See the rest here:
Supreme Court justices question both sides on Texas Confederate plate issue
WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court wrestled Monday with whether free speech rights require Texas to accept all messages even deeply offensive ones on its specialty license plates, a decision that could prompt the state to kill the program.
The justices faced conflicting arguments from Texas officials who say they should control all plate content and a Southern historical group that says its proposal for a Confederate battle flag tag cannot be censored.
Texas rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans request for a flag plate, saying many consider it racist and a hurtful reminder of slavery. The group sued, saying the state discriminated against those who believe the banner honors Confederate soldiers sacrifice, independence and heritage.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked the veterans group attorney, R. James George Jr. of Austin, whether he believed the state under the First Amendment must approve all messages no matter how objectionable.
What about, she said, a plate featuring a swastika? An outright racial slur? Or simply the word jihad?
Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed harder. Yes or no, he asked George. Must the state put those symbols or messages on the plates at the request of the citizen? Yes or no?
Georges answer: Yes.
That seemed to go too far for some on the court, which is deciding for the first time whether states can legally reject some license plates and approve others, based on officials judgment on whether they could be considered offensive.
Justice Antonin Scalia said that if states are forced to accept even the most outrageous messages, they may scrap specialty plate programs.
Youre really arguing for the abolition of Texas specialty plates, arent you? Scalia asked George. I couldnt make a better argument for in that direction than what youve been doing.
Follow this link:
Supreme Court justices question both sides on Texas Confederate plate issue
India's top court affirms people's right to free speech on Internet
New Delhi India'stopcourtaffirmed people's right to free speech in cyberspace Tuesday by striking down a provision that had called for imprisoning people who send "offensive" messages by computer or cellphone.
The provision, known as Section 66A of the 2008 Information Technology Act, had made sending such messages a crime punishable by up to three years in prison.
In its ruling, theSupremeCourtsaid the provision was "clearly vague" in not clarifying what should be construed as offensive. It also said the provision violates people's freedom of speech and their right to share information.
"The public's right to know is directly affected," the judges said in deeming the provision unconstitutional.
A law student who filed the challenge in 2012, Shreya Singhal, applauded thecourt'srejection of a provision she said was "grossly offensive to our rights, our freedom of speech and expression."
"Today theSupremeCourthas upheld that, they have supported our rights," Singhal said. "I am ecstatic."
The law has been invoked in at least 10 recent cases, most often involving criticism of political leaders.
In 2012, a chemistry professor and his neighbor in Kolkata were arrested for forwarding a cartoon that made fun of West Bengal's top elected official, Mamata Banerjee.
Police arrested a man last year for saying on Facebook that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then still a candidate, would start a holocaust inIndiaif elected to office.
And last week, police in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh arrested a teenage student for posting comments on Facebook he attributed to a top state minister.
Read more:
India's top court affirms people's right to free speech on Internet
Justices struggle with free speech case over license plates
By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate, the Supreme Court struggled Monday to balance worries about government censorship and concerns that offensive messages could, at worst, incite violence.
Nearly 150 years after the end of the Civil War, the justices heard arguments in a case over Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the battle flag. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag, which remains both a potent image of heritage and a racially charged symbol of repression.
Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from, from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.
The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing.
The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides - the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.
If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad," and a call to make marijuana legal?
Yes, lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded each time on behalf of the veterans group.
"That's okay? And 'Bong hits for Jesus?'" Ginsburg said, reaching back to an earlier case involving students' speech rights.
Again, George said yes, and remained firm even when Justice Elena Kagan added in "the most offensive racial epithet you can imagine."
Original post:
Could Texas have Nazi license plates? Supreme Court hears free speech case. (+video)
Washington The United States Supreme Court began grappling on Monday with a thorny free speech issue: whether a state government can use its authority over specialty license plates to endorse certain messages while censoring others.
The issue arises in a lawsuit filed by the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who complain that Texas refused to produce and circulate a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate that prominently featured the Confederate battle flag.
A Texas board rejected the license plate because it said many members of the public find the Confederate battle flag offensive.
Only a handful of proposed specialty license plates have ever rejected by Texas.
The state offers more than 400 specialty plates featuring an eclectic range of messages. They include God Bless Texas, Vietnam Veteran, Id Rather Be Golfing, and Mighty Fine Burgers, a commercial plug for an Austin burger establishment of high repute.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) insist that their proposed license plate is not meant to spread fear or hatred. They view the Confederate flag as a symbol of sacrifice, independence, and Southern heritage, and they argue that the state should not be permitted to muzzle that message.
The case is potentially important because it forces the justices to explore a murky First Amendment middle ground between government-permitted censorship of objectionable speech in some limited cases and guarantees of free speech in most cases even when that speech is offensive.
The so-called government speech doctrine allows the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination in its own speech, but it does not allow such discrimination against private speech. Thus, a central question in the case is who is doing the speaking in the production and display of specialty license plates?
Texas approves and issues a specialty license plate containing a particular message. Next, an individual driver pays extra for the plate, attaches it to her vehicle, and displays the message while driving in public.
Is the resulting communication the speech of the government or the speech of the individual driver?
View original post here:
Could Texas have Nazi license plates? Supreme Court hears free speech case. (+video)
Texas license plate case pits free speech vs. hate speech
This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate. The Supreme Court on March 23, 2015, will weigh a free-speech challenge to Texas decision to refuse to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag. Specialty plates are big business in Texas, where drivers spent $17.6 million last year to choose from among more than 350 messages the state allows on the plates. TEXASDEPARTMENTOFMOTORVEHICLESAP
WASHINGTON Supreme Court justices on Monday struggled with how far license plates might go if they rule the Sons of Confederate Veterans can get Texas plates imprinted with the Confederate flag.
Pretty far, the Sons of Confederate Veterans attorney conceded, in an exchange that suggested why the group might eventually lose its challenge to Texas denial of its controversial plate request.
Your position is that, if you prevail, a license plate can have a racial slur? asked Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing vote. Thats your position?
Yes, replied R. James George Jr., the Austin-based attorney representing the Sons of Confederate Veterans, adding that speech that we hate is something we should be proud of protecting.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pressed George with similar examples, asking about specialty license plates imprinted with a swastika, an encouragement to commit jihad or the phrases Make Pot Legal or Bong Hits for Jesus. In each case, George said Texas should be obliged to print the plate if requested to.
I dont think the government can discriminate against content, George said.
Texas officials, though, say theyre free to regulate the speech thats conveyed through a government-issued medium.
The government is entitled to select the messages that it wishes to propagate, Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller said Texas does not have to associate itself with messages that it doesnt want to and finds offensive.
The Texas specialty license plate program now includes more than 400 permitted messages, Keller reported Monday. Some messages are authorized by the state Legislature and others are applied for through the Texas Department of Transportation.
Here is the original post: