Category Archives: Free Speech

Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

The ACLUs Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology (SPT) is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Law enforcement agencies across America continue to monitor and harass groups and individuals for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. From the FBI to local police, U.S. law enforcement agencies have a long history of spying on American citizens and infiltrating or otherwise obstructing political activist groups.

The nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

A report on Police Surveillance and Obstruction of First Amendment-Protected Activity

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Read this article:

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

News The quarterly debate showcase, hosted by the Chicago Debate Society, came after discussions over free speech on campuses across the country and governments around the world.

Posted Feb 21, 2015 by Sonia Schlesinger

The Chicago Debate Society hosted its Winter Quarter Showcase Debate on Thursday regarding whether free speech restrictions should be implemented in universities.

Third-year and president of the society Jing Chai and fourth-year David Peterson argued in favor of the claim that universities ought to prioritize the well-being of students over traditional free speech rights, while third-year Michelle Jiang and fifth-year Chris Riehle opposed the claim. Rights are social and legal constructsdetermined by the people who frame the system of a particular society, usually the dominant groups, Peterson said. He argued that this has allowed them to use discourse that drowns out minority voices and legitimates outright racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia in speech.

The University has some sort of moral obligation to protect the people who come here from physical harm, he continued. Wetell you that psychological harm is fundamentally analogous to physical harm in that it prevents you from self-actualizing.

Jiang and Riehle emphasized the difficulty of quantifying the severity of psychological harm and of implementing such restrictions realistically. Jiang also drew attention to the consequences of restricting discourse: The fact they shut down discourse by always saying theres a right side is fundamentally problematic, she said.

Jiang and Riehle then addressed the potential danger of limiting free speech in universities, which are intended to prepare students for life after college; they argued that the real world does not necessarily operate under these limitations.

Following this portion of the debate, several members of the Debate Society made floor speeches in favor of one side or the other, and the debate was concluded with closing arguments from both sides.

This structure is typical of Parliamentary Debate; the Chicago Debate Society is a part of the American Parliamentary Debate Association and is one of the oldest RSOs on campus. The team competes in tournaments nearly every weekend at colleges and universities around the country and is usually quite successful, winning several awards each year and often qualifying for the National Championship.

The debate topic itself is particularly pertinent in light of debates on free speech both among governments throughout the world and on college campuses across the country, including multiple discussions surrounding free speech rights here at UChicago. Recently, shootings at a free speech debate in Copenhagen and at the office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in France have sparked such questions, particularly in America and Europe.

Read more here:

Students debate limits of free speech on campuses

The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech
SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.TV-- -- Share With 20 People -- http://tv.infowars.com/ -- http://www.youtube.com/TheAlexJonesChannel/ -- http://www.infowars.co...

By: Ron Gibson

See the article here:

The Alex Jones Show(Commercial Free AUDIO) Thursday February 12 2015: Free Speech - Video

US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591
Get economic collapse news throughout the day visit http://x22report.com More news visit http://thepeoplesnewz.com Report date: 2.13.2015 ECB give another 5 ...

By: X22Report

Here is the original post:

US Gov/Central Bankers Getting Ready To Limit Free Speech - Episode 591 - Video

Denmark shooting: Gunman targets Copenhagen free speech debate
For more Latest and Breaking News Headlines SUBSCRIBE to http://goo.gl/jnhDo4 A manhunt is underway after at least one person was killed and three police staff were shot and wounded at a free...

By: News Watch

Continue reading here:

Denmark shooting: Gunman targets Copenhagen free speech debate - Video

Police Kill Suspect in Denmark Shootings
Danish police shot and killed a man early Sunday suspected of carrying out shooting attacks at a free speech event and later at a Copenhagen synagogue. (Feb. 15) Subscribe for more Breaking...

By: Associated Press

Read more here:

Police Kill Suspect in Denmark Shootings - Video

Copenhagen Shooting Valentine #39;s Day Shooting At Free Speech Event VIDEO
1 killed, 3 cops wounded in Copenhagen as police search for two gunmen in free speech event shooting: reports. There were about 30 bullet holes in the window of the Krudtoenden cafe in Denmark....

By: Ekego Pasdcl

Read the original post:

Copenhagen Shooting Valentine's Day Shooting At Free Speech Event VIDEO - Video

Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech
http://democracynow.org - Danish police have shot and killed a man they say carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhag...

By: democracynow

More here:

Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech - Video

Reddit, the long-time haven of weirdos, perverts and miscreants the Internet over, has been, from its beginning, the mainstream bulwark for free speech online.

But in a strange twist that perfectly illustrates the current culturewide debate around online speech, a group of disgruntled users has begun an exodus off the site claiming, against all odds, that Reddit is censoring them as a matter of corporate policy.

This is, for the record, the same Reddit that defended Violentacrez, the Texas man who ran forums on beating women and sexualizing underage girls. The Reddit that allowed rampant speculation about the Boston bombing, even when it became dangerous. The Reddit that, just this past fall, supported a booming trade in stolen celebrity nude photos, and still, even now, hosts a variety of racist, misogynistic, homophobic and otherwise NSFL content that I dare not link to.

If this isnt enough free speech, what is?

To understand that question (let alone the answer to it), you have to start with a working knowledge of Reddits labyrinthine depths. The site is, for the uninitiated, basically a social news service divided into tens of thousands of themed forums, called subreddits. Users submit links, photos and in-jokes to the forums, which are voted up or down by other users.

The forums themselves are run by volunteer moderators, or mods, who can basically make and enforce rules as they see fit. In general, corporate Reddit Advance Media-owned Reddit, $50-million-funding-round Reddit, only-35-employees Reddit doesnt step in unless the company is at risk of being sued.

The core philosophy, co-founder Alexis Ohanian explained in a book on Reddits early days, was giving the people what they want. Whatever they want. Accordingly, each forum looks a little different. In r/aww one of my personal favorites mods ban slurs, harassing comments and anything sad. In r/thefappening, where users shared the celebrity nudes that ruled Septembers news cycle, slurs and harassing comments were basically the norm. (And that was, on its own, pretty sad.)

We will not ban questionable subreddits, Reddits CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote in the aftermath of that catastrophe. You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create and what kind of rules you will enforce. We will try not to interfere not because we dont care, but because we care that you make your choices between right and wrong.

That echoed Reddits official line on the Violentacrez scandal in 2012: We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits.

That said, Reddit doesnt necessarily stand for absolute free speech i.e., free speech above/to the detriment of every other human right in existence. Its important to note that corporate Reddit does explicitly prohibit five types of speech, including child pornography, personal information and requests for up-votes, which manipulate post rankings. It also allows, and even encourages, individual moderators to make their own rules, which can range from dont post the same thing twice to no disrespectful commentary.

See the original post:

How the Reddit exodus illustrates the state of free speech on the Web

If you said something really controversial, or created an incredibly offensive page on Facebook, whats the worst that could happen? In other words, what is Facebooks recourse?

It could block your content. It could remove your page. It could suspend your account. Facebook cant throw you in jail.

Facebook cannot violate your First Amendment rights to free speech because Facebook isnt bound by the nations oldest set of laws to protect your free speech rights. Facebook is a company with the ability to set its own rules on what kind of content it wants on its site. End of story. Facebook can say that its all about protecting free speech and if it wanted to protect the idea of true free speech, then it could. But that would be a choice. Facebook doesnt owe you First Amendment protections.

Should Facebook remove certain content if it feels its a danger to public health? Let us know in the comments.

This has been said over and over again, but it bears repeating because were about to get into another Facebook censorship debate. No, Facebook hasnt done anything. Instead, a rather prominent figure from a rather prominent publication has suggested nay demanded that Facebook shut down an entire group of people on the site because what they say is a danger to the public at large.

TIME magazines editor-at-large Jeffrey Kluger has just called on Facebook to shut down the anti-vaxxers.

One thing that would helpsomething Zuckerberg could do with little more than a flick of the switch, as could Twitter CEO Dick Costolo and the other bosses of other sitesis simply shut the anti-vaxxers down. Really. Pull their pages, block their posts, twist the spigot of misinformation before more people get hurt, he says.

His argument is that Facebook supposedly bans content thats harmful, specifically a direct threat to public safety. He says that the anti-vaccination movement is just that a direct threat to public safety. Thus, Facebook should just yank their pages and block their posts before more people get hurt.

Its not as if the folks at Facebook arent clear about the kinds of things they will and wont allow on the site, providing a brief listing and a detailed description of what are considered no-go areas. You may not credibly threaten others, or organize acts of real-world violence, is one rule, so nobody would get away with posting instructions for, say, how to build a pressure cooker bomb. There is nothing in the regulations that specifically prohibits trafficking in bogus medical information, but the first section of the policy statement begins, Safety is Facebooks top priority, and then goes on to say We remove content and may escalate to law enforcement when we perceive a genuine risk of physical harm, or a direct threat to public safety, says Kluger.

Do you think the anti-vaccine movement is a direct threat to public safety? I do. But if I didnt, it wouldnt matter. The point is that Facebook can pull every single anti-vaccination page off its site and you shouldnt really bat an eye. You shouldnt cry censorship! and you should bitch about Facebook and free speech.

Follow this link:

Reminder: Facebook Doesnt Owe You Free Speech