Je Suis Sylvie
On 22nd of February 2015, German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 20 months in prison for speaking at a Free Speech conference in Switzerland organised by Ivo Sasek (who is also facing...

By: Archaic Revival

See more here:

Je Suis Sylvie - Video

SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech?
SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? http://www.NS7.tv facebook: http://fb.com/News7Tamil twitter: http://twitter.com/News7Tamil.

By: News7Tamil

Read more:

SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? - Video

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech
http://www.AskAttorneySteve.com Most people think "I can say whatever I want its a free country" or "with free speech I can say whatever is on my mind." While this may be physically true,...

By: Steve Vondran

Excerpt from:

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech - Video

The Supreme Court rejected a free-speech appeal Monday from several California high school students who were told they could not wear a shirt emblazoned with an American flag on the Cinco de Mayo holiday.

The court's action has the effect of upholding school officials who said they acted because they feared an outbreak of fighting between white and Mexican American students.

The court's actionsets no legal precedent, but it raises questions about whether students have meaningful free-speech rights on matters that may provoke controversy.

One parent whose son was sent home for wearing an American flag said he was disappointed by the decision. I found it shocking. The flag represents the nation as a whole. It is about respect for the United States, said Kendall Jones of Morgan Hill, Calif. We can embrace a multicultural celebration at school, but that is no excuse for excluding the flag.

Many school officials in recent years have told students they may not wear the Confederate flag on their clothing at school or display anti-gay messages. The case of Dariano vs. Morgan Hill Unified School District drew greater attention because an American flag was considered the provocative message.

Los Angeles lawyer William Becker, who sued on behalf of the parents, called the courts decision a victory for bullies and a defeat for free speech. This opens the door for a school to suppress any viewpoints that are opposed by a band of vocal and violent bullies, he said.

The Live Oak High School south of San Jose had seen at least 30 fights between white and Mexican American students. And the annual celebration of the Mexican holiday on May 5 had heightened the tension.

On that day in 2010, the principal told several white students they must remove their shirts featuring an American flag or go home.

They went home but, with the help of their parents, later sued the school officials for violating their rights under the 1st Amendment.

Federal judges in San Francisco rejected their free-speech claim on the grounds that the school officials had a reasonable fear that their shirts could provoke fighting or a disruption of the school's activities.

Read the original here:

Ruling on U.S. flag raises questions about students' free-speech rights

From nooses to swastikas and repulsive chants, college campuses in the United States have had no shortage of racial tensions. But where is the line drawn between racism and free speech?

In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian, President Amy Gutmann, who is trained in political philosophy and political science, discussed the balance between fighting racism while protecting free speech. Gutmann has written extensively about deliberative democracies and has been a vocal supporter of having all beliefs even the most unpopular ones openly expressed.

Even for an expert like Gutmann, its a tricky issue.

There is no simple way of drawing a line. Its not that you can draw a line and something is on one side or the other, and thats all you have to do. Gutmann told the DP. I begin with the time-tested belief that free speech is the lifeblood of a thriving democratic society, and it is also the lifeblood of universities and institutions of higher education like Penn.

We can only succeed in addressing complex and controversial issues if we commit ourselves as a community to respecting diverse perspectives or beliefs of others, she added.

Gutmann believes that freedom of speech is most vulnerable when it involves unpopular speech.

The challenge of free speech is when there is speech you really dont like and we have to live up to that challenge, Gutmann said. We have to stand by free speech when its offensive speech, as well as when its speech we like.

Gutmann conceded, though, that there are limitations to free speech that must be considered, including threatening others or falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. She added that the context in which the statements are taken must be examined carefully.

Regardless of whether certain speech is protected by the first amendment, Gutmann says that everyone has a responsibility to respond to speech they do not like.

The right to free speech is often defended without the understanding that it comes along with the responsibility, when we can and as long as were protected, to speak our minds in response to offensive, sometimes disgusting and demeaning speech, she said.

See the original post here:

In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech

The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal Monday by high school students in Morgan Hill who were barred from wearing American flags on their T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo, a year after an angry confrontation between flag-waving Anglo and Mexican American students.

Heeding warnings in 2010 by students from both ethnic groups that clashes could erupt again, the principal at Live Oak High School told the students to either turn the U.S. flag shirts inside out or go home. Some reversed their shirts, others left, but three students and their parents sued the Morgan Hill Unified School District, claiming a violation of free speech. They cited a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld students right to wear black armbands to class in a silent protest against the Vietnam War.

But the 1969 ruling also said school officials could limit student expression in order to prevent disruption of education or school activities. Federal courts said the Morgan Hill principal had taken reasonable steps to prevent possible violence, and the Supreme Court denied review of the students appeal Monday, without comment.

The Rutherford Institute, a libertarian organization representing the students, said the courts action was a blow to the First Amendment.

When public school students cant wear an American flag on a T-shirt because it might be disruptive, then free speech as weve known it is dead, the institutes president, John Whitehead, said in a statement.

The students also drew support from John and Mary Beth Tinker, the brother and sister whose Vietnam War protest in an Iowa high school led to the Supreme Courts 1969 ruling. In a brief that urged the court to take up the Morgan Hill case, the Tinkers said students speech on controversial subjects often provokes hostile and even potentially violent reactions and should nevertheless remain constitutionally protected.

But the court may have retreated somewhat from the First Amendment stance it took in the Tinker case. A later ruling upheld a school principals authority to censor a student newspaper to promote what the principal described as school values. Another ruling upheld an Alaska schools suspension of a student who unfurled a banner outside the campus reading Bong Hits 4 Jesus, a slogan that the court said could be interpreted as promoting drug use.

The Morgan Hill case arose in an ethnically charged atmosphere that dated from May 5, 2009, when a group of Mexican American students walked around with a Mexican flag to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, and a group of white students responded by hoisting a makeshift American flag up a tree, chanting USA and exchanging profanities and threats with the Latino youths.

A year later, after a confrontation between Latino students and three youths wearing U.S. flag shirts, school officials told the youths in the T-shirts to conceal the flags or go home. They issued no similar orders to students wearing Mexican flag colors to commemorate the holiday, saying there was no evidence that those youths were in danger.

In a 3-0 ruling in February 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the students free-speech claims, saying the schools actions were tailored to avert violence and focused on student safety. Three conservative judges later argued unsuccessfully for a rehearing and accused their colleagues of catering to the will of the mob.

See the rest here:

Supreme Court turns away Bay Area students free-speech case