Category Archives: Free Speech

Summary: Think the United States government has a chance in hell of beating Googles legal team? Think again.

Have you heard: the latest and greatest tech-law debate concerns whether Google search results are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

Of course, they are. Maybe if those results were just automatically generated page rankings they wouldnt be. But, since actual people at Google manipulate the results exactly how and how much Google wont say the content is editorial in nature and is therefore as protected by the First Amendment as the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

In case youre interested in the full battery of legal arguments, youre free to endure the recent white paper commissioned by Google on the subject. In 27 pages, the law professor Eugene Volokh, who is too smart to be writing commercial white papers, makes the case for search engine results as protected speech so convincingly that theres little point in trying to refute him. Yes, he was paid by Googles law firm to write it. Yes, the arguments are still decisive.

Why is the status of search-engine results important? Google is laying the legal foundations for an antitrust defense that probably wont matter. Free speech or no, the FTC is still going to try to break up monopolies, and when Google triumphs over the FTC it will be a victory of attrition not the Constitution.

Perhaps more realistically, when know-nothing legislators try to force Google to make its search results more fair, a First Amendment line of argument may come in handy. Later, the same arguments may undermine Google when it argues that its just delivering non-judgmental search results, but Im sure theyll try to maintain both positions.

In the end, though, I dont really care whether Google search results are protected speech or not, and I think the whole discussion is a waste of time. Heres why:

1. Google is the best search engine

Theres one reason and one reason only that Google is a verb: because Google is the best search engine. My friend Jeff is the only person I know who doesnt say hes going to Google something when he searches. He uses Bing as a verb. He actually says, in his Texas drawl, Im gonna Bing that! Jeff is not stupid, hes just mistaken and a little eccentric.

That of all the intelligent people I know only one of them prefers Bing to Google explains why Google has an 87.9% global search-engine market share and Bing has 4.2% with probably something like 4.1% of that number accounted for by people using Bing unintentionally because they use a browser with Bing as the default.

Go here to see the original:
Google's search engine results are free speech and I don't care

29 May 2012 Last updated at 12:59 ET

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

Mr Gove told the inquiry freedom of speech meant some people would be offended

The case for more regulation of the press needs to be very strong "before we further curtail liberty", Michael Gove has told the Leveson Inquiry.

The education secretary said he was "concerned about any prior restraint and on their [journalists'] exercising of freedom of speech."

He said existing laws should be used to judge individuals and institutions.

Lord Justice Leveson said he did "not need to be told about the importance of free speech".

"But I am concerned that the effect of what you say might be that you are in fact taking the view that behaviour which everybody so far in this inquiry has said is unacceptable, albeit not necessarily criminal, has to be accepted because of the right of freedom of speech," he said.

(and not only has no one cited as much history as Gove here, no one has gone toe to toe with #leveson like this either)

Mr Gove, a former journalist with the Times, replied: "I don't think any of us can accept that behaviour necessarily, but there are a variety of sanctions... By definition, freedom of speech doesn't mean anything unless some people are going to be offended some of the time."

Read more:
Gove warns Leveson on free speech

Mario Savio's civil rights work as a university student in the Freedom Summer Project of 1964 in Mississippi led to his involvement as a leader of the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley during 1964-1965. His brilliant rhetoric inspired thousands of students who demanded the administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom. Standing on the steps of Sproul Hall, Mario spoke to these students: "There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part...you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus and you've got to make it stop."

Not known to everyone is that Mario Savio was also a beloved teacher of math, philosophy and the humanities at Sonoma State University from 1990-1996. An inspiring teacher, colleague and friend, eloquent spokesperson and courageous activist, Mario empowered others to act upon conscience in order to ensure justice. He was a strong supporter of student rights, immigrant rights, and affirmative action. A man of great integrity, compassion, and a deep respect for his fellow human beings, including those whose positions he opposed, Mario touched the lives of all who knew and worked with him.

In November 2011 Sonoma State University approved a plan for a functional memorial. The memorial committee would like faculty, staff, students, alumni and the community to help complete funding the memorial which will be a speakers' corner on campus.

Your donations will make it possible to keep the spirit of Mario Savio and what he stood for alive on this campus through the Mario Savio Speakers' Corner. According to Mario, "Freedom of speech is something that represents the very dignity of what a human being is. That's what marks us off from the stones and the stars. It is the thing that marks us as just below the angels." The Mario Savio Speakers' Corner will be located on the northwest corner of the Stevenson Quad. This speakers' area will encourage students and the community to speak freely on issues of concern to them and will be a symbol of the right to speak freely in any public area.

The plan for the Mario Savio Speakers' Corner will also include quotes which will be engraved on the center of the speakers' area and on the benches surrounding a circular speakers' area set with stones of varying shades of gold, rose and tan. Two wheelchair accessible paths will lead out to the speakers' area, and three flowering plum trees will be planted on the berm directly behind the speakers' area.

We have raised the first $10,000 to turn the plan into reality. We need to raise another $10,000. The target date to meet our fund raising goal is June 1, 2012. Construction is planned for mid-July.

Given the high regard so many of us have for Mario and his work, our committee is confident that with your help we can meet this target! A generous donation of $1,000 was made in February kicking off our current fund raising drive. We need your help to meet the goal and make it happen.

Checks should be made out to SSU (memo line, Savio Memorial) and mailed to:

Mario Savio Speakers' Corner Memorial Sonoma State University University Development Rohnert Park, CA 94928

Online gifts may be made by going to

Read this article:
Father of Free Speech Memorial Planned Donation Deadline: June 1, 2012

BUFFALO, NY- Cyberbullies who hide behind their anonymity online are the targets of a newly proposed bill in New York State. Many victims of online bullying and their families fully support the bill, but critics say it violates the right to free speech.

Under the newly proposed Internet Protection Act, when anyone complains about an anonymous comment, the Web site administrator must make the commenter attach their "real name" to the post or the anonymous comment would by law have to be taken down. Not only that but the commenter will also be required to verify that his or her "IP address, legal name and home address are accurate."

Supporters of the bill say it will address the problem of baseless political attacks, criticism of businesses, and mean-spirited slams by cyberbullies.

The bill was introduced earlier this month in both the Senate and the House and is co-sponsored there by local Assembly members Jane Corwin (R- Clarence) and John Ceretto (R- Lewiston). If the bill were to become law, however, it likely wouldn't stand to constitutional muster.

"I would be one of the first to step up and challenge this," said local attorney Paul Cambia.

Cambria, who's also a past president of the National First Amendment Trial Lawyers Association, says government cannot silence speech the way they are proposing.

"The government can't restrict these carriers from carrying speech unless it falls into the very narrow exceptions to thefirst amendment, such as obscenity, fighting words, and the so called 'fire in the theater,'" Cambria said.

Tim and Tracy Rodemeyer fully support the proposed law, and no one may know the dangers of cyberbullying better than them.

Their 14-year-old son Jamey took his own life last September in part because of the hurt he endured by nameless posts online. They say they wish the proposed bill would have been a law when Jamey was alive.

"It may have made a difference because then if there are people who are bold enough to do that you can go after them," said Tim Rodemeyer.

Read the original here:
Internet Protection Act Criticized For Violating Free Speech

Three members of the Russian punk protest band Pussy Riot await trial.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Here's a quick way to get arrested in modern Russia: Walk into a cathedral wearing a neon mask and carrying a guitar, stand on the pulpit and scream punk songs with lyrics like "Virgin Mary drive Putin away!"

Throw in a few more obscenities, and that's how three members of the punk band Pussy Riot ended up in Russian prison in early March, after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the group says is in bed with the Russian Orthodox Church and is unfairly cracking down on free speech.

Three of its members are still in prison and have been charged with "hooliganism," a crime that carries a maximum sentence of seven years, according to news reports.

Before that, the all-female, anonymous band had performed on top of a prison and on Red Square in Moscow, the capital. Their performances on YouTube attract hundreds of thousands of views. After the arrest, punk rockers in cities as far away as San Francisco put on public performances in solidarity with the group. Pussy Riot, in its own controversial way, has become a symbol of the protest movement in Russia.

"Everyone loves the Sex Pistols, and no one likes punk bands being arrested for singing," said Pyotr Verzilov, a manager for the band who talked with CNN at a recent human rights conference in Norway, where he was speaking on Pussy Riot's behalf.

The band has drawn comparisons to other Western punk bands, including the Ramones. "Unlike their British and American forerunners, however," writes Bloomberg Businessweek, "the Russian rockers have something very real to be angry about, starting with their own imprisonment."

Some say Putin is cracking down unfairly on the band at a time when protesters continue to gather in the capital; others that Pussy Riot defiled the church and should be punished. Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, called their cathedral performance blasphemy, according to RIA Novosti, the state-owned news agency.

A priest, writing in Russia Today, said that "to try to label such a performance in a church as a political protest doesn't make it any more acceptable."

Read more here:
Jailed punk band Pussy Riot pushes free speech limits in Russia

Three members of the Russian punk protest band Pussy Riot await trial.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Here's a quick way to get arrested in modern Russia: Walk into a cathedral wearing a neon mask and carrying a guitar, stand on the pulpit and scream punk songs with lyrics like "Virgin Mary drive Putin away!"

Throw in a few more obscenities, and that's how three members of the punk band Pussy Riot ended up in Russian prison in early March, after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the group says is in bed with the Russian Orthodox Church and is unfairly cracking down on free speech.

Three of its members are still in prison and have been charged with "hooliganism," a crime that carries a maximum sentence of seven years, according to news reports.

Before that, the all-female, anonymous band had performed on top of a prison and on Red Square in Moscow, the capital. Their performances on YouTube attract hundreds of thousands of views. After the arrest, punk rockers in cities as far away as San Francisco put on public performances in solidarity with the group. Pussy Riot, in its own controversial way, has become a symbol of the protest movement in Russia.

"Everyone loves the Sex Pistols, and no one likes punk bands being arrested for singing," said Pyotr Verzilov, a manager for the band who talked with CNN at a recent human rights conference in Norway, where he was speaking on Pussy Riot's behalf.

The band has drawn comparisons to other Western punk bands, including the Ramones. "Unlike their British and American forerunners, however," writes Bloomberg Businessweek, "the Russian rockers have something very real to be angry about, starting with their own imprisonment."

Some say Putin is cracking down unfairly on the band at a time when protesters continue to gather in the capital; others that Pussy Riot defiled the church and should be punished. Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, called their cathedral performance blasphemy, according to RIA Novosti, the state-owned news agency.

A priest, writing in Russia Today, said that "to try to label such a performance in a church as a political protest doesn't make it any more acceptable."

Here is the original post:
Jailed punk band pushes free speech limits in Russia

A group of anti-government youth activists including rapper Hexplosivo Mental were attacked, beaten and some hospitalised during a meeting in the Angolan capital Luanda, prompting Amnesty International to call for a full and impartial investigation into the incident.

Hexplosivo Mental, known for his anti-government lyrics, along with Angolan activists and human rights defenders have been the target of numerous assaults and intimidations in recent months.

This brutal beating highlights the ongoing threat of violence that anyone speaking up for free speech in Angola faces, said Muluka-Anne Miti, Amnesty Internationals Angola researcher. The Angolan authorities must protect the rights of this group and others to freedom of association and assembly. They need to take steps immediately to protect these freedoms by ensuring that an independent investigation is carried out and those responsible are brought to justice.

This latest assault took place on Tuesday evening in the house of popular rap musician Carbono Casimiro, whose home reportedly came under attack from unknown gunmen last year.

The activists, who have set up the website Central 7311 which among other things documents violence in relation to peaceful demonstrations in the country, were also attacked while trying to hold a protest in Luanda in March this year.

Since March 2011, several demonstrations in Luanda calling for an end to President Jos Eduardo dos Santos 32 year rule have been met with excessive force by police, including the apparent improper use of dogs and firearms against those protesting peacefully.

Unknown individuals have reportedly infiltrated the demonstrations, vandalized property and beaten protestors and journalists covering the protests.

Police have failed to respond to violence perpetuated by these individuals and rather than arresting alleged infiltrators, protestors and journalists have been arbitrarily detained.

Youths who have helped organise peaceful protests against the President since last year, as well as some journalists who have covered these demonstrations, have also received personal threats from anonymous individuals telling them to stop demonstrating or face the consequences.

In March 2012 an anonymous group claiming to be defenders of national peace, security and democracy started distributing notes in Luanda stating that they would not allow protestors to create confusion and disorder..

See more here:
Angola: Protect free speech as youth activists attacked

Three members of the Russian punk protest band Pussy Riot await trial.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Here's a quick way to get arrested in modern Russia: Walk into a cathedral wearing a neon mask and carrying a guitar, stand on the pulpit and scream punk songs with lyrics like "Virgin Mary drive Putin away!"

Throw in a few more obscenities, and that's how three members of the punk band Pussy Riot ended up in Russian prison in early March, after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, who the group says is in bed with the Russian Orthodox Church and is unfairly cracking down on free speech.

Three of its members are still in prison and have been charged with "hooliganism," a crime that carries a maximum sentence of seven years, according to news reports.

Before that, the all-female, anonymous band had performed on top of a prison and on Red Square in Moscow, the capital. Their performances on YouTube attract hundreds of thousands of views. After the arrest, punk rockers in cities as far away as San Francisco put on public performances in solidarity with the group. Pussy Riot, in its own controversial way, has become a symbol of the protest movement in Russia.

"Everyone loves the Sex Pistols, and no one likes punk bands being arrested for singing," said Pyotr Verzilov, a manager for the band who talked with CNN at a recent human rights conference in Norway, where he was speaking on Pussy Riot's behalf.

The band has drawn comparisons to other Western punk bands, including the Ramones. "Unlike their British and American forerunners, however," writes Bloomberg Businessweek, "the Russian rockers have something very real to be angry about, starting with their own imprisonment."

Some say Putin is cracking down unfairly on the band at a time when protesters continue to gather in the capital; others that Pussy Riot defiled the church and should be punished. Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, called their cathedral performance blasphemy, according to RIA Novosti, the state-owned news agency.

A priest, writing in Russia Today, said that "to try to label such a performance in a church as a political protest doesn't make it any more acceptable."

Link:
Punk band tests free-speech limits in Russia

Since my recent letter to the editor appeared in both Newton area papers I have received many calls thanking me for speaking out. I did so as a result of the editorial in one paper. I also received a call from the plaintiff in the case, LaQuanda Carpenter, who left a voice message for me. Many employees of Alcovy High have told me that once their transfers are complete and after the school year ends they will share more openly. Please do so.

I took a bold step. Ms. Carpenter stated she would see me in court, but it is my hope that free speech and freedom of the press rule against her attacks meant to direct attention away from serious problems in a high school.

Attacking free speech and public leaders, former teachers, and me as a parent who chose to pull my daughter out of NCSS in 2011 after one board member told me I was being "dramatic" over a serious case of school bullying that year is wrong.

I pray that our constitutional right to free speech is upheld and that the Newton Citizen prevails in its fight for freedom of the press and free speech.

If Alcovy High School did not have the lowest rate of graduation in the county and below the state, then no one would complain. I am unafraid to face Ms. Carpenter in court. I will never name a source of information for me as many are employees, but I will share enough to show the judge enough to investigate evidence of wrongdoing, down to the names of the people in the room when her comments were made, as well as share other evidence.

I no longer have to hide behind MsLoy and KBeet. I am yours truly,

-- Shannon L. Black

Conyers

Continued here:
Letter: Free speech must be defended

At the end of the spring semester, we wrote a series of editorials addressing UF Student Government election codes and their negative implications for student free speech.

First, we discussed the issue with code 762.0, which requires that candidates and parties attach Registered Political Advertisement to all campaign materials. Due to a vague definition of campaign material, this code could be enforced against almost anything someone says in favor of or against a particular candidate or party.

Next, we questioned code 761.1, which appeared to constrain any intentional action in support of, or in opposition to, a candidate or political party for an elective student body office to a four-week period.

Both of these codes provide ample opportunity for the party in power to limit student free speech, especially for those students who have aspirations to run for office.

At the end of last semester, the UF Supreme Court recommended that SG amend the rules to clarify the meaning of campaigning and determine when these activities could occur.

We were hopeful that the Student Senate would revise the rules to remove these vague and draconian limitations on free speech. Instead, this evening the Student Senate will be voting on whether to add even stricter rules to candidates, political parties and, perhaps, even the general student body.

First, the proposed code revisions now clearly stipulate that campaign activities can only occur on the first day of the active election cycle, or four weeks before election day. Election-specific material, such as things that say vote for, cannot occur until one week prior to the first day of elections.

They also added Internet posts to its definition of campaign material, which now extends the ability of the Elections Commission to give violations to online communications that do not have Reg. Pol. Ad.

Because the codes surrounding this requirement are so vague, an election-related post by a student who is not running for office that does not bear Reg. Pol. Ad. could potentially lead to an election code violation for the candidate or party that was mentioned by the student.

These code revisions clearly violate student free speech and deserve serious scrutiny from the entire student body.

Read more here:
SG election codes limit free speech