Category Archives: Free Speech

25-03-2012 20:51 Overview of HR347 and Free Speech Zones and the ramifications to activism and protests.

View original post here:
HR347 and Free Speech Zones - Video

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is planning to run for election to the Australian Senate. Picture: AFP Source: AFP

WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange says he would use a Senate seat to push free speech by using parliamentary privilege to break suppression orders and other "restraints on access to information by the public.

Mr Assange was speaking about an earlier announcement that Wikileaks had discovered he could run for the Australian Senate while under house arrest in Britain and that he planned to do so.

He told the Sydney Morning Herald he would protect "the right of citizens to live lives free from state interference''

According to Assange the Australian political system was dominated by insiders and cronyism and very few were actually working for the interest of the Australian public.

He pledged to promote more openness and which called the "the politics of understanding before acting".

Read more about Mr Assange's comments at the Sydney Morning Herald.

Read the original:
Assange would use Senate for free speech push

Julian Assange. Photo: Reuters

Julian Assange says he wants to bring liberty back to the centre of Australian politics, using his Senate candidacy to defend free speech and the ''right of citizens to live their lives free from state interference''.

The WikiLeaks founder also plans to be a ''fierce defender of free media'' if elected to the Senate, using parliamentary privilege to break court suppression orders and other ''excessive constraints'' on free access to information.

In his first interview since declaring his intention to run for the Senate in the next federal election, Mr Assange said he ''could be described as a libertarian'' and nominated Australian Democrats founder Don Chipp and former prime minister Malcolm Fraser as political figures he admired.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Assange declared his priority was to campaign for greater openness in government, what he termed ''the politics of understanding before acting''.

He criticised Australian politics for the ''increasing levels of cronyism'' and ''the betrayal of the rights and interests of people by political insiders, operating in their own interests''.

Mr Assange confirmed to The Age that Prime Minister Julia Gillard's attacks on WikiLeaks, in particular labelling its actions as ''illegal'' - contrary to advice from the Australian Federal Police - directly contributed to his decision to embark on a Senate campaign.

WikiLeaks announced last week that Assange had decided to run for the Senate after it discovered that his detention on sexual assault allegations was not an impediment.

He has been under house arrest in the United Kingdom while he awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.

Link:
Senator Assange's plan

Most people ignore genocide denial. Growing numbers of governments do not

While Ive argued in this column that free speech in the world is trending toward expansion, a position I still maintain, governments nonetheless display a mushrooming fondness for thought control when it comes to the darker side of human nature.

In a March 9 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote that Western nations appear to have fallen out of love with free speech and are criminalizing more and more kinds of speech through the passage of laws banning hate speech, blasphemy, and discriminatory language. Turleys point was underlined this month, when, following the murder of three Jewish children and a rabbi in southwestern France, French president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed a law that would make it a crime to frequent websites affiliated with some hate groups.

Sarkozys proposed law is the latest in a string of edicts that limit free speech in the name of historical memory. Denying or downplaying the Holocaust is banned in France, Israel, Canada, Hungary, Germany, and Austria, among other countries. A 2008 Framework Decision passed by the European Union says that all EU states should criminally punish the act of publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, with sentences as severe as one to three years in prison (although not all member states have followed the censorial order).

Speech codes demanding specific positions on historical events arent limited to Nazism, of course. Acknowledging that Turkish forces slaughtered over 1.5 million Armenians in the early twentieth century is a crime in Turkey, and France passed a recent law criminalizing the denial of this same massacre (although legal action has blocked its enforcement). Publicly denying the 1990s Rwandan genocide merits a prison term in that country. In February, the Chinese city of Nanjing cut ties with its sister city of Nagoya, Japan, because the mayor there openly doubted that Japanese soldiers massacred Nanjing civilians 75 years ago.

The general idea behind these measures is to ensure that current and future generations do not forget the crimes their ancestors endured. Yet the sky doesnt cave at the denial of genocide. Human beings are actually quite good at remembering mass murder. Indeed, as history progresses, we often become more likely to label genocide accordingly, despite attempts to call it otherwise. Americans or Europeans who cannot locate their capital on a map still know what the Nazi Holocaust was, who perpetrated it, and which minority group suffered most. The early twentieth century Armenian pogrom is widely acknowledged today, despite Turkeys efforts to eliminate it from the historical record. Even on a much smaller scale, in France, it is unlikely history will forget the four Jews murdered in Toulouse earlier this month.

For historians, denial of genocidedoes not raise any serious issue. Indeed, they can demonstrate easily the absurdity of the deniers arguments, Ludovic Hennebel and Thomas Hochmann wrote in the 2011 book Genocide Denials and the Law. [B]ecause the deniers contributions are void to the historical inquiry, most historians have concluded that although demonstrating the deniers falsehood is a task worth undertaking, it is preferable not to honor the deniers with a debate. The Streisand Effect applies to Holocaust denial, it seems.

That an EU-aspirant nation like Turkey and supposed democracies such as EU member states ban speech acknowledging or disputing historical genocide gives developing countries license to do the same. Rwanda insists its law [banning denial of 1994 genocide in that country] is no different to those in Europe outlawing denial of the Holocaust, The Guardian reported in January, as two Rwandan journalists who questioned events in the early 1990s appealed their respective prison sentences of seven and 17 years (they were also jailed for criticizing Rwandan president Paul Kagame).

Banning one form of speech for ostensibly noble reasons makes it easier to subsequently ban other forms of speech, evidenced by the fact that countries that banned Holocaust denial in time moved to ban broader denial of crimes against humanity. Laws dictating what mustnt be uttered are among the measures most antithetical to democracy. Efforts to mandate the memory of a countrys past can end up imperiling its future.

There is nothing democratically brave about protecting pleasant speech or banning unpopular speech; such actions flow naturally from a policy standpoint. Rather, [i]t is unpopular speech, distasteful speech, that most requiresprotection, renowned First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams has said. We draw far and wide the borders of permissible speech, and in the process we have to put up with a few crackpots. But we need not waste time criminalizing crackpot ideas. As John Milton once asked: Let [truth] and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?

Read more:
Denying Death

25-03-2012 11:42 - All credit to this user -- - Original description of video below -- http://www.DavidDuke.com DON'T LET MY VIDEOS BE CENSORED! Due to organized efforts to stifle free speech and ban my videos -- YouTube restrictions have led to removal of all comments on this video! My videos are overwhelmingly approved by millions of viewers, and they average higher than 90 percent positive comments and comprise some of the highest rated political videos on the entire Internet. Viewers love these videos! But, the Zionists don't ! The Zionist efforts to block my videos are relentless. They want to keep the world from learning the truth. The only way you can be sure to find my videos if they are censored is to not only subscribe to my YouTube Channel -- but be sure to SUBSCRIBE at MY WEBSITE as well. Subscribe to News and Updates at http://www.davidduke.com By subscribing on my website, even if my channel or videos are censored or removed -- you can still receive notices of links where you and your friends can see my videos If the Zionists are successful in banning my channel, then all YouTube subscribers are inaccessible to me -- so you can only be informed about my videos if you are SUBSCRIBED AT MY OWN WEBSITE. Thank you for your efforts for free speech and your efforts to ensure your Right and Right of everyone to see my political videos and read my articles! Without your support and efforts my vital work could well be silenced. Sincerely, Dr. David Duke http ...

Continued here:
The Zionist War on Free Speech - Video

Julian Assange. Photo: Reuters

JULIAN Assange says he wants to bring liberty back to the centre of Australian politics, using his Senate candidacy to defend free speech and the ''right of citizens to live their lives free from state interference''.

The WikiLeaks founder also plans to be a ''fierce defender of free media'' if elected to the Senate, using parliamentary privilege to break court suppression orders and other ''excessive constraints'' on free access to information.

In his first interview since declaring his intention to run for the Senate in the next federal election, Mr Assange said he ''could be described as a libertarian'' and nominated Australian Democrats founder Don Chipp and former prime minister Malcolm Fraser as political figures he admired.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Assange declared his priority was to campaign for greater openness in government, what he termed ''the politics of understanding before acting''.

He criticised Australian politics for the ''increasing levels of cronyism'' and ''the betrayal of the rights and interests of people by political insiders, operating in their own interests''.

Mr Assange confirmed to The Age that Prime Minister Julia Gillard's attacks on WikiLeaks, in particular labelling its actions as ''illegal'' - contrary to advice from the Australian Federal Police - directly contributed to his decision to embark on a Senate campaign.

WikiLeaks announced last week that Assange had decided to run for the Senate after it discovered that his detention on sexual assault allegations was not an impediment.

He has been under house arrest in the United Kingdom while he awaits a British Supreme Court decision on his appeal against extradition to Sweden to be questioned in relation to sexual assault allegations.

View post:
Assange: what I'll do in the Senate

Posted: Sunday, March 25, 2012 6:48 am | Updated: 6:33 pm, Sun Mar 25, 2012.

What began as a Mesa couples plans to open a tattoo business is now before the states highest court, which will hear arguments Tuesday over how much politics can influence the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

Ryan and Letitia Coleman and the city of Mesa so far have each won once before judges, first the city at trial and then the couple at a state appeals court. So if youve ever wondered whether a tattoo, like other forms of artistic expression, is as protected by the First Amendment as anything uttered at a public meeting, then the Arizona Supreme Courts decision should mean something.

The justices will consider whether political terms such as appropriateness or compatibility, rather than quantifiable harm, can be used to justify turning down applications to open a business. And thats why Mesa appealed this case to the Supreme Court: City officials are afraid that the courts could take away the voter-pleasing power to deny a use of private property just because people living nearby dont like that use.

You may not plan to open a tattoo shop, but to anyone who plans to open a business that involves expression from a shop that sells beaded leather goods to one that proffers paintings to, heck, one that publishes in print or on the Internet what the city can use to justify turning you down should be of high interest.

In 2008, despite a favorable recommendation from city zoning officials, both Mesas Planning and Zoning Board and City Council rejected the Colemans application to open a tattoo shop in a strip mall on Dobson Ranch.

The protests of several upset and fearful neighbors won the day over the views of the staff and even of Mesa police, who according to reports published in the Tribune told the council they saw no evidence tattoo businesses pose any more of a public safety threat than other businesses in town.

But cops and city staff eligible to vote in Mesa dont number very many. At the polls each election day are all sorts of neighbors, upset and fearful about any number of things and ready to exact electoral vengeance on incumbents whose decisions displease them.

The 8-1 council majority counted noses that day and decided that the First Amendment can be taken down a bit, all in the name of whats appropriate for the neighborhood, and, of course, in getting re-elected.

Most free-speech cases are about speech many if not most of us dont like. Tattoos displease many people, although these days most people you ask are probably ambivalent about them.

See the original post:
Telling neighbors ‘no’ would uphold free speech

23-03-2012 10:51 Discussion about the limits of free speech online. Moderated by Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News, the panel consists of Justine Roberts of Mumsnet, John Kampfner of Index on Censorship and David Drummond, Cheif Legal Officer, Google.

View original post here:
What are the limits of free speech online? - Video

The paint had barely dried on Modesto's free speech zone before it got a new coat. Thursday morning, a yellow box with the words "Designated Free Speech Area" stenciled on all four sides marked the sidewalk. By Thursday night, it was solid green.

In my Thursday column, I wrote about how the city recently created a free speech area on a sidewalk at the transportation center downtown. The city did this because Kevin Borden, whose ultraloud fire-and-brimstone preaching annoyed visitors at Brenden Theatres in Tenth Street Place a couple of years ago, found a new altar next to the ticket booth at the bus depot.

According to the city, he bellowed so loudly over the street noise and idling buses that folks trying to buy bus tokens or get information couldn't converse effectively with the attendant inside the booth. So, the city established the zone on the county transit side of the station, distancing Borden from the crowds that use the city buses.

Keep in mind that in 2009, Borden sued the city in federal court for abridging his free speech rights and won. He got a $1 settlement and the city had to pay his lawyers $35,000.

Borden began orating at the transportation center last year.

"This was, in effect, to protect Mr. Borden's right to free speech," Modesto City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood said.

They did this, of course, by restricting where he can speak, which she said the city has the constitutional authority to do. Wood said the city also maintains a free speech zone during the farmers markets on 16th Street that run twice each week from April into December.

The zone at the transportation center also addresses safety issues, she said. After all, the station can be a busy place, with people and buses coming and going every which way.

"We had to provide him an area," she said. "He couldn't be run off of the transportation facility. Still, conducting the business of the transportation center is paramount."

Indeed, the city decided to protect perhaps the only person at the station who stood in one place and wasn't trying to go somewhere.

Follow this link:
JARDINE: New color, same limits on free speech

A newly proposed bill in the House, which seeks to slap a warning label on nearly all video games, may violate the First Amendment, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties advocacy group, says that requiring video games to carry a waring that they may cause violent behavior in players may harm freedom of speech. The EFFs warning is in response to a bill, the Violence in Video Games Labeling Act (HR 4204), introduced this week by Reps. Joe Baca (D-CA) and Frank Wolf (R-VA), which seeks to make the inclusion of these cigarette-style warnings a requirement for nearly all video games.

Rep. Baca tries to cloak his anti-speech bill by the inapt comparison for tobacco warning labels in the press release announcing the bill, writes Parker Higgins, an EFF activist. But while there is a wealth of proof that cigarettes are dangerous, studies simply havent conclusively demonstrated a causal link between video games and aggressive behavior.

Under the Baca/Wolf bill, the packaging of video games rated E (Everyone), Everyone 10+ (Everyone 10 and older), T (Teen), M (Mature), or A (Adult) by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) must include a label that reads, WARNING: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior. Only games rated EC (Early Childhood) would be exempted from the rule. However, as Higgins points out, there is no conclusive evidence that video games cause players to act violently (pdf).

(It should be noted that the ESRB voluntarily labels games with these ratings. They are not required by law, just as the inclusion of movie ratings by the MPAA and Parental Advisory labels on albums by the RIAA are not legally mandated.)

Not only is HR 4204 potentially on the wrong side of science, it appears to be on the wrong side of the law. A 2010 Supreme Court ruling (pdf) declared that video games qualify for First Amendment protection, just as books, plays, and movies do. Because of the precedent set by this Court decision, as well as other lower-profile cases, video games are legally protected speech, and cant be singled out for special restrictions, says Higgins. Any attempts by state or federal governments to impose such restrictions will likely be shot down in court.

Of course, it is still possible that video games actually do cause violent outbursts, or at least desensitize frequent players to violence. A study published last year by the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology showed that young adults who played excessively violent video games did display noticeable cognitive differences from those who played non-violent games.

A single exposure to a violent video game wont turn someone into a mass murderer, Dr. Bartholow of the University of Missouri told CBS News. But if someone has repeatedly exposed themselves, these kinds of effects in the short term can turn into long-term changes.

Regardless, the evidence on this matter is far from conclusive, which means the Baca/Wolf proposal is, at the very best, premature. To fight back against this bill, the EFF has created an Action Alert that easily allows concerned citizens to contact their representatives in Congress.

See the original post here:
Violence warnings on video games may harm free speech, says EFF