Category Archives: Free Speech

Kelly File Special: Who #39;s Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus
Kelly File Special: Who #39;s Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus =========================================== **Please Click Below to SUBSCR...

By: USA Freedom At Risk

See the original post here:
Kelly File Special: Who's Teaching Our Kids? - Protecting Free Speech On Campus - Video

Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet
Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet http://www.sanalio.com .WASHINGTON (AP) Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap...

By: Big News

Read more here:
Justices weigh limits of free speech over Internet - Video

WASHINGTON (AP) Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

View original post here:
Supreme Court Weighing Limits Of Internet Free Speech

The Supreme Court is weighing the free-speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other social media.

The justices will hear arguments Monday in the case of a man who was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for posting graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

Anthony Elonis of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, says he was just venting his anger over a broken marriage and never meant to threaten anyone.

But his wife didn't see it that way, and neither did federal prosecutors. A jury convicted Elonis of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.

Lawyers for Elonis argue that the government must prove he actually intended his comments to threaten others. The government says it doesn't matter what Elonis intended; the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

So far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

See the rest here:
Supreme Court to Consider Free Speech on Social Media Today, Thanks In Part to Eminem

Victims of domestic violence and champions of unfettered free speech on the Internet will be pitted against each other Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court debates whether to make it harder to prosecute those who post threats directed at their ex-spouses or others on Facebook.

The case of a fired amusement park worker from Bethelem, Pa., could determine whether angry rants on the Internet can be punished.

Federal law makes it a crime to transmit via the phone or Internet "any threat to injure" another person. And the Supreme Court has said "true threats" are not protected as speech under the First Amendment.

But it is not clear whether prosecutors must prove that an angry-sounding Facebook poster intended to make a threat, or instead whether it is good enough to show that a reasonable person would read the words as threatening violence.

Anthony Elonis, the amusement park worker, made a habit of posting threatening comments.

"If I only knew then what I know now," he said on his Facebook page after his wife left with their two children, "I would have smothered [you] with a pillow, dumped your body in the back seat, dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like rape and murder."

"I'm not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts," he said in a second message.

When she obtained a protective order from a judge, he asked in a post whether it was "thick enough to stop a bullet."

In other posts, Elonis threatened to kill an FBI agent who questioned him and to slaughter a nearby class of kindergartners. He was arrested and charged with making threats.

At his trial, he testified that he did not intend to frighten anyone and compared his postings to rap lyrics.

Read the rest here:
Supreme Court to debate whether Facebook threats are free speech

By Pamela Brown, CNN

updated 10:34 AM EST, Mon December 1, 2014

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The high court will hear oral arguments Monday in the first examination of free speech rights and social media.

The outcome of the groundbreaking case, Elonis v. U.S., could decide the limits of what you post online.

Tara Elonis asked for a protective order from her soon-to-be ex-husband, Anthony.

Not long after, he posted a message on his Facebook page seemingly directed at Tara:

"Fold up your protection from abuse order and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?"

It wasn't the first time Elonis had posted harrowing messages on his Facebook page.

Before Tara asked for a protection from abuse order, Anthony posted, "There's one way to love ya, a thousand ways to kill ya."

Continued here:
Facebook, free speech at Supreme Court

Chris Bliss - Comedy As Free Speech
Comedian and juggler Chris Bliss says "comedy as speech" has a historic parallel. It was the court jester after all who could make fun of the king. Because i...

By: IFTV

Read the rest here:
Chris Bliss - Comedy As Free Speech - Video

free speech helmet in interrogation 5
Lyon Smith and Beatriz Pizano, direction Trevor Schwellnus. Demo of "freedom of speech" helmet during an absurdist interrogation scene.

By: alunaT

See the article here:
free speech helmet in interrogation 5 - Video

Protecting free speech: Time to change our laws?
The Buck Stops Here: As the controversy over Penguin #39;s withdrawal of Wendy Doniger #39;s book grows, we ask on The Buck Stops Here: is the Indian law the #39;true v...

By: NDTV

See the rest here:
Protecting free speech: Time to change our laws? - Video

It has not been a good week for free speech in India. First, there was Penguin Indias decision to withdraw Wendy Donigers The Hindus from circulation, under legal pressure from fringe right-wing groupsmuch criticized in the media. Fresh on its heels followed Reporters Without Borders annual report, which placed India at a damning 140th place out of 180 countries in terms of press freedoms. Yet even as free speech liberals attempt to regroup, and take stock of a deteriorating situation, there is yet another lawsuit winding its way through the Calcutta High Court, which could have devastating consequences for the independent press in India.

In December, Sahara India initiated a libel lawsuit against Mint Journalist Tamal Bandyopadhyay for his yet to be released book, Sahara: The Untold Story. On December 10, the Calcutta High Court judge stayed the release of the book. Initial indications do not look good for Bandyopadhyay and his publishing house, which has also been made a party to the suit. After reproducing one impugned paragraph, the Judge observed, Prima facie, the impugned materials do show the plaintiffs in poor light.

It is interesting that the impugned paragraph in question specifically states that the allegations it makes are unverified: More such incredible tales abound about Sahara, none that could be substantiated, is the precise wording of the sentence. How the case for libel can be made out even after that express disclaimer is unclear. But what is truly staggering is the amount Sahara is claiming in damages: Rs. 200 crore! It is an amount that no journalist can afford to pay, and one that would drive most publishing houses out of business. (Although the facts are different, the amount is reminiscent of the Rs 100 crore a Pune Court ordered Times Now to pay in damages, for a fifteen-second clip wrongly showing Justice P.B. Sawants photograph in a story about a scam, back in 2011).

It would be bad enough if this was a one-off case. It is particularly alarming, however, because it fits into a larger pattern: the blatant abuse of libel and defamation laws by corporations and individuals in positions of power, to silence critical voices. Hamish McDonalds The Polyester Prince, chronicling the rise of Dhirubhai Ambani, was not published by HarperCollins in India, after legal pressure. Just last month, Bloomsbury agreed to withdraw Jitender Bhargavas The Descent of Air India, a book highly critical of then-aviation minister Praful Patels role in the downfall of the airline, and apologized to Patelagain, under threat of a defamation suit. And now this.

The trend is obvious, and its implications can hardly be understated. Not only do Indians lose access to important books examining the workings of power and capital in India, the nexus between politics and industry, and other similar issues of vital public interestbut the inevitable effect, as incidents such as these pile upwill be pervasive self-censorship by journalists. Who would want to risk a 200-crore lawsuit, to be contested against a corporation with unlimited resources? And if public debate on these matters is killed, we will be much poorer for it.

Is there a solution? Yes, there is. It lies with the Courts, and it is called the rule in New York Times v. Sullivan.

It is a rule that has been favourably referred to by the Supreme Court in some of its free speech cases, and in the last decade, by the Delhi High Court. Yet if there was ever a time to end the ambiguity, and incorporate it directly into Indian law, the time is now, when press freedoms stand at a critical crossroads.

In many respects, New York Times v. Sullivan presented a similar fact situation: the use of libel law by a powerful actor, in an attempt to stifle reporting on a critical issue of national importancethe American Civil Rights movement. On March 29, 1960, the New York Times carried an advertisement that described some of the actions of the Montgomery Police force against civil rights protesters. The advertisement carried some factual inaccuracies. For instance, it stated that Martin Luther King had been arrested seven times, whereas he had actually been arrested only four times. It mentioned an incident in which students had been padlocked into a hall to starve them into submission, which actually hadnt happened. And so on. On the basis of these factual inaccuracies, Sullivan, Montgomery Public Safety Commissioner sued for libel. The Alabama Court awarded him damages of 50,000 dollars. New York Times appealed to the Supreme Court. The stakes could not have been higher, because a victory for Sullivan would have led to a slew of similar lawsuits against the New York Times, that would probably have driven it out of business, and made it extremely difficult for other newspapers to report freely on the widespread suppression of civil rights protesters in the American South. Indeed, the respected American free speech scholar, Anthony Lewis, observed that libel laws were the Souths tool of choice to ensure that public opinion would not be swayed by aggressive investigative reporting of police brutality.

The American Supreme Court, in one of its most famous decisions of all time, held in favour of the New York Times. In words that have echoed in the annals of free speech history, Justice Brennan noted:

We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

See original here:
Untold Stories