Category Archives: Free Speech

28-08-2012 16:48 Talk Radio News Services teams up with Free Speech TV to cover the first few days of the RNC in Tampa.

More here:
Republican National Convention Day One and Two - Video

28-08-2012 11:00 So, next time you're in a job interview - and you get to the end of it, and the interviewer asks if you have any questions for him or her about the company - here's what you should probably think about asking: "What are your company's politics?" That might sound like an odd question - and maybe not the sort of impression you want to make in a job interview - but it could save you a lot of problems farther down the road. That's because - according to a group of commissioners on the Federal Election Commission - corporations - your employers - can force you to campaign for certain politicians - whether you like it or not. They can even fire you if you choose not to. In other words - a corporation can force you to spend your day phone-banking for - say, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin. Or canvassing around the neighborhood for...I don't know...Michele Bachmann. Or standing on the side of the street with a sign telling people to vote for David Duke! Now I know this sounds crazy. Don't we as employees have a right to be free from coercion in the workplace - especially when that coercion pertains to our personally held political beliefs? You would think so - but not anymore in this post-Citizens United world. Now - the rights of corporations - like the right to use their employees as cogs in their corporate political speech machine - trump your rights as an individual in the workplace - a corporations right to free speech has become more important than your right to free ...

Excerpt from:
Your Boss Can Tell You To Campaign for Todd Akin - or You're Fired! - Video

28-08-2012 11:33 Free Speech TV interviews Richard Wolff, Economics Professor at New School University and author of 'Capitalism Hits the Fan' and 'Occupy the Economy during the RNC.

Read more:
FSTV Skype w/ Richard Wolff - Video

COMMENTARY | Paul Ryan kept up the false narrative built up around the Chick-fil-A controversy in a word association game with CBS affiliate WDBJ in Roanoke, Va., on Wednesday, telling a reporter that the first thing that came to mind when someone said "Chick-fil-A" was "good chicken," quickly followed by "free speech."

"Good chicken," Ryan said, laughing. "Good chicken. Free people exercising their free speech rights."

The second part -- that of "free speech rights" -- of the Republican vice presidential nominee's answer is as misleading as the entire narrative has been since former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee began crusading for a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and insisting Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy had every right to say what he said, even in the implication that same-sex unions were against biblical doctrine and legalizing them would be courting divine disfavor.

Huckabee and others began repositioning Cathy's words as a "freedom of expression" issue, that gay rights advocates, liberals, and same-sex marriage proponents were attempting to take away or abridge Cathy's right to speak freely. Although factually untrue, the result was a national crusade to support Chick-fil-A and free speech. Conservatives like Mitt Romney and his wife to Sarah Palin and her husband got in on being photographed with bags of Chick-fil-A product in their hands on "Appreciation Day."

But the disconnect between reality and political spin has been rarely touched upon. The reality has always been that Cathy was -- and continues -- advocating against same-sex marriage, a policy that is discriminatory no matter how you look at it. Supporting one's argument with religion does not make it less discriminatory; it makes it religion-based discrimination.

In short, nobody attempted to divest Dan Cathy of his constitutional right to free speech. Various individuals, groups, and factions condemned his words and the way he couched his comments, but there was no mention of abridging his right to voice his opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage.

In short, "Appreciation Day" was built on a false narrative, just as the move to support Cathy's right to speak freely has been.

The one thing the Chick-fil-A controversy is not about is freedom of speech. It never was, no matter what Mike Huckabee and Paul Ryan and other politicians (and/or former politicians) say. It is about discrimination and whether or not it will be allowed. It is about thinly masked homophobic antagonisms and the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry same-sex partners.

The Chick-fil-A president implied that same-sex marriages should not be legally permitted because his interpretation of biblical scripture says so. And he has a right to his opinion, not to mention the right to voice it publicly. His right to do so is in no way infringed by others voicing a countervailing opinion.

His opinion, regardless of its base, is discriminatory in and of itself.

Excerpt from:
Paul Ryan Continues False Chick-fil-A Narrative

A reader says, "Bring back Free Speech." I'll meet you halfway: Online, and y'all run it.

Here's the deal: Print version of "Free Speech" is gone, too expensive, never enough space.

But online is another ballgame. Forget that every comment, every forum posted on this site is an example of "Free Speech."

I get it: You want a section called "Free Speech."

So here's what we'll do Every Monday, we'll create a story with the title of "Free Speech Week of ####."

We'll kick it off with a paragraph or three about local events/issues, and then you take it from there. Consider the page a jumping off point.

Using the "comment" function, registered users can post to their hearts' content under a weekly section known as "Free Speech."

A new "page" will be up every Monday, but you can continue to access the old ones by searching for "Free Speech."

To get to the page easily, we'll post the title "Free Speech Week of ###" in the upper right-hand box on the front page online. That's the box marked "Your Say."

Terms of Use rules still apply, but you can get on topic or post off-topic. It's your page.

See the original post:
FREE SPEECH — Week of Aug. 27

April Flowers for redOrbit.com Your Universe Online

A divided U.S. Federal Court of Appeals invalidated a government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking. The majority opinion stated that the requirements were a violation of free speech.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, would have required nine written warnings such as Cigarettes are addictive and Tobacco smoke causes harm to children on the packages, along with alternating images of a corpse and smoke-infected lungs. Other images required would have been a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole, a diseased mouth, and smoke coming from a child being kissed by her mother.

These written and graphic warning labels were scheduled to begin appearing next month. They would have covered half the cigarette packaging sold at retail outlets and 20% of all cigarette advertizing.

Tobacco giant, R.J. Reynolds, along with others such as Lorillard, brought the suit, saying that the warning would be cost-prohibitive. They also asserted the graphic images would dominate the packaging and damage the promotion of their brands. The relevant legal question was whether the new labeling was purely factual and accurate in nature or was designed to discourage use of the product.

The tobacco companies won in federal court in March, but the government appealed. The 2-1 split U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has now upheld that ruling and the Food and Drug Administration was ordered to immediately revise its rules.

The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal, wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown. FDA failed to present any data much less the substantial evidence required under the federal law showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agencys stated objective of reducing smoking rates. The rule thus cannot pass muster under past court precedent.

Judge Brown and Judge A. Raymond Randolph rejected the FDAs claim that it had a governmental interest in effectively communicating health information regarding the negative effects of cigarettes.

The governments attempt to reformulate its interest as purely informational is unconvincing, as an interest in effective communication is too vague to stand on its own, said Brown. Indeed, the governments chosen buzzwords, which it reiterates through the rulemaking, prompt an obvious question: effective in what sense?

The majority opinion said the case raised novel questions about the scope of the governments authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest [...] by making every single pack of cigarettes in the country a mini billboard for the governments anti-smoking message.

Read the rest here:
Appeals Court: FDA Tobacco Warning Label Law Violates Free Speech

DENVER, Aug. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Free Speech TV is kicking off its 2012 election coverage, nicknamed "Crashing The Party," with extensive coverage of the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. FSTV will be partnering with a number of independent journalists to provide around-the-clock reporting and analysis during the two convention weeks.

Democracy Now! will be on the ground offering special live coverage on each of the days from 8-10am ET. The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann will also be in attendance, doing critical issue-based interviews and commentary with figures from both parties.

"I'm delighted that our network will serve as a clearinghouse for diverse, fresh and progressive coverage of the conventions," noted FSTV Executive Director Ron Williams. "We're starting with the conventions and building right up to election night."

Free Speech TV will be complimenting Democracy Now! and The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann with interviews from around the country with YES! Magazine founder Sarah Van Gelder, the Coffee Party's Annabel Park, Colorlines Rinku Sen, and Truthout's Maya Schenwar throughout the conventions.

Viewers can catch Free Speech TV, "Crashing The Party" and its exclusive coverage of the national conventions from August 27th - September 6th. It can be seen on DISH channel 9415, DIRECTV channel 348 or freespeech.org. Viewers can also keep up with all of the conversations by following #CrashingTheParty on Facebook and Twitter.

CONTACT: Joseph Matoske, 914-318-2862, joe@freespeech.org

Original post:
FSTV Announces "Crashing the Party," 2012 Election Coverage Clearinghouse

24-08-2012 10:47 US court to decide

View original post here:
Are Facebook 'likes' protected free speech? - Video

24-08-2012 12:07 No part of American society is supposed to value free speech more than our colleges and universities, but the University of California is now rethinking that idea. University of California President Mark Yudof assembled a team earlier this summer to assess "campus climate" in response to a series of Anti-Zionist protests and demonstrations. Yudof's fact-finding team made a series of recommendations after visiting campuses, including banning hate speech. "When you ban speech, it has a funny habit of boomeranging back at you," says Will Creeley, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Instead of pulling these often noxious or repellant ideas out from behind closed doors and debating them in open sunlight, you see these kind of fears silenced. And that kind of silencing builds a kind of repression, hate, fear, paranoia." The prospect of a ban on free speech has students up in arms, including members of the Jewish community. "Jewish students, Muslim students, students of all creeds, faiths, colors, national origins, religions, sexualities can be trusted to defend their own point of view, to speak and enunciate their ideas clearly enough, to have good ideas triumph over ill-founded ones," Creeley says. President Yudof has said that he is currently reviewing the recommendations, but understands the first amendment concerns. However, he is still considering the report. About 3 minutes. Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Shot by ...

Excerpt from:
Free Speech Fight: Campus Anti-Zionism May Result in Hate Speech Ban - Video

24-08-2012 04:21 Has the Government crossed the line by ordering the blocking of several Twitter accounts, many belonging to prominent journalists? We debate. Watch full show:

Here is the original post:
Govt vs Tweeple: Has clampdown hit free speech? - Video