Category Archives: Free Speech

The First Amendment leads off the Bill of Rights for a reason: It is the foundation of all our freedoms. The First Amendment can be exploited by the rich and powerful, but it also provides the means to challenge authority and fight the worst abuses in our society. More than two centuries of experience have abundantly demonstrated the value of unfettered speech.

Which is why it should not be tampered with certainly not as recklessly as "The People's Rights Amendment" would.

Pushed by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California and others, the People's Rights Amendment would deny speech and other constitutional rights to groups of people, limiting such rights to "natural persons" individuals, who have far less power to challenge politicians.

"Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion and such other rights of the people," their amendment to blunt the First Amendment soothingly reassures us.

That may be deceptive, because the amendment takes away the free-speech rights of corporations. Virtually all significant newspapers, magazines and broadcasting outlets in America are organized under a corporate structure, because mass communications tend to require more funding than any one individual has. If individuals "the people" are the only ones who have constitutional rights, how can we possibly safeguard our free press?

Churches, nonprofits and other groups might also be denied free-speech rights.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., chief sponsor of the amendment, says this:

"My 'People's Rights Amendment' is simple and straightforward. It would make clear that all corporate entities for-profit and nonprofit alike are not people with constitutional rights. It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way: as artificial creatures of the state that we the people govern, not the other way around."

But our Founders had a profoundly different philosophy. They did not think that government essentially controls Americans, but that Americans control government, through elections, a free press, constitutional limits on power and a Supreme Court charged with defending those limits.

I think that McGovern, Pelosi and their allies, in pushing this shockingly bad idea, are seeking to blunt what they see as the pernicious effects of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling. It protected the rights of corporations and other entities under the First Amendment to engage in political speech, including during election season.

Excerpt from:
An assault on free speech

A Tunis courts decision to fine a TV boss for spreading information which can disturb the public order after he screened an animated French movie is a sign of the continuing erosion of free speech in Tunisia, Amnesty International said.

Nabil Karoui was fined 2,400 Tunisian Dinar ($1,500) after his station broadcast the animated French film Persepolis dubbed into Tunisian Arabic dialect in October 2011. The film was criticized for being blasphemous because of a scene showing a representation of God. Karouis lawyers have confirmed that he will be appealing the verdict.

On a day that is meant to celebrate world press freedom, Tunisia has shown its failure to respect the basic right of freedom of expression. Nabil Karoui should not have been tried to begin with, let alone found guilty for exercising his right to peacefully express his views, said Ann Harrison, Amnesty Internationals Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa programme.

Two others have also been found guilty of participating in the crime: Nadia Jamal, head of the organization that dubbed the movie into Tunisian dialect, and Alhadi Boughanim, responsible for monitoring programs. Both have also been fined.

Others have been found guilty previously on similar charges. For example, the editor of Arabic daily Attounissia was found guilty of spreading information which can disturb the public order on 8 March 2012 and fined 1000 Tunisian Dinar ($US 650). The daily had published a photograph of a German-Tunisian football player and his girlfriend who appears naked with his hand covering her breasts.

While protecting public morals or public order may sometimes be a legitimate reason for restricting freedom of expression, such restrictions may only be imposed if absolutely necessary. This is clearly not the situation in these cases people should not be convicted and sentenced for their views, even if these views are seen as controversial or offensive, said Ann Harrison.

The convictions come amid growing complaints against what is seen as the governments lack of will to implement freedom of the press and other media.

Journalists and activists have criticized the government for not enforcing new press and audiovisual laws passed in November 2011 which amend repressive provisions found in the old Press Law.

Instead they are resorting to articles in the Penal Code such as spreading information that disturbs the public order to prosecute journalists and others for peacefully expressing their opinions. The failure to implement the new laws is widely regarded as an attempt by the government to control and restrict the media.

A report issued by the National Committee of Information and Communication Reform last month highlights the problems that continue to face the media sector and the need for reform.

Continued here:
Tunisia: Persepolis trial verdict signals ‘erosion’ of free speech

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 5/3/2012 2:04:03 PM Free Press and other speech and digital rights groups have called on Attorney General Eric Holder to "focus attention" on the number of arrests of journalists, bystanders and others taking video of Occupy protests. There were protests May 1, but the request, in a letter Thursday was actually timed to World Press Freedom Day (May 3). There have been more than 70 arrests of people trying to cover/chronicle the protests since they started last September, according to one account. "We the undersigned call on authorities at the local, state and federal level to stop their assault on people attempting to document protests and other events unfolding in public spaces. We must protect everyone's right to record," the groups said in the letter to Holder. Signing on to the letter were the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Press Photographers Association, the New America Foundation, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders and Witness. Justice has already weighed in in support of rights to record. Last January, according to Free Press, Justice urged a Maryland U.S. District Court to a "First Amendment right to record police officers in the public discharge of their duties" and to hold that "officers violate citizens' Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they seize and destroy such recordings without warrant or due process."

Related Content

No related content found.

Rovi Corporation is focused on revolutionizing the digital entertainment landscape by delivering solutions that enable consumers to intuitively connect to new entertainment from many sources and locations. The company also provides extensive entertainment discovery solutions for ..more

Here is the original post:
Free Speech, Rights Groups Call on AG Holder to Focus on Occupy Arrests

21 hrs.

Helen A.S. Popkin

A ruling by a Virginia district court last week doesn't directly impact how most of us use Facebook, but it could. Like so many open questions about the Internet and free speech, we can expect similar court casesfor years to come. According to the court's opinion in Bland v. Roberts 2012, clicking the Facebook's "Like" button isn't "sufficient speech to garner First Amendment protection."

The case in question came before the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia after B.J. Roberts of the Hampton, Va. Sheriff's Department fired five employees following his successful reelection in 2009. Budget reasons, unsatisfactory work performance and hindrance of "the harmony and efficiency of the office" were the reasons Roberts gave for letting them go. The fired employees said otherwise.

In taking their case to court, the plaintiffs -- Bobby Bland, David Dixon, Robert McCoy, John Sandhofer and Debra Woodward --said they were dismissed because before the election,they each "Liked" the Facebook campaign page of Roberts'opponent, Jim Adams. Yet, in a decision that flummoxes digital law scholars, the court decided that whether or not Robertsknew his employees "Liked" the campaign page of his political opponent, their "Likes" still weren't considered free speech:

[Roberts'] knowledge of the posts only becomes relevant if the court finds the activity of liking a Facebook page to be constitutionally protected. It is the courts conclusion that merely "liking" a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection. In cases where courts have found that constitutional speech protections extended to Facebook posts, actual statements existed within the record.

"It's a somewhat odd decision that a Facebook "Like" is not protected speech," Jeff Hermes, director of the Digital Media Law Project, Berkman Center for Internet & Societytold me. "The judge was essentially devaluing the 'Like' as speech because ofhow simple it is to do."

With Facebook so ingrained in our daily lives, many of us no doubt click "Like" for stories or products or status updates without giving it much thought. Historically however, even simple actions around free speechhave been protected under the First Amendment, Hermes said, noting the off-cited Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District 1969. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment rights of three public schoolstudents who weresuspended for wearing black arm bands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. "It was a very simple activity that courts recognize as expressive," Hermes said.

The American Civil Liberites Union brought the Tinker case before the courts, and in similar fashion, the civil rightsorganization has something to say about the same principle behind a simple Facebook "Like." In a post on the ruling, Aden Fine of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project writes:

It is hard to understand how revealing to the world that you like a particular political candidate does not reveal ones views or express an opinion. It does exactly that. That many people today choose to convey what they like or which political candidates they support by liking a web page rather than by writing the actual words, I like this web page or I like this candidate, does not matter, either from a practical or a legal perspective. Whether you press a like button to express those thoughts or you press the buttons on a keyboard to write out those physical words, the end result is the same: you are telling the world about your personal beliefs and interests. That is exactly what the First Amendment protects, however that information is conveyed.

Read the original post:
Does your Facebook 'Like' count as free speech?

DPA/Neumuenster, Germany

Germanys fledgling Pirate Party, tipped to perform well in upcoming state elections, has clearly rejected Holocaust denial at its party convention yesterday after accusations that its free-speech manifesto was too lenient on neo-Nazis. The Holocaust is an indisputable part of history. To deny or relativise it under the veil of freedom of opinion runs counter to the partys principles, read a statement that was voted for by the 1,500 members present. The move came after a party member told journalists on the fringes of the convention that there was room for discussion on the Holocaust leading to an interruption in the days proceedings. The Pirates, who last year came from nowhere to win seats in two of Germanys 16 state legislatures Saarland and Berlin have ratings of almost 10% in the states of Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, which go to the polls in May. Party members also voted in a new leader, Bernd Schloemler, to take over from incumbent Sebastian Nerz, who held the post for the past year. Earlier yesterday, they decided not to extend the current one-year term for party leaders, arguing that the frequent changes kept office holders in touch with grassroots members. The Pirates campaign on a social-liberal platform of political transparency, drawing on the role of the Internet and its empowerment of citizens by enabling a more direct form of democracy. We carry a huge responsibility because we know that society will change fundamentally, said party manager Marina Weisband, adding that the fledgling party has already written history. To deal with the Pirates growing role, members voted to increase the size of the executive panel from seven to nine. The convention centre in the northern town of Neumuenster, in Schleswig-Holstein, was fitted with about 2km of network cables, enabling Internet-savvy members to stay online.

Link:
Pirate Party says free speech has limits

An Egyptian court has upheld the conviction against famous comedian Adel Imam for offending Islam in some of his most popular films. Despite protests by Islamists, he received only a suspended sentence and paid a fine of about $170. NPR's Soraya Nelson reports the court's ruling bolsters worries that an Islamist-ruled Egypt will stifle freedom of speech.

Copyright 2012 National Public Radio. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

One of the Arab world's most popular comedic actors is facing jail time in Egypt after a judge ruled he insulted Islam in some of his past film roles. The case worries those already concerned about the growing influence of Islamists in Egypt. NPR's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson has that story from Cairo.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON, BYLINE: In the 1992 comedy, "Terrorism and Kebab," Adel Imam plays a father trying to get bureaucrats in Egypt's largest government building to sign a paper so he can transfer his kids to a new school. But Imam can't find anyone at their post, including one bureaucrat with a traditional Islamic beard who constantly prays to avoid work. The two men scuffle and Imam inadvertently ends up with a rifle. The police wrongly conclude Imam's character is a terrorist who has taken the people in the building hostage.

(SOUNDBITE OF MOVIE, "TERRORISM AND KEBAB")

(SOUNDBITE OF PEOPLE SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

NELSON: In this scene, he coaches the pious bureaucrat on what to say to frighten a little boy into running away so he won't get hurt. The bumbling bureaucrat is so convincing that Imam promises to get him a job on TV:

(SOUNDBITE OF MOVIE, "TERRORISM AND KEBAB")

Originally posted here:
Egyptian Comedian's Case Raises Free Speech Concerns

LOS ANGELES, April 26 (UPI) -- The American Civil Liberties Union said a U.S. Marine's constitutional rights were violated when he was discharged for criticizing President Obama on Facebook.

Sgt. Gary Stein, 26, on his Facebook page called Obama a coward and an enemy and promised never to salute him or follow any of his orders he considered illegal. The military's administrative separation board said Stein, a nine-year veteran who served in Iraq, made disparaging comments that were detrimental to good order and violated military law.

The board demoted Stein to lance corporal and gave him an other-than-honorable discharge, making him ineligible for many federal benefits, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Civilian lawyers said they will fight to have Stein reinstated to the military, the newspaper said.

"I don't believe Sgt. Stein did anything other than engage in political speech," said the ACLU's David Loy. "Since the days of Valley Forge, I seriously doubt that there haven't been members of the armed forces who haven't complained about their government."

Follow this link:
ACLU: Marine's free speech rights violated

Americans protect freedom of speech more vigorously than any other Western democracy. We also have a venerable tradition of respecting academic freedom at colleges and universities.

Sometimes the heat and passion of political protests obscures the essence of these principles, however, as a recent episode at our campus, the University of California, Davis, illustrates. Briefly, protesters repeatedly obstructed access to a bank branch in our student union complex. The bank had leased the space to serve the campus community under an agreement that would have generated $2 million or more to the campus for student services over 10 years. Ultimately, citing the protesters' conduct, the bank closed the branch.

During the course of the blockades, campus police identified 11 students and one faculty member who participated in the obstructive protests. This information was referred to the Yolo County District Attorney; the bank also provided evidence. Today, these individuals are expected to appear in court for arraignment on misdemeanor charges. Under the state penal code, it is a misdemeanor to willfully obstruct public walkways and places or intentionally interfere with a lawful business.

In a letter to the campus administration, the Davis Faculty Association, an organization whose membership comprises a very small fraction of professors at UC Davis, appealed to campus leaders to seek dismissal of these charges because of "the political content of the U.S. Bank blockade." The DFA argued that protesters obstructing access to the bank believed they were defending the UC system against privatization, and thus should not be subject to criminal sanction.

That even a few faculty members at one of the nation's top universities would misunderstand the basics of freedom of speech and academic freedom in this way suggests the need to use this episode as a "teachable moment."

The important starting point in our First Amendment analysis is that a blockade is not constitutionally protected speech. It is conduct that government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because it so obviously obstructs the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.

To cite just one example, the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which prohibits anyone from physically obstructing access to reproductive health services, has been upheld repeatedly against constitutional challenge.

One critical reason blockades can be prohibited is that they are employed to coerce behavior, not change minds. They are thus antithetical to the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.

Indeed, if obstruction or disruption were protected expressive activity, it could be used to silence other speakers. The California Supreme Court explained the problem in an important free speech case, In Re Kay: "(T)he state retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals' unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizen's rights of free association and discussion. Freedom of everyone to talk at once can destroy the right of anyone effectively to talk at all."

The argument that a public university should pick and choose whether obstruction should be permitted or not based on the political content of any particular blockade is also a dubious proposition. Treating one political topic or perspective more favorably than another constitutes subject-matter or viewpoint discrimination which almost always violates the First Amendment. Moreover, a university engaging in such discrimination demonstrates that it is no longer committed to open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas. The university instead morphs into a political institution committed to particular perspectives so much so that it excuses violations of law in support of its own political positions.

Read more here:
Viewpoints: College protests stepped beyond free speech

April 26, 2012 (GRIFFITH, Ill.) (WLS) -- The issue at the center of a lawsuit involving students who were expelled for writing comments on Facebook interpreted as death threats is whether those posts should be protected as free speech.

It all started with three teenage girls having a conversation on Facebook.

"When we made those comments we didn't think ahead," said Sabrina Munsie of Griffith Middle School.

"I didn't mean anything that I said," Kennedy Fortier said. "I was just joking around."

According to a police report filed by Griffith Middle School, the girls, including Fortier and Munsie, were joking about killing all the ugly people.

One comment says, "OMG, before I die, I wanna kill 20 people. Another reads, "If I killed with a knife, I'd fill a tub with acid and put the body in there and nothing would be left."

One of the people mentioned at the beginning of the thread was fellow student, Courtney Tinsley.

"I felt really hurt and upset, and I started to cry," Tinsley said.

"Bullying is getting people shot and killed in schools," Courtney Tinsley's father, Timothy said. "We just don't know what to do. We want this to stop."

Within hours Fortier, Munsie and the third girl involved in the online conversation had been suspended.

Read the original:
Lawsuit filed over Facebook free speech

Sgt. Gary Stein (credit: CBS)

DENVER (CBS4) A Marine from California claims he was just exercising his rights to free speech, but his comments on President Obama led to his discharge.

Sgt. Gary Stein posted the comments on Facebook. The Marine Corps didnt buy the free speech argument. They say they dont let anyone in the military do anything that might give off the perception that they support any political cause or party.

Stein called President Obama a coward and said he wouldnt follow orders from him. He even touted he was a proud member of Obamas enemy list.

I look back on them saying, I wish I didnt say those statements, Stein said.

Political activism in the military isnt tolerated. The Marines say Stein had even been warned about his postings by superiors.

Were in the military and we have to follow the directives and the uniform code of the military justice, thats about as simple as I can make it, Maj. Michael Armistead said.

Steins lawyers say its a violation of his free speech.

Sgt. Stein did nothing but engage in political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, his lawyer said.

The military doesnt put up with that, Denver lawyer David Lane told CBS4.

Continue reading here:
Marine Booted From Corps For Facebook Comments About President Obama