Category Archives: Free Speech

COMMENTARY | If I hear one more reference to "freedom of speech" as a defense for Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher, I'll paste a copy of the Constitution over that person's mouth. For the past week, Limbaugh has been trying to salvage pride and sponsors over his debacle with Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University woman who spoke up for mandatory birth control coverage, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Maher used a slur against Sarah Palin and in the spirit of camaraderie, he now defends Limbaugh. Maher says his nemesis is exercising his rights and everyone needs to chill and have a group hug, CBS News reports. Maher says he's glad he lives in a country where people can insult each other and get away with it, The Blaze reports.

I agree it's a "false equivalency" to liken a political pundit's actions to a satirist's. Limbaugh's job is to provide commentary, not verbal beatings. It's a fine line, but it's there. Maher gets paid to trash talk; his job is to play the motley fool. Since they acted foolishly, I'm not clear why Maher resents the comparison.

I'll agree Maher name-calling of Palin shouldn't ally all women to her. Theoretically, I agree. But my knee-jerk response is to come unglued at sex references to women. Too many years of oppression have made it kind of a raw spot for us. I don't like men being referred to as a gender-specific body part either. How tacky is it to take below-the-belt pot shots? Doesn't say much for the person who does it.

Where Maher and I part company is this notion that verbal harassment, character assassination and name-calling constitute freedom of speech. Maher says ad sponsors dropping Limbaugh is intimidation.

No, targeting people with obnoxious jibes is the intimidation. Making general derogatory comments about beliefs or ideals is one thing; it's not very effective but it's acceptable. Insulting people by group isn't even kosher. Calling individuals out is the coup de grace. It's slanderous, libelous bullying. Being protected from this kind of persecution is just as important a constitutional right as the ability to say what you want.

With rights come responsibilities; "can do" doesn't always mean "should do." Limbaugh and Maher need an attitude-of-entitlement adjustment.

Read this article:
Limbaugh, Maher Don't Know Free Speech from Slander

12-03-2012 21:22 Cenk asks his Power Panel -- Tina Dupuy and David Sirota -- whether Bill Maher is right to say Rush Limbaugh shouldn't be driven off the air for his comments about Sandra Fluke. Tune in Weeknights at 7:00/6:00c on Current TV current.com

See the original post:
Power Panel: Is market pressure on Limbaugh fair or infringing on his free speech? - Video

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS

File Photo - The Constitutional Court. Photo: Itumeleng English

Compelling people to obtain approval before they could tweet, Facebook or blog on anything relating to sexual conduct would silence all online expression on the topic, the Constitutional Court heard on Tuesday.

If amendments to Section 16 of the Film and Publications Act stayed in place, this would mean that even cartoons such as Zapiro's series on the rape of lady justice, or an arbitrary blogger's observations on a report that a politician was caught with a prostitute, would have to be pre-classified.

This was argument submitted by an organisation called Section 16, who are friends of the court in an application to have Section 16(1), Section 16(2) and Section 24(2) of the Film and Publications Act confirmed invalid.

These require that all publications, excluding newspapers, must pre-classify any material that contains sexual conduct.

The Act came into force on March 2010.

The applicants - Print Media SA and the SA National Editors Forum - believe large numbers of publications will have to be submitted to the Film and Publications Board in matters of substantial public interest.

It will have severe negative consequences for the publication in terms of deadlines, and for the public.

The parties are also questioning why newspapers were given an exemption, because they fall under the self-regulatory system of an ombudsman and a Press Code, but not magazines.

Read the original post:
‘Don’t censor free speech’

The fallout from an act of vandalism at McDowell High School has sparked debate on whether or not students First Amendment rights were violated.

Several students received short-term suspensions after posting words of encouragement and support on classmate Alex Mayes Facebook wall.

Last week, Mayes and a friend spray painted phallic symbols on several different areas at McDowell High School, including Titan rock.

On Wednesday, both Mayes and his associate were questioned and then arrested. It was after his arrest that students began posting comments about the act and forwarding pictures of the rock.

Principal Ben Talbert was out of town when the incident occurred and he said he believed at the time that suspensions were the only way to protect the school.

The decision was made because I felt like we were in a position of being very vulnerable, Talbert said Monday. To glorify a guy for doing this we thought created a negative environment. Im just amazed that kids supported him. Many of the parents Ive spoken to are amazed their kids supported this.

Ken Paulson, president/chief executive at the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tenn., said this incident is one of many dealing with social media and a students First Amendment right to free speech.

This is an emerging area of the law, Paulson said in a telephone interview Monday. The question of whether public schools can discipline students for free expression outside of the classroom is still being refined. Its still being addressed by the courts in surprisingly different ways. Students have First Amendment rights. Courts have different ways of applying them when dealing with a school. The test is always whether the speech substantially disrupts school operations.

Disruption was the main reason why Talbert chose to give five students short-term suspension.

We thought this kind of activity was disruptive, he said. It was kind of like having a fight break out and having students cheer the participants on.

Follow this link:
Suspensions raise free-speech questions

Noah Berger / Special to The Chronicle

Louis Farrakhan holds up a copy of his book during his speech at UC Berkeley.

UC Berkeley on Saturday was once again the crucible of the free speech debate.

The birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s hosted another iconoclast from the era, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whose speeches and writings have been denounced by critics for decades as bigoted, homophobic and anti-Semitic.

Farrakhan was invited as a speaker for the ninth annual Afrikan Black Coalition Conference organized by the Black Student Union, and his appearance was denounced by other student groups and the subject of an online petition "opposing his hateful words and character" that garnered about 350 signatories.

At least two opinion pieces authored by student leaders denouncing Farrakhan's appearance were published in the campus newspaper, the Daily Californian, including one by Shawn Lewis, president of the Berkeley College Republicans, who wondered where was Chancellor Robert Birgeneau's condemnation of Farrakhan after the chancellor and others were quick to denounce as racist the college Republicans "Increase Diversity Bake Sale" last September to protest affirmative action-type policies.

Even UC President Mark Yudof weighed in on the Farrakhan appearance, writing in an open letter that "we cannot as a society allow what we regard as vile speech to lead us to abandon the cherished value of free speech."

But that only required that people "condemn these merchants of hatred when they come into our community," Yudof wrote.

There were no protesters outside Wheeler Auditorium before Farrakhan's speech, and only one after.

That was Noah Ickowitz, a student senator who said Farrakhan had every right to appear on campus, and Ickowitz had every right to protest a speech he said advocated black empowerment at the expense of other groups.

See original here:
Louis Farrakhan speaks at UC Berkeley

COMMENTARY | Let's have a little First Amendment chat, specifically about the clause that ensures freedom of speech. People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what that means: often, regular citizens assume that the First Amendment allows you to say whatever you want, however you want, wherever you want, with no consequence.

Not exactly.

Or to be more accurate, not remotely. First things first, though. The Constitution only applies to government action. So say you have a spat below in the comments, as someone calls you an "idoit" and you respond, correcting the genius on his spelling. Your discussion gets heated. The Constitution doesn't care.

But say you call a Congressman an "idiot." That Congressman -- a representative of the government bound by the Constitution -- cannot then take action to silence you, or to censor your speech, in the same way websites can, thanks to the First Amendment.

So back to the original point. Recently, Rush Limbaugh bled sponsors over his vicious attacks of Sandra Fluke, the woman who wanted to testify before Congress about contraception. You may be wondering, hey, is that legal? The guy was just exercising his First Amendment right to call that woman a slut and a prostitute, and to say that she should be required to post sex videos online. How can he have consequences for exercising his free speech?

Well, unless he was threatening her, encouraging others to threaten her, or in some way, stepping into the realm of unprotected speech, violating broadcast standards, or a law, the government itself cannot take action against him.

But we private citizens are free to take whatever steps we choose, even boycotting companies that advertise with him. Free speech may guarantee your right to be free from government interference when it comes to what you want to say, but it does not ensure that you will be free of negative reaction to what you say, which is a very different concept all together.

In fact, the reaction to Limbaugh's repeated diatribes shows the strength of the First Amendment at work. The speech clause creates a so-called "marketplace of ideas," where opposing thoughts and opinions may be expressed instead of censored.

Limbaugh certainly expressed his opinions.

But then others are free to express their reactions, are free to offer counter-speech, and are free to call attention to what he said, as well as to let consumers know that they could, unwittingly, be supporting Limbaugh's show through the companies with which they choose to do business. Speech is designed to be the most self-correcting of self-correcting markets.

Follow this link:
Free Speech Bites Rush Limbaugh Back

A helicopter carries a banner reading 'Freedom of Speech' before the round 23 A-League match between the Newcastle Jets and Gold Coast United at Hunter Stadium. Source: Getty Images

CLIVE Palmer continued to push his free speech message by hiring a helicopter to hover over Hunter Stadium flying a "Freedom of Speech" banner last night before Gold Coast United's clash with Newcastle.

FFA had banned Palmer, who last week started up rival organisation Football Australia, from buying advertising signage at the Newcastle venue.

Palmer will honour his pledge of an all expenses paid trip to Fiji for 15 Gold Coast players despite being stripped of the club's A-League licence.

Queensland's richest man has told The Courier-Mail that he will not be reneging on his promise, made to the United's squad that lost 1-0 to Melbourne Heart at AAMI Park on February 17.

The match was just a day after former coach Miron Bleiberg was suspended by Palmer for comments he made about the club owner's decision to appoint 17-year-old midfielder Mitch Cooper as stand-in skipper despite it being the youngster's A-League debut.

Bleiberg subsequently parted ways with the club, with Palmer insisting the mentor was sacked despite United's foundation coach announcing his resignation the day before his axing.

Palmer said he was proud of the young United side's performance against the Heart and believed the squad was more than deserving of a holiday reward.

"Even though the FFA has taken the licence off me, I'll still be rewarding my players," he said.

Palmer yesterday continued his verbal assault on FFA, saying the game's national governing body had "closed the door" on Gold Coast United and "jeopardised" football's development in the region.

Read the original here:
Palmer flies banner for free speech

08-03-2012 13:46 Upload your news at http://www.fknnewz.com

Read more:
FREE SPEECH - FKN Newz 03/08/12 - Video

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan is advertising for companies to install an Internet filtering system that could block up to 50 million Web addresses, alarming free speech activists who fear current censorship could become much more widespread.

Internet access for Pakistan's some 20 million Web users is less restricted than in many countries in Asia and the Arab world, though some pornographic sites and those seen as insulting to Islam are blocked. Others related to separatist activities or army criticism have also been, or continue to be, censored.

Few nations have so publicly revealed their plans to censor the Web as Pakistan is doing, however. Last month, the government took out newspaper and Web advertisements asking for companies or institutions to develop the national filtering and blocking system.

"They are already blocking a lot of Internet content, and now they are going for a massive system that can only limit and control political discourse," said Shahzad Ahmad, the director of Bytes for All Pakistan, which campaigns for Internet freedom. "The government has nothing to do with what I choose to look at."

The government doesn't currently list the sites it has blocked, or their number, or say who sits on the committee that decides what pages to shut down. Pakistan's Telecommunication Authority instructs the country's 50 Internet Service Providers to block sites. The ISPs, which receive their license from the PTA, are obliged to obey.

In November, the PTA ordered cellphone companies to block text messages containing a list of more than 1,500 English words it said were offensive. But the plan was dropped after public ridicule and complaints from cellphone companies about practicality.

The plan to censor the Internet comes amid unease over a set of proposals by a media regulatory body aimed at bringing the country's freewheeling television media under closer government control. With general elections later this year or earlier next, some critics have speculated the government might be trying to cut down on criticism.

The media proposals call for television stations not to broadcast programs "against the national interest" or those that "undermine its integrity or solidarity as an independent and sovereign country" or "contain aspersions against or ridicule the organs of the State."

Pakistan's Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan denied Wednesday that the government was seeking to curb the media.

"We want to see the media growing. We want to strengthen it," Awan said, emphasizing that the proposals were just that, and the government wouldn't implement them without the media's consent.

Read the original:
Pakistan advertises for massive Web censor system, worrying free speech activists

SALINE COUNTY,AR - It may look like abar full of booze, but people gathering at the mysaline.com free speech rally mean business.

"Your skin had better get thick or you better get out of this game," said Saline County Circuit Court Clerk Dennis Milligan on local city politics.

At Thursday's free speech rally, mysaline.com supporters spoke out against a lawsuit targeting members of the social networking site for posting, "false and defamatory" remarks against Bryant city council members Brenda Miller, Danny Steele and Adrian Henley.

"It's just opinion that they're putting online," said mysaline.com founder Shelli Russell. "It may be an opinion that you don't like but that doesn't mean that they're not allowed to say it."

City and county leaders are now joining in to support the anonymous bloggers' First Amendment rights.

"That's what this country was built on," said Milligan. "It's the First Amendment and by golly I stand to uphold that as an elected official until they tear me out on my death bed."

The council members' attorney says anyone showing up for this rally, "must not understand that libel and slander aren't protected by the First Amendment," although she still won't reference any specific blogs as a reason behind the lawsuit.

"They may have jobs that could be at stake, they may have neighbors who may not like what they say and I would like for them to stay anonymous," said Russell.

And with support for the bloggers growing by the minute, both sides expect this lawsuit to go to court.

All three Bryant aldermen are up for reelection this year.

Go here to see the original:
Free Speech Rally gathers support for bloggers targeted in lawsuit