Category Archives: Free Speech

By Barry Porter - 2012-07-12T07:51:47Z

Malaysian leader Najib Razak plans to repeal legislation that curbs free speech and has been used against opposition politicians, the latest colonial-era law to be scrapped or replaced before elections due by early next year.

The Sedition Act, enacted under British rule in 1948, will be replaced with legislation aimed at preventing incitement of religious or ethnic hatred, Najib said late yesterday.

Its encouraging, Ong Kian Ming, a political analyst at Kuala Lumpurs UCSI University, said by phone. Primarily, it has been used against opposition politicians. This is part of Najibs larger political transformation agenda. Hes trying to regain momentum.

Lim Guan Eng, leader of the opposition Democratic Action Party, was jailed under the act in the 1990s after criticizing the governments handling of rape allegations against a former chief minister. Karpal Singh, chairman of Lims party, is currently being tried under the law after threatening to sue the sultan of Malaysias Perak state.

The Sedition Act represents a bygone era in our country, Najib said in an e-mailed statement. 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.

This is the latest in a series of decades-old laws Najib has said hell change as he seeks to boost his partys popularity in the face of a resurgent opposition led by Anwar Ibrahim. His National Front coalition is fighting to hold onto power after five decades of unbroken rule, having won re- election in 2008 by its narrowest margin since independence.

The government earlier this year repealed the Internal Security Act, first introduced in the 1960s to combat communist insurgents, with new legislation curbing how long police can hold suspects without trial. Najib has also revamped media laws after promising to boost personal freedoms.

His changes to public assembly rules have proved more controversial with the introduction of a ban on street protests. About 50,000 people challenged this by holding an illegal demonstration in Kuala Lumpur in April to campaign for cleaner and fairer elections. Three opposition leaders, including Anwar, have since been charged under the new law after allegedly participating in the march.

Reform will only be fulfilled if the Malaysian government ensures the proposed National Harmony Act is consistent with international human rights standards, Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said in an e-mailed statement. To date, Najibs law reform efforts have been mixed.

Excerpt from:
Malaysia Plans to Repeal Free-Speech Law Before Next Elections

Under the cloak of free speech, rich Americans especially on the Right are buying whats left of U.S. democracy anddoing much of it in secret, insisting their sponsorship ofTV attack ads be hidden. Some of their handmaidens even boast about their impending victories, note Bill Moyers and Michael Winship.

By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship

In all the hullabaloo over the U.S. Supreme Courts decision on health care, another of its rulings quickly fell off the public radar. Before deciding the fate of the Affordable Care Act, the Court announced it would not reconsider Citizens United, the odious 5-4 decision two years ago that opened our elections to unlimited contributions.

Within minutes of that announcement, right-wing partisans were crowing about the advantage they now own, an advantage not due to ideas or personalities but to the sheer force of money. They were remarkably candid and specific. Heres what Fred Barnes wrote in The Weekly Standard about the Senate race in Missouri:

For three weeks in May, Republican super-PACs took turns attacking Democratic senator Claire McCaskill in TV ads. Republicans hadnt held their primary its not until August 7 but McCaskill wound up trailing all three of the GOP candidates in polls. Now McCaskill, unnerved, is struggling to recover. Thats what super-PACs can do. When they emerged in 2010 and worked in tandem, they were a critical force in the Republican landslide in the congressional elections. This year theyre playing an even bigger role. The size and reach of their efforts dwarf what they did two years ago.

Attaboy, Fred, for telling it like it is, for exposing the hoax that the Courts original decision was about free speech. No, its about carpet bombing elections with all the tonnage your rich paymasters want to buy.

Try not to laugh when you hear one of its decisions perpetrators, the noted lawyer Floyd Abrams, say, as he did not too long ago: I dont think we should want as a matter of policy, to make decisions which are essentially, people cant do all the speaking that they can in a political campaign. I dont think we can ration speech.

Speech already is rationed. On your playing field, Messieurs Barnes and Abrams, those who have no money have no speech. And just who do you think is doing this speaking? Poor people havent lost their voice they cant afford a voice. Everyday working people suffer from universal laryngitis, brought on by the absence of money. As for children children who have a big stake in our elections but no vote, forget it for them to be heard they would need piggy banks the size of Walmart heirs. Or the Koch brothers for uncles.

And if its free speech the Deep Pockets are practicing and touting, why are you ashamed of it? If free speech is a right, why all the secrecy? Why hide from voters where the money is coming from? Why not openly say you are downright proud to be exercising their First Amendment rights and writing checks is your patriotic duty?

Instead, conservatives across the country are fighting legal battles to keep their sugar daddies secret. Why? According to their guardian angel in Congress the highly leveraged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell the right wing opposes disclosure laws because the super-rich just might be bullied and harassed by the rest of us who want to know whos buying our elections.

Read more:
Buying What’s Left of Democracy

The small former-Soviet republic Belarus is considered to be Europe's last surviving dictatorship. Protestors and the political opposition are jailed. Journalists are harassed. But that doesn't mean stories from that small, landlocked nationor the dissidents trying to bring democracy and free speech thereget much airtime in the West. Last week the Swedish advertising agency Studio Total attempted to do something about the relative silence surrounding Belarus by staging a high profile, and highly dangerous stunt designed to draw attention to the issue from the outside.

The group flew a plane into Belarusian airpsace and unloaded more than a thousand parachute-strapped teddy bears over the village of Ivyanets and Minsk, the capitol. The toys glided to the ground with signs that read "We support the Belarusian struggle for free speech." Afterward, the plane crossed the border for safety in Lithuania.

While the Belarusian government writes off the stunt a hoaxas dictatorships are want to doaccomplished with video editing and Photoshop, eyewitnesses on the ground vouch for the authenticity of the event, and the Lithuanian government confirms the presence of an unidentified aircraft in its neighbors airspace.

According to Studio Total's website, the idea came about over drinks, when happy hour chatter turned to the lack of discussion about or public support for Belarus's opposition. The creatives at Studio Total felt compelled to make a statement. As they wrote on their website: "We prosper in [...] a world that, last month only, wrote 109,000 articles about Kim Kardashian and 79 on the [B]elarusian opposition."

Studio Total paid for the project entirely, and claims to have taken on the legal and physical risks of piloting the plane themselves. The work was "pro bono" on behalf of charter 97, a media site for the opposition.

"A dictator can be hated, despised, or feared," Studio Total writes on its website. "The only thing he cannot survive is being laughed at." Check out the video of the airdrop below to laugh along with them.

00:00/00:0000:00

See more here:
Cuddling the Opposition: A Campaign for Free Speech in Belarus Relies on Teddy Bears and Parachutes

Reuters/Boston

Researchers do not have free speech protections that would allow them to keep interviews with fighters from Northern Irelands sectarian Troubles sealed, a US Appeals Court ruled Friday, siding with prosecutors who want access to their papers. The decision could open an unsettling diplomatic process because material already released from the archive kept at Boston College has connected public figures to a notorious killing by the Irish Republican Army during the armed conflict, ended by a 1998 peace treaty. After an account was published in 2010, British authorities enlisted the US Justice Department to subpoena the papers last year from Boston College. The college and the researchers who conducted the interviews filed legal actions to block the release. Efforts by the college to block some disclosures are still underway, leaving the immediate impact of Fridays ruling uncertain. The researchers - Irish-American journalist Ed Moloney and former IRA member-turned-historian Anthony McIntyre - had argued in court against any disclosure of the material. They stressed that fighters they interviewed from both the Catholic and Protestant sides of the conflict were promised confidentiality until their deaths. But the researchers arguments were rejected by lower courts and again on Friday by a three-judge panel. In her ruling, Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote the researchers could not state a claim that they have rights under a legal-assistance treaty between the US and the United Kingdom. She also wrote that while the researchers claim an academic research privilege under their constitutional rights to freedom of speech, the US Supreme Court ruled in its 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes decision that journalists do not have the right to refuse subpoenas based on their own promises of confidentiality. As in Branzburg, there is no reason to create such a privilege here, Lynch wrote. The choice to investigate criminal activity belongs to the government and is not subject to veto by academic researchers. Another judge on the panel, Juan Torruella, wrote in a concurring opinion that he reluctantly agreed with the decision to reject the researchers claims, based on precedents. But he wrote that he did not agree with what he described as the other judges apparent view that the First Amendment of the US Constitution does not provide some protection to the researchers. The case has been closely watched on both sides of the Atlantic, partly because it marked a rare intrusion of prosecutors into academic efforts. US leaders including John Kerry, chairman of the Senates Foreign Relations Committee, had also urged authorities to back off their efforts on fears that they could destabilise still-touchy efforts at reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Court filings have stated the matter began when UK police officials followed up new leads that emerged in 2010 in a notorious killing, the 1972 abduction and killing of Northern Irish woman Jean McConville. A widowed mother of 10, McConville was killed by the IRA on suspicion of being a government informer - something her family has denied. Her body was recovered in 2003. Her case got new attention in 2010 following the death of an IRA figure, Brendan Hughes. His death freed Moloney to publish a book based partly on interviews Hughes had granted for the archive. In the interviews Hughes connected political leader Gerry Adams to McConvilles death. Now president of the Sinn Fein political party, Adams has consistently denied being part of the IRA. Moloney said via email on Friday he would not immediately comment. A spokesman for Boston College did not return a message. In a statement, a US Justice Department spokeswoman said the agency was pleased the court recognised the legal-assistance treaty does not create private rights for individuals. The decision of the Court also recognises the strong public interest in not impeding criminal investigations, and the federal interest in reciprocal cooperation in criminal proceedings between foreign nations, it said. Jim Cotter, one of the researchers attorneys based near Boston in Quincy, Massachusetts, said in a telephone interview he was tremendously disappointed by the ruling. Cotter said he fears ramifications both on the peace process and on the safety and welfare of his clients and the people they interview, if the material becomes public earlier than they were promised. I dont like losing a case based on the law, but in this case Im more concerned about the safety of our clients and the participants in the Belfast Project, Cotter said, using the name of the archive. This is just going to raise old issues that were put to rest with the Good Friday Agreement, the 1998 peace treaty, he said.

Read more:
Court rejects free speech claims in Troubles case

WILLIAMSBURG When City Council considered creating free speech zones in the Historic Area to cope with loud demonstrators and street preachers, the idea raised the threat of a lawsuit from the Rutherford Institute, a conservative civil rights group.

The city is apparently backing down. The new solution isnt to tell speakers where they can speak, but how loud. Staff is recommending tweaking the noise ordinance to 75 decibels during the day and 65 decibels at night on public streets and sidewalks. The current ordinance is 65 and 55, respectively, within 10 feet.

The chiming of church bells would be exempt, along with activities by Colonial Williamsburg such as the Revolutionary City street theater.

City Manager Jack Tuttle said Friday, We hope this will solve the problem without raising the objections we heard to the previous proposal.

The citys initial response was to ponder demonstration areas that were well away from the restaurants. The earlier idea would have moved them and ban amplification without a permit. Tuttle said the new approach doesnt address amplification. Its not amplification, its a decibel level, he said.

City police have portable decibel meters. They can respond to the complaint by measuring the noise level and ticket offenders, Tuttle said, though theyre likely to clam up at the sight of an officer.

Violation would carry a $300 fine for a first offense and $500 for a second offense within 12 months. A subsequent offense carries up to a year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.

Want to go? City Council will review the issues at the regular July meeting at 2 p.m., Thursday, July 12, at the Stryker Building, 412 N. Boundary St.

Posted comments are for meaningful discussion that is germane to the article. No personal attacks or insults. Submit complaints by clicking Report abuse.

More here:
‘Free speech’ zones scratched

VIENNA: The OSCE on Friday encouraged Turkey to promote more free speech rather than cracking down on it, following a rise in the number of reporters in prisons over the past year.

"Freedom of expression cannot stop at speech deemed appropriate by the authorities," Dunja Mijatovic, the media representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, said in a statement.

"Authorities should fight speech they deem offensive by encouraging more speech and greater debate of all issues of public importance," she added.

She also said she hoped charges "will be dropped soon" against Ahmet Sik, a Turkish journalist, who with a dozen other suspects has been charged with allegedly plotting against the Islamist-rooted Turkish government.

Sik and another prominent journalist were freed in March, a year after being arrested, but they still face prison terms of up to 15 years if found guilty.

In April, the OSCE said the number of journalists in jail in Turkey had risen to 95 from 57 a year ago, calling it a "worrisome" trend.

See original here:
Turkey should encourage free speech, not crack down: OSCE

WILLIAMSPORT - U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt has recommended part of Kymberley Best's free speech claim, which alleged retaliation against Northumberland County Commissioner Vinny Clausi and former Commissioner Merle Phillips, remain part of Best's federal lawsuit over her termination as county chief clerk and assistant solicitor.

In dismissing the original complaint filed by Best, a federal judge ruled last year that Best was speaking as a private citizen in supporting a code of civility, but failed to allege enough facts to support her speech was related to a matter of public concern.

But Blewitt issued a recommendation June 29 that found Best had corrected that defect because some of her speech was related to issues beyond her official duties with the county.

The judge also recommended part of the whistleblower claim survive along with a limited right to seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The parties have 10 days to submit objections to the report before U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane can issue her decision in the case.

The county, Clausi and Phillips in January asked Kane to dismiss the amended complaint Best filed in her ongoing legal battle over her termination. Best opposed the motion, but stated she was willing to dismiss the wrongful termination count in the suit.

If Kane adopts the recommendations, part of Best's free speech and whistleblower claims would be dismissed along with the due process, equal pay and conspiracy counts.

Best could seek damages against only Clausi and Phillips in their individual capacities if Kane adopts the report.

The part of the free speech claim Blewitt recommends be dismissed accused Clausi and Phillips of alleging Best was having sexual relations with former county solicitor Timothy Bowers, who also conducted contracted legal work for the county. She unsuccessfully argued that because Clausi told department heads and other commissioners about the allegation, the defamatory information must have reached the public.

The part of the whistleblower claim that would remain deals with Best's reports of deficient air quality in the county register and recorder's office and danger from a glass dome at the courthouse.

Read the original post:
Judge: Part of Best's free speech claim can remain

04-07-2012 04:57 GOODNEWS NO FREE SPEECH ON

The rest is here:
GOODNEWS "NO FREE SPEECH ON OCCUPYWALLST.ORG" - Video

03-07-2012 07:53 25 years after democracy came to South Korea, critics say the president is cutting back on free speech. For more CNN videos, check out our YouTube channel at Or visit our site at

Excerpt from:
South Korea's president accused of limiting free speech - Video

Its been awhile since net neutrality has been in the headlines, but that doesnt mean the war is over--far from it. In its renewed challenge to the net neutrality rules imposed by the FCC, Verizon is citing its First Amendment right to free speech. The argument itself seems dubious, but if Verizon wins it could lead to unintended consequences it might like even less.

First, a little background on net neutrality itself. The framework of rules developed by the FCC is intended to ensure an even playing field for all on the Internet, and prevent Internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon or Comcast from blocking certain content, or giving preferential treatment to other content.

Verizon claims the FCC net neutrality rules violate its right to free speech.Verizon originally filed suit against the FCC in early 2011. However, that case was thrown out of court because the FCC had not yet officially defined the rules and the court ruled that Verizon couldnt sue the FCC over rules that didnt technically exist yet.

In that case, Verizon simply asserted that the FCC was exceeding the bounds of its authority. However, according to the FCC site, "The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions." That sweeping charter appears to grant the FCC the exact authority Verizon claims it doesnt have.

This time around, Verizon is playing the First Amendment card. The challenge, essentially, is that by limiting Verizons ability to choose which content to block or promote, the FCC is infringing on Verizons right to free speech.

There are a couple major flaws in the argument. First, an individuals right to free speech shouldnt apply equally to a corporation. Im not a Constitutional scholar nor a legal expert, but it seems to me that a corporation can say what it chooses as a function of the fact that the people actually saying it have an individual right to free speech. However, the corporation as an entity doesnt necessarily enjoy that same right, andin factthe corporations right to free speech is already limited by rules governing false advertising or mandates to include specific text or warnings on products.

Second, the FCC net neutrality rules dont actually inhibit an ISPs ability to express itself freely. Under the FCC rules, Verizon is free to publish whatever content it chooses--it simply cant block or discriminate against other content as a matter of business practice.

The fact of the matter is the vast majority of the data traversing the ISPs network (like Verizon) doesnt belong to the ISP in the first place. An argument could be made that by throttling or blocking traffic Verizon is actually the party guilty of stepping on the First Amendment rights of others.

Lets assume for a minute, though, that Verizon has a First Amendment right to free speech, and that the court agrees this right is somehow violated by the FCC net neutrality rules. There is another approach to the problem that might make net neutrality the lesser of two evils by comparison.

Perhaps the real problem is that the pipe owners shouldn't also deliver content.Part of the underlying problem is the fact that the major ISPs are also content providers. Verizon has a vested interest in preventing Netflix traffic because it has its own streaming entertainment services. Comcast is owned by NBC, so it could gain a strategic advantage for its own content by throttling the bandwidth for rival networks. The simple solution is for Congress to impose regulations banning ISPs from delivering their own content, or being owned by companies that publish or deliver content.

Continue reading here:
Verizon Playing Dangerous Game in Net Neutrality Battle