Category Archives: Free Speech

IU Campus Vandalism or Free Speech? PKG
I broke this story for IUSTV, as the first reporter to cover the issue.

By: Molly Jirasek

Original post:

IU Campus Vandalism or Free Speech? PKG - Video

DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression of Charlottesville, Virginia is seeking an individual with a demonstrated record of success in fundraising to design, build, and direct the Center's development program. Although Center staff has always expended significant time on fundraising, this position represents the Center's first full-time development position. As such, the position presents an exciting opportunity for an experienced development professional to build a signature fundraising program. The Center's sole mission is the protection of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. Although candidates need not possess a detailed knowledge of First Amendment law, a person with a strong belief in the value of free speech will find this position especially rewarding.

Qualifications:

* Bachelor's Degree and a minimum of five years' experience in a development position of increasing responsibilities * Strong written and oral communication skills * Successful grant writing experience * Proficient online research skills * Able to work independently and with a team * Strong interpersonal and organizational skills * Experience with social media fundraising is desirable * An interest in First Amendment rights and free expression advocacy

Responsibilities:

Report directly to the Center director and work with other staff members and the Board of Trustees to:

* Design a multi-year fundraising plan, including an action timetable * Research and identify potential corporate and philanthropic sponsors, draft grant proposals to those identified * Research, identify, and cultivate individual donors * Stewardship of past donors * Occasional travel to meet with potential donors * Plan and supervise special fundraising events * Devise effective messages for print, web, and video that will raise public awareness of the Center's efforts

Compensation:

* Salary is commensurate with experience; generous health insurance package.

Interested candidates should submit the following by March 31, 2015:

Read the original:

Director of Development, Free Speech Nonprofit

By Caroline Lamb | Published 23 hours ago

See below for a complete list of the UNC law faculty signees, including those not pictured above.

More than 60 UNC law faculty have signed onto a statement asserting that the UNC Board of Governors recommendations on the future of two centers in the law school limit academic freedom and chill free speech.

The response comes after a working group tasked with reviewing the UNC systems 237 centers and institutes recommended the elimination of the Center on Poverty, Work & Opportunity. Some board members also suggested that the Center for Civil Rights stop engaging in litigation against the state and municipalities which law professors say would limit their work.

Such active suppression of free speech contravenes the very lifeblood of a public university, where dialogue and dissent must be permitted to survive, the statement said.

Some faculty believe the recommended closing of the poverty center is an attempt to chill the free speech of Gene Nichol, the centers director, who is known for his passionate editorials opposing Republican state leadership.

Jack Boger, dean of UNCs law school, said faculty were distressed to hear the poverty center might close since it does a lot of good work.

Boger said academic freedom is at risk because the board is suggesting that they will take action if they disagree with what faculty members say.

Thats what would strike at a universitys core circumstances, that the first-rate university is a place where people are permitted to speak freely and controversially on lots of issues, Boger said.

Conflicting court rulings regarding the free speech rights of public employees such as professors make the topic a national debate, said Victoria Ekstrand, a UNC media law professor.

Read the rest here:

Law faculty take stand on poverty centers potential closing

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e05 (1-31-15)
New feature: "BILL #39;S PHOTOS" I show a sampling of some of my photography from this week #39;s photos. 1) ABBY MARTIN-Manufactured Terror 2) Cops actually ask Goo...

By: 251omega

See more here:

FREE SPEECH ZONE s08e05 (1-31-15) - Video

Apple Preventing Free Speech on Youtube
Subscribe for more randomness here: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSillyOldDude?feature=mhee.

By: TheSillyOldDude

Here is the original post:

Apple Preventing Free Speech on Youtube - Video

Behind the Scenes with Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson
Go behind the scenes of Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson #39;s cover photo shoot and learn about END OF DISCUSSION. As Guy says, "the most important thing to free speech in general in America...

By: Crown Publishing Group

More here:

Behind the Scenes with Mary Katharine Ham and Guy Benson - Video

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 196465 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1] Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. The group's primary goals were to promote the ideas of the Cuban Revolution and weaken the Cold War consensus.[2]

In 1958, activist students organized SLATE, a campus political party, to promote the right of student groups to support off-campus issues. In the fall of 1964, student activists, some of whom had traveled with the Freedom Riders and worked to register African American voters in Mississippi in the Freedom Summer project, set up information tables on campus and were soliciting donations for civil rights causes. According to existing rules at the time, fundraising for political parties was limited exclusively to the Democratic and Republican school clubs. There was also a mandatory "loyalty oath" required of faculty, which had led to dismissals and ongoing controversy over academic freedom. On September 14, 1964, Dean Katherine Towle announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, outside political speakers, recruitment of members, and fundraising by student organizations at the intersection of Bancroft and Telegraph Avenues would be "strictly enforced." (This strip was until then thought to be city property, not campus property.)

On October 1, 1964, former graduate student Jack Weinberg was sitting at the CORE table. He refused to show his identification to the campus police and was arrested. There was a spontaneous movement of students to surround the police car in which he was to be transported. Weinberg did not leave the police car, nor did the car move for 32 hours. At one point, there may have been 3,000 students around the car. The car was used as a speaker's podium and a continuous public discussion was held which continued until the charges against Weinberg were dropped.

On December 2, between 1,500 and 4,000 students went in to Sproul Hall as a last resort in order to re-open negotiations with the administration on the subject of restrictions on political speech and action on campus. Among other grievances was the fact that four of their leaders were being singled out for punishment. The demonstration was orderly. Some students studied, some watched movies, some sang folk songs. Joan Baez was there to lead in the singing, and to lend moral support. "Freedom classes" were held by teaching assistants on one floor, and a special Channukah service took place in the main lobby. On the steps of Sproul Hall Mario Savio[1] gave a famous speech:

...But we're a bunch of raw materials that don't mean to be have any process upon us. Don't mean to be made into any product! Don't mean Don't mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We're human beings! ...There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all. [3]

At midnight, Alameda County deputy district attorney Edwin Meese III telephoned Governor Edmund Brown, Sr, asking for authority to proceed with a mass arrest. Shortly after 2 a.m. on December 4, police cordoned off the building, and at 3:30 a.m. began arresting close to 800 students. Most of the arrestees were transported by bus to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, about 25 miles away. They were released on their own recognizance after a few hours behind bars. About a month later, the university brought charges against the students who organized the sit-in, resulting in an even larger student protest that all but shut down the university.

After much disturbance, the University officials slowly backed down. By January 3, 1965, the new acting chancellor, Martin Meyerson (who had replaced the resigned Edward Strong) established provisional rules for political activity on the Berkeley campus, designating the Sproul Hall steps an open discussion area during certain hours of the day and permitting tables. This applied to the entire student political spectrum, not just the liberal elements that drove the FSM.

Most outsiders, however, identified the Free Speech Movement as a movement of the Left. Students and others opposed to U.S. foreign policy did indeed increase their visibility on campus following the FSM's initial victory. In the spring of 1965, the FSM was followed by the Vietnam Day Committee, a major starting point for the anti-Vietnam war movement.

The Free Speech Movement had long-lasting effects at the Berkeley campus and was a pivotal moment for the civil liberties movement in the 1960s. It was seen as the beginning of the famous student activism that existed on the campus in the 1960s, and continues to a lesser degree today. There was a substantial voter backlash against the players involved in the Free Speech Movement. Ronald Reagan won an unexpected victory in the fall of 1966 and was elected Governor; the newly elected governor directed the UC Board of Regents to dismiss UC President Clark Kerr because of the perception that he had been too soft on the protesters. The FBI had kept a secret file on Kerr.

Reagan had gained political traction by campaigning on a platform to "clean up the mess in Berkeley". In the minds of those involved in the backlash, a wide variety of protests and a wide variety of concerned citizens and activists were lumped together. Furthermore, television news and documentary filmmaking had made it possible to photograph and broadcast moving images of protest activity. Much of this media is available today as part of the permanent collection of the Bancroft Library at Berkeley, including iconic photographs of the protest activity by student Ron Enfield (then chief photographer for the Berkeley campus newspaper, the Daily Cal). A reproduction of what may be considered the most recognizable and iconic photograph of the movement, a shot of suit-clad students carrying the Free Speech banner through the University's Sather Gate in Fall 1964, now stands at the entrance to the college's Free Speech Movement Cafe.

See more here:

Free Speech Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tony Abbott's proposal to strengthen bans on hate speech is looming as a new leadership flashpoint, with some Government MPs worried his national security campaign might infringe on liberties.

In an apparent 180-degree turn on a pre-election pledge to wind back anti-discrimination laws, the Prime Minister used a national security address yesterday to announce "stronger prohibitions on vilifying, intimidating or inciting hatred".

Although the details remain sketchy, it has alarmed some Liberal MPs, several of whom remain angry that Mr Abbott last year abandoned plans to axe Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act that makes it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone on racial grounds.

One Liberal said he feared Mr Abbott intended to replicate Section 18C in criminal law. Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam said some Liberal MPs contacted him yesterday expressing deep concern.

"It would be very worrying if the Government strengthened Section 18C and further restricted freedom of speech, especially since the Government had previously promised to repeal Section 18C," he said.

Mr Abbott confirmed his Government would appoint a national counterterrorism co-ordinator, strengthen citizenship rules and revoke or suspend passports of dual citizens engaged in terrorism activity.

"For Australian nationals, we are examining suspending some of the privileges of citizenship for individuals involved in terrorism," he said.

"Those could include restricting the ability to leave or return to Australia, and access to consular services overseas, as well as access to welfare payments."

He said 90 Australians were fighting with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria and at least 140 people in Australia were actively supporting extremist groups.

Mr Abbott said organisations and individuals "blatantly spreading discord and division" should not do so with impunity and named radical Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Excerpt from:

Fears for limits on free speech

Terror in Denmark
Terror in Denmark, Terror in Denmark watch Terror in Denmark video, Gunmen fired on a cafe in Copenhagen as it hosted a free speech event Saturday, killing one man in a likely terror...

By: Global daily news channel

View post:

Terror in Denmark - Video

Part 2: The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions
Kingdom Flava PART 2 - Bible Study: REAL TALK - Censorship of Christian Free Speech The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda. A comprehensive study on the free speech debate. Who has the right to judge?...

By: F.A.M.E TV (Faith Music Evangelism)

Read the rest here:

Part 2: The "Don't Judge" Agenda & Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions - Video