Category Archives: Free Speech

25-02-2012 18:31 Thunderf00t mirror. YouTube has instituted a policy of banning free speech, including any criticism of religion. Thunderf00t has suddenly had his videos removed thanks to this policy, which involves the removal of any content the religious totalitarians decide to flag as "hate speech" (because, as we all know, that is the only possible way to keep alive those ideas which cannot stand up under even the mildest scrutiny). Thunderf00t explains: "I just can't believe youtube's really changing its policy this badly. Sure the terms of service have long essentially defined everything as hate speech while encouraging people to voice controversial opinions (yes very mixed messages!). In practice this means the policy is defined by how its enforced. Up till recently I thought youtube did an excellent job of allowing vibrant discussion of controversial topics:- a mature and responsible policy that would make anyone who espoused the virtues of the Enlightenment happy! "Then I got four videos taken down in half an hour, and a 'privacy notifications' against a further two. Believe it or not, the privacy notifications were against videos where I documented a muslim guy hunting for and dropping my docs. WTF, seriously WTF. He drops my docs, YT scarcely bats an eyelid, now he says the video calling him on it is violating his privacy? "The following videos were taken down, according to YT after review by their dedicated members who determined these videos violated terms of use. This can ...

Continued here:
Youtube starts banning 'religiously offensive' videos (FREE SPEECH MIRROR - FIGHT THEOCRACY) - Video

Slippery when wet: Melbourne Victory's Golgol Mebrahtu leads a race for the ball. Photo: Getty Images

GOLD Coast's gutsy team of A-League youngsters drew 1-1 with the desperate Melbourne Victory last night as United's outspoken owner, Clive Palmer, again earned the ire of Football Federation Australia.

In a match played in torrential rain at times, Palmer caused a storm when he disobeyed an FFA directive for the players not to wear a strip bearing the provocative words, ''Freedom of Speech''. The slogan was also slapped on signage dotted around the Skilled Park pitch.

In quick response, the FFA formally advised the struggling United it was in material breach of its A-League club participation agreement as the slanging match between the sport's governing body and Palmer heated up.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Needing a win to stay in the hunt for the finals with only five matches remaining and five points shy of sixth-placed Melbourne Heart, the Victory was not interested in politics in front of just 2109 fans who braved the atrocious conditions.

Gold Coast was on the back foot early when 19-year-old speed machine Ben Halloran was forced off in the 14th minute with a hip injury soon after being fouled in a crunching challenge by Mark Milligan.

But despite playing its third match in eight days, United looked dangerous and created golden chances for Maceo Rigters and Zac Anderson in the first half on a slippery pitch.

In the 32nd minute, Victory star Harry Kewell had a cracking shot from just outside the box tipped away by goalkeeper Jerrad Tyson, who had a superb game.

The Victory was stunned in the 51st minute when Rigters scored after some slick passing from Mitch Cooper and Jake Barker-Daish.

Just six minutes later, the visitors equalised through a clinical goal to Carlos Hernandez, who drilled an Archie Thompson pass into the net.

Thompson had a gilt-edged opportunity to put Victory ahead in the 80th minute after rounding Anderson, but Tyson blocked his close-range shot. FFA chief executive Ben Buckley said the organisation had considered cancelling the match but did not want to let down fans and sponsors and decided to go ahead ''despite GCU's conduct''.

''I put Gold Coast United on notice that our decision to allow the match to proceed does not mean the breaches are waived,'' he said in a statement last night.

The official sanction follows recent controversial comments made by billionaire mining magnate Palmer, who labelled the A-League a joke and said he preferred rugby league to soccer.

Buckley told Fox Sports during the half-time break that Palmer's latest actions were ''disrespectful to the rest of the competition''.

Asked about the next step in the matter, Buckley replied: ''We'll look at that in the cool light of day - but they've clearly breached the participation agreement.''

Continued here:
'Free speech' riles FFA

Posted: Friday, February 24, 2012 2:00 pm | Updated: 2:01 pm, Fri Feb 24, 2012.

Does free speech under the First Amendment allow a person to present himself fraudulently as a veteran with medals? The U.S. Supreme Court is debating this issue at the present time.

There is what is called the 2006 Stolen Valor Act that makes it a crime for a person to say he served in the armed services and earned medals for valor. That law is being challenged by a federal public defender representing a California man who lied about being a wounded veteran and being awarded the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor.

The justices are debating whether to uphold the law. If it is upheld there is concern by several justices that it could lead to new laws against such things as lying about the Holocaust, an extramarital affair, a high school diploma, college degrees or to impress a date. All of those, of course, are a stretch but they are being presented as argument points.

On the other hand, there is the argument put forth that the law could be upheld on the basis that Congress has an interest in protecting medals it created to honor war heroes. That’s sound reasoning!

The argument that posing as a war hero who won medals hasn’t hurt anyone is shallow. We would argue that it causes a degree of mental anguish to all veterans and especially to those who were awarded medals. It also is disgusting to Americans who never served in the military but respect those who served honorably.

According to the Associated Press, the Obama administration believes the law should be upheld. The Solicitor General defended the law as targeted to protect the integrity of the system established by Gen. George Washington in 1782.

There’s no worry here about violating free speech. As for this law leading to other efforts to curb free speech, we say there always will be attempts and each must be judged on its merits. This law should be upheld.

See the original post here:
Fraud and Free Speech

“Would any of you like to sign the free speech wall?” Jacob Vandever repeatedly asked anyone walking through the center of Oregon State University’s Memorial Union quad Thursday afternoon.

Some made no eye contact with Vandever. Others shook their head, said “Sorry,” and moved on. A few paused, grabbed a Crayola marker and scribbled something on the white butcher paper stretched over an easel.

The writing ranges from the political — “Santorum 2012” and “Tuition is too high” — to the informative — “I donated blood” — to the just plain opinionated — “Portland > Michigan.”

As part of First Amendment Week, OSU’s College Republicans have gone through a large piece of butcher paper every afternoon this week (with the exception of Monday, when they used a smaller piece of paper), with between 40 and 50 postings on each day.

Except for the lone Santorum post, most of the writing on presidential politics discussed Republican candidate Ron Paul or President Barack Obama.

“That’s been a pretty recurring theme,” Vandever said.

The writing on the wall began Monday, when the group launched First Amendment Week. The free speech wall refers to a well-known portion of the federal Constitutional amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, also concerns freedom of religion and the press and the right to peacefully assemble and to petition the government.

Throughout the week, the group has seen some passersby write something and quickly walk away. Others stayed to chat. Kavi Khalil, a senior in electrical and computer engineering, took the time to read what others had written.

“It’s interesting, to say the least,” he said.

For the past several years, the College Republicans have organized Second Amendment Week, which concerns gun ownership and rights and is scheduled for April 16 through 20 this year. The group sets up a table in the MU quad and discusses the constitutional amendment and gun rights with passersby. Last year, they raffled off a rifle.

Conservative Portland-based radio talk show host Lars Larson brings his local and national show to campus for one day during the week.

However, David Del Moro, president of the College Republicans, said the group’s initial First Amendment Week aims to get students more involved in a broader discussion, rather than polarize them into a right-wing versus left-wing argument.

“Whether you believe conservative or Democratic values; we just want to talk and have a conversation about it,” Del Moro said. “We feel, ‘Why not write it on the wall, just get it out there.’ ”

In conjunction with First Amendment Week, the group also plans to take part in a debate with College Democrats at 7 p.m. Friday in Memorial Union room 208.

Contact Gazette-Times reporter Gail Cole at 541-758-9510 or gail.cole@gazettetimes.com.

Originally posted here:
College Republicans highlight free speech

by Rich Bird Post-Tribune correspondent February 23, 2012 3:34PM

Edgar Corns and his wife, Darlene at their home in Lowell. Edgar, a retired farmer, has been designated as Fraternal MVP by the National Fraternal Congress of America for his volunteer work and charities. Photo by Scott R. Brandush for the Post-Tribune

storyidforme: 26244892
tmspicid: 9527867
fileheaderid: 4370911

Updated: February 23, 2012 6:36PM

CROWN POINT — Citing the Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech, Lake County election officials tossed out a complaint stemming from a campaign flier that called Lowell Councilman Edgar Corns a “part-time” resident.

Corns — a Republican — filed the complaint against former Ward 5 Councilman David Gard, current Ward 1 Councilman Craig Earley and the South Lake County Democratic Precinct Organization.

Addressing the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration on Thursday, Corns pointed to the flier, which he called a “hate letter” paid for by the organization and approved by Gard and Earley. He said he was humiliated at the polls when confronted by people about the part-time residency charge.

“They have no proof of any of this,” Corns said. “It’s all lies. … This was sent through the U.S. Postal Service, and I don’t think that’s right.”

Speaking in his defense, Earley said that Corns occasionally spends time away from his residence, and that Corns spent between four and five weeks in Florida last year. He said the campaign strategy was an attempt to show voters that Corns may miss meetings or be away during an emergency.

GOP Elections Board member Patrick Gabrione questioned Earley on the strategy.

“So you think anyone who goes on vacation is a part-time resident? I recently went out of town for a couple days. Am I a part-time resident?” he said.

Earley responded no, and said he believes a “normal” family will vacation for one to two weeks.

County Clerk Mike Brown, made the motion to dismiss the complaint.

“In free speech, people are allowed to say what they feel. That’s what makes the country great.”

Ronna Lukasik-Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the South County Democratic Precinct Organization, said she was happy for the board’s unanimous vote.

“This was a waste of everyone’s time,” she said.

The rest is here:
Election flyer passes free speech muster, Lake County board says

by Rich Bird Post-Tribune correspondent February 23, 2012 3:34PM

Edgar Corns and his wife, Darlene at their home in Lowell. Edgar, a retired farmer, has been designated as Fraternal MVP by the National Fraternal Congress of America for his volunteer work and charities. Photo by Scott R. Brandush for the Post-Tribune

storyidforme: 26244892
tmspicid: 9527867
fileheaderid: 4370911

Updated: February 23, 2012 6:36PM

CROWN POINT — Citing the Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech, Lake County election officials tossed out a complaint stemming from a campaign flier that called Lowell Councilman Edgar Corns a “part-time” resident.

Corns — a Republican — filed the complaint against former Ward 5 Councilman David Gard, current Ward 1 Councilman Craig Earley and the South Lake County Democratic Precinct Organization.

Addressing the Lake County Board of Elections and Registration on Thursday, Corns pointed to the flier, which he called a “hate letter” paid for by the organization and approved by Gard and Earley. He said he was humiliated at the polls when confronted by people about the part-time residency charge.

“They have no proof of any of this,” Corns said. “It’s all lies. … This was sent through the U.S. Postal Service, and I don’t think that’s right.”

Speaking in his defense, Earley said that Corns occasionally spends time away from his residence, and that Corns spent between four and five weeks in Florida last year. He said the campaign strategy was an attempt to show voters that Corns may miss meetings or be away during an emergency.

GOP Elections Board member Patrick Gabrione questioned Earley on the strategy.

“So you think anyone who goes on vacation is a part-time resident? I recently went out of town for a couple days. Am I a part-time resident?” he said.

Earley responded no, and said he believes a “normal” family will vacation for one to two weeks.

County Clerk Mike Brown, made the motion to dismiss the complaint.

“In free speech, people are allowed to say what they feel. That’s what makes the country great.”

Ronna Lukasik-Rosenbaum, chairwoman of the South County Democratic Precinct Organization, said she was happy for the board’s unanimous vote.

“This was a waste of everyone’s time,” she said.

Original post:
Election flier passes free speech muster, Lake County board says

Members of the US Supreme Court grappled on Wednesday with the difficult task of deciding whether the First Amendment protects a free speech right to claim to be a decorated war hero – even if you aren’t one.

The high court is being asked to determine the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have received a military medal.

During an hour-long argument, the justices weighed competing claims upholding the necessity of the statute against the dangers to free speech of a government willing to punish its citizens for something that is merely said.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Several justices seemed troubled by the prospect of opening a door to future laws that might ban false speech concerning one’s receipt of a high school diploma or off-the-cuff comments made by a candidate in an election campaign.

Others appeared ready to uphold the statute as a reasonable regulation of a particularly egregious kind of lie undeserving of constitutional protection.

“I believe there is no First Amendment value in falsehood,” Justice Antonin Scalia declared, flatly.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito expressed similar sentiments.

When Jonathan Libby, a deputy public defender from Los Angeles, struggled to answer repeated questions about the constitutional value of a lie, Justice Stephen Breyer broke into the discussion with an example of a situation justifying a deliberate falsehood that would be both honorable and constitutionally-protected: “Are you hiding Jews in the cellar?”

Chief Justice Roberts brushed the comment aside. The statute regulates a “purely false statement about one’s self.” he said. “What is the first Amendment value in [allowing such lies]?”

“Our Founders believed that Congress as a general principle doesn’t get to tell us what we as individuals can and cannot say,” Mr. Libby replied. In other areas where the high court has long allowed regulation of speech, it involved speech that caused specific harm to others such as libel, obscenity, or incitement, Libby said.

The case, US v. Alvarez (11-210), stems from comments made by Xavier Alvarez, the elected member of a local water district board in southern California. In July 2007, Mr. Alvarez introduced himself during a meeting as a retired US Marine who had served for 25 years and won the Medal of Honor in 1987.

None of it was true.

Alvarez was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act. He faced up to six months in prison.

After an FBI investigation, Alvarez entered a conditional guilty plea. His lawyer, Mr. Libby, continued to fight the charge, arguing that the underlying statute, the Stolen Valor Act, violated Alvarez’s free speech rights.

Prosecutors defended the law as a narrowly focused regulation of a discrete category of speech that served the important government interest of preventing the dilution of the value of military medals.

A federal judge upheld the conviction, but a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The appeals court said the Stolen Valor Act could not withstand the scrutiny required of a federal law that sought to censor speech based upon its content.

US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urged the justices to overturn the Ninth Circuit. “This statute is as narrow as you can get it,” he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether it was, in fact, as narrowly focused as possible. “I thought the core of the First Amendment was to protect even against offensive speech,” she told the solicitor general.

She said the statute appeared to be aimed at addressing the offense felt when someone falsely claims to be a medal recipient. But Sotomayor said more than just an emotional reaction – more than mere offense – was necessary to justify a restriction on free speech.

“So outside the emotional reaction, where’s the harm,” Sotomayor asked.

It is about honor, Verrilli answered. It is about “the essence of what we want in our service men and women – courage, sacrifice, love of country, willingness to put your life on the line for your comrades,” he said.

“What the medals do is say to our military, this is what we care about,” Verrilli said.

“For the government to say this is a really big deal and then to stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won a medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers,” the solicitor general said. “We think the government has the authority and the constitutional space to try to deter this kind of speech.”

Justice Elena Kagan asked how the Stolen Valor Act differed from many state statutes that outlaw demonstrably false statements by a political candidate during an election campaign.

Verrilli said such attempts to regulate speech during a political campaign carry a more significant risk of deterring or chilling other speech.

“Suppose it says demonstrable falsehoods about yourself,” she asked.

“Those statutes are going to pose a particular risk of chill, that this statute does not pose,” Verrilli said.

Kagan was not convinced. “They are the same kind of statement,” she said. “One knows the same sorts of things about oneself.”

The solicitor general said the Valor Act did not present a similarly broad risk of a chilling effect on other speech. “What we’re talking about is a very specific pinpoint thing: Have you been awarded a military honor or not?”

He said the court could apply a special level of “breathing space” in its First Amendment analysis to avoid any spill over chilling effect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the high court’s strongest free speech defenders, seemed perplexed by the case.

“The whole breathing space thing almost has it backwards,” he told Verrilli. “It presumes that the government is going to have a ministry of truth and then allow breathing space around it, and I just don’t think that’s our tradition.”

He added: “On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that this does diminish the medal in many respects.”

A decision is expected by late June.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

Originally posted here:
Supreme Court debate: Is lying about being a war hero protected speech?

February 23, 2012, 9:57 AM EST

By Laurie Asseo and Greg Stohr

(Updates with lawyers’ arguments starting in eighth paragraph.)

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Supreme Court justices grappled with whether Congress can make it a crime to falsely claim having been awarded a military medal, in a case testing the reach of the Constitution’s free-speech protection.

Hearing arguments today on the Stolen Valor Act, the justices discussed wartime bravery, high school diplomas and lies people tell on dates. The law punishes people with as much as a year in prison for lying about receiving a medal. A federal appeals court said the law violated the Constitution’s free- speech protection, and President Barack Obama’s administration is appealing.

A false claim of receiving military honors “does diminish the medal in many respects,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said during the hour-long argument in Washington. Still, he and other justices suggested that upholding the law might broaden the kinds of lies the government could sanction, beyond matters like perjury and false statements to a federal agent.

“Where do you stop?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts. He asked how the stolen-valor law would differ from making it a crime to claim falsely to have earned a high school diploma, a matter that can be verified just as easily.

“What is the First Amendment value in a lie?” Roberts said later in the argument session.

‘Big Deal’

The case involves Xavier Alvarez, one of the first people charged under the 2005 law. That year, he was serving as an elected member of the local water board in Pomona, California, when he said at a board meeting that he served 25 years in the Marines and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In truth, he had never served in the military.

Prosecutors have filed charges under the Stolen Valor Act in 45 cases since the law was enacted, Alvarez said in court papers.

“The point of these medals is that it’s a big deal,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in support of the law. For the government to “stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers.”

Even though people are “entitled to be upset by these false claims,” Alvarez didn’t harm anyone and was quickly exposed as a liar, countered his lawyer, Jonathan Libby, deputy federal public defender in Los Angeles. Alvarez’s statements were not the same as an intentional infliction of emotional distress, which could be sanctioned, his lawyer said.

Legitimate Speech

Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Verrilli on what sort of harm the law is trying to stop.

“I too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I’m dating makes a claim that’s not true,” Sotomayor said.

Conversely, Justice Elena Kagan asked Libby what kind of legitimate speech would be discouraged by the stolen-valor law.

“It’s not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech,” Libby said, adding that people know whether they’ve won a military honor.

Since 1923, federal law has prohibited wearing a military medal without authorization. Kennedy and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked how that differed from the speech prohibited by the Stolen Valor Act, and they expressed skepticism when Libby said the 1923 law involved conduct rather than speech.

False Information

“There is real harm” in falsely claiming military honors “and yet I can think of instances where we do want to protect false information,” said Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia suggested giving a “medal of shame” to people who falsely claim to have been honored for valor. Roberts said that too would be barred under Libby’s argument because it would be a government sanction for speech.

Alvarez was indicted for violating the Stolen Valor Act and pleaded guilty, while reserving his right to appeal on First Amendment grounds. Alvarez was sentenced to three years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 416 hours of community service. A divided federal appeals court in San Francisco threw out the guilty plea.

The case is United States v. Alvarez, 11-210.

--Editors: Justin Blum, Joe Sobczyk

To contact the reporters on this story: Laurie Asseo in Washington at lasseo1@bloomberg.net; Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net

More here:
Military Medals Lies Spur High Court Debate Over Free Speech

21-02-2012 15:54 Violent muslim refugees/jihadists to Sweden attack the cartoonist Lars Vilks during free speech meeting at Karlstad University on February 21 2012. First you can see Lars Vilks being pulled out by bodyguards, next you can hear the jihadist making deaththreats. The background noise is the slideshow continuing showing funny muhammed dog cartoons etc. The speech could continue after the violent refugees were expelled from the building. These refugees should be grabbed and expelled, but muslims are the new priority for the politicians and not even violent criminals are expelled. Vilka has been attacked before during public meetings, muslims have on several occations tried to kill him. Al Qaida and their gay sister organization Al Shabaab has promised to murder Vilks due to the funny dog cartoons he created. The Swedish legal system appears to be incompetent in handling attempt of murder, physical attacks and threats. Nobody get arrested, convicted or even expelled from the country. The Swedish government promotes massimmigration of muslims, arikcans and arabs. The swedish goverment will pay employers 80 % of the salary with the taxpayers money if they fire a swede and replace him with a refugee. Immigrant ghettos in sweden has around 90 % unemployment, the government plan to impose tax free zones in those areas discriminating swedes who still will be required to pay full taxes, the worlds highest taxes. Immigrants already have first option to goverment jobs, study and welfare ...

Follow this link:
Violent muslim refugees/jihadists attack Lars Vilks during free speech meeting Karlstad University - Video

22-02-2012 20:58 Does law making it illegal to impersonate a war hero violate free speech rights? For more on this story, click here: abcnews.go.com

Here is the original post:
Supreme Court Looks at Stolen Valor Act to Decide if it Violates Free Speech Rights - Video