Daily Archives: February 23, 2012

21-02-2012 15:54 Violent muslim refugees/jihadists to Sweden attack the cartoonist Lars Vilks during free speech meeting at Karlstad University on February 21 2012. First you can see Lars Vilks being pulled out by bodyguards, next you can hear the jihadist making deaththreats. The background noise is the slideshow continuing showing funny muhammed dog cartoons etc. The speech could continue after the violent refugees were expelled from the building. These refugees should be grabbed and expelled, but muslims are the new priority for the politicians and not even violent criminals are expelled. Vilka has been attacked before during public meetings, muslims have on several occations tried to kill him. Al Qaida and their gay sister organization Al Shabaab has promised to murder Vilks due to the funny dog cartoons he created. The Swedish legal system appears to be incompetent in handling attempt of murder, physical attacks and threats. Nobody get arrested, convicted or even expelled from the country. The Swedish government promotes massimmigration of muslims, arikcans and arabs. The swedish goverment will pay employers 80 % of the salary with the taxpayers money if they fire a swede and replace him with a refugee. Immigrant ghettos in sweden has around 90 % unemployment, the government plan to impose tax free zones in those areas discriminating swedes who still will be required to pay full taxes, the worlds highest taxes. Immigrants already have first option to goverment jobs, study and welfare ...

Follow this link:
Violent muslim refugees/jihadists attack Lars Vilks during free speech meeting Karlstad University - Video

22-02-2012 20:58 Does law making it illegal to impersonate a war hero violate free speech rights? For more on this story, click here: abcnews.go.com

Here is the original post:
Supreme Court Looks at Stolen Valor Act to Decide if it Violates Free Speech Rights - Video

Washington • Is there value in a lie?

That’s a question the Supreme Court weighed on Wednesday as it took up the case of a California man who was charged with a crime for lying about receiving the Medal of Honor.

Xavier Alvarez falsely claimed that he was a Marine who earned the nation’s top award, but the question of whether such a deceit warrants prosecution and jail time — or has value and deserves protection under the First Amendment — is now up to the nation’s high court.

The case could have direct repercussions for a Utah County veteran, Myron Brown, who is also accused of lying about earning the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart during his service in the Korean War.

In Brown’s case, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, presented the Provo resident with medals during a ceremony last year that was covered by the Deseret News, the Daily Herald of Provo and KSL-TV. Saying he was duped, Chaffetz last month turned over his own investigation into the matter to federal prosecutors and said he’ll convene a congressional hearing on the matter.

The actions came more than a month after The Salt Lake Tribune first reported Brown, 86, presented fraudulent documents awarding him the medals. Brown denies any wrongdoing.

Justices in the Alvarez case on Wednesday were skeptical of the Stolen Valor Act passed by Congress in 2006 that criminalizes false claims of military medals, and feared that making it unlawful to lie could stifle free speech permanently.

Justice Stephen Breyer noted that if it’s illegal to lie about a military medal, then political rhetoric could soon be criminalized.

Story continues below

"And then if this [law] is lawful and constitutional, then you have people in political campaigns suddenly worrying that the U.S. attorney is going to come in and start indicting him," Breyer told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

"That’s part of the chilling effect," Breyer said. "And you’ve assumed you can get around this chilling effect, but I’m less certain."

Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed with Verrilli’s argument that there is no intrinsic value in a lie and therefore it has no need for First Amendment free-speech protection.

"I think it’s a sweeping proposition to say that there’s no value to falsity," Kennedy said. "Falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true."

Verrilli countered that the high court has often ruled that lies — such as perjury or fraud — have no protection as free speech and that in this case, the government can easily prove when someone is falsely claiming to have been awarded a medal.

"The Stolen Valor Act regulates a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor," Verrilli said.

Justice Antonin Scalia agreed.

"I believe that there is no First Amendment value in — in falsehood," he said, noting that lying about military service does harm to those who actually did serve and were awarded medals for their heroism.

Next Page »

The rest is here:
Supreme Court: Is a lie protected by free speech?

A small group of Bunbury musicians will travel to Fremantle this weekend to perform in a Punk Solidarity gig, organised to musically condemn the Indonesian Government’s disregard for the rights of freedom speech and personal expression.

Enraged by the treatment of a group of punks in Bandah Aceh, who were detained and punished simply for being punks, gigs will be played by Australian bands across the country in a show of support for their Indonesian counterparts.

In Western Australia, that gig will take place at the Swan Basement in Fremantle where bands from Perth, Mandurah, Margaret River and Bunbury will donate their time.

Bunbury band Nighthawker said the decision to be involved was easy.

‘‘Punk rock is generally a style of music which is disliked and misunderstood by people all over the world, so it’s really refreshing to know that there are like-minded people coming together in multiple locations to stick it to the oppressors and raise awareness of the plight of our Indonesian counterparts,’’ vocalist Anthony Steele said.

Bunbury musicians and punk music lovers Elle Driver and Daniel Taylor said it was important for them to help raise awareness of the mistreatment of the youths in Bandah Aceh.

‘‘It’s a form of personal repression and I don’t agree with it,’’ Miss Driver said.

‘‘People in Australia don’t realise how lucky they are when it comes to personal expression and freedom of speech.’’

‘‘When we heard about the gigs we knew we wanted to get involved,’’ Mr Taylor said.

Continue reading here:
Musicians perform for free speech

Court weighing free speech vs. lie about military honors

WASHINGTON -- Over the course of an hourlong argument Wednesday, the Supreme Court seemed gradually to accept that it might be able to uphold a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about military honors, notwithstanding the First Amendment's free speech guarantees.

The justices were aided by suggestions from the government about how to limit the scope of a possible ruling in its favor and by significant concessions from a lawyer for the defendant.

The case arose from a lie told in 2007 at a public meeting by Xavier Alvarez, an elected member of a Southern California water district board of directors. "I'm a retired Marine of 25 years," he said. "I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy."

That was all false, and Mr. Alvarez was prosecuted under a 2005 law, the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to say falsely that one has "been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the armed forces of the United States." Mr. Alvarez argued that his remarks were protected by the First Amendment.

His case ran into trouble at the Supreme Court, as it emerged that many justices accepted two fundamental propositions. First, most of the justices seemed to accept that the First Amendment does not protect calculated falsehoods that cause at least some kinds of harm. Second, there seemed to be something like a consensus that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of its system for honoring military distinction.

To arrive at those two propositions, the justices worked through any number of hypothetical questions and worried about the collateral damage to free speech values that a ruling upholding the law might generate.

Justice Stephen Breyer said it was all right to lie, for instance, when asked, "Are there Jews hiding in the cellar?"

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. suggested that it was acceptable to punish a false statement that "your child has just been run over by a bus."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked about false statements made while dating. Justice Elena Kagan asked about lies concerning extramarital affairs.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether Congress could make it a crime to lie about having a high school diploma. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. responded that some states had indeed enacted laws concerning diplomas from public universities, and he indicated that they would be constitutional if they concerned calculated lies about verifiable facts that led to real harm.

Mr. Verrilli listed several laws that punish those kinds of falsehoods, including ones prohibiting false statements to federal officials and banning impersonation of federal officers, as well as perjury.

Similarly, he said, the Stolen Valor Act punishes only knowing falsehoods that result in "the misappropriation of the government-conferred honor and esteem," which he called "a real harm and a significant harm."

The hardest hypothetical question for the justices seemed to concern state laws that make it a crime for politicians to lie in some settings. Mr. Verrilli said such laws might run afoul of the First Amendment because of their potential to chill truthful speech for fear of prosecution.

Justice Kagan asked a lawyer for Mr. Alvarez, Jonathan Libby, whether the Stolen Valor Act posed the same problem. "What truthful speech will this statute chill?" she asked.

Mr. Libby's response seemed to surprise Justice Kagan. "It's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech," he said. "We certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not."

Justice Kagan considered what she had just heard. "So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby," she said.

Mr. Libby also acknowledged that the government may punish false speech intended to obtain something of value. Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Alvarez, who was politically active, benefited from his lie. Mr. Libby said that was possible. The chief justice said this, too, was "an awfully big concession."

The New York Times Co. and other news organizations filed a brief supporting Mr. Alvarez in the case. The brief argued that most false statements are better addressed by exposing them in the marketplace of ideas than by punishing them as crimes.

There was universal agreement on one point at Wednesday's argument. No one spoke up for Mr. Alvarez, including his lawyer.

First published on February 23, 2012 at 12:00 am

See original here:
Court weighing free speech vs. lie about military honors