Category Archives: Free Speech

February 16, 2014 8:21 PM Share with others:

Is clicking the "like" button on Facebook a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment?

That was the issue at stake in Bland v. Roberts, in which six former employees of the Hampton, Va., sheriff's office sued the sheriff for wrongful discharge. The employees alleged that the sheriff fired them as retaliation for their support of his opponent's political campaign.

The support that one of the former employees gave was to click "like" on the opponent's Facebook page.

The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, saying that merely clicking a button was not the equivalent of expressing an opinion that would be considered protected free speech. The court felt that to constitute free speech, the employee would have had to take much more substantive actions. The employees appealed, backed by briefs from both Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union.

And the appeals court ruled in favor of the employees and reinstated the lawsuit.

In making the decision, the appeals court applied the standards used for older forms of communications, noting that clicking the "like button" leads to a published statement that is "pure speech."

The appeals court argued that there was no constitutional difference between hitting the "like" button and typing a message of support on a computer keyboard, which would be protected speech.

The case continues the trend of courts determining that the free speech principles of old media apply to new media. And the ruling demonstrates once again that employers should tread lightly before taking punitive actions against employees based on their activities on social media sites.

-- Beth Slagle, Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, bas@muslaw.com

Read the original:
Business Workshop: Free speech, Facebook and protected clicks

Published February 16, 2014

FoxNews.com

A Nevada grammar school violated students right to free speech in mandating they wear a school uniform with its motto, Tomorrows Leaders, emblazoned on it, a federal court has ruled.

The Los Angeles Times reports the U.S. 9th Circuit Court unanimously ruled on Friday in favor of one parents legal objection to Roy Gomm Elementary Schools uniform policy. The school is located in Reno.

The "policy compels speech because it mandates the written motto, 'Tomorrow's Leaders,' on the uniform shirts," Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen reportedly said in her decision, in which she was joined by the other two judges on the three-judge panel that ultimately rendered the opinion.

The Reno school reportedly enacted the uniform policy in 2011, but exempted students who donned the uniforms of national youth organizations, like the Boy Scouts of America, or Girl Scouts of the USA.

The court also found this exemption problematic, in writing, "The exemption explicitly favors the uniforms of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts over all other uniforms . . . and favors the uniforms of 'nationally recognized' youth organizations over those of locally or regionally recognized youth organizations."

The Times reports that in the ruling, the judges cited legal precedent, and specifically a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that ruled a New Hampshire law unconstitutional that mandated state motorists use license plates with the state motto, Live Free or Die.

Go here to read the rest:
California schools uniform regulation violates free speech, court rules

Feb. 11 marked the124th anniversary ofthe birth ofBoris Pasternak, thefamed Soviet author best known forhis book "Doctor Zhivago," which was published abroad after being banned inthe Soviet Union.

Pasternak's birthday was celebrated with great fanfare byRussia's literati, including anew exhibit dedicated tothe author anda reading ofhis work atthe House Museum ofMarina Tsvetaeva. However, amore demonstrative celebration ofthe author's legacy could be seen onthe website ofthe Russian branch ofthe PEN International authors' association, where 51 Russian authors posted anopen letter about thestate offree speech inthe country.

"Recently, inour country we see more andmore distinctly theappearance ofan extremely dangerous tendency toward therestriction ofthe constitutional rights ofcitizens, first andforemost therestriction offreedom ofspeech andthe right todisseminate andreceive information," theletter says.

Theauthors go onto mention specific instances ofwhat they consider tobe government pressure onfree speech, starting with therecent boycott ofDozhd TV, anindependent television channel that has been taken off theair bynumerous cable providers after acontroversial broadcast about theSiege ofLeningrad. Theauthors blame thegovernment forthe boycott ofDozhd, andalso note increasing pressure onindependent media like theradio station Ekho Moskvy andthe newspaper Novaya Gazeta.

Though now revered as one ofRussia's greatest authors ofthe 20th century, Pasternak was acontroversial figure during his lifetime, andsuffered fromthe Soviet Union's restrictions onspeech. Though Pasternak himself was never arrested, he watched close friends be imprisoned andexecuted during Stalin's purges ofthe 1930s Pasternak's friend Titsian Tabidze was executed in1937, while his mistress, Olga Ivinskaya, was imprisoned andmiscarried Pasternak's child early inher 10-year sentence.

Though Pasternak began writing Doctor Zhivago as early as 1910, thebook remained unpublished until 1957. Even after Stalin's death, it proved impossible topublish thework inthe Soviet Union due toits unorthodox stance onthe Russian Revolution, andPasternak resorted topublishing thetext inthe West.

Despite its warm reception inthe West, Pasternak was punished forsending his work abroad anoutpouring ofcriticism forced Pasternak todecline theNobel Prize, andin 1958, theUnion ofSoviet Writers put Pasternak ontrial andexpelled him fromthe union. Pasternak's health suffered as aresulted ofhis condemnation, andthe writer died in1960.

Afull 54 years later, Pasternak is now being honored with anexhibit atthe House Museum ofMarina Tsvetaeva, another Soviet author andclose friend ofPasternak who committed suicide in1941 after thearrest ofher husband anddaughter. Themain focus ofthe exhibit is aset ofphotographs ofPasternak taken byValery Avdeyev, agood friend ofPasternak.

Though Avdeyev was not aprofessional photographer, his portrait photographs, made inChistopol in1942, capture thewriter inpersonal moments, revealing more emotion than inmost ofhis photos.

Thewidow ofthe poet's son, Elena Pasternak, attended theexhibit's opening andshared her memories ofBoris, discussing his friendship with Avdeyev andTsvetaeva. Aselection ofPasternak's poems were also recited atthe exhibit opening byAntonina Kuznetsova, aprofessor atRussian University ofTheater Arts, or GITIS, andnational actress ofRussia.

Here is the original post:
Russian Writers Call for Free Speech as Pasternak's Birthday Celebrated

Caricatures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH should Never be allowed under Right of Free Speech

By: Mubashar Ali

Continued here:
Caricatures of Prophet Muhammad PBUH should Never be allowed under Right of Free Speech - Video

CAFETERIA MAN (DIRECTOR INTERVIEW)
Independent Film Director, Richard Chisolm discusses his film CAFETERIA MAN with FSTV. CAFETERIA MAN premiers Tuesday, Feb. 18th @9pm ET only on Free Speech TV.

By: freespeechtv

Read the original here:
CAFETERIA MAN (DIRECTOR INTERVIEW) - Video

India's penal code, written by occupiers in the aftermath of a devastating revolt that was more, perhaps, about cultural imperialism than the political kind, is increasingly shown to be a thing of its time, one increasingly distant from ours. Section 377 is out of phase with an age that understands sexual freedom is an essential part of personal freedom. But Section 295A, which criminalises speech that offends religion, has nowhere near as much notoriety.

It should, perhaps. The recent withdrawal by Penguin India of an "alternative history" of Hindus and Hinduism by Professor Wendy Doniger demonstrates the degree to which the persistence of such laws on the statute book can have what is called a "chilling effect" - in which private parties control their own speech or that of others to comply with an all-encompassing law. In its much-delayed explanation for the withdrawal, the publishing house blamed Section 295A in particular, although the only immediate case on its hands was a civil, not a criminal, complaint. However, if the civil case was close to being lost, criminal charges might well have been filed soon - specific complaints are referred to in the annexure of the agreement that Penguin signed.

Much time has been wasted mis-allocating blame for the withdrawal of Professor Doniger's book. Yes, naturally the set of petitioners - obscurantist and fundamentalist voices led by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's point man on "education" - would like to see books banned. That isn't surprising. What did you expect? It's the RSS. They're not fans of alternative histories, unless they're the ones writing it. They are being true to themselves by objecting to it. Yes, naturally Penguin India eventually withdrew when faced with a determined opponent linked to a powerful family of social organisations that includes the party expected to rule this country next year. What did you expect? They are a private sector company whose responsibility is to their shareholders and duty is to maximise profits. Which shareholder wants to see cash bleed into legally defending an asset that is depreciating fast, like a four-year-old hardback? And spare me the self-righteous claptrap about the "commodification" of books and knowledge. If you don't want writing commodified, then don't sign a contract with a profit-maximising company. Release it, for free, on the Internet. Penguin India, too, is being true to itself by withdrawing.

The blame rightly belongs, as always, to what shapes such people's decisions: the law. In this case, the law empowered the objectors and disempowered those who did not - Penguin, the author, and her potential readers. In that absence, it is a bit much to high-handedly demand a firm we don't own to take on the costs of working to change or defy the law. If enough of us care enough, perhaps there is a special market for "books that can be legally challenged", and we should pay a litigation premium for them over and above the regular price - intellectual blood money, paying for our access to possibly forbidden thought.

Or, perhaps, we should just focus on changing the law. Like much else in the Indian Penal Code, Section 295A is a defacement of India's claim to being a modern, liberal culture. There are other such - most of all, perhaps, the First Amendment to the Constitution that unnecessarily and dangerously restricted free-speech provisions. But amending the Constitution is harder than changing the penal code. That, at first, should be the focus of all those who are outraged.

Laws that put culture in a straitjacket do not deserve to survive. For there are always those who will take advantage of such provisions, to use state power to quench dissent. It is intriguing, after all, to examine the complaints of those who think Professor Doniger's book is a fit target for their ire, and are choosing to fire over the shoulders of an illiberal state. Irrespective of the merits of Professor Doniger's book - which I encourage you to judge for yourself - it is worth examining, for clues to the culture spawned by such laws, the nature of the anger at her project. Professor Doniger wishes, she claims, to give voice to the many different forms of Hindu practice, a dazzling and bewildering variety that nevertheless manage, in their myriad manifestations, to be recognisably Hindu. The strength of the religion lies in its ability to be different and yet compelling for any number of different people - be they Dalit or transgendered, recent converts or vague cultural legatees. This very feature of the religion is a bug to those who despise Professor Doniger; for them, any diversion from the pseudo-Abrahamic, Brahminical narrative they espouse is dangerous. Laws that control speech and culture will be used, always, by those with greater power - the guardians of what historian Vijay Prashad calls the "bourgeois" manifestation of religion, in this case - to minimise challenges to their authority. There is no free culture without free speech. There is no free religion without free speech. Laws that stifle speech in order to "protect" religion in fact do the precise opposite.

mihir.sharma@bsmail.in

Originally posted here:
Mihir S Sharma: Cultural straitjackets

SAN FRANCISCO A public elementary school decided in 2011 to require students to wear a uniform with the school's motto, "Tomorrow's Leaders," emblazoned in small letters on the shirts around a gopher, the campus mascot.

One parent objected to the uniforms and eventually sued, contending they violated the 1st Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

In a unanimous ruling Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit largely agreed with her. The panel said the words "Tomorrow's Leaders" potentially violated students' right to free speech and the uniform policy must go unless the school district can justify it under a legal standard that is difficult to meet.

The "policy compels speech because it mandates the written motto, 'Tomorrow's Leaders,' on the uniform shirts," wrote Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, an Obama appointee, who was joined by two judges selected by Republican presidents.

The panel also found problematic a uniform exemption for students who wore the attire of national youth organizations like the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts on meeting days.

"The exemption explicitly favors the uniforms of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts over all other uniforms and favors the uniforms of 'nationally recognized' youth organizations over those of locally or regionally recognized youth organizations," the court said.

The lawsuit was filed against Roy Gomm Elementary School in Reno, but the ruling would affect public school uniforms in California and other Western states. Siding with the mother were a student organization and a national legal foundation that advocates for religious liberty.

Eugene Volokh, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, who represented the mother without charge before the 9th Circuit, said public schools may enforce strict dress codes, but may not require people to wear clothing with messages, even if they don't seem particularly controversial.

"What is ideological and what is not is often in the eye of the beholder," said Volokh, a conservative 1st Amendment scholar with libertarian views. "You can't be compelled to become a moving billboard for the state's messages."

He said the school motto could be viewed as "a subtle message that glamorizes leadership and conveys the idea that people think the school is producing leaders."

Continued here:
Appeals court finds Nevada school's uniform policy unconstitutional

February 14, 2014

Publisher Penguin today blamed India's "intolerant" laws for its decision to pull and pulp a book on Hinduism in the country, that sparked a furious free speech row.

Days after agreeing to withdraw a 2009 book "The Hindus: An Alternative History" to settle a court battle, Penguin India insisted it was committed to free thought and expression.

But Penguin said it also "has the same obligation as any other organisation to respect the laws of the land in which it operates, however intolerant and restrictive those laws may be."

"We also have a moral responsibility to protect our employees against threats and harassment where we can," its statement added.

Penguin drew fire from writers and champions of free speech over its decision on Monday to pull the book rather than fight the case, brought by an activist group which took offence at the depiction of the Hindu religion.

The book's author, American scholar Wendy Doniger, said she was "angry and disappointed" all copies would be pulped in India, but she defended Penguin, part of the publishing giant Penguin Random House.

Doniger also said she was "deeply troubled" about what the decision meant for free speech in India.

Booker prize-winning Indian author Arundhati Roy this week called on Penguin to explain why it "caved" in to the academics even though there "was no fatwa, no ban, not even a court order".

In an open letter to Penguin, her own publisher, Roy said: "There will soon no doubt be protestors gathered outside your office, expressing their dismay."

See the original post:
penguin-logo.jpg

Republican Senators Introduce Bill to Halt Proposed IRS Free Speech Restrictions
U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor regarding Republican legislation that would prevent the Obama Ad...

By: RepublicanLeader

Read the original here:
Republican Senators Introduce Bill to Halt Proposed IRS Free Speech Restrictions - Video

cain velasquez 25 - America free speech and Biafra (stop filtering out the political opposition)
Truth.

By: mec loc

See the article here:
cain velasquez 25 - America free speech and Biafra (stop filtering out the political opposition) - Video