Category Archives: Free Speech

CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -

Millions of Americans use social media every day, unaware that what they write and even what they "like" could have serious consequences.

John Riccione of Aronberg-Goldgehn joined FOX 32 News at Noon on Monday to talk about what the federal appeals court ruling about Facebook "likes" being protected as free speech means for the average American.

"You still should just use common sense," Riccione said. "The new federal court ruling made clear that clicking the "like" button on Facebook is speech. You are setting out there your position or agreement with someone else's position and that is speech."

He also explained the legal consequences of writing something on Facebook that offends someone and whether or not you can face legal action for posting nasty messages about a company or its products online.

"Know your company's social media policy and follow it," Riccione explained. "Number two, just be reasonable and sensible out there, don't post something that you wouldn't say to someone---who you could be posting too---and third, don't vent on social media. Social media is not your psychologist."

BACKGROUND REPORTING BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Clicking "Like" on Facebook is constitutionally protected free speech and can be considered the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely "liking" a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.

Exactly what a "like" means - if anything - played a part in a Virginia case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment rights were violated.

More:
Clicking 'Like' on Facebook is free speech, best practices change

Its time to make a stand for freedom of expression and the freedom of the press with no ifs or buts

Everybody in public life in the US and UK claims to believe in freedom of expression and a free press. Strange, then, that a growing number of people should now choose to exercise that freedom in order to declare that it should be limitedat least for others.

The mantra of the moment is, Of course I believe in free speechBUT And the buts are getting bigger. It is high time to make a stand for freedom of expression and the freedom of the press with no ifs or buts, as liberties that we must defend for all or none at all.

On both sides of the Atlantic, attention focuses on the overt threats to freedom of expression posed by state interference, as illustrated by the scandals over the NSA spying revelations and the Justice Department secretly seizing AP journalists phone records. In Britain, where I work as a journalist, we still labor under the worst defamation laws in the civilized world. These laws, under which truth is no defense and the defendant is assumed guilty until proven otherwise, attract powerful libel tourists from around the world, seeking to use the London courts to silence their critics; US courts have rightly refused to enforce judgements imposed by UK libel courts.

There are also, however, even more insidious challenges to freedom of expression today that attract less oppositionand can even be supported by the same supposedly liberal voices that will speak out against state censorship.

The problem is clearest in the UK, where the free speech, BUT lobby dominates public debate. Over there, folks like me are labeled First Amendment fundamentalistsand that is meant as a damning criticismfor daring to suggest that British culture might have something to learn from the US safeguards on freedom of expression.

Where the US has the historic 45 words of the First Amendment, we got the one million words of Lord Justice Levesons report earlier this year proposing statutory regulation of the press. This has been the cutting edge of a crusade to purge the UK press of things that are not to the taste of those who deem popular a dirty word. In my book I describe it as ethical cleansing. But because the authorities used the phone-hacking scandal at Rupert Murdochs now-shuttered News of the World as the pretext for the purge, Leveson was supported by many liberal politicians, lobbyists, journalists, and journalism academics who fear and loath the tabloids and their readers. Of course nobody in the UK press will defend the illegal hacking of the voicemail messages of innocent victims of crime, especially those of abducted and murdered teenager Milly Dowler. But individual crimes that should have been a narrow matter for the police have been turned into the excuse for an official assault on, in the words of Leveson, the entire culture, practice and ethics of the British press.

Even in the Land of the Free and the First Amendment, the Free Speech, BUT group has been gaining ground. One big battleground is the college campus, where controversial speech codes and restrictive free speech zones have been backed in the name of countering hate speech and promoting tolerance. A joint letter from the US Education Department and Justice Department, sent to the University of Montana in May in response to the colleges mishandling of serious sexual assault cases, announced that speech could now be considered sexual harassment, and that this would be a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country. This is a striking example of a dangerous modern phenomenon: We might call it intolerant tolerance, or illiberal liberalism.

And in the US, too, despite the constitutional protection of the free press, many would like to exclude unethical tabloid journalism from that hard-won freedom. Hence the new California law against paparazzi photographing celebrities with their children has provoked relatively little controversy, since it should only affect gossip sheets and scandalmongers. Those wishing to limit press freedom on both sides of the Atlantic have had considerable success in using high-profile victims of media intrusion and children as effective human shields for their campaign.

The creeping culture of You-Cant-Say-That needs to be challenged on every front. The biggest danger facing freedom of expression in our societies will not be sweeping state censorship, but the creation of a stultifying atmosphere of conformism and the sanitization of the press and public debate.

Here is the original post:
Free speech threats in the US and UK

Free Speech TV Ring of Fire featuring Howard Nations: The Consequences of Austerity
In this segment on Free Speech TV #39;s "Ring of Fire" program, Howard L. Nations, a nationally renowned trial lawyer, discusses how the sequester has forced man...

By: HowardNations

Here is the original post:
Free Speech TV Ring of Fire featuring Howard Nations: The Consequences of Austerity - Video

Assange #39;s mother calls Ecuador a #39;shining light #39; for free speech (Aug.2012)
Summery:Julian Assange #39;s mother Christine told RT that she was overjoyed by the decision of Ecuador government to grant him political asylum. Language:Englis...

By: Alt-arts

Continue reading here:
Assange's mother calls Ecuador a 'shining light' for free speech (Aug.2012) - Video

Haiti News: Simon Dieuseul Desras on the struggle for Free Speech, Elections and Democracy in Haiti
Concerned with current Haitian president Michel Martelly #39;s delay of elections for almost 3 years, and what he views as a lack of free speech and the freedom ...

By: GenerationNNetwork

View original post here:
Haiti News: Simon Dieuseul Desras on the struggle for Free Speech, Elections and Democracy in Haiti - Video

Segment from Free Speech TV: Who Owns Our Democracy?
In this segment on Free Speech TV #39;s "Ring of Fire" program, Howard L. Nations, a progressive advocate and nationally renowned trial lawyer, discusses how pol...

By: HowardNations

Excerpt from:
Segment from Free Speech TV: Who Owns Our Democracy? - Video

Free speech on Canadian Campuses in 2013-Fred Litwin
Free speech on Canadian Campuses in 2013-Fred Litwin.

By: VideoManOttawa

See the article here:
Free speech on Canadian Campuses in 2013-Fred Litwin - Video

The Russ Belville Show #267 - Free Speech in Action after Boston Freedom Rally
Final HIGHlights from the Boston Freedom Rally, where shutting the power down at 3:00pm on Day Two did nothing to stop our free speech, including Dr. Keith S...

By: Russ Belville

Original post:
The Russ Belville Show #267 - Free Speech in Action after Boston Freedom Rally - Video

Facebook likes Constitute Free Speech Says Courts
Subscribe to GlanzMedia for your daily News,we watch the Media for you. 24/7 News online.

By: GlanzMedia

Follow this link:
Facebook likes Constitute Free Speech Says Courts - Video

LA CROSSE, WI -

There was a shouting match on the UW-La Crosse campus Tuesday as people used their right to free speech.

Dozens of students were not happy to hear the message from a group of people at the clock tower, which is the central point of campus. Members of the group called themselves born again Christians preaching to help people find God.

The students say the group was being intolerant and singling people out for things like religion and sexual orientation.

"God said to go into all the world and preach the Gospel, so we go into all the world, whether it be sporting events, in our little hometown, at campuses, doesn't matter what it is, where there's people, there's people that need Jesus," said born again Christian Ryan Woodhouse.

"The amount of intolerance is just clearly unacceptable to everybody at UW-L, it doesn't represent what we believe in as a campus," said UW-L Junior Cady Madson.

UW-L's Chancellor says he received a number of e-mails from students who were upset at the message being spread. However, since it's a public institution, he says the university needs to respect everyone's first amendment rights. "You know you might not like what's being said out there, but we really do need to be thankful for the fact that those people have the right to say what they want to say, because we can say what we want to say as well," said Chancellor Joe Gow.

Gow also says the only reason the University would've stepped in is if the group would've posed a danger to the students.

Read more from the original source:
Free Speech rights tested on UW-La Crosse campus