Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

A woman reads testimonies during a gathering in Tel Aviv to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Israeli NGO "Breaking the Silence". (photo credit:AFP PHOTO)

Are there limits to free speech? If so, who decides what they are? Should venues owned by the state or a municipality be used to stage events that bash Zionism or the State of Israel? These are tough questions. So tough, in fact, that Mayor of Jerusalem Nir Barkat might have chosen to cite zoning violations as the reason for issuing an eviction notice against the managers of the Barbur Gallery in the capital instead of admitting he was curtailing freedom of speech.

It just so happens that Barkats eviction notice on Wednesday came after calls from right-wing activists to prevent representatives of an NGO critical of Israeli policy in the West Bank from appearing at the gallery.

Breaking the Silence, an NGO that presents anonymous testimony accusing the IDF of war crimes, had planned on holding an event at the gallery, which is purportedly municipal property. The eviction notice might now block that event.

On Tuesday, Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev and Matan Peleg, CEO of Im Tirzu, called on Barkat to cancel the planned lecture by Yuli Novak, the executive director of Breaking the Silence.

Both Peleg and Regev claimed that because the gallery was municipal property, it was not right that Breaking the Silence be allowed to appear there.

The Barbur Gallery, which is funded from public money, will not constitute a home for Breaking the Silence, an anti-Israel propaganda organization that spreads lies against the State of Israel and IDF fighters, Regev wrote on her Facebook page.

Whatever the reason for Barkats eviction notice, attempts to silence or intimidate left-wing NGOs such as Breaking the Silence must be stopped. Freedom of speech is much about the right of an audience to hear unpopular opinions as it is about the right to voice them.

Allowing organizations such as Breaking the Silence to use venues owned by the municipality should, therefore, be seen as a service provided by the city of Jerusalem to its residents. It does not mean that the municipality is advocating the opinions held by Breaking the Silence or any other organization.

Regev and Peleg might argue that the municipality is indirectly supporting Breaking the Silence by permitting the Barbur Gallery to be used. But the alternative banning Breaking the Silence raises much graver problems.

To whom do we wish to give the responsibility for deciding which organizations are permitted to use municipal venues and which are not? We can think of no one we can trust to perform the role of censor, certainly not Regev or Peleg. Self-appointed censors should be suspect. They often have their own political agendas to advance.

The danger inherent in appointing a censor is much greater than the dangers from which Regev and Peleg wish to protect the citizens of Jerusalem. Permitting the voicing of outrageous or appalling views (it is precisely for the airing of the most fringe opinions that freedom of speech exists at all) is essential for intellectual growth and development. Baseless claims that the world is flat or that the Holocaust did not happen or that the IDF is immoral challenge us to question how we know what we know.

How do we prove all of these claims are false? Perhaps a grain of truth exists in some of them? Moves to curtail freedoms tend to be a slippery slope.

When certain opinions are deemed to be illegitimate, the people who hold these opinions or facilitate their publication run the risk of being treated as less than equal.

This might explain the appalling treatment of Jennifer Gorovitz, the vice president for finance, operations and administrations at the New Israel Fund, which provides Breaking the Silence with funding. Gorovitz, who came to Israel to attend a NIF board meeting, was detained at Ben-Gurion Airport for 90 minutes on Wednesday. Gorovitz said she was grilled by immigration official on the activities of NIF.

It was humiliating and emotionally scarring to find that, although I am a Jew and a Zionist, I might not be allowed into the country because I do not adhere to the governments ultra-right-wing ideology, said Gorovitz in a statement. I was truly shocked that this place I love so much would turn me away at its gates.

Whether at the airport or in Jerusalem, the right to state views that differ from government policy is the gold standard for a thriving democracy. We need to insure that its a right that isnt infringed upon.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

Netanyahu turned to Foreign Ministry in concern over settlement law

Letters to the Editor: IDI bias

Next Article

Here is the original post:
JPost Editorial: Free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News

The case of Dr. James F. Tracy is arguably the most important free speech case that is going on today. As it moves through the courts with barely a notice, AFP spoke with Dr. Tracys attorney, Louis F. Leo IV, to update us on the current situation of the professor, who was disciplined and then fired last year for blogging on his own time.

By Dave Gahary

Dr. James F. Tracy, the tenured professor and award-winning media analyst who gained national notoriety for daring to publicly question the mainstream media and government view of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012 filed an amended complaint last month to his wrongful termination lawsuit against Florida Atlantic University (FAU)a public schoolfor violating his rights to free speech following his firing on Jan. 6, 2016.

The original complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, revealed in great detail how Tracy was harassed, hated, and even hunted for having unconventional opinions on several alleged mass shootings.

Because Tracy espoused views different from those offered by the controlled corporate media and the government, he was targeted for attack and removal.

The mainstream media set their sights on Tracy a few days after the Sandy Hook event, as a warning to others to never dare question the official version of events.

On Jan. 5, AMERICAN FREE PRESS spoke with Tracys attorney, Louis F. Leo IV, to discuss the many aspects of the case. He started out by explaining how the attack began.

There was this media blitz against Professor Tracy that was a result of his personal blogging, Leo began. He was on his blog on his own time writing about a matter of public importance, this mass casualty event, and he provided coverage to the American people that the national and international media failed to. And for whatever reason they targeted him and his job.

What Tracy wrote was constitutionally protected, so regardless of what his opinion was on the lack of evidence of the shooting, he had the right to say it, said Leo.

On Jan. 11, 2013, CNN dedicated 15 or 20 minutes just to Professor Tracy, Leo said, shaming him, showing the entire United States where Professor Tracy lives. They were literally outside his house.

CNNs Anderson Cooper led the charge against Tracy, stating in the aforementioned broadcast, shame on you, FAU, to even have someone like this on your payroll. Cooper, who has no formal journalistic education, spent two summers following his sophomore and junior years at Yalea well-known recruiting ground for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)interning at their headquarters, in a program for students interested in intelligence work. CNN, which confirmed details of Coopers CIA involvement to Radar Online, claims his involvement with the CIA ended there, although it is more likely he was trained by the spy agency as part of their ongoing Operation Mockingbird, a large-scale program begun in the early 1950s whose purpose is to propagandize the media to influence public opinion.

That was really the gist of all the media publications about Professor Tracy, Leo explained. None of them talked about his research or the basis for his opinions. They just called him crazy.

Leo did his due diligence before he took on the case.

I discovered really quickly that hes not crazy, Leo said. I explored extensively his blog and his opinions and Ive read the Newtown Police report, Ive looked at all the evidence, heavily redacted reports, I should say. And I was extremely disturbed by what I read. Not only what I saw, but what I didnt see.

Although the process of discoverya pretrial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party obtains evidence from the other partyhas not yet begun, it appears that the faculty union, ostensibly there to protect Tracy, was actually hurting him.

It remains to be seen exactly what the reasoning of the union was in failing to represent him, misleading him, misadvising him, not to mention discouraging him, coercing him, and really acting in a way that FAU was acting, Leo explained. They were basically doing FAUs bidding by subjecting him to unlawful directives and ultimately violating his civil rights and his right to freedom of speech, and academic freedom, as well as his right to due process.

Records were obtained utilizing Floridas Sunshine Laws, which generally refer to Floridas freedom of information legislation, the most expansive laws of their kind in the U.S. Specifically, Floridas Government in the Sunshine Law, which passed 50 years ago but with precedent back to 1905, requires that all meetings of any state, county, or municipal board or commission be open to the public, and mandates that any official action taken at the closed meeting not be binding.

AFP asked how much was received.

Hundreds and hundreds of pages of internal communications, records, and his personnel file, Leo said, and what we did receive and review was pretty shocking. These internal communications show that theyre really not firing him because of a policy that he didnt comply with. Hes being fired because of the controversy surrounding his personal blogging.

Leo highlighted the significance of this case beyond FAU and Florida.

This is alarming because its not just happening at FAU, and this case is not going to affect just this one university, Leo explained.

This is really a test case. This is something that universities are going to be using in the future when shaping their policies or dealing with the speech of their faculty members, as well as other employees and students, he said.

This is the First Amendment under attack, Leo said. If you allow Professor Tracy to be disciplined and fired for his personal blogging, whats next, and where does it stop? And what is the First Amendment if this can happen to somebody like Professor Tracy, who has an unremarkable academic record, literally has no complaints about his teaching?

Contributions to this case can be submitted in the form of personal check or money order, payable to James Tracy Legal Defense Fund, 300 NW 36th Court, Boca Raton, FL 33431. You may also visit Tracys website at tracylegaldefense.org.

Dave Gahary writes for American Free Press.

Excerpt from:
Fired Professor Fights for Free Speech - American Free Press

5470885

The majority of the nations high school students and almost half of all high school teachers say freedom of speech does not apply to speech that is offensive to others, according to a new study on the future of the First Amendment.

The study, released by the Knight Foundation on Wednesday, found that 51 percent of high school students and 45 percent of high school teachers disagree with the statement that People should be allowed to say whatever they want in public, even if what they say is offensive to others.

Students hold a free-speech rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington March 19, 2007. REUTERS/Molly Riley

High school teachers are even more hostile to public speech that could be seen as bullying others. The study found that 66 percent of teachers disagree with the statement that People should be allowed to say whatever they want in public, even if what they say could be seen as bullying others.

High school students are, like their teachers, hostile to speech considered offensive or bullying: 51 percent of students disagreed that offensive speech should be allowed in public and 60 percent disagreed that public speech that could be seen as bullying others should be protected.

Teachers and students are similarly hostile to freespeech on social media: 53 percent of students and 48 percent of teachers disagree that offensive speech should be allowed on social media.

For example, while most agreed that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, a significant percentage disagreed that people should be allowed to say what they want in public even if what they say could be offensive, or considered bullying to others. And 66% of student respondents believe that students should be allowed to report on controversial issues in student newspapers without approval from school authorities.

I think that this points to a failure in educating students on the philosophical and practical bases for freedom of speech. One of the essential understandings inherent in our system of free expression is that speech on controversial issues is bound to offend someone, somewhere, and that restricting expression based on whether it could offend or hurt someone is fraught with peril. Educators should strive to explain and demonstrate the necessity of being allowed to offend others in our democratic society. If students had a better grasp on the history of offensive ideas that later gained broad acceptance, we might have fewer calls for censorship when those students matriculate to higher education, Cohn said.

The study did show that high school students and teachers overwhelmingly agree that People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions just as long as those unpopular opinions arent offensive and couldnt be seen as bullying others.

Follow Hasson on Twitter

Continued here:
Study: High School Teachers, Students Hostile To Free Speech ... - Daily Caller

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Masters graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

Over the past week hallowed Western institutions of free speech have become sites of struggle for this basic democratic right. Is it a sign of creeping intolerance or systemic insecurity?

Britains House of Commons Speaker John Bercow sparkedcontroversy this week when he declared that US President Donald Trump would not be invited to address elected MPs and members of the House of Lords at Westminster Hall during a state visit later this year. Bercow said his decision was based on the presidents alleged obnoxious views of racism and sexism.

The move has caused uproar with many lawmakers saying that the proposed ban discredits the British Parliament supposedly the mother of all parliaments. British Prime Minister Theresa May is also annoyed that boycotting Trump could jeopardize her efforts to burnish the special relationship between the US and Britain, which she assiduously tried to renew last month as the first foreign leader to be received in the new White House.

Last week, another hallowed Western institution for free speech came under an embarrassing spotlight when rioting students at University of California Berkeley forced a Trump acolyte to abandon a planned speech. Milo Yiannopoulos, the editor of the alt-right publication Breitbart, which is a big supporter of Trump, had to be escorted off campus by police amid students denouncing him as fascist scum.

The irony was not lost on many observers, including the LA Times, who noted that UC Berkeley was the modern home of the free speech movement which sprang up in the 1960s against the Vietnam War and for civil liberties among minorities. Now the same bastion of free speech is running people off for expressing views considered objectionable by some.

Still another quirk in recent days was the US Senates banning of Senator Elizabeth Warren from addressing Congress. The Democrat Senator was due to recite from a 30-year-old letter written by Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King Jr, in opposition to Trumps nominee as Attorney General Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. The letter, which accused Sessions of racist practices while serving as Alabama governor in the past, was deemed to violate Senate rules against impugning other members of the chamber.

Going back to the British parliament case, it does seem an extraordinary transgression of the right to free speech, as well as diplomatic etiquette. One may not like Trumps brand of nationalistic politics nor his selective immigration controls on certain Arab countries allegedly for national security reasons. But it seems an over-the-top reaction to turn around and declare him persona non grata in the British parliament.

It also smacks of double standards. As parliamentary critics point out, the Speaker previously welcomed the Emir of Kuwait and Chinese President Xi Jinping to Westminster, both of whom are accused by British rights groups of overseeing grave violations in their respective countries. Whatever the merit of those accusations, it seems contradictory for the British parliament to object to Trump speaking.

Former US President Barack Obama was afforded the right to address the House of Commons. Even though his military forces were at the same time bombing seven countries and he was personally responsible for summary killing of foreign nationals with drone assassinations. There were no qualms among British parliamentarians to Obama speaking.

Read more

Nevertheless, despite ones own personal biases, it is arguable that freedom of speech is a fundamental right supposedly cherished in Western democracies that must be protected for all dissenting views.

International defense lawyer Christopher Black told this author that there is a danger of cherry-picking this fundamental right. And in doing so, it could open up a Pandoras Box of blanket censorship, leading potentially to despotism.

He said: Leftists might want to shut down all speech they deem as fascist. But the problem is that if that can be justified then the political rightwing can respond by justifying shutting down the left. Look what the blacklist did in the US during the 1950s Communist-hunting McCarthyite era.

The lawyer added: I think free speech should be respected no matter what the opinions expressed are excepting those that are libelous and slander, that is, speech designed to injure someones reputation. The best way to deal with arguments we do not like or agree with is to make better counter-arguments and point out why they are wrong.

That seems an apt point regarding the controversy at UC Berkeley. The anarchist groups who claimed victory in preventing the Breitbart editor from speaking in the name of fighting fascism only ended up scoring an own goal by elevating the magazine and its reactionary political views to a global profile. Yiannopoulos, the speaker in question, seems more like a stand-up comedian with obnoxious, facetious views rather than the reincarnation of the Third Reichs fascist orator Josef Goebbels. Besides, Yiannopoulos was invited to speak by a Republican party student group within the university. People who dont like his cringeworthy views were not forced to attend.

A further repercussion is that President Trump threatened to cut off federal funding to the whole university over the debacle due to its apparent intolerance to free speech.

The Breitbart editor appears to be a walking contradiction openly gay, but ostensibly denouncing gay rights, and relishing sexual relations with black men, while at the same time espousing white nationalist views. Like his self-declared daddy Donald Trump, and many of Trumps White House team, the articulated views are riddled with anomalies and errors. The discourse is more comedic than threatening.

Surely it is much better to let such people have their say up to the point beyond which it becomes physically injurious. And thereby let them spin their way into oblivion with quackery. Prohibition is not only a breach of rights, it is also counterproductive as it leads to destructive spirals, as witnessed in many other areas of culture.

The election of Donald Trump in the US and the rise of populist politics elsewhere is perhaps best understood as a breakdown in the status quo. That breakdown is long overdue as political systems have become ossified, elitist and unrepresentative of democratic rights. Excessive political correctness and identity politics are part of this oppressive order upheld by the elites.

The recent rush to close off free speech is more a sign of uncertainty in societies amid political turmoil. The uncertainty is evident on both the traditional right and left of the political spectrum. However, it seems more indicative of insecurity as opposed to any objective social movement toward intolerance.

Now, more than ever, is the time to keep public debate open, not shut it down due to some narcissistic sense of being offended. Where views are obnoxious or wrongheaded, they should be challenged and thwarted through intelligent argument.

There are valid discussions to be had about equality, secularism, immigration, national and economic rights, globalization, war and peace, and many more issues.

Discussion and dialogue are the best way to evolve public understanding, nationally and internationally.

If we begin practicing communication apartheid, then the outcome is what we are seeing underway among certain Western states declaring Russian media as somehow illegitimate. Closing down communications is often the first act of conflict.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The rest is here:
Shut it! West's free speech challenges are sign of systemic insecurity - RT

Tom Lowery Entrepreneur, author, financial controller, corporate training specialist This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

To be ignorant of ones ignorance is the malady of the ignorant.

Amos Bronson Alcott

The populist viewpoint, that we can say whatever we want to, appears to reign supremely on the topic of Freedom of Speech (and Freedom of Expression). A well-considered perspective about it, one that questions itself constantly, is rarely the case.

And yet, the Western mentalityand those who claim to have Enlightenment values of evidentiary thinking, rationality, objectivity, and independent thoughtconsistently displays an astounding lack of sophistication and depth when it comes to understanding the world and how it really works, as opposed to how they assume it works, or even how they might like it to work.

Many hold the view that we live in a society that protects all forms of speech. Thats a pretense upon which no facts are in evidence. Perhaps if we compare our Western societies with those of many in the East, it might appear to be so. But that position rests on very soft ground.

Theres nothing "free" about free speech. The very nature of speech is that it carries a price-tagprivilege.

In truth, freedom of speech is a sometime thing. When we do enjoy freedom of speech we do so while exercising our privilegesnot rights. Otherwise, why would our Founding Fathers have gone to such great lengths to enshrine those very privileges within our Constitution?

In his well conceived article for The Federalist Blog, Original MeaningFreedom of Speech and of the Press, P.A. Madison expounded on many factual assessments, including these two:

A blanket acceptance that everyone has the right to freedom of speech, regardless of how hateful, is insulting to anyone who has thought long and hard about all sides of the concept. Do we really have the right (i.e. privilege) to be racists and bigots and to insult and to cause harm with impunity? Or is there a price to pay when we overstep those rights (i.e. privileges)? The latter is more often true than not.

The problem with a lack of critical thought versus blas acceptance is that its enshrined in a dishonest claim: we in West stand for a universal "right" to offend and freedom of expression. Do we really?

Anyone who is considering the concepts of FOS/FOE might like to set aside their unfettered positions and reflect more carefully before digging their feet too firmly into their own soft ground.

In todays world, we do not accept racist depictions of American Indians or Blacks or Hispanics, negative stereotypes of gays or anti-Semitic cartoons. Our Western society has shifted greatly when it comes to drawing a line between hate speech and acceptable speech. In fact, for hundreds of years in the West, speaking out against things like religion or politics was also unacceptable, and could land you in what the English refer to as Queer Street. Thats hardly the makings of free and unfettered speechis it?

The topic of FOS/FOE, became a hot button one around the time of the Charlie Hebdo shooting (prompted by Islamic cartoons). Some argued that we should ban these kinds of cartoons because they cause upset and insult to others. The French people rose up in unison about their rights to FOS/FOE.

Despite the fact that the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (adopted during the French Revolution in 1789) set forth freedom of speech as an inalienable right, Article 11 goes on to say that:

This clearly suggests a fine line when it comes to FOS. But as with our Founding Fathers, many of us dislike bans of any kind. We dont trust the state when it comes to censorship, largely because of how the state often protects the freedom of the privileged and suppresses the freedom of the disenfranchised. A glance at our current POTUS and the Betsy DeVos debacle are fine examples.

A friend of mine suggested that Article 11 in Frances Declaration put those rights back into the hands of the legislature. But this very legislative process allows for the privilege of FOS/FOE. To put it crassly, the chicken is the legislationthe egg is the privilege. And the chickenat least in this casecame first.

Rather than debate to ban or not to ban, perhaps a better idea would be to consider why we have allowed ourselves the luxury to develop our Western culture in such a way that the feelings of othersin the case of Hebdo, Muslims, and, despite questionable Prop 8 activities, Mormonsare not as legitimate and can be discarded.

At the time of the Hebdo business, I too was inclined to think Hebdo was merely exercising its Freedom of Expression. I was never bothered by any of their depictions over the years, why should anyone else be? Ive since had reason to regret my own shallow assumptions.

Had I paused to consider Hebdo from a perspective other than my own, I might have realized Hebdo had a responsibility along with their privileges. In exercising their own benefits, did they in fact reinforce Islamophobia? Other writers said as much at the time. Where my ears closed? Or was I ignoring the obvious because I wasnt personally involved in that particular issue?

We obviously have no issues when it comes to protecting some groups from potentially racist-based attacks. Yet others are cannon fodder for our privileges to FOS/FOE. Thats a helluva lot of hypocrisy.

We here in the West have double standards when it comes to FOS/FOEbe they standards of the far right or the far left. The same is true when it comes to immigrants, citizenship and many other interrelated issues.

Until our so-called Western values relating to FOS/FOE become well-balanced between our own privileges and the privileges of others, I personally cannot bang on about mine when it comes to speaking my mind (something I do freely).

Its time to stop the bullshit and open up a sensible dialogue, free from populist beliefs and comfort zones. How can we do that? Here are a few suggestions:

When weve begun to question more about our so-called superior Western values and systems, perhaps the signs carried by the left and the right while marching and demonstrating might have a more constructive and instructive appeal.

Who knows? People might even begin to think twice about their reactive comments onlineeven me.

See original here:
Freedom of SpeechLet's Stop The BS - Huffington Post

Editor,

A Lobo reader quoted a professor, "We need to use standards of universality and logic, otherwise, freedom of speech masks reality."

I disagree! Free speech is reality. Everyone has the right to express opinions without interference or censorship. To seek, receive, impart information and ideas through any media they choose. With that being said, freedom of speech is not without its limitations. With this freedom comes consequences which relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, incitement etc.

Attacking someone or destroying property because of what someone said, is not free speech, that's vandalism and battery. I'm a vet, regardless of what someone says, I fought for the right of all Americans to speak freely. We the people have a responsibility to the one speaking, listen and agree/disagree or dont listen.

Deciding to alter or replace a persons words is censorship. Censorship isnt reality, it couldnt be further from reality. We learn so much about a personthrough their use of words. Silencing any person because we dont agree with their words is a step towards censoring other freedoms.

The best censorship that we as humans possess is our conscience. Its not perfect, but thats what makes us human, thats what makes this country so great! So choose your words wisely, because when that bell is rung the responsibility will rest clearly on your shoulders, you can't take it back.

John Travis Daily Lobo reader

Read more from the original source:
Letter: Free speech is reality | The Daily Lobo - UNM Daily Lobo

The First Amendment is under attack. And the charge is being led by the Republicans imbecilic illegitimate President. Republican-controlled state legislatures are following his lead to shut down free speech.

A free press is constitutionally protected. It doesnt exist to please the President, especially one who thinks they should supplant the truth with every lie he utters.

But its clear that Trump detests protesters, as do his followers. Conservatives believe every idea they have should be embraced by everyone as the greatest ever. When they see people reject and revolt over those ideas, instead of seeking compromise they seek retaliation.

As for the election, they say move on. Did they move on after Obama took office in 2009? No, they formed a Tea Party and held huge rallies holding the most vile and racist signs youll ever see. It was clear race was their prime motivator. They shouted down congressional representatives at town halls that summer, all while armed to the teeth. But to them free speech in a one-way street.

An Indiana Republican state senator has introduced a bill letting police use any means necessary to get rid of protesters.

In North Dakota, where the Standing Rock Sioux protesters have been brutalized by police, a Republican state representatives bill would allow motorists to run over and kill protesters.

These are just a few examples. Freedom of speech and expression are usually the primary targets of a fascist regime. Some newspapers even join in, apparently ignorant of the fact their very existence is totally beholden to the First Amendment.

Protests are being planned against the Diamond Pipeline. Oil-soaked Republicans in OKC are eager to show their fealty and put profits over people. The courts will probably allow Diamond to seize peoples property.

Sounds like a good reason to protest.

LARRY PARSONS

Warner

Read more from the original source:
THE PEOPLE SPEAK: Freedom of speech is under attack - Muskogee Daily Phoenix

Last fall, the Democrats were upset that Donald Trump was not going to accept the outcome of the November election.

Guess what? They lost and now they are not accepting the fact that President Trump won. I thought everyone knew that the Electoral College elected the new president!

Many members of the U.S. House of Representatives, (all progressive Democrats) chose not to attend the celebration of the swearing in of our new president. That afternoon, the election of our 45th president was celebrated by a riot in our nations capital, which included the burning of vehicles and destroying public and private property. Many Democrats supported the protesters, saying they were exercising their rights of freedom of speech and assembly. I was not aware that riots, setting fires and destroying private and public property were parts of the First Amendment of the Constitution. I wonder why many of the protesters were wearing masks if they were proud of their behavior?

How about the riot in Oakland, Calif.? The protesters were protesting a conservative speaker appearing on a college campus. It would appear that freedom of speech and assembly only applies if you are a progressive Democrat! Once again, protesters, using their constitutional right of free speech and assembly, wear masks, riot, set fires to and destroy public and private property, all in the name of democracy.

In the elections of 2008 and 2012, I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I accepted him as our president. I vented my peaceful opposition to him by voting in all future elections and supporting those candidates with views and values similar to mine.

Read the rest here:
Democrats should honor all types of freedom of speech - Bowling Green Daily News

What is Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Speech is an unalienable right afforded to every citizen of the United States of America; these rights make mention of the statutes expressed in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States a statute that provides every American citizen to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. With regard to the provisions set forth within the 1st Amendment to the United States, the Freedom of Speech prohibits the unlawful banning, prohibition, and ceasing of unlawful censorship. 1st Amendment Date Proposed: September, 25th 1789 Date Ratified: December 15th, 1791 Contents of the Amendment: This Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly; the freedom of speech is considered to not only be granted by the Federal Government, but also protected by them as well Legislative Classification: Bill of Rights Is the Freedom of Speech a Human Right? The Freedom of Speech is considered to be both a Human Right and Human Liberty; the determination of this relies heavily of the circumstance surrounding then nature, objective, and intent of the speech. In contrast to the precepts inherent in Human Rights, Human Liberties typically maintain a nature of action and event in which personal choice and freedom is implicit. Human Liberties such as the Freedom of Speech - afforded to citizens of the United States are undertaken through agency and autonomy in lieu of circumstance or permissive mandating. Human Liberties are defined as the opportunities, entitlements, and awards granted to the specific citizens of a country or nation that are applicable to social interaction and interpersonal activity taking place within a societal level. Legal and Illegal Freedom of Speech and Expression Although Freedom of Speech is considered to be an inalienable Human Right, with regard to activity or actions that employ the Freedom of Speech and expression for means that contract the legality and legislative statutes mandatory within the United States of America, that Freedom of Speech may be defined as either a human liberty or even a crime. Expression and activities deemed to be damaging, hateful, and prejudicial in their nature including expression and activity serving to denigrate and rob others of their respective pursuit of happiness - are considered to be both an unlawful and illegal act: Freedom of Speech and Prejudice Prejudice can be defined as the discrimination against another group or individual with regard to an individual trait or characteristic believed to be out of the control of the individual who displays it, which may include discrimination and crimes committed out of personal and unfounded bias. Freedom of Speech and Public Policy Although the rights expressed within the United States Constitution allow for every American citizen to the right to freedom of speech, expressed prejudice with regard to the happiness, opportunity, and wellbeing of another individual is both illegal and unlawful this can include biased hiring practices and admission policies. Freedom of Speech and Criminal Activity Hate Crimes, or any form of harm caused due to a latent prejudice or personal bias is considered to be illegal on the grounds that ones freedom of speech results in the dissolution of another individuals pursuit of happiness. Comments

comments

More here:
Freedom Of Speech - Censorship | Laws.com

Schenck v. United States (1919)

Freedom of speech can be limited during wartime. The government can restrict expressions that would create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Read More.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect printing leaflets urging to resist the war effort, calling for a general strike, and advocating violent revolution. Read More.

Debs v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect an anti-war speech designed to obstruct recruiting. Read More.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The Supreme Court applied protection of free speech to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read More.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The First Amendment did not protect fighting words which, by being said, cause injury or cause an immediate breach of the peace. Read More.

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)

The West Virginia Boards policy requiring students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. Reversing Minersville v. Gobitas (1940), the Court held government cannot force citizens to confess by word or act their faith in matters of opinion. Read More.

United States v. OBrien (1968)

The First Amendment did not protect burning draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War as a form of symbolic speech. Read More.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

The Court ruled that students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was pure speech, or symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Read More.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The Supreme Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments protected speech advocating violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally because the speech did not call for imminent lawless action. Read More.

Cohen v. California (1971)

A California statute prohibiting the display of offensive messages violated freedom of expression. Read More.

Miller v. California (1973)

This case set forth rules for obscenity prosecutions, but it also gave states and localities flexibility in determining what is obscene. Read More.

Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

The Supreme Court ruled that officials could not remove books from school libraries because they disagreed with the content of the books messages. Read More.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

A school could suspend a pupil for giving a student government nomination speech full of elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor. Read More.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Flag burning as political protest is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Read More.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)

A criminal ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender was unconstitutional. The law violated the First Amendment because it punished speech based on the ideas expressed. Read More.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

The 1996 Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional since it was overly broad and vague in its regulation of speech on the Internet, and since it attempted to regulate indecent speech, which the First Amendment protects. Read More.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Stratton (2002)

City laws requiring permits for political advocates going door to door were unconstitutional because such a mandate would have a chilling effect on political communication. Read More.

United States v. American Library Association (2003)

The federal government could require public libraries to use Internet-filtering software to prevent viewing of pornography by minors. The burden placed on adult patrons who had to request the filters be disabled was minimal. Read More.

Virginia v. Hicks (2003)

Richmond could ban non-residents from public housing complexes if the non-residents did not have a legitimate business or social purpose for being there. The trespass policy was not overbroad and did not infringe upon First Amendment rights. Read More.

Virginia v. Black (2003)

A blanket ban on cross-burning was an unconstitutional content-based restriction on free speech. States could ban cross burning with intent to intimidate, but the cross burning act alone was not enough evidence to infer intent. Read More.

Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004)

The Child On-Line Protection Act violated the First Amendment because it was overbroad, it resulted in content-based restrictions on speech, and there were less-restrictive options available to protect children from harmful materials. Read More.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

The First Amendment did not protect a public school students right to display a banner reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the schools mission to discourage drug use. Read More.

Continued here:
Freedom of Speech: General - Bill of Rights Institute