Category Archives: Free Speech

WASHINGTON, D.C. (WUSA)- Is it free speech, hate speech or both?

There are some controversial ads that you may see in the future on your commute. They may be coming soon to a Metro stop near you. The provocative ads that equate Muslim radicals with savages will roll out in New York's subway system starting on Monday. But their controversial content has prompted Metro to put them on hold.

"Throughout our history, there have been people who have engaged in hate speech. This is just the next generation," said Corey Saylor, a CAIR Spokesman.

In New York, it took a federal court order to allow the ads to run. A judge determined the language was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Said the advertiser, Pamela Geller of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, "Honestly anyone that disagrees with me, I would take a bullet for their right to disagree with me. This is the beauty of America, the free exchange of ideas."

In recent weeks, the ads have been plastered on San Francisco city buses, prompting some to deface them and remove words like jihad, or holy war.

"I think in the end what hate speech really does is bring out the better people," said Saylor. "Strong communities are much better than those people who want to tear them down and rip us all apart."

Metro has not rejected the ad, but has notified the advertiser that it's been put on hold. A spokesman told us that move was out of concern for public safety, considering the current protests around the world. The advertiser responded by filing a lawsuit yesterday in D.C.

Written by Andrea McCarren

9NEWS NOW & WUSA9.COM

Read this article:
Ads Coming To Metro: Free Speech, Hate Speech, Or Both?

20-09-2012 17:06 CNU students say free speech was violated at campaign event

Here is the original post:
CNU students say free speech was violated at campaign event - Video

By STEVEN KURLANDER | Florida Voices Published: September 19, 2012 Updated: September 19, 2012 - 12:00 AM

Consider the famous axiom about free speech handed down by the renowned American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."

So what about a trailer for a movie that depicts the Prophet Muhammad as a philandering fraud who sanctioned rape and child sexual abuse?

Muslims consider any representation of the Prophet Mohammed insulting and blasphemous. And for disrespecting the Prophet over the years, Americans and other westerners have suffered violence, even death.

Given the known consequences, it's time to ban garbage that mocks the God of a billion people and purposefully incites the worst religious passions. It's time the Supreme Court reconsidered whether such fiery speech should indeed be protected.

Because of the blasphemous film, enraged Muslims have rioted in several Arab countries and last week killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three staffers at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Violence against Americans and other westerners triggered by anti-Islamic rhetoric, books, cartoons and now movies is nothing new in this post-9/11 world. In March, a number of Allied troops in Afghanistan were killed after our troops mistakenly burned several copies of the Quran.

This time it's the trailer for a movie called "Innocence of Muslims," a film produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Coptic Christian immigrant from Egypt.

The video, which depicts a mock trial of the Prophet Mohammed, has been widely circulated on YouTube and promoted by Gainesville pastor Terry Jones, who has gained notoriety for planning Quran-burning events.

The most recent judicial standard on free speech was set by the Supreme Court in 1969. Called the "imminent lawless action" test, it balances First Amendment rights with the intent of a speaker to incite an imminent and likely violation of the law.

Read the rest here:
Time to reset boundaries of free speech

Students flocked around a man standing alone on a tiny plastic stepladder in the Free Speech area Monday.

Unamplified, he quoted scripture with heightening fervor and called for students to repent. At the same time, students passed around a megaphone, most sharing a variation of the opinion that preaching on campus isnt converting anyone.

I believe in Jesus. I believe in everything He says. But, what I do think is that youre doing it wrong, said Molly Calhoun, a student leader in Montana Campus Crusade for Christ (CRU).

Scott Smith is a member of a four-man group that plans to visit campuses across the country for the next two weeks to spread the true word. While Smiths group doesnt belong to any specific denomination or church, they have taken it upon themselves to reach college students.

A lot of Christian groups on campus dont present Christianity in the biblical way, Smith said.

Smith said college groups often try to be more loving than truly represent the word of God.

Jessica Smith, 25, a member of the gay community as well as CRU, tried to tell members of the four-man group that in her religion, she is loved and accepted.

I said I was a gay Christian and he said no such thing exists, Jessica Smith said.

The message they were preaching wasnt succeeding with the crowd, she said.

I actually asked that guy if he had saved anyone today, and he said no, Jessica Smith said.

Continue reading here:
In the zone, free to speak

A District Judge dismissed the case against Andrew Stephenson, 37, and Kathryn Sloane, 21, who were arrested after unfurling 7ft banners showing aborted foetuses outside the Wistons clinic in Brighton last year.

The Christian Legal Centre, which supported the defendants, said it would be seeking an urgent meeting with police chiefs about the interpretation of the Public Order Act relating to issues of religious belief.

Claims emerged during the trial that police had been actively "fishing for complaints" in an effort to get rid of the campaigners.

Mr Stephenson said: "What the police have been doing in shutting us down has had a chilling effect on free speech.

Hopefully, this will have a chilling effect on the police to hold back on the over-reaching application of the law."

Andrea Minichiello Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Cantre, said: The dismissal of these charges will be welcomed by all who value freedom of speech and expression.

Given our experience in this and other similar cases, we will be seeking a meeting with the Association of Chief Police Officers to explore whether better guidance can be drawn up over the policing of such activities, especially those motivated by religious convictions.

Read more:
Anti-abortion campaigners hail 'free speech victory' as trial collapses

UNCs free speech policy ratings have gone from bad to worse, marking the University as among the most suppressive studied.

Robert Shibley, senior vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, delivered a lecture on free speech rights to commemorate Constitution Day. The speech was hosted by UNC Young Americans for Liberty.

Shibley said UNC is labeled a red light university by FIRE, which rates universities levels of free speech protection.

In 2010, UNC received a yellow light rating from FIRE.

FIRE defines a red light school as one that has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.

Administrators want free speech advocates to feel alone on campus, Shibley said.

You are not. America is with you.

FIRE reports that of the 400 major universities it reviews, 65 percent are red light schools and 29 percent are yellow light schools.

Shibley said that UNCs Community Living Standards policy has broad definitions that may extensively limit students speech.

The policy states that it is a students responsibility to avoid using the written or spoken word in a way that demeans, defames, offends, slanders or discriminates.

Read more from the original source:
UNC recieves low rating for levels of free speech protection

The Brigham City Utah Temple, Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2012. City officials said they will not enforce their "Free speech" ordinance while a lawsuit is pending in federal court.

Ravell Call, Deseret News

BRIGHAM CITY The question of free speech had been at the heart of a federal lawsuit that was initiated by an emergency motion, but visitors to the new Brigham City Utah Temple on Friday may not have known it.

As they took tours and pictures and were unloaded and reloaded from buses throughout the day, there was no one trying to proffer any pamphlets or newspapers. But when demonstrators started arriving in the early afternoon, they had more access to temple patrons than they'd had before.

Thursday evening, an agreement was reached between the Main Street Church of Brigham City, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, and Brigham City officials after the city said it would not enforce the free speech ordinance that had limited demonstrators' access to certain areas around the temple.

"We're excited," Rick Sweet of Mormonism Research Ministry said. "Unfortunately, it's done about two days before the temple open house has concluded, but we're glad they backed down."

The Main Street Church and the ACLU filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court after protestors said they was prohibited from passing out fliers on public sidewalks that border The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' new temple in Brigham City.

The night before a hearing in which the ACLU planned to ask for a temporary restraining order against the city, the two parties reached an agreement.

Brigham City officials agreed to temporarily not enforce the free speech ordinance, as long as the Main Street Church limited its participation on each side of the temple to four protestors, addressing the city's public safety concerns.

ACLU attorney John Mejia said his organization was "thrilled" with the decision. But the Main Street Church did not take advantage of the space Friday morning and afternoon. Calls to Main Street Church officials for comment Friday were not returned.

View post:
Free speech zones suspended in Brigham City as agreement reached

Esam Al-Fetori / Reuters

The deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans amid protests against a film that denigrates Islam has sparked global discussion and debate about whether there is a line between free speech and hate speech and, if so, where it lies.

"They don't regard perceived insults to the Prophet Mohammed or the Quran as being protected by free speech, they regard it as a capital offense," says Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, referring to protesters in Libya and Egypt, where the U.S. Embassy was attacked, who were angered by the film.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the movie was made by a real estate developer who wanted to portray Islam as a hateful religion. The attack on the U.S. personnel in Benghazi, Libya, was orchestrated by extremists who used the protests as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday.

"In some of these cases, the people releasing these films or cartoons are trying to make a statement about free speech, which is fair enough," says Bergen, referring to the film and other provocative recent depictions of Mohammed, Islam's founding prophet.

"But in some cases they are deliberately trying to provoke," Bergen says. "The film that is at issue is certainly very provocative, the way it treats the Prophet Mohammed, and people who release these things are being very irresponsible."

Newt Gingrich told CNN Wednesday that the United States should seize on the violence spurred by the film "to teach the Muslim world about freedom," specifically about freedom of speech.

His remarks, echoed by other conservatives on Wednesday, signaled something of a divide in reaction to developments in Libya and Egypt between the political right, which stressed freedom of speech, and the left, which added condemnation of those behind the anti-Muslim film.

"The horrific attacks in Libya & Egypt are a stark contrast to our American ideals of free speech, civil disagreement," wrote Todd Rokita, a Republican U.S. congressman who is from Indiana, on Twitter.

Gingrich, the former presidential candidate and speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, said that after the attacks, "We had an opportunity to stand up and say, 'You know, it is true -- some people in the United States might make a film that is totally whacked out.'"

Go here to see the original:
Film sparks debate on free speech

Posted on: 7:32 am, September 14, 2012, by Meredith Forrest Kulwicki, updated on: 08:20am, September 14, 2012

A federal court will hear arguments regarding a case addressing free speech on public sidewalks on Friday.

The ACLU of Utah is challenging Brigham Citys free speech ordinance on behalf of the Main Street Church of Brigham City.

The Main Street Church of Brigham City intended to distribute flyers on the sidewalk near Brigham Citys LDS temple during its open house. They say when they obtained a permit under the citys free speech zone ordinance on Aug. 20, they found out they could not be on the sidewalk areas where most people walk to and from the temple.

On Thursday, Brigham City agreed to not enforce its Free Speech Zone Ordinance, however, the agreement did not suspend the lawsuit filed against the city, according to a press release from the ACLU.

The statement said: Main Street Church and the ACLU of Utah have not conceded that any past enforcement of the ordinance was constitutional. They also continue to contend that the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and that it should be completely struck down by the court.

Brigham City had previously released the following statement:

The City`s free speech zone ordinance was developed by city officials and city attorneys based on Utah laws and other municipalities` ordinances throughout Utah. To Brigham City`s knowledge, this ordinance has been upheld as constitutional by the courts.

A spokesman for the LDS Church declined a request for comment.

Read this article:
City’s free speech ordinance challenged in federal court

Courts Main Street Church characterizes Brigham City as Orwellian in restricting free speech.

A federal judge will decide Friday whether to grant a Christian churchs request for a temporary restraining order so it can pass out fliers on sidewalks in front of a new Mormon temple in Brigham City.

The Main Street Church of Brigham City and ACLU of Utah filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday seeking the order on a city ordinance they characterized as "Orwellian" in restricting free speech and other constitutional rights. The hearing is set for 10 a.m. before U.S. District Court Judge Dale Kimball.

In its lawsuit, the church said the ordinance turns the "entire city into a place where free speech, free assembly and free exercise of religion are prohibited until people are granted a special permit designating free speech zones." The church received a permit from the city on Aug. 21 that limits its activity to two lightly trafficked sidewalks and allows only four people to participate in handing out literature at a time.

The church, which believes Mormonism is based on erroneous teachings, requested the permit to hand out "Biblically-based information about temples and related Christian temples" during an open house for the new temple, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The open house ends Saturday, but Main Street Church wants to hand out its leaflets through Oct. 1.

City Administrator Bruce Leonard told The Salt Lake Tribune on Wednesday that the city adopted the ordinance to deal with pedestrian and vehicle safety at any event in the city.

"We felt wed done a good job in allowing any protest," Leonard said. "They had good access to the temple. We felt they had ample area and ample time to talk to people."

Leonard said the city has had a good relationship with Main Street Church, which is located next door to city hall, in the past. But safety was a concern during the temple open house, he said, which also led the city to reroute traffic on its main street to divert large trucks.

brooke@sltrib.com

Copyright 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Originally posted here:
Hearing set for Friday in free speech case involving Mormon temple