Daily Archives: October 15, 2016

Latest Articles

Many people are left speechless when a companion uses ethnic, sexist or racist slurs. But researchers say there are ways to cut such remarks short.

By BENEDICT CAREY and JAN HOFFMAN

The National Coalition Against Censorship writes that schools that punish protesters are impeding constitutionally protected political speech.

An advocacy group wanted to place a billboard at Newark Liberty International Airport which explained that requiring a passenger to switch seats based on gender was illegal. It was rejected.

By GINIA BELLAFANTE

A few blocks from the arena hosting the Republican convention, in a 10-acre downtown commons, a full-throated national conversation is taking place.

By DAN BARRY

Conservatives take it too far, but Im tired of liberals pretending its not a problem.

By JUDITH SHULEVITZ

Liliane Daoud, a Lebanese-British journalist who was sent to Beirut, Lebanon, in June, is one of many people who say they have been barred from the country.

By NOUR YOUSSEF

Kem Ley, a prominent commentator who recently helped found a political party, was gunned down Sunday at a gas station in the capital.

By JULIA WALLACE

A judges words about freedom of expression belong at the top of Prime Minister Modis reading list.

Lam Wing-kee, who went public about his monthslong detention in mainland China, was one of five men connected with Mighty Current Media who disappeared last year.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

The right-wing Law and Justice Partys effort to impose its nationalist message on the state broadcaster has prompted wide concern about press freedom.

By ALISON SMALE and JOANNA BERENDT

The court did not give the artist and liberal political activist, Chen Yunfei, a new date for the trial or explain the delay, his lawyer said.

By EDWARD WONG

Lam Wing-kee had indicated that he had been followed over the previous two days by people he did not recognize, an official said.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

Mr. Snowden, who took refuge in Russia after leaking classified United States data, called a Russian bill an assault on free speech.

Lu Yuyu, whom the authorities have accused of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, was taken into custody on June 16 in Dali, his friends said.

Mr. Chen, an artist, has been detained for more than a year after visiting the grave site of a victim of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

By EDWARD WONG

Measures approved by the lower house of Parliament include a prison term for failing to report a planned terrorist act, as well as restrictions on religious activities.

Our campuses must be places where students can learn from those of different races, ethnicities and beliefs and do so with genuine openness.

By JOHN PALFREY

To protect American values and promote civic discourse, universities need to show that disagreement is not oppression and argument is not assault.

By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS

Schools seek to balance the conflicts between allowing free expression and maintaining a sensitivity to those offended by language that is deliberatively upsetting.

By ABBY ELLIN

Lam Wing-kee publicly described months in mainland Chinese custody, but former colleagues and a woman who says she is his girlfriend have disputed what he said.

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE

Many people are left speechless when a companion uses ethnic, sexist or racist slurs. But researchers say there are ways to cut such remarks short.

By BENEDICT CAREY and JAN HOFFMAN

The National Coalition Against Censorship writes that schools that punish protesters are impeding constitutionally protected political speech.

An advocacy group wanted to place a billboard at Newark Liberty International Airport which explained that requiring a passenger to switch seats based on gender was illegal. It was rejected.

By GINIA BELLAFANTE

A few blocks from the arena hosting the Republican convention, in a 10-acre downtown commons, a full-throated national conversation is taking place.

By DAN BARRY

Conservatives take it too far, but Im tired of liberals pretending its not a problem.

By JUDITH SHULEVITZ

Liliane Daoud, a Lebanese-British journalist who was sent to Beirut, Lebanon, in June, is one of many people who say they have been barred from the country.

By NOUR YOUSSEF

Kem Ley, a prominent commentator who recently helped found a political party, was gunned down Sunday at a gas station in the capital.

By JULIA WALLACE

A judges words about freedom of expression belong at the top of Prime Minister Modis reading list.

Lam Wing-kee, who went public about his monthslong detention in mainland China, was one of five men connected with Mighty Current Media who disappeared last year.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

The right-wing Law and Justice Partys effort to impose its nationalist message on the state broadcaster has prompted wide concern about press freedom.

By ALISON SMALE and JOANNA BERENDT

The court did not give the artist and liberal political activist, Chen Yunfei, a new date for the trial or explain the delay, his lawyer said.

By EDWARD WONG

Lam Wing-kee had indicated that he had been followed over the previous two days by people he did not recognize, an official said.

By AUSTIN RAMZY

Mr. Snowden, who took refuge in Russia after leaking classified United States data, called a Russian bill an assault on free speech.

Lu Yuyu, whom the authorities have accused of picking quarrels and provoking trouble, was taken into custody on June 16 in Dali, his friends said.

Mr. Chen, an artist, has been detained for more than a year after visiting the grave site of a victim of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

By EDWARD WONG

Measures approved by the lower house of Parliament include a prison term for failing to report a planned terrorist act, as well as restrictions on religious activities.

Our campuses must be places where students can learn from those of different races, ethnicities and beliefs and do so with genuine openness.

By JOHN PALFREY

To protect American values and promote civic discourse, universities need to show that disagreement is not oppression and argument is not assault.

By NICHOLAS A. CHRISTAKIS

Schools seek to balance the conflicts between allowing free expression and maintaining a sensitivity to those offended by language that is deliberatively upsetting.

By ABBY ELLIN

Lam Wing-kee publicly described months in mainland Chinese custody, but former colleagues and a woman who says she is his girlfriend have disputed what he said.

By MICHAEL FORSYTHE

See original here:
Freedom of Speech and Expression - The New York Times

ENTERTAINMENT

June 17, 1990 | RANDY LEWIS

W ithout freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech; which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt and control the right of another: and this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know. --Benjamin Franklin, 1722 (at age 16) Warning: This column contains words and ideas that may be offensive to some readers.

NEWS

May 26, 1990 | LARRY GORDON, TIMES EDUCATION WRITER

Stanford University, joining a national trend, has adopted new rules against racial and sexual harassment by students, officials announced Friday. However, as at other campuses, opponents contend that the regulations violate freedom of speech.

ENTERTAINMENT

February 16, 1994 | ESTHER IVEREM, NEWSDAY

Comedian Martin Lawrence has titled his first film "You So Crazy," after the name of his national stand-up comedy tour. But the Motion Picture Assn. of America ratings board, which has slapped the film with an NC-17 rating, thinks it's more like "You So Nasty." Lawrence held a press conference Tuesday at Manhattan's Omni Berkshire Hotel to announce his appeal of the rating. The appeal is scheduled to be heard Feb. 23, nine days before the film opens in New York and Los Angeles.

ENTERTAINMENT

October 5, 1989 | STEVE HOCHMAN

First Amendment activists and a member of Congress said this week that the FBI may have stepped out of line with a letter accusing a Compton rap group of encouraging "violence against and disrespect" for law enforcement officers. "The FBI should stay out of the business of censorship," said Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, when informed of an Aug.

NEWS

January 25, 1999 | STEPHANIE SIMON, TIMES STAFF WRITER

What the

Originally posted here:
Articles about Freedom Of Speech - latimes

People have a right to say what ever they want to say. No one has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice, or the words that they use, but this is absolutely no reason to have the government trample people's natural rights.

Arresting those protesting on private "no trespassing" property is not a denial of free speech. I really get irked about that kind of misrepresentation and people crying over first amendment rights. Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. Calling a soldier that has never done anything but served his country in good faith a "baby killer" is defamation of character. You say that to someone that is being tried or investigated, that is a gray area. You say that to someone that has been convicted it is free speech. Protest that the government should give amnesty to illegals? It's an opinion, and free speech as long as you don't do it on my private property.

It's when freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech that the problem arises. "Hate Speech" is freedom of speech to the extent that the language used does not incite or encourage violence or violation of the law. There is a huge difference in toting a sign that says "No more (fill in the blank) and "Yes, send us more dead (fill in the blank)". One shows your lack of tolerance and opinion that there should be no more whatever. The second shows distinct encouragement for the acceptance of violence against the group being protested.

Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech.

When the government censors certain "unallowable" opnions, and at the same times pretends to protect "freedom of speech", it is essentially saying "you are free to say whatever you want, as long as you don't say this." This is the same principle that exists in even the most totalitarian societies; saying that that society has "free speech" becomes meaningless.

Freedom of speech helps the world to change. Without this kind of expression, the world wouldn't be aware of all the problems we have, and wouldn't help to change them. For example, with the Charlie Hebdo problem going around, the world and France got aware of the problem of religion, as well as malala or nelson mandela. Those kind of person broke the limit of speech and it helped to change life positively.

Freedom of speech is not the same as promoting violence. Freedom of speech is not violating the law, promoting violence or 'waiting (fill in blank) dead'. Everyone has a right to voice their opinions and believes. If the government takes away that right, then that is the starting point for being able to neglect other human rights.

In the United States, where I live, we allow citizens to be free from government interference for speaking. This is one of our cherished rights, so much so that it's the very first amendment to our Constitution. However, this right does not extend to private businesses or individuals, who are free to penalize you all they want for saying stupid, damaging, or inflammatory things. This is a public-private balance that is appropriate, and additional restrictions are not required.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot things either being religion, politics, hate speech, and so on they should not be silenced. They have just as much of a right, to say what they believe. That's we have the right to free speech. Just because I don't like or agree means it should be restricted. This also goes into if you say what you mean freely, you're going to have to deal with the backlash. The thing is free speech either get's people on your side and look smart, or have everyone hate you.

Free speech is the corner stone of a free society. All ideas must be heard no matter how crazy and all ideas must be criticized. If we start burning books because we find them offensive; it means anyone can shout down dissent by saying they are offended. Tell me this when has an idea which is exempt from criticism been good. It is important that we realize that saying this can be censorship should never be used to combat bad ideas. If our ideology is so much better then the person we wish to censor; we should have no such problem debunking there theories; because even if we believe that the person we want censored is a complete monster. Denying anyone there basic human rights turns us into monsters.

It's people's freedom. Most of us living in America take for granted this privilege. Corrupt countries have taken away this privilege, and that's why they won't change. A person's voice can be the difference of life and death for a person, so that's why I think it's necessary. Two words

I don't think so that there should be restriction because what is going in the mind of an individual we don't know, if he suffering from any deficiency and he speaks so that the thing on which we can secure him we can at-least guide. There should b freedom of speech.

See the original post here:
Should there be restrictions on freedom of speech? | Debate.org

To begin, I am greatly happy that you, Mdal, joined my debate. It appears that your arguments appeals to logic, which is, in my opinion the most persuasive type of argument. I will primarily be appealing to logic, however will also touch on the ideals of value, as it is one of the main moral reasons I support this idea. I have also adapted the format of my arguments to suit your style.

Voltaire, an enlightenment thinker, regarded with as intuitive and influential a mind as Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Locke. All influential people who host beliefs that influenced the framers of the Constitution, and all of which created ideals that support, and influence my own belief on restricting the rights of the first amendment to hate group's gathering in public areas.

I agree with your definition of what the constitution is advancing us towards, "a stable, liberty driven, peaceful, prosperous state" and would in turn like to define hate groups as any groups that gather with the intentions of breeding fear, terror, hate, or violence towards any particular group of people (defined as a group of similar races, religion, or belief [such as sexual orientation].) More specifically, I will be focusing on, and discussing the two groups you mentioned, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Now, before I begin my own arguments, I will answer your question: "who gets to say what is ok and what isn't?"

I have long meditated in search of a proper way for our nation to adapt to such a monumental change as I have proposed. The only way that I could think of was to add a fourth branch to our current system of checks and balances. This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals. I realize that this is also a very controversial topic, and would love to hear any and all concerns you have regarding this issue; however, I do not want this to distract us from the main topic of our debate.

Rebuttal #1: In response to the "slippery-slope" argument Logic: The system of checks and balances was created in order to stop one particular group from gaining power. Adapting this system by creating another branch should quite any worries you had about the "slippery-slope" that may occur, as the extent of the branches power will be modified by two other branches, the Legislative and the Judicial. Therefore, the new branch will not be able to abuse this power, and they, because of these restrictions, would not be able to quiet the entire, "market place of ideas."

Rebuttal #2: In response to the argument that this will limit the market place of ideas Logic: You brought up the argument that if we allow bad ideas to mix with good ideas, then the good ideas will "rise to the top." In response to this, I would like to bring up the case of Osama Bin Laden, a terrorist who has, what are commonly assumed to be "bad ideas." Because of Bin Laden's influential abilities, his bad ideas were able to rise above the good ideas, and eventually led to a great influx of new members into terrorist beliefs, and further led to the tragic destruction of the World Trade Center in 2001.

I am in no way saying that the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood has equal power to Terrorists, but I am instead proposing that they have similar bad ideas focused on fear and hatred towards a group of people. If the KKK were to gain an influential leader (horrendous, but influential none-the-less) as Osama Bin Laden, who's to say whether or not our current small national terrorist group the KKK would turn into a world-wide terrorist organization such as that created by Osama Bin Laden?

It is better to regulate the public meetings of these organizations now, as opposed to later when their power may exceed that of the government they are encompassed by.

Rebuttal #3: In response to the argument that Free speech keeps our government accountable. Logic: As the government is not a group of people regulated by race, religion, or belief (refer to definition of groups of people). And the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government.

Now onto my main argument:

Argument: We are currently not fully acknowledging people's natural rights Logic: According to the natural rights originally proposed, and supported by enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau all people are born with the right to live his/her life any way he/she likes without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly.

What I question within this right is the restriction, "without causing physical harm to another individual, directly or indirectly." I concede that I am working under the assumption that hate groups gather with a common goal to assert their superiority (through violence or terror) over a different group of people. I also concede that I work under the assumption that mental harm can become so intense that it can eventually harm a person physically (I only state this because this was not common knowledge around the time of the enlightenment, and therefore was not included in their right.) I believe that these are fairly common assumptions, and therefore will continue with my argument. If we allow groups that have a goal of asserting superiority over a specific group of people, whether they currently act upon this goal, or whether they plan on accomplishing this goal in the future, they either directly or indirectly threaten the safety of others.

I also could go on, however do not wish to state all of my arguments in the first round of our five round discussion.

Thank you again for accepting this debate, so far it proves to be quite promising.

I will first respond to tsmart's rebuttals to my 3 opening arguments, from there I will counter tsmart's single argument, finally I must respond to the possible creation of a 4th branch of government as the actor created by tsmart in this case. Though I too do not want this debate dramatically side tracked by a debate about the actor who will create the proposed new laws set forth by tsmart. However as he uses this new 4th branch as an answer to my 3rd argument it has become very important to the core of this debate and will thus be discussed when answering Tsmart's first rebuttal.

With this signposting finished, lets get to some arguments.

Rebuttal #1: Tsmart's Rebuttal assures us that through the creation of the 4th branch of government who's sole job is two interpret freedom of speech, and decide what is and what is not allowable under our new laws which limit certain types of speech. Tsmart's exact quote of what the 4th branch of government would be is: "This branch would be in charge of adapting the constitution to better suit the nation as it evolves (including any exceptions the members of this branch deem necessary to create.) They would have equal power to the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and would their adjustments would be checked by both the legislative branch (requiring a majority vote as opposed to the current two thirds vote necessary to create an amendment) and the judicial branch to make sure that any and all changes and exceptions created by this new branch follow the main ideals that are upheld within our nation, and do not violate the main intentions of the framers ideals."

My response: Whooooooo eeee! Where to start on this one?

To begin with it seems at first blush that the 4th branch is going to usurp what has been the power of the Supreme Court, namely interpreting the constitution. However upon closer examination it seems that Tsmart actually has created a body whose job is much more than merely interpreting the constitution, it is actually a body whose job is to CHANGE the constitution. So basically this new body is invented to abridge and thus destroy the power of the 1st amendment (one of the most important amendments in our constitution, one who has been upheld through countless court cases) take the power of the states and congress (the governmental structures who usually keep all of the checks and balances on the creation of new amendments)and given it all to this new 4th branch. Basically we have reorganized the very makeup of American government for the express reason of censoring people. *****In a cost benefit analysis the cost of destabilizing the government by shifting around the powers set in our government by our founding fathers to a new, strange, and untested power structure for the possibly non-existent benefit of censoring hate groups seems dramatically unbalanced. Under this cost benefit analysis it seems as if any marginal benefits we might get from censorship are DRAMATICALLY outweighed by the dangers of the radical upsetting of our governmental structure and thus shows that the CON's proposed solutions just aren't worth the trouble.

Rebuttal #2: In response to my argument for an open Market Place of Ideas (something we have now but will lose if we lose Freedom of Speech) Tsmart brings up the example of Osoma Bin Laden and how his ideas have risen to the top in some places and beat out better ideas, so we should instead keep these sort of ideas out of the public's purview.

My Response: Tsmart actually just proved my point by using the example of Osoma Bin Laden, tell me readers (and Tsmart) have you been convinced by listening to Bin Laden on our television? It wasn't hidden from us. Everyone in the US is allowed to listen to what Bin Laden has to say, yet HERE in the US where the market place of ideas flourishes Bin Laden's brand of extremism hasn't gained a foothold. The places where he is much more popular don't have the myriad of view points like we have the capacity of getting here in the States, instead in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other nations in the Middle East we find a correlation between the free-er the speech, the less extremist the views in the country. This is because when the market place of ideas is allowed to work, people are able to make well informed decisions and that usually leads them away from extremist views and towards the center ground when considering an issue. Thus we can see how Tsmart's example just proves exactly how important the market place of ideas really is and how important it is to keep from abridging the first amendment which is SO key to keeping the market place of ideas viable.

Rebuttal #3: I stated that freedom of speech is a huge check on the government. Tsmart says: "...the branch will only have the power to regulate hate groups from publicly discussing (note I am not restricting their right to gather in privacy, purely in public) their ideas, the proposition will have no effect on those who wish to speak out against the government." My Response: What about the hate groups Tsmart? What happens if an incredibly racist, cruel, mean, hate filled Neo Nazi has a well conceived critique of the the government, but wants to express this brilliant critique in hate filled language? His speech, though offensive to you and me, will also give a benefit to the society because he will point out something about the government which needs to be looked at. Re-reading your quote you say that the hate group will be unable to discuss their ideas in public, what if their ideas have to do with the government? Is this a new exception? Are Hate groups allowed to talk about the government? You see how restricting even a small part of Freedom of Speech has huge ramifications for everyone in our society? Rather than risk the benefit of one of the best checks on our government (freedom of speech) we should play it safe and not try to silence people we don't agree with.

On to Tsmart's argument of expanded natural rights, His claim is that if people are railed against in public by hate groups they may be harmed mentally and that may eventually lead to physical harm. Thus we should protect these minorities and targeted groups from the hate groups.

Response to Tsmart's Argument: Tsmart, it seems as though you have come to an overreaching understanding of what the government is supposed to do in situations like this. Your solution is to take preemptive action by taking away freedoms from people who might threaten others. However it seems as though the goal you are trying to accomplish is to make certain that the targeted minority groups ARE safe as well as help them FEEL safe. This goal can be met much better by an investment in anti-hate laws which will increase the punishment for hate crimes, or better yet you could increase the capabilities of the police and thus keep extremist groups like the hate organizations in line. However abridging freedom of speech is not the best, or even a decent, way of defending targeted minority groups.

Read more:
Debate: Freedom of Speech | Debate.org