Category Archives: Free Speech

How important is free speech? Or, rather, how important is anonymous free speech? For New York-based websites, that's not an entirely abstract question, as new state legislation threatens the ability for anonymous commenters to remain anonymous if challenged.

If youve spent any amount of time online in the last well, forever, you may have uncovered the core truth of the Internet: Anonymity can turn people into inconsiderate idiots. But if proposed legislation in the New York State Senate and Assembly passes, that will no longer be the case for sites based in NYC. Is this the kind of idea that will raise the level of Internet discourse, or plunge the web into a dystopian Big Brother-esque hell where no-one can say what they want?

The legislation, officially known as the Internet Protection Act, requires a web site administrator upon request [to] remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless such protestor agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate, with administrators also being required to have a contact number or e-mail address posted for such removal requests, clearly visible in any sections where comments are posted.

According to Republican State Assemblyman Jim Conte, who is sponsoring the legislation, the Act seeks to combat cyber-bullying by allowing the victim of an anonymous Website posting to request that the post by removed if the anonymous source is unwilling to attach his or her name to it. In addition to combating cyber-bullying, Conte explains, the Act will also help small business fight well, Yelp, it seems: [T]he bill also prevents people from posting anonymous criticism of local businesses. Too often, rival businesses will post negative and false posts to hurt their competition. With more and more people turning to online reviews, it is important to ensure that the posted information, good or bad, is from actual customers and not rival competitors.

But thats not all! Finally, Conte explains, the legislation will help cut down on the types of mean-spirited and baseless political attacks that add nothing to the real debate and merely seek to falsely tarnish the opponents reputation by using the anonymity of the Web. The reduction in such mean anonymous attacks will, according to co-sponsor (and fellow Republican) Senator Thomas OMara, help lend some accountability to the internet age.

Unsurprisingly, not everyone agrees: This statute would essentially destroy the ability to speak anonymously online on sites in New York, says the Center for Democracy and Technologys Kevin Bankston, who also points out that the Act essentially amounts to what he calls a hecklers veto to anybody who disagrees with or doesnt like what an anonymous poster said. And, somewhat ironically, an anonymous hecklers veto nowhere in the legislation does it require that those complaining about anonymous comments have to provide their own legal name, IP address or home address.

State Assemblyman Dean Murray (R-East Patchogue) hopes that the legislation which has yet to be voted upon will not only pass, but become a model for similar federal, nationwide, legislation. Theres got to be a starting point, he says. If we dont start somewhere, its not going to spread. A lot of times New York does lead the way for the nation.

Original post:
So much for the First Amendment: Free speech may require your real name in NY

Enlarge Jerome Delay/AP

The controversial portrait of South African President Jacob Zuma painted by Brett Murray stands defaced at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg, South Africa on Tuesday.

The controversial portrait of South African President Jacob Zuma painted by Brett Murray stands defaced at the Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg, South Africa on Tuesday.

A story that had already been controversial just received another dose of scandal: Two men showed up at an art gallery in South Africa and vandalized a painting of the country's president.

How controversial is The Spear? President Jacob Zuma and the ruling African National Congress were suing to have the painting and the pictures of it published in a newspaper removed.

As The Los Angeles Times reports, the painting "depicted Zuma posed like Soviet leader V.I. Lenin, with his pants unzipped and genitals exposed."

The Times adds:

"[Brett] Murray called the work 'an attempt at humorous satire of political power and patriarchy within the context of other artworks in the exhibition'.

"The painting ignited a storm in South Africa, with the ANC and its political allies calling the painting racist while artists and the Freedom of Expression Institute decried the ruling party's efforts to suppress the work."

As Reuters reports in its story, opinion about the painting is divided along racial lines, but that is complicated by the fact that Murray, who is white, made his name as an artist by criticizing the apartheid government that ruled until 1994.

Read the original here:
Race, Art, Free Speech: Portrait Of South African President Vandalized

Originally published May 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM | Page modified May 22, 2012 at 12:10 PM

New rules governing free speech on Seattle Community College campuses contain far fewer restrictions than an earlier proposal, but some faculty members and students still believe the rules violate the First Amendment.

The newly formed Faculty for Free Speech will petition the state Attorney General's Office for a legal analysis and review of the rule, said faculty member Laurel Holliday, who is a member of the free-speech group. The community-college district's board of trustees passed the new rules Thursday.

At issue is a change to the administrative code that governs free speech on North, Central and South Seattle Community College campuses.

An earlier draft would have restricted the locations of protests and the size and number of signs, among other things. The rule proposal drew hundreds of faculty and students to speak out in opposition.

The rule that passed doesn't include those restrictions, but it contains a trespassing section that allows campus security to remove nonstudents who are being disruptive, limits free speech to the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and prohibits camping.

Seattle Community College District Chancellor Jill Wakefield said the district responded to faculty and student concerns by paring down the rules and focusing on prohibiting camping. As part of that, the colleges needed to establish hours of operation, as well as due-process rules for anyone charged with trespassing, she said.

Holliday said faculty and students believe the trespassing section makes it too easy for protesters to be expelled from campus for vaguely defined reasons and that the 10 p.m. ending time for protests, especially for Seattle Central Community College's urban campus, is too early.

The central campus' student council opposed the measure, as did the American Federation of Teachers, the union that represents faculty members in the Seattle Community College District.

Seattle Central's Capitol Hill campus played host to Occupy Seattle for two months last fall. The rule change is not in reaction to Occupy Seattle, college administrators have said, but rather to an incident in which students complained that they felt harassed by supporters of political candidate Lyndon LaRouche.

View original post here:
Free-speech group to seek review of new community-college rules

Court Dispute dates back to 2005.

A federal judge has approved an agreement between the state and a coalition of free speech plaintiffs in a long-running lawsuit, ensuring those who post adult content on the Internet cant be prosecuted for failing to label it as "harmful to minors."

U.S. District Judge Dee Benson approved the agreement earlier this week in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, local artist Nathan Florence, trade associations, publishers of graphic and comic books and librarians who all argued the law infringed on free speech rights.

Bensons order states adults dont need to label content they post as harmful to minors. The law does allow prosecution of those who intentionally send material deemed harmful to minors to a specific minor or someone whose age hasnt been determined.

The outcome marked a win for First Amendment rights, said plaintiffs attorneys.

"This declaratory judgment makes clear that adult-to-adult communications on the Internet, and through other electronic means, cannot be restricted simply because minors also access the Internet and other electronic communications," said David Horowitz, executive director of Media Coalition, an organization that represents the trade associations of booksellers, publishers, graphic and comic books, and librarians.

Assistant Attorney General Jerrold Jensen said the harmful to minors statute remains the same, and that it had only been misinterpreted by the plaintiffs.

"It does not apply universally, it has to be a one-on-one encounter," Jensen said Friday. "That was our position from day one."

In 2005, the ACLU filed a lawsuit arguing the wording of the law violated the First Amendment for adults by making it illegal for adult-to-adult communications on the Internet on the basis that a minor might access the website or blog.

In 2007 the statute was amended, but the plaintiffs argued it still barred certain forms of visual art, photography and graphic novels, without posting it would be harmful to minors. It also didnt allow for information about human sexuality and the health rights of the LGBT community, according to the lawsuit. In response, the law was amended again in 2008.

See the article here:
Judge overturns free speech law after ACLU suit

May is Better Speech & Hearing Month. The Speech-Language Therapy Department at Beverly Hospital will sponsor free pediatric speech/language screenings at Addison Gilbert and Beverly and hospitals through May 31 for children 11 months-18 years

Screenings will be conducted by a member of the Speech-Language Therapy Department, which will take approximately 20-30 minutes to identify if a child is developmentally appropriate in terms of their speech, language or feeding skills. If a child qualifies for further evaluation, a speech/language pathologist will assist parents in scheduling a comprehensive speech/language evaluation.

Screenings will take place in Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine at Addison Gilbert Hospital, 298 Washington St., Gloucester, and at Beverly Hospitals Speech-language Therapy Outpatient Clinic, directly on Herrick Street in Beverly.

Times available by appointment only. Call 978-283-4000, ext. 141 (Addison Gilbert Hospital) or 978-816-2690 (Beverly Hospital) to schedule a free screening. For questions or comments, e-mail sgriffin@nhs-healthlink.org

Go here to read the rest:
Free speech-language screenings at Addison Gilbert Hospital in Gloucester and Beverly Hospital in Beverly

A Conservative politician and a gay rights activist have combined forces to promote the cause of free speech in Britain, the campaign gathering steam at a time a cartoon led to a furore in the Indian Parliament.

The campaign, under the slogan Feel free to insult me, is against a law banning insulting language and behaviour and has brought together religious and secular groups along with human rights and minority organisations.

Right-wing Tory David Davis, a former shadow home secretary, said the law was strangling free speech and should be scrapped.

Davis, once expected to become the Conservative Party leader, said Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act was having a terrible, chilling effect on democracy.

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, who has himself been arrested under Section 5, agreed. The open exchange of ideas including unpalatable, even offensive, ideas is a hallmark of a free and democratic society, he said.

It is commendable that David Davis and the Christian Institute are prepared to work with a gay Left-wing green atheist secularist like me, he added. Were all putting the right to free speech before our personal politics and beliefs.

In India, a seven-decade-old cartoon in a Class XI textbook showing Jawaharlal Nehru purportedly whipping B.R. Ambedkar to hurry him up with the Constitution created a furore in Parliament and forced an apology from a minister outside the House.

In Calcutta last month, a Jadavpur University professor was arrested for circulating the clip of a joke that lampooned Mamata Banerjee and a central minister. The Bengal chief minister recently said the email lampooning her amounted to character assassination and couldnt be termed a cartoon.

Tatchell said the Section 5 ban on insults was a menace to liberty. It has been abused to variously arrest or threaten with arrest people protesting non-violently against abortion and for gay equality and animal welfare. Other victims include Christian street preachers, critics of scientology and even students making jokes.

Under the legislation, the use of insulting words or behaviour is outlawed, but opponents say there is too little clarity on what that includes, leading to spurious arrests. One teenage boy was arrested for holding a Scientology is a dangerous cult placard and a student was held for telling a police officer his horse was gay, they said.

Read more:
Feel free to insult but not in India - Freedom of speech cry in UK

Campaigners say Public Order Act is unclear and has resulted in string of controversial arrests Groups join forces to have insulting words or behaviour phrase removed from legislation Former shadow home secretary David Davis: 'Nobody likes to be insulted, but nor does anyone have a right not to be insulted'

By James Chapman

PUBLISHED: 17:37 EST, 15 May 2012 | UPDATED: 04:00 EST, 16 May 2012

Reform: Campaign groups have urged Home Secretary Theresa May to modify the controversial Public Order Act

Theresa May is being urged to reform a controversial law which bans insulting words or behaviour amid mounting evidence that it is strangling free speech.

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors to arrest Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology, gay rights campaigners and even students making jokes.

Currently, Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws insulting words or behaviour, but what constitutes insulting is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Human rights campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the insulting words or behaviour phrase removed from the legislation, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, a leading campaigner for civil liberties, said reform was vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today.

There is a growing list of examples where the law against using insulting language has led to heavy-handed action by police and prosecutors. It is not only distressing for the individuals concerned, it constitutes a threat to Britains tradition of free speech, he said.

View original post here:
Public Order Act: Free speech 'strangled by law that bans insults'

May 15, 2012

Lawyers representing a group of panhandlers who are suing the City of Charlottesville say their case received a big boost Tuesday when the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs Tuesday in the court of appeals.

Attorney Jeffrey Fogel released the following statement in response:

"We are very pleased with this development due to the prestige of the center, its connection to our community and its free speech wall within a short distance of where the city has prohibited certain free speech."

The five men - Albert Clatterbuck, Christopher Martin, Earl McCraw, John Jordan and Michael Sloan - with the help of Fogel filed a lawsuit last summer arguing that the city's panhandling ordinance on the Downtown Mall is unconstitutional and discriminates against homeless panhandlers.

The ordinance prohibits begging near restaurants, banks and within 50 feet of two streets - 2nd Street SE and 4th Street NE - that cross the busy pedestrian mall.

The city's request to have the lawsuit dismissed was granted by Judge Norman Moon in January. He wrote, "The ordinance does not distinguish between favored and disfavored solicitation, and it does not discriminate based on a solicitor's identity."

However, the panhandlers filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit a few weeks later. It's in that court that the Thomas Jefferson Center filed its brief in support of the panhandlers.

Originally posted here:
Free Speech Center Sides with Panhandlers in Lawsuit Against City

While it was right to protect people against unjust discrimination and the incitement of violence against them, the campaign said, insulting behaviour was open to too much interpretation.

The campaign is using the slogan ''Feel free to insult me''.

Mr Davis said repeal was ''vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today''.

''Who should decide who is insulted? The police? A judge? The truth is that Section 5 is having a terrible, chilling effect on democracy today.''

A ComRes poll commissioned by the campaign suggested he would have the backing of a clear majority of MPs - with 62% saying it should not be for the state to ban insults.

Only 17% thought repeal would undermine the ability of the police to protect the public and one in five believed it would penalise minorities.

The campaign has secured a rare alliance of secularist and Christian groups.

Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, said: ''Free speech is not free if it is available only to some and not others.

''Secularists, in defending free expression, must ensure that the law is fair to everybody and argue equally for the right of religious and non-religious people to freely criticise and exchange opinions without fear of the law - unless they are inciting violence.''

The Christian Institute's Simon Calvert said: ''Churches around the world find themselves in constant friction with aspects of the cultures in which they live. So free speech is vital to us all.

Read more:
Law banning insulting language 'is strangling free speech'

Campaigners say Public Order Act is unclear and has resulted in string of controversial arrests Groups join forces to have insulting words or behaviour phrase removed from legislation Former shadow home secretary David Davis: 'Nobody likes to be insulted, but nor does anyone have a right not to be insulted'

By James Chapman

PUBLISHED: 17:37 EST, 15 May 2012 | UPDATED: 02:35 EST, 16 May 2012

Reform: Campaign groups have urged Home Secretary Theresa May to modify the controversial Public Order Act

Theresa May is being urged to reform a controversial law which bans insulting words or behaviour amid mounting evidence that it is strangling free speech.

Campaigners say the Public Order Act is being abused by over-zealous police and prosecutors to arrest Christian street preachers, critics of Scientology, gay rights campaigners and even students making jokes.

Currently, Section 5 of the 1986 Act outlaws insulting words or behaviour, but what constitutes insulting is unclear and has resulted in a string of controversial arrests.

Human rights campaigners, MPs, faith groups and secular organisations have joined forces to have the insulting words or behaviour phrase removed from the legislation, arguing that it restricts freedom of speech and penalises campaigners, protesters and even preachers.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis, a leading campaigner for civil liberties, said reform was vital to protecting freedom of expression in Britain today.

There is a growing list of examples where the law against using insulting language has led to heavy-handed action by police and prosecutors. It is not only distressing for the individuals concerned, it constitutes a threat to Britains tradition of free speech, he said.

Here is the original post:
Free speech 'strangled by law that bans insults' and has triggered series of controversial arrests