Category Archives: Free Speech

media maven / By Marcy Burstiner

(June 7, 2012) In the movie Norma Rae, Sally Field plays a textile worker who tries to organize a union at her mill. In the movies climax, thugs try to throw her out of the factory. She scribbles the word union, climbs up on a table and holds it up. For a moment everyone in the factory stares at her. Then, one by one, the workers shut off their machines. These days it seems that people who try to fight a good fight get that kind of support only in the movies.

On May 24, Fortuna resident Janelle Egger filed suit against the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors challenging the constitutionality of Urgency Ordinance 2477, which bans camping, animals and defecation outside the courthouse and also bans the hanging of signs. In my April 5 column, I questioned the constitutionality of a law in which the only new prohibition was the hanging of signs and the gathering for peaceful protest. Existing laws covered all other activities the ordinance specified.

Police arrested Egger April 7 in front of the courthouse as she participated in a candlelight vigil held to support free speech. This is a woman who sued the city of Fortuna in 2009 under the California Public Records Act because it had refused to turn over documents about a proposal for a new water tank. The courts agreed with her on that one and ordered the city to pay for her attorney fees.

This time, she filed her 24-page brief, with another 48 pages of exhibits, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She doesnt have a lawyer; shes doing it herself.

This is one of two ongoing First Amendment suits involving local laws. This month, Superior Court Judge Dale Reinholtsen will rule on the constitutionality of an Arcata ordinance passed to curb aggressive panhandling. Attorney Peter Martin filed that suit on behalf of Arcata resident Richard Salzman.

The Arcata law has multiple parts. Part A specifically bans aggressive panhandling. But parts B through G ban all panhandling in specific areas, such as near ATM machines or supermarket entrances. If aggressive panhandling is the problem, why not stop with A? Why include the rest?

This is what I find most troubling: The ease with which local governments pass speech infringement laws, how little effort they spend trying to keep them as narrow as possible and how few people these laws seem to bother.

Perhaps more troubling is that certain types of speech seem to be more vulnerable to government infringement than others.

Go here to see the original:
Free Speech Now! (And Eat at McDonald’s)

Free speech is at the heart of democracy across the globe. The Greek writer Homer said it was every man's right; the French philosopher Voltaire would have died to protect it; and former Czech President Vclav Havel believed it to be the cornerstone of democratic life.

Since the Velvet Revolution, and thanks largely to Havel's leadership afterward, free speech has become an accepted civic right in the Czech Republic over the past 20 years.

In 2004, Prague even saw the establishment of its own Speakers' Corner, inspired by the famous Hyde Park platform in London where anyone can come and express their views.

British expat Euan Edworthy, who has been based in Prague since 1994, was behind the establishment of the Prague Speakers' Corner, and is now a trustee of the international charity Speakers' Corner Trust which grew out of his original idea.

Speakers' Corner has spread internationally, including to Berlin.

"We wanted to create a forum where people could express their opinions and not be scared," he said. "Speakers' Corner is a landmark for freedom of speech in the sense that, if anyone came and tried to bulldoze it, it would be a huge thing."

From its launch pad in Prague six years ago, Speakers' Corner Trust has grown and unveiled a number of Speakers' Corners across the globe, from Berlin to Abuja, Nigeria.

"It was born as a pipe dream. Now it has evolved into a UK-based, international charity," Edworthy said.

Speakers' Corner Trust is now run by director Peter Bradley, a former Labor MP, and backed by major sponsors and supporters, including the UK Justice Ministry and Google.

Edworthy said there are plans in place to expand further in the Central and East European region, as well as focusing on developing the outpost in Nigeria.

Originally posted here:
Setting aside a public space to promote free speech

Many states have laws on the books prohibiting anyone from making disparaging comments about a particular banks financial condition. This talk is thought to be outside free speech because rumors can trigger a bank run, but a recent ruling has some banks worried.

Many states have laws on the books prohibiting anyone from making disparaging comments about a particular banks financial condition. This sort of talk is thought to be outside free speech because just the slightest rumor can trigger a bank run. Of course, not much of a line needs to develop at the teller window for bankers to get nervous, because they dont keep much cash around to satisfy withdrawals. Depositor money is lent out or invested, or in the case of J.P. Morgan, used for speculating in London.

This is the institutional blog of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and many of its affiliated writers and scholars commenting on economic affairs of the day.

In California, theres been an anti-bank run law on the books since 1917 prohibiting a person from spreading false information about a banks condition. In this age of deposit insurance and the FDIC, the law hasnt been tested much. But along comes Robert Rogers, who as an ex-employee of Summit Bank posted a rant and rave on Craigslist, saying, I would suggest that anyone that banks at Summit Bank leave before they close.

Rogers, who served as the banks chief credit administrator and vice president, also took the opportunity to post what American Banker describes as vulgar comments about the banks chief executive officer and her son.

The bank sued Mr. Rogers for libel, to which the ex credit administrator countered that his speech was protected by the First Amendment. So, the lawyers for Summit pulled out a copy of the 1917 law and claimed his statements should not be considered free speech.

But the appeals court in a 30-page opinion said, We find section 1327 cannot be reconciled with modern constitutional requirements. The court went on to say, When analyzed under modern constitutional jurisprudence, the broad provisions of Financial Code section 1327, on their face, impermissibly sweep within their proscriptions speech that cannot be criminally punished.

The justices said the law is too vague and has too broad a reach, and said the law lacks a requirement included in other statutory restrictions on speech that a speakers statement be proven to be malicious, reports AB.

It is a criminal libel statute without a malice requirement, which is designed to prohibit speech based on its content, the court said. It fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is forbidden. It sets no discernible limits on what types of speech can be criminalized, and, allowing such free range, it lends itself to arbitrary enforcement.

Of course bankers and their attorneys are troubled by the decision.

Read more from the original source:
Can You Yell 'Run' in a Crowded Bank?

AJC, ADL Balance Free Speech With Preventing Harassment

getty images

Free Speech Goes to School: Anti-gay religious demonstrators rally outside a school, prompting outrage in response. When does free speech cross the line into harassment or even bullying?

Wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan Homosexuality is shameful could cause a public school student to be disciplined for offending classmates, federal courts have ruled.

But religious students say they should be free to express their beliefs even if they are homophobic, racist or otherwise offensive without being punished, especially in a public school.

Drawing the line between free speech or religious expression on the one hand and behavior that could be considered harassment or even bullying on the other is a growing problem for public schools nationwide.

The thorny dispute one that potentially affects millions of students from coast to coast has now drawn in two major national Jewish organizations with starkly different approaches to the matter.

A new report, co-produced by the American Jewish Committee, emphasizes the need for school officials to tread carefully when disciplining students over messages that could be considered protected speech.

The Anti-Defamation League countered by slamming the AJC report, noting that schools should first and foremost focus on preventing bullying, which it says almost always involves physical or verbal targeting of vulnerable students.

The 11-page AJC report, a joint project with the First Amendment Center, was released in late May with backing from religious and education groups. Notably, it lacks the endorsement of organizations representing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, who are often the targets of school bullying.

See original here:
Jewish Groups Split on School Bullying

After years of benign neglect neglect that was anything but benign for the victims bullying has finally moved to the top of the school-climate agenda.

Today, 49 states and the District of Columbia have anti-bullying laws in place (Montana is the lone holdout).

The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance on how schools can fight bullying and harassment. And many local school districts are moving vigorously to address a serious and widespread problem.

But as school officials act to stop bullying, they need to know when and where to draw the line on student expression. The challenge is to stop bullies without overreacting by censoring students protected religious and political speech.

It goes without saying that creating and sustaining a safe learning environment is job one for school administrators.

But how can public schools balance the need for school safety with a commitment to freedom of expression?

To help answer this question, a coalition of 17 education and religious groups released guidelines May 22 designed to help public schools combat bullying and harassment while simultaneously upholding the rights of students to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Harassment, Bullying and Freedom of Expression: Guidelines for Free and Safe Public Schools has been endorsed by diverse religious voices such as the Christian Legal Society, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Hindu American Foundation, as well as leading educational associations including the National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators and the National Association of State Boards of Education. A full list of backers and the text of the guide are available atwww.religiousfreedomeducation.org.

My own organization, the First Amendment Centers Religious Freedom Education Project, worked closely with the American Jewish Committee over the past year to produce the document.

As the guidelines explain, much harassment and bullying is physical, targeting an individual student or classes of students for unwanted touching, bodily assault or threats of violence.

Read the original here:
Combat bullying while protecting free speech

Employers often have to deal with disgruntled employees who regularly complain about their supervisor or others and about business issues.

In a recent case that arose within the context of state employment, an employee regularly complained about his supervisor and issued a memorandum to a superior official requesting that the department in which he worked be transferred out of the jurisdiction of that supervisor.

This memorandum proved to be the last straw. The employee was called in and given the option of resigning or being terminated. The employee elected to resign and later filed suit claiming that his free speech rights had been violated, that he was a whistle-blower under the Indiana statute and that he was wrongfully discharged under Indiana common law.

On the free speech guarantee, despite the fact the individual was a state employee, the court could not agree that his speech was protected under Article I, Section 9, of the Indiana Constitution simply because it was addressed to the state. The employee was clearly acting within the scope of his employment because he requested an improvement in his employment situation. This is a private interest. So free speech was not at issue.

On the whistle-blower issue, the employee did not exhaust the internal administrative remedies and chose to resign rather than be terminated. Hence, no claim.

The court reaffirmed that Indiana follows the doctrine of employment at-will under which employment may be terminated by either party at-will, with or without reason. None of the three exceptions applied in this case.

There was no "adequate independent consideration" for employment, no public policy exception existed and no promise had been made on which the employee relied to his detriment to impute an employment contract.

This case not only reaffirms Indiana's employment at-will doctrine but it also points out that even in public employment, an employee does not necessarily have a free speech right to criticize a supervisor or the way the department is organized solely for personal interests.

More here:
Office talk not always free speech

WASHINGTON -- The US Supreme Court on Monday unanimously ruled that two Secret Service agents are immune from a lawsuit filed by a Colorado man they arrested after he accosted then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

The high court held the agents were entitled to "qualified immunity" because it was not "clearly established" that they were violating Steven Howards' free speech rights when they took him into custody.

"This Court has never recognized a First Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest that is supported by probable cause; nor was such a right otherwise clearly established at the time of Howards' arrest," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's opinion.

Secret Service agents Gus Reichle and Dan Doyle arrested Howards after he confronted Cheney at a 2006 appearance at a Colorado shopping mall.

Agents began monitoring Howards after Doyle observed him talking on his cellphone saying, "I'm going to ask [the Vice President] how many kids he's killed today."

Howards then entered a line to meet Cheney, where he told him that his "policies in Iraq are disgusting." Cheney simply thanked Howards, but Howards touched the Vice President on the shoulder as he moved to meet more people in the crowd.

After Howards walked away, he was stopped by Reichele. Howards denied touching Cheney, which prompted his arrest.

Colorado authorities charged Howards with harassment, but the charge was eventually dropped.

Howards subsequently sued Reichle and Doyle.

But in a victory for the Obama administration, the high court reversed the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and threw out the lawsuit Monday by ruling that the agents had immunity.

More here:
Supreme Court rules for Secret Service in Cheney free speech case

01-06-2012 11:34 Not yet had your say? Join in on: Michelle gives a round up of what's been kicking off online this week with a shout out to the best comments you've made on Free Speech. More about this programme:

Original post:
You Said What? - Free Speech - BBC Three - Video

Friday, June 1, 2012

After years of benign neglect neglect that was anything but benign for the victims bullying has finally moved to the top of the school-climate agenda.

Today, 49 states and the District of Columbia have anti-bullying laws in place (Montana is the lone holdout). The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance on how schools can fight bullying and harassment. And many local school districts are moving vigorously to address a serious and widespread problem.

But as school officials act to stop bullying, they need to know when and where to draw the line on student expression. The challenge is to stop bullies without overreacting by censoring students protected religious and political speech.

It goes without saying that creating and sustaining a safe learning environment is job one for school administrators. But how can public schools balance the need for school safety with a commitment to freedom of expression?

To help answer this question, a coalition of 17 education and religious groups released guidelines on May 22 designed to help public schools combat bullying and harassment while simultaneously upholding the rights of students to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.

Harassment, Bullying and Freedom of Expression: Guidelines for Free and Safe Public Schools has been endorsed by diverse religious voices such as the Christian Legal Society, the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Hindu American Foundation, as well as leading educational associations, including the National School Boards Association, the American Association of School Administrators and the National Association of State Boards of Education.

My own organization, the First Amendment Centers Religious Freedom Education Project, worked closely with the American Jewish Committee over the past year to produce the document.

As the guidelines explain, much harassment and bullying is physical, targeting an individual student or classes of students for unwanted touching, bodily assault or threats of violence. Prohibiting such actions in schools raises no First Amendment concerns.

But bullying can also be verbal, creating a hostile school climate. Following current law, the guidelines draw a distinction between student speech that expresses an idea, including religious and political views, and student speech that is intended to cause (or school officials demonstrate is likely to cause) emotional or psychological harm to the listener. The former is, in most circumstances, protected speech, but the latter may and should be stopped.

Read more from the original source:
Combat bullying, but protect religious and political speech

Consumer rights groups oppose subpoena for Twitter data of arrested demonstrator.

Three consumer rights groups filed a friend of the court brief today arguing that allowing the government access to an individual's Twitter account information would chill free speech.

The brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Citizen comes three weeks after Twitter filed its own challenge to an order from a New York State court requiring it to hand over data on one of its users who was arrested for disorderly conduct during an Occupy Wall Street protest last year.

The District Attorney's Office in New York wants Twitter to turn over information from Malcolm Harris' Twitter account (@destructuremal), including his tweets and the date, time, duration, and IP address corresponding with each time he logged into his account. Harris has moved to quash the subpoena, but the Criminal Court of the City of New York denied his motion. This information can also reveal information about Harris' location when he used Twitter because IP addresses correlate to specific geographic locations.

"The aggregation of this information will, thus, provide the D.A. with a comprehensive and detailed map of where Harris was when he was expressing certain thoughts or simply reading others' tweets, over a three-and-a-half month period, regardless of whether there is any connection between those tweets and the pending prosecution," the brief says. "On their own, some of these details about Harris's communications might not be terribly invasive. Combined over such a long period of time, however, these discrete details and data points will enable the D.A. to piece together a comprehensive portrait of Harris's expressive activities and habits, directly implicating his First Amendment rights."

People will be less likely to share spontaneous information and ostensibly anonymous opinions on the Internet if they believe the government will have access to it and be able to combine it with location and other data, the groups argued.

More:
ACLU, EFF: Subpoena for Twitter data would chill free speech