Category Archives: Free Speech

Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us that there are times when we need more an education in the obvious than an investigation of the obscure. The present debate on the question of free speech and freedom of religion presents one such occasion. It is obvious from the fact that both freedoms are protected by the Constitution that there must be a mechanism by which these rights can be adjusted or balanced in specific situations where they conflict. One right cannot be allowed to prevail at all times against the other, for that would be giving it a sacrosanct position that is not sanctioned by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

This is what we learn from both US and Philippine jurisprudence. We need not delve into strange decisions in some other countries to justify an extravagant tolerance of words or acts that common sense tells us mock and insult the faith of people.

There is hardly any one in our society today who questions the value of free speech. But the rationale for this has been explained time and again by the courts. As stated by the US Supreme Court in its 1951 decision in Dennis vs United States, the leading cases on free speech had recognized that it is not an unlimited or unqualified right, but on occasion must be subordinated to other values and considerations. Holmes famous quip in the 1919 case of Schenck vs United States that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire! in a theater and causing panic serves to underscore this basic insight.

The constitutional limitations on free speech have crystallized in the cases into rules that provide guidance on where to draw the line. In Roth vs United States, decided in 1957, the US court took pains to identify the scope of free speech. This, it said, covered all ideas with the slightest redeeming social importance, ideas that are unorthodox and deviant and even hateful to prevailing opinion. For criticism and dissent, no matter how obnoxious to the hearer, comes under the mantle of free speech unless, and this is crucial, it encroaches in specific circumstances upon more important interests.

From a review of the cases, we can infer areas where more important interests come into play. It has been recognized since 1942 in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire that there are some utterances that are constitutionally unprotected. Among them are the lewd, profane, libelous and insulting or fighting words. It is said there that they are words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The phrase by their very utterance must be taken in reference to the obscene and libelous which Bernas in his annotations on the 1987 Constitution, at 248, says are words that are in themselves injurious. The qualifying phrase tend to incite a breach of the peace, on the other hand, should be equated with the fighting or insulting words, if we are to reconcile later cases that continue to apply either of the two factual teststhe clear and present danger rule of Justice Holmes in the Schenck case or the dangerous tendency rule enunciated in 1925 in Gitlow vs New York.

What is meant by all this is that, unless they are obscene or libelous and punishable in themselves, or per se, you can say anything you want against somebody or something, up to a certain point. In the case of seditious speeches, this is when there is an advocacy to violent action against the state or the law, and in insulting words, when they incite violence or disorder. Where we tip the scale depends on which of the two tests cited we apply.

Yet this does not exhaust all the issues. Freedom of speech casts a very broad net. As Justice Fred Ruiz Castro intimates in the 1969 case of Gonzales vs Commission on Elections, there is speech the effect of which in terms of probability of a specific danger is not susceptible even to impressionistic calculation, for which reason a different test has to be applied. His observation harks back to the 1947 case of American Communications Association vs Douds where Chief Justice Fred Vinson suggested that in cases where there is conflict between free speech and another value or interest protected by the Constitution, courts must determine which demands greater protection under the circumstances and appraise the substantiality of the reasons for the regulation of free speech. This has come to be known in constitutional law as the balancing of interests test.

One of the most fertile areas of controversy is where the right to criticize freely clashes with the exercise of religion. The cases we know of involve the interpretation and application of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes the act of offending religious feelings in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony. Putting consideration of the clear and present danger test to one side, it is pertinent to ask whether, applying the balancing of interests test, the right to freedom of religion must be accorded primary importance under the circumstances specified in this law.

Our answer is in the affirmative. It will be noted that what is protected by the legal provision is a limited right to worship in peace in a private place. The restriction on free speech is too small a price to pay for the enjoyment of this right. The free-speech advocate can have the whole world as a platform for the propagation of his ideas. Must he still invade the few square meters of private space that a man needs when he is in communion with his Creator?

It has been argued that the phrase offending religious feelings is vague and subjective. Let us just recall the admonition in the Dennis case when the standard clear and present danger was questioned: It well serves to indicate to those who advocate constitutionally prohibited conduct that there is a line beyond which they may not goa line which they well appreciate and understand.

The rest is here:

A line beyond which one may not go

Part 1: Who Is to JUDGE? Christian Free Speech Free Will God #39;s Opinion Matters.
Real Talk - Kingdom Flava with Renee. Video Highlights: - Christianity The War on Religious Free Speech. The Marketplace of Ideas Freedom of Expression....

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

Originally posted here:
Part 1: Who Is to JUDGE? Christian Free Speech & Free Will God's Opinion Matters. - Video

Video #30: Free Speech Cases
May The Force Be With Us.

By: Jeremy Adams

Go here to read the rest:
Video #30: Free Speech Cases - Video

Are social media postings public or private?
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in a case that examines free speech claims in the age of Facebook and Twitter. At the core of that case is the question of whether social media...

By: CBS Evening News

More here:
Are social media postings public or private? - Video

BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) In the waning days of 1964, University of California, Berkeley, students inspired by the fight for racial equality found their collective voice in challenging a campus ban on political advocacy.

On Dec. 2, following weeks of demonstrations and failed negotiations, more than 1,000 students took over the administration building in what would be the apex of the Free Speech Movement.

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Sign up now for digital only subscription to omaha.com for just $25.00 a month. As an All Access digital only subscriber you will have unlimited access to the ePaper and Omaha.com content 7 days a week, 24/7.

If you have any questions please call the Omaha World-Herald Customer Service at 402-346-3363 or 800-234-6942 or email us at customerservice@owh.com.

Access to Omaha.com is available at no charge to All-Access members. You will be asked to provide your subscription address to confirm you are eligible for this option.

Sign up now for All-Access to Omaha.com for just $7 a month if you are a 7-day Omaha World-Herald print subscriber. As an All-Access subscriber you will have unlimited access to the ePaper and Omaha.com content. You will be asked to provide your subscription address to confirm you are eligible for this option.

Subscriptions will automatically renew. You may cancel at any time. You will be notified in advance of any price increases. Sales tax may apply.

Sign up now for full access to Omaha.com for just $9.95 a month if you are a less than 7-day Omaha World-Herald print subscriber. As an All-Access subscriber you will have unlimited access to the ePaper and Omaha.com content. You will be asked to provide your subscription address to confirm you are eligible for this option.

Subscriptions will automatically renew. You may cancel at any time. You will be notified in advance of any price increases. Sales tax may apply.

Continued here:
Q&A: Berkeley's campus Free Speech Movement at 50

Fifty years to the day that the Free Speech Movement peaked with hundreds of arrests at UC Berkeley, students are set to occupy the university plaza.

This time, to protest tuition hikes.

A group calling itself the Open University will host a rally at Sproul Plaza on Tuesday afternoon, 50 years after student leader Mario Savio gave an impassioned speech protesting a ban on political activity.

We will continue to speak out against tuition hikes that have continued to deny Californians the right to an affordable education and against privatization of our public education, the group said in a press release.

Berkeley student activists have in the past occupied campus buildings to protest tuition increases. Coincidentally, the university is hosting its own event to commemorate the 1964 Free Speech Movement.

History students will read excerpts from statements made by movement activists during their mass trial. More than 700 students were arrested during the two-day sit-in, the largest mass arrest ever on an American university campus, according to the school.

The Free Speech Movement got its start in September 1964 after student political groups were told they could no longer use the plaza at Bancroft Way and Telegraph Avenue for "off campus" political action. Students rebelled. An alumnus and civil rights activist who was on campus was arrested by campus police and placed in a police car. Students swarmed the car, deflated its tires, and thousands took over the plaza. For 32 hours, the car was the center of a rally.

The movement peaked Dec. 2 with an overnight demonstration of about 2,000 people, including folk singer Joan Baez. Gov. Pat Brown ordered police to clear the administration building; 773 people were arrested.

Savio, one of the student leaders of the movement, gave a memorable speech: "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."

For breaking California news, follow@JosephSerna.

Follow this link:
UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement at 50: Tuition protest planned

Washington The US Supreme Court grappled on Monday with the thorny issue of how far the First Amendment stretches to protect offensive and frightening speech when the speaker claims his statements are meant in jest and delivered in the form of rap lyrics.

The case is potentially important because it could test the outer boundaries of First Amendment protection of threatening communications that put others in fear for their safety.

It is also important because it arises in the context of comments posted on Facebook. It provides the justices with their first opportunity to examine free speech issues that are increasingly arising in the fast-paced world of social media, where careless or malicious comments can achieve vast circulation in an instant.

The issue arises in the case of Pennsylvania man Anthony Elonis, who was convicted of writing a series of threatening posts on his Facebook page. The posts included menacing comments directed at his estranged wife and at an FBI agent who came to his home to investigate the Facebook posts.

Mr. Elonis maintains that his posts were protected speech because, as rap lyrics, they were artistic expression. He also argues that he never intended that his comments would be taken as an actual threat that would put others in fear for their lives.

The Facebook site included repeated notices that the content was strictly for entertainment and that the posts were not meant to pose a threat to anyone, Washington appellate lawyer John Elwood told the justices.

But some members of the court seemed skeptical.

This sounds like a road map for threatening a spouse and getting away with it, Justice Samuel Alito said.

The question in the case is when menacing comments cross the line separating free speech that is protected under the First Amendment from true threats that can be prosecuted as a crime.

Although the First Amendment protects a wide swath of speech, Americans are not free to say anything they like. For example, it is illegal to falsely yell Fire! in a crowded theater. It is illegal to make false, malicious statements about someone with the intent to harm their reputation. And Congress passed a law making it illegal to deliver true threats that place someone in fear.

See more here:
Are Facebook rants threats or free speech? Supreme Court takes up case. (+video)

WASHINGTON In its first case testing the limits of free speech on social media, the Supreme Court showed little interest Monday in extending new protections to people who post messages threatening to kill or hurt others.

The justices sharply questioned the lawyer for a Pennsylvania man who was sent to prison for posting on Facebook about killing his ex-wife and cutting the throat of an FBI agent who investigated the threat.

Citing the 1st Amendment, attorney John Elwood said prosecutors should have been required to prove that the messages were not only perceived as threatening, but that his client, Anthony Elonis, intended to scare and intimidate the individuals.

Elonis, a former amusement park worker, insisted that he did not mean to frighten his ex-wife and that the rants were merely a way to blow off steam.

None of the justices appeared to agree.

"How does one prove what's in somebody else's mind?" asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, returning to the bench just days after being hospitalized last week to treat a heart blockage.

In this case, she said, a "reasonable person [would] think that the words would put someone in fear."

The case of Elonis vs. United States has drawn attention because the court's decision could further refine the outer limits of free speech in the digital age.

As a legal matter, the case does not turn on the fact that the threats were made on Facebook or the Internet. But the spread of social media has led to an explosion of caustic speech and acerbic criticism that some may see as threatening.

Most justices appeared to agree with a government lawyer who argued that online threats should to be taken as seriously as other threats.

More:
Supreme Court probes limits of free speech in Facebook threats case

ECTACO Partner LUX 2 PRO English Bosnian Free Speech Electronic Translator
Gt a grat dal n mazn.m http://bit.ly/1qHTCtY ECTACO Partner LUX 2 PRO English Bosnian Free Speech Electronic Translator Translate any language. Speec...

By: whitney guajardo

Here is the original post:
ECTACO Partner LUX 2 PRO English Bosnian Free Speech Electronic Translator - Video

Information control and suppression of free speech by South Korea
Information control and suppression of free speech by South Korea

By: mothrachan

See original here:
Information control and suppression of free speech by South Korea - Video