Monthly Archives: August 2012

24-08-2012 10:47 US court to decide

View original post here:
Are Facebook 'likes' protected free speech? - Video

24-08-2012 12:07 No part of American society is supposed to value free speech more than our colleges and universities, but the University of California is now rethinking that idea. University of California President Mark Yudof assembled a team earlier this summer to assess "campus climate" in response to a series of Anti-Zionist protests and demonstrations. Yudof's fact-finding team made a series of recommendations after visiting campuses, including banning hate speech. "When you ban speech, it has a funny habit of boomeranging back at you," says Will Creeley, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. "Instead of pulling these often noxious or repellant ideas out from behind closed doors and debating them in open sunlight, you see these kind of fears silenced. And that kind of silencing builds a kind of repression, hate, fear, paranoia." The prospect of a ban on free speech has students up in arms, including members of the Jewish community. "Jewish students, Muslim students, students of all creeds, faiths, colors, national origins, religions, sexualities can be trusted to defend their own point of view, to speak and enunciate their ideas clearly enough, to have good ideas triumph over ill-founded ones," Creeley says. President Yudof has said that he is currently reviewing the recommendations, but understands the first amendment concerns. However, he is still considering the report. About 3 minutes. Produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Shot by ...

Excerpt from:
Free Speech Fight: Campus Anti-Zionism May Result in Hate Speech Ban - Video

24-08-2012 04:21 Has the Government crossed the line by ordering the blocking of several Twitter accounts, many belonging to prominent journalists? We debate. Watch full show:

Here is the original post:
Govt vs Tweeple: Has clampdown hit free speech? - Video

Paul Ryan waded into the Chick-fil-A controversy when he told a reporter that he associates the fast food chain with "free speech."

On Thursday, a reporter from Virginia-based CNN affiliate WDBJ, upon finding out that he would only have five minutes with the Republican vice presidential candidate, decided to engage Ryan in a round of word association.

"Chick fil-A," Orlando Salinas, the WDBJ reporter, offered.

"Good chicken," Ryan said. "Free people exercising their free speech rights."

Chick-fil-A sparked controversy last month when company president Dan Cathy said that he and his company support "the biblical definition of the family unit" when asked about the issue of same-sex marriage.

Cathy's remarks were met with backlash, as many LGBT activists called on supporters of gay marriage to boycott the chicken chain. Protesters have organized "kiss-ins" at Chick-fil-A locations across the country.

Meanwhile, conservatives jumped to defend the chain's right to condemn same-sex marriage. Mike Huckabee organized a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day earlier this month, which was endorsed by a number of notable right-wing figures including Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann.

Romney, however, has distanced himself from the controversy, declaring that the Chick-fil-A debate was not "part of my campaign." While he has avoided directly addressing his stance on the chain, his campaign may have made a quiet showing of support. Politico reported earlier this week that the Romney campaign spent $500 in "meeting expenses" at the chain last month, just days before Huckabee's appreciation day.

Also on HuffPost:

Continued here:
Paul Ryan Weighs In On Chick-Fil-A's 'Free Speech Rights'

SEOUL, South Korea In a major victory for free speech activists in South Korea, a top court on Thursday ruled unconstitutional a law that required Internet users to verify their identity before posting comments on major local Web sites.

South Korea introduced the so-called real-name identification system in 2007 for nearly 150 popular Web sites with more than 100,000 visitors a day, including some newspaper sites.

The regulation was adopted amid widespread concern that Internet users were deluging Web sites with malicious and defamatory comments and false rumors; in a few cases, such statements were blamed in the suicides of celebrities.

But free-speech advocates condemned the rule, arguing that the government was using perceived abuses as a convenient excuse to discourage political criticism. They feared that people would censor themselves rather than provide their names, which would make it easier for the government to find and possibly punish them.

On Thursday, an eight-judge Constitutional Court panel unanimously ruled that the restriction violated the right to free speech.

Restriction on freedom of expression can be justified only when it is clear that it benefits public interests, the court said in its verdict. Its difficult to say that the regulation is achieving public interests.

Under President Lee Myung-bak, the governments crackdown on Internet freedom has merited rebukes not just from free speech advocates at home, but also from the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression and Reporters Without Borders, which said censorship was focused, in part, on political opinions.

But the governments attempts to purge profanity and harsh criticisms of individuals on the Web has backing, especially among social conservatives who fear the Web is eating away at the social fabric, which values deference to elders and those in authority.

On Thursday, the court said there has not been a significant drop in the amount of illegal content posted on local Web sites since the laws adoption. The ruling said the law discriminated against local Web sites, causing many South Korean users to patronize overseas-based Web sites or social networking services like Facebook and Twitter.

South Korean activists have filed a series of lawsuits against what they consider illegal barriers to freedom of speech. They won another major case in 2010, when the Constitutional Court killed a law that punished spreading false rumors online.

Here is the original post:
South Korean Court Overturns Online Name Verification Law