Ed Miliband #39;s Thoughts on a Cannabis Policy (UK Elections 2015)
Ed Miliband faces an audience of over 100 voters aged 16 to 34 for an unscripted hour of tough and uncensored questions. This is an extract of the BBC Three programme, Free Speech (Series...
By: JazzDemon
See more here:
Ed Miliband's Thoughts on a Cannabis Policy (UK Elections 2015) - Video
As the nation's headlines turn more and more to issues of tolerance -- race, religion, free speech, same sex marriage -- research by San Diego State University Psychology Professor Jean M. Twenge shows that Americans may be more tolerant than ever before.
In a paper released this month by the journal Social Forces, Twenge, along with Nathan T. Carter and Keith Campbell from the University of Georgia, found that Americans are now more likely to believe that people with different views and lifestyles can and should have the same rights as others, such as giving a speech or teaching at a college.
"When old social rules disappear, people have more freedom to live their lives as they want to, and Americans are increasingly tolerant of those choices," said Twenge, who is also the author of "Generation Me."
"This goes beyond well-known trends such as the increasing support for gay marriage. People are increasingly saying that it's OK for those who are different to fully participate in the community and influence everyone else."
Tolerance for different views
The researchers used data from the General Social Survey, a nationally representative survey of adult Americans conducted from 1972 to 2012. The survey includes a series of questions related to tolerance of people with controversial views or lifestyles including homosexuals, atheists, militarists, communists and racists.
Only tolerance for racists has decreased over time, showing people today are less tolerant of the intolerant.
So why have recent incidents of racism on college campuses garnered so much attention? "A few decades ago, racism would barely have been noticed -- it might have even been rewarded," Twenge said. "Now it's noticed, and the consequences can be swift. It shows how much things have changed."
Tolerance by generations
The study showed that the biggest generational shift in tolerance was between the Silent generation and the Baby Boomers who followed them. Generation X and Millennials continued the trend toward tolerance.
Read more here:
Freelee Bananas and Rizzle #39;s tits. - FREE SPEECH
Just a response to the party last week.
By: LALALA Movement Therapy
Excerpt from:
Free speech dialogue 1/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD
This is part 1 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
Read the rest here:
Free speech dialogue 1/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD - Video
A quick introduction to the Green Party - 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 the Green Party ...
By: BBC Three
See more here:
A quick introduction to the Green Party - Free Speech: Series 4 Episode 2 - BBC Three - Video
A quick introduction to the SNP - 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 the SNP in under a minute.
By: BBC Three
The rest is here:
A quick introduction to the SNP - Free Speech: Series 4 Episode 2 - BBC Three - Video
Free speech display on Pentacrest draws attention
BY BILL COONEY | FEBRUARY 27, 2015 5:00 AM
Young Americans on the University of Iowa campus are hoping to get students fired up about Young Americans for Liberty.
Holding a demonstration on the Pentacrest Thursday was one way they hope to encourage participation in both the group and the organizations state convention on March 7.
Part of Thursdays demonstration included a free speech wall on which passerbys could write on boards as a demonstration of free speech.
Students can come and write whatever they want on the wall, no matter what it is, Young Americans for Liberty Iowa Chairman Matthew Evans said. Were not here to censor anyone; as long as what is written does not incite any kind of violence, you can write it down.
Messages written on the wall ranged from anti-police slogans to commentary on the quality of professional football being played in Chicago.
Another part of the demonstration was to protest limited free-speech zones on college campuses, Ellen Reynolds said.
Its ridiculous; one in six colleges have these free-speech zones, and its ridiculous, she said.
Read this article:
Free Speech Productions - Lest We Forget - Made in the USA
This film is about American made atrocities. Come on Mr and Ms John Q Public! Shake off the chains of fear that bind you, take a breath and open your eyes, maybe even listen a little. You are...
By: deceptionsUSA
Continue reading here:
Free Speech Productions - Lest We Forget - Made in the USA - Video
Cops Kill Innocent Man
Using the right to free speech and education for human rights if this video infringes on copy right happy to remove it. 4 Nazi police officers cant restrain 1 poor homeless man so they shoot...
By: Areuakiller
See the rest here:
Heat vs Knicks - #39;97 Playoffs Gm 3 Highlights - Ewing #39;s HUGE Block! #ThrowbackThursday
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
Read the original here:
Heat vs Knicks - '97 Playoffs Gm 3 Highlights - Ewing's HUGE Block! #ThrowbackThursday - Video
Free Speech not so free..
Coming off a two week ban...
By: Joe Rizoli
More here:
Clueless cop tells man that free speech is not allowed on campus
Incident took place at University of Oregon on 3/10/2015. Full UO Free Speech Policy here: http://bit.ly/1m1DlNP.
By: Thomas Tullis
Visit link:
Clueless cop tells man that free speech is not allowed on campus - Video
CAIR-Philadelphia decries hateful bus ads, affirms free speech rights
Background: A federal judge ruled yesterday that Philadelphia #39;s transportation agency must run anti-Muslim ads despite their false content. CAIR-Philadelphia supports free speech ruling on...
By: CAIRtv
Read more here:
CAIR-Philadelphia decries hateful bus ads, affirms free speech rights - Video
Free Speech Series 4 Episode 1 | I #39;m Ed Miliband, Ask Me Anything | 12th March
Ed Miliband faces an audience of voters for an unscripted hour of tough questions.
By: The Great British
Here is the original post:
Free Speech Series 4 Episode 1 | I'm Ed Miliband, Ask Me Anything | 12th March - Video
Was Shutting Down OU Frat Shutting Out Free Speech?
Following the expulsion of two students at the University of Oklahoma for blatant racism, longtime civil liberties attorney Harvey Silverglate and Tufts University Center for Race Democracy...
By: WGBH News
Excerpt from:
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Racist Chants and Free Speech
This week the University of Oklahoma expelled two students and shut down the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity after a video showed them chanting and making racist slurs. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield,...
By: OdysseyNetworks
See more here:
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Racist Chants and Free Speech - Video
Liberal Intolerance on Display at the George Washington University
When will the administration at The George Washington University stand up and protect the free speech rights of all students and not just those who adopt the Left #39;s agenda? Click here for the...
By: YAFTV
The rest is here:
Liberal Intolerance on Display at the George Washington University - Video
USATODAY 8:41 a.m. EDT March 13, 2015
Video of SAE members singing racist chant.(Photo: Unheard Movement via YouTube)
David French,National Review: "This week, several University of Oklahoma frat boys were caught on tape singing a vile, racist song. ... And private citizens countered with expression of their own doing what the marketplace of ideas does best, countering bad speech with better speech. Then, the government got involved. OU President David Boren has expelled two students allegedly responsible for the chant. I hope these students find the courage to sue ... because the First Amendment needs a defense. They said terrible things, but they did not violate the law."
Jim Mitchell,The Dallas Morning News: "These students deserved hefty punishment and they received it, unlike previous generations of Sigma Alpha Epsilon students who apparently learned the same vile song in an age without social media. ... The average black person's friend network is 8% white, but the average white person's network is only 1% black. ... It is time to ... admit America still has a problem."
Ingrid Vasquez,Fox News Latino: "You can't punish someone for committing a crime of bigotry. But you can certainly try to show them why that mentality is questionable. By the time most head off to college, they are 18-years-old and are capable of forming their own ideas about the world. It is not a situation where parents are to blame. ... It doesn't matter if you wear Greek letters, or if your skin is black or white. We all have the power to make our voice heard."
USA TODAY
Oklahoma-style hate is everywhere: Column
Like this column?Get more in your e-mail inbox
Eugene Volokh, The Washington Post: "(There is) no First Amendment exception for supposed 'hate speech.' But if there is such an exception, there certainly is no First Amendment foundation for distinguishing speech that is ... anti-black from speech that is anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic, anti-women, or anti-men. If the University of Oklahoma president's position is accepted as legally sound, then there'd be no legal basis for protecting the other kinds of speech while expelling students for (anti-black) sort of speech."
The Oklahoma (OU) Daily,editorial: " 'Real Sooners' aren't racists or bigots. However, taking a peek at (social media) shows racist thoughts and comments are much more prevalent among OU students than we'd like. ... The veil of 'tradition' the fraternity members on that bus hid behind made them think their hate speech was acceptable. (The conversation) isn't over because SAE got kicked off campus."
Continued here:
When SBS flatly refused to broadcast an ad for a Christian lobby group which claimed same-sex marriages would force children to miss out on a mother or a father during their Mardi Gras coverage, a few commentators argued that the decision was a hasty blow against free speech.
Not least of them was out gay Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who describes the ad as distasteful and inappropriate, but insists it should still have screened.
Below, Melbourne secondary school teacher Alexandra OBrien disagrees. How comfortable would these free speech! defenders be if we were talking about a racist ad instead?
It blows my mind when I see people using the old right to free speech argument on social media as if this right gives companies and individuals the power to incite hate and fear, especially when using mass media outlets, such as the channel 7 and 9 anti-gay marriage ads which ran during Sydney Mardi Gras.
Im not going to endorse the institution of marriage here (hell nah), however lets get one thing straight for all of you closeted bigots out there who cry free speech when someone points out the homophobic, or perhaps racist or sexist comment that you are secretly supporting: No one, and I mean no one, has the right to cause further harm to an already oppressed, marginalised and vulnerable group.
There is no question that the LGBTIQ community, especially its youth, need protection, not condemnation.
In relation to the anti-marriage equality ads, the Australian Christian Lobby was happy to twist the statistics of one peer-reviewed study to suit their agenda, but in doing so they neglected that in a large queer specific study by The Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre in partnership with The University of Western Sydney it was found that 33% of LGBTIQ youth have committed self harm, 64% have been verbally abused, 42% have thought about self-harm and suicide, 16% have attempted suicide and 18% have been physically abused. There is no question that the LGBTIQ community, especially its youth, need protection, not condemnation.
The old saying goes that a lie will go around the world while the truth is pulling its boots on and so yes, there is cause for restrictions of this so-called right to freedom of speech, and that is when it is being used to cause harm to oppressed and vulnerable people. Lets look to the European Convention on Human Rights who states that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions or penalties and dont freak out, in Australia these restrictions come in the form of laws such as the sex discrimination act, telecommunications law (to avoid menacing, harassing or offensive communication), and the offensive language in public act. These are all restrictions in place to protect not to endanger.
According to The Guardian commentator Nesrine Malik however, there is a loophole. She argues that those who fancy themselves defenders of free speech must be consistent in their absolutism, and stand up for offensive speech no matter who is the target. So, where are the ad campaigns demoting and attacking interracial marriage, or indigenous rights and equity, or perhaps womens and childrens rights to safety? surely any such campaigns would be valid and protected by the virtuous freedom of speech argument? Oh wait, no they are not, because the general population understands them to be unethical and harmful.
So, to you bigots who hide behind your self-entitled right to freedom of speech, let the rest of us never forget the golden rule: When you defend something, you are actually endorsing it.
View original post here:
Opinion polls released in Israel today show the left-wing Zionist Union party (a combination of the venerable Labor party and Tzipi Livnis group) holding a 3-4 seat lead over the right-wing Likud party. However, the total size of the right and left wing blocs in the Knesset would be equal. Thus the nature of the government that will be formed will ultimately depend on the center-right, brand-new Kulanu party, and the two mainstay haredi parties.
While the vote is on Tuesday, Israeli law prohibits announcing opinion poll results from now until then. The assumption behind the law is that late polls could unduly influence voters. In the U.S., such a law would clearly be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Indeed, such polls are the most protected form of speech speech about political matters. In Israel, as in Europe, free speech protections are less robust than in the U.S. Yet such laws seem exceedingly silly: protecting democracy from the voters. Governmental power to regulate the informational marketplace around an election isthe most dangerous kind of speech intrusion. Strangely, despite recent international fuss about speech legislation in Israel, the restrictions on electoral speech seem to go unremarked.
The notion that voters are dumb enough to be unreasonably swayed by polls but wise enough to choose a government isodd. This is particularly true in Israel, where government coalitions are formed by a large number of parties (the next coalition will probably have at least six). Thus there is necessarily a strategic aspect to voting, and knowing the latest poll results could be quite useful to decision-making.
Those who might be ok with laws regulating speech around political campaigns should note that they do not have an obvious stopping point. One of the items likely to be high on the agenda of the likely new left-wing government is a law banning Israel HaYom, a free-distribution daily, Israels highest circulation paper, and very supportive of Netanyahu. (The law would not actually explicitly ban Israel Hayom in particular, but would rather ban free newspapers, of which it is the only major one.) The purported justification for the measure, which would be manifestly unconstitutional in the U.S. (and Israel, I think) is that the newspaper, owned by U.S. billionaire Sheldon Adelson, constitutes improper political funding because of its pro-Likud editorial stance.
Despite the deep hatred for Adelson on the Left, I cant imagine the Israeli Supreme Court upholding such a law, but one never knows. Certainly the paternalism behind the polling law sets a tone that could support more intrusive, and targeted, efforts to eliminate information that may unduly sway the citizenry. A further irony is the electoral victory that would make such a law possible would also seem to undercut Livnis argument that through the newspaper, Adelson controls our lives here.
Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law. He also writes and lectures frequently about the Arab-Israel conflict.
More:
Volokh Conspiracy: Why todays Israel election polls are the last