All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment – Video

Posted on by


All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment
Tim Wu, the Isidor and Seville Suzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and newly appointed head of the Poliak Center at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism discusses the ...

By: Columbia Journalism School

View original post here:

All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment - Video

Should a Facebook "Like" Be Protected Free Speech?

Posted on by

Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only

Newswise WASHINGTON, DC (October 23, 2014)One billion Facebook users generate 2.7 billion likes per day (or 1,875,000 every minute). Increasingly, social media has become a form of social and political engagement, and 47 percent of Facebook users have liked political cause-related comments. Protected free speech is a luxury the Western world has long enjoyed. Does clicking the universally understood thumbs-up like constitute actual speech? It conveys a message understood by most, but should it command constitutional protection? A recent article in the National Communication Associations First Amendment Studies journal explores legal precedents surrounding this form of communication and surveys Facebook users attitudes.

In the case of Bland v. Roberts, an employee was fired for liking a campaign lobbying against his boss. The employee claimed the right to free speech, but the judge ruled that in the absence of sufficient speech, the case could not proceed to trial. The employee was not reinstated. An ensuing debate revealed that large numbers of individuals felt this judgment would lead to fear and inhibition, and deter free expression of ideas and opinions onlinethe chilling effect. Ironically, the First Amendment protects symbolic language, even rude gestures such as the finger. If it can stretch this far, then surely it is not unreasonable to expect coverage for the Facebook thumbs up. In the context of todays morphing methods of communication, is the law failing to keep up?

The authors developed a study of Facebook users and devised a First Amendment Scale to examine the value of computer source code communication and its relation to free speech. Four hundred forty-four participants took part. More than half had liked political content in the past. Four hypotheses were tested and all proved true:

1. Like users most certain of who would see their like expected recipients to understand their meaning. 2. Those who felt they had sent a message with a like were sure that recipients understood. 3. Participants believed when using like on political content that their posts were constitutionally protected. 4. Those using like to convey a message believed that this should be protected by the First Amendment.

The most common interpretations for like amongst participants were agree, support, and generally endorse a person, place, or idea. Overall, participants believed that a like was akin to speech as described in the First Amendment.

The twist in the tale is that on appeal, the Bland v. Roberts judgment was reversed, finding that the thumbs up indeed qualified for protection. In both offline and online domains, each community of social practice negotiates its own language conventions and creates its own democracy of meaning. The parsing of the First Amendment will continue to be influenced by these communities, note the studys authors, Susan H. Sarapin of Troy University and Pamela Morris of the University of WisconsinLa Crosse. They finish by urging further research on the chilling effect and its potential negative impact on freedom of speech online.

###

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS

See the article here:

Should a Facebook "Like" Be Protected Free Speech?

Volokh Conspiracy: Sixth Circuit agrees to rehear hecklers veto decision

Posted on by

Im glad to hear this, since I think the dissenting judge on the panel had the much better argument. Here is the post I put up about this when the decision came down on Aug. 27:

The free speech rights here were as in many free speech cases the rights of pretty rude speakers, certainly ones whose message and manners I do not endorse. But the First Amendment protects the rude as well as the polite, especially given how subjective government judgments of rudeness usually end up being.

Here are the facts, from the majority opinion in Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014) (some paragraph breaks added throughout the block quotes below):

The City of Dearborn in Wayne County, Michigan, has hosted the Arab International Festival every summer from 1995 until 2012. A three-day event that was free and open to the public, the Festival welcomed roughly 250,000 attendees and featured carnival attractions, live entertainment, international food, and merchandise sales. [The panel later agreed that the festival was a "traditional public forum" at which public speech is fully constitutionally protected, rather than private property or even public property that was temporarily exclusively leased by a public organization. -EV]

[T]he Bible Believers came bearing strongly worded t-shirts and banners:

[Chavez] wore a t-shirt with the message, Fear God on the front and Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus on the back. Fisher wore a t-shirt with the message, Trust Jesus on the front and Fear God and Give Him Glory on the back, and he carried a banner that said on one side, Only Jesus Christ Can Save You From Sin and Hell, and on the other side it said, Jesus Is the Judge, Therefore, Repent, Be Converted That Your Sins May Be Blotted Out. Other messages conveyed on t-shirts, signs, or banners displayed by the [other Bible Believers] included, among others, Fear God, Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus, Prepare to Meet Thy God Amos 4:12, Obey God, Repent, Turn or Burn, Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others Are Thieves and Robbers, and Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder.

One Bible Believer carried a severed pigs head on a stick, which Chavez explained protected the Bible Believers by repelling observers who feared it. Appellants soon began preaching using a megaphone, and a small crowd formed around them almost immediately. [The police eventually told the speakers that megaphone use was forbidden by ordinance, and the speakers stopped; that restriction is not challenged here. -EV] Chavez castigated the crowd for following a pedophile prophet and warned of Gods impending judgment. As this evangelizing continued, the crowd yelled back. At this point, a ribbon-cutting at the opposite end of the Festival occupied a majority of the [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] officers, but one officer watched from the outskirts of the crowd.

As the Bible Believers moved deeper into the Festival, the crowd a good portion of which appeared to be minors continued to gather and yell. Some people started throwing debris including rocks, plastic bottles, garbage, and a milk crate at the Bible Believers. Someone in the crowd also shoved one Bible Believer to the ground. Some WCSO officers detained debris-throwers while other officers hovered at the edges of the crowd. Eventually, after about thirty-five minutes, the Bible Believers temporarily stopped preaching and stood as the crowd harangued them and hurled objects. Several officers, including some mounted units, attempted to quell the crowd.

After about five minutes of standing quietly, the Bible Believers began to move and preach again. As they did so, the cascade of objects intensified. Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar approached them a few minutes later. Jaafar explained that they could leave and that their safety was in jeopardy because not enough officers were available to control the crowd.

The Bible Believers, however, continued to preach, followed by what had swelled into a large crowd. Richardson and Jaafar then took Chavez aside to speak with him. Richardson noted his concern that Chavez was bleeding from where a piece of debris had cut his face. Richardson explained that he was responsible for policing the entire Festival, that Chavezs conduct was inciting the crowd, and that he would escort the Bible Believers out of the Festival

View original post here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Sixth Circuit agrees to rehear hecklers veto decision

Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Reviewed – Can Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Be Trusted? – Watch This Media Now – Video

Posted on by


Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Reviewed - Can Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Be Trusted? - Watch This Media Now
Click Here - http://trck.me/306749/ Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Review ======================================= Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Reviewed - Can Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Be Trusted?

By: Emely Lowe

See more here:

Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Reviewed - Can Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Be Trusted? - Watch This Media Now - Video

Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course | Amazing Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course Download – Video

Posted on by


Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course | Amazing Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course Download
http://www.tinyurl.com/bitcoinwealthalliancenow Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course: After buying lots of training/coaching products over the years I have learned that one of the most...

By: Vanessa Castle

See the rest here:

Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course | Amazing Bitcoin Wealth Alliance Training Course Download - Video

Chris Before Coffee – Justice on the Bitcoin Blockchain – 22nd October 2014 – Video

Posted on by


Chris Before Coffee - Justice on the Bitcoin Blockchain - 22nd October 2014
If you enjoy this episode please donate in bitcoins: https://blockchain.info/address/13U4gmroMmFwHAwd2Sukn4fE2WvHG6hP8e Subscribe here: http://www.patreon.com/chrisj Jamie Nelson ...

By: World Crypto Network

See more here:

Chris Before Coffee - Justice on the Bitcoin Blockchain - 22nd October 2014 - Video