Category Archives: Free Speech

'Wilson is singularly under-credentialled when it comes to what's really going on in the free-speech marketplace.' Photo: Wayne Taylor

Chris Berg must be livid.

He's the man who's done the heavy lifting on free speech at the Institute of Public Affairs and authored the official text, In Defence of Freedom of Speech (subtitle: From Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt).

Instead, Attorney-General George Brandis appoints Tim Wilson, the institute's policy director, to the Human Rights Commission with particular focus on free speech and everyone's right to hold opinions.

Advertisement

Well, here's my opinion.

Wilson is singularly under-credentialled when it comes to what's really going on in the free-speech marketplace. His utterances since his appointment was announced show a slender grasp of the issues at stake and his outpourings beforehand are a collection of corporate-inspired outrages about government trying to protect the health and welfare of society.

He decries restrictions on cigarette advertising and the plain packaging legislation (a free-speech issue for the tobacco industry), attempted regulations on poker machines, taxes on alcohol, moves to control the intake of fatty and sugary foods, and banning tanning beds.

All of this, in Wilson's view, is paternalistic nonsense, along with global warming and the tax on carbon. Let the market rip and allow people to gamble, smoke, drink, get fat and artificially tanned until frizzled. No doubt these views are genuinely and passionately held and, entirely coincidentally, they are held by the corporate sponsors of the Institute of Public Affairs.

We don't know for sure, because the institute is so keen on free speech that it won't share with us who is paying the piper, but it seems to run along the lines of a massive cash-for-comment machine.

Continue reading here:
Tim Wilson's appointment to Human Rights Commission has nothing to do with 'rebalancing'

CAPTIONS

The Robertson family c (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times /February 27, 2013)

In making controversial comments about gays and blacks, "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson reduced his appeal and possibly his audience.

Some may complain that Robertson's suspension by A&E is an issue of free speech, but it's actually one of marketing and contracts.

"Duck Dynasty" has always seemed a funny and well-produced reality series about a loving family.

But Robertson's comments to GQ magazine cast a shadow over the enterprise. Did he realize he was alienating the show's gay and black fans? Is it wise to tell potential viewers that they'll be denied the Kingdom of Heaven?

It's not good business, to put it mildly. People under contract on television are not supposed to drive away viewers. With the suspension, I presume A&E was trying to impress on Robertson the blunder he'd made. But does the family care?

After his punishment, the Robertson family issued a statement. "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible," that statement read.

And what of the future of "Duck Dynasty"?

The statement reads: "We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of 'Duck Dynasty.' "

Read the original here:
Boedeker: 'Duck Dynasty': Free speech isn't the issue

TV

Maria Elena Fernandez TODAY

1 hour ago

If free speech is at the heart of the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, which resulted in the suspension of patriarch Phil Robertson after he expressed his anti-gay views in an interview, celebrities are not being shy about exercising their First Amendment rights.

Some of them are even siding with the Duck Commander in their own special way that is, sarcasm.

"As a student of history one of the things weve learned is that the mightiest dynasties eventually crumble, said Jon Stewart on Thursday night's "The Daily Show," before joking that he thought "Duck Dynasty" was a show about ducks re-enacting "Dynasty" and he thinks it would have a "huge gay audience."

"Look, I think what the guy said is ignorant but I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant (expletive) on television doesn't get you kicked off that medium," he added later.

His partner in crime, of course, had more to say on "The Colbert Report."

"This is a terrible day for Americans though admittedly a great day for ducks," Stephen Colbert said on his Comedy Central show Thursday before he sported a beard like the Duck Commander. "I'll admit it's not the eloquent speech you might expect from a backwoods Louisiana bird murderer but he does have a point: the vagina does have more there. Face it, it's a trainwreck. Who knows what's going on with that business?"

Colbert ended by expressing sympathy for A&E: "With this controversy, they may have just lost 'Duck Dynastys' massive black and gay audience."

Read the original post:
Quack attack: Late night hosts, celebs react to 'Duck Dynasty' scandal

CAPTIONS

The Robertson family c (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times /February 27, 2013)

In making controversial comments about gays and blacks, "Duck Dynasty" patriarch Phil Robertson reduced his appeal and possibly his audience.

Some may complain that Robertson's suspension by A&E is an issue of free speech, but it's actually one of marketing and contracts.

"Duck Dynasty" has always seemed a funny and well-produced reality series about a loving family.

But Robertson's comments to GQ magazine cast a shadow over the enterprise. Did he realize he was alienating the show's gay and black fans? Is it wise to tell potential viewers that they'll be denied the Kingdom of Heaven?

It's not good business, to put it mildly. People under contract on television are not supposed to drive away viewers. With the suspension, I presume A&E was trying to impress on Robertson the blunder he'd made. But does the family care?

After his punishment, the Robertson family issued a statement. "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible," that statement read.

And what of the future of "Duck Dynasty"?

The statement reads: "We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of 'Duck Dynasty.' "

Visit link:
'Duck Dynasty': Free speech isn't the issue

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Editor's note: LZ Granderson writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A senior writer for ESPN and lecturer at Northwestern University, the former Hechinger Institute fellow has had his commentary recognized by the Online News Association, the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association. Follow him on Twitter @locs_n_laughs.

(CNN) -- Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal got involved in the "Duck Dynasty" controversy Thursday by tweeting his response to A&E's decision to suspend Phil Robertson for his inflammatory remarks in a recent GQ interview.

"I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment," he wrote, adding, "it is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended."

The truth is it is a messed up situation when a governor rumored to have his sights on the presidency doesn't understand the breadth of the First Amendment.

LZ Granderson

The Federal Communications Commission did not send officials into the office of Nancy Dubuc, president of A&E Networks. The FBI did not threaten to put Robertson away, and the Internal Revenue Service didn't freeze his bank accounts.

This is what the First Amendment protects us from -- laws being made that restrict freedom of religion, the press and/or speech. It does not protect us from how society responds to the expression of one's religion, the press or speech.

Robertson's boss punished him for his remarks. The government didn't.

Now for those out of the loop, Robertson -- a 67-year-old Louisiana native and a star of "Duck Dynasty" who holds a master's in education -- said, "I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," and the black people he worked with "were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Link:
'Duck Dynasty' star's free speech rights weren't violated

The controversy surrounding Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments to GQ that subsequently caused him to be suspended from his A&E series "Duck Dynasty" has seemingly reached it's peak. But the common"freedom of speech" defense to Robertson's comments has struck a chord with many, who argue that just because Robertson is able to say whatever he wants doesn't mean A&E has to stand by him.

Jon Stewart took up the subject on "The Daily Show" and criticized Fox News (as he so often does) for the network's hypocritical stance on the free speech issue. Though they're quick to defend Robertson's right to make comments they don't find particularly out of line, the anchors do get riled up when some people and places decide to stop using the word "Christmas."

"I think what the guy said is ignorant but I also have an inclination to support a world where saying ignorant s*** on television doesn't get you kicked off that medium," Stewart deadpans of both Robertson and Fox News. "I guess I stand with the free speech absolutists of Fox News who don't believe we should pressure people to have to adhere to cultural norms of speech ... mostly."

Allowing Fox News segments to speak for him, Stewart underlines the hypocrisy that has been at the core of the defense of Phil Robertson. Like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who comparesRobertson's comments to Miley Cyrus' antics over the past year, the argument seems to be that "free speech" protects people making as many comments as each individual person discussing the issue is comfortable with.

Meanwhile on "The Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert took his own faux-conservative stance on the issue.

"This is a terrible day for Americans although admittedly a great day for ducks. So why did A&E a-and-axe him? Because this good Christian man spoke his mind in GQ about the gays," Colbert says. "I'll admit it's not the eloquent speech you'd expect from a backwoods Louisiana duck murderer. But he does have a point; the vagina does have 'more there.' I mean, let's face it, it's a train wreck."

As he jokes, the real organization suffering in this situation is A&E. "With this controversy, they may have just lost 'Duck Dynasty's' massive black and gay audience," Colbert quips.

Do you find that people are being hypocritical when discussing this controversy?

Photo/Video credit: Comedy Central

Read the original here:
Jon Stewart calls out Fox News on 'Duck Dynasty' free speech hypocrisy

The U.S. National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security have threatened legal action to block the sale of T-shirts that ridicule these two powerful government agencies. But the T-shirt designer says NSA and DHS are the ones breaking the law by assaulting free speech, a pillar of democratic society.

A judge may decide who is right.

One T-shirt calls the NSA the only part of the government that actually listens, a joke that plays on the NSAs controversial, and critics say overzealous, monitoring of communications worldwide. Americans tend to laugh out loud when they see the message.

Another shirt parodies the DHS logo, rewritten as the Department of Homeland Stupidity.

Agency officials have sent stern letters to the printer who makes and distributes these designs, demanding an immediate halt, according to T-shirt designer Dan McCall. He says the letters cite federal laws banning unauthorized use or defacement of official logos.

McCall says the demand violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of free speech. We are fighting for some clarity in the law, but also to reaffirm the fact that criticism, in this case parody of our government, is completely allowed and certainly isn't criminal," said McCall.

A lawyer from Public Citizen, an advocacy group, is defending the T-shirt designer. Attorney Paul Levy says the messages on the T-shirts are satire, and that's part of the robust debate over the role and conduct of government.

I think it's clear that the designs that McCall is purveying are plainly protected political speech," said Levy.

Law Professor Tim Zick, at the College of William and Mary, says free speech is fundamental to democracy. He spoke to VOA via Skype.

We have a First Amendment [to the Constitution] that protects freedom of speech, and it has been long interpreted to protect criticism of government. Again, at its core, is the belief that citizens are better off in a self-governing society being able to discuss matters of public import among themselves," said Zick.

See the original post:
NSA Squabbles With T-shirt Maker Over Free Speech

CBS News: AFDI Free Speech Lawsuit Against Boston Transit
Last week, the Boston Transit Authority restored vicious anti-Israel ads that had been removed. They were taken down because of the fallacious libel they adv...

By: Pamela Geller

Go here to see the original:
CBS News: AFDI Free Speech Lawsuit Against Boston Transit - Video

Tariq Ramadan, Doha Debate Education pointless without free speech 4 4

By: Incre vable

The rest is here:
Tariq Ramadan, Doha Debate Education pointless without free speech 4 4 - Video

Tariq Ramadan, Doha Debate Education pointless without free speech 2 4

By: Incre vable

The rest is here:
Tariq Ramadan, Doha Debate Education pointless without free speech 2 4 - Video