Category Archives: Free Speech

The battle over free speech -- hatched in the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago -- continues to play out around the world in political conventions, courtrooms and the streets of the Middle East, where Libyan demonstrators protesting a U.S.-made anti-Muslim video killed the U.S. ambassador in Beghazi yesterday.

The incident puts into focus the ways different people view speech that can range from merely annoying to blasphemous.

In fact, the meaning of free speech has been evolving over time as the nation's court system has balanced individuals' First Amendment free speech rights with the rights of authorities to maintain order. This battle is most evident during this political season, as protestors complain they're being harassed while candidates say they want to the right to speak without being drowned out.

PHOTOS: Children of the Arab Spring

"The big dividing line is whether the government is trying to control content or just the time, place and manner (of protests)," said Susan Low Bloch, a First Amendment expert and professor at Georgetown University School of Law. "The government has more leeway and latitude when it's regulating time place and manner. It should have no control over content. Certainly political speech is the most protected. That's what the law says."

Still critics are watching new battlegrounds between the rights of the individual versus the government. Here are five ways where free speech is bumping up against authority:

Anti-Muslim images: While cartoons and videos depicting the prophet Mohammed may be protected free speech in the United States, as well as the right to burn the Koran, such activities have provoked Muslims who say it violates, and in fact, blasphemes their religion. Perceived attacks against Islam have led to riots, assassinations and attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. U.S. leaders have walked a tightrope, condemning the violent attacks as well as the anti-Muslim images that spawned them. The controversy over the anti-Muslim film produced by an Israeli living in California will likely grow in the coming days as Washington tries to figure out an appropriate response that doesn't make the situation even worse.

Political conventions: Over the past few political conventions, local city and county governments have written more stringent rules that keep protesters far from the sight of convention delegates, rules that are often announced too late for a court challenge before the event. ACLU attorney Ben Wizner says city officials have decided that removing protesters ahead of time is less expensive than the litigation that often follows over First Amendment rights. "Instead of having protests in the same TV shot of the event, they are pushed further and further out for protest zones," Wizner said.

Litigation is still ongoing from the 2004 Republican convention in New York, when hundreds of people were arrested by police. During the 2012 conventions, only 25 were arrested in Charlotte and only two in Tampa, according to the Huffington Post. Foul weather dampened turnout at both locations this year. But think back to past years, where there were bloody riots at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, and mass protests at the 1972 Republican convention in Miami.

Occupy Wall Street: Occupy protesters in New York, Washington and dozens of other cities faced legal fights with police and municipal authorities over what kind of "occupation" was legal. In Washington, DC, a judge set ground rules for the protesters and the encampment lasted from October

See the original post here:
Five Ways Free Speech Isn't Free

11-09-2012 01:06 A few days ago not many Indians knew who Aseem Trivedi was or had even seen his cartoons. Now he's a hero of free speech after a completely ham handed arrest and charges against him of sedition. Today Aseem Trivedi refused to apply for bail as a court sent him to jail for 14 days. This as the police did a flip flop and said they don't want his custody.

Originally posted here:
Cartoon row: 'National pride' vs freedom of speech? - Video

NRB Drafts Free Speech Charter for New Media Giants

Contact: Kenneth Chan, National Religious Broadcasters, 703-331-4520, press@nrb.org

MANASSAS, Va., Sept. 11, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ --The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB), America's preeminent association of Christian broadcasters and communicators, will be unveiling a solution to the current and potential clash between free speech on the Internet and the free market power of new media giants like Apple, Google and Facebook to block viewpoints with which they don't agree.

At 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 12, NRB will present its first-of-its-kind Free Speech Charter for the Internet, detailing what new media companies can do to respect free speech and how and why they should do it in accord with historic free speech principles.

The charter is a follow-up to last year's release of True Liberty in a New Media Age, a groundbreaking report that documented examples of some censorious policies and practices of new media giants, including Apple's infamous removal of the Manhattan Declaration and Exodus International apps from its iTunes App Store. Both faith-based apps were labeled by protesters as "anti-gay" and potentially "harmful" or "hateful," though their creators and supporters have insisted otherwise.

"The free speech liberty of citizens who use the Internet is nearing a crisis point," says Craig Parshall, Senior Vice President & General Counsel at NRB and Director of the John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech.

"If the standards we propose here are voluntarily adopted at this critical time, we believe that a truly free marketplace of ideas will flourish on the Internet, and in turn, generations to come will be the beneficiaries of expressive liberty in our digital age. If not, however, then we foresee a tyranny over ideas developing over web-based platforms, and a whole class of citizens of faith and others being shut out of this new electronic town square," he adds.

Following the unveiling of the Free Speech Charter for the Internet, a panel of experts will examine the document and further discuss the issue. Mr. Parshall will be moderating the panel discussion, which will feature the following participants:

Also offering remarks will be Dr. Frank Wright, NRB's President & CEO, who describes the conflict between the free speech rights of citizen Internet users and the free market rights of new media companies as "one of the most important communications issues of our time."

"This Free Speech Charter is a first-of-its kind manifesto, proposing a unique solution to the current clash,' he adds.

See original here:
NRB Drafts Free Speech Charter for New Media Giants

A string of recent court rulings in the Omani capital Muscat are crushing free speech in the Gulf state, Amnesty International said today after another six men were convicted on defamation charges.

On 9 August, the six received prison sentences of between one year and 18 months and were fined 1,000 Omani rials each (around US$2,600) for offences including insulting the Sultan, undermining the status of the state, and using the internet to publish defamatory materials.

If these prison sentences are carried out, Amnesty International will consider these six men to be prisoners of conscience and call for their immediate and unconditional release, said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International.

The Omani authorities must drop all charges and quash all convictions made against individuals solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression.

The six men sentenced over the weekend Ishaq al-Aghbari, Ismail al-Muqbali, Ali al-Hajji, Mahmoud al-Jamoudi, Hassan al-Ruqaishi and Nabhan al-Hanashi are all in their thirties and currently released on bail, pending appeals.

They had posted material on the internet commenting on recent developments in Oman, including criticism of actions taken by the authorities resulting in the repression of freedom of expression.

At least another three men Khaled al-Noufali, Sultan al-Saadi, and Hatim al-Maliki are expected to be sentenced on 16 September.

These are just the latest in a series of court cases going back several months in which the Omani authorities have ratcheted up their intolerance of freedom of expression.

On 8 August, a Muscat court convicted a dozen activists on charges related to their participation in a peaceful protest and for insulting the Sultan.

Trials began after a string of arrests of writers, activists and bloggers in late May and early June 2012. Those sentenced are among around 35 Omani activists sentenced or standing trial in relation to the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

More:
Oman: Convictions continue to crush free speech

10-09-2012 12:45 NewsX@9 is NewsX special show which debates the main news event of the day. Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi who was arrested for mocking Parliament and the national emblem was sent to two week's judicial custody after he remained defiant and refused to apply for bail. Aseem declared that he will not seek bail on moral grounds till the charge of sedition against him not dropped. But there is no stopping the sedition debate that his arrest has sparked off. We debate today-rather than the cartoonist, is it India's political class that is threatening our democracy? We debate the question on the show and try to evolve consensus among our panelists over the issue. Watch this NewsX debate specials how NewsX@9. For more log onto -

See the original post here:
NewsX@9: Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi's arrest sparks free speech debate - NewsX - Video

The Universitys speech policies deserve praise and continued attention from students to ensure they are fairly applied By Managing Board | Sep 06

Free speech means being able to speak out for yourself, although some organizations go further by speaking for others. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) focuses directly on colleges. Working in a more narrow framework, the foundation targets university policies to ensure they protect free speech.

The foundation attorneys examine college speech codes before giving a school a red, yellow or green light rating depending on each schools policies. This intuitive triad makes free-speech issues more accessible to the non-lawyers among us. The foundations website has a database of the ratings and speech codes for more than 400 colleges. This accessible bank known as the Spotlight serves alongside a case submission form and guide to student rights that make issues of free speech amenable to student involvement.

We often think free speech means having the freedom to misquote Jefferson. But the story of the foundation at the University actually embodied his pillars of expression and student self-governance. Cavalier Daily alumna Ginny Robinson worked with the foundation and Dean of Students Allen Groves to alter University codes. We went from a red light in 2010 to two consecutive years of green light, meaning we lack any censorial policies. There are only 16 green light colleges, and our trip from red to green wasnt too difficult.

In an email, Groves explained the changing of signals. A foundation representative, invited by students, had traveled to Grounds to speak. Groves listened, and then asked the foundation why we had a red light. The foundation responded in turn. So, Groves worked to correct the policies, and the University got the green light, making us something of a darling for the foundation and a template for other colleges. The foundation proclaimed us one of the seven best colleges for free speech Thursday, for the second consecutive year since the list of top colleges started.

But this does not mean student speech rights are absolute; there are still speech limits on Grounds. Groves said decisions about protests are made based on reasonable time, place and manner considerations, criteria the Supreme Court has upheld as checks on the First Amendment. Thus regardless of any green light, the freedom of speech on Grounds is to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally, the administration has done a fair job. Groves noted in particular the absence of excessive police force during the summer rallies for University President Teresa Sullivan. Yet the Living Wage Campaign was barred from protesting in Madison Hall last spring because work would be disrupted, Groves said. And President Barack Obama was prevented from talking on central Grounds last week for fear of interrupting classes.

Until speech-friendly policies are put to the test they are not enough to ensure the protection of the First Amendment. It will take continual cooperation between students and deans to ensure that considerations of reasonable time, place and manner are fairly applied. Although we should celebrate another award from the foundation and the work done in 2010, a green light is just a signal unless we have the drive.

Read the original:
Green light go

Penn is among the top seven colleges for free speech in the nation, according to a report released Wednesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

The annual ranking of speech-friendly campuses recognizes the policies different schools have on the books to protect student expression, as well of those schools enforcement of their policies.

Penn was the only Ivy League institution to make the top seven list, which was presented in no particular order. Other schools included the University of Virginia, the College of William and Mary and James Madison University.

Penn and Dartmouth College are also the only two Ivy League schools currently ranked as green light institutions by FIRE. Green light distinctions are awarded by FIRE to schools that do not maintain any policies that seriously imperil speech on campus.

First and foremost, Penn has maintained policies that maintain freedom of expression on its campus, FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley said. Penns a private university and it doesnt have to protect student speech, but it makes a point to do so.

Shibley attributed some of this to the presence of history professor Alan Kors at Penn. Kors is a co-founder of FIRE, and chaired the free speech organizations board of directors for a number of years.

I think a lot of credit has to go to him, Shibley said. Its a tribute to his influence that Penns been a great place for student speech.

Despite FIREs ranking, Penn does not have a tension-free history when it comes to free speech issues on campus.

The University gained significant attention in 1993 during the water buffalo controversy, in which a student was charged with violating the Universitys racial harassment policy for shouting, Shut up, you water buffalo! at a group of black sorority sisters.

The charges were later dropped, but Penns handling of the free speech issues involved in the case came under criticism.

Read more:
Penn ranked a top college for free speech

News Limited chief Kim Williams has hit out at proposed media reforms, claiming they threaten free speech and devalue media companies.

Mr Williams says he fears that media reforms proposed by the federal government's Finkelstein and Convergence reviews threaten press freedom and the economic value of media companies.

The Convergence Review has called for a new communications regulator as well as a controversial public interest test for prospective media company owners to help protect diversity.

But, Mr Williams argues, Australia's media diversity in the past decade has increased because free-to-air networks and the ABC had launched digital channels, Foxtel had 13 independent news channels and there was a large array of internet news sites.

He said delays, while the government considered the public interest of any new acquisition, devalued media assets and the test could be abused by politicians seeking to control the media.

"Such tests are subject to political control and the very real possibility of politicians stopping people acquiring media assets just because they don't agree with them or even just don't like them," he told the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers' Association (PANPA) forum in Sydney on Thursday.

Mr Williams also accused the federal government of setting up the Finkelstein Review into media practices because it did not like reporting from his company's newspapers.

"I find it, as I hope all of you do, deeply concerning we have reached a place where words like government, journalist and jailing can all appear in the same sentence when describing a report by a retired judge," he said.

He added that he was concerned political motivations were behind the review headed by Ray Finkelstein, QC, which was established in the wake of the News International phone hacking scandal in the UK.

"For our overseas visitors, it may strike you as odd that there are two reports into the media at the same time," he said.

Here is the original post:
News boss says reforms limit free speech

As Barack Obama gets ready to rally his troops at the Democratic National Convention, Mark Rumold says his administration has cast free speech aside in its pursuit of file sharers and whistleblowers

Four years ago, President Obamas campaign platform didnt include sweeping promises about promoting free speech. He wasnt elected because he swore to vigorously defend the First Amendment, and to protect speakers no matter the content of their speech.

In contrast, the President did campaign on a platform of government transparency. As a transparency advocate, I can confidently say that, by almost any measure, the President failed to live up to those lofty guarantees.

But what about free expressiona value so roundly cherished in the United States that a promise to support it would almost seem unnecessary? Without a clear benchmark or unambiguous campaign commitment on the issue, its not so simple to assess his record. But sadly, like his commitment to transparency, the Presidents commitment to free speech was often collateral damage in his pursuit of other policy objectives.

This was most evident in the administrations actions in two areas: intellectual property and national security.

The administrations often misguided attempts at combating online copyright infringement frequently resulted in harm to protected expression. For example, in 2010, working in close cooperation with industry trade groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, the administration began seizing the domains of websites that government officials deemed to contain infringing material. Except that wasnt always the case: in at least two instances, the government seized and refused to return domain names without any apparent connection to copyright-infringing material. The seizures resulted in complete censorship of the sites for over a year.

The same is true of the administrations heavy-handed treatment of Megaupload, an online file-hosting service. In January 2012, the Department of Justice seized Megauploads domains and servers, froze its assets, and attempted to have the sites founder, Kim Dotcom, extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. While the site undoubtedly hosted some infringing content, there was also a vast amount of non-infringing content stored on the sites servers family photos and videos, personal documents, and other protected expression. All this unquestionably protected speech was swept up in the name of combating online copyright infringement.

While the administrations pursuit of intellectual property enforcement caused collateral damage to protected expression, the administrations biggest tests and, subsequently, biggest failures in its commitment to free speech occurred in the national security arena.

National security concerns caused the Administration to investigate and charge government whistleblowers under the Espionage Act and led to the questionable prosecution of alleged terrorists for crimes as innocuous as translating YouTube videos and writing vulgar and hateful poetry.

Yet nowhere were the administrations First Amendment failings more evident than in its handling of Wikileaks. After Wikileaks published thousands of confidential (and, in some cases, classified) State Department diplomatic cables, the administrationembarked on an unprecedentedintimidation campaign. In particular, the Department of Justices long-running grand jury investigation of Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, stands as a press-chilling stain on the administrations First Amendment record. The message the administration sent through its investigation is clear: if you publish classified information and, in particular, classified information that portrays the government in an unflattering light we may prosecute you. Classified information is published almost daily in the countrys most reputable newspapers and magazines. Punishing the publication of truthful information about the government, absent a clear and present danger posed by the informations disclosure, is intolerable under the First Amendment. Yet this was precisely the administrations extraordinary approach. Indeed, the most enduring legacy of the Obama administrations commitment to free speech may be the long shadow in cast upon national security reporting.

Read more here:
Obama’s free speech record

News Limited chief Kim Williams has hit out at proposed media reforms, claiming they threaten free speech and devalue media companies.

Mr Williams says he fears that media reforms proposed by the federal government's Finkelstein and Convergence reviews threaten press freedom and the economic value of media companies.

The Convergence Review has called for a new communications regulator as well as a controversial public interest test for prospective media company owners to help protect diversity.

But, Mr Williams argues, Australia's media diversity in the past decade has increased because free-to-air networks and the ABC had launched digital channels, Foxtel had 13 independent news channels and there was a large array of internet news sites.

He said delays, while the government considered the public interest of any new acquisition, devalued media assets and the test could be abused by politicians seeking to control the media.

"Such tests are subject to political control and the very real possibility of politicians stopping people acquiring media assets just because they don't agree with them or even just don't like them," he told the Pacific Area Newspaper Publishers' Association (PANPA) forum in Sydney on Thursday.

Mr Williams also accused the federal government of setting up the Finkelstein Review into media practices because it did not like reporting from his company's newspapers.

"I find it, as I hope all of you do, deeply concerning we have reached a place where words like government, journalist and jailing can all appear in the same sentence when describing a report by a retired judge," he said.

He added that he was concerned political motivations were behind the review headed by Ray Finkelstein, QC, which was established in the wake of the News International phone hacking scandal in the UK.

"For our overseas visitors, it may strike you as odd that there are two reports into the media at the same time," he said.

See the original post:
Reforms limit free speech: News Ltd boss