Category Archives: Free Speech

David Nogueras | July 18, 2012 1:03 p.m. | Updated: July 19, 2012 1:16 p.m. | Portland, OR

A Multnomah County judge has ruled yesterday that a Portland man was engaged in protected free speech when he took off all his clothes at a Portland International Airport security checkpoint this spring. John Brennan stripped after reportedly getting fed up with what he saw as overly invasive screening procedures.

The judge acquitted Brennan on a single charge of indecent exposure.

A Portland city ordinance prohibits the exposure of one's private parts in public places.

But Brennan's attorney, Michael E. Rose, argued that doesn't trump the freedoms afforded Oregonians by Article 1, section 8 of the state Constitution.

""No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion or restricting the right to speak write or print freely on any subject whatever" And what the judge found was that to the extent that ordinance would infringe on those expressive freedoms, the ordinance simply is not permitted to go there," said Rose.

Rose called the ruling a victory for free speech. But he also added that in terms of precedent, it won't be binding. That's because in Oregon, Circuit Courts are at the bottom of the court hierarchy.

2012 OPB

Excerpt from:
Judge Rules Naked Airport Display Falls Under Free Speech

English scholar John Milton famously espoused the freedom to speak as the right that stands above all others, but with meetings stretching into the wee hours, Richmond's City Council is on the hunt for a little less speech and a little more policymaking.

With an engaged citizenry that regularly packs council chambers and a garrulous, combative group on the council dais, Richmond's marathon council meetings have reached new levels of lengthiness in recent months, with most running past midnight despite a 6:30 p.m. start time.

The July 17 meeting adjourned at 1:05 a.m., leaving a stack of agenda items for that evening unheard.

"We are not taking care of the city's business," said Councilman Nat Bates.

Councilman Corky Booze proposed a motion Tuesday to investigate free speech rights in public meetings. He said he is concerned by recent incidents, including times when Mayor Gayle McLaughlin has ordered police to remove disruptive residents from council chambers.

"My motion is we ask the city attorney to research this issue on freedom of speech and how far we can go without getting in trouble," Booze said.

But the debate quickly shifted to the interminable, argumentative and inefficient talkfests the council meetings have become.

"The content of speech cannot be regulated," said Mike Parker, a resident and activist who speaks at most meetings. "The problem comes when we talk about what a City Council meeting is

The council approved Booze's measure, with McLaughlin and Councilman Tom Butt dissenting, to direct City Attorney Bruce Goodmiller to draft a report that outlines how conduct, including speech, can be regulated within council chambers.

Booze has loudly complained when McLaughlin has ordered residents, often Booze supporters, removed for yelling out of turn or making what the mayor considered threatening remarks.

Link:
In Richmond, free speech takes a lengthy toll

In some of the public debate there has been an overemphasis on coverage that some people believe is egregious with little comment (other than from some media commentators) on the important principle which is at stake here. This principle is: press freedom and the need for an independent press to hold all Governments, institutions, business, regulators and others in power to account.

There are certain principles that unite our media companies. The CEOs of Nine, Seven, Foxtel, Sky, News Ltd, AAP and APN wrote of them in their letter to the Prime Minister early this month rejecting a media-specific public interest test and further regulation in the name of free speech. Since the time of Magna Carta, the CEOs majestically declared, there has been a progressive empowerment of the citizenry in making those in power accountable, accessible and addressable. Central to that process over the last three centuries has been the operation of the media.

The CEOs were content to put their faith in the citizenry, in the abundant good sense of Australians to make up their own minds.

But all that talk of empowerment of the citizenry and holding all to account vanishes when free speech clashes with commercial self-interest. GetUp!s ad campaign against Coles and Woolies is the most recent case in point. Im a serial critic of GetUp! and disagree with its stance on gambling, but the rejection of both of its ads by all the commercial television networks and SBS is another demonstration of the networks bare-faced free speech hypocrisy.

According to a Fairfax article today, the Nine Network is concerned about the tone of GetUp!s latest ad, including a reference to suicide. But according to GetUp!s communications director Rohan Wenn both ads (the first one, in which a checkout somewhat unsubtly turns into poker machine; the second, a straightforward but moving interview of the wife of a gambling addict who took his own life) were cleared by FreeTVs Commercial Advice process, which vets ads for suitability.

The CAD process was used to block an ad by Philip Nitschkes Exit International in 2010 on the basis that it discussed suicide (the ad was approved but then, mysteriously, approval was withdrawn at the last minute), but in this case, the second GetUp! ad had been fully cleared; Nines concern about the tone is disproven by the very process the commercial networks have set up to vet ads.

In May, Nine was more forthcoming about refusing to air the first ad, withPeter Wiltshire of Nine telling Fairfaxs Richard Willinghamsomeone new coming along who chooses to use their own gritty tactics to foster their own business at the expense of ours, and our relationships with our existing client base does not make any sense to me.

Nick Xenophonfor whom Wenn used to work as media adviserhas now proposed an amendment to the Broadcasting Services Actreducing broadcasterss discretion to reject ads.

What about SBS refusal? SBS loves to portray itself as a key addition to Australias media diversity. Among SBScharter responsibilitiesis the the requirement to present many points of view and using innovative forms of expression. In a submission to the Convergence Review, SBS called for greater emphasis to the objective of supporting successful civil and democratic institutions. The public interest, SBS insisted, is served by inclusive, participatory media which facilitate democratic culture.

Well, not so much. In its refusal to screen the GetUp! ad, SBS seems to have confirmed every paranoid fear ever expressed by public broadcasting advocates who claimed a public broadcaster showing ads would lose its independence.

Original post:
Keane: TV networks’ peculiar definition of free speech

The Omani authorities must drop the charges against a number of activists facing prison sentences merely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, Amnesty International said today.

In the latest case on Monday, a court in the capital Muscat sentenced five activists to jail terms of between one year and 18 months on charges including publicly insulting the Sultan as well as using the internet to publish defamatory and insulting materials, and publishing materials harming public order. They have been released on bail pending appeals.

Around 20 other Omani activists face similar prison terms after being charged with a number of offences connected to the exercise of their freedom of expression and assembly including protesting, inciting protests, insulting the Sultan, and obstructing the traffic.

Most are currently out on bail while their trials are ongoing.

These sentences are the latest phase in the Omani governments orchestrated crackdown on freedom of expression and assembly, which has been under way since last year, said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Programme Director at Amnesty International.

All charges levelled against activists merely for engaging in peaceful activism must be dropped. If anyone is imprisoned on the basis of such charges, we would regard them as prisoners of conscience and call for their unconditional and immediate release.

The five sentenced on Monday were university students Mohamed al-Badi and Mona Hardan, who writes on Facebook under the name Wardat Dhuffar (Dhuffar Rose), poet Abdullah al-Arimi, Taleb al-Ebri, and photographer Mohamed al-Habsi.

All five were also handed fines of 1,000 Omani riyals (around US$2,600). They have been reportedly released on bail pending appeals.

On 9 July another poet, Hamad al-Kharousi, was sentenced to one years imprisonment and a fine of 200 Omani riyals (US$520) after being convicted of insulting the Sultan and using the internet to publish defamatory and insulting materials.

Hamoud al-Rashidi, a writer, was given a six-month sentence and a fine of 200 Omani riyals. They were both also released on bail pending appeals.

Excerpt from:
Omani activists sentenced as crackdown on free speech continues

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla.

Chief Judge Belvin Perry is facing a lawsuit over his free-speech order for protestors outside the Orange County courthouse.

Mark Schmidter filed the suit against Orange and Osceola counties' top judge on Tuesday. The federal suit accuses Perry of restricting free speech.

The goal of the suit, according to Schmidter, is to throw out two administrative orders by Perry. One of the orders restricts free speech to small painted boxes on courthouse property, the other prevents the targeting of jurors as they walk into court.

"Because everyone has the right to petition the government on the courthouse steps, as long as you don't infringe on other people's rights and you don't impede traffic," said Schmidter.

Schmidter was arrested for violating both orders at the beginning of the Casey Anthony trial in June of 2011.

He was outside the boxes handing out fliers that suggest that jurors can and should vote not-guilty if they disagree with a law or find there's no victim.

"The judge does not tell the jury that they have the right to vote their conscious, and he doesn't tell them if there's no victim, there is no crime," said Schmidter.

"What we've got here is the most restrictive order I've ever seen dealing with free speech," said Schmidter's attorney, Adam Sudbury.

Before the administrative orders, Schmidter handed out fliers and talked to people as they walked from the courthouse parking garage to the front doors of the courthouse. Now he is restricted to a smaller area, well away from the entrance to the courthouse.

Excerpt from:
Judge Perry, state sued over free speech zone arrest

When Mark Wassberg walks to the public speaker's podium at Richmond City Council meetings, most of the board and the audience seem to flinch as though they are about to receive sharp blows to the head.

A whack on the temple with a baseball bat may be preferable.

Wassberg's loathsome, nauseating, ignorant, homophobic rants at council meetings in the past few months are despicable.

As gay and lesbian teens from the RYSE Youth Center sat in the chairs behind him, Wassberg spewed bile about what he called their "filthy, disgusting and immoral" lives.

Gay youth "jump off bridges because they know what they are doing is wrong," said Wassberg, with a laugh that can only be described as demonic.

He crowed about the troubles of a young transgender woman who fought to participate in a beauty contest. And if a gay child is bullied and hangs himself, "that's how it goes. If you live like that, what do you expect?" he said.

He even point-blank asked each of the seven members of the council, "Are you gay?"

It's no wonder Mayor Gayle McLaughlin wants to shut him down. No decent human being wants to wash in a bath of verbal sewage week after week.

But the mayor may be walking a razor-thin line between her job to enforce reasonable rules of decorum and a duty to protect her constituents' right to free speech.

McLaughlin opens public comment periods with a warning: If you spout hate and refuse to stop, she will declare

Read the original here:
Vorderbrueggen: Speech may be despicable, but is it hate?

News Ltd will take proposed changes to media regulation to the High Court, says Chief executive Kim Williams

News Limited chief executive Kim Williams at the SA Press Club in Adelaide. Picture: Matt Turner Source: AdelaideNow

NEWS Limited chief executive Kim Williams has upped the stakes in the media regulation debate, declaring he is willing to go to the High Court to protect free speech.

Speaking at an SA Press Club lunch in Adelaide yesterday, Mr Williams outlined a case against both "Finkelstein" and "Convergence" reviews now before Federal Government.

He said the "preposterous and foolish" Finkelstein recommendations should be treated with caution.

The Finkelstein recommendation for press standards to be overseen by a super regulator was "prima facie bad" because journalists could be fined or jailed with no right of appeal.

When asked how far he was willing to take the company in the fight against the proposed regulations should they be implemented, Mr Williams was unwavering in his response.

"We'll take the matter as far we can - I'll take it to the High Court. If people intend to have this stoush ... let's have it."

Promoting a "consumer first" model of reporting, Mr Williams said it should be the public, not the government, who set the news agenda.

"Consumers anoint the winners, not governments or regulators," Mr Williams said.

More here:
We will battle for free speech: News Ltd chief

News Ltd will take proposed changes to media regulation to the High Court, says Chief executive Kim Williams

News Limited chief executive Kim Williams at the SA Press Club in Adelaide. Picture: Matt Turner Source: AdelaideNow

NEWS Limited chief executive Kim Williams has upped the stakes in the media regulation debate, declaring he is willing to go to the High Court to protect free speech.

Speaking at an SA Press Club lunch in Adelaide yesterday, Mr Williams outlined a case against both "Finkelstein" and "Convergence" reviews now before Federal Government.

He said the "preposterous and foolish" Finkelstein recommendations should be treated with caution.

The Finkelstein recommendation for press standards to be overseen by a super regulator was "prima facie bad" because journalists could be fined or jailed with no right of appeal.

When asked how far he was willing to take the company in the fight against the proposed regulations should they be implemented, Mr Williams was unwavering in his response.

"We'll take the matter as far we can - I'll take it to the High Court. If people intend to have this stoush ... let's have it."

Promoting a "consumer first" model of reporting, Mr Williams said it should be the public, not the government, who set the news agenda.

"Consumers anoint the winners, not governments or regulators," Mr Williams said.

See the original post:
We'll fight for free speech: News chief

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia Malaysia's leader has announced plans to repeal a colonial-era law curbing free speech in the latest political reform ahead of general elections, but critics warned Thursday that his reform efforts so far have not improved the country's human rights record.

Prime Minister Najib Razak said late Wednesday that the Sedition Act represented a "bygone era" and will be replaced with a new law to prevent incitement of religious or racial hatred. It will be the latest repressive law to be annulled as part of his pledge to protect civil liberties. Opposition leaders claim the reforms are a ploy to gain public support ahead of polls that must be called next year at the latest.

"We mark another step forward in Malaysia's development. The new National Harmony Act will balance the right of freedom of expression as enshrined in the constitution, while at the same time ensuring that all races and religions are protected," Najib said.

The government earlier this year revoked a draconian security law allowing detention without trial and eased public assembly rules in a massive overhaul of strict security laws. Critics said the reforms were a sham as the laws were replaced with legislation that is just as repressive.

"The replacement legislation has been as bad or worse from a rights perspective," said Phil Robertson, Asia deputy director for Human Rights Watch. "The government should realize that change for change's sake is not enough."

Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of opposition-ruled Penang state, said the sedition law has long been used as a convenient political tool to silence opposition voices. Lim himself was jailed for 18 months under the law in 1998 for allegedly making seditious remarks in his defense of a rape victim.

Lim urged Najib to withdraw current sedition charges against opposition leaders to prove his move is genuine.

Najib's coalition has led Malaysia since independence in 1957 but suffered its worst electoral performance ever in 2008. It now has slightly less than a two-thirds majority in Parliament and is working hard to claw back support.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim has said he is confident his three-party alliance can win a comfortable majority in upcoming polls amid widespread public unhappiness over the government's handling of corruption and racial discrimination.

Read more:
Malaysia to repeal sedition law curbing free speech in latest reform ahead of general election

The acting chairman of the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights said his agency is committed to protecting the rights of all Kenyans.

But, Samuel Tororei said, while every Kenyan has the right to free speech, the exercise of such a right cannot be at the expense of other Kenyans.

His comments came as three Kenyan musicians await trial after being charged with hate speech under new laws adopted following the countrys post-election violence in 2008.

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission said the musicians songs were intended to cause hatred and hostility between the countrys Kikuyu and Luo ethnic groups.

Acting chairman Tororei said his commission awaits the courts ruling on the issue.

For the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights, our brief is to ensure that whatever actions we take are within the purview that allows the maximum enjoyment of human rights. But remember, that enjoying human rights entails on a citizen, whether private or corporate, the duty, the responsibility to respect other peoples rights, too. So, provided that that generally agrees we will just keep watch and see how the court handles the issue, he said.

Kenyas National Cohesion and Integration Commission said songs by musician Kamande wa Kioi, Muigai Wa Njoroge and John DeMathew promoted hate speech by belittling rivals of deputy prime minister Uhuru Kenyatta, whose ethnicity is Luo.

Tororei said the music would qualify as political expression protected by free speech only if the court determines it to be.

In the meantime, what the National Cohesion and Integration Commission is doing is to test that paradigm. Does it meet the threshold of hate speech or can it be construed to be just a political expression paid for and supported for a favorite candidate? Where is the boundary? Tororei said.

Widespread violence after the 2008 disputed presidential election killed an estimated 1,300 Kenyans and displaced about 300,000.

Read more:
Hate Speech Case Stirs Free Speech Debate in Kenya