Category Archives: Free Speech

When the charred bodies of four young girls were found in the back stairwell of a Baptist church in Alabama in 1963, free speech advocate Mary Beth Tinker felt connected to them and other youth suffering during the civil rights movement.

I related to those girls because they were about my age, she said to students, professors and community members at the Joyce Hergenhan Auditorium on Monday night. I wondered if their church basement was like our church basement.

After that, Tinker said, she started getting more involved. The 11-year-old started picketing.

Tinker, an early pioneer for students free speech rights, spoke at an event titled At the Schoolhouse Gate: Freedom of Speech in Schools A Conversation with Mary Beth Tinker as part of the Tully Center for Free Speechs Distinguished Speaker Series.

Her decision to protest the Vietnam War by wearing an armband to school led to a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld students rights to free speech. The decision continues to influence school speech cases, and Tinker still advocates for what she called the power of youth to take things forward.

Early childhood experiences in Iowa instilled in Tinker a strong moral obligation to advocate for peace. Her parents, Tinker said, kept speaking up for justice during the civil rights movement. With her five siblings, she watched images of the Vietnam War unfold on television.

As kids, we were so moved by that, she said.

As a 13-year-old, Tinker wore a black armband to junior high school in protest of the Vietnam War. She, her brother and his friend were ultimately suspended for violating a policy the towns principals and superintendent hastily crafted after reading a news article about the upcoming protest in the high school paper, Tinker said.

With assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, Tinker and the other students sued the school district for infringing on their First Amendment rights. Although she didnt like breaking official rules, Tinker said she felt that kids should have rights.

We were just wearing these little armbands, she said. We werent doing anything to hurt or bother anyone. The Tinker family received hate mail and a bomb threat on Christmas Eve. They lost cases at district and appellate courts. But four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Tinkers case.

View original post here:
Tully Center | Free speech advocate discusses civil rights

Back in the day, when he was a playboy in London, the most common nickname for him was Im the Dim Salman Rushdie about cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan in a speech on Saturday in India

Salman Rushdie made a passionate call for Indias citizens to fight to protect free speech in New Delhi on Saturday night. People here are asleep, very much asleep, and you need to wake up, he said to hundreds of prominent businessmen, politicians and intellectuals.

You keep the freedoms you fight for and you lose those you neglect, he said.

But his speech may well be best remembered for its virtual evisceration of Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician who has tried to position himself as the face of moderate, modern Pakistan.

Imran declined to attend the Saturday event, an annual conference sponsored by the India Today publishing group, citing the immeasurable hurt that Rushdies writings have caused Muslims around the world. Imran was to be the keynote speaker at the event, and when he pulled out Rushdie was elevated to the top spot.

Rushdie said he would try to put the term immeasurable hurt in the context of the real world for Imran.

Immeasurable hurt is caused to the Muslim community by terrorists based in Pakistan who act in the name of Islam, he said. Immeasurable hurt is caused to the Muslim community by Osama bin Laden finding shelter in Pakistan, and by a recent survey that showed that 80 per cent of Pakistanis see Osama bin Laden as a hero, he said. Immeasurable hurt is caused to the community by the enormous economic hardships and lack of education that result from mullah-driven politics, he said.

Imran Khan would do well to talk about the immeasurable hurt caused by these things, Rushdie said, rather than creating a bogeyman out of him.

Rushdie is becoming a sort of totemic figure for Indias appetite for and protection of free speech, since he was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival earlier this year in the face of death threats and protests. Muslim leaders spoke against his scheduled appearance in Old Delhi on Friday, but there were no protesters outside the Taj Palace hotel, where Saturdays speech was held.

Rushdies appearance at the conference caused several scheduled speakers, including prominent politicians, to pull out. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and the newly elected chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Singh Yadav, who has portrayed himself as a modern, forward-thinking leader, were among the no-shows.

Here is the original post:
Im the Dim to Gaddafi, Imran gets a walloping

Strong opinions often stretch the tolerance of Americans to embrace free speech, even among people who would normally call themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Yet two acts of speech over the past several weeks -- one involving a controversial talk radio personality, the other a controversial comic strip -- have demonstrated why we must embrace the right of all Americans to speak their minds, and how to respond to speech we deem to be offensive.

As a talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh has crossed the lines of civility on repeated occasions. The latest example is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute" to describe a young woman testifying before Congress.

Limbaugh was rightly condemned for his comments, lost a number of advertising sponsors and was forced to offer a half-hearted apology.

But that's not enough for some of his critics. MoveOn.org has recently launched a petition drive to get Limbaugh off the air in many cities. Limbaugh's supporters, in turn, have accused MoveOn of attempting to "censor" the conservative radio host.

Allegations of censorship have also arisen as many newspapers nationwide weighed whether to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury strip last week. The series used graphic imagery and words to mock a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Some papers chose to run the controversial series in its usual spot on the comics pages; some moved it temporarily to the opinion pages; and others opted not to run it at all -- a decision that resulted in some readers accusing them of censoring Trudeau, regardless of the fact that the strips could easily be viewed online.

The debate offers a good lesson on what constitutes censorship and what doesn't. As defined by Webster's, a censor is "an official with the power to examine publications, movies, television programs, etc., to remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc." By definition, censorship involves a government act to limit objectionable forms of speech, a frequent occurrence in China, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes.

In free countries, newspapers and broadcast outlets have the right to determine what kind of opinions they do or do not want to publish or air.

Thus, declining to disseminate a certain opinion does not constitute censorship.

That said, in a free country, readers and listeners should expect their media outlets to provide space and airtime so publication and broadcast decisions can be criticized. That's why each day we set aside space for letters -- including ones that are critical of us, such as last week's print and online letters deriding our Doonesbury decision.

Read more from the original source:
Our View: Freedom of expression? Yes, but ...

THE CHOICE

What does Anwar think he is doing? The Voice of Democracy sounds more like the Voice of Censorship these days. First he bars RPK from appearing on a Wikileaks panel alongside himself and Julian Assange. Now, we hear that Anwar Ibrahim has objected to author Salman Rushdie appearing alongside him at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi, where Anwar went to attack Dr M and make himself look like a martyr again.

On the Wikileaks caper we have yet to hear Anwar come forward, say something to explain himself, and answer Raja Petra's revelations.

On the Salman Rushdie controversy, Anwar the advocate of free speech called the author's presence in New Delhi "unnecessary." He tweeted his decision not to attend the forum in New Delhi in protest but later changed his mind and addressed the gathering anyway.

Mr. Rushdie said those politicians such as Anwar who were protesting him were "dumb and depressing." The politicians were "running when no one says 'Boo,' " he said, "and that's what we used to call in the old days cowardice."

During Anwar's speech he emphasised free expression and claimed greatness lies in total commitment to free expression.

Somewhere Rushdie was watching the livestream of the event and chuckling over the hypocrisy of it all. On one hand, Anwar espouses free speech while on the other, he condemns Rushdie's right to free speech.

Whatever his reasons, Anwar is not looking good after two attempts at censorship in two days. First RPK, now Rushdie.

READ MORE HERE

Go here to read the rest:
Anwar's War Against Free Speech: First RPK, Now Rushdie

After a lot of hot air about free speech, Salman Rushdie finally made it to India, and nobody was offended. All he had to do was wait for the state elections to be over, and for the Congress Party's (failed) policy of Muslim appeasement to fall by the wayside. And then he could feel free to entertain everyone (except Pakistan's Imran Khan, Congress scion Rahul Gandhi and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah).

"Listening to his words did not cause the audience to spontaneously combust," the staff edit in the Indian Express explained. "He delivered his familiar use-it-or-lose-it speech on freedom, denounced votebank politics and religious bigotry, insulted a few politicians, estimated how many Muslims really cared about his presence. The lack of drama and special effects around his talk only showed up how empty all the fuss in Jaipur was."

So true, and yet...

There is an important argument to be made about freedom of speech in India. It's just that the English-speaking elite aren't that attuned to it. Instead of Rushdie's dogged (and, frankly, surprisingly patient) explanations of why he believes he should be allowed to offend Muslims, consider Arundhati Roy's explanation of what's really happening to free expression here in India.

It's for sale.

"Essar was the principal sponsor of the Tehelka Newsweek Think Fest that promised high-octane debates by the foremost thinkers from around the world, which included major writers, activists and even the architect Frank Gehry," Roy writes in this week's Outlook. (All this in Goa while activists and journalists were uncovering massive illegal mining scandals that involved Essar.)"

"Tata Steel and Rio Tinto (which has a sordid track record of its own) were among the chief sponsors of the Jaipur Literary Festival (Latin name: Darshan Singh Construction Jaipur Literary Festival) that is advertised by the cognoscenti as The Greatest Literary Show on Earth. Counselage, the Tatas strategic brand manager, sponsored the festivals press tent.

While everybody declaimed about the travesty of Rushdie being prevented from speaking by a mob of (most likely paid) fundamentalists, another sort of payoff was going on, Roy points out. " In every TV frame and newspaper photograph, the logo of Tata Steel (and its taglineValues Stronger than Steel) loomed behind them, a benign, benevolent host."

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there were "hardly any reports about the festival sponsors role in the war in the forests, the bodies piling up, the prisons filling up," Roy says. "Or about the mandatory public hearing for the Tata Steel plant in Lohandiguda which local people complained actually took place hundreds of miles away in Jagdalpur, in the collectors office compound, with a hired audience of fifty people, under armed guard. Where was Free Speech then?"

(Yeah, I know I promised you only 800 words earlier. I cheated.)

Continue reading here:
CasteNCreed: Rushdie speech free but irrelevant

For daring to read a poem to David Willetts, the student has had his prospects ruined.

No combination in the world is more lethal than that of byzantine feudalism and gung-ho corporate technocracy. Cambridge PhD student Owen Holland ran afoul of it last December when he participated in a 'people's mic' where dozens of students and a handful of dons told the visiting minister for Universities and Science what they thought of his destructive policies.The group collectively recited at David Willetts: "You have professed your commitment/to the religion of choice/but you leave us with no choice . . . your gods have failed."

In the face of this poetic outburst, Willetts skipped class and flounced back to Westminster, his ego and, apparently, his right to free speech sadly injured.

While scores took part in the protest and were photographed doing so in a surveillance-heavy environment (another worrying development in this university), only Holland was charged with 'recklessly or intentionally' impeding free speech. He was brought before a University Court, the workings of which remain opaque to most dons and students.

His now internationally notorious sentence for reading aloud to the minister before he took the podium? "Rustication" for two and a half years. Back in the good old days, young Cambridge men were 'sent down' in disgrace to the family country pile to spend their suspension presumably shooting grouse and molesting the milkmaids. In Holland's case the intention is clearly to end his academic career.

The vindictiveness of this judgement in an institution of advanced learning is matched only by the familiar divide-and-rule crudity of singling out an individual for exemplary punishment in a collective peaceful protest. More than 70 students and dons turned themselves in and asked to be charged alongside Holland.

The sentence is absurd. But what should really concern us all is what this incident says about British democracy. It tells us that 'free speech' has become an inalienable right only for the powerful, for those who already have access to every newspaper and television outlet in the country. That citizens with fewer means should not find ways to express audible disagreement with the heavy-handed imposition of the profit principle across society at their own expense. That we are to worry about the abrogation of the rights of citizens only in countries we don't like.

What is shocking about the Cambridge decision is not that this sort of disproportionate use of judicial force is exceptional but that it is increasingly the norm. Ever since young people began to challenge this coalition's brazen marketisation and privatisation of everything from welfare and education to health and policing, the courts have sent out a single message: resist the relentless subordination of all aspects of human life and our society to the profit principle at your peril.

Apparently all clear and meaningful dissent is fundamentally unpatriotic: when not meek, young people are 'violent' and when they are actually peaceful -- it's difficult to imagine more calm forms of dissent than reading out a poem in a lecture hall -- then they are culpable of a 'reckless' violation of the rights of the powerful to impose their views and will on us all.

Our shock at Holland's treatment -- and that of many other principled protesters like Alfie Meadows, who comes up for trial next week -- should not obscure the issues they've been fighting to highlight: the deliberate transmutation of universities from spaces of debate which push the boundaries of knowledge into business-driven idea-free degree mills. As we metamorphose from citizens of a democracy into consumers in one large desolate supermarket, all of us are being disciplined. Resistance is not futile: it's the only option.

Read the rest here:
Owen Holland's case shows the crackdown on dissent

Politics of Sunday, 18 March 2012

Source: Joy Online

The Young Patriots of the New Patriotic Party has demanded the unconditional release of Mr Owusu Bempah, the Operations Director of FONKAR with immediate effect.

The group has in a statement accused President Mills of seeking to criminalize free speech by arresting and detaining Ghanaians of varying opinions to his governments policies and programmes since taking over the reins of power.

A government that superintends over gargantuan corruption, ineptitude, incompetence and mediocrity would not have lasted long in another political era. However, as Ghanaians, we have opted for democracy, and free speech is the best way to exercise that right.

The group said it found it hypocritical for a government which came to power on the back of free speech and propaganda to turn around and incarcerate its citizens for exercising their democratic right, citing for examples instances including NDC General Secretary Johnson Asiedu Nketias reference of all 17 persons who sought to lead the NPP as 2008 presidential candidate as thieves.

Madam Ama Beyinwa Doe referred to Nana Akufo Addo as a drug dealer and when she was asked to substantiate it, she said it was campaign talk during here vetting to become the Central Regional Minister.

The arrest and detention of Mr Owusu Bempeh for expressing his opinion on the disbursement of the Woyome money is simply against his constitutional right to free expression. The act is abominable and should be condemned in no uncertain terms and we the Young Patriots will consider further action should the President continue to have him detained.

Richard Nyamah Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover Hopson Adorye John Kumah **

Continued here:
Young Patriots: Dont criminalize free speech Mr Presiden

Feature Article of Saturday, 17 March 2012

Columnist: Young Patriots

We the Young Patriots of the New Patriotic Party demand the unconditional release of Mr Owusu Bempah, the Operations Director of FONK AR with immediate effect. President Mills since taking over the reins of power has sought to criminalize free speech by arresting and detaining Ghanaians of varying opinions to his governments policies and programmes. A government that superintends over gargantuan corruption, ineptitude, incompetence and mediocrity would not have lasted long in another political era. However, as Ghanaians, we have opted for democracy, and free speech is the best way to exercise that right. We the Young Patriots find it hypocritical for a government which came to power on the back of free speech and propaganda to turn around and incarcerate its citizens for exercising their democratic right. It is on record that Mr Aseidu Nketia called all 17 aspirants of the candidature of the NPP as thieves and President Kufour as the chief thieve and yet walked the streets of Ghana as a free man and today has been rewarded as a major contractor for the Bui Hydro dam project though he is a board member of the same organization. Mr Fiifi Kwartey, the deputy minister of finance told Ghanaians, that President Kufour and his government had hoarded all of Ghanas gold reserves in a foreign country; his insults and propaganda have been rewarded with oversight responsibility of our gold reserves. Madam Amaa Beyinwaa Doe referred to Nana Akufo Addo as a drug dealer and when she was asked to substantiate it, she said it was campaign talk during here vetting to become the Central Regional Minister. The arrest and detention of Mr Owusu Bempeh for expressing his opinion on the disbursement of the Woyome money is simply against his constitutional right to free expression. The act is abominable and should be condemned in no uncertain terms and we the Young Patriots will consider further action should the President continue to have him detained.

Richard Nyamah 0203-418-85 Daniel Nii Kwartei Titus-Glover 0246-850-138 Hopson Adorye 0201-433-925 John Kumah 0244-171-471

Read this article:
Dont Criminalize Free Speech Mr President

Strong opinions often stretch the tolerance of Americans to embrace free speech, even among people who would normally call themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Yet two acts of speech the past several weeks each very different from one another have demonstrated why we must embrace the right of all Americans to speak their minds, and how to respond to speech we deem to be offensive.

As a talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh has crossed the lines of civility on repeated occasions. The latest example is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute" to describe a young woman testifying before Congress.

Limbaugh was rightly condemned for his comments and was forced to offer a halfhearted apology. That's not enough for some of Limbaugh's critics.

MoveOn.org has recently launched a petition drive to get Limbaugh off the air in Sacramento and other cities. Limbaugh's supporters, in turn, have accused MoveOn of attempting to "censor" the conservative radio host.

Allegations of censorship have also arisen as many newspapers nationwide have weighed whether or not to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury strip this week. The series, which concludes today, uses graphic imagery to mock a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Some papers have chosen to run the controversial series on the comics pages, or move it to the opinion pages (as The Bee did). Other newspapers have decided not to run it, resulting in some readers accusing them of censoring Trudeau.

The debate offers a good lesson on what constitutes censorship and what doesn't. As defined by Webster's, a censor is "an official with the power to examine publications, movies, televisions programs, etc., to remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc." By definition, censorship involves a government act to limit objectionable forms of speech, a frequent occurrence in China, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes.

In free countries, newspapers and broadcast outlets have the right to determine what kind of opinions they do or do not want to publish or air.

Declining to disseminate a certain opinion does not constitute censorship.

That said, in a free country, readers and listeners should expect their media outlets to provide space and airtime so publication and broadcast decisions can be criticized. That's why The Bee each day sets aside space for letters, along with longer "Another Views," like the one published today.

Originally posted here:
Editorial: Doonesbury, Limbaugh flaps offer a lesson in free speech

15-03-2012 03:03 The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing upon the freedom of speech, the freedom of association and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Speech is language and other forms of expression; and association and petition connote physical presence in reasonable proximity to those of like mind and to government officials, so as to make your opinions known to them. The Declaration of Independence recognizes all three freedoms as stemming from our humanity. So, what happens if you can speak freely, but the government officials at whom your speech is aimed refuse to hear you? And what happens if your right to associate and to petition the government is confined to areas where those of like mind and the government are not present? This is coming to a street corner near you. Certain rights, like thought and privacy and travel, can be exercised on their own. You don't need the government to cooperate with you; you just need to be left alone. Other rights, like those intended to influence the political process, require that the government not resist your exercise of them. Remember the old one-liner from Philosophy 101: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, does it make any noise? Here's the contemporary version of that: If you can criticize the government, but it refuses to hear you, does your exercise of the freedom of speech have any value? When the framers of the Constitution wrote the First Amendment ...

See original here:
Free Speech/Protesting Is Now A Felony Punishable By Jail - Video