Category Archives: Free Speech

Jan 15, 2013 UCF Sister Cindy: Condom Gospel
Come one come all, hear the good news of the Condom Gospel, only once more at the University of Central Florida #39;s free speech zone. Blah blah blah. Starring ...

By: TheAnthonyChan0

See the original post:
Jan 15, 2013 UCF Sister Cindy: Condom Gospel - Video

Diddy Kong Racing - Free Speech Only for Racists Episode #14 - Super Speers Brothers
Diddy Kong Racing - Free Speech Only for Racists Episode #14 - Super Speers Brothers Series Let #39;s play Diddy Kong Racing and talk. Also, let #39;s talk wayyy too...

By: Super Speers Brothers

Here is the original post:
Diddy Kong Racing - Free Speech Only for Racists Episode #14 - Super Speers Brothers - Video

Free Speech vs. Abortion Rights
Free Speech vs. Abortion Rights.

By: CNN

Originally posted here:
Free Speech vs. Abortion Rights - Video

Neither rich nor poor may sleep under the bridges of Paris. Is that law neutral with respect to whos doing the sleeping? If you think the answer is obvious, think again -- and think abortion.

In McCullen v. Coakley, which the Supreme Court heard arguments on today, the justices have to answer a version of the same question in deciding whether Massachusetts may block anyone from gathering within a 35-foot buffer zone outside abortion clinics. If the regulation is found "content-neutral" and narrowly tailored to protect the exercise of the constitutional right to abortion, it will survive. If not, an increasingly pro-free-speech court may strike it down.

The Supreme Court has seen a version of this question before. In the 2000 case of Hill v. Colorado, the court by a 6-3 vote upheld a law that created an 8-foot bubble around anyone in the vicinity of a health-care facility. No one could enter the bubble to hand someone a leaflet or to protest, educate or counsel them. In an opinion written by former Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by, among others, the retired Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, the court said the law was content-neutral and justified by interests in access to clinics that were unrelated to the expression of ideas. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, issued a characteristically outraged dissent. Does the deck seem stacked? he asked. You bet. There was no content-neutrality in a law aimed at abortion protesters and not supporters of the practice, they felt. Both men remain on the court, as does Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a dissent of his own.

Massachusetts claims it enacted its buffer-zone law in 2007 after an earlier version, modeled on the Colorado statute, proved unenforceable. The state says that its law, which allows pedestrians to pass through the buffer zone as long as they don't stop and also allows clinic employees to perform their jobs in the zone, is just as neutral as the Colorado law. In fact, the state could credibly maintain that its law is more neutral than the one upheld by the court in 2000. That law specifically prohibited particular types of speech -- protest, education, counseling -- while the Massachusetts law says nothing whatever about speech, and only regulates presence.

To pro-life protesters, however, the law is blatantly aimed to make their speech less effective by moving them 35 feet back from clinic entrances. From that distance, they say, their message of love and compassion -- often reinforced by graphic images of bloody fetuses -- will be harder to communicate to women entering the clinics. The truth is that the buffer zone will apply to both anti- and pro-abortion protesters, but pro-life protesters have a much stronger interest than do pro-choice advocates for being in close proximity to clinics. To some degree, at least, the law stacks the deck against them.

Still, two reasons suggest that the court should uphold the law. First, there is the reality that pro-choice activists do often have a presence at clinics. Admittedly, they are generally there to escort patients who might otherwise be intimidated passing the pro-life gantlet. But the fact that the pro-choicers aren't acting as counter-protesters doesn't detract from the free-speech component of their actions. If the pro-lifers are moved out to 35 feet, the pro-choicers will be, too -- and a fair application of the law would not let them accompany clinic patients into the buffer zone. Because both sides are speaking, the law really can plausibly be described as neutral between them.

Second, under current constitutional norms, protesters at a wide range of public events are often moved to different locations in order to allow for the free flow of traffic. At national political conventions, protesters have been placed behind barricades, sometimes blocks away from the action -- and the courts have upheld that as a reasonable, content-neutral restriction on the time, place and manner of the speech. Similar constitutional principles were used to uphold the removal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters from public places in many American cities. These precedents may be totally wrong as a matter of original interpretation -- the First Amendment right to peaceful assembly is arguably being violated whenever protesters are shunted off to a remote location -- but they are, at present, good law. If political protesters can be kept at a distance, there is no reason that same principle should not apply to protesters for and against abortion.

The wildcard, of course, is the courts different composition than in 2000. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito arent Rehnquist and OConnor -- not by a long shot. The Scalia stacked-deck argument may appeal to them. The court has also become increasingly pro-free-speech in recent years. The Obama administration has weighed in on the side of Massachusetts, which also signals the political tenor of the case. So far it has not been the Roberts way to overturn precedent, but to distinguish it carefully while moving right. HIll v. Colorado is unlikely to be reconsidered. But if Roberts can find a creative way to describe the buffer zone as more biased than the bubble, look for the court to strike down the law.

See the article here:
Is Your Abortion My Free Speech?

JUDY WOODRUFF: And today's arguments were, of course, closely watched by advocates on both sides of the abortion debate.

And we turn to two of them now.

Ilyse Hogue is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. And Steven Aden is vice president of human life issues for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which funded this case on behalf of the abortion protester.

We thank you both for being here, too.

Ilyse Hogue, to you first. Why is this case important?

ILYSE HOGUE, NARAL Pro-Choice America: Well, it's incredibly important, because we have tracked a movement that actually relies on harassment and intimidation and even violence. Your footage showed the most extreme example of -- there was a doctor shot outside trying to enter his clinic in Florida in the 1990s.

RELATED INFORMATION

Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services

And I think what is important is recognizing that we do balance free speech with public safety all the time. And, in fact, Mrs. McCullen, who seems to be perfectly lovely, made her own point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The woman who is bringing the case.

Read more here:
Do abortion clinic buffer zones protect public safety or restrict free speech?

WASHINGTON In a case pitting free speech against abortion rights, Supreme Court justices signaled Wednesday they were inclined to strike down a Massachusetts law that sets a 35-foot buffer zone to prevent protesters from approaching clinics that offer the procedure.

Opponents called the law a violation of free speech and complained it prohibits "peaceful conversation on a public sidewalk," said Mark Rienzi, the attorney representing antiabortion activist Eleanor McCullen, 77, from Boston. Calling themselves "sidewalk counselors," McCullen and other activists stand outside clinic entrances and urge women seeking abortions to change their minds.

An attorney for Massachusetts and the Obama administration defended the law as a reasonable way to deal with the violence and disruptions that have been seen at abortion clinics in the Boston area. They said abortion opponents were free to speak to people who were walking down the street toward the clinic, but the law prevented them from getting close to the entrance.

The buffer-zone restriction applies only to "the last four to five seconds before they enter the clinic," said Ian Gershengorn, a deputy U.S. solicitor general.

In their comments and questions on McCullen vs. Coakley, however, most of the justices appeared to agree with antiabortion advocates who said a 35-foot buffer zone goes too far. Rienzi argued that rather than imposing a blanket buffer zone at all times, clinics should simply call the police if and when activists are preventing patients from entering.

The court's conservatives, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, said they thought such a law clearly violated the 1st Amendment. Several of the liberal justices commented that the 35-foot zone may be broader than needed.

This "is a counseling case, not a protest case," Scalia insisted. "Surely, you could have a law against screaming and shouting within 35 feet. These people want to speak quietly in a friendly manner."

The court's ruling could effect similar buffer zones used to protect government and military institutions and activities. Several justices noted that federal law sets a quiet zone around military funerals. Other laws forbid people from confronting those who are entering a polling place or a county courthouse. The Supreme Court enforces a no-protest rule on the marble plaza in front of its building.

In the 1990s, the high court upheld a judge's orders from Florida that barred antiabortion activists from coming within 36 feet of the doorway of a clinic that had been the scene of loud demonstrations. And in 2000, the court in a 6-3 decision upheld a Colorado law that set a 10-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.

Then, the three dissenters Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Scalia said the Colorado law violated the 1st Amendment. Then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted with the majority, have since been replaced by President George W. Bush's two appointees: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court signals opposition to abortion clinic buffer zone

Massachusetts requires protesters to stay 35 feet away from abortion clinics. Opponents arguing before the US Supreme Court Wednesday said the law hinders the free speech of antiabortion counselors.

A Massachusetts law that authorizes a 35-foot, speech-free buffer zone around abortion clinics appears to be in serious jeopardy following a contentious hour-long hearing at the US Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Subscribe Today to the Monitor

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

The state law was passed in 2007 in an effort to prevent antiabortion protesters from obstructing clinic entrances and harassing or intimidating patients.

Massachusetts has a history of obstructionist and, at times violent, protests at clinics. But not all antiabortion opponents are violent or even loud.

The case before the high court involves a group of antiabortion counselors who seek the opportunity to speak quietly with women who are about to have an abortion.

Their goal is clear; they want to talk them out of ending their pregnancy. And their tactics involve a decidedly undramatic approach that would never make an evening newscast. A lawyer described the tactic as quiet conversation.

Their lawyer, Mark Rienzi, argues that the First Amendments protects their right to engage in conversations on a public sidewalk including a public sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic.

This approach of focusing on non-confrontational aspects of antiabortion speech makes the case different than other abortion clinic obstruction cases heard by the high court. And it highlights the difficulty of enacting a broad prohibition of speech within a 35-foot zone without also treading on someones free speech rights.

Go here to read the rest:
Keep your distance: Supreme Court takes up protesters outside abortion clinics (+video)

JUDY WOODRUFF: Free speech and abortion rights clashed today at the Supreme Court.

NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman starts with some background.

KWAME HOLMAN: The case grew out of complaints by anti-abortion demonstrators at this Planned Parenthood clinic in downtown Boston.

MAN: If you look at that yellow line, it actually puts us out on the street, so we're apt to get hit by a car or a bus or whatever.

KWAME HOLMAN: That painted yellow line marks a 35-foot buffer zone required by Massachusetts law since 2007 at sites where abortions are performed. Crossing it could mean two-and-a-half years in prison for a protester, although no one has been prosecuted under the law.

Seventy-six-year-old Eleanor McCullen leads the fight to overturn the law and attended today's arguments. She says the restriction stifles the free speech rights of abortion opponents trying to dissuade women from going inside.

RELATED INFORMATION

Supreme Court opens cases on campaign money, abortion

ELEANOR MCCULLEN, plaintiff: They want to stop, but they -- they -- they want to go in too. They have an appointment. And they're mixed up, and if I just had another like two minutes or three minutes, that's all I need, but when I'm cut off, it's very, very frustrating.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Massachusetts attorney general, Martha Coakley, answers that the law lets protesters have their say, while protecting clinic clients and staff from harassment.

See more here:
Supreme Court weighs clash between freedom of speech, abortion rights

A Message From YouTube: Fuck Yo Free Speech!
The video YouTube claimed was #39;inappropriate #39;. You be the judge of that: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19mxvd_real-talk-on-homophobia-claiming-victimhood...

By: Tonio31

More:
A Message From YouTube: Fuck Yo Free Speech! - Video

[MIRROR] Bad Philosophy With Rocking Mr E Episode 7 - Free Speech
User Sequester Zone continues to have his videos about Rocking Mr. E flagged. His backup channel, MrE Rebuttals has recently been subject to flagging as well...

By: mergezero

Read the original here:
[MIRROR] Bad Philosophy With Rocking Mr E Episode 7 - Free Speech - Video