Monthly Archives: March 2012

As featured on TM Forums the Insider Blog

Those of you old enough to remember the days of flower power and free love will also remember how many conventions were broken down as people around that time rebelled against inane authority and outdated laws. The era of McCarthyism, that fueled a propaganda war against anything that wasnt in the best interests of America, was finally put to rest and people started thinking for themselves.

This new thinking spawned the internet age that we now live in, one that allowed the web to evolve unfettered by rules and regulations, mainly because it was so new regulators had not yet come up with rules for it, or even needed to.

It was perceived primarily as an academic network, safe and harmless, and not something that needed much regulation because it was limited to so few.

Yes, times have changed but the internet has, until recently, avoided the undue attention of regulators. Net neutrality exponents have reared their ugly heads pretending to protect the internet and its freedom while completely missing the point that regulation of any type normally achieves the exact opposite.

Reports from a panel at the recent South by Southwest Interactive Festival (better known as SXSW) in Texas indicate the days of free speech on the internet, especially via social media, may soon become a thing of the past. Those disparaging remarks you make about a companys service or products may come back to haunt you, whether they are true or not.

Making the most of social tools without running afoul of the law was the focus of comments made by Dara Quackenbush of Texas State University who gave attendees a crash course on fundamental social media legal issues.

She mentioned a former tenant of one Horizon Realty, who was sued after she tweeted to friends, You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks its ok. Even though the case was dismissed, Dara said it illustrated challenges that social media professionals face with libel law. (Courtney Love wasnt as lucky when she tweeted a rant about her fashion designer. Love paid more than $400,000 to settle that lawsuit.)

Dara also raised issues surrounding the USAs First Amendment and the right to free speech. Lawmakers of the time would never have envisaged the power of the internet to spread a message so far and so wide so quickly. While the First Amendment protects most forms of expression, the law has never protected speech that is lewd, obscene, profane and libelous or fighting words. And that is where the latest attempts to gag the internet come in.

Social media companies like Facebook include terms that users will not bully, intimidate or harass or use hateful, threatening or profane speech. Most social media terms of service contain, or should contain, similar provisions.

See the rest here:
Days numbered for free speech on internet?

CINCINNATI - Occupy Cincinnati protesters are gathering at Piatt Park and Garfield Place downtown Monday evening as they celebrate the establishment of a 24/7 demonstration and free speech space.

The open demonstration area within 100 square feet of the Garfield statue was created as part of legal settlement between the City of Cincinnati and the Occupy Cincinnati. It included dropping 300 criminal charges against protesters for not leaving the park at closing time last fall.

The group intends started its demonstration at 6 p.m. Monday to celebrate what's it's calling Re-Occupy Free Speech Day.

Occupy Cincinnati says it wants to exercise its First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The group will hold a General Assembly which includes speakers from various Occupy support groups like Move to Amend, Union Bethel, The National Organization for Women, 350 Ohio, Food Not Bombs and SPAN, Single Payer Action Network.

Speakers and music will continue at Piatt Park through 10 p.m., when Occupy Cincinnati holds what it is calling a Soapbox for free speech.

The settlement agreement does not allow Occupy Cincinnati or any group to put up camping tents or other structures in the park. All standard Cincinnati park rules will apply to any demonstrations or rallies at Piatt Park, as they would for any visitors to any Cincinnati public parks.

2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Read the rest here:
Occupy Cincinnati marks free speech zone

When the charred bodies of four young girls were found in the back stairwell of a Baptist church in Alabama in 1963, free speech advocate Mary Beth Tinker felt connected to them and other youth suffering during the civil rights movement.

I related to those girls because they were about my age, she said to students, professors and community members at the Joyce Hergenhan Auditorium on Monday night. I wondered if their church basement was like our church basement.

After that, Tinker said, she started getting more involved. The 11-year-old started picketing.

Tinker, an early pioneer for students free speech rights, spoke at an event titled At the Schoolhouse Gate: Freedom of Speech in Schools A Conversation with Mary Beth Tinker as part of the Tully Center for Free Speechs Distinguished Speaker Series.

Her decision to protest the Vietnam War by wearing an armband to school led to a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld students rights to free speech. The decision continues to influence school speech cases, and Tinker still advocates for what she called the power of youth to take things forward.

Early childhood experiences in Iowa instilled in Tinker a strong moral obligation to advocate for peace. Her parents, Tinker said, kept speaking up for justice during the civil rights movement. With her five siblings, she watched images of the Vietnam War unfold on television.

As kids, we were so moved by that, she said.

As a 13-year-old, Tinker wore a black armband to junior high school in protest of the Vietnam War. She, her brother and his friend were ultimately suspended for violating a policy the towns principals and superintendent hastily crafted after reading a news article about the upcoming protest in the high school paper, Tinker said.

With assistance from the American Civil Liberties Union, Tinker and the other students sued the school district for infringing on their First Amendment rights. Although she didnt like breaking official rules, Tinker said she felt that kids should have rights.

We were just wearing these little armbands, she said. We werent doing anything to hurt or bother anyone. The Tinker family received hate mail and a bomb threat on Christmas Eve. They lost cases at district and appellate courts. But four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Tinkers case.

View original post here:
Tully Center | Free speech advocate discusses civil rights

Back in the day, when he was a playboy in London, the most common nickname for him was Im the Dim Salman Rushdie about cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan in a speech on Saturday in India

Salman Rushdie made a passionate call for Indias citizens to fight to protect free speech in New Delhi on Saturday night. People here are asleep, very much asleep, and you need to wake up, he said to hundreds of prominent businessmen, politicians and intellectuals.

You keep the freedoms you fight for and you lose those you neglect, he said.

But his speech may well be best remembered for its virtual evisceration of Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician who has tried to position himself as the face of moderate, modern Pakistan.

Imran declined to attend the Saturday event, an annual conference sponsored by the India Today publishing group, citing the immeasurable hurt that Rushdies writings have caused Muslims around the world. Imran was to be the keynote speaker at the event, and when he pulled out Rushdie was elevated to the top spot.

Rushdie said he would try to put the term immeasurable hurt in the context of the real world for Imran.

Immeasurable hurt is caused to the Muslim community by terrorists based in Pakistan who act in the name of Islam, he said. Immeasurable hurt is caused to the Muslim community by Osama bin Laden finding shelter in Pakistan, and by a recent survey that showed that 80 per cent of Pakistanis see Osama bin Laden as a hero, he said. Immeasurable hurt is caused to the community by the enormous economic hardships and lack of education that result from mullah-driven politics, he said.

Imran Khan would do well to talk about the immeasurable hurt caused by these things, Rushdie said, rather than creating a bogeyman out of him.

Rushdie is becoming a sort of totemic figure for Indias appetite for and protection of free speech, since he was forced to cancel a scheduled appearance at the Jaipur Literature Festival earlier this year in the face of death threats and protests. Muslim leaders spoke against his scheduled appearance in Old Delhi on Friday, but there were no protesters outside the Taj Palace hotel, where Saturdays speech was held.

Rushdies appearance at the conference caused several scheduled speakers, including prominent politicians, to pull out. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and the newly elected chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Akhilesh Singh Yadav, who has portrayed himself as a modern, forward-thinking leader, were among the no-shows.

Here is the original post:
Im the Dim to Gaddafi, Imran gets a walloping

Strong opinions often stretch the tolerance of Americans to embrace free speech, even among people who would normally call themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Yet two acts of speech over the past several weeks -- one involving a controversial talk radio personality, the other a controversial comic strip -- have demonstrated why we must embrace the right of all Americans to speak their minds, and how to respond to speech we deem to be offensive.

As a talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh has crossed the lines of civility on repeated occasions. The latest example is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute" to describe a young woman testifying before Congress.

Limbaugh was rightly condemned for his comments, lost a number of advertising sponsors and was forced to offer a half-hearted apology.

But that's not enough for some of his critics. MoveOn.org has recently launched a petition drive to get Limbaugh off the air in many cities. Limbaugh's supporters, in turn, have accused MoveOn of attempting to "censor" the conservative radio host.

Allegations of censorship have also arisen as many newspapers nationwide weighed whether to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury strip last week. The series used graphic imagery and words to mock a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Some papers chose to run the controversial series in its usual spot on the comics pages; some moved it temporarily to the opinion pages; and others opted not to run it at all -- a decision that resulted in some readers accusing them of censoring Trudeau, regardless of the fact that the strips could easily be viewed online.

The debate offers a good lesson on what constitutes censorship and what doesn't. As defined by Webster's, a censor is "an official with the power to examine publications, movies, television programs, etc., to remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc." By definition, censorship involves a government act to limit objectionable forms of speech, a frequent occurrence in China, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes.

In free countries, newspapers and broadcast outlets have the right to determine what kind of opinions they do or do not want to publish or air.

Thus, declining to disseminate a certain opinion does not constitute censorship.

That said, in a free country, readers and listeners should expect their media outlets to provide space and airtime so publication and broadcast decisions can be criticized. That's why each day we set aside space for letters -- including ones that are critical of us, such as last week's print and online letters deriding our Doonesbury decision.

Read more from the original source:
Our View: Freedom of expression? Yes, but ...

THE CHOICE

What does Anwar think he is doing? The Voice of Democracy sounds more like the Voice of Censorship these days. First he bars RPK from appearing on a Wikileaks panel alongside himself and Julian Assange. Now, we hear that Anwar Ibrahim has objected to author Salman Rushdie appearing alongside him at the India Today Conclave in New Delhi, where Anwar went to attack Dr M and make himself look like a martyr again.

On the Wikileaks caper we have yet to hear Anwar come forward, say something to explain himself, and answer Raja Petra's revelations.

On the Salman Rushdie controversy, Anwar the advocate of free speech called the author's presence in New Delhi "unnecessary." He tweeted his decision not to attend the forum in New Delhi in protest but later changed his mind and addressed the gathering anyway.

Mr. Rushdie said those politicians such as Anwar who were protesting him were "dumb and depressing." The politicians were "running when no one says 'Boo,' " he said, "and that's what we used to call in the old days cowardice."

During Anwar's speech he emphasised free expression and claimed greatness lies in total commitment to free expression.

Somewhere Rushdie was watching the livestream of the event and chuckling over the hypocrisy of it all. On one hand, Anwar espouses free speech while on the other, he condemns Rushdie's right to free speech.

Whatever his reasons, Anwar is not looking good after two attempts at censorship in two days. First RPK, now Rushdie.

READ MORE HERE

Go here to read the rest:
Anwar's War Against Free Speech: First RPK, Now Rushdie

After a lot of hot air about free speech, Salman Rushdie finally made it to India, and nobody was offended. All he had to do was wait for the state elections to be over, and for the Congress Party's (failed) policy of Muslim appeasement to fall by the wayside. And then he could feel free to entertain everyone (except Pakistan's Imran Khan, Congress scion Rahul Gandhi and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah).

"Listening to his words did not cause the audience to spontaneously combust," the staff edit in the Indian Express explained. "He delivered his familiar use-it-or-lose-it speech on freedom, denounced votebank politics and religious bigotry, insulted a few politicians, estimated how many Muslims really cared about his presence. The lack of drama and special effects around his talk only showed up how empty all the fuss in Jaipur was."

So true, and yet...

There is an important argument to be made about freedom of speech in India. It's just that the English-speaking elite aren't that attuned to it. Instead of Rushdie's dogged (and, frankly, surprisingly patient) explanations of why he believes he should be allowed to offend Muslims, consider Arundhati Roy's explanation of what's really happening to free expression here in India.

It's for sale.

"Essar was the principal sponsor of the Tehelka Newsweek Think Fest that promised high-octane debates by the foremost thinkers from around the world, which included major writers, activists and even the architect Frank Gehry," Roy writes in this week's Outlook. (All this in Goa while activists and journalists were uncovering massive illegal mining scandals that involved Essar.)"

"Tata Steel and Rio Tinto (which has a sordid track record of its own) were among the chief sponsors of the Jaipur Literary Festival (Latin name: Darshan Singh Construction Jaipur Literary Festival) that is advertised by the cognoscenti as The Greatest Literary Show on Earth. Counselage, the Tatas strategic brand manager, sponsored the festivals press tent.

While everybody declaimed about the travesty of Rushdie being prevented from speaking by a mob of (most likely paid) fundamentalists, another sort of payoff was going on, Roy points out. " In every TV frame and newspaper photograph, the logo of Tata Steel (and its taglineValues Stronger than Steel) loomed behind them, a benign, benevolent host."

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there were "hardly any reports about the festival sponsors role in the war in the forests, the bodies piling up, the prisons filling up," Roy says. "Or about the mandatory public hearing for the Tata Steel plant in Lohandiguda which local people complained actually took place hundreds of miles away in Jagdalpur, in the collectors office compound, with a hired audience of fifty people, under armed guard. Where was Free Speech then?"

(Yeah, I know I promised you only 800 words earlier. I cheated.)

Continue reading here:
CasteNCreed: Rushdie speech free but irrelevant