Category Archives: Free Speech

The only thing the late Dick Clark wanted to know about music was this: "Does it have a nice beat and can you dance to it?"

These days, popular recording artists seem to have a lot more on their minds, including politics.

That's why it was interesting to see the recent announcement that rapper Common will be a headliner July 7 at one of the Summerfest stages this year.

Common - a Chicago native who's real name is Lonnie Rashid Lynn Jr. - is known by his fans as a "conscious" rapper and author who touches on a variety of social issues in his rap lyrics.

Not being a huge rap fan, I know Common mainly for his recent acting career. But many of his fans still view him mainly as a Grammy winning rap artist.

The news about Common coming to Milwaukee's popular musical festival reminded me of last May when some conservative politicians and media types were in an uproar after the rapper was invited by Michelle Obama to perform at a White House poetry event.

After Republicans began to scrutinize Common's lyrics - never a smart move for non-hip hop fans - they responded with the usual over-the-top rhetoric suggesting he was an inappropriate choice, a vile and controversial performer and perhaps even a threat to national security.

The Common lyric that brought most scrutiny denigrated former President Bush.

"Burn a Bush 'cause for peace he no push no button."

(OK, I think it probably makes sense if he does it.)

See the original post:
Free speech also applies to musicians, including Nugent

An anti-abortion group's display of graphic posters at Moorpark College has raised issues of free speech and appropriateness, particularly because children on campus for a multicultural day could have seen the posters.

The group Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust was on campus this month when Moorpark College celebrated its annual Multicultural Day, said college President Pam Eddinger. The display was not part of the event, which features food and music from around the world.

The Christian group's posters, which are roughly 4 feet high, show aborted fetuses. They were displayed along a major campus walkway.

Students from Campus Canyon School in Moorpark, who came to campus for Multicultural Day, were diverted away from the posters and did not see them, said Principal Stephanie Brazell. The school will meet with college officials about having students at the event next year, Brazell said.

Even if children weren't on campus, some Moorpark professors and students questioned whether the posters were appropriate because they were so disturbing.

"I personally did not feel well walking that stretch of campus," student Arshia Malekzadeh said. "I understand they have a constitutional right to be there, but I don't think it's appropriate."

The group has the right to be on campus even if its tactics are upsetting, Eddinger said. Like other public colleges, Moorpark is an open campus and can't bar certain groups, she said.

"It's important we don't infringe on free speech," Eddinger said. "But it's also important that we don't disrupt the educational process of our students. That's the balance we have to strike."

The anti-abortion group had told the college it planned to be on campus that week and had been told there would be another event on campus that day. But members did not know it was Multicultural Day and that children might be on campus, said Kristina Garza, the group's campus outreach director. If they had known, they might have chosen another day.

"If we had been given a full explanation, we probably would have been willing to change it. We would have considered it," Garza said.

See more here:
Anti-abortion group sparks free-speech discussion

25 April 2012 Last updated at 07:30 ET

The Jordanian authorities are violating people's right to free speech and undermining the credibility of reform efforts, a human rights group has said.

Human Rights Watch said a journalist and the publisher of the Gerasa News website had been charged with "subverting the system of government".

The charges related to an article about King Abdullah's alleged intervention in a corruption investigation, it added.

HRW said the case was the fifth such incident in Arab kingdom this year.

Sahar al-Muhtasab and her brother Jamal al-Muhtasab, who both worked for Gerasa News, had been charged on 23 April, a statement said.

They had both worked on an article that quoted a member of parliament as saying King Abdullah had issued instructions to members of a parliamentary committee not to refer a former minister to court on corruption charges.

Ms Muhtasab told HRW that a military prosecutor at the State Security Court had insisted King Abdullah was at the forefront of the fight against corruption, and that it was forbidden to imply otherwise.

Jordan cannot claim to be making democratic reforms while prosecutors hunt down journalists doing their job

The prosecutor charged them both with "subverting the system of government in the kingdom", a crime that article 149 of Jordan's penal code punishes with hard labour.

Read the rest here:
Jordan 'suppressing free speech'

19-04-2012 19:30 *YOUTUBE ADMINS THIS IS FREE SPEECH! DON'T TAKE THIS DOWN! GRRRR :p Mike Roy and Anthony Verberkmoes have been banned by Campus Police. Today, there was a rally in support of these 2 good friends of mine, who were only showing their solidarity with the Palestinian Cause on Feb 1st.

Excerpt from:
Free Speech at Western University - Video

Opinion

April 20, 2012

by Roberta Seid and Roz Rothstein

Youd imagine every campus faction would have welcomed University of California President Yudofs statement on March 8. He called on the UC community to follow the basic rules necessary to protect free speech on college campuses. President Yudof denounced recent incidents during which demonstrators tried to shout down speakers, declaring that such actions are not protected speech but rather an effort to deny others their right to free speech. But the seemingly noncontroversial statement incensed UCLA professor Gabriel Piterberg, a prominent anti-Israel ideologue, and his allies. To condemn both the statement and President Yudof, Piterberg led a teach-in on April 12 that was sponsored, surprisingly, by the UCLA Center for Near East Studies.

Piterberg did not object to the principles that President Yudof outlined. Rather, in his convoluted presentation, he denounced the statement because it used the principles of free speech to condemn tactics that anti-Israel activists have been using with increasing frequency. Piterberg charged that the statement criminalized political dissent.

In fact, the statement was prompted by anti-Israel tactics. It specifically referred to an incident at UC Davis on February 27, when the student Chabad club and StandWithUs sponsored an Israeli Soldiers Stories (ISS) speaker program. The event deteriorated into near chaos because a heckler continually screamed invectives, and members of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace hurled continuous insults at the speakers. Such disruptions have become a favored tactic of anti-Israel activists, most notoriously when Muslim Student Union members almost succeeded in preventing Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking at UC Irvine in February 2010. Their goal is to let mainstream pro-Israel speakers know they are not welcome on campuses, as the UC Davis protesters themselves said just before the ISS incident at a meeting that was caught on video. The unspoken objective is to create an atmosphere in which Israel and its supporters are regarded as pariahs on campuses with no right to present their case.

President Yudof also condemned another practice commonly used by the anti-Israel movement. He specifically denounced the recent defacement of an Israeli flag on display at UC Riversides Hillel, underscoring that Jewish students who identify with Israel have rights and sensitivities like other minorities, and symbols important to their identity should be respected. This rebuke was unacceptable to the anti-Israel activists who regularly mock or deface Israeli and Jewish icons and symbols, from exploiting a picture of Anne Frank to juxtaposing swastikas with the Jewish Star of David.

President Yudofs statement did not take a side in the debate about Israel, but it let anti-Israel activists know that their tactics, which violate free speech and Jewish sensitivities, are unacceptable.

Rather than recommend that anti-Israel activists moderate their behavior, Piterberg went on the attack. He charged that the statement was biased and showed unwarranted, disproportionate concern for Jewish students and alleged that it ignored harassment and threats to Palestinian and Arab students and their allies, though he could not cite any comparable examples of anyone disrupting their events. He denied that defacing Israeli symbols was an affront to Jewish students, declaring that it is racist to associate all Jews with Israel. He ridiculed the idea that anti-Semitism is a problem on campus, mocking such concerns as a figment of overwrought imaginations. To prove his point, he showed a Seinfeld clip satirizing such concerns.

Piterberg then argued that anti-Israel activists actions do not deny the free speech of others. He accused pro-Israel groups of misrepresenting the extremism of these incidents. Then, in a breathtaking inversion of reality, Piterberg contended that when incidents did become menacing or violent, it was because pro-Israel groups fomented or initiated the threatening atmosphere, essentially blaming the victims. He excoriated StandWithUs because it brings mainstream, pro-coexistence speakers to campuseshe apparently considers programs featuring such speakers to be extremist. Indeed, the UCLA Center for Near East Studies no longer includes such mainstream speakers in their programs.

Link:
The Piterberg Doctrine: Free speech for me but not for thee

Tarek Mehannas political speech was controversial and offensive. But the prosecution did not show that he was willing to actually engage in violence.Terrorists win hearts and minds when the US government prosecutes Muslims in America with little regard for the Constitution.

On April 12 the United States government successfully convicted another young Muslim male who believed he had the right to express his deep disdain for American foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia. Tarek Mehanna, an American-born Bostonian, took his First Amendment rights quite seriously when he vocally condemned his government for killing thousands of Muslims abroad. As a result, he was convicted of conspiring to help Al Qaeda.

While his prosecution may appear to be another success in the nebulous war on terror, it is in fact a victory for terrorists abroad who win hearts and minds when the American government bends over backward to prosecute Muslims in America with little regard for the Constitution.

Without a doubt, Mr. Mehannas political beliefs and speech were controversial if not outright offensive. Indeed the prosecutors highlighted a website run by Mehanna that often posted English language translations of Islamic teachings in favor of self-defense and circulated gruesome jihadi videos.

But what the prosecution was unable to show was Mehannas willingness to actually engage in violence in furtherance of his political beliefs. At numerous junctures during which Mehanna was under surveillance, Mehanna rebuked overtures by government informants and others to join them in a terrorist attack. To the contrary, Mehanna limited his actions to speaking out and writing against US foreign policy as well as translating controversial extremist materials into English.

In addition, Mehanna traveled to Yemen in 2004. He claimed his visit was to study Arabic and Islam. The government alleged he went to join Al Qaeda and later returned home to assist the terrorist organization expand its influence in the US. But both admit that Mehanna never actually planned or attempted to execute a violent terrorist act.

But for the 2010 Supreme Courts flawed decision in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (HLP), it is doubtful the prosecution would have stood a chance at a conviction. The ruling in HLP criminalized coordinated advocacy with a designated terrorist group as unlawful material support to terrorism, while independent advocacy remained protected by the First Amendment.

Thus the case came down to whether Mehannas vocal criticism of US military practices in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim majority countries was coordinated with Al Qaeda operatives. Similarly, when he translated Islamic literature and Al Qaeda propaganda, the government labeled it coordinated advocacy such that he was providing unlawful material support to terrorism.

Ultimately, the case depended on whether the jury believed the governments explanation for Mehannas 2004 trip to Yemen. Had he not taken the trip, perhaps he would never have been convicted of conspiring to aid Al Qaeda, though he likely would still have been prosecuted.

View original post here:
Tarek Mehanna: Punishing Muslims for free speech only helps Al Qaeda

Last month, Michigan teacher Brooke Harris was fired for allegedly helping students organize a 'hoodie' fundraiser for the family of Trayvon Martin. By all means, give Harris her job back. But lets also support the free-speech rights of all of our teachers, not just the ones we agree with.

The Trayvon Martin case has claimed a new martyr. The first one was Martin, the Florida teenager gunned down on Feb. 26 by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. Now theres Michigan teacher Brooke Harris, who was fired last month, allegedly for helping her 8th-grade students organize a fundraiser for Martins family.

Ms. Harris quickly became a cause clbre on the Internet, where more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling for her reinstatement. As the petition correctly noted, dismissals of this type create an atmosphere of fear in American schools. We will not tolerate the silencing of our nations best teachers, the petition declared.

But we do tolerate it, and increasingly so. Harriss firing comes at a historic low point for teacher freedom in the United States. And most of us have stood idly by, because we dont really believe that teachers should have freedom. Instead, we want them to echo our own views.

Consider the case of Jillian Caruso, who was fired from her Massapequa Park, N.Y., elementary school after her principal objected to a picture of George W. Bush that she displayed in her classroom during Bushs 2004 re-election campaign. A member of the Republican National Committee, Ms. Caruso alleged that the principal who was married to a Democratic state assemblyman violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and association.

Carusos dismissal generated a few columns and blog posts from outraged Republicans. But from Democrats? Not a peep. Nor did I hear much protest from any side of the aisle when a federal jury ruled against Caruso in 2007.

In instructing the jury, the presiding judge emphasized that Caruso had freedom of speech in her capacity as a citizen, but not as a teacher. So she was free to support President Bush on her own time and on her own dime but not while she was in school.

Here the judge invoked the Supreme Courts 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which said that public employees have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking as part of their official duties. The state hires employees to deliver a certain message, the court said, so it can also penalize those who deviate from it.

Since then, federal courts have used Garcetti to uphold the removal of an Indiana teacher who told her students she opposed the war in Iraq, and of an Ohio teacher who asked her class to report on examples from the American Library Associations 100 most frequently challenged books. The right to free speech...does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools, the Ohio ruling flatly declared.

Thats a huge problem for anyone who cares about American democracy. Teachers do not simply work for the government; theyre supposed to help students learn how to function within it. So they also need to model the skills and habits that democracy demands, especially the ability to analyze and evaluate different points of view.

Here is the original post:
The firing of Brooke Harris: a teachable moment about free speech

Last month, Michigan teacher Brooke Harris was fired for allegedly helping students organize a 'hoodie' fundraiser for the family of Trayvon Martin. By all means, give Harris her job back. But lets also support the free-speech rights of all of our teachers, not just the ones we agree with.

The Trayvon Martin case has claimed a new martyr. The first one was Martin, the Florida teenager gunned down on Feb. 26 by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. Now theres Michigan teacher Brooke Harris, who was fired last month, allegedly for helping her 8th-grade students organize a fundraiser for Martins family.

Ms. Harris quickly became a cause clbre on the Internet, where more than 200,000 people have signed a petition calling for her reinstatement. As the petition correctly noted, dismissals of this type create an atmosphere of fear in American schools. We will not tolerate the silencing of our nations best teachers, the petition declared.

But we do tolerate it, and increasingly so. Harriss firing comes at a historic low point for teacher freedom in the United States. And most of us have stood idly by, because we dont really believe that teachers should have freedom. Instead, we want them to echo our own views.

Consider the case of Jillian Caruso, who was fired from her Massapequa Park, N.Y., elementary school after her principal objected to a picture of George W. Bush that she displayed in her classroom during Bushs 2004 re-election campaign. A member of the Republican National Committee, Ms. Caruso alleged that the principal who was married to a Democratic state assemblyman violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and association.

Carusos dismissal generated a few columns and blog posts from outraged Republicans. But from Democrats? Not a peep. Nor did I hear much protest from any side of the aisle when a federal jury ruled against Caruso in 2007.

In instructing the jury, the presiding judge emphasized that Caruso had freedom of speech in her capacity as a citizen, but not as a teacher. So she was free to support President Bush on her own time and on her own dime but not while she was in school.

Here the judge invoked the Supreme Courts 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which said that public employees have no First Amendment rights when they are speaking as part of their official duties. The state hires employees to deliver a certain message, the court said, so it can also penalize those who deviate from it.

Since then, federal courts have used Garcetti to uphold the removal of an Indiana teacher who told her students she opposed the war in Iraq, and of an Ohio teacher who asked her class to report on examples from the American Library Associations 100 most frequently challenged books. The right to free speech...does not extend to the in-class curricular speech of teachers in primary and secondary schools, the Ohio ruling flatly declared.

Thats a huge problem for anyone who cares about American democracy. Teachers do not simply work for the government; theyre supposed to help students learn how to function within it. So they also need to model the skills and habits that democracy demands, especially the ability to analyze and evaluate different points of view.

Read the rest here:
The firing of Brooke Harris: a teaching moment about free speech

Despite shared concerns, pioneers in the movement say the methods of a newer generation abridge free speech and hurt the cause.

In December 1998, a U.S.-based hacker group called Legions of the Underground declared cyberwar on Iraq and China and prepared to protest human rights abuses in those countries by disrupting their Internet access.

About a week later, a coalition of hackers from groups including Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc), L0pht, Chaos Computer Club in Germany, and hacker mags 2600 and Phrack issued a statement condemning the move. "We - the undersigned - strongly oppose any attempt to use the power of hacking to threaten to destroy the information infrastructure of a country, for any reason," the statement said. "One cannot legitimately hope to improve a nation's free access to information by working to disable its data networks."

Oxblood Ruffin of Cult of the Dead Cow and Hacktivismo

Legions of the Underground got the message and backed down. The hackers went back to embarrassing Microsoft by exploiting security weaknesses in Windows, partying at DefCon in Las Vegas, and testing the line between white hat and gray hat security as they explored the limits and frontiers of technology.

But the line that was drawn back then is again being crossed.

This time it's hackers and online activists working under the banner of Anonymous who are using Web site defacements, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and data theft, ostensibly to press their campaign for Internet freedom and human rights. The group, because of its lack of leadership and organization, also finds itself calling for seemingly contradictory operations including both urging people to vote in the elections this year as part of Occupy the Vote and a "declaration of war" on the U.S. over proposed cybersecurity legislation, urging a vague destruction of the government but not a computer attack or physical protest.

The former "chief evangelist for hacktivism" at the cDc, Oxblood Ruffin, says this is not the way of a true hacktivist.

"Anonymous is fighting for free speech on the Internet, but it's hard to support that when you're DoS-ing and not allowing people to talk. How is that consistent?" Oxblood Ruffin said in an interview this week with CNET. "They remind me of awkward teenagers. I think they're trying to do the right thing, but they're stumbling around and doing some really stupid sh**."

Hacktivismo The cDc members were early hacktivists. A member named Omega coined the term "hacktivist" in an e-mail to the group in 1996, partly tongue-in-cheek. "We were providing ridicule and social commentary," Oxblood Ruffin said. "We were opinion leaders in the computer underground."

Read more:
Old-time hacktivists to Anonymous: You've crossed the line

Despite shared concerns, pioneers in the movement say the methods of a newer generation abridge free speech and hurt the cause.

In December 1998, a U.S.-based hacker group called Legions of the Underground declared cyberwar on Iraq and China and prepared to protest human rights abuses in those countries by disrupting their Internet access.

About a week later, a coalition of hackers from groups including Cult of the Dead Cow (cDc), L0pht, Chaos Computer Club in Germany, and hacker mags 2600 and Phrack issued a statement condemning the move. "We - the undersigned - strongly oppose any attempt to use the power of hacking to threaten to destroy the information infrastructure of a country, for any reason," the statement said. "One cannot legitimately hope to improve a nation's free access to information by working to disable its data networks."

Oxblood Ruffin of Cult of the Dead Cow and Hacktivismo

Legions of the Underground got the message and backed down. The hackers went back to embarrassing Microsoft by exploiting security weaknesses in Windows, partying at DefCon in Las Vegas, and testing the line between white hat and gray hat security as they explored the limits and frontiers of technology.

But the line that was drawn back then is again being crossed.

This time it's hackers and online activists working under the banner of Anonymous who are using Web site defacements, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, and data theft, ostensibly to press their campaign for Internet freedom and human rights. The group, because of its lack of leadership and organization, also finds itself calling for seemingly contradictory operations including both urging people to vote in the elections this year as part of Occupy the Vote and a "declaration of war" on the U.S. over proposed cybersecurity legislation, urging a vague destruction of the government but not a computer attack or physical protest.

The former "chief evangelist for hacktivism" at the cDc, Oxblood Ruffin, says this is not the way of a true hacktivist.

"Anonymous is fighting for free speech on the Internet, but it's hard to support that when you're DoS-ing and not allowing people to talk. How is that consistent?" Oxblood Ruffin said in an interview this week with CNET. "They remind me of awkward teenagers. I think they're trying to do the right thing, but they're stumbling around and doing some really stupid sh**."

Hacktivismo The cDc members were early hacktivists. A member named Omega coined the term "hacktivist" in an e-mail to the group in 1996, partly tongue-in-cheek. "We were providing ridicule and social commentary," Oxblood Ruffin said. "We were opinion leaders in the computer underground."

See the original post here:
Old-time hacktivists: Anonymous, you've crossed the line