Category Archives: Free Speech

Summary: The big reason we’re better: they don’t execute you for blogging in America. Sometimes your page rank goes down, but it’s not quite the same thing.

Yesterday was President’s Day here in the United States. It’s a strange little holiday, in part because even what’s being celebrated is unclear both legislatively, and between the states and federal government.

Briefly, the holiday is and always has been officially Washington’s Birthday, celebrating the birth of our first president, George Washington. And even that has some degree of controversy, because when ol’ George was born, it was on February 11, 1732, according to the Julian calendar. But when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752, the date George popped in the world suddenly became February 22.

And then there’s Lincoln. When I grew up, we got a day off from school for Washington’s birthday and another for Abe Lincoln’s. Apparently, we were particularly bratty back in New Jersey, and the state did everything it could to get away from us little monsters, including celebrating two holidays in the same month.

In any case, sometime in the late sixties, having nothing better to do with its time, Congress decided to stick all federal holidays on Mondays and somehow combined Washington’s birthday with Lincoln’s and thus begat President’s Day. The only problem is that although most Americans think we’re celebrating President’s Day, we’re not. The holiday is still officially Washington’s Birthday, Lincoln’s birthday has been conveniently lost, and well, you get the idea. Your tax dollars at work.

So how does this all bring us to Iran? If you’ve been following Violet Blue’s excellent reporting on the crackdown on bloggers and social networkers in Iran, you’ll begin to understand how severe censorship can get in a truly regressive and repressive society. It’s deeply disturbing.

See also: Iran’s Deadly Cyber Police: Indefinite Detention and Execution for Netizens

There’s not even any tangible evidence of wrongdoing, and it’s likely web site operators and bloggers will be put to death, and that’s after torture.

Now, contrast that with the United States. Yesterday, I ran a very tongue-in-cheek gallery honoring some of our favorite presidents. Well, honoring them is probably going too far. Mostly, I mocked.

I imagined what pick-up lines would have been like for James Buchanan, our only bachelor president. I called Ronald Reagan a moderate and then proceeded to lampoon not just Newt Gingrich (low hanging fruit) but even Mitt Romney. I went to town with Bill Clinton and a company called Cigar Monster. I mentioned a blow-up Karl Rove doll and did a mission-accomplished dig with George W. Bush. And I even questioned the effectiveness of the current sitting president.

See also: Gallery: Presidents and their not so presidential apps

In Iran, they’d be pulling off my fingernails by now.

I was helped by other editors here at ZDNet, who gathered images and some background information. In Iran, their families would have been rounded up for questioning by now.

You know what happened after I went full monty mocking our leaders? You know what happens to me whenever I go fully monty mocking our leaders? Do you have any idea how often I mock our leaders? It’s virtually a full-time job. And, well, it’s not really full monty. I wear sweatpants.

The worst that ever happens is I get ignored. Sometimes readers get cranky. And then, on good days, I get a call from a staffer in a Congressman’s office, a chief-of-staff in an admiral’s office, or a special agent in charge from a three-letter law enforcement agency.

I don’t even get yelled at by these people (well, not counting our readers). But our government representatives often tell me how fun they find my writing. Sometimes, they’re nice enough to point me to additional information, or why they think my characterization of “their guy” is a little too harsh. Once in a while, I get asked to do some pro-bono advisory work.

In no case has anyone threatened to put me to death (well, not counting our readers). In no case has any federal official asked me to change my story, edit my story, or censor my story. Now, to be fair, I have access to a lot of sensitive information and have never published anything which is restricted. That’s part of why I’m trusted with sensitive information.

But, back to the point. In Iran, if you complain slightly or even are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you’re tortured and executed. Here, you’re either ignored or sent some white papers to read.

Many of you have wondered why I’m so pro-America in my writing, how I can possibly love a nation so flawed in so many fundamental ways. Well, now you know.

America is great because we have freedom of speech. The big reason we’re better: they don’t execute you for blogging in America. Sometimes your page rank goes down, but it’s not quite the same thing.

But — before you think I’m getting too jingoistic (look it up) — I need to point out a disturbing trend once again. The American government and American government policy is not trying to censor any of us. But lobbyists are. Special interests are. The companies we buy our tunes and flicks from are trying to censor us, and they don’t care how far they have to go to shut down our cherished free speech.

Think about that the next time a SOPA or a PIPA comes up as a bill. Is censoring us more like America or more like Iran?

See also: Chris Dodd and the MPAA: bribery or politics as usual?

I’m proud to be an American, but I’m not exactly thrilled with our lobbyists.

Disclosure David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member
of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Read the original post:
Free speech: Why I'm lucky to live in America, not Iran

19-02-2012 07:13 Boycott youtube every SUNDAY, spread the word ! black-march.com blackmarch.info getmoneyout.com Anonymous Message 2 Americans :Use the Constitutional Right to Free speech / hopefuly the PRESS also

See the rest here:
Anonymous Message 2 Americans :Use the Constitutional Right to Free speech / hope 4 the PRESS also - Video

18-02-2012 13:04 "A Minnesota city councilman has a Confederate flag hanging outside his home and says he's not taking it down, no matter what people say...".* What is the meaning of the confederate flag? Is about slavery or state's rights? Ana Kaspariana and Cenk Uygur discuss on The Young Turks. * news.yahoo.com

See the original post here:
Confederate Flag On Home, Free Speech For Councilman? - Video

Originally published February 18, 2012 at 8:57 PM | Page modified February 18, 2012 at 9:37 PM

WASHINGTON — Xavier Alvarez is a liar and a scoundrel and has been called an idiot, a jerk and cretinous. All of these descriptions come in the briefs supporting his cause before the Supreme Court.

Alvarez, once a member of a California water-district board, earned such scorn by lying at a public meeting about being a war hero, specifically that he was awarded the Medal of Honor. But his lies did more than make him an outcast. They made him a criminal.

Alvarez was one of the first people prosecuted under the federal Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military honors and decorations. It imposes increased penalties for lying about certain awards, including the Medal of Honor.

But Alvarez's lawyers — they are among those who make no excuses for his extensive lies — convinced a lower court that his untruths were protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether the Stolen Valor Act, signed into law in 2006, is unconstitutional.

Alvarez, a former elected board member of the Three Valleys Water District in Claremont, Calif., lied a lot. He said he rescued a U.S. ambassador. He didn't. He said he had been a Marine and expounded on his supposed Marine exploits in a September 2007 public hearing. He never served in the military, and there were no exploits. And, contrary to what he told his audience, he was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

Even his own lawyer admits Alvarez's sometimes tenuous hold on the truth. "He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings," federal public defender Jonathan Libby acknowledged. "He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon."

Unlike those falsehoods, though, Alvarez's claim to military honors ran afoul of federal law.

The case has generated huge interest and divided First Amendment advocates, including the media, and veterans groups, which see the law as a necessary weapon to discourage what appears to a boomlet of self-aggrandizers.

According to a brief filed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and two dozen veterans groups: "Pretenders have included a U.S. attorney, member of Congress, ambassador, judge, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and best-selling author, manager of a Major League Baseball team, Navy captain, police chief, top executive at a world-famous research laboratory, director of state veterans programs, university administrator, pastor, candidate for countywide office, mayor, physician, and more than one police officer."

Congress, the Obama administration and veterans organizations all consider such false military claims uniquely harmful. Just ask George Washington, they say.

"Should any who are not entitled to the honors, have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished," Washington stated in a 1782 military order, according to a legal brief filed by the American Legion.

"This case is about theft, not lying in general," District of Columbia lawyer Michael Morley wrote in one brief. "Alvarez, and others like him, have misappropriated for their own benefit an unearned share of the two centuries' worth of goodwill and prestige associated with American military awards."

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco agreed with Alvarez that the law did not meet the high standard courts must apply to attempts to restrict speech.

"Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in response to the government's request that the decision be reconsidered.

In the ruling that overturned Alvarez's conviction, Kozinski warned: "If false factual statements are unprotected, then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the ... Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he's Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won't hurt a bit."

"Without the robust protections of the First Amendment ... exaggerations and deceptions that are an integral part of human intercourse would become targets of censorship" and set up the government as "truth police" with the power to punish.

Other judges have seen it differently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver upheld the law's constitutionality in a separate Stolen Valor case.

"As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech," U.S. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the panel.

He said there was no reason to believe that upholding a law criminalizing false claims about receiving military honors would lead to a "slippery slope where Congress could criminalize an appallingly wide swath of ironic, dramatic, diplomatic and otherwise polite speech."

This split means residents of a 10th Circuit state such as Kansas and Colorado face Stolen Valor Act prosecution while residents of a 9th Circuit state such as Washington and California do not.

The conflicting court opinions are understandable; it is possible to find seemingly conflicting strains of speech protection in the Supreme Court's precedents, said David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. "I think this may be a very difficult one for the court," Hudson said.

On one hand, the court has held for years that "truth" may not be the standard for deciding whether speech is protected by the First Amendment. In 1964's landmark New York Times v. Sullivan, the court said "uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate" would be compromised if there was an exception for "any test of truth," especially one that put the "burden of proving truth on the speaker."

But the court also held later, in Gertz v. Welch, that "there is no constitutional value in false statements of facts."

Certain categories of speech, as Chief Justice John Roberts made clear last year, fall outside of First Amendment protection: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct.

The Roberts court has been reluctant to expand the list. In several recent high-profile First Amendment cases, the court struck down a law about depicting animal cruelty, upheld the rights of a controversial group that demonstrates at the funerals of those killed in military service and blocked a California law that attempted to outlaw the sale of violent video games to minors.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli defends the valor law by saying speech of limited constitutional value can be restricted so long as the law provides "breathing space" for fully protected speech, referencing another Supreme Court precedent.

But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told the court that the law gives the government "sweeping power to control and censor public debate." And the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 23 news organizations, including The Washington Post, the McClatchy Co. and The Associated Press, filed a brief saying that upholding the law would reverse "the basic presumption against official oversight of expression." Better than criminalizing speech, the brief said, is to promote aggressive coverage of
those making the claims.

It cited a 2008 Chicago Tribune investigation that used military records "to unearth 84 bogus Medals of Honor, 119 Distinguished Service Crosses, 99 Navy Crosses, five Air Force Crosses and 96 Silver Stars listed in biographies in the reference book Who's Who."

See more here:
Do lies about military honors deserve free-speech protection?

18-02-2012 02:01 http://www.newshounds.us - Sean Hannity ignored the shockingly bigoted statement Pat Buchanan had just made in a previous segment and argued that his free speech was at risk. http://www.newshounds.us

Visit link:
Hannity Paints Buchanan As A Free Speech Victim - Video

Last week talk radio giants John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of Burbank-based KFI-AM (640) were suspended from the enormously popular "John & Ken Show" for calling the late Whitney Houston a "crack ho."

Talk about kicking someone when they're down! Dead is about as down as you can get. Whitney fans were understandably furious.

Still, while piling on might make people mad, "ho" can get you fired. Just ask Don Imus.

"Ho" is street for "whore" and has a racial component the "w" word lacks. For example, politicians are routinely called whores with zero fallout, which seems unfair to actual whores. At least they do something for their money.

With the suspension, John and Ken fans are indignant their champions have been silenced, even if it's only for a few weeks. John and Ken haters celebrate the bellicose duo's comeuppance.

Both sides should think a second time.

John and Ken's First Amendment rights have not been violated. Nobody has a right to a radio show or a newspaper column. The First Amendment prohibits the GOVERNMENT from limiting our right to self-expression. Our employers can tell us to zip it whenever they like.

And more and more bosses are doing exactly that - enforcing draconian "zero tolerance" policies on jokes, office flirtations, and even religious expression.

While we celebrate free speech in America in a million ways we also pillory those who cross the ever-shifting and often arbitrary line

of what's currently considered socially acceptable.

Self-expression is under assault by a growing chorus of activist groups who are professionally offended.

The threat of lawsuits and/or boycotts against the employers of political opponents is often enough to frighten giant American corporations into cowardly silence.

At nearly the exact moment KFI was censuring John and Ken, MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan after deeming his new book, "Suicide of a Superpower," racist. MSNBC president Phil Griffin told reporters, "I don't think the ideas that (Buchanan) put forth (in his book) are appropriate for the national dialogue, much less on MSNBC."

But it's not just the left going after conservative voices. The Susan G. Komen cancer charity was subjected to a bullying boycott from anti-abortion activists resulting in a major flip-flop followed by the resignation of their senior vice president, Karen Handel.

Lowe's was vilified twice, first by the right for sponsoring a show about Muslims living in America and then by the left for caving to the right.

The right would ban flag burning. The left would ban "In God We Trust."

The John & Ken Show is in-your-face about local and state issues from a decidedly non-politically correct perspective. Personally, I find their bluntness refreshing especially in a city where you get in more trouble for speaking the truth than regurgitating a politically correct lie.

Do they cross the line? Sure. But remember, one man's outrage is another man's chuckle. That's life.

The speech police who want to sanitize the airwaves are putting the hoods back on the Klansman. Fear of saying something spontaneous has our leaders tethered to their TelePrompters. We're better off with unpleasant truths than sugarcoated lies.

It's easy to support free speech when we agree with the speaker. The real test comes when we hate the message or when the message itself is hate.

Continue reading here:
Doug McIntyre: Free speech is easy to support when you agree with the speaker

  A free speech lawsuit over benches at La Jolla High School painted with the words "Freedom For Iran" has been settled.

The litigation came after a senior painted the message in February 2011. Traditionally, seniors paint messages on the school benches in their final year.

The school's principal ordered workers to paint over the political message, but students repainted it a day later. That prompted another whitewashing, and a threat from the principal to remove the benches permanently.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union sued, citing violations of free speech. One year later, the long-awaited settlement is now final, Fox5 in San Diego reported Friday.

"The whole point is schools are supposed to be our laboratories of democracy," said David Loy from the ACLU. "The schools are supposed to respect people's opinions and free speech."

As part of the settlement, the San Diego Unified School District is not admitting any wrongdoing, but it will rewrite its student speech policy.

Students also no longer have to get permission to put messages on the benches. School officials said they were pleased with the settlement, adding most of the changes have already been implemented.

ALSO:

Sleepwalking teen breaks arm after three-story fall

Couple steals baby python from pet store on Valentine’s Day

Immigration agent shootings involved 3 supervisors, sources say

-- John Langeler, Fox5 San Diego

Continue reading here:
Lawsuit settled over political message on La Jolla High benches

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (WJBK) -- This week on "Let It Rip", we tackle the issue of free speech. An Oakland University student is suspended after writing about his attraction to his female professor.

"I'll never learn a thing -- tall, blonde, stacked, skirt, heels, fingernails, smart, articulate, smile," Joseph Corlett said in his writings.

Was he just being creative or did he take his assignment too far?

Plus, Michigan has become a political battleground in the GOP presidential race. We explore why Rick Santorum is surging to the lead in Mitt Romney's home state.

Joining Huel Perkins and Charlie Langton on our panels to discuss these topics are Corlett, Free Press columnist Laura Berman and author Elizabeth Atkins, as well as Glenn Clark, president of the Michigan Faith and Freedom Coalition, attorney Tracey Henry and state Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer.

Click on the video player to watch this week's conversations, and then tell us what you think by posting your comments below.

Read more from the original source:
Let It Rip: The Issue of Free Speech

Student Government President Cody Wells threw sparks into the SG Senate meeting Wednesday with a veto to a resolution passed last week and a speech that criticized Gov. Bobby Jindal and LSU System President John Lombardi.

Wells vetoed a resolution to urge and request Finance and Administrative Services to enforce Free Speech Plaza rules. According to Wells, Free Speech Plaza has no official policies and the authors of the resolution were misled to believe there were policies in place.

"You can't limit free speech," Wells said. "We can produce some guidelines."

But despite Wells' veto, a separate resolution "to urge and request Finance and Administrative Services to assemble a committee ... in order to establish a set of Free Speech Plaza guidelines" was passed by the Senate.

On the topic of the University's finances, Wells told the Senate that SG members are the only protectors of the University who cannot be fired for voicing "discontent with the governor's policy" about budget cuts and said Lombardi is in Jindal's "back pocket."

Wells also called out Faculty Senate President Kevin Cope after the Faculty Senate hammered Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Jack Hamilton's job performance Tuesday. Wells said Cope "spits in Jack Hamilton's face. That man [Hamilton] has done a great service to this university."

In order to save the University from more budget cuts, Wells proposed a "task force" called the "Flagship Advocates," who would meet one-on-one with state representatives and senators to urge them to protect the University's budget.

SG has repeatedly tried to start Flagship Advocates campaigns, but they've mostly consisted of letter-writing.

"It's all about relationships," Wells said. "The future of the state truly lies in the future of LSU."

The Senate also passed a resolution to urge "LSU Dining to provide allergen alert signs under the already available food labels" and four resolutions to approve members to the SG Black Caucus.

____

Contact Danielle Kelley at dkelley@lsureveille.com

Here is the original post:
Wells vetoes Free Speech Plaza resolution

A federal judge today all but threw out Michael Jordan’s lawsuit against Jewel-Osco over a congratulatory ad it ran when he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame three years ago.

Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that the ad, which appeared in a Sports Illustrated issue commemorating Jordan’s induction, was “noncommercial speech” protected by the First Amendment.

But he deferred a ruling on whether to toss the case until the parties submit detailed briefs next month.

The ad featured a pair of basketball shoes with the number 23 on the soles below the words “Jewel-Osco salutes #23 on his many accomplishments as we honor a fellow Chicagoan who was ‘just around the corner’ for so many years.”

The ad includes the Jewel-Osco logo and the grocery chain’s slogan “Good things are just around the corner.”

“The page does not propose any kind of commercial transaction,” Feinerman wrote, contrasting it with a 1993 General Motors television ad that compared Kareem Abdul Jabbar to an Oldsmobile.

“The reader would see the Jewel page for precisely what it is – a tribute by an established Chicago business to Chicago’s most accomplished athlete.

He also found that the use of Jewel’s slogan in the ad was “simply a play on words” and offered a hypothetical 2009 ad from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Congratulations to our Lakers for ‘terminating’ the Orlando Magic and bringing home yet another NBA title, and to Kobe Bryant for winning the Finals MVP. Let me join all Angelenos in saying that Kobe and the team will surely “be back” in the 2010 (season)!”

A Jewel-Osco spokesman issued a statement saying the company was “pleased” by the judge’s ruling.

“We continue to believe that we acted appropriately and that we will prevail in this matter,” said spokesman Mike Siemienas.

Jordan’s attorney, Fred Sperling, said “we disagree with the court’s ruling.”

“Jewel’s witnesses testified that Jewel used Michael’s identity in its ad to promote its goods and services. That is an admission that the ad was commercial speech.”

A lawsuit Jordan filed against Dominick’s Finer Foods, LLC after it ran an ad in the same Sports Illustrated issue saying the Hall-of-Famer was “a cut above” next to a $2 off “Rancher’s Reserve” steak coupon is pending in federal court.

sschmadeke@tribune.com

Read more here:
Judge: Jewel-Osco's Michael Jordan ad is free speech