Category Archives: Free Speech

Elon Musk is known for his influential tweets on cryptocurrency, and posting memes but now he's held a vote on whether Twitter has free speech.

The Tesla CEO asked his 79.1m Twitter followers a couple of questions about the social media platform concerning free speech.

"Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?" Musk asked and gave users the options of "Yes" or "No" to choose from.

In a follow-up tweet, Musk warned people to think about their answer to his poll and wrote: "The consequences of this poll will be important. Please vote carefully."

Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter

The final results show that 2,035,924 votes were cast, with the "No" winning out with 70.4 per cent of the vote and only 29.6 per cent voting "Yes."

Musk is certainly not the first to raise concerns on free speech not being adhered to with Donald Trump launching his own platform after getting permanently banned from Twitter.

Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy.nnDo you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?

Musk has been making the most of Twitter's poll feature as he previously asked his followers whether the "Twitter algorithm should be open source."

An open source algorithm would mean that people are able to find out how Twitter decides what content to show on their timeline.

In this particular poll, 1,117,574 votes were cast with "Yes" winning unanimously with 82.7 per cent of the vote and only 17.3 per cent of those who voted chose "No."

Twitter algorithm should be open source

Musk has recently made it clear how he would vote in his Twitter poll as he shared his "worry" about the "de facto bias" in the Twitter alogrithm and questioned: "How do we know what's really happening?"

Iu2019m worried about de facto bias in u201cthe Twitter algorithmu201d having a major effect on public discourse. nnHow do we know whatu2019s really happening?

In response to Musk's poll on whether the Twitter algorithm should be open source, Twitter founder Jack Dorsey who left his role as CEO of the platform last year shared his thoughts on the matter: "The choice of which algorithm to use (or not) should be open to everyone."

The choice of which algorithm to use (or not) should be open to everyonehttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507041396242407424u00a0u2026

The polls caused widespread discussion on the topic of free speech as some noted that private companies like Twitter do not need to adhere to the First Amendment as the social media platform is not part of the government.

There is no free speech on private property you don't own.nnOnly government can violate the First Amendment.

Free speech only really applies to the government's interference of speech.nnDoesn't apply to how websites regulate content. That's a business. They can kick out who they wish technically

No but they shouldnu2019t have to. Theyu2019re a private company with a product and can make whatever rules they want, for better or worse.

"Free Speech" protects citizens from their government.... not Meme Lord's from Private Companies.

While others have urged Musk to buy Twitter or even create a social media platform of his own and some believe this could be the important consequences he is referring to.

As the richest person in the world with a current net worth of over $250 billion according to Forbes and the Bloomberg Billionaires Index list, he could launch his own if he wanted to.

Please buy Twitter.

Elon is either buying twitter and changing it, or starting his own platform. Itu2019s happeninghttps://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344u00a0u2026

Is @elonmusk looking to buy @Twitter or set up a new platform? Or something completely different going on?https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507272763597373461u00a0u2026

Yes! If @elonmusk doesnu2019t like Twitteru2019s publishing choices, he can absolutely buy it and change them.https://twitter.com/malmbergkj/status/1507319294669074436u00a0u2026

Hope you are creating a new social media platform.

Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

More here:
Elon Musk holds vote on whether Twitter has free speech - and warns of 'consequences' - indy100

OPINION:

When President Woodrow Wilson marched the country into World War I in 1917, California Sen. Hiram Johnson observed that The first casualty when war comes is truth.

Wilson did his best to prove that statement true as he promised stern repression of those the Wilson administration believed demonstrated disloyalty and thereby undermined the war effort. With speed only next seen after 9/11, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act a year later. These laws allowed the government to prosecute and jail anyone including journalists who dared question Wilsons war policies. Before the war ended, it had been used to indict and imprison more than 2,000 Americans, including Eugene Debs, a former Socialist candidate for the presidency who questioned the draft and empowered postal authorities to ban publications that questioned U.S. policies from the mails.

Many of Wilsons critics remained in jail after the war ended and were only released after Warren Harding, Wilsons successor, pardoned them in one of his first acts as president. He said, Ours is not a country that imprisons men for what they say or write, although America under Wilson had done just that.

Wilson, like many national leaders before and since, considered anyone who questioned his policies disloyal and argued that by doing so, they sacrificed the right to civil liberties. He was hostile, particularly to German Americans, whom he called hyphenated and regarded as a fifth column within the country. They were persecuted by a president who declared that any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic when he gets ready. This was the same attitude that led Franklin D. Roosevelt to round up and intern Japanese Americans in World War II and regard both German and Italian Americans as a threat to U.S. security.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and many of his harshest critics in this country seem to be channelingWilsons spirit. One of the Russian dictators first acts after launching his unprovoked assault on Ukraine was to make it a jailable offense to criticize or even call the invasion an invasion.

Last week at a massive Moscow rally, Mr. Putin dismissed his critics as gnats. He suggested true Russians will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors, calling those who disagree with his policies fifth columnists and vowing that Russians will simply spit them out like an insect in their mouth, spit them onto the pavement.

In our country, some politicians are similarly labeling anyone who questions the wisdom of our response traitors. Suggesting that President Bidens policies may have contributed to the crisis leading to the invasion are described in much the same terms by people who recognize authoritarianism in foreign politicians, but not in the mirror. Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, former Democratic former Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe are calling out Fox commentator Tucker Carlson and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard not for being wrong, but for treason. They would undoubtedly spit out such fifth columnists like an insect in their mouth.

In wartime, there is a tendency to demonize the opposing nations leadership and anyone unfortunate enough to have been born there. Wilsons hatred of the German people led to incredible persecution. Now Russian Americans and anything Russian is being targeted by people who should know better. A symphony orchestra that believes banning the performance of Tchaikovskys works or blaming every Russian, including those who have fled current and past tyrannical rulers, is far more un-American than anything Mr. Carlson or Ms. Gabbard has said.

During the height of the Vietnam War, there is little doubt that some protesters were fifth columnists, but most were exercising their right to express heartfelt opinions in a free country. My friends and I disagreed with most of them, debated them and denounced their extremism. We never suggested they be rounded up and jailed. We have a country that not only recognizes the right to disagree with governmental policies even in wartime but thrives because we as a people have always valued the right to debate and dissent as the most effective way to arrive at the truth.

That shouldnt change now. Our values are threatened when supposedly responsible politicians react to dissent by adopting the music and lyrics of a man like Mr. Putin.

David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.

Read this article:
The issue of free speech versus sedition - Washington Times

THURSDAY on "The Source" The viral spread of disinformation online poses an existential threat to democracy and U.S. elections, but can false speech be reined in without stepping on free speech?

What can be done to counter the actions of individuals like former President Trump, who spreads lies and misinformation to millions of followers to sow distrust in U.S. elections?

What are the implications for democracy and free elections of failing to address the widespread dissemination of untruths on social media?

What role should Big Tech play in the fight against outright falsehoods online, especially those that undermine democratic institutions and systems?

Where is the line between content curation and censorship? Is it even possible in our increasingly connected world to ensure both a freedom of ideas and a commitment to truth?

What is the roadmap for restoring Americans access to reliable information?

Guest: Richard "Rick" Hasen, JD, Ph.D., Chancellors Professor of Law and Political Science and co-director of the Fair Elections and Free Speech Center at the University of California, Irvine, and author of the new book "Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons Our Politicsand How to Cure It"

"The Source" is a live call-in program on air Mondays through Thursdays from 12-1 p.m. Central.

Leave a message before the program at 210-615-8982. During the live show, call or text 833-877-8255, email thesource@tpr.org or tweet @TPRSource.

*This interview will be recorded on Thursday, March 24.

See the rest here:
Disinformation is a threat to democracy. Can it be reined in without stepping on free speech? - Texas Public Radio

Growing up in Denmark, Jacob Mchangama says he took free speech for granted. So he embarked on a journey through history to discover what free speech really means, not as an empty, abstract principle, but as a practice that matters more than we may understand.

His book, Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, is a call to protect that ideal ata time when free expression seems to be under scrutiny from all sides. I think we have to look back at what went before, and how hard it was for free speech to become a fundamental value, he says.

Free speech can be messy even harmful at times. For author Jacob Mchangama, the ideals long and robust history proves its worth fighting for.

For Mr. Mchangama, what is needed now is a culture of free speech, which means being tolerant even when its uncomfortable.

Not that we should enforce tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies, people are going to have diverse opinions and thats not necessarily a threat. In many ways, its a bonus. But sometimes people will have diverse opinions that you really, really disagree with. Thats a cost of living in a free and equal society, and its a cost that is worth bearing.

From efforts to ban books to demands for increased monitoring of social media platforms, free speech is under scrutiny. Instead of joining the calls to limit speech, Jacob Mchangama, a lawyer and the executive director of the Danish think tank Justitia, takes the opposite approach. In his book Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, he calls on historys greatest philosophers and activists from John Stuart Mill to Ida B. Wells to Mahatma Gandhi to serve as chief witnesses in his defense of free speech today. He recently spoke with the Monitor.

What first ignited your passion for free speech?

I was born in secular, liberal Denmark where ... I took free speech for granted. It was like breathing air. Then the cartoon affair when a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad made Denmark the epicenter of a global battle of values over the relationship between free speech and religion, and also forced a lot of people in Denmark to rethink, what does free speech mean? Is it just an empty, abstract principle that we can use in a tribalist manner? Or, does it really matter? And thats why I wanted to look at contemporary-era [free speech] issues through the prism of history because that allows you to get a more detached view of current affairs than if you are caught in the Twitter narrative.

Free speech can be messy even harmful at times. For author Jacob Mchangama, the ideals long and robust history proves its worth fighting for.

What new challenges has social media presented?

Were in a process of migrating from the analog city to the digital city. That means the institutions we built, which sustained us for a long time, are not necessarily as relevant and legitimate in our minds as they used to be. Weve seen a plummeting of trust in traditional media, institutions, and politicians. And I think social media has contributed to that. But I think it would be dangerously misguided to say we need to then abolish or roll back free speech.

What lessons can we take from history on how, and how not, to counteract disinformation and hate speech?

First of all, we have to be aware that what counts as disinformation, hate speech, or other types of harmful speech is likely to change. If you were living in the 17th century, you would look upon deists or atheists as [advocating] the worst kind of disinformation. Many people would think that it was perfectly legitimate to persecute such ideas because no society could stand that allowed such attacks on its foundation. Today, we look at such ideas as pretty uncontroversial. Open democracies have to be very, very careful about limiting free speech. [It can be] intuitively attractive to want to limit free speech because you say, Well, if free speech facilitates concrete harms against our democracies, against minorities, against our institutions, against truth itself, we should limit it. But [even though] free speech may sometimes facilitate harms, [it] does not necessarily follow that restrictions on free speech are an efficient method of countering [them] or that the benefits of limiting certain kinds of speech will outweigh the harms.

Get stories that empower and uplift daily.

What values help a society to prioritize a free speech culture?

I think we have to look back at what went before, and how hard it was for free speech to become a fundamental value. We need a culture of free speech, which ultimately means that we have to be tolerant as human beings. Not that we should enforce tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies, people are going to have diverse opinions and thats not necessarily a threat. In many ways, its a bonus. But sometimes people will have diverse opinions that you really, really disagree with. Thats a cost of living in a free and equal society, and its a cost that is worth bearing.

Read the original post:
Why this author says free speech is needed now more than ever - The Christian Science Monitor

(The Center Square) Legislation that would allow public sector workers to speak against policy proposals in public hearings passed both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly and will be sent to Gov. Glenn Youngkins desk.

House Bill 384, sponsored by Del. Glenn Davis, R-Virginia Beach, passed with bipartisan support: 72-27 in the House and 26-14 in the Senate. The governor is expected to sign the legislation.

The bill would ensure that public sector workers do not lose their right to free speech when commenting on current or proposed policies by public institutions during a public hearing. This would apply even if they are speaking against a policy proposal in their workplace. The law is meant to protect the workers freedoms of conscience and expression.

If Youngkin signs the legislation, employers would not be allowed to fire or penalize workers who criticize policies in such hearings. According to the bill, these hearings provide time for public comment, at which point the employee is speaking on his own behalf as a member of the public.

Questions surrounding the constitutionality of punishing a public worker for speaking against proposed policies during a public hearing erupted last year when a Loudoun County gym teacher was suspended from his job after he criticized a proposed transgender policy that was ultimately adopted.

While speaking during the public comment period of a school board meeting, the teacher, Tanner Cross, said he would refuse to call students by their preferred gender pronouns if the pronoun did not match the biological sex of the student. He said he would refuse to affirm that a biological boy could be a girl or that a biological girl could be a boy.

Cross sued the school, arguing the school violated his constitutional right to free speech. Cross and the school reached a settlement, which allowed him to keep his job and prevented the school from retaliating against him for expressing his views about the policy.

The law would not apply to speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment, such as anything that incites violence, is obscene, defamatory or fraudulent or discloses privileged and confidential information.

Read this article:
Virginia bill to protect public workers' free speech heads to governor - KPVI News 6

To those who think political commentator Bill Maher has somehow drifted from his traditionally liberal beliefs, the comedian says it's actually those on the left who have become too extreme in theirs.

That was one of the sentiments made by the talk show host of Real Time with Bill Maher to conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro on a coming episode of Shapiro's The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special.

"Look I haven't changed ... at all. My politics haven't changed. They've changed," said Maher, referring to those on the left of the political aisle.

Newsweek got an exclusive first look at portions of the show featuring the pair in a sit-down hourlong interview discussing topics from Russia's war on Ukraine and how woke politics are alienating Hispanic voters to the coronavirus pandemic, free speech, climate change and the potential plans of former President Donald Trump in 2024.

"... Five years ago, no one was talking about defunding the police. I never heard that phrase five years ago. That's not me changing, that's things changing. I'm reacting to it as I've always been," Maher told Shapiro. "... Letting 3-year-olds decide what gender they are. This wasn't something five years ago. Free speech, you know, used to be a left-wing thing that we were proud of and owned and now that seems to be under attack, so again, I think I've stayed the same."

In recent months, Maher has spoken out more and been critical of progressive policies, which have left some asking whether he has altered his political views.

"... Maher is not the jester speaking truth to power. He is a hypocrite pushing misinformation. If he wants Democrats to win as badly as he claims, he should either get his facts straight or cancel himself," wrote Bill Scher, writer and co-host of the online show The DMZ in a January article of Washington Monthly.

Less recently, some have criticized Maher's comments about learning to live with the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, in 2019, liberal comedian Trae Crowder blamed Maher for pushing the narrative that the more-liberal elites look down on those in rural red states.

In Shapiro's coming episode, a larger discussion between the two focused on identity politics. Shapiro queried Maher about whether Democrats are so tied into a mindset where everybody is described based on their race (as opposed to being part of a broad platform to which anybody can ascribe) that it's skewing their vision and ultimately hurting the party.

"Biden was supposed to be a moderate above all that and he really hasn't governed that way," Shapiro said.

The two also bantered about misconceptions around Hispanic voters.

"Immigration is an issue where the Democrats are really not getting itI mean they're losing the Hispanic vote," said Maher. "... Their conception I thinkand it's wrongis that every Latino in America is thinking, 'Boy, more immigrationthat would be the best thing' and a lot of them are thinking, 'No, I'm here and the last thing I want is someone else coming over whose going to do my job for a little less money.'"

"I wonder when this is going to sink into the Democratic Party leadership," he added.

Maher is also getting into the world of podcasting. On Wednesday, it was reported by Deadline that he would be hosting an hourlong weekly show featuring a range of guests talking about anything, except politics.

For his part, Shapiro said he's appreciative of Maher's political voice.

"Bill Maher is one of the most important voices on mainstream television right now because he's perhaps the only liberal commentator who is willing to stand up to the cultural extremism of the left," Shapiro told Newsweek. "It was a pleasure having him on the Sunday Special. Our conversation is going to surprise a lot of people."

The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special will debut March 12 on The Daily Wire news website for its members. The episode will be available on YouTube or wherever podcasts are available afterward.

See the original post here:
Bill Maher Says Liberals Have Changed, Rips Left on Free Speech and More - Newsweek

How has the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in favor of Citizens United changed the political fundraising landscape and impacted elections?

That will be the subject of the next Free Speech Caf, sponsored by Western Michigan University's We Talk Tuesday March 15th at 11am. Public Media Network will stream the discussion. A recording will be available later for viewing and listening.

WMUK Content Director Gordon Evans will moderate the conversation with Rodericka Applewhaite, senior communications advisor for the Michigan Democratic Party, and Republican political strategist Jason Cabel Roe.

Find more details about the event on Tuesday March 15th.

A campus viewing party is planned for 11 a.m. in Room 1024 of the Lee Honors College. Seating is limited and registration is required.

WMU We Talk/Courtesy photo

/

Rodericka Applewhaite

Rodericka Applewhaite grew up in Georgia and is a political research and communications professional who has worked on several federal and statewide Democratic campaigns.

Jason Cabel Roe

WMU We Talk/courtesy photo

/

For nearly 30 years, Western Michigan University graduate Jason Roe has worked as a political and communications strategist. Hes nationally recognized for his work in campaigns and government advising candidates for President, Congress, Governor, and state and local office, as well as free market interests and political parties.

Western Michigan University We Talk

The purpose of We Talk is to foster a campus culture of responsible and respectful civic, social, political and policy engagement.We seek to raise awareness about free speech protections and promote the value of respecting viewpoint diversity as part of the academic setting and learning environment.

We Talk '22 is designed to build upon We Talk programming held in 2021 and will focus on building our skill sets and providing academic tools for having difficult conversations.

We Talk program development is guided by the principles and practices of the Heterodox Academy, which is focused on improving the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement. Your donation can help provide vital support to this initiative.

Read the rest here:
Money's impact on elections and free speech - WMUK

Breadcrumb Trail Links

'Contrary to what you believe about democratic governments spying on its citizens, they are.'

Author of the article:

Big Brother is actually watching you and your every move.

In other words, your privacy rights are being trampled on and they are being violated by governments and big tech companies. Both are egregious abuses of power.

You may shrug it off and say to yourself: I have nothing to worry about, I live a clean life.

Then one day, says William Binney, a veteran of the U.S. National Security Agency, you become irritated by an act of overreach by your government. So you decide to exercise your right to freedom of speech and thought and your right to peacefully protest. And you stand in front of City Hall and call out what you believe to be an injustice.

When you do that, you will be put on a watchlist. They will find you and quickly. Thats because you and your data left electronic fingerprints everywhere. And contrary to what you believe about democratic governments spying on its citizens, they are.

They will use the information they gathered about you, against you.

Binney, a 36-year veteran of the NSA, says what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

Binney was granted special recognition by the Allard Prize for International Integrity for blowing the whistle on the NSA for using a program he developed called ThinThread to spy on Americans.

Stuart McNish invited William Binney to join him for a Conversation that Matters about your loss of privacy, both in Canada and the United States.

Please become a Patreon subscriber and support the production of this program, with a $1 pledge here.

View post:
Conversations That Matter: Have we lost our right to free speech? - Vancouver Sun

We recently discussed controversies involving Russian artists and athletes being told that they will be cancelled or blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin. Now that assault on free speech has reached the highest levels of ballet after Tugan Sokhiev, the chief conductor at Bolshoi Theatre and the Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse, resigned rather than be coerced into such public statements. The Munich Philharmonic also dismissed chief conductor Valery Gergiev after he failed to condemn the invasion.

Sokhiev is one of the most celebrated and respected conductors in the world. He also happens to be Russian. For many, his musical contributions became secondary when he failed to publicly condemn Putin. They demanded that he speak or resign. He resigned.

Sokhievwrote on Facebook during last few days I witnessed something I thought I would never see in my life. In Europe, today I am forced to make a choice and choose one of my musical family over the other.

As we previously discussed, it is during wartime and periods of social discord that the greatest abuses can occur for those with dissenting or unpopular views. Despite mystrong support for Ukraine and condemnation of Putin, it is important for advocates of civil liberties and free speech to stand against such blacklisting and compelled speech.

For many, this is hardly a new movement. For years, powerfulpoliticians,academics, and even some in themedia have demanded more censorship. This move against Russian performers and athletes may draw the unwitting into this anti-free speech movement. The response to those of us who are raising concerns is the same and predictable. You are called an apologist for Putin or a traitor to the cause. It is an effort to create a glacial chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Once again, it is important to addressthe rationalization on the leftfor attacks on free speech in recent years: the First Amendment only protects speech from government crackdowns. The First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression. As I have noted earlier, while liberal writers and artists were blacklisted and investigated in the 1950s, liberal activists have succeeded in censoring opposing views to an unprecedented degree in recent years. Rather than burn books, they havesimply gotten stores to ban them or blacklist the authors, athletes, and artists.

Figures like the great singer Paul Robeson (right) found themselves barred from performances due to their refusal to condemn others or Russia.

Some, however, are not intimidated but rather incensed by the attack on free speech. In the meantime, at least one opera lover is boycotting the Met after it cancelled another great Russian artist for not publicly reciting the official line against Putin. I recently received the attached letter from a donor at the Met who stated that he was changing his will over the controversy involving soprano Anna Netrebko. He would no longer leave his estate to the Met and pledged to stop his regular contributions to the institution.

As for Sokhiev, he noted that in both cities he regularly invited Ukrainian singers and conductors because we never even thought about our nationalities. We were enjoying making music together.

The response from the mayor of Toulouse, Jean-Luc Moudenc, was particularly telling. While denying that they demanded that Sokhiev make a choice between his native country and his beloved city of Toulouse, the mayor added: However, it was unthinkable to imagine that he would remain silent in the face of the war situation, both vis--vis the musicians and the public and the community.

It is not unthinkable. He may support the invasion or fear for himself or his family in opposing this tyrant. It does not matter his reasons. He should have a right to hold opposing views or to remain silent. What is unthinkable is that artists are being blacklisted for refusing to recite political statements like some reeducation camp in the Cultural Revolution. It is a curious way to fight tyranny by denying free speech.

The Met donor allowed me to post the following version of his letter:

Peter Gelb letter_1

Read more:
Bolshoi Conductor Resigns Over Free Speech Controversy as the Crackdown Continues for Artists and Athletes - Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court is hearing a case about a federal program that never took place, the Clean Power Plan. Clean Power Plan has never been implemented, so why is SCOTUS hearing a case and why is this important?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

@Thom_Hartmann Clean Power Plan SCOTUS The Supreme Court The Thom Hartmann Program

More:
Can The Supreme Court End The EPA? (w/ Amy Westervelt) - Free Speech TV