The French Debate: Free Speech Versus Hate Speech

Posted on by

French comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, center, gestures as he exits the courtroom after his trial in Paris last Wednesday. He was ordered to pay $37,000 for condoning terrorism. His lawyer argues he was denied the same freedom of expression that the satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo received. Ian Langsdon/EPA/Landov hide caption

French comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, center, gestures as he exits the courtroom after his trial in Paris last Wednesday. He was ordered to pay $37,000 for condoning terrorism. His lawyer argues he was denied the same freedom of expression that the satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo received.

When terrorists attacked a satirical magazine in Paris last month, killing eight journalists, millions took to the streets in support of free speech. They waved pencils and carried signs in solidarity with the magazine Charlie Hebdo.

But in the weeks since those attacks, scores have also been arrested for condoning terrorism and inciting racial and religious hatred. Many now wonder if the government's crackdown on hate speech is compromising free speech.

One of those arrested in the wake of the attacks was controversial stand-up comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'bala. Last Wednesday, a judge ordered him to pay the equivalent of a $37,000 fine for condoning terrorism.

The comic has faced prosecution many times in the past for his crude, anti-Semitic jokes. This time it was for posting "I feel like Charlie Coulibaly" on his Facebook page. The judge said Dieudonne's remark was clear support for Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman who killed a police officer and four people in a kosher grocery store.

Dieudonne's lawyer Jacques Verdier says his client is consistently denied the same freedom of expression that magazine Charlie Hebdo is granted.

"Dieudonne is constantly hounded and harassed, which is why he said he feels like a terrorist," says Verdier.

In France, as in the United States, people are free to express their opinions. But in France that freedom of speech ends at insulting others based on their race, religion or sex.

"Hate speech laws were inspired by the horrors of the Second World War, and in particular the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews," says Christopher Mesnooh, an American attorney who practices law in France.

Link:

The French Debate: Free Speech Versus Hate Speech

Councillor accused of stifling free speech after making complaint against counterparts social media use

Posted on by

Terry Jermy, Labour leader on Breckland Council

By Andrew Fitchett Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:27 PM

A councillor has been accused of stifling free speech after he made a complaint against a counterparts use of social media.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Mark Robinson, Conservative Breckland councillor for Saxon Ward in Thetford, filed a complaint against Labours Terry Jermy before Christmas after the latter tweeted that Mr Robinson had a poor attendance record at community meetings. Breckland Council cleared Mr Jermy of the complaint in January.

The tweet was made after a meeting of the Barnham Cross Action Group on November 17 which Mr Robinson failed to attend.

In his response to the complaint, Mr Jermy not only denied the claim, but said Mr Robinsons attendance record was poor and that he found the complaint ironic after Mr Robinson had tweeted similar comments regarding opposition councillors attendance.

Mr Jermy said this week that his Breckland colleague was stifling free speech with the complaint.

Its the sort of thing you would expect from a dictatorship, not in a democratic society, he said.

He added: Residents at that meeting have raised the fact that one of their councillors is a regular no-show at meetings and one of my responsibilities is to highlight that fact.

Read the original post:

Councillor accused of stifling free speech after making complaint against counterparts social media use

A line beyond which one may not go

Posted on by

Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us that there are times when we need more an education in the obvious than an investigation of the obscure. The present debate on the question of free speech and freedom of religion presents one such occasion. It is obvious from the fact that both freedoms are protected by the Constitution that there must be a mechanism by which these rights can be adjusted or balanced in specific situations where they conflict. One right cannot be allowed to prevail at all times against the other, for that would be giving it a sacrosanct position that is not sanctioned by any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution.

This is what we learn from both US and Philippine jurisprudence. We need not delve into strange decisions in some other countries to justify an extravagant tolerance of words or acts that common sense tells us mock and insult the faith of people.

There is hardly any one in our society today who questions the value of free speech. But the rationale for this has been explained time and again by the courts. As stated by the US Supreme Court in its 1951 decision in Dennis vs United States, the leading cases on free speech had recognized that it is not an unlimited or unqualified right, but on occasion must be subordinated to other values and considerations. Holmes famous quip in the 1919 case of Schenck vs United States that the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire! in a theater and causing panic serves to underscore this basic insight.

The constitutional limitations on free speech have crystallized in the cases into rules that provide guidance on where to draw the line. In Roth vs United States, decided in 1957, the US court took pains to identify the scope of free speech. This, it said, covered all ideas with the slightest redeeming social importance, ideas that are unorthodox and deviant and even hateful to prevailing opinion. For criticism and dissent, no matter how obnoxious to the hearer, comes under the mantle of free speech unless, and this is crucial, it encroaches in specific circumstances upon more important interests.

From a review of the cases, we can infer areas where more important interests come into play. It has been recognized since 1942 in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire that there are some utterances that are constitutionally unprotected. Among them are the lewd, profane, libelous and insulting or fighting words. It is said there that they are words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. The phrase by their very utterance must be taken in reference to the obscene and libelous which Bernas in his annotations on the 1987 Constitution, at 248, says are words that are in themselves injurious. The qualifying phrase tend to incite a breach of the peace, on the other hand, should be equated with the fighting or insulting words, if we are to reconcile later cases that continue to apply either of the two factual teststhe clear and present danger rule of Justice Holmes in the Schenck case or the dangerous tendency rule enunciated in 1925 in Gitlow vs New York.

What is meant by all this is that, unless they are obscene or libelous and punishable in themselves, or per se, you can say anything you want against somebody or something, up to a certain point. In the case of seditious speeches, this is when there is an advocacy to violent action against the state or the law, and in insulting words, when they incite violence or disorder. Where we tip the scale depends on which of the two tests cited we apply.

Yet this does not exhaust all the issues. Freedom of speech casts a very broad net. As Justice Fred Ruiz Castro intimates in the 1969 case of Gonzales vs Commission on Elections, there is speech the effect of which in terms of probability of a specific danger is not susceptible even to impressionistic calculation, for which reason a different test has to be applied. His observation harks back to the 1947 case of American Communications Association vs Douds where Chief Justice Fred Vinson suggested that in cases where there is conflict between free speech and another value or interest protected by the Constitution, courts must determine which demands greater protection under the circumstances and appraise the substantiality of the reasons for the regulation of free speech. This has come to be known in constitutional law as the balancing of interests test.

One of the most fertile areas of controversy is where the right to criticize freely clashes with the exercise of religion. The cases we know of involve the interpretation and application of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes the act of offending religious feelings in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony. Putting consideration of the clear and present danger test to one side, it is pertinent to ask whether, applying the balancing of interests test, the right to freedom of religion must be accorded primary importance under the circumstances specified in this law.

Our answer is in the affirmative. It will be noted that what is protected by the legal provision is a limited right to worship in peace in a private place. The restriction on free speech is too small a price to pay for the enjoyment of this right. The free-speech advocate can have the whole world as a platform for the propagation of his ideas. Must he still invade the few square meters of private space that a man needs when he is in communion with his Creator?

It has been argued that the phrase offending religious feelings is vague and subjective. Let us just recall the admonition in the Dennis case when the standard clear and present danger was questioned: It well serves to indicate to those who advocate constitutionally prohibited conduct that there is a line beyond which they may not goa line which they well appreciate and understand.

Go here to read the rest:

A line beyond which one may not go

University of Worcester fares well in free speech study

Posted on by

A STUDY of free speech in universities in the UK has placed Worcester in the top 20 per cent in the country.

The survey by online magazine Spiked looked at policies and actions at all 115 universities in the country and their associated student unions, ranking them with a traffic light system according to how much they were seen to restrict free speech and expression.

The University of Worcester was one of only 23 in the UK ranked green, meaning both the institution and its student union was seen to foster an environment allowing free speech. The only concern raised in the study was the universitys harassment and bullying policy, which bans conduct considered patronising or belittling, including display of materials with sexual images and/or words and ridiculing or demeaning someone in public or private, but this was considered relatively minor.

The universitys vice chancellor Professor David Green described freedom of expression as a fundamental liberty and said the institution was committed to following the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted in 1948.

In the year in which we celebrate the 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta, it is more important than ever to uphold this principle and to promote, protect and preserve all other fundamental human liberties including the rights to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, he said.

The disregard of human rights has led and is leading to the most barbarous crimes against individuals and humanity.

At the university we are proud and delighted to contribute to the worldwide movement for liberty, human dignity and human rights.

The study was prompted by a series of incidents in which speeches and other events at universities were cancelled as a result of objections by students, the widespread banning of the controversial Robin Thicke song Blurred Lines following concerns it trivialised rape and questions over anti-bullying policies seen as overly restrictive.

The report ranked 47 universities, or 41 per cent of all those in the UK, as red, including those in Aston, Coventry, Gloucestershire and Staffordshire.

Bath, Cambridge, Nottingham and Wolverhampton were among the 45, or 39 per cent, ranked amber, while the remaining 23, including York, Bolton, and Sunderland, were rated green.

Link:

University of Worcester fares well in free speech study

University round table examines challenges to free speech

Posted on by

While buzz surrounding the release of The Interview may not have resulted from the movies merit, the cyber hack in response to its approaching release sparked a national conversation on freedom of speech in the face of a possible terrorist threat.

Recent international challenges to free speech in pop culture and in print were the topic of the International Institutes Round Table on Thursday evening at the Michigan League.

The round table included Prof. Juan Cole, director for the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies; Daniel Herbert, associate professor of screen arts and culture; and Law Profs. Herzog and Steven Ratner.

Prof. Karla Mallette, director of the Center for European Studies and Islamic Studies Program, served as the moderator for the discussion and said the panel was held to consider recent challenges to freedom of speech, which she characterized as the conceptual cornerstone of liberal society.

To open, Mallette cited the recent controversy over The Interview and how its plot, which revolved around the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, resulted in a cyber attack on Sony Pictures.

The movie essentially blew up in Sonys hands, making Sony Pictures a target in one of the most successful cyber-terrorism campaigns on record, Mallette said.

Herbert said he believed it was unlikely that The Interview would cause a domino effect in Hollywood and would not result in qualms among producers and filmmakers toward releasing similar movies. He said, however, the effect of the hack on Sony has been chilling.

Its not this chilling effect that concerns me most, but rather, the chilling effect that the Sony hackers could and likely will hack on the freedom of discretion of private individuals who work in a large institution, Herbert said.

Ratner specializes in counter-terrorism, human rights and international law. He focused his discussion on the regulation of speech in international communities on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In his argument, Ratner said globally, court cases concerning free speech often result in restrictions on the speakers rights, unlike in the United States.

Read the original here:

University round table examines challenges to free speech

RE: HannibalTheVictor13’s resentment over thunderf00t and his "freedom of speech". – Video

Posted on by


RE: HannibalTheVictor13 #39;s resentment over thunderf00t and his "freedom of speech".
Hannibal #39;s Unlettered Remonstration On @Thunderf00t by The Justicar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6_CZXrb6FQ Anita Sarkeesian fan threatens PHYSICAL VIOL...

By: Homer Ruglia Beoulve

Go here to see the original:

RE: HannibalTheVictor13's resentment over thunderf00t and his "freedom of speech". - Video

John Robertson on Greg Shapiro’s United States of Europe – S3Ep01 – Video

Posted on by


John Robertson on Greg Shapiro #39;s United States of Europe - S3Ep01
Comedian John Robertson joins Greg in discussing freedom of speech and bondage nights. Lambros Fisfis gives us the lowdown on what is happening in Greece and the monologue. First broadcast...

By: Broadcast Amsterdam

The rest is here:

John Robertson on Greg Shapiro's United States of Europe - S3Ep01 - Video

France Arrests French Comedian Dieudonne 3 Days After Charlie Hebdo Freedom of Speech – Video

Posted on by


France Arrests French Comedian Dieudonne 3 Days After Charlie Hebdo Freedom of Speech
SUPPORT SHAKAAMA LIVE: http://bit.ly/patronshak POWERNOMICS: http://bit.ly/powernomics SUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/shakaama2 MY TWITTER: https://twitter.com/Kevin_Cardinale MY FACEBOOK: ...

By: shakaama

More here:

France Arrests French Comedian Dieudonne 3 Days After Charlie Hebdo Freedom of Speech - Video

Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Posted on by

The topic of free speech is one of the most contentious issues in liberal societies. If liberty of expression is not highly valued, as has often been the case, there is no problem: freedom of expression is simply curtailed in favor of other values. Free speech becomes a volatile issue when it is highly valued because only then do the limitations placed upon it become controversial. The first thing to note in any sensible discussion of freedom of speech is that it will have to be limited. Every society places some limits on the exercise of speech because speech always takes place within a context of competing values. In this sense, Stanley Fish is correct when he says that there is no such thing as free speech (in the sense of unlimited speech). Free speech is simply a useful term to focus our attention on a particular form of human interaction and the phrase is not meant to suggest that speech should never be interfered with. As Fish puts it, free speech in short, is not an independent value but a political prize (1994,102). No society has yet existed where speech has not been limited to some extent. Haworth (1998) makes a similar point when he suggests that a right to freedom of speech is not something we have, not something we own, in the same way as we possess arms and legs. Speech is important because we are socially situated and it makes little sense to say that Robinson Crusoe has a right to free speech. It only becomes necessary to talk of such a right within a social setting, and appeals to an abstract and absolute right to free speech hinder rather than help the debate. At a minimum, speech will have to be limited for the sake of order. If we all speak at once, we end up with an incoherent cacophony. Without some rules and procedures we cannot have a conversation at all and consequently speech has to be limited by protocols of basic civility. It is true that many human rights documents give a prominent place to the right to speech and conscience, but such documents also place limits on what can be said because of the harm and offense that unlimited speech can cause, (I will discuss this in more detail later). Outside of the United States of America speech does not tend to have a specially protected status and it has to compete with other rights claims for our allegiance. John Stuart Mill, one of the great defenders of free speech, summarized these points in On Liberty, where he suggests that a struggle always takes place between the competing demands of authority and liberty. He claimed that we cannot have the latter without the former:

The task, therefore, is not to argue for an unlimited domain of free speech; such a concept cannot be defended. Instead, we need to decide how much value we place on speech in relation to other important ideals such as privacy, security and democratic equality and there is nothing inherent to speech that suggests it must always win out in competition with these values. Speech is part of a package deal of social goods: speech, in short, is never a value in and of itself but is always produced within the precincts of some assumed conception of the good (Fish, 1994, 104). In this essay, we will examine some conceptions of the good that are deemed to be acceptable limitations on speech. We will start with the harm principle and then move on to other more encompassing arguments for limiting speech.

Before we do this, however, the reader might wish to disagree with the above claims and warn of the dangers of the slippery slope. Those who support the slippery slope argument claim that the consequence of limiting speech is the inevitable slide into censorship and tyranny. Such arguments assume that we can be on or off the slope. In fact, no such choice exists: we are necessarily on the slope whether we like it or not, and the task is always to decide how far up or down we choose to go, not whether we should step off the slope altogether. It is worth noting that the slippery slope argument can be used to make the opposite point; one could argue with equal force that we should not allow any removal of government interventions because once we do we are on the slippery slope to anarchy, the state of nature, and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short (1968, 186).

Another thing to note before we engage with the harm principle is that we are in fact free to speak as we like. Hence, freedom of speech differs from some other types of free action. If the government wants to prevent citizens engaging in certain actions, riding motor bikes for example, it can limit their freedom to do so by making sure that such vehicles are no longer available; current bikes could be destroyed and a ban can be placed on future imports. Freedom of speech is a different case. A government cannot make it impossible to say certain things. The only thing it can do is punish people after they have said, written or published their thoughts. This means that we are free to speak or write in a way that we are not free to ride outlawed motorbikes. This is an important point; if we insist that legal prohibitions remove freedom then we have to hold the incoherent position that a person was unfree at the very moment she performed an action. The government would have to remove our vocal chords for us to be unfree in the same way as the motorcyclist is unfree.

A more persuasive analysis of freedom of speech suggests that the threat of a sanction makes it more difficult and potentially more costly to exercise our freedom. Such sanctions take two major forms. The first, and most serious, is legal punishment by the state, which usually consists of a financial penalty, but can stretch occasionally to imprisonment. The second threat of sanction comes from social disapprobation. People will often refrain from making public statements because they fear the ridicule and moral outrage of others. For example, one could expect a fair amount of these things if one made racist comments during a public lecture at a university. Usually it is the first type of sanction that catches our attention but, as we will see, John Stuart Mill provides a strong warning about the chilling effect of the latter form of social control.

We seem to have reached a paradoxical position. I started by claiming that there can be no such thing as a pure form of free speech: now I seem to be arguing that we are, in fact, free to say anything we like. The paradox is resolved by thinking of free speech in the following terms. I am, indeed, free to say what I like, but the state and other individuals can sometimes make that freedom more or less costly to exercise. This leads to the conclusion that we can attempt to regulate speech, but we cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the threat of sanction. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things. The best way to resolve the problem is to ignore the question of whether or not it is legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of speech. I have already suggested that all societies do (correctly) place some limits on free speech. If the reader doubts this, it might be worth reconsidering what life would be like with no prohibitions on libelous statements, child pornography, advertising content, and releasing state secrets. The list could go on. The real problem we face is deciding where to place the limits, and the next sections of the essay look at some possible solutions to this puzzle.

Given that Mill presented one of the first, and still perhaps the most famous liberal defense of free speech, I will focus on his claims in this essay and use them as a springboard for a more general discussion of free expression. In the footnote at the beginning of Chapter II of On Liberty, Mill makes a very bold statement:

This is a very strong defense of free speech; Mill tells us that any doctrine should be allowed the light of day no matter how immoral it may seem to everyone else. And Mill does mean everyone:

Such liberty should exist with every subject matter so that we have absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral or theological (1978, 11). Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons.

These are powerful claims for freedom of speech, but as I noted above, Mill also suggests that we need some rules of conduct to regulate the actions of members of a political community. The limitation he places on free expression is one very simple principle, now usually referred to as the Harm Principle, which states that

More:

Freedom of Speech (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Bill of Rights Transcript Text – National Archives and …

Posted on by

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution. The 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the amendments is on display in the Rotunda in the National Archives Museum. Ten of the proposed 12 amendments were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures on December 15, 1791. The ratified Articles (Articles 312) constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, or the U.S. Bill of Rights. In 1992, 203 years after it was proposed, Article 2 was ratified as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Article 1 was never ratified.

Transcription of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress Proposing 12 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Go here to read the rest:

Bill of Rights Transcript Text - National Archives and ...

Turkey's crackdown on freedom of speech intensifies

Posted on by

Twitter is extremely popular in Turkey with 12 million users in a nation of nearly 75 million - the total Twitter user population is 288 million, according to the Financial Times.

Overall, Twitter said demands by countries for content removal from the microblogging website were up by 40 per cent in the last six months of 2014.

The decision to block Twitter in March 2014 came after audio recordings allegedly revealed corruption among those close to Recep Tayyip Erdoan, the then Turkish prime minister. They had been widely shared on Twitter.

It was a tense period ahead of the country's local elections and despite the outrage and upset the ban caused, the leading Justice and Development Party (AKP) won the majority of votes. Mr Erdoan became president in August.

Recep Tayyip Erdoan with a picture of Ataturk, the father of the Turkish republic (Reuters)

According to Twitter's report, the United States topped a list of countries' governments requesting account information - Turkey came second with 356 requests made and in the UK, 116 requests were made.

Meanwhile, more than 90 per cent of tweets withheld after requests from authorities, courts and others, were made in Turkey. A total of 1,982 tweets were withheld, 1,820 within Turkey.

The report had been released on Friday but appeared to be premature, and was removed. The full report was published on Monday and shows an increase in removal requests in total.

Facebook's transparency report for the first half of 2014 further illustrates the attack on freedom of expression online in Turkey. 1,893 pieces were successfully censored in Turkey and only India was higher with 4,960 pieces.

Since the Gezi protests in the summer of 2013 and the breakdown in relations between exiled preacher Fethullah Gulen and Mr Erdoan, individuals' right to freedom of expression is more limited, especially for journalists.

Read more:

Turkey's crackdown on freedom of speech intensifies