Category Archives: Free Speech

NEWTON, NC Catawba County commissioners will decide on Monday whether to approve an ordinance that makes clear free speech uses of county property.

The use of county government property for protests became an issue after a group, Catawba Valley Citizens Against Hate, wanted to use the Catawba County Justice Center grounds to protest an anti-gay rights sermon that Providence Road Baptist Church Pastor Charles L. Worley gave on Mothers Day.

At the time, the countys ordinance for using the Justice Center for an event required an application at least 14 days in advance. But the ordinance didnt take into consideration expressions of free speech, officials said after the protests, Debra Bechtel, county attorney, said at the time.

The group was given the go-ahead to use the Justice Center at the end of May for a protest but the request highlighted a problem in the countys ordinance.

Thats when county staff got to work to amend the ordinance that addresses free speech.

The proposed ordinance revision to Chapter 34, Article II of the Catawba County Code of Ordinances says certain county government-owned property can be used if certain conditions are met.

One condition is that if a protest, or gathering, is 25 people or more, an application has to be submitted and include the group name, contact person and information, date of the gathering, the site location and how many are anticipated to attend.

Other conditions include:

The proposed amended ordinance doesnt allow camping on county property, campfires unless given the OK or someone to tie or chain themselves to each other or an object to prevent free movement of people.

Bechtel said she and other county staff looked at changes other municipal and county governments have made to their ordinances to address free speech expression and read cases that address the issue. Some of the cases included US Supreme Court cases on constitutional and First Amendment law.

Read the original here:
Revised free-speech Catawba County ordinance up for vote

mike koozman/sf newspaper co.

How far can you push free speech? Is it okay for Muni to run ads that are utterly, inexcusably offensive to Arabs and Muslims in the name of political expression?

I'm pretty much always on the side of the First Amendment. And we were furious when a Bay Guardian ad campaign accusing then-mayor WIllie Brown of political corruption suddenly vanished from the sides of the local buses. It's hard to seek government limitations on any political statement. But if the ads that appeared Aug. 7 on Muni aren't over the line, they're pretty close to it.

Here you have an organization described not only by the Southern Poverty Law Center but by the Anti-Defamation League as a hate group buying space on San Francisco buses for ads that effectively disparage a vast religious, ethnic and cultural community as "savages." The campaign is obviously designed to get publicity; not that many San Franciscans are going to be convinced to join the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Nobody's opinion on the Middle East will be swayed by this shit.

But this tiny cadre of loonies, led by Pamela Geller, who is really fucking scary, wants attention. In New York, the anti-Muslim group sued when the city tried to take down the same bus ads, and you know they'd love it if that happened here. Muni says it can't legally pull the ads, which is probably true -- although BART has a more restrictive policy.

It's not just idle rhetoric -- this stuff frightens people. "We're hearing from people that they're uncomfortable riding Muni," Zahra Biloo, executive director of the Bay Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told me.

Obviously, you can't run ads that enourage someone to engage in violence. Is dehumanizing people and calling them "savages" the same thing? Biloo thinks it's pretty close: "It's important for progressive cities to say, 'not in our city,'" she said.

A change.org petition condemning the ads has more than 2,000 signatures.

On the other hand, I don't want to give Geller the pleasure of suing San Francisco and making this into a Free Speech cause. Because that's exactly what she wants, and probably the reason she bought the ads in the first place. So how about this: The supervisors pass a resolution denouncing the ad and the message, and Muni agrees to give CAIR the same number of ads, free, in the same locations (gee, maybe even on the other side of the same buses) to present an alternative message.

At least it's a start.

The rest is here:
Hate (and free) speech

14-08-2012 06:50 The latest version of Scout includes: - Always There offline navigation - download regional maps and never get lost again, even when you lose cell phone coverage. - Free Speech Recognition - using one-tap voice commands, easily search for and drive to places just by speaking what you're looking for. Available now in the iPhone Appstore; look for Scout by Telenav. Check it out and let us know what you think. iTunes link:

The rest is here:
Scout for iPhone with Always There Navigation

Listen Now [23 min 40 sec] Adriel Hampton/Flickr

UC Berkeley Campanile

In the 1960s, UC Berkeley became well known as the birthplace of the campus free speech movement. Now, some University of California students see a threat to free speech brewing.

It started two years ago, when a number of disturbing incidents on UC campuses made big news. A group of Muslim students loudly interrupted the Israeli ambassadors talk at the Irvine campus, prompting an outcry by Jewish and Muslim students. During Black History Month, a UC San Diego frat house sent out Facebook invitations to a Compton Cookout; after black students complained, a noose was found hanging in the library.

These and other incidents of perceived racism or anti-Semitism prompted UC president Mark Yudof to form a task force to assess the racial, cultural and religious climate on campuses. The 17-member Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion visited UCs throughout the state to meet with students and talk about their concerns.

The councils report, delivered to Yudof last month, suggests a campus-wide need to foster a more inclusive climate. Among their recommendations: diversity training for faculty and students, attention to the dietary and worship needs of Muslim and Jewish students, a review of student organization activities and the adoption of a hate speech-free campus policy. But the report has raised questions by students, faculty and civil rights groups. The National Lawyers Guild, the Council on American-Islamic Relationas and an ad hoc student-faculty group have all sent letters to Yudof questioning the study and its recommendations.

What was the councils fact-finding process, and how did they reach the conclusions they did? What constitutes hate speech, and who decides the parameters? How is it distinguished from other forms of civil protest? What would a UC-wide hate speech-free policy look like and how will it be implemented? Even if such a policy is workable is it constitutional?

Sarah Anne Minkin, PhD. candidate in sociology at University of California, Berkeley and a member of the UC Ad Hoc Committee on Jewish Campus Climate

Richard Barton, member of the UC Advisory Committee on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion, national chair of education for the Anti-Defamation League, Adjunct Professor of Law at University of San Diego School of Law

Visit link:
UC report on campus climate stirs free speech backlash

MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) -

A lot of people are talking about the crowd of protestors who drowned out Paul Ryan during his speech at the Iowa State Fair, but heckling is a time-honored political tradition and free speech is the law. So, where is the line?

Heckling at a campaign rally is really nothing new. In fact, it's something every politician has had to learn to deal with -- but there were times when Mitt Romney's new running mate was smothered by the shouts coming from the audience.

From the vantage point of one camera, a protestor was jumping up and down as others shouted. Eventually, they were escorted out and Ryan responded saying, "You know what? It's funny because Iowans and Wisconsinites, we like to be respectful of one another and peaceful with one another and listen to one another. These ladies must not be from Wisconsin or Iowa."

The climate in downtown Minneapolis was much different on Tuesday, where protestors gathered at a $15,000-a-head fundraiser for Romney. The demonstrators strongly believe that Romney's vision for America will hurt working families, but several of them said their goal is only to be heard, not to disrupt.

"I don't think there needs to be personal confrontation," said protestor Kim Matt.

Brian McClung, the former communications director for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, said he agrees. After working on his fair share of campaigns, McClung told FOX 9 News there is very much a right and a wrong way to heckle a politician.

"If you want to go to a rally and go and hear somebody's speech and go and pop up with a sign and shout something out, OK. Fine, but then stop," he explained. "Let the person have their say. You'll get your opportunity too. You'll get noticed. The media will come over and talk to you about why you did that -- but it's when they try and drown somebody out that I think it's gone too far."

McClung also warned that there are risks to doing things the wrong way.

"It causes more Americans to tune out when they see that's the way the discourse in politics is going," he said.

More:
Free speech vs. hecklers: Where is the line?

A Virginia sheriff's deputy who was fired for "liking" his boss' opponent on Facebook likes his chances in a federal lawsuit claiming his click was constitutionally protected.

The deputy, Daniel Ray Carter Jr., and five other employees were fired after clicking the like button on Facebook in support of Jim Adams, their boss opponent in the race for Hampton sheriff in 2009. Carter and the other five terminated employees have been fighting in the courts ever since, saying their firings violated their right to free speech. But a May decision from U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson did not go in their favor.

It is the Courts conclusion that merely liking a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection, Jackson wrote in his opinion.

- Richard Roth, First Amendment lawyer

Carter's legal team filed an appeal last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals and is hoping a panel of judges will overturn the previous ruling.

I think the Virginia court blew it, attorney Richard Roth of the Roth Law Firm told FoxNews.com. Youre pressing a like button. Youre pressing a button that says I like the ad or the candidate. I dont know how the court can say its not protected speech.

Facebook and the ACLU have recently gotten involved in this suit, both filing an amicus brief, which states their support for First Amendment protection in this particular case.

It is essential that the courts understand that these new ways of speaking be protected by the First Amendment just as much as our old ways, ACLU attorney Aden Fine told FoxNews.com

In the filed brief, Facebook said the like was the 21st-century equivalent of a front-yard campaign sign. They continued to say, liking a Facebook Page is entitled to full First Amendment protection. The district court reached a contrary conclusion based on an apparent misunderstanding of the way Facebook works.

Those in defense of Sheriff B.J. Robert, who won his re-election and then fired the six employees, claim that because no actual speech was involved, it does not warrant protection.

View original post here:
Judge Doesn't 'Like' Facebook as Free Speech?

09-08-2012 01:16 There was once a group of men who established a fundamental law of the land that allowed the people of their new found country to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances. These founding fathers of that Great nation even went so far as to declare that the government itself could never make a law that would threaten to supplant these protections, which were reserved exclusively for the people. This concept of freedom of assembly and protest was so critical to protecting and preserving the liberty of the people that it was the very first law -- the very first Amendment -- proposed by the newly elected representatives of These United States of America and came into effect on December 15, 1791. It's frightening what just a couple of hundred years of politicking, self serving greed and expediency can do to a nation. Apparently, somewhere along the way, politicians and judges who hold their personal views in higher regard than those laws upon which this nation was founded, have taken it upon themselves to decide what's best for the American people and that, perhaps, we have a little too much liberty: A federal appeals court has upheld the creation of no demonstration zones, which prohibit free speech in certain public areas. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals released a ruling yesterday upholding a lower court's decision that also declared such zones as being permissible. The opinion was penned by Judge Dennis Jacobs on behalf of a three ...

Original post:
Federal Court Upholds Free Speech Zone Roundup: David Knight Reports - Video

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) University of California students and faculty are criticizing a report to fight anti-Semitism that recommends the schools consider bans on hate speech and campus sponsorship of protests against Israel.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/MC0frW0 ) more than 2,200 students, faculty and alumni signed a petition asking UC President Mark Yudof to disregard the report, commissioned in response to turmoil over campus discrimination.

"We believe in the principles of free speech and that these principles stand on their own and do not require any additional regulation," the petition says.

In a letter to students on Wednesday, Yudof said restricting speech is not the solution to anti-Semitism.

The contentious recommendations came from a UC fact-finding team tasked with understanding Jewish student experiences following accusations of anti-Semitism on UC campuses, including the appearance of swastikas and harassment of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The report is part of a wider effort to confront discrimination on UC campuses, such as the hanging of a noose in a library and defacement of a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender resource office.

"What we have witnessed in recent weeks are quite simply the worst acts of racism and intolerance I've seen on college campuses in 20 years," Yudof said in 2010, before starting a council to address the problem.

Richard Barton, an official from the Anti-Defamation League and a report author, told the San Francisco Chronicle that hostility toward Jewish students created by anti-Israel movements amounted to "allowing the Klan to walk around campuses and say things about black people."

The report also recommended schools define anti-Semitism and develop ways to sanction it, while offering cultural competency training. The authors encouraged the schools to implement a ban on hate speech, despite potential legal challenges.

The critics, many of whom are Jewish, said it wrongly equates criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism and its recommendations would have a chilling effect on free speech.

___

Excerpt from:
UC anti-Semitism report sparks free speech fight

08-08-2012 17:03 Facebook, ACLU behind Hampton free speech post |

Read the original:
Facebook, ACLU behind Hampton free speech post - Video

Lynchburg, VA - Facebook lets us post pictures, talk to friends and even make political statements. But are your social media actions protected free speech? Virginia courts are trying to figure that out.

The plaintiffs say what they did on Facebook is free speech, but it cost them their jobs.

Plaintiffsused the "like" button on Facebook to endorse a candidate for Sheriff in Hampton, Virginia. Here's the issue: The employees worked in the sheriff's office, and they "liked" their boss's challenger.

Do you think their "likes" are protected speech? We asked two Lynchburg lawyers.

Social media changed the way we communicate. Attorney John Falcone says the courts are entering new territory here.

"This is an evolving area of the law. Judges, lawyers and really everybody are really struggling with how it's going to develop," said Falcone.

For the first time, one person can type their thoughts to hundreds or thousands at one time. But are those thoughts protected by freedom of speech? It's not black and white. Your tweet or Facebook protection depends on who you are, what you post, and where you work - among other things.

"The 1st Amendment limits the action of government, of a public employer. The 1st Amendment doesn't limit the action of private employers," saidFred Watson, a civil attorney.

With that freedom comes pain. Some have gotten hurt on Facebook.

"There's so much drama on Facebook and everything. There's a lot of slander going on on Facebook," said Anthony May.

See the original post here:
Free Speech and Facebook