Monthly Archives: May 2017

The Ohio Supreme Courtis considering whether the free speech rights of people living with HIV were violated by a law requiring they disclose their status to potential sexual partners.

In July 2014, Orlando Batista was indicted in Hamilton County for felonious assault for having sex with his girlfriend without telling her hes HIV positive.

He admitted in court that he had also infected at least two other women, one of whom passed the virus on to their child. Batista was convicted and sentenced to eight years in prison.

He appealed the conviction on the grounds that the law requiring him to disclose his HIV status violates his equal protection and free speech rights. Josh Thompson represented Batista before the Ohio Supreme Court.

Theres no doubt that Mr. Batistas behavior in this case was reprehensible. But this case is bigger than him," Thompson said. "This case is about all HIV positive people in Ohio. Its about the burden that is passed on his victims that requires them, for the rest of their life, to disclose their HIV status to potential sexual partners.

But on the other side was Samuel Peterson with the Attorney Generals office. He said the law is fair because it was very narrowly drawn to ensure that only one other person would know the others HIV status.

The General Assembly was very clearly concerned with informing potential sexual partners. That is an informed consent aspect. And it is necessary in order to promote personal autonomy and personal agency," Peterson said.

"It is a recognition that when you have sexual conduct, there are two parties to that conduct, and the other person has a right to know and has a right to be party to the decision to engage in the sexual conduct.

But also arguing for Batista was Avram Frey with the national Center for HIV Law and Policy. He said theres a stigma associated with HIV which prevents people from getting tested and seeking treatment. He said the law perpetuates that by unfairly discriminating against people with HIV with draconian punishment but not people with other diseases like HPV, which is much more prevalent.

Theres no rational basis for that distinction, for that singling out of people with HIV and AIDS. And accordingly, we respectfully submit that this Court should find that the true purpose underlying the statute is unconstitutional animus, Frey said.

But Peterson told Justice Judy French that the law was written regarding HIV and not other diseases not to discriminate against people with the virus, but because its different.

HIV is unlike, for example, hepatitis C, because there is a cure for hepatitis C. There is no cure for HIV."

Peterson admitted he didn't know if hepatitis C was curable when the law was written, but he added, "What is true at the time the statute was drawn is the second point, which is the primary transmission vector of HIV and hepatitis C is different.

The state says 22,355 Ohioans were living with HIV as of 2015. As of that year, Ohio reported the fourth-highest rate of HIV-related prosecutions for the previous decade, with 59 people convicted.

Read the original post:
Does HIV Disclosure Requirement Violate Free Speech? | WOSU ... - WOSU Public Media

Jim Smith never forgot the day he got arrested as a student at the University of California, Berkeley, 53 years ago.

Smith, who died at 72 on Mothers Day, wasnt alone. Almost 800 others were arrested in 1964 at a sit-in in Sproul Hall. Students were protesting university restrictions on campus political activities and their free speech. It was the start of the historic Free Speech Movement led by Mario Savo.

I met Smith years later when I was managing editor of the Press-Telegram, and he was a manager in our circulation department.

He would talk about his experience and how proud he was that he got involved. He called it his awakening on social and political issues.

He was a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, according to his wife, Wendy. He was against the war in Vietnam, the war in Iraq and anything that he thought would inhibit free speech. He was for womens rights and tolerance for all people.

Almost until the day he died from pneumonia, Smith was engaged in social activism. He and his wife walked in the Los Angeles Womens March on Jan. 21, the day after President Trumps inauguration.

His passion for social causes worked perfectly with his job at the Press-Telegram in overseeing delivery of the newspaper.

He loved the idea that he was working at a place where the First Amendment was honored and fought for, his wife said. It was so important to him to have a free press and free speech.

Smith spent 22 years at the Press-Telegram delivering newspapers to driveways and vending machine. At one time, he was overseeing the delivery of almost one-half of the Press-Telegrams daily circulation.

He earned the title of Golden Boy for his work in turning around the operation of one of the papers bigger districts.

Smith was born April 6, 1945 in Compton, but his parents moved to Long Beach, where he grew up. He was class valedictorian at Lakewood High School but was not considering college because his family could not afford it.

But someone told him about scholarships. With his 4.0 GPA, he got a full scholarship to Berkeley, where he studied history and learned about civil disobedience.

Smith was the older of the Smith Brothers at the Press-Telegram. His younger brother, Bill, also spent years at the paper before moving to Long Beach Transit.

Advertisement

Jim also had his 15 minutes of fame at the paper when he was the subject of a column by Tim Grobaty, Working his butt off. The column is reprinted in Grobatys book, Im Dying Here, A Life in the Paper.

Ten years ago, Jim was driving down Seventh Street enjoying one of the many cigarettes he would smoke every day. When he was done, he flicked the cigarette out the window at Ximeno Avenue. Bad mistake. A cop was following Jim and issued him a ticket.

Jim was fined $416 and, worse, he had to do eight hours of community service, which consisted of raking and bagging loads of trash on the banks of the Santa Ana Freeway.

He was a 62-year-old then on his knees picking up trash and chopping tree limbs.

Throughout the day, workers took more than a few cigarette breaks. Seemed like we all smoked, Jim said.

Grobaty wrote, And when they were done with their cigarettes, what do you suppose they did with the butts? We know and we could tell you, but we dont want to get Smith into any more trouble.

Jim quit smoking six years ago.

Rich Archbold is public editor of the Press-Telegram and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. rarchbold@scng.com

Here is the original post:
In work and life, he stood for free speech: Rich Archbold - Long Beach Press Telegram

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist Wall Street Journal (subscription) Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist. We never said that candidates' comments should be limited to the here and now; we simply wanted to give them the chance to outline their ideas about the major issues, including those of current concern and ...

See the article here:
Free Speech and Long-Termism Can Coexist - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The Partys manifesto pledges that a Conservative government will establish a Commission for Countering Extremism to identify examples of extremism and expose them, but concerns have been raised that the definition of extremism is so vague, it may be used as a fig leaf to persecute those with unfashionable opinions.

Colin Hart, Director of The Christian Institute, said The word extremist has been robbed of all meaning by activists who use it against anyone who disagrees with them. Weve already seen a series of witch-hunts against people with traditional views.

This Commission on extremism might make a bad situation a whole lot worse.

You cant have [] this Commission for Countering Extremism denouncing people for not holding the correct views.

We will consider what new criminal offences might need to be created, and what new aggravated offences might need to be established, to defeat the extremists,the manifesto reads. However, writing to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in February of this year, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd admitted that a working definition of extremism had yet to be formulated.

[T]his policy area raises complex issues relating to freedom of speech and the importance of having a clear legal definition of extremism, she wrote, adding: These are issues that my department continues to consider and, as you know, we have committed to a full consultation on any new legislation before it is introduced.

Mr Hart warned: using the vague concept of extremism on its own as a basis for taking away freedoms is a serious risk to civil liberty.

People labelled extremists in their own day include Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Harriet Beecher Stowe, William Wilberforce and the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Today, people like Germaine Greer and Dame Jenni Murray are vilified for extreme views on transsexualism that actually represent the views of the great majority of people.

The policy is particularly troubling as the manifesto also sets out plans to apparently redesign the internet to filter out unwanted or undesirable communications.

In harnessing the digital revolution, we must take steps to protect the vulnerable and give people confidence to use the internet without fear of abuse, criminality or exposure to horrific content. Our starting point is that online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline, the manifesto states, adding: Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet. We disagree.

Buzzfeed News has reported that senior Tories have confirmed the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

Jim Killock, of the Open Rights Group campaign, told BuzzFeed that under the proposals, Facebook and Google could end up having to decide what constitutes legal content, rather than allowing the courts to rule on the matter.

They wont get it right theyll behave in a risk-averse fashion, he said. Theyll censor more than they need to. I do not want Mark Zuckerberg to think of himself as judge and jury of what people can say in Britain.

Continued here:
Conservative 'Extremism' Plan to Crack Down on Free Speech Both On and Offline - Breitbart News