With more than 33,000 murder investigations openedin 2018, Mexico hasone of the highest murder rates in the world. For journalists, it is the deadliest country not at war, according to a December 2018 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). Their figures, which do not include those who are missing and not confirmed dead or cases still under investigation, countnine journalists murdered in 2018, down from 12 in 2017.

Among those journalists killed in 2018 were reporters who covered stories related to government local corruptionand those who were investigating organized crime and drug cartels. In January, 22-year-old reporter Agustin Silva Vazquez, who worked for the regional newspaper El Sol del Istmo, went missing in the southern state of Oaxaca. In Quintana Roo, web editor Ruben Pat was gunned down in the street in July, just a month after one of his colleagues, reporter Jose Guadalupe Chan Dzib, was murdered. And in Chiapas, journalist Mario Leonel Gomez Sanchez was shot and killed by gunmen.

The violence against journalists knows no boundaries and remains unprosecuted. "In Mexico, we have essentially a 100 percent impunity rate. The state is not investigating itself," said Ana Cristina Ruelas, regional director of Mexico and Central America for Article 19, an organization which documents media freedom.

"This has been the reality for some years now, since the beginning of the war against the drug cartels in 2006," said Ruelas. "What we've seen is a state policy that tries to reduce the flow of information that gets to the public."

The silence of journalists

That impunity is part of a vicious circle of violence that has seen many journalists leave their line of work after being threatened. Media outlets are increasingly self-censoring, freezing particular reporters out and killing stories before they go to publication.

Investigative reporter Anabel Hernandez, the recipient of the DW Freedom of Speech Award 2019, was one of those journalists whose stories were not published by newspapers after she revealed corruption at the highest levels. In a speech accepting the Golden Pen of Freedom Award in 2012, she spoke about the impact that had on press freedom.

"Silence foments crime and impunity and there is no free press in Mexico," Hernandez said. "Television stations intentionally omit certain subjects sometimes out of fear and sometimes out of complicity. Important newspapers or prestigious magazines demonstrate the lack of press freedom each time they remove a thorny subject from their pages or they publish reports without crediting the author."

Like many of her colleagues, Hernandez has fled Mexico and is living in exile due to the death threats she has received. For those who have remained in the country, the outlook is grim.

"Every year, we have documented an increase in violence against journalists," Ruelas told DW.

Mexican investigative journalist Anabel Hernandez will receive the 2019 DW Freedom of Speech Award

In 2015, she said, her organization recorded397 aggressions against journalists,ranging from threats and intimidation to espionage or the use of defamation laws at the federal level. In 2018, an election year that was the most violent electoral process in recent historywith more than 100 politicians murdered, that number had increased to 544. At least half of these documented aggressions, Ruelas said, came from state actors.

Spying on journalists

The Committee to Protect Journalists likewise noted that technology has contributed toincreased danger for journalists operating in Mexico. The organization put out an advisory warning that Pegasus spyware, which is used to collect data and monitor mobile phone usage, was found being used against investigative journalists in the country.

"Mexico has been ground zero for Pegasus's deployment against journalists," wrote the Columbia Journalism Review in 2016when the software was originally discovered. "At least six reporters have been targeted there, according to exhaustive research by both Citizen Lab and the Mexican digital rights group R3D. Those attacks coincided with major journalistic investigations that challenged the Mexican government."

Although these dangers have led some journalists to leave the field, those who remain have changed their habits to ensure that stories of corruption and crime still get out. In the state of Veracruz, labeled the deadliest place in the world to be a journalist after 17 journalists were murdered there between 2010 and 2016, media professionals have banded together in their investigations.

"Journalists are getting used to measuring the risk before they publish," Ruelas told DW. In some cases, that means publishing an investigative report across various channels simultaneously to protect the journalist and their sources. In others, that means working together as a group to piece together a story.

While the Human Rights Department at the Interior Ministry in Mexico has recognized the dangers that journalists in the country face, according to Ruelas, the new government has not yet laid out their approach to combating the threats against the media. Instead, she noted, President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador, who took office in December 2018, has singled out journalists for criticism at a daily briefing, a move that has led to increased attention, especially via social media.

"It's very worrying to have digital threats in a context like ours, where violence is high and there are no consequences for the perpetrators," Ruelas said.

"In a country where impunity is the rule, the silence of journalists is very fruitful," said Ruelas.

Read the original post:

There is no free press: Freedom of speech in Mexico | DW ...

Over the past decade, there has been a global decline in respect for freedom of expression. And Europes democracies traditionally understood to be places in which these rights are both honored and protected have not been immune.

According to Reporters Without Borderss Press Freedom Index, which measures trends in media freedom at both the global and regional levels, all but two European Union-member states (plus Iceland and Norway) have a lower press freedom score in 2016 than they did in 2013. In some cases, there has been marked backsliding: Germany went from a score of 10.24 in 2013 to 14.8 in 2016 (the lower the score, the more respect for press freedom); the United Kingdom has gone from 16.89 to 21.7; and Poland is among the worst cases, jumping from a respectable 13.11 to a deeply worrying 23.89. These scores reflect changes in important indicators such as media independence, self-censorship, and rule of law, among others.

Freedom of expression has always been unevenly protected in Europe. This is because of a philosophical divide that cuts across the continent: Some European countries can be classified as militant democracies. In these countries, the state limits freedom of speech and association when it is deemed to threaten other values outlined in the constitution, such as democracy and the freedom of others. Germany, which regularly bans or has banned various Communist, National Socialist, and Islamist organizations, is a classic example.France, which prohibits Holocaust denial, shuts down mosques it deems too radical and aggressively enforces laws against hate speech and glorification of terrorism, also falls mainly into this camp.

While there are historical justifications for some of these policies, they raise important questions and produce awkward results. Why is it impermissible to deny the Holocaust but permissible to deny the Armenian genocide? Or the evils of the slave trade and colonialism for that matter? What is the metric used for determining whether something is hate speech, or just permissible criticism? Increasingly, laws against hatred and offense have come to target controversial but non-violent speech including that of comedians, politicians critical of immigration, as well as Muslims vocally opposed to Western foreign policy. Moreover, there seems to be little evidence suggesting that suppressing speech leads to higher levels of tolerance in liberal democracies. A new report from Germanys domestic intelligence agencyshows not only that there were 500 more extreme-right entities in 2015 than in 2014, but also that there has been a 42 percent increase in violent acts by right-wing extremists over that same period. American NGO Human Rights First also documented a doubling of anti-Semitic hate crimes in France from 2014-2015. A recent report by two Norwegian researchers suggests that an environment where controversial expressions are filtered out may increase the risk of extremist violence.

On the other end of the spectrum are the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom the liberal democracies that have traditionally been more tolerant of intolerance (though no European state offers as robust a protection of free speech as the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution). Lately, however, it seems that even these states are edging closer toward a militant democracy-style approach.

This past spring, a majority in the Danish Parliament broke with 70 years of tolerating most instances of extreme expressions to enact a law that will criminalize religious teaching that explicitly condones certain crimes such as murder, violence, and even polygamy. Under the law, an imam or priest who explicitly condones the spanking of children or polygamy as part of his or her religious teaching would face up to three years in prison, whereas a politician or ordinary citizen condoning such practices would be free to do so. The law also bars religious preachers who have expressed anti-democratic views from entering the country.

Denmark has been a bastion of free speech protections in Europe, including, at times, from groups that have advocated for totalitarian ideologies, both secular and religious. During the Cold War, the Danish Communist Party held seats in Parliament and freely published pro-Kremlin propaganda. Nazis were also allowed to regroup and advocate their supremacist ideas despite the Nazi occupation of Denmark from 1940-45. Notwithstanding this permissive environment, neither Nazism nor Communism has managed to seriously establish themselves in Denmark. Despite worrying levels of radicalization among some Danish Muslims, Denmark is hardly poised to become a caliphate anytime soon. And yet there are signs that the land that fiercely stood up for the right of its newspapers to publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has begun shifting away from this commitment to free expression. On Constitution Day in early June, Danish Justice Minister Sren Pind who once called himself the Freedom Minister because of his determination to spread liberty to developing countries in the global south announced his intention to criminalize the grossly negligent sharing of extremist material online. If the law is enacted, linking to online magazines such as the Islamic States Dabiq would mean jail time.

Denmarks efforts have been inspired by various counterextremist measures that the historically tolerant U.K. has taken over the past decade. In a speech in May, for example, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intentions to pursue a law that will, according to the Guardian, allow the government the ability to ban non-violent extremist organizations, gag individuals and empower local councils to close premises used to promote hatred. The government has previously defined extremism as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. This definition is vast and sweeping: It would essentially label anyone opposed to liberal democracy as an extremist.

The movement toward a more German approach to free speech, one that silences the perceived enemies of an open society, has not only taken root at the national level but is increasingly the guiding philosophy of European institutions. The final limits on free speech in Europe are ultimately determined by the European Court of Human Rights, which is under the auspices of the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights. The court can pass legally binding judgments against member states. In a number of cases, the court has determined that member states may ban extremist religious and political organizations (such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamist movement committed to the nonviolent establishment of a global caliphate) and prohibit mere glorification of terrorism. The court views hate speech, including Holocaust denial, as an abuse of convention rights and therefore allows it no legal free speech protections. This sets a relatively low bar for the protection of controversial speech across 47 European states and leaves wiggle room for states eager to exploit such openings to further expand the permissible limits on expression.

EU law, which has primacy over national law, is increasingly developing new limitations on speech that apply to all member states. The Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, adopted in 2008, obliges EU states to criminalize hate speech, albeit not in a uniform manner. Lately, the European Commission has signaled that it wants to see the Framework Decision enforced more vigorously. In a speech on Oct. 2, 2015, EU Commissioner for Justice and Consumers Vera Jourova said that member states must firmly and immediately investigate and prosecute racist hatred. She added, I find it disgraceful that Holocaust denial is a criminal offense in only 13 member states. The commission has even suggested that legal proceedings could be brought against member states that have not fully transposed the Framework Decision that is, the commission is considering bringing member states before the European Court of Justice for offering freedom of expression protection that is too strong.

But the most serious blow to freedom of expression in Europe may be the recently signed Code of Conduct (COC) between the European Commission and Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, and YouTube. Under the COC, these tech giants have agreed to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary. What constitutes illegal hate speech is not clear. The COC refers to the Framework Decision and national laws. However, the Framework Decisions definition of what constitutes incitement to hatred is far from clear, and national hate speech laws vary widely. While 13 countries ban Holocaust denial, many others do not. In Sweden, an artist was imprisoned for six months for racist and offensive posters exhibited in an art museum; the same posters were freely exhibited in Denmark. Should Facebook remove all content that may constitute Holocaust denial, or only when uploaded in, say, Germany or France? Should an internet meme based on the offensive Swedish posters be guided by Danish or Swedish standards? This uncertainty may force companies to err on the side of caution and adopt a bias toward preventive censorship.

The COC essentially privatizes internet censorship with none of the accountability, publicity, and legal safeguards that follow from proper legal procedures. Since social media has become essential for traditional media to reach a wide audience, the COC could cause a ripple effect of self-censorship on the part of outlets that fear their content could be removed from social media platforms for being hate speech. The COC will not only affect freedom of expression in the EU, but also the EUs ability to campaign credibly for freedom of expression and internet freedom in countries where censorship is the norm. After all, why should the Putins and Xi Jipings of the world take lessons on internet freedom from an organization that imposes nebulous limits on the internet?

Democratic Europe still remains a bastion of free speech compared with most other places in the world. But the closing of the European mind, by prohibiting expressions that agitate against Europes fundamental values, moves these democracies uncomfortably close to practices that the EU is supposed to guard against. This trend bears an uncanny (albeit imperfect) resemblance to the infamous Section 106 of the East German penal code, which criminalized anti-state propaganda, including agitation against the constitutional basis of the socialist state and social order of the GDR (German Democratic Republic) and glorification of fascism and militarism. Europe should make sure that such rot does not take hold in its democratic foundation, which cannot hold firm without a robust protection of free speech.

Photo credit: OZAN KOSE/AFP/Getty Images

View original post here:

Europes Freedom of Speech Fail Foreign Policy

Benefits of Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech prohibits the government from arbitrarily or unnecessarily interfering with ones personal opinion, or speech for that matter. As stated in the constitution, every citizen has the opportunity to censure the federal government to support their ostracized, bizarre ideas, which may be offensive to those around you.

1. Shared responsibility

For starters, freedom of speech gives a person a certain level of responsibility, enhanced trust, frankness, and better sense of liability. In addition, free speech acts a tool in nurturing social evolution. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that we all enjoy freedom of speech, the government must put measures into place to stop groups that promote offensive views, such as racism, fascism, sexism and terrorism.

2. Enhances self-esteem

Another reason why the government should encourage freedom of speech is to help people develop poise to express their views without fear of being condemned or punished. By doing so, people can challenge the rules and laws and fight for what they believe is right. Such inspired folks are usually front-runners in economic development.

3. New ideas foster development

The benefits of freedom of speech are somewhat obvious, for instance, sharing of ideas can enhance productivity at the workplace, not to mention that it fosters social relationship. Although the benefits of freedom of speech are evident, some groups may abuse this privilege by promoting racist views, as well as fascism.

4. Encourages social evolution

While it is not prudent to restrict freedom of speech, the government should set up laws to ensure all individuals have the chance to express their views without any discrimination, especially when the laws are enforced by the federal government. Also, it protects your rights of expression and information in cases of war like circumstances.

Freedom of speech has its limitations when a group of individuals promote biased ideas, like sexism, fascism, terrorism, and racism.

Related

Please help us improve. Please rate this article:

View original post here:

Benefits Of Freedom of Speech Benefits Of

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. ~ Frederick Douglass

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies.

In American democracy, this free speech plays two vital roles. The first is well recognized. It is to shape public opinion and to influence elections that, in turn, determine the social climate and steer government. We cherish "the marketplace of ideas" because (we assume) it allows us, through give and take, to arrive at better ideas and to grope our way toward consensus on hard issues.

Free speech's second function is less understood. It buttresses the political system's legitimacy. It helps losers, in the struggle for public opinion and electoral success, to accept their fates. It helps keep them loyal to the system, even though it has disappointed them. They will accept the outcomes, because they believe they've had a fair opportunity to express and advance their views. There's always the next election. Free speech underpins our larger concept of freedom.

Read the rest here:

Freedom of speech - Wikiquote

Freedom of Speech is a very controversial subject, and with the recent events in France, more timely than ever. I could waste tons of good quotes here in this introduction but I wont. Too many people have fought for the right to speak freely without censorship. Too many people have died for this right to be regarded as an integral concept in our, self-proclaimed, liberal democracies. Too many people; but as it seems, not many enough.

The basic concepts of the notion can be found in nearly all incarnations of the earliest documents dealing with our rights as human beings. As early as 1698, when Englands Bill of Rights granted the Parliament the right to speak its mind; the same bill is in effect today. Some 100 years later in France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, elevated free speech as an undeniable human right. There is even the famous article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; a declaration written and adopted right after the tragic events of the Second World War.

Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Here is a list of such articles:

Freedom of Speech is important. It is a multifaceted right and it is not limited, contrary to popular belief, to the right of expressing ones ideas:

Sadly, these rights are, most of the times, easier recited than upholded. Discrimination, racism, the power of the rich, unfairness, capitalism: the content of and the means for free expression are in a constant war with terms like politically correct" and respect of individuality".

Some of the greatest men and women said some wonderful things on the right to speak your mind.

Here are 10 Quotes about Freedom of Speech:

1. Freedom is For Everyone

If we dont believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we dont believe in it at all.

If we dont believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we dont believe in it at all."

2. What Liberty Means

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

3. You Have the Right of Your Words

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.

4. Like Sheep to the Slaughter

If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

5. Above All Liberties

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.

Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.

6. An opinion for a knock down

Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it.

7. Lies Are no Match for the Truth

We have to uphold a free press and freedom of speech. Because, in the end, lies and misinformation are no match for the truth.

We have to uphold a free press and freedom of speech. Because, in the end, lies and misinformation are no match for the truth.

8. The Right to Blaspheme and Offend

Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society. And yes, it includes the right to blaspheme and offend.

Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society. And yes, it includes the right to blaspheme and offend.

9. The Music of Our Opinions

The sound of tireless voices is the price we have to pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions.

The sound of tireless voices is the price we have to pay for the right to hear the music of our own opinions.

10. The First Link is All it Takes

With the first link, the chains are forged. The first speech censured, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

Follow this link:

Freedom of Speech Quotes - QuotesHunter

Examples of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, include the right to voice political criticisms, the right to speak out against the government, the right to protest on school grounds or within the community and the right to refuse to salute or burn the U.S. flag. Freedom of speech allows individuals the right to not speak and to use offensive phrases or words.

With some restrictions as set forth by the First Amendment, additional examples of freedom of speech include contributing money to local, state and federal political campaigns and the right to advertise products and services. Symbolic speech, such as holding signs of criticisms during a protest, burning books or flags and wearing black armbands in protest of war are also examples of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not permit individuals to solicit or advertise illegal products or drugs, distribute and create obscene materials and use speech that would inflict harm in a crowd, such as shouting that a fire exists when it doesn't. On school grounds, additional restrictions apply, such as the right to use obscene speech in the classroom or during a speech and printing stories or photos in a high school newspaper when objections from administration exist.

Read more:

What Are Examples of Freedom of Speech? | Reference.com

812 Words 4 Pages

Freedom of speech is more than just the right to say what one pleases. Freedom of speech is the right to voice your opinion on certain topics or dilemmas around you. This basic right given to us in the First Amendment is being challenged by colleges who encourage freedom of speech with certain restrictions. In the two videos provided by FIRE, certain situations where students basic rights were violated were shown. In the first video presented by FIRE, I was very surprised to learn that some colleges opt to control what you wear, what you post on Facebook or what you say. Instead of educating young adults, it appears that colleges nowadays are trying to babysit them in every dimension of life, including their personal online social life. One example that prominently stood out to me was Hayden Barnes story, in video two. Hayden Barnes found himself in deep trouble with the school when he decided to speak out against an overpriced project that the school had decided to complete, by using student fees. This situation shows exactly why organizations like FIRE are needed. Students in certain schools have little to no verbal opinion on what happens at their school. There are certain things youre allowed to say, and certain things that you are not allowed to say. Whatever happened to freedom of speech and does it exist on college campuses? When freedom of speech is confined in higher institutions, it diminishes the budding adults importance of this crucial right.

Continued here:

The Importance of Freedom of Speech in College Essay ...

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask isnot that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Excerpt from:

Freedom Of Speech Quotes (305 quotes)

Selection, Fifteen Books You Need to Read in 2015, The Village Voice

Chilling. . . .For Shipler, it's essential that we find a middle ground where we can hear one another, where we can debate and disagree with respect. . . .We must participate in the conversation about who we are and who we want to be. That it is unruly, disturbing, scary even, goes without saying; this is also why it's necessary. David L. Ulin, The Los Angeles Times

[Shipler] takes on everything from the fate of whistleblowers (not good) to how schools deal with books that some parents find objectionable. Thoroughly reported and written with both fairness and passion, its a highly readable treatment of a subject that doesnt get much more important. Margaret Sullivan, The New York Times

Shipler offers an on-the-ground, anecdotal portrait of an eclectic and rich mix of speech controversies. . . . The strength of his book lies in his willingness to investigate the facts and his ability to portray vividly the real-life quandaries that people at the center of free speech battles often face. David Cole, The Washington Post[Shipler] gets it: The First Amendment is only a starting point. Free expression is a noble ideal that creates continual tension in our society. . . . Shiplers view of Americas free speech landscape is nuanced and complex. Yes, people say awful things, and sometimes seek to squelch expression with which they disagree. But in his book, good ideas and sentiments hold their own against bad and offensive ones. Bill Lueders, The Progressive

David K. Shipler has written a vibrant analysis of our ambivalent relationship with the single most important right we have under the U.S. Constitution. . . .Shipler writes with crisp, concise earnestness. . . .This book is a pleasure to read both for Shiplers skill but also because he tells the stories of people bound up in these issues. John Pantalone, Providence Journal

A well-researched and fair treatment of its subject matter. . . .[Shipler] approaches events factually and without bias. . . .He also goes beyond the simple and immediate facts of the situations he describes. Eric Barber-Isaac, Portland Book ReviewIlluminating. . . .[Shipler] does his homework. Julia M. Klein, Columbia Journalism Review

By providing intimate portraits of the lives of those who dare to speak against the odds, Shipler enables us to see the human element behind free expression. . . .Shipler pricks the conscience of readers who refrain from telling the truth, or whose selective listening has lead them to disrespect and delegitimize those with whom they disagree. Dennis McDaniel, National Catholic Reporter

Good stories, great interviews, and a potent plea on behalf of vigilant listening. Kirkus Reviews

A broad and deep look at free speech. . . .A fascinating look at one of our fundamental rights. Booklist

David Shipler reminds us in this important book that sometimes we have to listen to things we dont want to hear. But without freedom of speech, there can be no dialogue, and without dialogue, there can be no democracy. Freedom of Speech is a glorious celebration of its own subject! Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed

At a time when the First Amendment is under siege as never before in our lifetimes, David Shipler, one of the nations great journalists, reminds us what we are in danger of losing. His terrific, timely new book, Freedom of Speech: Mightier than the Sword, takes us on a toursometimes shocking, often infuriating, always enlighteningof Americas free-speech battlefields. Philip Shenon, author of A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy AssassinationShipler tells real, often Orwellian stories of ordinary peoplegovernment workers, teachers, librarians, and playwrightswho risk everything to push the free speech envelope, while challenging us to consider difficult cases when money buys speech and poverty promotes silence.At a time when many civil libertarians despair at the loss of freedom and privacy on so many fronts, Freedom of Speech reveals conflicts that must be understood if free speech is to prevail. Barbara Jones, director, ALA Office for Intellectual FreedomThe freedom of speech enjoyed by American citizens is unique in all the world. In this brilliantly insightful and incisive book, David Shipler explores the many and varied facets of our nations complex, extraordinary, and fascinating relationship with our most precious freedom. Geoffrey R. Stone, author of Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime

View post:

Freedom of Speech: Mightier Than the Sword: David K ...

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word parrhesia means free speech, or to speak candidly. The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rightsthe first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesnt specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldnt be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas courts conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that arent protected include:

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes arent protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the clear and present danger standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting fire! in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called content neutrality. Content neutrality means the government cant censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principle argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to a danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didnt bitethey ruled in favor of the students right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically dont apply in private schools.

Read the original post:

Freedom of Speech - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask isnot that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Read this article:

Freedom Of Speech Quotes (300 quotes)

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask isnot that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Here is the original post:

Freedom Of Speech Quotes (298 quotes)

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask isnot that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

Read more:

Freedom Of Speech Quotes (297 quotes)

In areas of the world where freedom of speech is not protected, citizens are afraid to speak out against their government, even when it acts illegally, for fear of being locked away in a cell for life. According to the University of Virginia, historically, men, women and even some children were put to death for daring to speak out against a tyrannical monarch, an unjust parliament or legislature or even a powerful corporation.

Fortunately, in the first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees a person the freedom to speak and express himself however he wishes, just so long that his actions do not infringe on the rights of another person. Even in the American Colonies, prohibitions on free speech were rampant. Virginia had a law in its charter that would grant the death penalty for anyone who "blasphemed God's holy name."

According to Justia.com, one of the most overlooked part of the guarantee of free speech is the fact that it causes sweeping change in ways that the government itself can never quite accomplish. Justice Thurgood Marshall stated, "above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content."

The change is gay marriage laws is one example of how the actions of a free society lobbying, protesting, distributing fliers and debating caused sweeping changes in public perception and the law in a relatively small amount of time. Without freedom of speech, the voices of this minority would have never been heard.

Go here to see the original:

Why Is Freedom of Speech Important? | Reference.com

The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say! is the third studio album by American rapper Ice-T. The album was released on October 10, 1989, by Sire Records and Warner Bros. Records. The album has an uncharacteristically gritty sound, featuring some of the darkest musical tracks that Ice-T ever released.

The album was released after Ice-T was encountering censorship problems on tour. In The Ice Opinion: Who Gives a Fuck? the rapper states that "People had already told me what I could not say onstage in Columbus, Georgia. You couldn't say anything they called a 'swear' word. You couldn't touch yourself. They were using the same tactics they used on everyone from Elvis and Jim Morrison to 2 Live Crew".[5]

The album's cover, featuring a B-boy with a shotgun shoved in his mouth, and two pistols pressed against each side of his head, reflected Ice-T's experiences with the concept of freedom of speech. "The concept of that picture is, 'Go ahead and say what you want. But here comes the government and here come the parents, and they are ready to destroy you when you open your mouth'".[5]

"The Iceberg" alternates between typical violent metaphor, outlandish boasts, and comical sexual situations involving other members of Ice's Rhyme Syndicate. "Lethal Weapon" tells listeners that the mind is the most powerful weapon:

"You Played Yourself" advises listeners to be smart and not let themselves "be played". "Peel Their Caps Back" is about committing a drive-by to avenge a slain friend. Unlike other songs where violence is a metaphor for the rapper's ability to defeat other rappers lyrically, this song is a stark depiction of what could lead to such an event. However, it contains two surprising elements: in the end, the main character is killed, and the whole event is written off by the media as just another gang killing.

In "The Girl Tried to Kill Me", Ice-T raps about an encounter with a dominatrix:

"Black and Decker" starts off with Rhyme Syndicate members complaining about the media's portrayal of their work as meaningless violence. Ice wonders aloud what it would sound like if you drilled into someone's head with a powerdrill. After some gory sound effects, Ice says "Probably sound like that." "Hit the Deck" offers sincere advice to wannabe-MCs:

"This One's for Me" offers Ice's take on the rap scene and music industry. "The Hunted Child" is a first-person account of a scared young gang-banger on the run. The busy, multi-layered composition, with its scratched sirens and staccato drums, samples Public Enemy's "Bring the Noise".[6]

"What Ya Wanna Do" is a 9-minute party song featuring several members of the Syndicate, including a young Everlast, who became famous as a member of House of Pain. "Freedom of Speech" was one of the first raps to focus on the First Amendment and in particular attacked Tipper Gore's PMRC with unmistakable venom:

The album ends with in "My Word Is Bond", featuring Syndicate members telling one exaggerated story after another against a looped sample of Slick Rick saying "Stop lying" from his song "La Di Da Di".[7]

Sample credits

The rest is here:

The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say ...

The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say! is the third studio album by American rapper Ice-T. The album was released on October 10, 1989, by Sire Records and Warner Bros. Records. The album has an uncharacteristically gritty sound, featuring some of the darkest musical tracks that Ice-T ever released.

The album was released after Ice-T was encountering censorship problems on tour. In The Ice Opinion: Who Gives a Fuck? the rapper states that "People had already told me what I could not say onstage in Columbus, Georgia. You couldn't say anything they called a 'swear' word. You couldn't touch yourself. They were using the same tactics they used on everyone from Elvis and Jim Morrison to 2 Live Crew".[5]

The album's cover, featuring a B-boy with a shotgun shoved in his mouth, and two pistols pressed against each side of his head, reflected Ice-T's experiences with the concept of freedom of speech. "The concept of that picture is, 'Go ahead and say what you want. But here comes the government and here come the parents, and they are ready to destroy you when you open your mouth'".[5]

"The Iceberg" alternates between typical violent metaphor, outlandish boasts, and comical sexual situations involving other members of Ice's Rhyme Syndicate. "Lethal Weapon" tells listeners that the mind is the most powerful weapon:

"You Played Yourself" advises listeners to be smart and not let themselves "be played". "Peel Their Caps Back" is about committing a drive-by to avenge a slain friend. Unlike other songs where violence is a metaphor for the rapper's ability to defeat other rappers lyrically, this song is a stark depiction of what could lead to such an event. However, it contains two surprising elements: in the end, the main character is killed, and the whole event is written off by the media as just another gang killing.

In "The Girl Tried to Kill Me", Ice-T raps about an encounter with a dominatrix:

"Black and Decker" starts off with Rhyme Syndicate members complaining about the media's portrayal of their work as meaningless violence. Ice wonders aloud what it would sound like if you drilled into someone's head with a powerdrill. After some gory sound effects, Ice says "Probably sound like that." "Hit the Deck" offers sincere advice to wannabe-MCs:

"This One's for Me" offers Ice's take on the rap scene and music industry. "The Hunted Child" is a first-person account of a scared young gang-banger on the run. The busy, multi-layered composition, with its scratched sirens and staccato drums, samples Public Enemy's "Bring the Noise".[6]

"What Ya Wanna Do" is a 9-minute party song featuring several members of the Syndicate, including a young Everlast, who became famous as a member of House of Pain. "Freedom of Speech" was one of the first raps to focus on the First Amendment and in particular attacked Tipper Gore's PMRC with unmistakable venom:

The album ends with in "My Word Is Bond", featuring Syndicate members telling one exaggerated story after another against a looped sample of Slick Rick saying "Stop lying" from his song "La Di Da Di".[7]

Sample credits

See the original post here:

The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say!

NOEL CELIS/AFP/GettyImages

by Tom Ciccotta24 Aug 20170

A new poll released by Rasmussen Reports on Wednesday revealed that over 85 percent of American adults believe that the right to free speech is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say. A mere eight percent said they believe that guarding against personal offense is more important thanprotecting free speech.

73 percent also agreed with the famous line often attributed to Voltaire:I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Another 10 percent disagreed with that statement, and 17 percent said they are undecided.

The poll reveals that there is bipartisan agreement with regards to freedom of speech. Despite overwhelming support for speech rights, Democrats are slightly less supportive as a group of protecting speech for those they disagree with than are Republicans.

Additionally, 47 percent of respondents said they believe thatmost college administrators and professors are more interested in getting students to toe a specific political line rather than to participate in a free exchange of ideas.

Big Government, Social Justice, Tech, first amendment, freedom of speech

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more here:

Poll: 85 Percent Say Freedom of Speech More Important Than Not Offending Others - Breitbart News

73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For

Sign up for free daily updates

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Americans agree freedom of speech is under assault but strongly insist that they are prepared to defend that freedom even at the cost of their lives if necessary.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that an overwhelming 85% of American Adults think giving people the right to free speech is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say. Just eight percent (8%) think its more important to make sure no one gets offended. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

This shows little change from past surveying. Eighty-three percent (83%) think it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech than it is to make sure nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures.

Seventy-three percent (73%) agree with the famous line by the 18th century French author Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. Only 10% disagree with that statement, but 17% are undecided.

Among Americans who agree with Voltaire, 93% rate freedom of speech as more important than making sure no one is offended. That compares to just 69% of those who disagree with the French author's maxim.

(Want afree daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Facebook.

The national survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on August 17 & 20, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.

Just 28% of Americans believe they have true freedom of speech today, and most think the country is too politically correct.

There is rare partisan agreement on freedom of speech. Most Americans regardless of political affiliation agree that they would defend someones right to say something even if they dont agree with it, although Democrats are slightly less sure than Republicans and those not affiliated with either major party. The majority across the political spectrum also agree that free speech is more important than making sure no ones offended.

Generally speaking, most adults across the demographic board agree. Blacks (65%) are just slightly less likely than whites (75%) and other minorities (73%) to say theyd defend to the death someones right to free speech if they dont agree with them.

Men are more supportive of the statement that women are.

Voters rate freedom of speech asevenmore important than other basic constitutional rights such as religious freedom, freedom of the press and the right to bear arms.

After conservative pundit Ann Coulter was forced tocancel a planned speech at University of California, Berkeley, in the late spring following protests and threats of violence by some students.44% of Americans said there is less freedom of speech on U.S. college campuses today than there has been in the past. Nearly half (47%) also believe most college administrators and professors are more interested in getting students to agree with certain politically correct points of view rather than in a free exchange of ideas.

In May,just 19% of voters felt that the United States should erase symbols of its past history that are out of line with current sentiments.

Despite calls by some politicians and the media for erasing those connected to slavery from U.S. history, voters strongly believe its better to learn from the past than erase it.

Just 20% of Americans say it is better for owners of social media like Facebook and Twitter to regulate what is posted to make sure some people are not offended.

Additional informationfrom this survey and afull demographic breakdownare available toPlatinum Membersonly.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reportsdaily e-mail update(it's free) or follow us onFacebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

The national survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on August 17 & 20, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted byPulse Opinion Research, LLC. Seemethodology.

Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information.

We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter and various media outlets across the country.

Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $4.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on upcoming elections, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data.

To learn more about our methodology, click here.

Read this article:

73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For - Rasmussen Reports

A police officer escorted a participant in Saturdays free speech rally away from the scene as a water bottle was headed in his direction.

If one line captured the essence of Saturdays Boston Common rally and counterprotest, it was a quote halfway through Mark Arsenaults Page 1 story in the Globe:

Excuse me, one man in the counterprotest innocently asked a Globe reporter. Where are the white supremacists?

Advertisement

That was the day in a nutshell. Participants in the Boston Free Speech Rally had been demonized as a troupe of neo-Nazis prepared to reprise the horror that had erupted in Charlottesville. They turned out to be a couple dozen courteous people linked by little more than a commitment to surprise! free speech.

The small group on the Parkman Bandstand threatened no one. One of the rallys organizers, a 23-year-old libertarian named John Medlar, had insisted vigorously that its purpose was not to endorse white supremacy. The rally Im helping to organize is about promoting Free Speech as a COUNTER to political violence, he had posted on Facebook. There are NO WHITE SUPREMACISTS speaking at this rally.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

Indeed, nothing about the tiny rally seemed in any way connected with bigotry or hatred. One of the speakers was Shiva Ayyadurai, an immigrant from India who is seeking the Republican nomination in next years US Senate race. As Ayyadurai spoke, his supporters held signs proclaiming Black Lives Do Matter.

Call them Nazis, white supremacists or free speech advocates whatever label you prefer, they were the hunted and harassed Saturday on Boston Common.

But he and the others who gathered at the Parkman Bandstand had never stood a chance of competing with the rumor that neo-Nazis were coming to Boston. That toxic claim was irresponsibly fueled by Mayor Marty Walsh, who denounced the planned rally Boston does not want you here even though organizers were at pains to stress that they had no connection to Charlottesvilles racial agenda and intended to focus on the importance of free speech.

What happened on Saturday was both impressive and distressing.

Advertisement

A massive counterprotest, 40,000 strong, showed up to denounce a nonexistent cohort of racists. Boston deployed hundreds of police officers, who did an admirable job of maintaining order. Some of the counterprotesters screamed, cursed, or acted like thugs at one point the Boston Police Department warned protesters to refrain from throwing urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles but most behaved appropriately. Though a few dozen punks were arrested, nobody was seriously hurt.

But free speech took a beating.

The speakers on the Common bandstand were kept from being heard. They were blocked off with a 225-foot buffer zone, segregated beyond earshot. Police barred anyone from approaching to hear what the rally speakers had to say. Reporters were excluded, too.

Result? The free-speech rally took place in a virtual cone of silence. Participants spoke essentially to themselves for about 50 minutes, the Globe reported. If any of them said anything provocative, the massive crowd did not hear it.

Even some of the rallys own would-be attendees were kept from the bandstand. Yet when Police Commissioner Bill Evans was asked at a press conference Saturday afternoon whether it was right to treat them that way, he was unapologetic. You know what, he said, if they didnt get in, thats a good thing, because their message isnt what we want to hear.

No, Commissioner Evans. It was not a good thing that people with a right to speak were effectively silenced by the operations of the police. The ralliers did nothing wrong. They followed the citys rules. They absorbed the slanders flung at them by the mayor and others. They didnt try to shut their critics down, and they werent the ones hurling urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles.

All they were guilty of was attempting to defend the importance of free speech. For that, they were unjustly smeared as Nazis and their own freedom of speech was mauled.

Boston was kept safe on Saturday. For that, city authorities deserve great credit and thanks. But in the course of preventing a riot, those authorities rode roughshod over the free-speech rights of a small, disfavored minority. That is never a good thing, whatever the police commissioner may think.

Read the original:

A free-speech rally, minus the free speech - The Boston Globe

|

Posted: Aug 23, 2017 8:40 AM

IF ONE LINE captured the essence of Saturday's Boston Common rally and counter-protest, it was a quote halfway through Mark Arsenault's Page 1 story in the Boston Globe:

"'Excuse me,' one man in the counter-protest innocently asked a Globe reporter. 'Where are the white supremacists?'"

That was the day in a nutshell. Participants in the "Boston Free Speech Rally" had been demonized as a troupe of neo-Nazis prepared to reprise the horror that had erupted in Charlottesville. They turned out to be a couple dozen courteous people linked by little more than a commitment to surprise! free speech.

The small group on the Parkman Bandstand threatened no one. One of the rally's organizers, a 23-year-old libertarian named John Medlar, had insisted vigorously that its purpose was not to endorse white supremacy. "The rally I'm helping to organize is about promoting Free Speech as a COUNTER to political violence," he had posted on Facebook. "There are NO WHITE SUPREMACISTS speaking at this rally."

Indeed, nothing about the tiny rally, whose organizers had a permit, seemed in any way connected with bigotry or hatred. One of the speakers was Shiva Ayyadurai, an immigrant from India who is seeking the Republican nomination in next year's US Senate race. As Ayyadurai spoke, his supporters held signs proclaiming "Black Lives Do Matter."

But he and the others who gathered at the Parkman Bandstand had never stood a chance of competing with the rumor that neo-Nazis were coming to Boston. That toxic claim was irresponsibly fueled by Mayor Marty Walsh, who denounced the planned rally "Boston does not want you here" even though organizers were at pains to stress that they had no connection to Charlottesville's racial agenda and intended to focus on the importance of free speech.

What happened on Saturday was both impressive and distressing.

A massive counter-protest, 40,000 strong, showed up to denounce a nonexistent cohort of racists. Boston deployed hundreds of police officers, who did an admirable job of maintaining order. Some of the counter-protesters screamed, cursed, or acted like thugs at one point the Boston Police Department warned protesters "to refrain from throwing urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles" but most behaved appropriately. Though a few dozen punks were arrested, nobody was seriously hurt.

But free speech took a beating.

The speakers on the Common bandstand were kept from being heard. They were blocked off with a 225-foot buffer zone, and segregated beyond earshot. Police barred anyone from approaching to hear what the rally speakers had to say. Reporters were excluded, too.

Result: The free-speech rally took place in a virtual cone of silence. Its participants "spoke essentially to themselves for about 50 minutes," the Globe reported. "If any of them said anything provocative, the massive crowd did not hear it."

Even some of the rally's own would-be attendees were kept from the bandstand. But when Police Commissioner Bill Evans was asked at a press conference Saturday afternoon whether it was right to treat them that way, he was unapologetic.

"You know what," he said, "if they didn't get in, that's a good thing, because their message isn't what we want to hear."

No, Commissioner Evans. It was not a "good thing" that people with a right to speak were effectively silenced by the operations of the police. The ralliers did nothing wrong. They followed the city's rules. They did what police asked of them. They absorbed the slanders flung at them by the mayor and others. They didn't try to shut their critics down, and they weren't the ones hurling "urine, bottles, and other harmful projectiles."

All they were guilty of was attempting to defend the importance of free speech. For that, they were unjustly smeared as Nazis and their own freedom of speech was mauled.

Boston was kept safe on Saturday, for which city authorities deserve great credit. But in the course of preventing a riot, those authorities rode roughshod over the free-speech rights of a small, disfavored minority. That is never a good thing, whatever the police commissioner may think.

See the article here:

A Free-speech Rally, Minus the Free Speech - Townhall