Justin Talks - Instrument Logic [RE-UPLOAD]
Made by Justin Fleurimond Menard (Jusu-Tengu). *Re-uploaded because Freedom Of Speech put a cup of coffee to my head, and told me that I #39;m allowed to express my opinions ideas. All images...
By: Jusu-Tengu
See the article here:
Raif Badawi imprisoned - Saudi Arabia targets freedom of speech
Rights groups argue that the case against Badawi is part of a wider crackdown on freedom of speech and dissent in Saudi Arabia since the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. Criticism of clerics is...
By: Conflict Studies
Read the original:
Raif Badawi imprisoned - Saudi Arabia targets freedom of speech - Video
(CYG) Demonstration against Human Rights violations in Chad
On the 8th of March in N #39;Djamena, the capital city of Chad, peaceful demonstrators who were fighting for their right of assembly and freedom of speech, again had to face harsh violations...
By: M.E. I.Y
Read the rest here:
(CYG) Demonstration against Human Rights violations in Chad - Video
opinion
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right recognised in our constitution. But that doesn't mean everyone has to allow that speech anywhere you want to make it.
You can stop your drunken uncle from uttering his racist rants at your festive dinner table. Commercial enterprises have the right to limit "speech" on their communication platforms if they feel that content is going to harm them, their customers or their investors.
Internet service providers (ISPs) give us a connection to the public internet. For most of us, who cannot afford to host our own web-servers, they also provide shared web servers or hardware. In exchange, we pay them to provide us with a communication platform so that we can exercise our freedom of speech. This is particularly important for activists and critics who might not otherwise have access to places where their points may be heard.
And that's where things get a bit messy.
Dr. Harris Steinman has published his CamCheck website on Hetzner South Africa's shared website hosting platform since 2009. This website focuses on false and exaggerated medical advertising claims. Since almost all public advertising of normal medicines is heavily regulated (and thus there is little to criticise), much of the CamCheck's attention is on Complementary or Alternative Medicines (CAM), over which there is virtually no regulation.
Steinman has also had significant success with complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The scamsters outed in such a manner are generally not particularly happy about this.
Albe Geldenhuys of USN is one advertiser who has been on the receiving end of a large number of adverse rulings from the ASA. According to the numerous articles about USN products on the Camcheck website, Geldenhuys has no proof of the claims made for his products, and when challenged merely changes the advertising slightly to make other equally evidence-free claims.
Steinman asked a pertinent question in response to years of proven false advertising: "Albe Geldenhuys of USN, a master scam artist?"
Rather than providing a reasoned response and actual proof that the claims in his advertisements are completely above board, Geldenhuys' response has been to issue an ISPA "Take-down" request, demanding that Hetzner take down Camcheck site content of which he does not approve - claiming that it is "unlawful" because it is "defamatory". The content of that take-down request is attached here.
See the rest here:
analysis
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right recognised in our Constitution. But that doesn't mean everyone has to allow that speech anywhere you want to make it. By KEVIN CHARLESTON for GROUNDUP.
You can stop your drunken uncle from uttering his racist rants at your festive dinner table. Commercial enterprises have the right to limit "speech" on their communication platforms if they feel that content is going to harm them, their customers or their investors.
Internet service providers (ISPs) give us a connection to the public internet. For most of us, who cannot afford to host our own web-servers, they also provide shared web servers or hardware. In exchange, we pay them to provide us with a communication platform so that we can exercise our freedom of speech. This is particularly important for activists and critics who might not otherwise have access to places where their points may be heard.
And that's where things get a bit messy.
Dr. Harris Steinman has published his CamCheck website on Hetzner South Africa's shared website hosting platform since 2009. This website focuses on false and exaggerated medical advertising claims. Since almost all public advertising of normal medicines is heavily regulated (and thus there...
See more here:
South Africa: Groundup Op-Ed - a Stealthy Attempt At Censorship
Video Game Censorship and Freedom of Speech an Interview with Jon Festinger, Q.C.
In this video, Jon Festinger, Q.C. discusses Video Game Law, Video Game Censorship and the importance of Freedom of Speech. Below is a short summary about Jon Festinger: Jon Festinger is...
By: BasedGamer
Read the original:
Video Game Censorship and Freedom of Speech an Interview with Jon Festinger, Q.C. - Video
Both India and the international community have been engaged in a heated debate over whether the decision of a New Delhi magistrates court to suspend exhibition of the film, Indias Daughter, is a violation of freedom of speech. Such was the ire against this order that the director of the film Leslee Udwin called it suicide by India. One of the leading news channels, in a never-before protest, kept a banner of the film playing for the duration of the proposed screening. The British Broadcasting Corporation, of course, simply ignored the order and not only broadcast the film, but also uploaded it on YouTube, only taking it off after several hours.
It surprised me why people were defending hate speech in the name of free speech. I couldnt understand why a 60-minute film, which devoted 41 minutes to victim-blaming and propagating misogynistic ideas, was being defended so vehemently? The only rational explanation that I could find was probably because Indias hate speech laws, inherited from our colonial masters whether in our criminal statute or the exceptions incorporated to the freedom of speech in Article 19 of the Constitution, have always been concerned with maintaining public order and not offending mainstream morality. These laws have, therefore, naturally been used to silence dissent, sexuality and the voice of the marginalised. Whether it was the protests and banning of the film Water as immoral; the works of MF Hussain as obscene; and the statement of two little girls on Facebook against the public inconvenience caused by a bandh after Bal Thackerays death as spreading religious hatred. Public order and morality always enables perpetuation of the dominant discourse. Therefore, until the law defines hate speech as antipathetic to public order rather than as an offence to dignity, misogynistic speech that perpetuates structural violence against women, though it may maintain public order, will never fall within its purview.
A Facebook post shared a few days ago put hate speech into context for me. It read Women are not killed in a bubble. Theyre killed in a world that disenfranchises them, positions them as the other and disadvantages them. They are killed in a society that sends the message clearly and repeatedly that they are sexual objects for mens glorification and possession. The cultural elements that help to create this message arent the cause of violence against women but they are the contest in which they happen.
From khap panchayats, judges, police commissioners, religious pundits, to friends and family, women are told everyday, if you own a mobile phone and are seen in public after sunset, you are going to be raped, because the primitive male brain gets aroused! We are told everyday through television programmes, cinema and advertising what a good woman does and what a bad woman deserves! In this background, when a few weeks ago, the daily papers, advertised a sensational new film to be aired exclusively on a leading news channel on Womens Day, featuring a rape convict blaming the victim for this rape, I couldnt understand the purpose for this. Was this to titillate, present an excuse or just simply get eyeballs? There is nothing new or earth shaking in victim-blaming; we live with it every day, in various forms fictionalised and real and despite advancing technologically, we are simply becoming a more and more misogynistic society, unleashing newer forms of violence against women each decade.
There is, no doubt, that hate speech contributes exponentially to perpetuating patriarchal values in society and these values create the context in which violence against women occurs and is justified. It is no surprise that the German constitution gives human dignity primacy over competing values, because it is a society that realised social re-engineering from an anti-Semitic to an egalitarian society mandates the law silence ideas that validated and amplified values that are sought to be eliminated. Unfortunately, in India despite the mandate of Article 15 of our Constitution providing for positive discrimination in favour of women and Article 21 which has been defined by the Supreme Court to mean a life with dignity, words that take away the dignity of women, that encourage and validate violence against them are still being defended in the name of freedom of speech.
Free speech is a myth like the free market. Ideas of the majority and those that benefit commerce will always pervade society more deeply and if we have to change the context in which violence is perpetuated on women by replacing patriarchal values with progressive ones, we have to privilege the safety and dignity of women over the freedom to broadcast hate speech.
December 2012, India Gate, the power corridor of Delhi, was filled with protestors, after the media reported the brutal rape of a young girl. This girl was soon named Nirbhaya (The Fearless) by the crowds. For days people fought water cannons demanding answers, demanding justice, demanding safety. Such had been the courage of this young woman whose only crime was that she boarded a city bus at 8.30 at night despite being brutally raped on the bus, Nirbhaya fought from hospital, reporting what she could recall and refused to be defined by this violence. The crowds fighting on the streets demanded the state ensure that the city was safe for women. People wanted street lights, public transport, police patrols, community spaces that were safe for women, gender audits of communities and public places. People wanted actions not diagnosis; 60 years of diagnosis and excuses for rape culture had exhausted India. In December 2012, the discourse had moved, from Why rape happens, to What the government is not doing to make the city safe! Until in 2015, Leslee Udwin sent it back by giving a platform to misogyny. Lets not defend this in the name of freedom of speech.
The author is a practicing lawyer at the Delhi High Court
See the article here:
On Comments and Freedom of Speech
Anyways if you liked this please subscribe! Twitter: https://twitter.com/CountVonCreep Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CountVonCreep To donate me a game on Steam: ...
By: CountVonCreep
See the original post:
Paul Henderson speaks on the recent SAE fraternity video scandal
As most people know there is a video depicting members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity singing racist songs. Paul tackles the difficult issues of freedom of speech and racism on college...
By: Paul Henderson
View post:
Paul Henderson speaks on the recent SAE fraternity video scandal - Video
Swedish Artist Vilks Gets Freedom of Speech Prize a Month After Deadly Shooting in Copenhagen
Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the main speaker at a seminar in Copenhagen targeted by a gunman a month ago, has received a freedom of speech prize. Denmark #39;s Free Press Society said Vilks received...
By: wochit General News
Read the original here:
Free speech dialogue 2/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD
This is part 2 of 3 of Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi discussing freedom of speech or right to insult at the Islamic Society in University College Dublin on 5 March 2015. You can view...
By: Atheist Ireland
Go here to read the rest:
Free speech dialogue 2/3 - Michael Nugent and Abdullah al Andalusi at UCD - Video
A Call To Arms! (Please Read Description Below)
NO COMMENTS WILL BE SILENCED OR DELETED Freedom of speech means allowing those the right to speak, regardless of whether or not you agree with what #39;s being said. Let the message of ...
By: SuperTrollCentral
Go here to read the rest:
Freedom of Speech and the Right to Be Roasted
All India Bakchod Team having fun moment at 360 video Selfie booth before their session "Freedom of Speech and the Right to Be Roasted" at #Conclave15.
By: IndianTv
More here:
Students rally against racism, outside the Fiji house in February.
photo by Jana Birchum
On Feb. 7, University of Texas frat Phi Gamma Delta, more commonly known as Fiji house, hosted a theme party where guests wore ponchos, sombreros, construction outfits, and border patrol costumes despite the official theme of the party being, according to Texas Fiji president Andrew Campbell, "a Western or Old West theme."
Many students and faculty were upset about the party and, though skeptical, hoped that the administration would take bold action against Fiji. At the time, Marilyn Russell, coordinator of sorority and fraternity life in the Office of the Dean of Students, told the Chronicle, "To be skeptical is premature because nothing has come of this exact case right now." (See "Frat Party Fallout," Feb. 20.)
However, a week later, the official UT-Austin Twitter account tweeted, "While the behavior doesn't mirror UT core values, it's within students' right to freedom of speech at a private off-campus event." UT Senior Associate Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Soncia Reagins-Lilly told The Daily Texan that because the party didn't violate any university rules (primarily because it was an off-campus event), the frat faces no penalty, though UT is working with Fiji to increase the frat's "cultural sensitivity."
Christian Umbria Smith of UT's chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens (Longhorn LULAC) said that the response was "somewhat expected. And it's not so much that we don't have any faith in their ability to tackle student issues. I mean, President Powers has stood with us when it came to affirmative action policy, among other things." Still, he says, the response has, yet again, been just "words, but no actual actions." Yes, Smith says, it's good that the administration has made supportive statements, but they need to take concrete actions as well.
UT-Austin is no stranger to dealing with issues of racial insensitivity on campus, and the university is far from alone when it comes to these issues. The problem of racism in fraternities has recently gone viral, after a 10-second video of University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) members chanting racist slurs and making reference to lynching was leaked to the OU student paper.
For UT-Austin student Cat Tran, both the Fiji incident and the OU SAE video draw "attention to the legacy of racism that penetrates institutions, especially in the South, and how exclusion of minorities has historically been the norm, not the exception."
In contrast to UT's reaction (or lack thereof) to Fiji, OU's response to SAE was swift and powerful. The video leaked on Sunday, March 8, and by the next day, OU President David Boren had ordered the fraternity to be removed from OU and expelled two of the students seen leading the chant in the video. The video's publication also caused promising high school offensive tackle Jean Delance to reconsider his previous commitment to OU, and led to a protest by the school's current football team.
Smith said that he and many others considered OU's reaction to be encouraging and "very respectable." "It was good, but it was also disheartening to see that we didn't have that same level of vigor when it came to how the administration of the campus responded. Granted, there are differences," Smith said.
Originally posted here:
The Commited Freedom of speech
Platform 5 ashford 13/3/15.
By: ashford man
Read this article:
The Beast : Obama #39;s State Department tweets picture promoting Sharia law (Mar 15, 2015)
SOURCE: http://www.foxnews.com News Articles: The Picture State Department Used to Promote #39;Freedom of Speech #39; Leaves Some Asking, #39;You #39;re Joking Right? #39; http://www.theblaze.com/stories...
By: SignsofThyComing
View original post here:
The Beast : Obama's State Department tweets picture promoting Sharia law (Mar 15, 2015) - Video
LEXINGTON, Ky. (WKYT) - Fliers containing a message about heaven and hell were taped to cars and homes in a neighborhood off Armstrong Mill Road overnight.
Lexington police say they are working to figure out if this is a case of freedom of speech or harassment.
The flier talks about heaven and hell but the message isn't from the Bible.
It reads in part, "But for the disobedient and ungodly when they die they shall suffer hell for 3 days and each day shall be like 1000 years of weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The message goes on to say, "You have been weighed, you have been measured and you are found wanting."
Investigators say they are still trying to figure out who left the fliers.
"We had several people come who wanted to discuss with us how to be saved and we said we werent interested, we had our own denomination and we are very happy with it and then this is what I woke up to," explained neighbor Dee Penrod.
Pastor Patricia Kennedy says she also found a flier posted on her home.
"You want to do a door to door or talk to people. You don't come in during the middle of the night and post those on peoples' doors. God wants us to be wise. So we have to be wise in what we do even in ministry," she said.
Kennedy tells WKYT that she believes there is a heaven and a hell. However, she says how she shares those beliefs is sometimes just as important as the message itself, which is why she finds the flyers left during the night so offensive.
See the article here:
Freedom of speech or harassment? Fliers about hell posted in Lexington neighborhood
Mexico City (AFP) - Mexicans awakened Monday without the familiar radio voice of a prominent journalist who revealed the first lady's controversial mansion.
Carmen Aristegui, a fixture of morning broadcasts, was fired by MVS Radio late Sunday after a public feud with her employer over the dismissal of two of her investigative reporters.
Her firing became the top trending topic on Twitter in Mexico, with supporters calling on users to unfollow MVS's account over what they consider an affront to freedom of speech.
Aristegui showed up Monday in front of MVS's Mexico City headquarters, where she was greeted by a dozen cheering supporters.
Vowing to fight back, she warned that her lawyers said her firing was wrong and a violation of freedom of speech.
Aristegui said her country "is seeing an authoritarian wind and an ominous sign of something that we have to avoid."
"This team of journalists is committed to fighting for freedom of speech," she said, adding that her firing appeared to have been planned well in advance, "with much resources and much power."
MVS said it parted ways with Aristegui because she had conditioned her staying with the broadcaster on the company reinstating her two reporters, and the company could not accept such "conditions and ultimatums."
MVS said the two journalists had been fired for using the company's name without permission in their participation in MexicoLeaks, a website created by civic groups and other media outlets to receive leaked documents showing acts of corruption.
- Lavish mansion -
See the rest here:
In a recent post, co-blogger Eugene Kontorovich criticizes Israels law restricting the publication of public opinion polls in the last few days before an election. I largely agree with Eugenes critique. The Israeli law (and similar legislation in many other countries) is an unjust infringement on freedom of speech.
But Eugene does not address an important possible defense of these types of laws. Late preelection polls could exacerbate the pernicious bandwagon effect, which leads some voters to support a given candidate or party merely because it seems likely to win. I discussed bandwagon voting in this 2012 post:
A small but significant number of swing voters tend to support whichever side seems to be winning, partly because they want to be identified with a winner and partly because of a sense that whoever seems to be winning might well be the best person for the job for that very reason. Bandwagon voters are unlikely to make a decisive difference in an election where one side has an overwhelming edge to begin with. But they can be decisive in a closer race. They can also increase the winners margin of victory, thereby adding to the perceived extent of his mandate. For these reasons, candidates and their supporters routinely project greater optimism than they really feel.
The bandwagon effect is an inversion of the normative ideal of democracy. Instead of choosing the winner based on their perception of what would best serve the public interest, bandwagon voters modify their perception of the public interest based on who they think is likely to win. Worse, these voters are often among the key swing voters who decide electoral outcomes.
Well-informed voters and those with strong views on political issues are unlikely to change their minds because of the bandwagon effect. But political ignorance is widespread, and swing voters (the ones most likely to change their intentions at the last minute) are, on average, considerably more ignorant that those with stronger partisan commitments.
Restricting publication of last-minute polling results could potentially prevent relatively ignorant swing voters from deciding who to support for based on bandwagon effects, and thereby lead them to consider more substantive reasons for choosing one party over the others. In Chapter 2 of my book on political ignorance, I discuss some situations where voter ignorance might actually have beneficial results. Perhaps ignorance of late preelection polling results might be another such case.
But to be really effective, such laws would probably have to ban publication of polling results for many weeks prior to the election, not just the last few days. Polls often create a strong impression of who the likely winner weeks or even months before election day. That approach, of course, would restrict freedom of speech far more than current Israeli does.
Even if polling publication restrictions could diminish bandwagon voting, it is not clear that the voters diverted from bandwagoning would choose better-informed reasons for voting. They might instead rely on a variety of other dubious and often misleading heuristics and information shortcuts. Sadly, the bandwagon effect is just one of many negative consequences of widespread political ignorance. We are unlikely to solve the problem by giving government more power to restrict the flow of supposedly harmful information to the public.
Moreover, as Eugene points out, late polls can sometimes provide valuable information to better-informed voters. In a multi-party system like Israels, the decision to vote for a particular party reasonably depends not just on the partys own merits, but on the potential impact of an increase in that partys support for the configuration of a coalition government. And that effect, in turn, often depends on the extent of support for other parties. For example, a given Israeli voter might be willing to support Party X if giving that party an extra seat in the Knesset is likely to lead to a center-left coalition government, but not if it is more likely to lead to a center-right coalition. Admittedly, only unusually well-informed voters are likely to make such careful calculations effectively. But such people can sometimes make a difference in a close election. And if the election is not close, then there is also less need to worry about harmful effects of bandwagon voting.
Of course, one can try to justify restricting preelection polling not on the grounds that it prevents bandwagon effects, but because some polling results are biased or even deliberately manipulated to support one party or candidate. But the same can be said for a wide range of other political information and preelection commentary by pundits, political activists, and the media. If the danger of bias and manipulation justifies censoring publication of preelection polling results, it can easily justify censorship of most other types of political speech during election season, as well.
View original post here:
Christian Leuprecht is associate dean and associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, affiliated with Queens University.
In debating the federal governments anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, we would do well to remember that there is a reason even Pierre Trudeau insisted on protecting freedom of expression rather than freedom of speech in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: unlike the United States, there was a broad consensus that we did not want to afford neo-Nazis constitutional protection to march through Jewish neighbourhoods (National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie, 1977). Similarly, we do not want salafist Jihadists abusing their adulterated interpretation of Islam to lure the unsuspecting back to the moral ice age.
Democracies, by definition, cherish the Lockean principle of limited state. Its intervention needs to be justified in an effort to advance freedom (and, subsequently, equality and justice). Life is the ultimate human right: It is difficult to enjoy your freedom when you are dead. No one knew that better than John Locke himself: He fled Oxford fearing for his life, only to return from his Dutch refuge on the same ship as William of Orange.
Far from creating a police state, C-51 is merely getting Canada caught up to the rest of the civilized world. Living thousands of miles from the worlds hotspots, Canadians have until lately enjoyed the privilege of being able to bury their heads in the sand. But globalization has made Canada as vulnerable to violent extremism as our allies. The difference is that most of them have long had in place the provisions in C-51 that have caused such heated debate in Canada: measures of detention that are clearly distinct from arrest, risk-diminishment mandates for security intelligence, more robust provisions to stop people from boarding planes, and very robust provisions for sharing data.
While controversy on C-51 abounds, all critics agree on one fundamental question: How can the government assure me that my rights and freedoms have not been violated? The question is hardly new. Roman satirist Juvenal famously probed: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is watching the watchers? The government points to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The problem with SIRC is it has (almost no) jurisdiction beyond the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
First, C-51 should extend SIRCs remit to be able to follow intelligence that originated with CSIS throughout the Canadian security food chain. For example, within the RCMP, SIRC should be able to follow the entire intelligence to evidence thread. To be clear: SIRC should not have purview over entire RCMP investigations that were based on or involve CSIS evidence. SIRCs sole responsibility should be the ability to follow CSIS intelligence throughout federal agencies to ensure that intelligence is handled in accordance with the law and the Constitution.
Second, the SIRC reporting process needs to be sped up. Many of SIRCs reports become public domain, but it takes a couple of years. Due to the steps involved, that glacial pace is unlikely to change. In the interim, why not follow the example of the United Kingdom: clear select members of the opposition to read SIRCs report (and the CSE Inspector Generals, for that matter).
The precedent for clearing select members of the opposition was set during the Afghan detainee debate. Since parliamentary procedure would prohibit this being done in committee, the opposition instead forwards to the Prime Minister a list of names from which the Prime Minister picks at his or her discretion. Rather than having to trust the Prime Minister, Canadians would sleep better if, for example, former Solicitor General Wayne Easter and well-versed defence critic and lawyer Jack Harris had a chance to read these reports in a timely fashion and corroborate that they are satisfied that Canadians rights and freedoms had, indeed, not been violated.
And by virtue of being sworn in as Privy Councillors, the opposition members privy to the reports would never be able to talk about them in public, or Question Period, anyway. So, the risk to the government of sharing this information is negligible compared to the benefits of added oversight.
Compared to standing up a whole new review bureaucracy or vastly expanding the scope of existing ones, the legislative fix for both these remedies would be relatively easy and cost little or no treasure.
Originally posted here: