Daily Archives: September 23, 2013

The Rules for Free Speech

By: CampusReform

Continue reading here:
The Rules for Free Speech - Video

Alex Jones Free speech under fire

By: TheSuperBnews

Read the original:
Alex Jones Free speech under fire - Video

Unpopular free speech

By: TheSuperBnews

Read the original:
Unpopular free speech - Video

free speech and pirate radio pirate radio is bad don #39;t do it

By: cyberlight22

Originally posted here:
free speech and pirate radio pirate radio is bad don't do it - Video

Sunday, September 22, 2013

In the 221 years since ratification of the Bill of Rights, Americans have had the right to speak out. And sing out.

In recognition of the power of free speech set to music, the First Amendment Center and the Americana Music Association join together each year to honor a prominent musician who has used his or her music tocontribute to the markeplace of ideas. Awardees have come from a wide musical and political spectrum, including Johnny Cash, Joan Baez, Kris Kristofferson, Charlie Daniels and Mavis Staples.

Stephen Stills, a two-time member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young and Buffalo Springfield, received the 2013 award at the Americana Music Association Honors and Awards Show at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville this week.

For What Its Worth. one of his most famous compositions, is widely regarded as a protest song, but that misses the mark. Yes, the song was inspired by a confrontation between police and young people on the Sunset Strip, but his tone was one of observation, not outrage. Theres somethin happening here, what it is aint exactly clear he sang on that early Buffalo Springfield hit. He even poked fun at the protesters who carried signs most saying hurray for our side.

Throughout his career, Stills has used his music to encourage us to look at our society and ourselves. His response to the worlds challenges has been reflective, not reflexive.

As a member of one of Americas most political bands Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young Stills often offered a measured counterpoint. Neil Youngs Ohio was a chilling indictment of the government that could shoot dead four students at Kent State University. The flip side of that single was Find the Cost of Freedom, a four-line Stills song about sacrifice and liberty.

From the post-apocalyptic Wooden Ships to the cautionary The Ecology Song and the affirming We Are Not Helpless, Stillss music has truly engaged us. Recent songs like Feed the People and Wounded World continue his tradition of topicality.

Stills has walked the talk. CSN&Y toured the country in 2006 with its Free Speech Tour, challenging its audiences with songs protesting the war in Iraq. Stills used the tour to campaign on behalf of candidates for Congress.

The most valuable resource that we have, that we are wasting, we are squandering, are those wonderful men and women who would be so noble as to put on a suit, endure basic training, pick up a weapon and stand a post in our defense, he said in one campaign appearance captured in the Free Speech Tour documentary

Read the rest here:
Stephen Stills honored for free speech through music

The spring of 1993 was supposed to be Sheldon Hackneys swan song a chance for the departing Penn president to say goodbye to an institution on which he had made a profound and lasting impact during his 12 years in office. Early on in the semester, it had become clear that Hackney was a frontrunner for the National Endowment for the Humanities chairmanship, a nomination that would thrust the southern historian-turned-university administrator onto the national stage.

Instead, Hackneys final months at Penn became, in his own words, the spring from hell.

I recall it not only as the worst time of my life, he once wrote, but as an out-of-body experience.

For all of Hackneys achievements over his first 11 years in office, the former presidents handling of two free speech incidents in 1993, his final year, will remain forever etched into his Penn legacy. For some, the incidents the theft of an entire press run of The Daily Pennsylvanian and the now-infamous water buffalo affair are mere footnotes to Hackneys time at the University. For others, they are headlines.

The DP theft and the water buffalo affair, both of which had strong racial undercurrents, set off a national debate that brought Penns judicial system, the Universitys speech policies and Hackney himself under fire.

Related: From water buffalo to BDS, Penn faces free speech questions

By the time Hackney officially left the University to head up the NEH, he had taken a pummeling in the national media that was unlike what any Penn president had ever experienced. U.S. News and World Report started the tradition of giving out an annual Sheldon Award an honor bestowed upon the college administrator who did the most to look the other way while free speech was being stifled on campus. A Wall Street Journal editorial writer who had penned several less-than-flattering pieces about Hackney told the former Penn president that he had been the leading actor in the darkest moment for human freedom in the history of western civilization.

The Washington Times dubbed him Mr. Wimp; CNN and ABC covered a Victims of Sheldon Hackney press conference; scores of other outlets labeled him as the purveyor of political correctness run amok.

Hackneys handling of the 1993 incidents raised questions that today remain largely unanswered. What role does a university president have in balancing free speech and racial inclusivity on a diverse campus like Penns? When is it acceptable for a president to intervene in campus-level judicial proceedings? And in Hackneys case, is it fair to judge a president who, by and large, had done much good at his institution based on actions during his final months in office?

Sheldon was a man who liked to make people happy, Linda Wilson, who was Hackneys chief of staff in 1993, said. Wilson was also a close friend of Hackneys, who died Sept. 12. If you put yourself in his position back then, it was impossible to make people happy.

Read more:
A lasting influence under Hackney on free speech rights

by MICHAEL FELBERBAUM / AP Business Writer

KING5.com

Posted on September 19, 2013 at 7:47 AM

RICHMOND, Va. -- Clicking "Like" on Facebook is constitutionally protected free speech and can be considered the 21st century-equivalent of a campaign yard sign, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed a lower court ruling that said merely "liking" a Facebook page was insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection.

Exactly what a "like" means -- if anything -- played a part in a Virginia case involving six people who say Hampton Sheriff B.J. Roberts fired them for supporting an opponent in his 2009 re-election bid, which he won. The workers sued, saying their First Amendment rights were violated.

Roberts said some of the workers were let go because he wanted to replace them with sworn deputies while others were fired because of poor performance or his belief that their actions "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office." One of those workers, Daniel Ray Carter, had "liked" the Facebook page of Roberts' opponent, Jim Adams.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk had ruled in April 2012 that while public employees are allowed to speak as citizens on matters of public concern, clicking the "like" button does not amount to expressive speech. In other words, it's not the same as actually writing out a message and posting it on the site.

Jackson acknowledged that other courts have ruled that Facebook posts are constitutionally protected speech, but he said in those cases there were "actual statements." Simply clicking a button is much different and doesn't warrant First Amendment protection, he wrote. In his ruling, Jackson acknowledged the need to weigh whether the employee's speech was a substantial factor in being fired. But the judge wrote that the point is moot if "liking" something isn't constitutionally protected speech.

The three-judge appeals court panel disagreed, ruling that "liking a political candidate's campaign page communicates the user's approval of the candidate and supports the campaign by associating the user with it. In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one's front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech." The case was sent back to the lower court.

See original here:
Court: Clicking 'Like' on Facebook is free speech