Category Archives: Free Speech

South Korean McCarthyism Free Speech Attacks on the Rise LinkAsia 9 27 13)
??? ????? ?? ? ?? ?? ??? ??.

By: Og Lim

See original here:
South Korean McCarthyism Free Speech Attacks on the Rise LinkAsia 9 27 13) - Video

Janet Albrechtsen: we must defend free speech
Janet Albrechtsen says the Abbott government must reclaim free speech with radical reforms. Janet was speaking at the Institute of Public Affairs freedom of ...

By: Institute of Public Affairs

Read more here:
Janet Albrechtsen: we must defend free speech - Video

Town of Campbell Board meeting shutting down free speech 10 08 2013
Town of Campbell Board meeting shutting down free speech 10 08 2013.

By: TheLAXTeaParty

Go here to read the rest:
Town of Campbell Board meeting shutting down free speech 10 08 2013 - Video

Geert Wilders on trial _ Shariah4holland has free speech

By: dragonfly4004

Continue reading here:
Geert Wilders on trial _ Shariah4holland has free speech - Video

BATTERY 2006 Free Speech for the Dumb
2006/10/22 Live.

By: Simi Yasu

Read the original post:
BATTERY 2006 Free Speech for the Dumb - Video

ATF CENSORS FREE SPEECH

By: CongressmanTedPoe

Read more:
ATF CENSORS FREE SPEECH - Video

Japan free speech for foreigners only?
In Kyoto, Japan there is a school for Korean students (Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School). They use a nearby park without proper permission from local a...

By: PropagandaBuster

Link:
Japan free speech for foreigners only? - Video

Tough free speech cases seem to have become a hallmark of the Roberts Court. This Term may be no exception, as the Justices consider whether a Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone to keep protesters away from abortion clinic entrance sidewalks is constitutional.

Recall that the Roberts Court has already wrestled with a federal ban on animal crush videos, a state law restricting sale of violent video games, issues related to protests at the funerals of deceased military service members, and a federal prohibition on false claims about military honors. In each of these controversial cases, the Court protected the free speech interests from regulation.

Now add to the list the case of McCullen v. Coakley, which pits a states interest in protecting women who want access to abortion clinics against the interests of anti-abortion protesters who want to be able to counsel and hand literature to women approaching clinics.

The case should be of interest to law students who are studying free speech and free expression, as well as to those studying constitutional law, reproductive rights, and gender jurisprudence.

The Court will not actually rule on the right to abortion in the case. State laws restricting access to abortion are proliferating, and a Supreme Court test reconsidering the scope of that right looms in the Courts future. Instead, the Massachusetts case involves a tension between the desire of anti-abortion protesters to speak with women who are approaching reproductive health clinics and the desire of the patients to be left alone.

It is important to understand the regulatory landscape to follow the issues in the case. Since 1994, federal law has protected access to abortion clinics against threats, intimidation, or violent interference with women seeking reproductive services. But a sizeable handful of states and cities choose to provide additional protection that goes beyond what federal law provides to help facilitate access to clinics.

Massachusetts is one such state. From 2000 to 2007, Massachusetts had a law that prohibited anti-abortion protesters from approaching with six feet of anyone walking or driving in a radius of eighteen feet from the entrance of an abortion clinic. Massachusetts said the law was justified by the need to cope with violence, intimidation, and harassment at abortion clinics. But abortion protesters challenged the law, asserting that it interfered with their right to free speech and expression protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the law.

The 2000 law was patterned after a Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld that same year in the case of Hill v. Colorado. By a vote of six to three, the Justices ruled that the Colorado law did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, was narrowly drawn, left open other means of expression, and was neither too vague nor overbroad, thus passing the basic tests required by the First Amendment. Of the nine Justices who took part in the Colorado case in 2000, only five remain on the Court: Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, who voted to uphold the law, and dissenters Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Massachusetts amended its law in 2007 to create a thirty-five-foot buffer zone, which means that no one may protest or approach potential patients within that area surrounding either the front door of a clinic or the driveway into the clinic parking lot. Anti-abortion activists are free to protest outside the thirty-five-foot zone or to wait until after regular clinic hours. The state said the amendment was necessary because there was still harassment going on outside clinics. The state said the six-foot floating buffer in the old law was hard to enforce, and public safety required a larger, fixed no-protest zone.

The law was challenged by anti-abortion protesters who maintain that they want to peacefully hand out literature and talk to women who are approaching abortion clinics. They hope to make the women understand that there are alternatives to abortion and that they can help them understand their options. The thirty-five-foot buffer zone pushes them into the street or outer edge of the sidewalk or beyond entry driveways, they complained.

Read the rest here:
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Buffer zones and free speech

Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8
Free Speech S02E08 PDTV http://ttb.li/sc4xhl Season 2 Episode 8, Watch Free Speech S02E08 PDTV Season 2 Episode 8 Online, Free Speech S02E08 PDTV Season 2 Ep...

By: pridevalingli

Here is the original post:
Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8 - Video

Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion

BY GRETA MEYLE | OCTOBER 09, 2013 5:00 AM

University of Iowa faculty representatives want to discern the difference between free speech and provocative behavior among their peers.

At the Faculty Council meeting Tuesday, after mixed court verdicts regarding university staff members rights, Faculty Council members held a detailed discussion on to what extent a faculty member has the right to criticize the institution he or she works for.

In the 2006 case Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court found public employees dont necessarily have the right to criticize the institution they work for. Contrarily, a recent 2011 case involving a faculty member and the University of North Carolina-at Wilmington, the court decided that faculty members of a public university should be remised from the Garcetti ruling.

Even more recently, the Aug. 21 case of Demers v. Austin, the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals ruled in favor of faculty that the First Amendment protects faculty if the issue is related to scholarship and teaching. These rulings, and groups that encourage faculty free speech, such as the American Association of University Professors, have given rise to many universities considering modifying their policies.

Faculty Council President Erika Lawrence said that the goal was to start the conversation early to protect against future implications.

I mean, this is a huge issue for the faculty of a public university, Lawrence said. Some courts are protecting faculty free speech more than others this could really affect us down the line.

Lawrence said it really comes down to whether a faculty member is expressing disagreement or being hostile or disruptive, especially under representation of the UI.

Law Professor Christina Bohannan approached the issue from a Supreme Court standpoint.

Here is the original post:
Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion