Monthly Archives: March 2015

Sudhir Mishra: Not worried about censorship; it is my country, will fight for what I want

Posted on by

New Delhi: As his upcoming film 'Aur Devdas' -- a hard-hitting political take on Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's romantic-tragedy -- gears up for its release

soon, director Sudhir Mishra says he is not bothered by the recent censorship issues.

The filmmaker, who earlier faced the heat of the censor board for his movies like "Dharavi" (1992) and "Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi" (2005), said censorship is an old issue. "I am not worried about censorship, it is my country and I will fight for what I want. It is not as if censorship is beginning now, everybody is thinking it is happening now but we have problems all the time and you have a way of handling

it," Sudhir told PTI.

A file photo of Sudhir Mishra.

Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) locked horns with Bollywood over its recent decisions including removal of the word 'lesbian' from 'Dum Laga ke Haisha' followed by denying the primary clearance to Hollywood erotic romance

'Fifty Shades of Grey'.

The board also delayed the release of Anushka Sharma's "NH10" by objecting to certain scenes in it. The film industry has also been battling with the new

list of 28 banned cuss words issued by CBFC. Mishra along with other prominent Bollywood celebrities like Aamir Khan and Deepika Padukone met Minister of State for

I&B Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore to raise their concerns over the censorship.

Read the original post:

Sudhir Mishra: Not worried about censorship; it is my country, will fight for what I want

Justices Hear Free Speech Dispute Over License Plates

Posted on by

The Supreme Court is weighing a free-speech challenge to Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag.

Specialty plates are big business in Texas, where drivers spent $17.6 million last year to choose from among more than 350 messages the state allows. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate.

But a state motor vehicle board turned down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy, as well as Maryland.

The justices are hearing arguments Monday over whether the state violated the group's First Amendment rights.

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, but it says that putting the battle flag on license plates would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. The same image is etched on a century-old Civil War monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

The case could be important for how the Supreme Court determines whether the speech at issue belongs to private individuals or the government.

Texas' main argument to the Supreme Court is that the license plate is not like a bumper sticker slapped on the car by its driver. Instead, the state said license plates are government property, and so what appears on them is not private individuals' speech but the government's. The First Amendment applies when governments try to regulate the speech of others, but not when governments are doing the talking.

Even if the court disagrees that license plates are government speech, the state said its rejection of the Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate was not discriminatory. The motor vehicle board had not approved a plate denigrating the Confederacy or the battle flag so it could not be accused of giving voice to one viewpoint while suppressing another, the state said.

Excerpt from:

Justices Hear Free Speech Dispute Over License Plates

Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

Posted on by

WASHINGTON Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," ''God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

"There are a lot of competing racial and ethnic concerns, and Texas doesn't necessarily handle them any way but awkwardly sometimes," said Lynne Rambo, a professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law in Fort Worth.

Read the original post:

Battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches U.S. Supreme Court

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag - to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism.

The nine justices will hear a one-hour oral argument in a case that raises the issue of how states can allow or reject politically divisive messages on license plates without violating free speech rights. States can generate revenue by allowing outside groups to propose specialty license plates that people then pay a fee to put on their vehicle.

The group Sons of Confederate Veterans says its aim is to preserve the "history and legacy" of soldiers who fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War. Its proposed design featured a Confederate battle flag surrounded by the words "Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896." The flag is a blue cross inlaid with white stars over a red background.

The group's Texas chapter said its members' free speech rights were violated when the state rejected the plate. Several other states have approved similar plates.

When Texas rejected the proposal in 2010, the state said it had received public comments that suggested "many members of the general public find the design offensive" in large part due to the Confederacy being synonymous with the institution of slavery.

A black Texas Democratic state senator, Royce West, said in 2011, "Ill-intended or not, why would African Americans want to be reminded of a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape and mass murder?"

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas officials did not have grounds to reject the plate, prompting the state to seek high court review.

The legal issue is in part whether messages on state-issued license plates represent speech by the government or an endorsement of a private message. If determined to be private speech, the state's rejection could violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech guarantee.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said although the flag "served as a banner for those who supported slavery and segregation ... Texas cannot pick and choose the plates it approves on ideological grounds."

A ruling is expected by the end of June.

Read more:

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches U.S. Supreme Court

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches US Supreme Court

Posted on by

WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on Monday takes up a free speech case on whether Texas was wrong in rejecting a specialty vehicle license plate displaying the Confederate flag - to some an emblem of Southern pride and to others a symbol of racism.

The nine justices will hear a one-hour oral argument in a case that raises the issue of how states can allow or reject politically divisive messages on license plates without violating free speech rights. States can generate revenue by allowing outside groups to propose specialty license plates that people then pay a fee to put on their vehicle.

The group Sons of Confederate Veterans says its aim is to preserve the "history and legacy" of soldiers who fought for the pro-slavery Confederacy in the US Civil War. Its proposed design featured a Confederate battle flag surrounded by the words "Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896." The flag is a blue cross inlaid with white stars over a red background.

The group's Texas chapter said its members' free speech rights were violated when the state rejected the plate. Several other states have approved similar plates.

When Texas rejected the proposal in 2010, the state said it had received public comments that suggested "many members of the general public find the design offensive" in large part due to the Confederacy being synonymous with the institution of slavery.

A black Texas Democratic state senator, Royce West, said in 2011, "Ill-intended or not, why would African Americans want to be reminded of a legalized system of involuntary servitude, dehumanization, rape and mass murder?"

The New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Texas officials did not have grounds to reject the plate, prompting the state to seek high court review.

The legal issue is in part whether messages on state-issued license plates represent speech by the government or an endorsement of a private message. If determined to be private speech, the state's rejection could violate the US Constitution's First Amendment free speech guarantee.

Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which backs the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said although the flag "served as a banner for those who supported slavery and segregation ... Texas cannot pick and choose the plates it approves on ideological grounds." Reuters

Read this article:

Confederate flag license plate battle reaches US Supreme Court

The price and privilege of free speech and a free press

Posted on by

Summary:Some countries and cultures have a hatred of our freedoms. Not only do they persecute their own subjects relentlessly, they feel they can reach outside of their own closed societies and attack us. They are wrong. We will not be silenced.

January 7, 2015: Gunmen armed with AK-47 automatic rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher attacked the Paris-based editorial offices of Charlie Hebdo. The newspaper has a history of printing satirical cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammad in unflattering light.

Three days later, the Hamburg-based offices of Hamburger Morgenpost were firebombed, probably because they reprinted images from Charlie Hebdo.

This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been targeted. In 2011, in response to earlier satirical illustrations of Mohammad, the paper was the victim of a previous firebomb attack. The paper's Web site was also hacked.

Speaking of hacking, we have all been following the news after the November 24, 2014 "scorched earth" hack attack against Sony Pictures Entertainment. Although all the details are still not known, it is believed the hack was perpetrated by North Korea because an American comedy movie, The Interview, featured a plot about assassinating the "Great Successor" Kim Jong-un.

For four months, beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013, The New York Times was the victim of an advanced persistent penetration attack attributed to the People's Republic of China. The Gray Lady had been working on a series of investigative reports about billions of dollars of "hidden" financial transactions made by the family of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

Around the same time, Rupert Murdoch himself reported that the Wall Street Journal had also been the victim of Chinese hacking. The Chinese were accused of digging around in the WSJ's systems, looking for names of sources used for stories about China. Presumably, once the names were extracted by the attackers, those sources would then be "persuaded" to stop speaking out, jailed, or exterminated.

In December 2013, the Washington Post reported that it, too, was the victim of penetration attacks, the third in as many years. While the purpose of that hack was unknown, a previous hack by the Syrian Electronic Army had redirected WaPo readers to articles on a Syrian Web site supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Penetrations of WaPo systems going as far back as 2008 are attributed to China, stating "China's cyber-espionage assists the government's broader efforts to quell internal dissent by identifying activists and dissidents."

From the violent attacks on Charlie Hebdo and Hamburger Morgenpost to the cyber-attacks on American media, the free press and free speech democratic societies take for granted is being targeted by a wide range of hostile actors determined to squelch, punish, and prevent certain topics of discussion.

Originally posted here:

The price and privilege of free speech and a free press

Confederate battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case – VIDEO: Texas school paints over star-spangled …

Posted on by

March 23, 2015: This image provided by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles shows the design of a proposed Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate.(AP)

Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health -- however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," "God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

Go here to see the original:

Confederate battle flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case - VIDEO: Texas school paints over star-spangled ...

Confederate flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

Posted on by

By MARK SHERMAN Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Texas commemorates the Confederacy in many ways, from an annual celebration of Confederate Heroes Day each January to monuments on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin. Among the memorials is one that has stood for more than a century, bearing an image of the Confederate battle flag etched in marble.

But you're out of luck if you want to put that flag on your license plate. Texas says that would be offensive.

Now the Supreme Court will decide whether the state can refuse to issue a license plate featuring the battle flag without violating the free-speech rights of Texans who want one. The justices hear arguments Monday in a challenge brought by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The group sued over the state's decision not to authorize its proposed license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy and Maryland.

The First Amendment dispute has brought together some unlikely allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, anti-abortion groups, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, civil libertarian Nat Hentoff and conservative satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

"In a free society, offensive speech should not just be tolerated, its regular presence should be celebrated as a symbol of democratic health - however odorous the products of a democracy may be," Hentoff, O'Rourke and others said in a brief backing the group.

Specialty plates are moneymakers for states, and Texas offers more than 350 varieties that took in $17.6 million last year, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate, the department said.

They bear messages that include "Choose Life," ''God Bless Texas" and "Fight Terrorism," as well as others in support of Dr. Pepper, burrito and burger chains, Boy Scouts, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, blood donations, professional sports teams and colleges.

A state motor vehicle board rejected the Sons of Confederate Veterans application because of concerns it would offend many Texans who believe the flag is a racially charged symbol of repression. On the same day, the board approved a plate honoring the nation's first black Army units, the Buffalo Soldiers, despite objections from Native Americans over the units' roles in fighting Indian tribes in the West in the late 1800s.

Read this article:

Confederate flag at center of Supreme Court free speech case

Call of Duty – Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3 – Video

Posted on by


Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3
Hey guys hope you like this epic game I know I #39;m racist but hey freedom of speech and all that! Enjoy! Don #39;t forget to subscribe, like and follow us on Facebook and Twitter! https://twitter.com...

By: Rabbit Gamers

Continue reading here:

Call of Duty - Advanced Warfare: The Rabbit Run Through Part 3 - Video

Lee Kuan Yew: a towering figure who crushed those who crossed him

Posted on by

March 23, 2015, 2:15 p.m.

He warned Australians they risked becoming the "white trash of Asia" and crushed his political opponents at home.

He warned Australians they risked becoming the "white trash of Asia" and crushed his political opponents at home. He made laws banning chewing gum and jukeboxes and imposed severe restrictions on freedom of speech.

But Lee Kuan Yew, who has died aged 91, turned an island at the tip of the Malaysian peninsula into a glittering regional financial and technology powerhouse with a $US300 billion a year economy.

Mr Lee was a towering figure on the international stage, a man of integrity who stood apart from other Asian nation-builders because he did not become corrupt.

The Cambridge-educated lawyer - who ditched his Anglicised name Harry Lee for his original Chinese name - had a relentless urge to smash those who crossed him, overseeing a system where his opponents were jailed or driven into bankruptcy through costly libel suits; the media was stifled often through libel suits; and political dissent was crushed.

Chia Thye Poh, a physics lecturer and member of Singapore's parliament in 1966, refused to bow to Mr Lee, a decision that led him to become one of the world's longest serving political prisoners.

Mr Lee had accused Mr Chia of being a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and ordered him to sign a declaration renouncing violence. Mr Chia refused. Twenty-five years later Mr Chia was still incarcerated, by then confined to a small, brick guardhouse on Singapore's Sentosa island where he described Mr Lee's refusal to release him as mental torture.

"To renounce violence is to imply you advocated violence before. If I had signed the statement I would not have lived in peace," he said at the time.

The restrictions on Mr Chia, who was never convicted of any crime, were not lifted until 1998.

Read this article:

Lee Kuan Yew: a towering figure who crushed those who crossed him

VIRAL: QC school's salutatorian speech interrupted

Posted on by

MANILA - A video of a batch salutatorian in Quezon City interrupted by school authorities while delivering her graduation speech has been making rounds online.

In the video uploaded on YouTube, Krisel Mallari, batch salutatorian of the Sto. Nio Parochial School, was delivering a speech that was still in the early parts of her speech when the announcer suddenly interrupted her, saying "Thank you very much, Ms. Krisel Mallari."

"Sa bawat taon na lumipas ay puspusan ang pag-aaral na ginawa ko sa eskuwela, naniwala ko sa patas na labanan. Sa pagtatapos ng school year na itoy isang hakbang na lang ang layo ko sa finish line, ngunit sa pagdating ko ritoy naglaho ang pulang tali na sisimbolo sana sa aking tagumpay, naglaho nga ba o sadyang kinuha?" Mallari was saying when the announcer interrupted.

Instead of stopping, Mallari proceeded with her speech, but school authorities kept insisting for her to stop and take a seat.

"Maraming tao ang nagbulag-bulagan sa isang sistemang marumi at kaduda-duda. Ngunit di ko ito tinuluran, ipinaglaban ko ang sa tingin koy tama, nanindigan ako bilang isang Pilipino na palaban at may takot sa Diyos. Chismis, isang piyesta ng chismis ang inabot ko ng pinagmukha nila akong masama," she said as the announcer interrupted anew.

At one point, a teacher is seen in the video seemingly handing Mallari a paper for her to read, instead of what she was delivering.

In an interview with ABS-CBNNews.com, Mallari confirmed that the speech she delivered during the graduation rites was different from the one approved by school authorities.

Mallari said she knew that the teachers would not approve the speech containing what she really wants to saywhich is about an alleged cheating incident in the schoolthat's why she did not have it checked by school authorities.

"May freedom of speech naman po di ba?" Mallari said.

Mallari's sister, Katherine, explained that even before the graduation rites, they had been asking the school to release the computation of Krisel's grades for the sake of transparency.

Read the original:

VIRAL: QC school's salutatorian speech interrupted

Atheism – Agnosticism

Posted on by

About Atheism [Index]

Various introductions to atheism, including its definition; its relationship to agnosticism, theism, and noncognitivism; and its value.

Arguments for Atheism [Index]

In this section, "arguments for atheism" means "arguments for the nonexistence of God." In the jargon of the philosophy of religion, such arguments are known as "atheological arguments." The argument from evil (sometimes referred to as 'the problem of evil') is by far the most famous of such arguments, but it is by no means the only such argument. Indeed, in the 1990s atheist philosophers developed a flurry of atheological arguments; arguably the most famous of such arguments is the argument from divine hiddenness (and the related argument from nonbelief).

Atheism, Theism, and the Burden of Proof [Index]

Debates [Index]

Links to transcripts or reviews of debates specifically about atheism (as opposed to debates about Christianity, Islam, creation/evolution, etc.).

Media & Reviews [Index]

Books, magazines, movies, and book reviews having to do with atheism.

Morality and Atheism [Index]

Read more:

Atheism - Agnosticism

Is Atheism a religion? – creation.com

Posted on by

by Daniel Smartt

Would Richard Dawkins ever acknowledge that his rabid atheism is actually a religious view?

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about religion. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Atheism creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also dont deal with religious movements centred around UFOswhich believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the secularisation of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.

See the article here:

Is Atheism a religion? - creation.com