Category Archives: Free Speech

SAN DIEGO (AP) A Marine facing dismissal for running a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party that criticizes the Obama administration is still speaking out but has been getting little support from military law experts and free speech advocates who say he may have crossed the line.

Sgt. Gary Stein planned to speak at a tea party meeting in San Diego County later Thursday, a day after the Marine Corps notified him that it is moving to dismiss him for violating the Pentagon's policy barring troops from engaging in political activities.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticizing the commander in chief.

David Loy, of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego County, said he has not followed Stein's case closely, but that based on what he has seen in the media he thinks there may be a legitimate concern on the part of the Corps about Stein appearing to be speaking as a member of the armed forces because of his Facebook page's name.

"The military has a very strong interest and appropriately so to remaining neutral," he said. "The last thing we want is our military taking side on political issues."

Former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed.

"He's really rubbing the government's nose in it," he said. "It's really hard to have sympathy for him."

Stein said he is not swayed. He said he received hundreds of emails from service members and the public in support of him.

"They're entitled to their opinions but I still think this is a freedom of speech issue," Stein said. "I'm standing up for the Constitution."

Stein, a nine-year member of the Corps, said he started the page to encourage fellow service members to exercise their free speech rights.

See the rest here:
Marine still outspoken despite facing dismissal

There is a new federal law on the books that we should all be aware of because it directly affects our freedom of speech. When proposed, it was called the Trespassing Bill. Its HR 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act. U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, voted for it.

The law makes it a federal crime to exercise your right of free speech in any area the Secret Service designates as a no speech zone. Our country was founded on free speech ideals, and this goes against the grain of what it means to be an American, to say we cant stand on a street corner to protest against anything we choose the color of the sky, the Giants winning the Superbowl, the policies of our elected officials and so forth.

As for the Secret Services designation, how the heck would anyone be able to figure that out? Isnt the very nature of their work secret? It reminds me of the scene from the movie Animal House, where fraternity members are placed on double-secret probation by the headmaster. Only in our case, the penalty is not expulsion from school, but incarceration as a felon.

KIMBERLY GILBERT Putnam

Read the original:
Letter to the editor: Recent federal law will deny free speech

Phila Siu

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Talking to the broadcaster yesterday, Tang said he revealed Leung's views on the matter last week because he knew his rival candidate for chief executive "stands a real chance of getting elected" and the public deserve to know what kind of leader they are getting.

During Friday's TV debate, Tang also accused Leung of urging that riot police and tear gas be deployed against demonstrators after 500,000 people took to the streets to protest a proposed anti-subversion law on July 1, 2003.

Tang was secretary for commerce, industry and technology at the time, while Leung was Executive Council convener.

Tang also said the two revelations were not premeditated, explaining that Leung provoked him by mentioning his extramarital affairs and referring to a sofa in his office that an alleged mistress reportedly referred to in an e-mail.

"He made use of unconfirmed information, and that was mean and shameful," Tang said.

He said Leung called for a shortening of Commercial Radio's license from 12 to three years in an Exco meeting after the 2003 protest, in a bid to muzzle hosts Raymond "Mad Dog" Wong Yuk-man and Albert Cheng King-hon.

Leung said the pair "were being tough with the government in that they kept criticizing it," Tang alleged. "He [Leung] suggested making use of the licence

But Tang had insisted the license period not be shortened because freedom of speech is one of the SAR's core values.

Here is the original post:
Tang planned to quit for free speech sake

I need to start this off with a note to the editor:

Put a bright yellow border around this column with the words "Designated Free Speech Area" stenciled in.

That would match what Modesto city officials recently imposed upon the sidewalk at the transportation center downtown.

This episode involves Kevin Borden, who in 2009 received a $1 settlement in federal court from the city after it stopped him from preaching fire-and-brimstone sermons in front of Brenden Theatres at Tenth Street Place. The city also had to pay $35,000 to cover his legal fees.

Ultimately, he took his pulpit to the transportation center, preaching atop a box near the ticket office and infor- mation booth.

On Dec. 6, according to documents, some bus riders complained about him and particularly how loudly he spoke in the always noisy bus depot.

Marcie Garza, who has dispensed tickets and route information for the past six years, said that while he didn't bother her, he did bother some of the bus riders. A policeman told him to move and he refused, again challenging the city.

The city's legal department determined that it controls the "time, place or manner" of protected speech in public. Because the depot wasn't created for the "purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions," it could decide where on the premises he could exercise his free speech rights.

Hence, it created the "Designated Free Speech Area" on a sidewalk about 25 yards away, closer to where riders board the lesser-used county buses and next to the Union Pacific tracks. It's a box painted on the sidewalk.

Remember the TV show "WKRP in Cincinnati," when ag reporter Les Nessman taped lines on the floor to act as the walls of his imaginary "office"? It's that kind of thing.

View post:
JARDINE: Yellow stripes clash with red, white and blue

Monday, March 19, 2012

PFF, Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS --Three years in jail for five West Papua activists is a further erosion of free speech and other human rights for the province, says the Pacific Freedom Forum. There is no treason in freedom of expression shared peacefully, says PFF chair Titi Gabi, in Indonesia, or anywhere else. The five men were sentenced by judges after being convicted for a public speech. Made last October, leaders at the Third Papua Peoples Congress ended the speech with a Declaration of Independence in front of a crowd of thousands. Shortly after the activist event, three people were killed when security forces opened fire on dispersing crowds. None of the military involved have been given jail terms. Under guarantees of free speech, strong opinion must be allowed without risking unconstitutional persecution by the state, says Gabi, a Papua New Guinea journalist. "The statements which so riled the Indonesia government were made during a peaceful assembly. Matters reportedly turned ugly when the military fired guns into the crowd. An unarmed, peaceful gathering sharing political ideas can hardly be labelled as an act of terrorism." The Pacific Freedom Forum supports calls from Human Rights Watch and other groups for convictions to be dropped against the group now dubbed the Jayapura Five.

The convicted men are Selpius Bobii, a social media activist; August Sananay Kraar, public servant; Dominikus Sorabut; film maker, Edison Waromi, a former political prisoner, and Forkorus Yaboisembut, a Papua tribal leader elected president at the congress. Co-chair of the Pacific Freedom Forum, Monica Miller, says that authorities in Indonesia must "follow through on the constitutional mandate to open up public spaces for all people of West Papua to share ideas safely with each other and their leaders. Miller says an impression of widespread injustice is growing worldwide, quoting a report from the US-based Freedom House on contradictory rulings within the Indonesian legal system. Until they feel heard by their rulers and the global community, the people of Papua will continue to pay the ultimate price for trying to speak freely on their lives, says Miller. Sentencing of the five in west Papua comes as Pacific journalists prepare to attend a regional media meet in Fiji. Miller called on colleagues at the forthcoming Pacific Media Summit in Suva this month to also focus outside Fiji, on wider challenges facing freedoms of speech, including in west Papua. Journalists and the media must balance the news needs of their local markets with reporting urgent regional issues, says Miller. The continued erosion of free speech in west Papua goes against Article 19 of the 1946 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Indonesia is a signatory.--ENDS

LINKS

Pacific Media Watch ( archives and background) http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/pmw-nius

Jakarta Post: Papuans found guilty of subversion, get 3-year jail terms Human Rights Watch Condemns Conviction of Papua Activists

Sydney Morning Herald: Anger greets jailing of West Papua activists

Pacific Scoop: Indonesia: Guilty Treason Verdicts For Congress Leaders Sentence Violates Human Rights Law Appeal against Papuan Congress treason convictions launched

ENDS

View post:
PFF supports no-treason call for West Papua

By Don Jeffrey - Tue Mar 20 20:11:41 GMT 2012

Lawyers for Eliot Spitzer, the former New York governor, asked a federal judge to dismiss a libel suit over an article he wrote, claiming it was accurate and protected by the Constitutions First Amendment.

Spitzers lawyers argued before U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken today in Manhattan that the article he wrote for the online magazine Slate didnt libel former Marsh & McLennan Cos. (MMC) executive William Gilman.

These sentences cant be about Mr. Gilman, Lee Levine, a lawyer for Spitzer, told the judge, referring to the part of the article Gilman claims defames him. The piece doesnt say Mr. Gilmans verdict was vacated but he was guilty anyway.

Oetken said he will rule later on the motion.

Gilman, who worked at Marsh & McLennan from 1976 to 2004, was indicted in 2005 after an investigation by then-Attorney General Spitzer over practices in the insurance industry. He and other executives were charged with a conspiracy to fix prices and rig bids on insurance contracts. The state had filed a bid- rigging lawsuit against Marsh in 2004. Gilman was fired by the company, according to court papers.

After an 11-month trial without a jury, New York Supreme Court Justice James Yates found Gilman and co-defendant Edward McNenney guilty of one count of restraint of trade and competition. Yates vacated that verdict in July 2010 after ruling that certain evidence wasnt disclosed by the prosecutors to the defense. In January 2011, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman declined to retry the men and dropped the charges against them.

In August 2010, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial critical of Spitzers investigation of Marsh & McLennan. In response, Spitzer wrote the piece for Slate the same month. In it, he noted that Marsh & McLennan agreed to pay $850 million to customers for reimbursements of premiums in connection with the investigation. He also said that unnamed Marsh executives pocketed increased fees and kickbacks.

This wasnt journalism, Jeffrey Liddle, a lawyer for Gilman, told the judge. This was an attempt to justify one person at the expense of another.

Gilman sued Spitzer and Slate Group LLC in August 2011. Slate is owned by Washington Post Co. (WPO)

Follow this link:
Spitzer Tells Judge Free Speech Protects Against Libel Suit

18-03-2012 16:55 @tjsotomayor on twitter tommy ask, is facebook anti free speech since they are quick to delete the posters of videos who bring them views yet the people who troll the videos who do nothing arent affected?

See original here:
YouTube is Anti Free Speech! - Video

20-03-2012 01:50 The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) drafts model legislation to be replicated in states across the country, including harsh anti-union laws. In Georgia, a state that was a cradle of the Civil Rights Movement, proposed legislation would levy fines of up to $10000 per day against groups organizing rallies. Georgia House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams talks about how SB 469 would stifle free speech: "While we celebrate democracy abroad, they're seeking to stifle it at home."

Read more here:
The cost of free speech: Proposed law creates fines for protests - Video

As featured on TM Forums the Insider Blog

Those of you old enough to remember the days of flower power and free love will also remember how many conventions were broken down as people around that time rebelled against inane authority and outdated laws. The era of McCarthyism, that fueled a propaganda war against anything that wasnt in the best interests of America, was finally put to rest and people started thinking for themselves.

This new thinking spawned the internet age that we now live in, one that allowed the web to evolve unfettered by rules and regulations, mainly because it was so new regulators had not yet come up with rules for it, or even needed to.

It was perceived primarily as an academic network, safe and harmless, and not something that needed much regulation because it was limited to so few.

Yes, times have changed but the internet has, until recently, avoided the undue attention of regulators. Net neutrality exponents have reared their ugly heads pretending to protect the internet and its freedom while completely missing the point that regulation of any type normally achieves the exact opposite.

Reports from a panel at the recent South by Southwest Interactive Festival (better known as SXSW) in Texas indicate the days of free speech on the internet, especially via social media, may soon become a thing of the past. Those disparaging remarks you make about a companys service or products may come back to haunt you, whether they are true or not.

Making the most of social tools without running afoul of the law was the focus of comments made by Dara Quackenbush of Texas State University who gave attendees a crash course on fundamental social media legal issues.

She mentioned a former tenant of one Horizon Realty, who was sued after she tweeted to friends, You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks its ok. Even though the case was dismissed, Dara said it illustrated challenges that social media professionals face with libel law. (Courtney Love wasnt as lucky when she tweeted a rant about her fashion designer. Love paid more than $400,000 to settle that lawsuit.)

Dara also raised issues surrounding the USAs First Amendment and the right to free speech. Lawmakers of the time would never have envisaged the power of the internet to spread a message so far and so wide so quickly. While the First Amendment protects most forms of expression, the law has never protected speech that is lewd, obscene, profane and libelous or fighting words. And that is where the latest attempts to gag the internet come in.

Social media companies like Facebook include terms that users will not bully, intimidate or harass or use hateful, threatening or profane speech. Most social media terms of service contain, or should contain, similar provisions.

See the rest here:
Days numbered for free speech on internet?

CINCINNATI - Occupy Cincinnati protesters are gathering at Piatt Park and Garfield Place downtown Monday evening as they celebrate the establishment of a 24/7 demonstration and free speech space.

The open demonstration area within 100 square feet of the Garfield statue was created as part of legal settlement between the City of Cincinnati and the Occupy Cincinnati. It included dropping 300 criminal charges against protesters for not leaving the park at closing time last fall.

The group intends started its demonstration at 6 p.m. Monday to celebrate what's it's calling Re-Occupy Free Speech Day.

Occupy Cincinnati says it wants to exercise its First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The group will hold a General Assembly which includes speakers from various Occupy support groups like Move to Amend, Union Bethel, The National Organization for Women, 350 Ohio, Food Not Bombs and SPAN, Single Payer Action Network.

Speakers and music will continue at Piatt Park through 10 p.m., when Occupy Cincinnati holds what it is calling a Soapbox for free speech.

The settlement agreement does not allow Occupy Cincinnati or any group to put up camping tents or other structures in the park. All standard Cincinnati park rules will apply to any demonstrations or rallies at Piatt Park, as they would for any visitors to any Cincinnati public parks.

2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read the rest here:
Occupy Cincinnati marks free speech zone