Category Archives: Free Speech

The decision on the Diocese of Bacolod is the Supreme Courts most convoluted exaltation of free speech. Few realize how it undercuts the Commission on Elections.

Shortly before the 2013 elections, a bishop installed two 610-foot tarpaulins on the facade of Bacolods San Sebastian Cathedral. The first said, Ibasura RH Law (Junk the Reproductive Health Law). The second bore the heading Conscience Vote and two lists of candidates, [Anti-RH] Team Buhay (with a check mark) and [Pro-RH] Team Patay (with an x). These lists included candidates only, not legislators who voted for or against the RH Law but were not running in 2013. A Comelec officer asked the bishop to remove the tarpaulins, citing a Comelec rule limiting posters to 23 feet, or be charged with an election offense.

How would you resolve this case? You might rule that the Comelec may validly level the playing field with a poster size rule. Or you might rule that the Comelec cannot restrict how one uses ones own property for free speech.

Eleven of 14 justices upheld the bishop. Marvic Leonen wrote the decision for eight justices. Very curiously, Antonio Carpio wrote a separate 6-page concurring opinion representing two justices, while Estela Perlas-Bernabe wrote a separate 4-page concurring opinion. Arturo Brion wrote for the three dissenters.

To appreciate the decisions nuances, we need to go into technical free speech doctrine. One must first determine whether a rule restricting speech is content-based or content-neutral. A content-based rule blocks speech based on its content (You may not criticize the President) and is much harder to justify. A content-neutral rule blocks speech based on time, manner or place but not content (No rallying without a permit).

This is not abstract legalese; these rules determine whether Carlos Celdrans jail term is valid, for example. Celdran was convicted of offending religious feelings, a crime committed if one performed acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful inside a place of worship. Celdrans critics argue that this definition is content-neutral and focused on place, and stress that he protested inside the Manila Cathedral. Celdrans defenders argue that this definition is content-based because one cannot establish notoriously offensive without analyzing his speechs content, and that a crime defined by offensiveness is impossible to justify under free speech.

Returning to the bishop, the decision surprisingly classified the Comelecs poster size rule as content-based, arguing that it only affects election-related but not commercial posters. Further, it argued that a maximum size limits the words in a poster. Carpio, Perlas-Bernabe and Brion all sharply protested that a poster size rule is content-neutral. (I would agree as an illiterate official can enforce it.) This counterintuitive ruling confuses how one may draft future Comelec regulations.

Beyond this crucial technical rule, the decision argued that the Team Patay tarpaulins are not election propaganda that can be regulated by the Comelec, but social advocacy on the RH Law that only incidentally advocated voting or not voting for certain candidates. Further, the decision argued that the Comelec may only regulate election material connected to candidates. Carpio and Brion emphatically protested that there is no such limitation on the Comelecs powers and that allowing unrestricted advocacy by private persons allegedly unconnected to candidates opens a wide backdoor to abuse. Indeed, the decision seems naive because the tarpaulins explicitly asked viewers to vote or not to vote for explicitly named candidates. And as Brion stressed, how can one separate candidates from their key advocacies?

Finally, the decision argued that government may not restrict the bishops use of church property as political billboards. Brion dissented that the decision implied that the Comelec may only regulate election material in public places, yet government validly imposes regulations on private property such as zoning and building restrictions.

The long decision had other nuances. It ruled that Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution only applies to media franchise holders and candidates, and this cannot be invoked against the bishop. However, this is also the basis for the Comelecs 2013 right to reply rules, and the decision unwittingly nullified these for the reasons I previously raised (To Grace Poe: Right to reply already law, 10/29/14).

Read more from the original source:
Did bishop of Bacolod emasculate Comelec?

Phil Robertson has done it again.

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the original post:
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Claims STDs Are the Result of Sex Outside of Marriage and the Revenge of Hippies

Bill C-51 will End Free Speech in Canada
The new Anti-terror legislation proposed by the Conservative Government of Canada targets extremist propaganda on the internet. The language of Bill C-51 is ...

By: Vladivostok3701

Read more:
Bill C-51 will End Free Speech in Canada - Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free speech and Je Suis Charlie
I was at a debate the other day that had me thinking about free speech and the responsibilities that come with it and it #39;s power. This video was a bit rushed...

By: Nbkrfc

Read the rest here:

Free speech and Je Suis Charlie - Video

Free Speech Blasphemy Laws - Darwinsgift for EU Spectator
Since these many years now, I have had a long-standing love affair with science and the scientific method. The richness of what she has to offer humanity, fr...

By: euspectator

Read the original post:

Free Speech & Blasphemy Laws - Darwinsgift for EU Spectator - Video

Free Speech Coalition reps at AEE/AVN Trade Show 2015
As you know, dear reader, The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech is as important as any religion, maybe more so (probably more so). So it was great to mee...

By: reviewer

Continued here:

Free Speech Coalition reps at AEE/AVN Trade Show 2015 - Video

Free Speech on University Campuses
Universities and colleges are the guardians of the intellectual wellness of our societies. That #39;s why free speech must be protected on campuses in this country.

By: zfighter030490

See the original post:

Free Speech on University Campuses - Video

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e07 (2-14-15)
VIDEOS: 1) 911 trial blasted for clumsy process, intimidating tactics 2) Putin Threatens to Reveal Bombshell 911 Evidence 3) Wikileaks spox Google is a priva...

By: 251omega

Read more:

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e07 (2-14-15) - Video

By JULIEN ARMSTRONG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit link:

BARELY LEGAL: Free Speech and the Hecklers Veto