Freedom Of Speech Naam Ki Koi Chiz Hoti Hai – Alia Bhatt On AIB Controversy – Video


Freedom Of Speech Naam Ki Koi Chiz Hoti Hai – Alia Bhatt On AIB Controversy
Alia Bhatt was asked about the AIB Knockout Controversy at the recent event. Quite smartly Alia answered the journos question saying, “Freedom of Speech naam…

By: Koimoi

Go here to read the rest:

Freedom Of Speech Naam Ki Koi Chiz Hoti Hai – Alia Bhatt On AIB Controversy – Video

Letters to the editor: We must do more to stop terrorists

These people did nothing wrong but exercise their basic rights: the freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

It used to be the case that you actually had to blaspheme to become a target of Islamist extremists. Now, apparently, you just have to talk about those principles to arouse the murderous intent of those who disagree with our way of life. Or it could simply be because of who you are, if you happen to be a European Jew, such as the murdered security guard who protected the central synagogue.

While it is difficult to halt lone wolf attacks of this kind, much more must be done by political leaders to tackle this growing threat in Europe. We must move the climate of discussion away from condemnation to action, and how to prevent its recurrence. If we fail to do so, we can expect further attacks to occur. Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director, The Henry Jackson Society

The latest terrorist outrages in Copenhagen, shortly after similar events in Paris, confirm the sad reality of the role that Jews and anti-Semitism play in jihadist ideology and terrorist targeting.

Each terrorist attack raises the need and the demand for further security, and so Jewish communities have reacted by implementing ever more onerous security measures. These have become a sad part of of Jewish life but they should never be regarded as normal.

Across Europe, governments and police have reacted in various ways, with Britain generally regarded as the best in nearly every aspect. UK politicians could not have been stronger in their condemnations of anti-Semitism. But this sits in stark contrast to the profound silence of many civil society groups, who ought to oppose such hatreds but seem paralysed from doing so to any remotely meaningful extent. Mark Gardner, Community Security Trust

Reactions to these sorts of heinous killings must be measured. In its crudest form, an attack such as this craves speculation and hysteria. It is, in a sense, a most ugly form of attention seeking.

We need no more reminders of Islamic States dangerous social media presence. Guessing whether it was a copycat massacre in the style of Charlie Hebdo just fuels Islamic States strategy of saturating the news media.

Let the security services deal with the mechanics of the attack, and let the public focus on what we can do to prevent such monstrous events in the future namely through standing in solidarity against extremism of all kinds with all those who despise such barbarism. Terrorists seek to divide us. Let us not allow that to happen. Nazish Khan, researcher, Quilliam

This week Which? published its annual rail passenger satisfaction survey. The bottom six operators in the survey all serve London, scoring less than 50 per cent overall for passenger satisfaction.

Read the rest here:

Letters to the editor: We must do more to stop terrorists

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson to Receive Freedom of Speech Award

Phil Robertson’s comments about same-sex marriage and LGBT people have earned him a freedom of speech award.

Later this month, the Duck Dynasty star will receive the Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award from Citizens United at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Jesse Jackson: Phil Robertson’s comments are “more offensive” than Rosa Parks incident

In 2013, Robertson said in an interview with GQ that he believed homosexuality to be a sin, and later said that he believes AIDS is God’s punishment for immorality. In the wake of his comments, A&E suspended him from the network, but lifted the suspension after backlash from many Duck Dynasty fans.

“Even when the entire mainstream media demanded he disavow his beliefs and attempted to have him fired from his own hit show for expressing these beliefs, he stood firm in his faith,” Citizens United President David Bossie said, according to THR.

Phil Robertson continues to defend controversial comments

Added Robertson: “When one does not have the freedom to speak out loud and anywhere what one believes, freedom is dead.”

He will receive the award on Feb. 27.

Do you think Robertson deserves an award for his remarks?

Read this article:

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson to Receive Freedom of Speech Award

TOI debate on freedom of speech wows Kolkata – The Times …

Freedom of expression is a dangerous term these days. Being committed to its cause can get you killed, like the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ cartoonists. Or, you could be hounded so viciously you might even announce your own death as a writer, like Perumal Murugan. And you can be forced to go underground, like the bold woman editor of an Urdu newspaper. The list is growing alarmingly every week.

But there’s been a passionate counter to this narrative, too. Many insist that all freedoms are relative and they must be enjoyed with restraint and responsibility, especially in matters of faith.

Which is why there couldn’t have been a better topic than “Should freedom of expression be an absolute right?” for The Times of India’s annual debate, Converse. And which is why the city’s best and brightest turned up Friday evening at the Tollygunge Club to hear some of the wittiest and sharpest minds in the country lock horns and trade jibes on the subject and perhaps clear the noise in their own heads.

Those batting for absolute freedom were activist lawyer and AAP member Prashant Bhushan, Congress leader and lawyer Manish Tewari and standup comic Sorabh Pant. The other side had BJP national spokesperson and columnist M J Akbar, journalist and humour writer Bachi Karkaria and West Bengal Trinamool Congress general-secretary Mahua Moitra. Arindam Sengupta, national executive editor, Times of India, was the moderator.

The weather was almost made to order. And the setting an expansive 40 foot by 24 foot stage with seductive profile lights was perfect for, as Anil Mukerji, the club’s CEO said in his welcome note, some “robust cerebral jousting”.

It all began with Bhushan’s opening remark, “I don’t hold the position that freedom of speech is an absolute right. And that there should not be any restriction on it whatsoever. But I do believe that freedom of speech and the right to free speech is the most important right that the Constitution gives us and that right is absolutely essential for the survival of any healthy democracy.” He pointed out that the Constitution says there can be “reasonable restrictions” on this right on grounds of security of the state, public order, friendly relations with foreign states, contempt of court, defamation and morality. The core of his argument was: “Free speech can only be gagged if there is incitement to violence or public disorder.

And under no other circumstances can it be a gag even if it is defamatory, or even if it is offensive.” The opposition, however, latched on to his opening remark to underline the inconsistency of his position. Mitra quipped, “I thought you should be sitting on this side.” And Akbar had everyone in splits saying, “How can I interject when I agree with him completely?” What followed was a perfect demonstration of how a serious topic needn’t be hostage to seriousness. Everyone was in splits when Karkaria referred to Modi’s infamous suit as “a pinstriped selfie” and said cocky BJP politicos were getting “mufflered”. On a more serious note, she pointed out that many communities throughout history Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, women, homosexuals had been victimized because people had used absolute freedom of speech to incite mob frenzy against them. Referring to the Holocaust, Karkaria said Jews ended up in the gas chamber because Goebbels was allowed to spew poison with his propaganda. “There is always a thin line between perfect and legitimate freedom of speech and its abuse by those who wish to assert their powers. All civilized and sophisticated discourse is about thin lines. Thick line are only for thick people,” she concluded.

Bhushan’s interjection was, the right to speech must be protected as long as there is no clear incitement to violence or public disorder, even if it is something which may sound grossly offensive to somebody else. “Otherwise, you are on that slippery slope where every kind of attempt to reform or to challenge the orthodoxy is going to be gagged,” he said.

The stage was set for Tewari’s insightful and measured presentation. He said, rather unambiguously, that freedom of expression should be an absolute right. “Freedom is indivisible. The moment you splice it up, it ceases to be free,” he said. The Congress leader quoted John Milton, referred to US Congress’ first amendment, the Indian Constitution and the European human rights convention to explain that as history progressed, mankind has become repressive rather than progressive on the issue of freedom of speech. He said this freedom must include the right to offend. “You can have a quarrel with `Charlie Hebdo’ but that does not mean you go and massacre them. That is not a remedy against a perceived or real offence … Religion possibly requires the most rigorous debate and the most scrutiny in our society.”

Tewari recalled his days as the Union minister of information and broadcasting, when he wres tled with the problem of drawing lines. “If I decide to draw the line right here, there may be a religious bigot who would decide to draw it more to the right.

Excerpt from:

TOI debate on freedom of speech wows Kolkata – The Times …

Inna Shevchenko: I survived the Copenhagen attacks – but now I live in fear of death

To be honest, I had imagined something like the Copenhagen attack could happen. The shots began while I was on stage with Swedish artist Lars Vilks, giving a speech, somewhat appropriately, on the illusion of freedom of speech. In fact I had just finished saying that "people will always say 'we are in favour of freedom of speech but…'" when I heard the shots.

Originally posted here:

Inna Shevchenko: I survived the Copenhagen attacks – but now I live in fear of death

Inna Shevchenko: I knew Copenhagen attacks were coming – but now I have to live in fear of death

To be honest, I had imagined something like the Copenhagen attack could happen. The shots began while I was on stage with Swedish artist Lars Vilks, giving a speech, somewhat appropriately, on the illusion of freedom of speech. In fact I had just finished saying that "people will always say 'we are in favour of freedom of speech but…'" when I heard the shots.

Read more:

Inna Shevchenko: I knew Copenhagen attacks were coming – but now I have to live in fear of death

WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday – Freedom of Speech on College Campuses – Video


WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday – Freedom of Speech on College Campuses
Wednesday, February 11, 2015 Freedom of Speech on College Campuses Guest: Robert Shibley, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education David, Rick, and Tim …

By: Astonisher3

See more here:

WallBuilders Live 2015-02-11 Wednesday – Freedom of Speech on College Campuses – Video

Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report – Video


Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report
shots have been fired at a cafe in Copenhagen where a meeting about freedom of speech was being held, organized by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has faced numerous threats for caricaturing…

By: WorldFastestNewsChannel

Link:

Shots fired at Copenhagens Krudttoenden cafe free speech event a report – Video

Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh – Video


Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh
Gunmen have opened fire on a cafe in the Danish capital, Copenhagen – where a debate on freedom of speech was being held. One person was reportedly killed, and several others injured. RT's….

By: Alittlepart Ofme

See more here:

Copenhagen Shooting: Deadly attack at free speech meeting with cartoonist who depicted Muh – Video

What Does Free Speech Mean? – United States Courts

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech includes the right:

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

See the original post here:

What Does Free Speech Mean? – United States Courts

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press – Lincoln University

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF PRESS

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says that “Congress shall make no law….abridging (limiting) the freedom of speech, or of the press…” Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak openly without fear of government restraint. It is closely linked to freedom of the press because this freedom includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard. In the United States, both the freedom of speech and freedom of press are commonly called freedom of expression.

Freedom of Speech

Why is freedom of speech so solidly entrenched in our constitutional law, and why is it so widely embraced by the general public? Over the years many philosophers, historians, legal scholars and judges have offered theoretical justifications for strong protection of freedom of speech, and in these justifications we may also find explanatory clues.

The First Amendment’s protection of speech and expression is central to the concept of American political system. There is a direct link between freedom of speech and vibrant democracy. Free speech is an indispensable tool of self-governance in a democratic society. It enables people to obtain information from a diversity of sources, make decisions, and communicate those decisions to the government. Beyond the political purpose of free speech, the First Amendment provides American people with a “marketplace of ideas.” Rather than having the government establish and dictate the truth, freedom of speech enables the truth to emerge from diverse opinions. Concurring in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.”

On a communal level, free speech facilitates majority rule. It is through talking that we encourage consensus, that we form a collective will. Whether the answers we reach are wise or foolish, free speech helps us ensure that the answers usually conform to what most people think. Americans who are optimists (and optimism is a quintessentially American characteristic) additionally believe that, over the long run, free speech actually improves our political decision-making. Just as Americans generally believe in free markets in economic matters, they generally believe in free markets when it comes to ideas, and this includes politics. In the long run the best test of intelligent political policy is its power to gain acceptance at the ballot box.

On an individual level, speech is a means of participation, the vehicle through which individuals debate the issues of the day, cast their votes, and actively join in the processes of decision-making that shape the polity. Free speech serves the individuals right to join the political fray, to stand up and be counted, to be an active player in the democracy, not a passive spectator.

Freedom of speech is also an essential contributor to the American belief in government confined by a system of checks and balances, operating as a restraint on tyranny, corruption and ineptitude. For much of the worlds history, governments, following the impulse described by Justice Holmes, have presumed to play the role of benevolent but firm censor, on the theory that the wise governance of men proceeds from the wise governance of their opinions. But the United States was founded on the more cantankerous revolutionary principles of John Locke, who taught that under the social compact sovereignty always rests with the people, who never surrender their natural right to protest, or even revolt, when the state exceeds the limits of legitimate authority. Speech is thus a means of “people-power,” through which the people may ferret out corruption and discourage tyrannical excesses.

Counter-intuitively, influential American voices have also often argued that robust protection of freedom of speech, including speech advocating crime and revolution, actually works to make the country more stable, increasing rather than decreasing our ability to maintain law and order. Again the words of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California are especially resonant, with his admonition that the framers of the Constitution “knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” If a society as wide-open and pluralistic as America is not to explode from festering tensions and conflicts, there must be valves through which citizens with discontent may blow off steam. In America we have come to accept the wisdom that openness fosters resiliency, that peaceful protest displaces more violence than it triggers, and that free debate dissipates more hate than it stirs.

The link between speech and democracy certainly provides some explanation for the American veneration of free speech, but not an entirely satisfying or complete one. For there are many flourishing democracies in the world, but few of them have adopted either the constitutional law or the cultural traditions that support free speech as expansively as America does. Moreover, much of the vast protection we provide to expression in America seems to bear no obvious connection to politics or the democratic process at all. Additional explanation is required.

View post:

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press – Lincoln University

Copenhagen police kill suspect linked to two fatal attacks

Prime minister describes first shooting at freedom of speech event as a terrorist attack

Bullet holes seen in the window and door of Krudttonden cafe after shots were fired during a discussion meeting about art, blasphemy and free speech in Copenhagen. One person was killed. Photograph: EPA

Forensic police officers work at the area around a cultural centre in Copenhagen, Denmark, where unidentified gunmen killed at least one person and wounded several police officers after opening fire. Photograph: Claus Bjorn Larsen/AFP/Getty Images

Police forensic specialists investigate at the scene of the first shooting in Copenhagen. Police said on Sunday the suspected gunman in two shooting attacks in the city had been shot dead. Photograph: EPA

Danish police shot and killed a man in Copenhagen on Sunday they believe was responsible for two deadly attacks at an event promoting freedom of speech and on a synagogue.

Denmarks spy chief Jens Madsen said the gunman was known to the intelligence services prior to the shooting and probably acted alone. He did not elaborate.

We cannot yet say anything concrete about the motive … but are considering that he might have been inspired by the events in Paris some weeks ago, Mr Madsen told a news conference.

The prime minister described the first shooting, which bore similarities to an assault in Paris in January on the office of weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo, as a terrorist attack.

Two civilians died in Saturdays attacks and five police were wounded. One man died in the first shooting, in a cafe hosting Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been threatened with death for depicting the Prophet Mohammad in cartoons. Another died in an attack on a synagogue close by.

Islamist gunmen attacked a Jewish supermarket in Paris two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack. Danish police had launched a massive manhunt with helicopters roaring overhead and an array of armoured vehicles on the usually peaceful streets of

Read more:

Copenhagen police kill suspect linked to two fatal attacks