Category Archives: Free Speech

Ecuador is an unlikely place for WikiLeaks mastermind and self-styled free speech activist Julian Assange to seek asylum, given its long history of repression, corruption and human rights violations.

The South American nation is set to decide whether to grant the request to Assange, who has been holed up in its embassy in London since Tuesday. Assange faces extradition back to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sexual assaults on two women. But turning to Ecuador for help is a curious choice, according to experts familiar with the nation's history and current regime of Rafael Correa.

"For someone like Julian Assange, it is a remarkably cynical and hypocritical move to make," said Arch Puddington, vice president of research at Freedom House, a New York-based human rights advocacy group. "I don't think he would find life in Ecuador very comfortable. It's a country that does not value freedom of the press or freedom of expression.

"He certainly would be unable to continue his work on WikiLeaks," Puddington added.

Human Rights Watch says Correa has continued a longstanding policy of not allowing dissent.

"Ecuadors laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics," the world watchdog says. "Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges.

The Ecuadorean government has an insult law in place known as Descato, which historically has criminalized free speech and expression. Under Descato, which is part of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code, any person who offends the president could be sentenced up to two years in prison and up to three months for offending any government official.

Police corruption and abuses are widespread across the country and murder cases involving criminal gangs never go to trial as they are often attributed to a settling of accounts, according to critics.

Assange told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio via phone that he decided to turn to Ecuador after his native Australia refused to intervene in his planned extradition from Britain to Sweden.

He said Wikileaks had "heard that the Ecuadorians were sympathetic in relation to my struggles and the struggles of the organization with the United States."

See the article here:
Repressive Ecuador odd pick for WikiLeaks' Assange- OPINION: Hypocrisy of Assange, free speech crusader

By an 8-0 vote, the Supreme Court today threw out fines the Federal Communications Commission filed against Fox and ABC.

The court did not address whether the FCC rules violated anyone's First Amendment right to free speech. Instead, the justices ruled that the FCC "failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent."

The justices added that their ruling "leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest."

The Associated Press sums up the news this way:

"The justices declined on Thursday to issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC indecency policy. Instead, the court concluded only that broadcasters could not have known in advance that obscenities uttered during awards show programs and a brief display of nudity on an episode of ABC television's NYPD Blue could give rise to sanctions."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the ruling.

Correction at 5:18 p.m. ET. An earlier version of this post incorrectly said the Supreme Court had struck down FCC rules that govern indecency. The Supreme Court did not go that far in its ruling. Instead it decided only to throw out the fines assessed against Fox and ABC.

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court Strikes Indecency Rules, Doesn't Address Free Speech Issue

A day after Google announced a 49 percent increase in censorship requests from India, an Indian member of parliament spoke out against the country's moves to police the web in an interview with the Wall Street Journal's "India Real Time" blog.

As mentioned in GlobalPost's report on the so-called "Internet Hindus" earlier this week, in April last year India framednew rules for implementing the 2000 Information Technology Act, which required companies like Google and Facebook toremove any content which could be deemed offensive or objectionable within 36 hours of receiving a complaint.

Dangerous?

"The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) rules that are being proposed, represent a serious risk to our democracy and they could be seen as legal intimidation of citizens and entrepreneurs by the government, established political and business interests and religious and cultural bigots," Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an independent member of parliament, told the Journal. "They also violate the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression of the Internet users in the country, by providing for a system of censorship or self-censorship by private parties."

According to Chandrasekhar, the risk is that either the government or internet companies will be too zealous in censoring political speech, just because a particular group doesn't like it, rather than because it meets any legal definition of defamation or hate speech. When, for instance, should the government step in to censor so-called "blasphem?"

"India has a due process of law," Chandrasekhar says. "With a legislation like the Information Technology Act that explicitly provides for actions for defamation and obscenity, the courts or tribunals should decide who is right or wrong and not a bureaucrat or politician. Most of the categories specified under the rules are ambiguous and undefined. For example, grossly harmful is not defined."

Unfortunately, despite a robust legal system, India's political structure has never really separated church and state. Instead, the idea of secularism developed by Jawarlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, endeavors to protect and propogate India's various religions, going as far as to enshrine different laws for people born into different faiths.

And that will make dealing with a sticky subject like blasphemy very politically incorrect -- whether the gods in question are Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/india-assault-free-speech

Read more:
India: the dangers of an assault on free speech

The residents of Middleborough, Mass., have had enough. In a state with a storied history of Puritan-inspired prohibitions, they voted 183-50 in a town meeting last week to approve a proposal that would, among other things, impose a $20 fine on public profanity, First Amendment be damned.

In a town of roughly 20,000 people best known for its cranberry bogs, profanity was just one of several practices addressed in the recently passed bylaw.

This proposal toes an uncomfortable line, as do most attempts to restrict speech of any kind in public. Even if the goal is to foster respect among residents, its not the best idea to let officers start ticketing vulgar language they hear in public spaces like parks or downtown. In fact, its not even clear where the line is and just what, exactly, the officers would be ticketing. As a local sergeant recently told the Boston Globe: I think we all know, in our minds, what is inappropriate. Do we? And is that really something thats best for police to decide?

Its easy to sympathize with Middleborough residents who dont want to live in a perpetual rap song and encounter profanity everywhere they go. Its also easy to see why the towns Board of Selectmen would want to make their community a kinder, more genial place. Still, there are arguably bigger risks in imposing a law. If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected. As it stands, the First Amendment protects profanity unless its coupled with true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

If not, as former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote in the courts Cohen v. California opinion: One mans vulgarity is another mans lyric.

Another mans lyric shouldnt have to cost him $20.

Read the original:
Free speech be damned

Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks

by Horace Cooper

Summary

Labor unions are notorious for coercive, strong-arm tactics. They have a sordid history of intimidating workers to join a union and stifling members and non-members who oppose that union's agenda. The facts in Knox v. SEIU show that California's public employees' union is no exception to this general rule, resorting to trickery and gimmicks in order to suppress the First Amendment free speech rights of 28,000 non-union workers.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide whether California's Service Employees International Union ("SEIU") -- or any other union -- may temporarily hike union dues or issue special short-term assessments for political advocacy without formally notifying employees. In Knox v. SEIU, the Court will decide whether a State or its union may require a special union assessment intended solely for political campaigning purposes without giving formal notice, or providing employees with an opportunity to opt out of those assessments.

Under California law, California's non-union employees must pay compulsory "fair share fees" to the SEIU as a condition of their employment in order to defray the union's collective bargaining expenses.1 But the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has recognized that every state and local employee is entitled to object to compulsory dues being used for political advocacy that is unrelated to collective bargaining, and as such, a notice advising employees of the union's expenses, as well as the fees and dues it plans to collect, is required.

In June 2005, the SEIU sent its annual notice laying out the union's finances and giving non-union employees thirty days to object to the fair share fee. After the thirty days had expired, the SEIU announced that a new, undisclosed fee would be assessed to fund the "Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund." According to the union, the money was slated for a variety of political advertisements and campaigns, including four California ballot initiatives aimed at reining-in the power of public sector unions -- not exactly geared to collective bargaining. The compulsory "Fight-Back Fund" fee, employees would later learn, amounted to a 25%-33% increase over the paycheck deductions that had been announced in June -- and this time, no one was able to object or opt-out.

In other words, the union forced workers to pay for "short term or interim assessment hikes" in order to fund left-wing initiatives and political activities that had absolutely nothing to do with bargaining for better benefits and wages.

Here is the original post:
Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks in Knox v. SEIU

We worry about rising crime, the shocking standards in education and public safety, increased cost of living, but now we face the new fear: words.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

In the history of early Malacca, Indian traders introduced the bullock-cart or kereta-lembu, which became the main mode of transport. Those who could afford bullock-carts had some form of identification tag, much like our modern-day registration plates.

During a recent excavation near the Malacca River, archaeologists unearthed Ming pottery, several timber structures and gold. Much of the wood had been preserved by layers of sediment, soft silt and compacted clay. These timber structures were believed to be the remnants of bullock-carts of early Malacca.

The most valuable find was a rectangular gold shield with the inscription which looked curiously like LLL1.

Some speculate that LLL1 could mean Lembu Lari Laju. The remains of the cart are of course priceless, but the gold has retained its intrinsic value. If modern cars are found in a future archaeological site, their plastic number plates will be worth nothing and the cars would have rusted away.

The Sultan of Johor, who paid RM520,000 for a number plate, was enraged when former Perak menteri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, suggested ways in which a similar amount of money could benefit the poor.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Read the rest here:
Free speech sends shivers down our spines

Tripoli The Libyan Supreme Court's decision on June 14, 2012, that declared unconstitutional a law that criminalized a variety of political speech is a landmark decision. The court ruled that Law 37/2012 was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

"Today, the Supreme Court of Libya has shown what freedom means," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "By declaring this law unconstitutional, it has affirmed free speech for the Libyan people, even for critical and controversial views."

This is the first judicial review of a law issued by the National Transitional Council (NTC), which has been governing Libya since Muammar Gaddafi's fall in 2011. A group of Libyan lawyers challenged the law under the interim constitutional covenant, as well as international law. The presiding Judge, Kamal Edhan, declared the law unconstitutional, but added that the decision did not affect other pre-existing restrictions on speech, such as insulting Islam.

Law 37, which the NTC passed on May 2, criminalized a variety of types of political speech, including speech that "glorifies the tyrant [Muammar Gaddafi]," did "damage [to] the February 17 Revolution," or insulted Libya's institutions. Human Rights Watch had criticized the law as a violation of freedom of expression and called on the NTC to revoke it.

Human Rights Watch urged the NTC and any incoming new government to abolish all laws in Libya that restrict free expression in violation of international law.

Copyright 2012 Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

Go here to read the rest:
Libya: Law Restricting Speech Ruled Unconstitutional

15-06-2012 09:05 Says Obama administration wants to radically change the nature of free speech in the US, and warns that they will attempt to intimidate and harass critics into silence

See the article here:
Sen. Mitch McConnell on 1st Amendment, campaign finance,

CHEYENNE Attorneys for three Wyoming residents who formed a grassroots organization called Free Speech filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Federal Election Commission rules. Attorneys for Free Speech and the Wyoming Liberty Group claim the FEC rules, which may require grassroots groups like Free Speech to register as political action committees, are vague and overly broad. The lawsuit, filed in the court of federal District Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper, seeks an injunction against the FEC to bar it from enforcing the rules and a declaratory judgment that the commissions definition of express advocacy is unconstitutional. Free Speech members want to spend about $2,000 on advertising to express their opinions on Wyoming issues, not to advocate for candidates, said Stephen Klein, attorney for the Wyoming Liberty Group. The problem is the three Wyoming residents and the FEC dont know whether Free Speech must register as a political action committee, Klein and Free Speech attorney Jack Speight said Thursday. The organization in February sought an advisory opinion from the FEC to be sure its program would be consistent with the law. Ultimately, the FEC provided three contradictory draft advisory opinions, the lawsuit said. If the group does not register as a political action committee and then runs ads, it could be deemed in violation of the rules and subject to civil and criminal penalties. The three board members of Free Speech listed in the lawsuit are Max Douglas Watford Jr. and Robert T. Brinkmann, both of Cheyenne and Charles Curley of Thermopolis. Their Free Speech group formed in February as an unincorporated, nonprofit association under Wyoming law and registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 527 group. Free Speech is interested in gun, environmental, and farming and ranching issues, Speight said. The groups by-laws require that it operate independently of political candidates, committees and political parties, the lawsuit said. Two separate federal circuit courts have ruled against the FEC in similar lawsuits while a third upheld the FEC. This is the first time the FEC rules have been challenged in a court in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This law is so vague nobody can follow it, so vague the government can arbitrarily enforce it, Klein said. There needs to be a bright line between regulating candidate advocacy and regulating issue advocacy.

CHEYENNE Attorneys for three Wyoming residents who formed a grassroots organization called Free Speech filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Federal Election Commission rules.

Attorneys for Free Speech and the Wyoming Liberty Group claim the FEC rules, which may require grassroots groups like Free Speech to register as political action committees, are vague and overly broad.

The lawsuit, filed in the court of federal District Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper, seeks an injunction against the FEC to bar it from enforcing the rules and a declaratory judgment that the commissions definition of express advocacy is unconstitutional.

Free Speech members want to spend about $2,000 on advertising to express their opinions on Wyoming issues, not to advocate for candidates, said Stephen Klein, attorney for the Wyoming Liberty Group.

The problem is the three Wyoming residents and the FEC dont know whether Free Speech must register as a political action committee, Klein and Free Speech attorney Jack Speight said Thursday.

The organization in February sought an advisory opinion from the FEC to be sure its program would be consistent with the law.

Ultimately, the FEC provided three contradictory draft advisory opinions, the lawsuit said.

If the group does not register as a political action committee and then runs ads, it could be deemed in violation of the rules and subject to civil and criminal penalties.

The three board members of Free Speech listed in the lawsuit are Max Douglas Watford Jr. and Robert T. Brinkmann, both of Cheyenne and Charles Curley of Thermopolis.

Read more from the original source:
Wyoming lawsuit challenges FEC regulations

LOS ANGELES, June 14, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --For most people when they click the "like" button on a Facebook page they don't think twice about whether that could affect their job. But, as social media rises in popularity and becomes more of a fixture in our everyday lives, consumers will have to start considering how their actions on social media sites could affect their 'offline' lives, reports Los Angeles employment lawyer Eric Grover of Keller Grover LLP.

The question about Facebook "liking" is now showing up in courtrooms across the country as judges are trying to determine whether First Amendment rights protect employees in the social networking world.

According to a recent decision by a Virginia district court judge, a Facebook "like" is not constitutionally protected free speech.The case looked at whether Sheriff B. J. Roberts of Hampton was entitled to fire six employees, because their actions on the social media site allegedly "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office." The terminated employees had all clicked the "like" button on the page of the sheriff's political opponent, Jim Adams, in a 2009 re-election bid which Roberts won, the New York Times reports.

The terminated employees subsequently sued after they were fired, claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated. But Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the Federal District Court determined that simply clicking Facebook's thumbs up button did not constitute expressive speech. The judge clarified the point by indicating that if the employees had written out a message and posted it on the site, it would then be covered under their First Amendment rights.

The crux of this employment lawsuit ultimately hinges on whether a "like" qualifies as protected speech. Typically the court would have to determine what role an employee's statements played in their termination and whether there were other sufficient grounds for termination, such as insubordination or incompetence.That said if the speech was not protected then it cannot be a factor in determining whether the termination was legitimate.

The terminated employees allege that their expression of support for the sheriff's opponent was a protected political statement and that the "thumbs up" icon for a Facebook "like" is no different that an actual thumbs up, which is a legitimate expression of an opinion, hence protected.

"The laws regarding the limits of free speech in the new world of social media are just starting to develop," noted Bay Area employment lawyer Eric Grover."Until clearer standards evolve, both employers and employees need to be careful about what they say or do on social media outlets."

The ruling is expected to be appealed and potentially may even reach the Supreme Court.

To bookmark this article please click here: Facebook 'Like' Isn't Protected Speech Reports Los Angeles Employment Lawyer.

See the article here:
Facebook 'Like' Isn't Protected Speech Notes Los Angeles Employment Lawyer