Category Archives: Free Speech

Opinion polls released in Israel today show the left-wing Zionist Union party (a combination of the venerable Labor party and Tzipi Livnis group) holding a 3-4 seat lead over the right-wing Likud party. However, the total size of the right and left wing blocs in the Knesset would be equal. Thus the nature of the government that will be formed will ultimately depend on the center-right, brand-new Kulanu party, and the two mainstay haredi parties.

While the vote is on Tuesday, Israeli law prohibits announcing opinion poll results from now until then. The assumption behind the law is that late polls could unduly influence voters. In the U.S., such a law would clearly be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Indeed, such polls are the most protected form of speech speech about political matters. In Israel, as in Europe, free speech protections are less robust than in the U.S. Yet such laws seem exceedingly silly: protecting democracy from the voters. Governmental power to regulate the informational marketplace around an election isthe most dangerous kind of speech intrusion. Strangely, despite recent international fuss about speech legislation in Israel, the restrictions on electoral speech seem to go unremarked.

The notion that voters are dumb enough to be unreasonably swayed by polls but wise enough to choose a government isodd. This is particularly true in Israel, where government coalitions are formed by a large number of parties (the next coalition will probably have at least six). Thus there is necessarily a strategic aspect to voting, and knowing the latest poll results could be quite useful to decision-making.

Those who might be ok with laws regulating speech around political campaigns should note that they do not have an obvious stopping point. One of the items likely to be high on the agenda of the likely new left-wing government is a law banning Israel HaYom, a free-distribution daily, Israels highest circulation paper, and very supportive of Netanyahu. (The law would not actually explicitly ban Israel Hayom in particular, but would rather ban free newspapers, of which it is the only major one.) The purported justification for the measure, which would be manifestly unconstitutional in the U.S. (and Israel, I think) is that the newspaper, owned by U.S. billionaire Sheldon Adelson, constitutes improper political funding because of its pro-Likud editorial stance.

Despite the deep hatred for Adelson on the Left, I cant imagine the Israeli Supreme Court upholding such a law, but one never knows. Certainly the paternalism behind the polling law sets a tone that could support more intrusive, and targeted, efforts to eliminate information that may unduly sway the citizenry. A further irony is the electoral victory that would make such a law possible would also seem to undercut Livnis argument that through the newspaper, Adelson controls our lives here.

Eugene Kontorovich is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, and an expert on constitutional and international law. He also writes and lectures frequently about the Arab-Israel conflict.

View original post here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Why todays Israel election polls are the last

One person dead in Copenhagen shooting, Danish police say
One person is reportedly dead and others are injured after a shooting at a meeting on free speech where a controversial Swedish cartoonist was speaking. Dani. One person is reportedly dead...

By: Pime Vecu

See the article here:
One person dead in Copenhagen shooting, Danish police say - Video

Free Speech not so free..
Coming off a two week ban...

By: Joe Rizoli

More here:
Free Speech not so free.. - Video

Clueless cop tells man that free speech is not allowed on campus
Incident took place at University of Oregon on 3/10/2015. Full UO Free Speech Policy here: http://bit.ly/1m1DlNP.

By: Thomas Tullis

Follow this link:
Clueless cop tells man that free speech is not allowed on campus - Video

CAIR-Philadelphia decries hateful bus ads, affirms free speech rights
Background: A federal judge ruled yesterday that Philadelphia #39;s transportation agency must run anti-Muslim ads despite their false content. CAIR-Philadelphia supports free speech ruling on...

By: CAIRtv

Excerpt from:
CAIR-Philadelphia decries hateful bus ads, affirms free speech rights - Video

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Racist Chants and Free Speech
This week the University of Oklahoma expelled two students and shut down the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity after a video showed them chanting and making racist slurs. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield,...

By: OdysseyNetworks

See the article here:
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield on Racist Chants and Free Speech - Video

Liberal Intolerance on Display at the George Washington University
When will the administration at The George Washington University stand up and protect the free speech rights of all students and not just those who adopt the Left #39;s agenda? Click here for the...

By: YAFTV

Originally posted here:
Liberal Intolerance on Display at the George Washington University - Video

When SBS flatly refused to broadcast an ad for a Christian lobby group which claimed same-sex marriages would force children to miss out on a mother or a father during their Mardi Gras coverage, a few commentators argued that the decision was a hasty blow against free speech.

Not least of them was out gay Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who describes the ad as distasteful and inappropriate, but insists it should still have screened.

Below, Melbourne secondary school teacher Alexandra OBrien disagrees. How comfortable would these free speech! defenders be if we were talking about a racist ad instead?

It blows my mind when I see people using the old right to free speech argument on social media as if this right gives companies and individuals the power to incite hate and fear, especially when using mass media outlets, such as the channel 7 and 9 anti-gay marriage ads which ran during Sydney Mardi Gras.

Im not going to endorse the institution of marriage here (hell nah), however lets get one thing straight for all of you closeted bigots out there who cry free speech when someone points out the homophobic, or perhaps racist or sexist comment that you are secretly supporting: No one, and I mean no one, has the right to cause further harm to an already oppressed, marginalised and vulnerable group.

There is no question that the LGBTIQ community, especially its youth, need protection, not condemnation.

In relation to the anti-marriage equality ads, the Australian Christian Lobby was happy to twist the statistics of one peer-reviewed study to suit their agenda, but in doing so they neglected that in a large queer specific study by The Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre in partnership with The University of Western Sydney it was found that 33% of LGBTIQ youth have committed self harm, 64% have been verbally abused, 42% have thought about self-harm and suicide, 16% have attempted suicide and 18% have been physically abused. There is no question that the LGBTIQ community, especially its youth, need protection, not condemnation.

The old saying goes that a lie will go around the world while the truth is pulling its boots on and so yes, there is cause for restrictions of this so-called right to freedom of speech, and that is when it is being used to cause harm to oppressed and vulnerable people. Lets look to the European Convention on Human Rights who states that freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions or penalties and dont freak out, in Australia these restrictions come in the form of laws such as the sex discrimination act, telecommunications law (to avoid menacing, harassing or offensive communication), and the offensive language in public act. These are all restrictions in place to protect not to endanger.

According to The Guardian commentator Nesrine Malik however, there is a loophole. She argues that those who fancy themselves defenders of free speech must be consistent in their absolutism, and stand up for offensive speech no matter who is the target. So, where are the ad campaigns demoting and attacking interracial marriage, or indigenous rights and equity, or perhaps womens and childrens rights to safety? surely any such campaigns would be valid and protected by the virtuous freedom of speech argument? Oh wait, no they are not, because the general population understands them to be unethical and harmful.

So, to you bigots who hide behind your self-entitled right to freedom of speech, let the rest of us never forget the golden rule: When you defend something, you are actually endorsing it.

Go here to read the rest:
Politics: 'Free speech' defenders are endorsing homophobia

Free Speech February 28th 2015

By: Miles Kristan

Read more:
Free Speech February 28th 2015 - Video

Cops Kill Innocent Man
Using the right to free speech and education for human rights if this video infringes on copy right happy to remove it. 4 Nazi police officers cant restrain 1 poor homeless man so they shoot...

By: Areuakiller

See more here:
Cops Kill Innocent Man - Video