Monthly Archives: February 2015

Part 2: The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions
Kingdom Flava PART 2 - Bible Study: REAL TALK - Censorship of Christian Free Speech The "Don #39;t Judge" Agenda. A comprehensive study on the free speech debate. Who has the right to judge?...

By: F.A.M.E TV (Faith Music Evangelism)

Read the rest here:

Part 2: The "Don't Judge" Agenda & Censoring Christians| Free Speech | Opinions - Video

Freedom of speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

The ACLUs Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology (SPT) is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Law enforcement agencies across America continue to monitor and harass groups and individuals for doing little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights. From the FBI to local police, U.S. law enforcement agencies have a long history of spying on American citizens and infiltrating or otherwise obstructing political activist groups.

The nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

A report on Police Surveillance and Obstruction of First Amendment-Protected Activity

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Read this article:

Free Speech | American Civil Liberties Union

News The quarterly debate showcase, hosted by the Chicago Debate Society, came after discussions over free speech on campuses across the country and governments around the world.

Posted Feb 21, 2015 by Sonia Schlesinger

The Chicago Debate Society hosted its Winter Quarter Showcase Debate on Thursday regarding whether free speech restrictions should be implemented in universities.

Third-year and president of the society Jing Chai and fourth-year David Peterson argued in favor of the claim that universities ought to prioritize the well-being of students over traditional free speech rights, while third-year Michelle Jiang and fifth-year Chris Riehle opposed the claim. Rights are social and legal constructsdetermined by the people who frame the system of a particular society, usually the dominant groups, Peterson said. He argued that this has allowed them to use discourse that drowns out minority voices and legitimates outright racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia in speech.

The University has some sort of moral obligation to protect the people who come here from physical harm, he continued. Wetell you that psychological harm is fundamentally analogous to physical harm in that it prevents you from self-actualizing.

Jiang and Riehle emphasized the difficulty of quantifying the severity of psychological harm and of implementing such restrictions realistically. Jiang also drew attention to the consequences of restricting discourse: The fact they shut down discourse by always saying theres a right side is fundamentally problematic, she said.

Jiang and Riehle then addressed the potential danger of limiting free speech in universities, which are intended to prepare students for life after college; they argued that the real world does not necessarily operate under these limitations.

Following this portion of the debate, several members of the Debate Society made floor speeches in favor of one side or the other, and the debate was concluded with closing arguments from both sides.

This structure is typical of Parliamentary Debate; the Chicago Debate Society is a part of the American Parliamentary Debate Association and is one of the oldest RSOs on campus. The team competes in tournaments nearly every weekend at colleges and universities around the country and is usually quite successful, winning several awards each year and often qualifying for the National Championship.

The debate topic itself is particularly pertinent in light of debates on free speech both among governments throughout the world and on college campuses across the country, including multiple discussions surrounding free speech rights here at UChicago. Recently, shootings at a free speech debate in Copenhagen and at the office of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in France have sparked such questions, particularly in America and Europe.

Read more here:

Students debate limits of free speech on campuses