Category Archives: Free Speech

Hundreds of authors including Jonathan Franzen, Salman Rushdie, and Margaret Atwood have signed an open letter criticizing Russian laws which they say 'strangle free speech.'

On the eve of the opening of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, more than 200 authors from 30 countries have published an open letter criticizing recent Russian laws that strangle free speech, joining a wave of protestors denouncing rights abuses in Russia.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

Anti-gay and blasphemy laws place a chokehold on the right to express oneself freely, the letter, published in the Guardian Thursday, states.

Among the prominent author-signatories are Jonathan Franzen, Margaret Atwood, Salman Rushdie, Gunter Grass, Julian Barnes, Neil Gaiman, and Orhan Pamuk. Notably, as the Guardian points out, Russia's foremost contemporary novelist, Lyudmila Ulitskaya, is also a signatory to the letter.

They condemn three specific laws: gay propaganda laws that prohibit the propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors; blasphemy laws that criminalize religious insult; and the recent recriminalization of defamation laws.

These laws "specifically put writers at risk", according to the letter, and its signatories "cannot stand quietly by as we watch our fellow writers and journalists pressed into silence or risking prosecution and often drastic punishment for the mere act of communicating their thoughts.

The letter reads:

A healthy democracy must hear the independent voices of all its citizens; the global community needs to hear, and be enriched by, the diversity of Russian opinion. We therefore urge the Russian authorities to repeal these laws that strangle free speech, to recognise Russia's obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights to respect freedom of opinion, expression and belief including the right not to believe and to commit itself to creating an environment in which all citizens can experience the benefit of the free exchange of opinion.

Visit link:
Is there free speech in Russia? These writers think not

5 hours ago Feb. 6, 2014 - 3:23 PM PST

The Turkish government has long had a fractious relationship with the internet, marked by periodic bans on sites like YouTube for content that contravenes Turkish laws like the law that makes it an offence to insult Turkishness. But new amendments to the countrys internet legislation that were passed by parliament on Wednesday take this internet-phobia to new levels, and represent an unprecedented attack on the free speech rights of Turkish citizens.

Among other things, the amendments allow the authorities to block access to specific content on the internet with as little as four hours notice, and without a court order. The legislation goes beyond the kind of blanket site-wide banning that Turkey has used in the past against services like YouTube, and allows the government to block specific pieces of content at the URL level, in much the same way that Chinas Great Firewall does.

In many ways, the new Turkish law is the rough equivalent of SOPA and PIPA two anti-piracy bills that were proposed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in 2011 and sparked a huge outcry about surveillance and free speech, to the point where both were withdrawn. The Turkish amendments, however, have been passed by parliament and now just require the signature of the countrys president, Abdullah Gul.

Like those laws, the Turkish legislation forces ISPs to act as agents of the government in a variety of ways, including a requirement to store virtually all data about their users online activity for at least two years. The amendments also authorize the government to use methods such as deep packet inspection in order to bypass anonymizing tools and other technologies that Turkish dissidents might use to get around content blocks or bans.

Turkish nationals, including University of North Carolina sociologist and social-media expert Zeynep Tufekci, have been criticizing the proposed legislation for some time because they see it as an infringement of their rights to free speech. Some see the crackdown as a response to the recent corruption scandal, in which some senior ministers have reportedly been receiving bribes. Turkey also routinely censors and restricts its national news media, making internet sources and especially social media an even more important factor.

As noted by the site BoingBoing, one Turkish citizen has written a goodbye letter to the internet and posted it on Medium, saying: This is a farewell to our freedom of speech, privacy and World Wide Web, and an unwanted welcome to Turkey Narrow Web. Ahmet Sabanci described the legislation in this way:

ISPs going to log everything we do together. Theyll keep these logs for years and government can check these logs whenever they want. Theyll use URL-based censorship on you. That means, if my essays on Medium counted as harmful, other people can see Medium but theyll never be able to read my essays on Medium. And most of the people wont be able to notice this.

In a recent interview with Wired magazine, the creator of the web Sir Tim Berners-Lee said that one of his fears about the future of the global network was that it would become Balkanized, with countries taking control of portions of the net and restricting information. He said he wants a web thats open, works internationally, works as well as possible and is not nation-based. Unfortunately, that kind of free flow of information isnt in the interests of repressive regimes.

Subscriber Content

More here:
Turkey passes draconian internet law, Turks say goodbye to their freedom of speech

Poll: Free Speech-Virginia orders Yelp to ID anonymous users

By: Politic News

Here is the original post:
Poll: Free Speech-Virginia orders Yelp to ID anonymous users - Video

A US federal judge in Missouri agreed that flashing headlights to warn other drivers of a speed trap was protected free speech. Will this ruling set a broader precedent?

A federal judge on Monday issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the St. Louis County town of Ellisville from arresting and prosecuting drivers who flash headlights to warn other drivers of nearby police and speedtraps.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

Click Here for your FREE 30 DAYS of The Christian Science Monitor Weekly Digital Edition

The order by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey in St. Louis stems from a lawsuit filed by Ellisville resident Michael Elli. On Nov. 17, 2012, Elli flashed his headlights to warn oncoming vehicles of a radar set up by Ellisville police. A flash of headlights is a common way motorists communicate to oncoming drivers of either a dangerous situation or the presence of police in essence, a warning to slow down.

An officer saw the flash and pulled over Elli, who could have faced a fine of up to $1,000 if convicted. The charge was later dismissed.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Elli's behalf, claiming the arrest violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

ACLU Legal Director Tony Rothert told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that it was the first federal court ruling on the issue anywhere in the country. It is legal in Missouri to communicate in this manner, he said, and detaining, ticketing or arresting someone for the content of their speech is illegal.

Rothert says other cities and towns in Missouri and Illinois have arrested drivers for flashing their headlights. Last month, in Frisco, Texas, a man was arrested and cited for allegedly violating a city ordinance for holding a homemade sign warning drivers about speed traps. He's challenging the arrest in court.

Ellisville City Attorney George Restovich said the city changed the policy after the case went to court and no longer pulls over people for flashing headlights.

Here is the original post:
OK to flash headlights to warn drivers of police speed trap, judge rules

Some say it infringed on the free speech of those who weren't charged with any crimes

Hacktivist group Anonymous was the target of a cyberattack launched by British spies, according to more document leaks by former U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden.

According to NBC News, the British version of the U.S.' NSA -- calledthe Government Communications Headquarters Communications (GCHQ) -- launched a cyberattack against the hacktivist group using itsJoint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) division.

The documents detailing the attack were pulled from a 2012 NSA conference called SIGDEV via PowerPoint presentation.

In an operation called "Rolling Thunder," JTRIGlaunched a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack against the internet relay chat (IRC) rooms, which are used by members of Anonymous.

JTRIG agents also posed as Anonymous members to infiltrate IRC rooms and locate those responsible for attacking government websites and stealing personal data back in 2011.

In 2011, Anonymous attacked PayPal, some major credit card companies and government websites such as those for the FBI, CIA and GCHQ. This was called "Operation Payback" for the prosecution of Chelsea Manning.

It seemed to have worked, as the documents show that 80 percent of those in the IRC rooms vanished within a month after receiving the warnings.

JTRIG was also able to locate those responsible for the 2011 attacks and even convicted a hacker who stole 8 million records on PayPal.

While the operation proved successful, many say JTRIG went too far with Rolling Thunder becausemany of the Anonymous members involved were teenagers, and JTRIG's focus and attack on communications among hacktivists means the agency infringed the free speech of people who were not charged with any crimes.

See more here:
Hacktivist Group Anonymous Targeted by British Gov. Cyberattack

Are you one of those selfish pricks who knows there's a speed trap up ahead, but doesn't flash your lights to warn fellow motorists? Well, now you don't have to be. A court ruled that flashing your headlights, even to warn of stealthily hidden law enforcement, is protected speech.

So, get out there and help a brother out...

Ellisville, MO, was trying to prosecute drivers who warned others of impending speed traps by flashing their headlights. Apparently, the "show me" state doesn't mean "show me where the po-po are at." But a federal judge issued an injunction against the town, stopping the prosecution of lookout drivers who help everybody drive as fast as possible without detection.

U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey ruled that using your headlights to communicate is protected speech, even if you are using that speech to point out speed traps.

This makes sense. Think about it, you can say "5-0, 5-0," to warn drug-using friends of an approaching beat cop. This really isn't any different. You can even flip people the bird from your car. It's on the cops to catch people doing illegal activity; citizens are allowed to report what they know. In the Missouri case, the town was prosecuting people who were not speeding just because they were warning others about upcoming speed traps.

The ACLU sued on behalf of ticketed drivers. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

ACLU Legal Director Tony Rothert said Monday that it was the first federal court ruling on the issue anywhere in the country. "It is legal in Missouri to communicate in this manner," he said, "and detaining, ticketing or arresting someone for the content of their speech is illegal."...

The ACLU sued on behalf of [drivers] last year, saying that drivers using their headlights to communicate about a speed trap or another reason to proceed with caution are protected by the First Amendment.

The ACLU hopes that this is a warning to other towns who might think of stopping motorists for their headlight communication.

Read the original here:
Flashing Headlights Is Free Speech -- And Also Neighborly

Ezra Levant at Canadian HRC 2008 with Danish subtitles
This critically important moment in the fight for the preservation of free speech in Western democracies took place in a Canadian #39;star-chamber #39; like court i...

By: Mecalecahi Mecahinyho

Read the rest here:
Ezra Levant at Canadian HRC 2008 with Danish subtitles - Video

Address Rights of Stateless Residents February 4, 2014

(Kuwait City) Kuwaits government should amend national laws that officials are using to crack down on free speech, Human Rights Watch said today in connection with the release of its World Report 2014. The government should also follow through on promises to comprehensively address citizenship claims of stateless residents, known as Bidun.

Over the past year, officials have escalated prosecution of people critical of the government. In 2013 the authorities brought cases against at least 29 people who expressed critical views on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and other social media platforms, and at protests. Human Rights Watch knows of nine cases in 2012.

Kuwaiti authorities have come down hard on free speech over the past year, said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. The government should let Kuwaits people speak and write freely, and keep its promises to address Bidun citizenship claims.

In the 667-page world report, its 24th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries. Syrias widespread killings of civilians elicited horror but few steps by world leaders to stop it, Human Rights Watch said. A reinvigorated doctrine of responsibility to protect seems to have prevented some mass atrocities in Africa. Majorities in power in Egypt and other countries have suppressed dissent and minority rights. And Edward Snowdens revelations about US surveillance programs reverberated around the globe.

Prosecutors brought most of the speech cases under the vaguely worded article 25 of Kuwaits 1970 penal code, which prescribes up to five years in prison for anyone who publicly objects to the rights and authorities of the emir or faults him. Prosecutors have also used the vaguely worded article 111, with sentences of up to one year for anyone who mocks God, the prophets and messengers, or the honor of his messengers and their wives.

In July, during the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, the Kuwaiti ruler, Emir Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber Al Sabah, pardoned all those jailed under article 25. However, the authorities subsequently brought charges against at least three more people, indicating that government policy hasnt changed. In October, the court upheld a 10-year sentence on multiple counts in one such case.

In 2013, stateless people held numerous demonstrations to demand citizenship. The Interior Ministry violently dispersed several protests, with Security forces beating and detained protesters and threatening to deny citizenship applications. Article 12 of the 1979 Public Gatherings Law bars non-Kuwaitis from participating in public gatherings.

Kuwait is home to at least 105,702 Bidun, many descended from nomadic people who failed to register for citizenship before a 1960 deadline. Successive administrative committees for decades have avoided resolving their citizenship claims. In March 2011, the government granted Bidun some benefits and services, but some Bidun told Human Rights Watch in 2013 of administrative hurdles to accessing these benefits.

In March, the parliament passed a law to naturalize 4,000 foreigners by the end of the year, but as of November, no Bidun had been naturalized.

See original here:
Kuwait: Room for free speech dwindles

Awareness Concert of the Year: Support Free Speech in Tibet

By: Banned Expression: Support Free Speech in Tibet

Read more here:
Awareness Concert of the Year: Support Free Speech in Tibet - Video

Politics

02.03.14

According to the enemies of free speech, "offensive" language can cause emotional distress and physical trauma. So it's time to ditch the First Amendment, right?

With the rest of civilized America prepared to be gloriously uncivilized during the Super Bowl, I somehow found myself stuck reading a 1919 Supreme Court opinion, Schenck v. United States, in which an overweening government gleefully prosecuted one Charles T. Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, for distributing leaflets urging Americans to resist intervention in the First World War. With the benefit of a centurys worth of hindsight, its clear that Schenck was providing Philadelphians with good counsel for bad reasons, but Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in his majority opinion that his agitating against mass slaughter of the Western Front will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. A substantive evil was visited upon the United States, of course, in the form of 118,000 deaths in France, for a war that bequeathed to the world the Treaty of Versailles and a restless, humiliated German nation.

I was motivated to read the Schenck decision--which both glazes and opens the eyes--because of a piece here at The Daily Beast by Thane Rosenbaum, who beseeched us First Amendment fanatics--those of us who believe that the antidote to ugly speech is more speech-to think more like European free speech restrictionists, considering fines or jail terms for those who say terrible, offensive, racist things. Rosenbaum wastes little time declaring that because speech in the United States isnt entirely unfettered, we should be willing to fettered it further. This is always followed by that hoary cliche, a favorite of the enemies of free speech, There is no freedom to shout fire in a crowded theater."

Count the times you have encountered this argument, invariably offered by those who pretend to be worried about trampling innocents in a crowded theater but are more interested in trampling your right to say whatever you damn well please (one can yell fire in a crowded theater if there is, in fact, a fire; one can yell fire in an empty theater; one can yell fire in a crowded theater if one thinks there is a fire, but turns out to be mistaken). But few know that it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who first used the fire in a crowded theater argument in Schenck--and it was used in defense of imprisoning a dissident socialist opposed to American intervention in a stupid European war. Schenck was overturned, thankfully, in subsequent Supreme Court decisions, which correctly viewed it as doing violence to the First Amendment. As Gabe Rothman, legal counsel for the ACLU, wrote in 2012, The crowded theater example is worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech."

So who decides what unpopular speech should be illegal speech? Rosenbaum doesnt say, though Id hazard a guess that it runs parallel with speech that he finds injurious and potentially harmful. But to the United States' credit, such impositions on speech are exceedingly difficult to create, considering that the broad right to say what we please is codified in the Constitution.

That were one of the few countries in the Western world that takes freedom of speech seriously means, according to Rosenbaum, that we are actually behind the times: Actually, the United States is an outlier among democracies in granting such generous free speech guarantees. Six European countries, along with Brazil, prohibit the use of Nazi symbols and flags. Many more countries have outlawed Holocaust denial. Indeed, even encouraging racial discrimination in France is a crime. In pluralistic nations like these with clashing cultures and historical tragedies not shared by all, mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma. So one would assume that racial discrimination has been dumped on the ash heap of history in France, considering racist thoughts and symbols have been made illegal. How, then, does one explain that the National Front, whose former leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was found guilty of Holocaust denial, is now the most popular party in the country?

For someone interested in upending how Americans perceive free speech, Rosenbaum presents a series of paper-thin arguments. For instance: We impose speed limits on driving and regulate food and drugs because we know that the costs of not doing so can lead to accidents and harm. Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious? That should knock the wind of you, dear reader, to think that the FDAs regulation of Thalidomide or a states imposition of speed limits, both of which aim to reduce the physical harm visited upon innocents, is similar to jailing a Holocaust denier or Islamophobe. But Rosenbaum says that this all of a piece, because recent studies in universities such as Purdue, UCLA, Michigan, Toronto, Arizona, Maryland, and Macquarie University in New South Wales have demonstrated that being offended can have physical manifestations, and while physical pain subsides; emotional pain, when recalled, is relived. So, in a way, the emotional pain caused by malicious speech is worse than being physically assaulted. For someone interested in curtailing constitutional protections on speech, thats a pretty thin gruel.

"No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, Rosenbaum writes, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon. Read that again, if you can manage. A cherished right--the freedom to say what you please, no matter what political party, group, of religion is discomfited by your unapproved thoughts--should be curtailed if someone feels their private space and peace [are] invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled on. Forget about race and sex for a minute and count the court appearances that would be required of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris for trampling the feelings of the mystical and superstitious.

Continued here:
Free Speech Kills! - The Daily Beast