Flemming Rose isn't going to watch the decline of free speech without a fight. In 2005, while an editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Rose commissioned twelve cartoons about Muhammad to encourage artists to overcome self-censorship. Extremists responded to the cartoons with attacks on western embassies and riots, resulting in the deaths of over 200 people.

Now Rose has written The Tyranny of Silence, a defense of his decision to publish the cartoons and a guide to unfettered expression in the 21st century. "I'm not willing to sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of cultural diversity," he says.

As politicians across the world respond to the challenge of multiculturalism with censorship, campus speech codes, and the persecution of journalists, Rose explains why openness is the proper political response to a globalized world.

Rose is no rogue provocateur. He is one of the planet's most committed defenders of free speech, the open society, and enlightenment values of tolerance and human rights.

Edited by Todd Krainin. Cameras by Josh Swain and Mark McDaniel.

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Nick Gillespie: Today we're interviewing Flemming Rose at the Cato Institute and the author most recently of The Tyranny of Silence: How One Cartoon Ignited a Global Debate Over the Future of Free Speech. In 2005, while an editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Rose commissioned a series of cartoons about the prophet Mohammed as an exercise to stop self-censorship. Eventually, terrorists and extremists responded to the cartoons with violence, attacks on western embassies and riots creating a death toll that reached at least 200 according to the New York Times. Rose is no rogue provocateur. He is one of the planet's most committed and articulate defenders of free speech, the open society and enlightenment values of tolerance and universal rights and that is why I'm particularly happy to have the opportunity to talk with him today. Flemming Rose, welcome.

Flemming Rose: Thank you for those nice words, Nick. It's wonderful to be here.

Nick Gillespie: Let's take the pulse of free speech in the decade since the Mohammed cartoons came out. Since then, we've seen any number of violent reprisals against free speech, probably most catastrophically the gunning down of a good part of the staff of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, France, but we've also seen the continuing rise of hate speech laws in Europe and a stultifying climate rise on U.S. campuses and other college campuses. Are things good for free speech generally right now or not?

Flemming Rose: If we take the long-term historical view, yes, free speech is in better shape than in the 17th century or the 18th century or even the beginning of the 20th century. No doubt about that, but if we look in a shorter-term perspective, let's say the past 20, 30 years, I think free speech is in worse shape. Free speech is in bad standing. You can see it when you check out statistics. Freedom House puts out a report every year; Reporters Without Borders in Europe do the same thing in other institutions and the trend is the same all over. For the past approximately 10 years, freedom of the press and freedom of speech is in decline and I think that is the new thing. We know China. We know Cuba. We know North Korea, Russia, where things usually are in bad shape, but the new trend is the freedom of expression is in decline even in western Europe.

Nick Gillespie: What forms does it take, say, in Western Europe? Are reporters being, if not put in jail, are there legal actions against them or is it a chilled atmosphere where people just don't talk about certain things?

Flemming Rose: It's both. I mean, just to give you an indication, in the first half of 2015, France, of all countries in the world, was the most dangerous place to live for a journalist.

Nick Gillespie: Meaning that he would get arrested or you would get beaten up?

Flemming Rose: You would get beaten up or being gunned down. That's, of course, not the case anymore, but a couple of years ago, I interviewed the most famous French cartoonist Plantu, who works for Le Monde and I asked him, when was the last time a cartoonist was killed in Europe and he couldn't recall. The only name he came up with was a Palestinian cartoonist who was killed in London in 1987, either by the Mossad or the PLO, but even Honor Daumier, the most famous French cartoonist who worked in the 19th century, he was sent to jail several times but he came out and he continued mocking the king. He was not killed. He was not physically threatened.

Nick Gillespie: Where are the threats coming from? Are they exclusively coming out of religious intolerance? Is it Islamic Jihadists? It is broader than that?

Flemming Rose: It's far broader than that and I think fundamentally it has all to do with our ability to manage diversity in a world that is getting increasingly globalized and I think the debate of free speech is going on in a qualitatively new situation driven by migration, the fact that people move across borders in numbers at a speed never seen before in the history of mankind. The consequence being that almost every society in the world right now is getting more and more diverse in terms of culture and religion. That's one factor.

The second factor is the digital technology. The fact that what is being published somewhere is being published everywhere and people can react to speech across cultures, but in a situation where speech loses context and can be manipulated and exploited and political and so that's what happened to me.

More here:

Flemming Rose Against the Worldwide Suppression of Speech - Reason

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 looks to MFA for damage control following international disdain over Settlements Law

Letters to the Editor: IDI bias

Next Article

The rest is here:

JPost Editorial: Free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News

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

Read more from the original source:

Shock Study: 45 Percent Of High School Teachers OK With Public Ban On 'Offensive' Speech - Daily Caller

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

Go here to see the original:

Letter: Free speech is reality | The Daily Lobo - UNM Daily Lobo

Only dictators suppress freedom of speech, press

In the present tweet-dominated political chaos, it is again worth recalling freedom of speech and the press in the First Amendment. Experts debate its precise application, but one thing is certain: totalitarian dictators of the 20th century Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo suppressed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. An estimated 200 million people were killed in the century of war. Vladimir Putin came to power from Russias KGB. Recently he has revived the KGB-styled secret police in Russia. He has also been censoring Russias press. In the wake of Ukraine and Crimea, our president admires Putins aggressive, nationalistic style of leadership.

So how should Americans respond to the presidents claim to have a running war with the media, or that journalists are among the most dishonest people on earth? Or the advice of his close counselor, a former alt-right publisher of white nationalistic views, recently promoted to the National Security Council, who says that the media should keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while? Or a nervous press secretary sent out to admonish journalists and interpret the administrations alternative facts?

It is time to emphasize George Santayanas famous warning, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Dennis Duling

Youngstown

Continued here:

Letter: Only dictators suppress freedom of speech, press - Buffalo News

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 the article here:

Freedom of SpeechLet's Stop The BS - Huffington Post

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.

Continue reading here:

Democrats should honor all types of freedom of speech - Bowling Green Daily News

President Michael Schill spoke to a group of Jewish and Muslim students on Tuesday about the importance of free speech, tolerance and unification at the Oregon Hillel meeting.

Manzil Midrash is a project that Oregon Hillel, the Muslim Student Associationand theArab Student Union started three years ago. It was created to have deeper conversations about Israel and Palestine issues, and to bring people together. Schill spoke as a part of a series of events for the project, accordingto Andy Gitelson, the executive director of Oregon Hillel.

The president recounted a brief history of his life and described being the only Jewish kid at his elementary school in Schenectady, New York. Schill spoke about how this experience made him embrace his differences and he encouraged other students who are minorities to do the same.

Tonights talk is a really great opportunity for us to bring together students of different faiths and cultures, and obviously it is a very timely moment for this, Schill said. Our nation is at a crossroads where identity politics rages in a way that istroubling to me.

Gitelson appreciates the way that Schill uses Jewish values to make his decisions as president of UO.

He utilizes his own upbringing and the Jewish value system, Gitelson said.

Schill said the university will always remain insistent on protecting the values of free speech; however, he said that there is no clear-cut line of when free speech has gone too far, such as the recent law professor black face incident.

Drew Williams, a senior political science and religious studies major, agrees with Schills view on free speech.

You really have to understand that freedom of speech is something that is essential to being American; for every group from every variety of the spectrum to be able to speak and state their opinions, Williams said.

Darian Rosengard, a junior majoring in planning, public policy and management, appreciated Schill taking the time to talk about these issues in open conversation.

It was interesting hearing him showing sympathy to what minorities face all the time and taking a step back and saying, What questions do you have for me and what conversation can we have to be able to look at opposition and look at discomfort in a place of positivity? she said.

There are resources available to students on campus, such as the Dean of Students website which has university policies against discrimination and resources for students available.

Ive heard a lot of incidents which have been very troubling at this university as well as at other universities, but whats important is if there is intolerance, if there is racism, if there is xenophobia, the university wants to do what we can do to address it, Schill said.

Here is the original post:

President Michael Schill speaks about free speech and inclusivity - Oregon Daily Emerald

Until every soul is freely permitted to investigate every book, and creed, and dogma for itself, the world cannot be free. Mankind will be enslaved until there is mental grandeur enough to allow each man to have his thought and say. This earth will be a paradise when men can, upon all these questions differ, and yet grasp each other's hands as friends. It is amazing to me that a difference of opinion upon subjects that we know nothing with certainty about, should make us hate, persecute, and despise each other. Why a difference of opinion upon predestination, or the trinity, should make people imprison and burn each other seems beyond the comprehension of man; and yet in all countries where Christians have existed, they have destroyed each other to the exact extent of their power. Why should a believer in God hate an atheist? Surely the atheist has not injured God, and surely he is human, capable of joy and pain, and entitled to all the rights of man. Would it not be far better to treat this atheist, at least, as well as he treats us?

Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask isnot that they love their enemies, not that they love their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them, with simple fairness.

We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them. If all will admit that all have an equal right to think, then the question is forever solved; but as long as organized and powerful churches, pretending to hold the keys of heaven and hell, denounce every person as an outcast and criminal who thinks for himself and denies their authority, the world will be filled with hatred and suffering. To hate man and worship God seems to be the sum of all the creeds. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

More:

Quotes About Freedom Of Speech (245 quotes)

Most people think freedom of speech is necessary for a democratic government. In countries without free speech, people might be afraid to say what they think. Then, the government does not know what the people want. If the government does not know what they want, it cannot respond to their wants. Without free speech, the government does not have to worry as much about doing what the people want. Some people say this is why some governments do not allow free speech: they do not want to be criticised, or they fear there would be revolution if everyone knew everything that was happening in the country.

A well-known liberal thinker, John Stuart Mill, believed that freedom of speech is important because the society that people live in has a right to hear people's ideas. It's not just important because everyone should have a right to express him or herself.

Few countries with "free speech" let everything be said. For example, the United States Supreme Court said that it was against the law to shout "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, because this might cause people to panic. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also says that it is not okay to cause national, racial or religious hatred.[1] Also, some countries have laws against hate speech. [2]

As Tocqueville pointed out, people may be hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government punishment but because of social pressures. When an individual announces an unpopular opinion, he or she may face the disdain of their community or even be subjected to violent reactions. While this type of suppression of speech is even more difficult to prevent than government suppression is, there are questions about whether it truly falls within the ambit of freedom of speech, which is typically regarded as a legal right to be exercised against the government, or immunity from governmental action.

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom of speech - Simple English Wikipedia, the free ...

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

Continued here:

Freedom Of Speech - Censorship | Laws.com

Last week's riot at University of California Berkeley has raised some big questions about the future of the free speech movement. A divided campus which once incubated the ideals of the 1960s was sent into lockdown as it struggled to balance inclusive values with its legacy of fighting for the right to voice your opinion, however ugly it may be.

When the Berkeley College Republicans invited inflammatory Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, over 100 faculty members signed letters of protest, urging the administration to cancel his visit, while an op-ed by veterans of the free-speech movement defended his right to speak. The university decided that the Berkeley College Republicans, a separate legal entity from the school itself, had the right to host Yiannopoulos but many in the community didn't agree with that decision, pointing to other schools that have successfully prevented his appearances.

The night Yiannopoulos arrived on campus, 1,500 people showed up to protest some carting a giant, homemade dove to symbolize their peaceful intentions. But just after sundown, the protests turned violent, as roughly 150 black-clad, anti-fascist radicals with clubs and shields lit fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, smashed windows and caused enough of a scene to achieve their objective: deny Yiannopoulos the opportunity to spread what they view as dangerous hate speech at the university's new Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union Center.

They were successful. But what does that mean for a campus uniquely tied to the idea that everyone even those holding ideas widely condemned and deemed to be offensive, ignorant or hateful has the right to say their piece?

University officials were disappointed by the events, quickly distancing themselves from the rioters. "It's not a proud moment for us," says Dan Mogulof, assistant vice chancellor of the university. "It was a sad day, given UC Berkeley's legacy, history and institutional values We want to provide a venue for speakers across the political spectrum."

Although it's difficult to determine the affiliations of the more militant protesters who used the "black bloc" tactic of wearing all black and masking their faces, in order to avoid police recognition and appear as a cohesive group they have been depicted as being from out of town and unrelated to the UC Berkeley community. YetRolling Stone spoke to one participant who said they graduated from the university and cited not only fears that a rising far right could bring about more "xenophobia, misogyny and [white] ethno-nationalism" but also anger and disappointment directly pointed at the university's administration.

"Shutting down the talk was successful," the protester, who asked to remain anonymous, saidin an email. "But it was also about sending a message to everyone else: We aren't about to allow white supremacist views to be normalized. It was about striking at the seemingly impervious confidence the far right has been boasting."

But it isn't just about blocking a single speaker. "It is really about making them understand the danger they pose by treating these insane neo-Nazi ideas cavalierly," the protester says. "People talk a lot about 'freedom of speech' and I think this fetish of speech misses the larger point. It is about ideas of freedom itself. Who has it, and who is denied it."

Lately, Trump supporters at UC Berkeley have had reason to be fearful. One, who told news cameras he was attacked by protesters, was seen bleeding from his eye. Another was pepper-sprayed by a masked individual after giving an interview to a local TV station. A day after the protest, two people were arrested for attacking a man walking near campus with a "Make America Great Again" hat. Video of an unconscious Trump supporter lying face down in the street and being struck in the head with what was described as a shovel circulated online.

"It's become evident that the black bloc is not just a matter of concern for local agencies," says Assistant Vice Chancellor Mogulof. "We've taken note of the tactics, weapons, discipline, organization and training. We will not be caught unprepared for them again."

The majority of protesters didn't engage in violence. Max Raynard, a Bay-Area native who attended the protests, witnessed students attempting to give water and medical attention to the Trump supporter with the eye wound. UC Berkeley says the next day students formed an ad-hoc group via social media to clean up campus.

But despite the majority's actions, university policies and widely condemned views of Yiannopoulos, the shut-down of the event brought a larger issue to light. "The whole point of the free-speech movement was to defend unpopular speech. There's no point in defending popular speech," says Jack Citrin, professor of political science and director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at the university. "This could have been a teaching moment for our students: that it is legitimate for people with views you find abhorrent to speak, and to debate them, and to do so with a superior argument. Instead, it ends up a moment where this provocateur gets exactly what he wanted."

Citrin, who received his PhD from Berkeley in 1970 and was passionate about the free speech movement as a student, says he was heartened by the chancellor's decision to resist pressure and allow the event to go forward. He argued much along the same lines as the op-ed written by the Free Speech Movement Archive Board of Directors. "If even a 10th of the 100 or so faculty who signed those pro-ban open letters showed up to ask this bigot tough questions or held a teach-in about what's wrong and unethical in his vitriol," read the op-ed,"they could puncture his PR bubble instantly, avoid casting him in the role of free speech martyr and prove that the best cure for ignorant and hateful speech is speech that unmasks its illogic, cruelty and stupidity."

Citrin believes the battle for free speech on college campuses is still raging, just in a new way. "I think the defense of free speech is a very real issue now," he says. "And that battle takes place in many forms, and includes demands for so-called 'safe spaces,' which I view as absurd. There's a whole range of issues that have arisen that has made the firm commitment to free speech in academia less secure."

These violent protesters, he says, claim to be liberal but don't believe in free speech. "This is a gift to Milo, and of course presents Trump with an opportunity to get on his horn." (The president tweeted at 3:13 a.m. "If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Experts quickly responded saying the president's ability to fulfill this threat was "unlikely.")

According to a statement put out by the university, there was one arrest (for failure to disperse) and six minor injuries the night of the protests. The school's early estimate is that $100,000 worth of damage was done to the area outside its new MLK Student Union building a popular study spot. A large diesel-fuel fire, started after protesters tipped over a light post and generator, was hot enough to be felt 20 or 30 feet away, scorch nearby steps, and thin out a couple of trees, students present at the protest told Rolling Stone.

Robert Borsdorf, a 20-year-old third-year art student at Berkeley spent part of the night documenting the protests on behalf of the art department, and another part of it wrestling with protesters who didn't want him to photograph their faces.

"I look over my right and this dude has a fucking mason jar," says Borsdorf. "He lit it and tossed it up at these cops. When I turn around, there's something going toward the cop and it exploded. It was insane."

The black-bloc protester who spoke to RSon condition of anonymity says they "took it pretty easy that night," and that they still believe in the tactics.

"In this case, with the goal being to absolutely shut down a central target, it made sense to employ these means to ensure that the University understands there are consequences for enabling fascism," the protester says. "The demonstration had less to do with stopping one particular right-wing narcissist than it did combatting the movement he is part of."

Peaceful activists, direct-action anarchists, conservative provocateurs, campus faculty and the UC Berkeley Police can't agree on much. But there is one topic where they do: The police presence and response to the protest was small and non-interventional. And that's not by mistake.

The notably muted response was not part of a conspiracy by administrators to allow protesters to stop the event despite suggestions on social media and from Yiannopoulos himself in interviews. Rather, it was the direct result of officials following the guidelines of the Robinson-Edley report, campus officials said. The report was drafted to suggest changes to protest-management on California universities after two clashes between protesters and police in November 2011. One, when protesters were pepper sprayed at UC Davis, and the other a violent beating of protesters at UC Berkeley. The report's findings prioritize student safety, and support more non-physical methods, like opening lines of communication and building trust.

But after the violent clashes, the lines of communication and bedrock of trust on campus can be hard to find. Mogulof recalled a phone call he received before the protests.

"I had a faculty member of the campus call me and say, 'You must ban him,'" he recalls. "I said, 'We're not allowed to do that, he is protected by the first amendment.' They say 'No, he's not.' So I say, 'Why do you believe that?' and they said, 'Because he's wrong.'"

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

Read the rest here:

Berkeley Riots: How Free Speech Debate Launched Violent Campus Showdown - RollingStone.com

By Rick Sallinger

DENVER (CBS4) Protesters have asked a federal court judge to issue an injunction against the City of Denver and police after demonstrators were asked to leave Denver International Airport last month.

The response was strong and immediate to President Donald Trumps travel ban. Protestors rushed to airports around the country including DIA.

(credit: CBS)

But in Denver, police told the demonstrators that they needed to have obtained a permit seven days in advance of the protest.

They were addressed by a man with an airport badge on a megaphone who announced, You need a permit to conduct this activity on airport property.

And a Denver police officer told them, Stop doing anything that can be construed as Free Speech without a permit.

(credit: Darren OConnor)

Now some of those protesters have filed a lawsuit in federal court asking for the airport rule that requires a permit a week in advance to be lifted.

Civil Rights attorney David Lane is representing the protesters.

(credit: CBS)

Those protesters were out there the day that occurred and Denver expects them to wait seven days? The Supreme Court says thats unconstitutional, said Lane.

The protests continued inside DIA despite the request by police. Then, to avoid arrest, some demonstrators moved outside by the Westin hotel. The city insists its actions were within the law.

Travel ban protesters gathered Jan. 28 at Denver Intl Airport. (credit:: CBS)

DIA issued a statement, Denver police and the airport worked to balance the rights of individuals to express themselves with the need to protect passengers and airport operations.

Those who filed the lawsuit continued their protests at DIA. CBS4 Investigator Rick Sallinger asked them a question as they carried one of the signs they had at the protest.

(credit: CBS)

Are you a little worried about holding up this sign? asked Sallinger. Yes. Any minute DPD could arrive and take it, said one protester.

CBS4s Rick Sallinger is a Peabody award winning reporter who has been with the station more than two decades doing hard news and investigative reporting. Follow him on Twitter @ricksallinger.

Continued here:

Activists Claim DIA Infringed On Freedom Of Speech - CBS Local

Debate is what Geoffrey Stone, professor of law at the University of Chicago, came to the University to encourage, and debate is what he got.

In a lecture at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs Friday, Stone discussed the importance of fostering an environment that encourages free expression, especially controversial opinions. His talk was followed by a heated question and answer session about the pragmatism and presentation of his ideas.

Free speech on college campuses has come under national scrutiny again with the protests at the University of California at Berkeley that led to the cancellation of an alt-right speakers event Wednesday, said President Christina Paxson P19 as she introduced Stone.

Stones talk, Free Speech on Campus, dealt exactly with these issues and was part of a University speaker series Reaffirming University Values: Campus Dialogue and Discourse.

Stone chaired the University of Chicagos Committee on Freedom of Expression in 2015. My own personal view is that if (universities) aspire to be serious academic institutions, they have to have a profound commitment to debate, discussion and disagreement because thats how we create knowledge, Stone told The Herald. If institutions cut off that debate (and) disagreement, they are, in my view, undermining the central purpose of their being, he said.

Increasingly, faculty members and students are less comfortable taking controversial positions, Stone told The Herald. One reason is that some students have been raised by helicopter parents who have shielded or protected them from discomfort, risk and failure in ways that their predecessors have not, Stone said. Additionally, those who share controversial views on social media may risk offending potential employers.

I think its an unhealthy thing that social media has produced that environment, but its a healthy thing that students and marginalized groups such as racial and religious minorities, women (and) gays have become more vocal about their experiences and intolerance for certain views, Stone told The Herald.

Contrary to the position espoused by the University of Chicagos Dean of Students John Ellisons letter to incoming freshman of the class of 2020, Stone said trigger warnings and safe spaces are not violations of free speech in his view. The letter written by the dean of students in the college did not reflect the reality or the policies of the University of Chicago. I regard that aspect of that letter as unfortunate, Stone told The Herald.

The decision to use trigger warnings should be left to professors rather than dictated at an institutional level, Stone told The Herald, emphasizing that faculty members should feel free to use trigger warnings if they think that it would improve the quality of education that students receive.

The University of Chicago is filled with safe spaces, Stone said.There are endless organizations that are designed to bring together students (with) particular experiences, interests (and) background(s).

But while student groups can serve as safe spaces, universities as a whole must be open to even the most loathsome, odious, offensive, disloyal arguments, Stone said in a speech at the American Law Institutes meeting in May 2016. Universities must ultimately uphold free speech even in the case of hate speech, he said.

I dont believe that the idea of hate speech is one that universities should get involved in addressing any more than it should get involved in communist speech or pro-abortion speech, Stone told The Herald. Hate speech is simply speech that says bad things about certain people, and my view is that the right response to it is to address it and explain why one thinks its hateful and wrong instead of seeking institutional censorship, he added.

In addition, universities should not take political positions to protect freedom of speech on campuses. But exceptions can be made if political actions have a direct and real effect upon the operation of universities, such as President Donald Trumps recent executive order banning immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, Stone said.

Responding to a question from a professor at the event about a universitys responsibility to address institutional oppression, Stone said, In university communities like ours, were not the ones afraid to speak out. Rather, those afraid to speak out on college campuses are the Trump supporters or evangelical Christians, he said.

Across the University, you should not have certain types of perspectives unrepresented (or) not reasonably represented because of some bias about those views, Stone said. But in his view, a liberal bias has already taken root at most universities across the country.

A persistent point of tension in Stones speech was the conflict between freedom of speech and the need to be civil in an academic setting. Stone said that professors have a right to intervene when racial epithets are directed at students in a classroom. He proceeded to directly name certain racial epithets as examples of unacceptable language.

Naomi Chasek-Macfoy 18 requested that Stone discontinue the use of racial slurs in his speech, to which Stone replied that racial epithets should be allowed in the classroom if they are relevant to the discussion or mentioned in course materials. Someone who goes around yelling and screaming racial epithets even outside the classroom, I would say, is being a jackass. Is that okay can I say that? he joked.

Many attendees told The Herald that they were uncomfortable with Stones response to Chasek-Macfoys question. While some students might have even agreed with Stone, the fact that he was mocking (Chasek-Macfoy) from then on, I lost my respect for him, Areeb Mahamadi 17 said. I thought he was rude.

More:

Freedom of speech talk stirs debate - The Brown Daily Herald

JAY-K (DRCFINEST),I #39;M Grown Official Video
THE HIT SINGLE #39;I #39;M GROWM #39; BY International Afro-Pop/Afro-Beat/R B Artist JAY-K (DRCFINEST) Second Single off the upping coming Album "Freedom Of Speech" Follow Artist @jaykdrcfinest ...

By: ALLINONETV11

View post:

JAY-K (DRCFINEST),I'M Grown Official Video - Video

DARKA SHADEZ -TALK DEM A TALK - DISS ZIGGY CHANG (50 CAL RIDDIM
PROD BY SERB..... ARTIST :DARKA SHADEZ TITLE :TALK DEM A TALK (DISS ZIGGY CHANG) {50 CAL RIDDIM} FREEDOM OF SPEECH...... TO CONTACT DARKA SHADEZ.FOR MORE INFO ...

By: richie chamberlin

Read more:

DARKA SHADEZ -TALK DEM A TALK - DISS ZIGGY CHANG (50 CAL RIDDIM - Video

Bulldozing these Bills in Parliament shows us just how desperate Barisan Nasional is to stay in power.

COMMENT

By Charles Santiago

Malaysians went to bed last week only to wake up the next day to a shrinking democratic space in the country.

They woke up to find themselves robbed off their civil liberties, and their freedom of speech stifled.

Bulldozing the various Bills in Parliament, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and amendments to the Sedition Act among many others, the government has seen to it that Malaysians have lesser civil and political rights now while the police have emboldened their powers.

Prime Minister Najib Razak pledged to repeal the Sedition Act three years ago but has gone back on his words.

I have to admit that I am equally worried about voicing out my opinions as anything and everything can be construed as seditious.

The detailed provisions in these laws remain open to possible abuse by the government and police, while keeping a tighter lid on opposition politicians and civil society.

Read more:

POTA, Sedition Act spell a week of outrage for Msians

BEIRUT

Journalists covering an international investigation into the assassination of Lebanons ex-prime minister, Rafik Hariri, will find themselves testifying this week, prompting a debate over the Special Tribunal for Lebanons reach and the limits of free speech.

For the past six years, the court has sought to find and prosecute the culprits behind the Hariri assassination. Hariri was one of a number of high-profile critics of the Syrian regime to be assassinated at the time. He and 21 others were killed by a huge car bomb in 2005 on a Beirut street.

On Thursday, the tribunal begins a trial for journalists and news outlets it claims have undermined its investigation by revealing details about witnesses in the case.

Freedom of speech

Among the accused set to stand trial is well-known journalist Karma al-Khayat and her employer Al Jadeed TV. Al-Khayat is accused of contempt of court alongside Hezbollah-leaning newspaper Al-Akhbar and the papers co-founder, Ibrahim Al-Amin.

Al-Khayat, like Al-Amin, has pleaded not guilty and denies the broadcasts undermined the efforts of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

We believe this is a trial about freedom of speech, she told VOA. "By putting us on trial, they are trying to shut us up and teach a lesson to all other media in Lebanon.

Divisive role

Based in The Hague and established by the United Nations Security Council at the request of the Lebanese government, the tribunal is trying in absentia five members of Hezbollah for complicity in the assassination. Hezbollah has refused to acknowledge the tribunal or hand over its members to the court, which it claims is politically driven.

Read more from the original source:

International Tribunal for Lebanon to Try Journalists for Leaks

By Bart Katureebe

It is an honour and privilege to officiate at the second edition of the Uganda National Journalism A ward ceremony. This award is aimed at improving the quality of journalism in Uganda by inspiring and recognizing excellence in reporting on public affairs.

Journalists in any democratic society play a critical role in holding, receiving and imparting all forms of opinions, ideas and information. Therefore, the importance of recognizing and inspiring those gallant men and women, who devote their time, energy and effort to excel in this profession, cannot be overemphasized. It is because of this critical role played by the press and the media that any democratic society must uphold freedom of speech and expression.

Indeed, a democracy cannot exist without freedom to express new ideas and to put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions. The concept of free and uninhibited speech permeates all truly democratic societies and institutions.

Uganda, like any other democratic society, is committed to uphold, protect and promote the right to freedom of speech and expression. It is for that reason that the right is entrenched in the most binding instrument on the land, the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees to every Ugandan the right of freedom to hold opinions, receive and impart ideas and inform without interference. This commitment is not only found in the Constitution but also in other legislation.

The Uganda Constitution provides in Article 29(1) (a) that: "Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, which include freedom of the press and other media." Article 41 (1) states that: "Every citizen has a right of access to information in the possession of the state or any other organ or agency of the state ex- cept where the release of the information is likely to prejudice the security or sovereignty of the state or interfere with the right to privacy of any other person."

Article 20(1) of the same Constitution acknowledges that: "Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the state ."

In addition, Article 20(2) enjoins all organs and agencies of government and all persons to respect, uphold and promote the rights and freedoms of the individuals and groups enshrined in the Constitution.

It is, however, worth noting that the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. They may be restricted. However, any such restriction or limitation must be within strictly and narrowly defined parameters.

Article 43 of the Constitution provides general limitations on fundamental and other human rights and freedoms, which include freedom of speech and expression. It states that:

More:

Uganda: Judiciary Will Jealously Guard Freedom of Speech

With internet freedom on the brink of facing extinction, the social media is abuzz with trending hashtags like #NetNeutrality and #SaveTheInternet.

In the present scenario, at the time when Internet has become an integral and incredible part of one's life, the Internet Service Providers are trying to control the online traffic.

As many netizens continue to wonder what exactly net neutrality is, here is a complete guide on what all you should know about Net Neutrality in India.

What is Net Neutrality?

Network neutrality is the idea that your cellular, cable, or phone internet connection should provide access to all websites and online traffic in 'neutral' and 'equal' manner, without giving priority to any other website.

In simple terms, Net Neutrality is the Internet's guiding principle that "preserves our right to communicate freely online".

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is mulling to form proper guidelines regarding net neutrality. Till now, India has no laws governing net neutrality.

Even though the internet had been neutral and unregulated since 1998, in 2006, TRAI had invited opinions regarding the regulation of net neutrality from various telecom industry bodies and stakeholders.

Why is free and open internet important?

Free and open Internet stimulates ISP competition, helps prevent unfair pricing practices, promotes innovation, promotes the spread of ideas, drives entrepreneurship and most importantly protects freedom of speech.

Read this article:

Know what is Net Neutrality and Save The Internet: Explained