Monthly Archives: February 2012

31-01-2012 20:31 This week, we discuss an upcoming Supreme Court case and what it could mean for the future of video games. Come discuss this topics in the forums! extra-credits.net Like the outro music? Listen to the full track here! http://www.youtube.com New episodes every Wednesday on PATV!

Original post:
Extra Credits: Free Speech - Video

A "fundamental bulwark" of free speech could be lost if The Independent is denied the right to defend its decision to publish extracts from a letter written by a Turks and Caicos politician alleging that Lord Ashcroft posed a threat to democracy on the islands, a court was told yesterday.

The Tory peer is seeking damages from Independent News and Media (INM), former owners of The Independent, over articles published in November 2009, one of which quoted from a letter to David Cameron from an opposition Turks and Caicos politician, Shaun Malcolm. The letter pleaded that if the Conservatives came to power, they should not allow Lord Ashcroft to influence British policy on the islands, which have been under direct rule by the Foreign Office because of corruption in the government of the former Prime Minister, Michael Misick.

Lord Ashcroft worked for many years with William Hague, and bankrolled the Conservative Party while Mr Hague was party leader. The Independent alleged that he profited from a short-lived construction boom on Turks and Caicos, fuelled by the corrupt sale of crown land, the court heard. Mr Malcolm alleged in his letter that Lord Ashcroft's wealth gave him influence which "we feel puts any hope of democracy at risk," the court heard.

David Price QC, for INM, argued that this was comment, and in law even a " whacky opinion" can be justified if it has any basis in fact. An appeal court has spent two days listening to arguments over what grounds the newspaper company can use to defend the case. Mark Warby QC, for Lord Ashcroft, claimed the allegations against the Tory peer were so "garbled and unclear" that it would be unfair to expect him to answer them. This argument has been upheld by Britain's most senior libel judge, Mr Justice Eady, who said Mr Malcolm's claim that Lord Ashcroft exercised a "level of influence" was a "defamatory comment" lacking "a factual basis".

Mr Warby added that INM's legal team had repeatedly gone back to Justice Eady with amendments to their case, but had failed to persuade him to lift the order.

The court reserved its judgement.

More here:
Ashcroft case 'a threat to free speech' court told sues Independent for 'defamation'

Sun News Network is getting an award for its special brand of "hard news and straight talk."

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies (CCPS) has awarded the spunky start-up the Arthur B. Meighen Award.

The distinction is given out annually to organizations and people who "make an outstanding contribution to free speech and the promotion of liberty."

Sun News spokesman Luc Lavoie says the award is a "great honour."

"We have been on the air for less than one year," said Lavoie. "I think that this confirms we are already part of the narrative in this country. We're part of the political conversation in this country.

"We have brought something to the landscape that wasn't there."

Sun News, operated by Quebecor Media, launched April 18. It will receive the award on its one-year anniversary in Ottawa.

David Krayden, executive director of CCPS, said Sun News has "revolutionized cable news in Canada."

"Sun News has fortified free speech and enhanced television journalism, while demonstrating a commitment to programming that reflects the broad range of views that Canadians have," Krayden said. "We think this is great for Canada and healthy for Canadian democracy."

Original post:
Sun News lauded for promoting free speech

American Novelist Responds to Erdogan By Haaretz

Published February 02, 2012.

Noted American Paul Auster author defended his decision to refuse a Turkey visit over the limits the country places on free speech on Wednesday, after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan accused him of having double standards for visiting Israel.

On Tuesday, Erdogan branded the acclaimed novelist as ignorant on Tuesday for refusing to visit Turkey in protest at the jailing of journalists, saying: “If you come so what? If you don’t come, so what? Will Turkey lose prestige?”

“Supposedly Israel is a democratic, secular country, a country where freedom of expression and individual rights and freedoms are limitless. What an ignorant man you are,” Erdogan said, adding: “This gentleman can’t see the repression and rights violations in Israel… This is serious disrespect to Turkey.”

In a statement released on Wednesday and published in the New York Times’ Arts Beat blog, the American author defended his decision to stay away from Turkey, saying that whatever “the Prime Minister might think about the state of Israel, the fact is that free speech exists there and no writers or journalists are in jail.”

“According to the latest numbers gathered by PEN, there are nearly one hundred writers imprisoned in Turkey, not to speak of independent International publishers such as Ragip Zarakolu, whose case is being closely watched by PEN Centers around the world,” Auster added.

In reference to Erdogan claims that Auster was willing to visit Israel even though it “rained bombs down on Gaza,” the American author said: “All countries are flawed and beset by myriad problems, Mr. Prime Minister, including my United States, including your Turkey.”

For more, go to haaretz.com

Read more from the original source:
Paul Auster: Unlike Turkey, Israel Has Free Speech

* Suggests rule overlooks companies' free speech rights

* Final ruling on health labels expected before April 10

WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - A federal rule requiring large graphic health warnings on cigarette packaging and advertising may violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies, a U.S. district court judge said at a hearing on Wednesday.

In a case that could wind up before the Supreme Court, five cigarette makers are suing to overturn a Food and Drug Administration rule requiring companies to label tobacco products with images of rotting teeth, diseased lungs and other images intended to illustrate the dangers of smoking.

The FDA was directed to adopt the rule by the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which requires color warning labels big enough to cover the top 50 percent of a cigarette pack's front and back panels, and the top 20 percent of print advertisements.

The law gave the FDA broad powers over cigarette and tobacco products for the first time.

Reynolds American Inc (NYSE: RAI - news) 's R.J. Reynolds unit, Lorillard Inc (NYSE: LO - news) , Liggett Group LLC, Commonwealth Brands Inc, which is owned by Britain's Imperial Tobacco Group (Dusseldorf: 517719.DU - news) Plc, and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co Inc contend that the FDA rule would force them to engage in anti-smoking advocacy against their own legal products.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, who last November (Stuttgart: A0Z24E - news) issued a temporary injunction blocking the rule, said he would issue his final ruling in the case well before April 10. That is the date when the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hear the government's appeal of Leon's injunction. The FDA rule was due to take effect this September.

Lawyers said a ruling before April 10 would give appellate judges leeway to rule on the case and the injunction at the same time.

In his injunction order, Leon agreed with cigarette makers that the government had failed to show how the graphic images met legal precedents requiring government-imposed labeling to be factual and uncontroversial.

Leon cast additional doubt on the legality of the rule on Wednesday by suggesting that Congress had ignored legal precedents protecting commercial speech from government control.

"There's nothing on the record to suggest that Congress gave any clear and thoughtful analysis on the First Amendment implications of this," the judge said.

In a 2010 case, a federal judge in Kentucky upheld much of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The ruling is now before the U.S. appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio.

ANTI-SMOKING ADVOCACY?

At the hearing, Leon invited Justice Department attorney Mark Stern to explain why the court should not view the labels as a form of anti-smoking advocacy designed to frighten and disgust the public, which would violate legal precedents that protect companies from "compelled speech".

Stern said the images were needed to reach adolescent smokers in danger of becoming addicted to nicotine and adult smokers already addicted.

"We want to really get through. We're not trying to disgust you. We're trying to remind you," he told the court.

"It's no secret that the government wants people to stop smoking. It would be crazy for the government not to want people to stop smoking," Stern said. "It's very unusual for people to sell a product, that when used as intended, will kill you."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 46 million U.S. adults, or 20.6 percent, smoke cigarettes. There has been little change in that rate since 2004.

More than 221,000 Americans are expected to be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2011, according to the American Cancer Society.

In May, the World Health Organization said that tobacco was expected to kill nearly 6 million people worldwide in 2011, including 600,000 nonsmokers.

Tobacco company attorney Noel Francisco argued that the graphic labels provide no information that could not be conveyed in written messages like the U.S. surgeon general's warnings that already appear on cigarette packs and advertisements.

"Consumers are overwhelmingly aware of the risks of smoking," said Francisco, contending that many people overestimate health dangers associated with smoking.

Cigarette makers have said the regulation would impose a "massive burden" on their operations, including millions of dollars for implementation and the loss of branding.

The case is R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co et al v. FDA, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 11-01482. (Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

Link:
US judge: health labels may stem tobacco co rights

Last month’s U.S. District Court ruling on the city of San Diego’s Election Campaign Control Ordinance (ECCO) was humdrum news to most people, but for those of us engaged in the local political arena, it was nothing short of huge.

The ruling was more than a victory for San Diegans and the plaintiffs – it was the latest chapter in an ongoing First Amendment fight for free speech waged in courtrooms across the country.

In 2002, San Diego candidates and groups supporting or opposing candidates for city office were able to accept contributions from individuals, but prohibited from accepting contributions from organizations.

The Lincoln Club of San Diego County, a pro-prosperity political action committee (PAC) and other organizations like it that were accustomed to participating in the electoral process via direct mail and other types of voter contact independent of a candidate’s campaign, were also accustomed to accepting contributions from individuals, corporations and organizations. Accordingly, the club entered into an agreement with the city with respect to how the club must attribute contributions it receives from individuals for independent expenditure (IE) campaigns in support of, or opposition to, candidates. However, ECCO’s prohibition of contributions to groups like the Lincoln Club from “organizations” was left intact.

Two years later – long before the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court case (Citizens United v. FEC) that held the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions – the Lincoln Club challenged ECCO’s limitations in court. We were unsuccessful and forced to keep operating by the 2002 rules.

When an individual or company makes a contribution to a political party or committee, they expect up to the full amount – not just a fraction – can or will be used in races of mutual interest. ECCO made this impossible.

Between 2004 and 2007, laws that imposed restrictions on PACs similar to ECCO were overturned in San Jose, San Francisco, Long Beach and elsewhere.

The timing appeared perfect to take another shot at ECCO’s clearly unconstitutional restrictions, but this time we approached things differently.

In January 2008, I contacted the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to share the Lincoln Club’s concerns about ECCO’s restrictions on the First Amendment.

In early 2009, one of the leading First Amendment law firms in the U.S. agreed to lead the litigation against the city. Plaintiffs were added and the complaint’s scope grew. The ACLU filed a brief of support.

The Lincoln Club chose this path because it firmly believed the city’s Ethics Commission, which drafted the limitations, was violating a fundamental right – freedom of speech. We won that argument last month and, along the way, leveled the playing field with organized labor.

Faced with onerous restrictions like those imposed by ECCO, unions simply outmatched groups like the Lincoln Club in collecting individual contributions and making expenditures.

Unlike unions, political parties and groups like the Lincoln Club do not have a pool of employees whose political contributions are siphoned from their paychecks every month, and recruiting enough members to match individual contributions from tens of thousands of government employees is not possible.

Excerpt from:
Court ruling: Free speech and the mother’s milk of politics