1. Free Speech

Category Archives: Free Speech

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Claims STDs Are the Result of Sex Outside of Marriage and the Revenge of Hippies

Posted on by

Phil Robertson has done it again.

The Duck Dynasty patriarch used his constitutional right to free speech while accepting a free speech award the Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.

During his acceptance speech, Robertson noted that 110 million Americans suffer from sexually transmitted diseases, which led him to voice his view that sex outside of the confines of marriage is wrong and only leads to problems.

I dont want you, America, to get sick, said Phil Robertson. Youre disease-free, and shes disease-free you marry, you keep your sex right there. You wont get sick from a sexually transmitted disease.

There is a penalty to be paid from what the beatniks, and it morphed into the hippies you say, what do you call the 110 million with the sexually transmitted illness? Phil Robertson continued. It is the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs and rock n roll have come back to haunt us in a bad way.

Phil Robertson has been in hot water several times for his outspoken ways. He was suspended indefinitely from his show by A&E following his anti-gay remarks made during a GQ interview in December 2013, but later reinstated.

Original post:

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Claims STDs Are the Result of Sex Outside of Marriage and the Revenge of Hippies

Tuesday 3 March 12:15 St Andrew's : How Free is Free Speech?

Posted on by

St Andrew's Trust for the study of Religion and Society March events reminder

Tuesday 3 March, 12:15 at St Andrew's How Free is Free Speech?

Mr David Rutherford, Chief Human Rights Commissioner will be holding an in-depth conversation on Free Speech.

The recent massacre of staff of the satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo in Paris has reminded us of the wide range of standards applied to the question of how free can free speech be, especially in the context of satire.

In an attempt to offer a balanced view, we have invited our Chief Human Rights commissioner, David Rutherford, to clarify for us the standards required by the lay in New Zealand.

The Human Rights Commissioner helps New Zealanders to know and realise the human rights of themselves and others. The first of its two main functions is to advocate and promote respect for human rights, of which freedom of expression is commonly seen to be one. The second function is to encourage harmonious relations between diverse people in New Zealand society.

Having established the New Zealand position, the Conversation will look at overseas conditions which include recent tragic events and to ask whether there can be reconciliation between human rights in general and free speech in particular.

The interviewer, Noel Cheer, is a long-term member of the Board of The St Andrew's Trust for the study of Religion and Society. He has recently completed a seven-year series of half-hour interviews on Auckland's Triangle Television.

Tuesday 10 March, 12:15 at St Andrew's

THEOLOGY IN PAINTING: Illustrated walk through and theology behind the Vatican's master artworks. Featuring Sistine Chapel, Stanze di Raffaello and Raphael's Coronation & Transfiguration by Dr Christopher Longhurst.

More here:

Tuesday 3 March 12:15 St Andrew's : How Free is Free Speech?

BARELY LEGAL: Free Speech and the Hecklers Veto

Posted on by

By JULIEN ARMSTRONG

In the wake of last months appalling massacre at the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, shock and horror have largely given way to a debate about the nature of free speech and expression in the Western world. The #JeSuisCharlie (We are Charlie) movement is emblematic of the groundswell of support for freedom of the press and of speech more generally which has taken place since the events of Jan. 7..

However, other responses to the attack have seemed less concerned with protecting fundamental human rights than with protecting the feelings of those who are violently insecure in their personal beliefs. Typical of these reactions was an editorial by Tony Barber on the Financial Times website which, only hours after the massacre, decried the murdered cartoonists for mocking, baiting and needling Muslims. Barber sniffed that some common sense would be useful for satirical publications, with the implication that speech or expression which might lead others to violence should be avoided. Such thoughts are disappointing, but unfortunately, the belief that rights must take a back seat to nebulous concepts as security has always been with us.

In the United States, the conflict between free speech rights and the right to not be offended didnt start with the Charlie Hebdo attacks. College campuses have been a major front in this debate, and in recent years, many schools have experienced turmoil stemming from the presence of controversial guest speakers. In one particularly high-profile case, the University of California, Berkeley selected Bill Maher 78 to be the commencement speaker for the schools December graduation ceremony. Many students were angered and protested the choice on the grounds that Maher had made comments offensive to Muslims. Anyone with a passing knowledge of Maher and his show Real Time knows that virtually no one is spared his verbal barbs, much like how Charlie Hebdo mocked myriad aspects of French society. In the end, Maher gave his speech with no disruptions, but others have not been so fortunate.

In 2006, Jim Gilchrist and Marvin Stewart, members of the anti-illegal immigration group The Minuteman Project, were giving a presentation at Columbia University when students stormed the stage. The speech abruptly ended as chairs were overturned and Gilchirst and Stewart were escorted backstage for their safety. Similar incidents have been depressingly common over the past decade.

College campuses have historically been centers for vibrant debate and the exchange of ideas. Implied in this is the understanding that not everyone will agree with everything they hear, but thats the point of going to college. True personal and intellectual growth can only be achieved when we listen to and engage with people who have different views and perspectives. Echo chambers might be safer and less offensive than the marketplace of ideas that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes eloquently described in Abrams v. United States, but they dont serve any of the values colleges represent. While protesting those whose ideas offend you is certainly preferable to Paris-style attacks, both of these reactions spring from the same illiberal sentiment: that your free speech rights end where my sensitivities begin. Colleges have been far too accommodating to such beliefs, and in the process, they have abandoned their core values.

Cornell, to its credit, is not one of those schools. The Campus Code of Conduct explicitly states that To curb speech on the grounds that an invited speaker is noxious, that a cause is evil or that such ideas will offend listeners is inconsistent with a universitys purpose. Cornell recognizes that a university has an essential dependence on a commitment to the values of unintimidated speech, which are so important to our society and our educations. Just as a fear of terrorism shouldnt cause us to abandon our right to privacy, a fear of violence shouldnt keep us from exercising our freedom of expression. To succumb to fear would give credence to the so-called hecklers veto the idea that one can influence and even prevent speech merely by threatening to react against it.

This very debate may soon come before the Supreme Court, as it considers whether to hear an appeal in the case of Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. Late last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a schools right to ban certain types of student expression due to safety concerns. Specifically, the school prevented students from wearing shirts with an American flag on Cinco de Mayo after other students made threats of violence. The Supreme Court could strike a major blow for free speech by overturning the 9th Circuits decision and issuing a ruling like that in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, where it held that angry and turbulent reactions cannot justify censorship. If we truly are Charlie, then we must reject the hecklers veto and never cease to support the right of everyone to be heard.

Go here to see the original:

BARELY LEGAL: Free Speech and the Hecklers Veto

California lawmakers demand swastikas be removed from house

Posted on by

Published February 26, 2015

Feb. 26, 2015: Robert Dixon, left, and Kraig Smith, demonstrate outside a home calling for removal of swastikas displayed on the home in Sacramento, Calif., Thursday.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. State lawmakers on Thursday demanded that a California man take down poster-size swastikas displayed in front of his house, calling the signs racist and vulgar but acknowledging the person had a right to free speech.

"It's time to remove this disgusting display of racism from our community," said state Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, chairman of the Legislative Jewish Caucus.

The symbols desecrate the memory of 6 million Jews who died in concentration camps, he said.

On the front door of the Sacramento house is a depiction of the American flag with a swastika replacing the stars next to the stripes. Two Israeli flags show swastikas in place of the Star of David.

No one answered a knock on the door, where a note asked for privacy.

Police received a call Monday about the house in the middle-class River Park neighborhood, and a welfare check found there were no reportable crimes, Sacramento police spokesman Officer Justin Brown said.

"We haven't received any other complaints," he said.

On Thursday, Block was joined by lawmakers, veterans and labor leaders in calling for the homeowner to voluntarily remove the signs.

View post:

California lawmakers demand swastikas be removed from house

Charlie Hebdo journalist defends satire, free speech at Univ. event

Posted on by

News "Incredible stupidity has killed brilliant intelligence."

Posted Feb 27, 2015 by Anne Nazzaro

Zineb El Rhazoui, a journalist at the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, discussed free speech in an event Thursday at the Law School. The event, titled Who Is Charlie?, referenced the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie that trended worldwide following the assassination of 12 people at the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris last month, and was organized by the University of Chicago French Club and moderated by Robert Morrissey, a French literature professor at the university.

On January 7 two gunmen stormed the offices of the newspaper and opened fire, killing 12. The gunman claimed to be acting in revenge for satirical cartoons about Islam, including some depicting the image of the Prophet Muhammad, that the newspaper had published.

Before the attack, Charlie Hebdo had 10,000 subscribers; after, it had more than 200,000. All of us, we would have preferred to stay poorinstead of paying the very expensive price that we paid to have 200,000 subscribers, El Rhazoui said. She said that this has made them more committed than ever to following a code of ethics, keeping with the limits of free speech according to French law.

El Rhazoui mourned her coworkers deaths at the event. My colleagues have been killed because of something superfluous. My colleagues were simple people, intelligent people, nice people, humans, and they had lives, she said. They have been killed by stupid men. Incredible stupidity has killed brilliant intelligence.

Despite the attack, and the subsequent public uproar over the newspapers cartoons, El Rhazoui defended Charlie Hebdos right to publish what it did and what it continues to publish. She stated that just because it is a satirical newspaper doesnt mean that it does or publishes whatever it likes; it remains within the bounds of French law. The limits of freedom of expression in France are clear, she said.

In response to anger over the publishing of the Prophet Muhammads image, she said that in her studies she has found that there is only one line in the Koran that states that one should not publish his image. She also pointed out that in Shiite Islam, it has become more acceptable to publish the Prophets image. But most importantly, she said that the law banning his depiction belongs to Islam, not to France.

Keep in mind, we work under the French law. Not under the Shariah law, El Rhazoui said. We mustnt accept the rules of a game that are imposed to us by guns, and by crime.

She said that if people are offended by the paper, and do not support its ideas, they are not obliged to buy it.

Original post:

Charlie Hebdo journalist defends satire, free speech at Univ. event

Jordan's Fuzzy Definition Of Free Speech

Posted on by

Lina Ejeilat helped found the Jordanian online magazine 7iber (pronounced 'Hebber'). While the government encourages free expression in principle, many strict regulations remain, as noted by the satirical chart next to her. Art Silverman/NPR hide caption

Lina Ejeilat helped found the Jordanian online magazine 7iber (pronounced 'Hebber'). While the government encourages free expression in principle, many strict regulations remain, as noted by the satirical chart next to her.

Earlier this month, Jordan's Information Minister Mohammad Al-Momani told a conference that freedom of expression can contribute to stopping radicalization.

On the very same day, a military court in the capital Amman sentenced a man to 18 months in prison for a Facebook post that was seen as insulting a friendly country, the United Arab Emirates.

Momani spent years studying at Rice University in Houston, so he knows what Americans think of as free expression. But he sees it a little differently.

"We think to have an open space for opinion and counter-opinion, this will strengthen the value of the society," he says in an interview. "This will make the society stronger in resisting and in being immune from these terrorist and extremist ideologies. That's why we are actually keen on protecting that space and making sure there is freedom of expression, there's freedom of opinion allowed, of course, under the umbrella of the law."

The Jordanian man jailed for his Facebook post wrote, among other things, that the United Arab Emirates had a "pro-Zionist" foreign policy. The information minister defended the court's decision to jail him.

"Our laws clearly say you cannot insult a country that we have a good relationship with," he says. "His statement could have been said in a different way without insulting another country. So what he said is bad-mouthing another country that could have affected the well-being of almost a quarter of a million Jordanians working there" in the United Arab Emirates.

National Interest Trumps Free Speech

In Jordan, free expression is conditional on national interest. And the country's national interests can clash with reporters' interests on several counts.

View original post here:

Jordan's Fuzzy Definition Of Free Speech

Liberal ideals are stunting speech on college campuses

Posted on by

Is a discussion of free speech potentially traumatic? A recent panel for Smith College alumnae elicited this ominous warning when a transcript appeared in the campus newspaper: Racism/racial slurs, ableist slurs, antisemitic language, anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language, anti-immigrant language, sexist/misogynistic slurs ... .

No one on this panel, in which I participated, trafficked in slurs. So what prompted the warning?

Smith President Kathleen McCartney had joked, We're just wild and crazy, aren't we? In the transcript, crazy was replaced by (ableist slur).

One panelist mentioned the State Department had for a time banned jihad, Islamist and caliphate which the transcript flagged as anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language.

Discussing the teaching of Huckleberry Finn, I questioned the use of euphemisms such as the n-word and, in doing so, uttered that forbidden word. I described the difference between quoting a word in the context of discussing literature or prejudice and hurling it as an epithet.

On campus, I was branded a racist. McCartney apologized that some students and faculty were hurt and made to feel unsafe by my remarks.

Unsafe? These days, when students talk about threats to their safety, they're often talking about the threat of unwelcome speech and demanding protection from the emotional disturbances sparked by unsettling ideas. It's not just rape that some women on campus fear: It's discussions of rape. At Brown University, a scheduled debate between two feminists about rape culture was criticized for, as the Brown Daily Herald put it, undermining the University's mission to create a safe and supportive environment for survivors.

How did we get here? You can credit or blame progressives for this embrace of censorship.

In the 1980s, law professor Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea Dworkin framed pornography as an assault on women. They defined pornography as a violation of women's civil rights and championed an anti-porn ordinance that would authorize civil actions by any woman aggrieved by pornography. MacKinnon and Dworkin lost that battle, but their successors are winning the war. Their view of allegedly offensive speech as a civil rights violation has helped shape campus speech codes and nurtured progressive hostility toward free speech.

The '80s and early '90s recovery movement adopted a similarly dire view of unwelcome speech. Words wound, anti-porn feminists and recovering co-dependents agreed. Self-appointed recovery experts, such as author John Bradshaw, promoted the belief that most of us are victims of abuse. They broadened the definition of abuse to include common, normal childhood experiences. From this perspective, we are all fragile and damaged by presumptively hurtful speech, and censorship looks like a moral necessity.

Read the original post:

Liberal ideals are stunting speech on college campuses


  1. Free Speech