Category Archives: Free Speech

Details Written by Lee A Daniels, NNPA Columnist Published: 03 April 2015

This winter the medias been ablaze with stories about racist, homophobic and sexist slurs being hurled this way and that by college students and other adults.

Revealingly, those that have captured the most attention all involve Black Americans as the targets of the racist speech or action: the members of the University of Oklahoma chapter of one prominent White fraternity singing a racist ditty that referenced lynching a Black man; the sexist slur hurled against adolescent baseball star MoNe Davis by a college baseball athlete, and the attempt by the Sons of Confederate Veterans of Texas to force that state to produce a license plate with their symbol, the Confederate battle flag, on it. This latest effort by Confederate sympathizers to obscure the racist rebellions ineradicable stain of treason in the defense of slavery, as one analyst wrote, has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case last week.

The controversies have provoked a growing volume of commentary and opinion columns. Most of those Ive seen have declared that, while offensive speech and ideas are despicable, they must be tolerated in the name of freedom of expression so that society can benefit in the short- and long-term from the free flow of ideas.

Im a free-speech advocate myself. But in recent years, whenever these free-speech controversies have burst into the open, Ive increasingly noticed some important things missing from the general run of commentary and opinion columns. For one thing, I dont see them grappling with the question of why those who spout the slurs do so.

For example, shouldnt we be examining why a group of White college students, most of whom come from middle-class and upper-middle-class families, would gleefully traffick in expressions of racism?

And why a White college baseball player would feel the need to use a slur of sexual degeneracy against MoNe Davis, the 14-year-old Black American girl whose athletic prowess and off-the-field poise has won her well-deserved national attention?

Why should any public entity sanction the lies Confederate sympathizers continue to spout? The Confederacys own documents among them, the Confederate Constitution of 1861, and the individual ordinances of secession of each of the Confederate states make clear its driving force was the maintenance and expansion of its slave empire. If states that have these revenue-generating vanity-plate programs must open them to Confederate sympathizers, must they also accept the requests of drivers who want plates bearing the flags of other systems of extraordinary evil such as the Nazi flag, or the flag of ISIS too?

Part of whats bothering me is that when these controversies explode, I dont see the fierce condemnation of the values of the wrongdoers and their parents, neighborhoods and entire racial group thats standard procedure whenever some Black youth has done something wrong. Instead, I see many free speech advocates rush right past any consideration of the pain the offensive words cause to loftily order the individual and the group targets of the hate speech to ignore it or be better than the bigots.

In doing so, they deliberately ignore the reality that the old saying sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you has always been only partially true. Black American history is replete with many tragic episodes of racist slurs used to provoke and sustain racist violence. And now, the virulent online expressions of hatred against women whom misogynists feel are too assertive underscore the fact that sometimes offensive speech isnt just expression. Sometimes its used as a weapon to intimidate its target into silence.

Go here to read the rest:
The Skanner News - Commentary: Free Speech Hypocrisy

Police try to limit Abolitionist #39;s free speech
As police tried for about 30 minutes to remove me and my signs off of public property (that is freely open to the public), I respectively stood my ground. It paid off in the end because I...

By: AbolitionistSociety ofTampa

Continued here:
Police try to limit Abolitionist's free speech - Video

Singapore Bans Protests At Free Speech Park After Lee #39;s Death
For More Latest News Subscribe us: SINGAPORE: Singapore today indefinitely banned protests and other gatherings at the country #39;s sole free-speech park, declaring it a zone for honouring the...

By: BBC News

Follow this link:
Singapore Bans Protests At Free Speech Park After Lee's Death - Video

Peter Pomerantsev: Free Speech and Russian Television
Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute and author of #39;Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible #39;, discusses free speech and the role of television in forming narratives...

By: Free Speech Debate

Read this article:
Peter Pomerantsev: Free Speech and Russian Television - Video

Nigel O #39;Mara - It #39;s Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse
Please Support The Show Tune in at 8pm GMT Hayden Hewitt is the co-founder and spokesperson for one of the most popular websites in the world. He #39;ll be chatting about free speech and...

By: Richie Allen Show

View original post here:
Nigel O'Mara - It's Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse - Video

How to Edit XML Blogger Templates
Download Notepad++ http://notepad-plus-plus.org/ Enter Here for More http://WWW.TRIKOBLU.COM Notepad++ is a free (as in "free speech" and also as in "free beer") source code editor and Notepad ...

By: Trikoblu

See the original post:
How to Edit XML Blogger Templates - Video

Freedom to Hate
FLEMMING ROSE #39;S column (Free speech in a multicultural world, Op-ed, Feb. 7) makes me want to scream at the apparent inability of even intelligent people to distinguish gradations like...

By: Redeemer

See the original post here:
Freedom to Hate - Video

TOMORROW, the Malaysian cartoonist Zunar is expected to be charged with sedition over an illustrated tweet critical of his nations judiciary. If found guilty, he could face several years behind bars.

Last week, Turkish cartoonists Bahadir Baruter and Ozer Aydogan of the publication Penguen were sentenced to 14 months in prison for satirically insulting the nations president, before their sentences were commuted to fines.

And last month, while visiting Washington for a free-speech talk at Freedom House, Ecuadorian cartoonist Bonil told me that he cant spend his creative energy thinking about death threats, as well as a preliminary criminal investigation over his artwork, when he returns to his country. He faces accusations of socioeconomic discrimination, and he is fighting to stay free in body as well as in speech.

Elsewhere around the world, some political cartoonists also face arrests and threats at best, and disappearance and death in the darkest scenarios, over their commitment to exercise the power of the pen.

As Zunar says in a statement this week about the true power of the politically charged cartoon: The truth is seditious.

Coming to the aid of these artists the globe over, though, is the Cartoonists Rights Network International, which for one more week is running an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for its numerous fights for cartoonist rights and protection.

The Virginia-based organization is buoyed by many of the industrys American brethren, including such Pulitzer-winning cartoonists as Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader and Matt Wuerker of Politico. And at the center of the human-rights group is executive director Robert Russell, a former Peace Corps worker who founded CRNI a quarter-century ago.

Comic Riffs caught up with Russell to talk about the mission and movements of CRNI, as well as how to best aid, protect and rescue cartoonists who risk life and liberty in the name of free speech, and in the visual pursuit of truth.

MICHAEL CAVNA: CRNI has been on the front lines of helping support cartoonists under editorial and personal attack for a quarter-century now. How much are threats against, and persecution of, cartoonists always a constant and roughly how many cartoonists around the globe would you say need your help at any given time?

ROBERT RUSSELL: At any given time, anywhere from three to five cartoonists are very high on our radar. For some of these cartoonists, the problems are just temporary and usually settled positively and without too much fanfare in the civil courts. Other of our cartoonist clients have been in and out of trouble with their antagonists for years. We also find that a consistent group of usual suspects keeps making the rounds on our radar screen. Recidivism amongst some particularly hard-hitting cartoonists can be very high.

Continued here:
Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats

The Institute for Justice had petitioned the Supreme Court to take an interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit involving the suppression of free speech protesting a taking of private property. Here is the press release:

Case Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Shows How If We Lose One Right, We Can Lose Them All

First the Government Tried to Illegally Take Their Land, Then the Government Silenced Them So They Couldnt Hang a Protest Banner on Their Own Property

Key Facts This case started with government abusing its power of eminent domain. 10 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamousKeloruling eviscerating constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse. Company hung a protest banner; the government demanded they cover it up.

Arlington, Va.Ten years ago, in its infamousKelodecision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a radically broad interpretation of the governments power to take private property through eminent domain. But the Court recognized that the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain are matters of legitimate public debate. Central Radio Company attempted to participate in that debate when the government tried to take its property through eminent domain. The city of Norfolk, Va., however, prevented it from doing so, barring the company from hanging a protest banner on the land in dispute. Now Central Radio is taking its fight to the U.S. Supreme Court,asking the Court to review a major case at the intersection of free speech and property rights.

This case demonstrates just how intertwined our constitutional rights arehow protecting free speech is essential to protecting our other fundamental liberties, including property rights, noted Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Central Radio.

Central Radio has been a Norfolk institution for more than 80 years, but in 2010 the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority moved to take its land and building through eminent domain and turn it over to nearby Old Dominion University (a land grab Central Radio would ultimately defeat). In response to the threat, Central Radio hunga 375-square foot protest banneron the very building the government was trying to take. It read: 50 years on this street/78 years in Norfolk/100 workers/Threatened by eminent domain!

Acting on a complaint made by an official at Old Dominionthe very entity that stood to acquire Central Radios propertythe city quickly cited Central Radio and ordered the banner be taken down. Yet, under Norfolks sign code, the banner would have been allowed if it had fallen into one of the various favored categories of signs that Norfolk exempts from regulation. For example, a banner of the same size, in the same location, would have been perfectly permissible if, rather than protesting city policy, it depicted the city flag or crest.

In the fall of 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the citys attempted taking of Central Radios property was illegal, vindicating the companys property rights. Unfortunately, however, the federal courts refused to vindicate Central Radios free speech rights. When the company challenged the citys sign code under the First Amendment, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld it. And in January 2015, a divided 2-1decision of the U.S. 4thCircuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.

According to the 4thCircuit majority opinion, it was irrelevant that the sign code drew distinctions between different types of banners based on their content so long as those distinctions were what the court deemed reasonable. Moreover, restricting Central Radios banner was warranted, according to the majority, because some passersby had reacted emphatically to the sign by waving, honking and shouting in support when they saw it. The majority claimed that these expressions of support were evidence that motorists [we]re distracted by [the] sign while driving.

See the original post here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?

GENEVA: United Nations experts on Thursday called on Russia to repeal laws limiting free speech and targeting homosexuals and urged action to prevent torture, racist crimes and a wide range of other human rights abuses.

The 18-member Human Rights Committee also told Moscow it should move to prevent violation of U.N. pacts that it has signed by insurgents in eastern Ukraine and by the authorities in the Chechen republic, and in Crimea.

The calls came in a report that indirectly drew a picture of a country rife with persecution of critics of the government and of groups that do not conform to its political and social views, and that gave no recourse to a proper judicial system.

The 12-page document largely referred to reports of abuses and violent activities, including by what it called "ultra-nationalist, racist and neo-Nazi groups", and of torture of suspects by police.

The Committee, which monitors signatory countries' performance under the 1976 International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, issued the report after examining Russia's record and hearing comments by Moscow's delegation.

During discussion in the Committee late last month, Russian officials denied the truth of the many of the reports cited by the body's members, who include non-government lawyers and academics from developing and developed countries.

The U.N. report said laws signed by President Vladimir Putin - including on limiting Internet activity and restricting links between Russian non-governmental organisations and foreign groups - "appear" to violate the U.N. Convention.

The Committee said it was concerned by reports of hate speech and violence against gays and called on Moscow to "clearly and explicitly state that it does not tolerate any form of social stigmatization of homosexuals".

It also noted "under-representation of women in decision- making positions" in political life and urged Russia to fight "patriarchal attitudes" on the role of women and men in the family and society at large.

(Editing by Stephanie Nebehay and Louise Ireland)

More:
UN body tells Russia to act against human rights abuses