The U.S. Supreme Court takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism. Photo by Texas Department of Motor Vehicles/Handout via Reuters

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court is weighing a free-speech challenge to Texas refusal 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. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate.

But a state motor vehicle board turned down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy, as well as Maryland.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday over whether the state violated the groups First Amendment rights.

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, but it says that putting the battle flag on license plates would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. The same image is etched on a century-old Civil War monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. ORourke.

In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be, Hentoff, ORourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

The case could be important for how the Supreme Court determines whether the speech at issue belongs to private individuals or the government.

Texas main argument to the Supreme Court is that the license plate is not like a bumper sticker slapped on the car by its driver. Instead, the state said license plates are government property, and so what appears on them is not private individuals speech but the governments. The First Amendment applies when governments try to regulate the speech of others, but not when governments are doing the talking.

Read the original:

Justices hear free speech dispute over Confederate flag license plate

March 23, 2015: This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate.(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."

Read the original post:

Justices struggle with free speech case over Confederate license plates

NY 9 News: Pamela Geller Discuss AFDI Free Speech Win in Philly

By: Pamela Geller

Excerpt from:

NY 9 News: Pamela Geller Discuss AFDI Free Speech Win in Philly - Video

AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1
http://www.kalki-movies.com/ PRESENTER AND PRODUCER MAX IGAN GIVES AN IMPORTANT INTERVIEW ON THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH AND ENQUIRY IN A WORLD INCREASING WITH ...

By: KALKI MOVIES

More here:

AT THE CROSSROADS OF FREEDOM- MAX IGAN- PART1 - Video

Social Media Censorship and Free Speech
I #39;ve been noticing a lot of bans, ad removal notices, and ambiguous statements in community standards lately for Facebook/Google. What do you guys think? #DontExposeEvil New Facebook ...

By: The Conscious Resistance

Link:

Social Media Censorship and Free Speech - Video

The Supreme Court is weighing a free-speech challenge to Texas' refusal 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. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate.

But a state motor vehicle board turned down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy, as well as Maryland.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday over whether the state violated the group's First Amendment rights.

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, but it says that putting the battle flag on license plates would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. The same image is etched on a century-old Civil War monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

The case could be important for how the Supreme Court determines whether the speech at issue belongs to private individuals or the government.

Texas' main argument to the Supreme Court is that the license plate is not like a bumper sticker slapped on the car by its driver. Instead, the state said license plates are government property, and so what appears on them is not private individuals' speech but the government's. The First Amendment applies when governments try to regulate the speech of others, but not when governments are doing the talking.

Even if the court disagrees that license plates are government speech, the state said its rejection of the Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate was not discriminatory. The motor vehicle board had not approved a plate denigrating the Confederacy or the battle flag so it could not be accused of giving voice to one viewpoint while suppressing another, the state said.

Excerpt from:

Justices Hear Free Speech Dispute Over License Plates

WASHINGTON Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," ''God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

"There are a lot of competing racial and ethnic concerns, and Texas doesn't necessarily handle them any way but awkwardly sometimes," said Lynne Rambo, a professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth.

Read the original post:

Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag - to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism.

The nine justices will hear a one-hour oral argument in a case that raises the issue of how states can allow or reject politically divisive messages on license plates without violating free speech rights. States can generate revenue by allowing outside groups to propose specialty license plates that people then pay a fee to put on their vehicle.

The group Sons of Confederate Veterans says its aim is to preserve the "history and legacy" of soldiers who fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War. Its proposed design featured a Confederate battle flag surrounded by the words "Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896." The flag is a blue cross inlaid with white stars over a red background.

The group's Texas chapter said its members' free speech rights were violated when the state rejected the plate. Several other states have approved similar plates.

When Texas rejected the proposal in 2010, the state said it had received public comments that suggested "many members of the general public find the design offensive" in large part due to the Confederacy being synonymous with the institution of slavery.

A black Texas Democratic state senator, Royce West, said in 2011, "Ill-intended or not, why would African Americans want to be reminded of a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape and mass murder?"

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas officials did not have grounds to reject the plate, prompting the state to seek high court review.

The legal issue is in part whether messages on state-issued license plates represent speech by the government or an endorsement of a private message. If determined to be private speech, the state's rejection could violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech guarantee.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said although the flag "served as a banner for those who supported slavery and segregation ... Texas cannot pick and choose the plates it approves on ideological grounds."

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Read more:

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Monday takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag - to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism.

The nine justices will hear a one-hour oral argument in a case that raises the issue of how states can allow or reject politically divisive messages on license plates without violating free speech rights. States can generate revenue by allowing outside groups to propose specialty license plates that people then pay a fee to put on their vehicle.

The group Sons of Confederate Veterans says its aim is to preserve the "history and legacy" of soldiers who fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy in the US Civil War. Its proposed design featured a Confederate battle flag surrounded by the words "Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896." The flag is a blue cross inlaid with white stars over a red background.

The group's Texas chapter said its members' free speech rights were violated when the state rejected the plate. Several other states have approved similar plates.

When Texas rejected the proposal in 2010, the state said it had received public comments that suggested "many members of the general public find the design offensive" in large part due to the Confederacy being synonymous with the institution of slavery.

A black Texas Democratic state senator, Royce West, said in 2011, "Ill-intended or not, why would African Americans want to be reminded of a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape and mass murder?"

The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas officials did not have grounds to reject the plate, prompting the state to seek high court review.

The legal issue is in part whether messages on state-issued license plates represent speech by the government or an endorsement of a private message. If determined to be private speech, the state's rejection could violate the US Constitution's First Amendment free speech guarantee.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said although the flag "served as a banner for those who supported slavery and segregation ... Texas cannot pick and choose the plates it approves on ideological grounds." Reuters

Read this article:

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches US Supreme Court

Summary:Some countries and cultures have a hatred of our freedoms. Not only do they persecute their own subjects relentlessly, they feel they can reach outside of their own closed societies and attack us. They are wrong. We will not be silenced.

January 7, 2015: Gunmen armed with AK-47 automatic rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher attacked the Paris-based editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo. The newspaper has a history of printing satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad in unflattering light.

Three days later, the Hamburg-based offices of Hamburger Morgenpost were firebombed, probably because they reprinted images from Charlie Hebdo.

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been targeted. In 2011, in response to earlier satirical illustrations of Mohammad, the paper was the victim of a previous firebomb attack. The paper's Web site was also hacked.

Speaking of hacking, we have all been following the news after the November 24, 2014 "scorched earth" hack attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment. Although all the details are still not known, it is believed the hack was perpetrated by North Korea because an American comedy movie, The Interview, featured a plot about assassinating the "Great Successor" Kim Jong-un.

For four months, beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013, The New York Times was the victim of an advanced persistent penetration attack attributed to the People's Republic of China. The Gray Lady had been working on a series of investigative reports about billions of dollars of "hidden" financial transactions made by the family of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

Around the same time, Rupert Murdoch himself reported that the Wall Street Journal had also been the victim of Chinese hacking. The Chinese were accused of digging around in the WSJ's systems, looking for names of sources used for stories about China. Presumably, once the names were extracted by the attackers, those sources would then be "persuaded" to stop speaking out, jailed, or exterminated.

In December 2013, the Washington Post reported that it, too, was the victim of penetration attacks, the third in as many years. While the purpose of that hack was unknown, a previous hack by the Syrian Electronic Army had redirected WaPo readers to articles on a Syrian Web site supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Penetrations of WaPo systems going as far back as 2008 are attributed to China, stating "China's cyber-espionage assists the government's broader efforts to quell internal dissent by identifying activists and dissidents."

From the violent attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hamburger Morgenpost to the cyber-attacks on American media, the free press and free speech democratic societies take for granted is being targeted by a wide range of hostile actors determined to squelch, punish, and prevent certain topics of discussion.

Originally posted here:

The price and privilege of free speech and a free press

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health - however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," ''God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

Read this article:

Confederate flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

March 23, 2015: This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate.(AP)

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health -- however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," "God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

Go here to see the original:

Confederate battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case - VIDEO: Texas school paints over star-spangled ...

A quick introduction to Plaid Cymru - Free Speech: Series 4 Episode 2 - BBC Three
http://www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech Do you know who to vote for? Can you tell the difference between the parties? Here #39;s our effort to introduce Plaid Cymru in under a minute.

By: BBC Three

View post:

A quick introduction to Plaid Cymru - Free Speech: Series 4 Episode 2 - BBC Three - Video

Undercurrent S14E6 - Is Free Speech Declining in Australia?
Story by: Melissa Blom.

By: WestTV Perth

Read the original here:

Undercurrent S14E6 - Is Free Speech Declining in Australia? - Video

Facebook Comments Aren #39;t Free Speech
Facebook Comments Aren #39;t Free Speech There is a debate around social media that Facebook comments are free speech. Since online comments are on platforms owned by someone else, that owner ...

By: Zennie62

Continued here:

Facebook Comments Aren't Free Speech - Video

South Korean fascists beat up free speech
South Korean professors Lee Yong-hoon and An Byeong-jik were beat up in South Korea by fascists who fear free speech, freedom of expression, and any deviation from popular thought. Professor...

By: PropagandaBuster

Read the original post:

South Korean fascists beat up free speech - Video

Merced College students look to expand "free speech zone"
Students at Merced College are pushing the administration to make a change to the free speech policy on campus.

By: Merced Sun-Star

Read the rest here:

Merced College students look to expand "free speech zone" - Video

The Supreme Court has given pro-life advocates free rein, even if it distresses patients. But getting people to listen is more complicated.

When Kelsey McLain, then a 25-year-old in the midst of the first trimester of her pregnancy, arrived at the abortion clinic closest to her home, her car couldnt get past the entrance of the parking lot. Protestors loomed toward the front of her vehicle. The group of 12 wielded signs covered in photos of aborted fetuses with the word murder printed across them in big block letters. McLains mother was behind the wheel, and with her foot on the brake, she gave the road blockers a choice of moving or getting run over.

The encounter didnt end after the protesters moved off to the side. As McLain got out of the car, louder shouts greeted her, accusing her of turning her back, of not wanting to know the truth. She felt growing anger but resisted the urge to lash out. She dashed inside the clinic, her mother close behind. It wasnt what I needed to deal with that day, McLain recalls.

In the clinics waiting room, McLain noticed that many of the patients seemed rattled. At that point, all they knew was that there were people outside and they were screaming at them. They didnt know their motivations or if they were good or bad people. As a woman with a self-proclaimed interest in reproductive rights, McLain had thought she was prepared for what she was going to face when she arrived at the clinic. But she, too, felt jarred. Protesters are always going to be a scary thing, no matter how much knowledge you have about them, she says.

Today, McLain witnesses pro-life activism on a weekly basis, when she volunteers as a clinic escort. Her role is to offer patients moral and physical support as they make their way past protestors, some of them quietly praying, others approaching the women with an intensity that that borders on harassment. She says protesters are quick to remind escorts and clinic staff that theyre legally entitled to be there. They comment to us that they have great lawyers, and they know their rights, and if we ever violate their right to free speech, theyll sue us, she says.

In June 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Massachusetts law forbidding protesters from standing within 35 feet of the entrance to a reproductive health care facility. After that decision came down, the demand for escorts like McLain sharply increased, says Marty Walz, the recently retired CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. The protesters definitely have greater access to our patients, right up to the front door, Walz says. And they take advantage of it. When the buffer zone was in place, the Boston clinic used escorts only on Friday and Saturdayits busiest days. Now, every day, a swarm of people descends on the building. Along with the patients, the protesterswho now number anywhere from 20 to 80 each day and the pedestrians, there are 20 to 30 additional escorts at the Boston clinic.

This growing horde of people has made the atmosphere outside the clinic tenser, more chaotic, and in general, a lot less comfortable for the patients, says Sarah Cyr-Mutty, the community relations coordinator at the Boston clinic and a regular clinic escort. No one wants to drive up to their doctors office and see over 100 people standing outside.

The activists are now able to walk right up to patientspraying, pleading, and handing out flyers. They can follow women up to the clinics doors, which means that once the patients are in the waiting room, they can still hear the chants from outside. As such, Cyr-Mutty says that the patients she escorts through the clinics doors now are often in need of more consoling than they were before the Courts decision. Whether theyre just a presence outside, or theyre really trying to interact with them, its always really upsetting to the patient.

But apart from the commotion, its not clear how much has changed since the Supreme Courts ruling in McCullen v. Coakley nine months ago. Theres no evidence that activists are succeeding in changing womens minds. What is succeeding is the one thing the Supreme Court intended: People who believe abortion is murder are able to share that message with those who least want to hear it.

It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the Courts opinion. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks.

Follow this link:

Free Speech Outside the Abortion Clinic

Mark Steyn - "I believe in Free Speech but.."
Michael Coren Mark Steyn on free speech and Islam.

By: MightyDemocracy

Read more:

Mark Steyn - "I believe in Free Speech but.." - Video

Ed Miliband on looking like Wallace - Free Speech - BBC Three
http://www.bbc.co.uk/freespeech Ed Miliband answers questions from a BBC Free Speech audience. This is his response to the question: You #39;re often portrayed as strange or weird or look like...

By: BBC Three

Read this article:

Ed Miliband on looking like Wallace - Free Speech - BBC Three - Video