Monthly Archives: February 2012

31-01-2012 20:10 http://www.davidduke.com ------------ ISRAEL + JEWS + JUDAISM == ZIONISM ----------- THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION AND THE REBUILDING OF THE THIRD TEMPLE. ------------ en.wikipedia.org ------------ THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION ------------ en.wikipedia.org ----------- ZIONIST JEWS AND ZIONISM'S ULTIMATE MASTER PLAN TO CONQUER AND RULE THE WHOLE WORLD AND ESTABLISH AN ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT ( NEW WORLD ORDER ) AND CREATE A BIGGER PERMANENT ISRAEL. ------------ http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk ------------ ISRAELI ZIONIST JEWS AND ZIONISM'S ULTIMATE ENDGAME IS CREATING A GREATER ISRAEL FROM NUCLEAR WORLD WAR 3 BY STRIKING IRAN ------------ Why World War III: Destroy The Global Economy, Create A Greater Israel, And Establish A Global Authoritarian Government. Israel's political elite wants to establish a Greater Israel and destroy the Palestinian nationalist movement. In his article, "The US And Israel's 'Obsession' With Iran -- The Real Reasons," Lataan writes: "Israel's real obsession is the creation of a Greater Israel and the destruction of those that prevent Israel's expansionist dreams; Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both of whom are supported by Iran. The stated casus belli for any Israeli/US attack on Iran will be that Iran is building a nuclear weapon with which it intends to 'wipe Israel off the map'. The 'Iran has a nuclear weapons program' and the 'wipe Israel off the map' are two memes that have gone hand in hand in the propaganda and rhetoric of Israel's Zionists and their ...

Link:
ZIONIST WAR ON FREE SPEECH - Video

Atlanta — Georgia’s top court on Monday struck down a state law designed to discourage assisted suicides after a legal battle brought by four members of a suicide group who said it also violated free speech rights.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling concludes the 1994 state law “restricts speech in violation of the free speech clauses” of the U.S. and Georgia constitutions.

The court’s decision is a victory to members of the Final Exit Network who challenged the law after they were charged in February 2009 with helping a 58-year-old cancer-stricken man die.

Defense attorneys said the law violates First Amendment rights because it bans people from publicly speaking about assisted suicide. Prosecutors said the law applies only to those who follow through on their talk by helping someone die.

At issue is a 1994 Georgia law that makes it a felony for anyone who "publicly advertises, offers or holds himself or herself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose."

At oral arguments in November, prosecutors said that the law doesn’t infringe on the free speech rights of people who support assisted suicide _ only those who take concrete steps to carry one out. They said Georgia law doesn’t even ban assisted suicide as long as it’s not being publicly advertised.

Defense attorneys countered that lawmakers should have adopted a law specifically outlawing assisted suicide if the government was interested in preventing it. They said the law punishes only those involved in assisted suicides if they speak publicly about it, but does nothing to block one from being carried out by others who stay silent.

The challenge was brought by four members of the network who were arrested in February 2009 after John Celmer's death at his north Georgia home. They were arrested after an eight-month investigation by state authorities, in which an undercover agent posing as someone seeking to commit suicide infiltrated the group.

A grand jury in March 2010 indicted Ted Goodwin, the group's former president; group member Claire Blehr; ex-medical director Dr. Lawrence D. Egbert; and regional coordinator Nicholas Alec Sheridan. The four pleaded not guilty to charges that they tampered with evidence, violated anti-racketeering laws and helped the man kill himself, and their case has been on hold while the Georgia Supreme Court considered their challenge.

The four hired a host of well-known defense attorneys, who asked a Forsyth County judge in December to dismiss the charges on free speech grounds. State attorneys said the law was aimed at preventing assisted suicides from the likes of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the late physician who sparked the national right-to-die debate.

The judge rejected the defendants’ request in April, ruling that "pure speech is in no way chilled or limited by the law,” sending the case on fast-track to the Georgia Supreme Court. Monday’s ruling could help reshape the state’s end-of-life policy, as well as determine the future of the criminal case against the four, which has been on hold.

Monday’s opinion, penned by Justice Hugh Thompson, found that although the state attempts to portray the law as a ban on assisted suicide, the language of the law makes it “undisputed” that Georgia doesn’t ban all assisted suicides.

It said lawmakers could have imposed a ban on all assisted suicides with no restriction on protected speech, or it could forbid all offers to assist in suicide that are followed by the act. But lawmakers decided to do neither, the ruling said.

“The State has failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to why a public advertisement or offer to assist in an otherwise legal activity is sufficiently problematic to justify an intrusion on protected speech rights,” the ruling said.

Excerpt from:
Georgia Supreme Court strikes down assisted suicide restrictions over free speech concerns

ATLANTA - Georgia's top court struck down a state law that restricted assisted suicides, siding on Monday with four members of a group that helped a cancer-stricken man die and said the law violated their free speech rights.

The Georgia Supreme Court's unanimous ruling found that the law violates the free speech clauses of the U.S. and Georgia constitution. It means that four members of the Final Exit Network who were charged in February 2009 with helping a 58-year-old man die won't have to stand trial, defence attorneys said.

Georgia law doesn't expressly forbid assisted suicide. But lawmakers in 1994 adopted a law that bans people from publicly advertising suicide, hoping to prevent assisted suicide by the likes of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the late physician who sparked the national right-to-die debate.

The law makes it a felony for anyone who "publicly advertises, offers or holds himself out as offering that he or she will intentionally and actively assist another person in the commission of suicide and commits any overt act to further that purpose."

The court's opinion found that lawmakers could have imposed a ban on all assisted suicides with no restriction of free speech, or sought to prohibit all offers to assist in suicide that were followed by the act. But lawmakers decided to do neither, he said.

"The State has failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to why a public advertisement or offer to assist in an otherwise legal activity is sufficiently problematic to justify an intrusion on protected speech rights," the ruling said.

State attorneys said they were reviewing the order. The network's members said they were thrilled with the decision.

"This was politically motivated and ideologically driven as opposed to being, in any way, motivated by sound legal practice," said Ted Goodwin, the group's former president and one of the four defendants. "I'm just sorry that as many people have been put through what they've been put through in what turned out to be a boondoggle."

The challenge was brought by four members of the network who were arrested in February 2009 after John Celmer's death at his home. They were arrested after an eight-month investigation by state authorities, in which an undercover agent posing as someone seeking to commit suicide infiltrated the group. Prosecutors say group members helped Celmer use an "exit hood" connected to a helium tank to kill himself.

The four pleaded not guilty to charges that they tampered with evidence, violated anti-racketeering laws and helped the man kill himself, and their case has been on hold while the Georgia Supreme Court considered their challenge.

The four said the law only punishes those involved in assisted suicides if they speak publicly about it and does nothing to block one from being carried out by those who stay silent.

State attorneys said the law doesn't infringe on the free speech rights of people who support assisted suicide, but only those who take concrete steps to carry one out.

Voters in Oregon and Washington have legalized doctor-assisted suicide, and Montana's Supreme Court determined that assisted suicide is a medical treatment. But most other states adopted laws that call for prison time for those found guilty of assisting suicides. Georgia's law carried a punishment of up to five years in prison for those found guilty of assisting in suicide.

Opponents of assisted suicide measures said they are concerned the court's ruling could open Georgia to more assisted suicides.

"I think it will be seen as fertile ground for groups that have spearheaded assisted suicide movements," said Rita Marker, executive director of Patients Rights Council, an advocacy group that opposes assisted suicide measures. "And from the standpoint of vulnerable patients, this is not a good thing."

___

Follow Bluestein at http://www.twitter.com/bluestein .

Continued here:
US state's top court strikes down assisted suicide restrictions over free speech concerns

Individual rights foundation rates Towson a “yellow light school”

Matthew Hazlett/ The Towerlight

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education released the report “Spotlight on Speech Codes 2012” in January to grade more than 392 public and private colleges, including Towson University, on their speech policies and how restrictive the policies are regarding student expression.

Using traffic light colors as ratings, FIRE gave TU a yellow light rating, which means that the school’s policies leave the door open for higher education officials to restrict student speech, but aren’t explicitly restrictive themselves.

The University created the Time, Place and Manner policy during the fall 2010 semester to have an official written rule so that expressive activities do not disrupt University operations, violate protected speech, endanger the safety of others, or risk destruction of property.

Deb Moriarty, vice president for student affairs, said this is exactly where Towson University wants to be concerning their policy, and that the Time, Place and Manner policy doesn’t solely regulate free speech.

“I’m sure FIRE wants us all to be green lights,” she said. “We have a responsibility to the internal community to have a policy and help the community understand when it is appropriate to have freedom of expression and when it is not. We are a multi-dimensional university. I would recommend to universities that don’t have policies like this to practice supporting free speech, but also make sure it is not messing with the academic function of the institute.”

According to Moriarty, there aren’t any plans to change Time, Place and Manner, since the policy is working well.

“Time, Place and Manner’s purpose is to create a structure so students can speak freely and have protected protest,” Moriarty said. “The policy gives us an opportunity to support the students while not being disruptive. The policy has been working. We absolutely want to be a yellow light. We want to create the right type of opportunities for free speech and for any kind of activity involving that.”

Kenan Herbert, president of the Black Student Union, said he feels the University should have more influence with the policy if other questionable matters occur.

“There have been times when there have been certain signs and markings that were offensive to certain students here and might not feel safe from the things said,” Herbert said.

Herbert also said that the responsibility of free speech doesn’t lie on solely on the faculty members in student affairs.

“I love the individuals in student affairs, but there’s only so much they can do with the parameters that are set because they can’t just think that students are upset,” he said. “They have to think of legal matters, ramifications, etc. They’re doing what they can. I know the policy is in place for a reason. I think it’s going to take students to take a stand at times.”

Moriarty said Time, Place and Manner isn’t designed to prohibit controversial speech and that the policy will present opportunities for discussions about such topics.

read the rest of this story
at  thetowerlight.com

“When things are introduced that could cause some controversy, we have an opportunity to explore it, make forums and chances to discuss it,” Moriarty said. “What we want is to allow open disclosure, but that doesn’t mean we always agree with each other. Diversity is a thing of free speech. The question is, when people are hurt or offended, how do we make others with their own perspectives come together? I think sometimes there’s a lot of gray area between free and protected speech that people find offensive.”

Link:
TU’s free speech policy graded

03-02-2012 07:31 On February 2nd, 2011 Megan was on trial for being in a public park after it's posted closing time while participating in a First Amendment teach-in. The trial did not finish and was continued until 930am the next day. That night a group of Occupiers decided to Occupy the "Free Speech" box in front of the courthouse and await the continuance of the trial.

Read the rest here:
Occupy Orlando Courthouse "Free Speech" zone Arrests - Video

By Sportsmail Reporter

Last updated at 11:39 AM on 5th February 2012

Joey Barton has claimed he is willing to go to prison 'in the name of free speech' after the Attorney General's office said it has been made aware of a series of robust observations on Twitter over the John Terry racism saga. 

Following the stripping of the England captaincy from Terry, Barton took to the micro-blogging website to give his take on the matter.  

The Chelsea skipper had his country's armband taken from him for a second time in the wake of an allegation of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand during a match at QPR last year. 

Opposite sides: John Terry (left) and Joey Barton (right)

Terry, who denies the charge, will stand trial in July, just a matter of days after Euro 2012 finishes. 

Barton, who was playing in the match at Loftus Road in October, has defended his comments on the grounds of free speech.  

However a spokesman for the Attorney General's office said: 'I can confirm the Tweets have been brought to our attention and have been viewed.'

At reading the possible punishment on Sunday morning, Barton tweeted: 'I will gladly go to jail for a month, in the name of free speech. I have no problem with what I said. Make me a martyr.......

'What are they going to do put everyone who exercises freedom of speech in jail? They'll be a revolution, if they try that s***.'

Dominic Grieve QC is the current Attorney General.

He is the Government's senior law officer and part of his remit is to make sure people facing criminal allegations receive a fair trial.

See the original post here:
Joey Barton prepared to go to prison over Attorney General probe over John Terry tweets

by Sonu Munshi - Feb. 5, 2012 12:00 AM
The Republic | azcentral.com

Constitutional-law attorneys and free-speech advocates are divided over whether a northwest Valley police sergeant was within his First Amendment right to post a Facebook photo showing a T-shirt with President Barack Obama's image apparently riddled with bullets.

But they largely agree Sgt. Pat Shearer has damaged his 25-year career with the Peoria Police Department.

Experts say Shearer's law-enforcement job puts him in a more delicate position than the average citizen, although one questions whether the department's social-media policy is so broad as to infringe upon his free-speech rights.

At the least, the incident serves as a reminder that there is no such thing as privacy online, said Pamela Rutledge, director of Media Psychology Research Center in California.

Caution on social media

Shearer's post last month drew national media attention after the Secret Service began looking into a photo of seven Peoria students, some posing with guns. One held what appears to be a shot-up T-shirt with Obama's image above the word HOPE. The Facebook posting also triggered an internal investigation by Peoria police. Shearer is off patrol duty, assigned to administrative tasks for now.

Legal experts say people don't sign off on their First Amendment rights when they are hired by a government agency, but freedom of expression comes with limits.

About a decade ago, a San Diego police officer was fired for selling sexually explicit videos in which he stripped off a police uniform.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the termination because of its links to his public-safety career, which it ruled brought disrespect upon the police force.

Several experts said Shearer's posting falls within the realm of political speech, which may be constitutionally protected.

But if the expressed activity is related to an employee's official profile, it becomes murkier.

"If the employee is wearing a uniform, for example, this implicates the department for which he works even if the speech expressed was meant to express a personal, not official, view," said Toni Massaro, a law professor at University of Arizona.

The Peoria sergeant was not posing in the photo, but his Facebook profile picture showed him in uniform. The profile, which was grabbed by another media outlet before being removed, identified him as working for Peoria police.

Massaro said many public employers caution workers who hold sensitive positions to exercise judgment about their conduct off the job including on social media, a powerful form of speech "given its range and potentially global and permanent nature."

In general, the legal test on the boundaries of free speech is if it incites someone toward imminent violent action or to break the law, said James Weinstein, a constitutional-law professor at Arizona State University.

Unclear intentions

Weinstein said the picture could be interpreted as suggesting violence against the president. But the other argument is that the photo is a legitimate protest or commentary on social concerns.

"Generally speaking you can't be punished for posting politically obnoxious pictures even though it may refer to the death of the president, unless it's a true threat," Weinstein said.

The U.S. Supreme Court had sided with a teenager who during an anti-Vietnam war rally had said if he were forced to carry a rifle, the first man he'd want to get in his sight would be President Lyndon Johnson. The high court ruled the law cannot be used to suppress "political hyperbole."

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California-based First Amendment Coalition, said while the Secret Service has the right to look into any potential threats against the president, he described this instance as a seemingly political statement, akin to an effigy of a prominent figure being burned in public.

"It's a violent image but it doesn't mean anyone means violence toward the subject," Scheer said. "It may express the desire to want a person out of office."

He said while it's not prudent for a police officer to post anything misconstrued as condoning violence toward anybody, "that message has to be pretty clear before we allow some kind of governmental punishment to be imposed."

The police department's policy states that "employees shall not use the agency's name, logo ... uniform ... on any Internet site" or public or private forum without authorization. It also states "employees shall not post ... information ... to the Internet" or any public or private forum "that would tend to discredit or reflect unfavorably upon the department or any of the department's employees."

Scheer said the policy is so broad that the agency may be able to apply it to any situation to say its integrity was harmed.

"I'm not sure they can enforce a policy that would preclude a police officer from engaging in constitutionally protected speech," Scheer said.

Jack Glaser, associate professor of public policy at the University of California-Berkeley, said he can see why there's been such a huge reaction to the incident.

"It's disturbing that as a police officer he would do this and think it's worth sharing," Glaser said. "He may be within his First Amendment rights but it reflects bad judgment."

Rutledge of the media research center said such incidents occur when people are not well-informed about the digital world.

"Online information is searchable, accessible, can travel very quickly across many networks and is permanent," Rutledge said. "My grandmother used to say, 'never talk about people in an elevator because you don't know who is listening.' The whole world is the elevator now."

More:
Peoria sergeant's post of Obama photo leads to debate