The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: Free Speech
Japan free speech for foreigners only? – Video
Posted: October 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Japan free speech for foreigners only?
In Kyoto, Japan there is a school for Korean students (Kyoto Chosen Daiichi Elementary School). They use a nearby park without proper permission from local a...
By: PropagandaBuster
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Japan free speech for foreigners only? – Video
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Buffer zones and free speech
Posted: October 11, 2013 at 4:40 am
Tough free speech cases seem to have become a hallmark of the Roberts Court. This Term may be no exception, as the Justices consider whether a Massachusetts law creating a buffer zone to keep protesters away from abortion clinic entrance sidewalks is constitutional.
Recall that the Roberts Court has already wrestled with a federal ban on animal crush videos, a state law restricting sale of violent video games, issues related to protests at the funerals of deceased military service members, and a federal prohibition on false claims about military honors. In each of these controversial cases, the Court protected the free speech interests from regulation.
Now add to the list the case of McCullen v. Coakley, which pits a states interest in protecting women who want access to abortion clinics against the interests of anti-abortion protesters who want to be able to counsel and hand literature to women approaching clinics.
The case should be of interest to law students who are studying free speech and free expression, as well as to those studying constitutional law, reproductive rights, and gender jurisprudence.
The Court will not actually rule on the right to abortion in the case. State laws restricting access to abortion are proliferating, and a Supreme Court test reconsidering the scope of that right looms in the Courts future. Instead, the Massachusetts case involves a tension between the desire of anti-abortion protesters to speak with women who are approaching reproductive health clinics and the desire of the patients to be left alone.
It is important to understand the regulatory landscape to follow the issues in the case. Since 1994, federal law has protected access to abortion clinics against threats, intimidation, or violent interference with women seeking reproductive services. But a sizeable handful of states and cities choose to provide additional protection that goes beyond what federal law provides to help facilitate access to clinics.
Massachusetts is one such state. From 2000 to 2007, Massachusetts had a law that prohibited anti-abortion protesters from approaching with six feet of anyone walking or driving in a radius of eighteen feet from the entrance of an abortion clinic. Massachusetts said the law was justified by the need to cope with violence, intimidation, and harassment at abortion clinics. But abortion protesters challenged the law, asserting that it interfered with their right to free speech and expression protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the law.
The 2000 law was patterned after a Colorado law that the Supreme Court upheld that same year in the case of Hill v. Colorado. By a vote of six to three, the Justices ruled that the Colorado law did not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint, was narrowly drawn, left open other means of expression, and was neither too vague nor overbroad, thus passing the basic tests required by the First Amendment. Of the nine Justices who took part in the Colorado case in 2000, only five remain on the Court: Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, who voted to uphold the law, and dissenters Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
Massachusetts amended its law in 2007 to create a thirty-five-foot buffer zone, which means that no one may protest or approach potential patients within that area surrounding either the front door of a clinic or the driveway into the clinic parking lot. Anti-abortion activists are free to protest outside the thirty-five-foot zone or to wait until after regular clinic hours. The state said the amendment was necessary because there was still harassment going on outside clinics. The state said the six-foot floating buffer in the old law was hard to enforce, and public safety required a larger, fixed no-protest zone.
The law was challenged by anti-abortion protesters who maintain that they want to peacefully hand out literature and talk to women who are approaching abortion clinics. They hope to make the women understand that there are alternatives to abortion and that they can help them understand their options. The thirty-five-foot buffer zone pushes them into the street or outer edge of the sidewalk or beyond entry driveways, they complained.
Read the rest here:
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Buffer zones and free speech
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Buffer zones and free speech
Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8 – Video
Posted: October 10, 2013 at 12:40 am
Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8
Free Speech S02E08 PDTV http://ttb.li/sc4xhl Season 2 Episode 8, Watch Free Speech S02E08 PDTV Season 2 Episode 8 Online, Free Speech S02E08 PDTV Season 2 Ep...
By: pridevalingli
Here is the original post:
Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8 - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free Speech Season 2 Episode 8 – Video
Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion
Posted: at 12:40 am
Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion
BY GRETA MEYLE | OCTOBER 09, 2013 5:00 AM
University of Iowa faculty representatives want to discern the difference between free speech and provocative behavior among their peers.
At the Faculty Council meeting Tuesday, after mixed court verdicts regarding university staff members rights, Faculty Council members held a detailed discussion on to what extent a faculty member has the right to criticize the institution he or she works for.
In the 2006 case Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court found public employees dont necessarily have the right to criticize the institution they work for. Contrarily, a recent 2011 case involving a faculty member and the University of North Carolina-at Wilmington, the court decided that faculty members of a public university should be remised from the Garcetti ruling.
Even more recently, the Aug. 21 case of Demers v. Austin, the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals ruled in favor of faculty that the First Amendment protects faculty if the issue is related to scholarship and teaching. These rulings, and groups that encourage faculty free speech, such as the American Association of University Professors, have given rise to many universities considering modifying their policies.
Faculty Council President Erika Lawrence said that the goal was to start the conversation early to protect against future implications.
I mean, this is a huge issue for the faculty of a public university, Lawrence said. Some courts are protecting faculty free speech more than others this could really affect us down the line.
Lawrence said it really comes down to whether a faculty member is expressing disagreement or being hostile or disruptive, especially under representation of the UI.
Law Professor Christina Bohannan approached the issue from a Supreme Court standpoint.
Here is the original post:
Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free speech the topic of Faculty Council discussion
California College Discourages Free Speech U S – Video
Posted: October 8, 2013 at 9:40 pm
California College Discourages Free Speech U S
By: spoorthi goud
Read more:
California College Discourages Free Speech U S - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on California College Discourages Free Speech U S – Video
EP4 – Free Speech Warriors, Empathy and Apathy – Video
Posted: at 8:41 am
EP4 - Free Speech Warriors, Empathy and Apathy
This excerpt is about what "free speech" used to be and what #39;s happening now to those who use it too loudly. We talk about Barrett Brown, Aaron Swartz, Edwar...
By: Delta9Radio
Follow this link:
EP4 - Free Speech Warriors, Empathy and Apathy - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on EP4 – Free Speech Warriors, Empathy and Apathy – Video
"Drop of a Hat" Free Speech Rally – Video
Posted: at 8:41 am
"Drop of a Hat" Free Speech Rally
University Mill, Tempe, Arizona, October 5, 2013.
By: Rex Thomas
Read more:
"Drop of a Hat" Free Speech Rally - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on "Drop of a Hat" Free Speech Rally – Video
Free Speech TV Occupy the Media June 20th, 2012 Skype Interview with Deborah Harris – Video
Posted: at 8:41 am
Free Speech TV Occupy the Media June 20th, 2012 Skype Interview with Deborah Harris
make free international calls, make calls for free, make call online, make free online calls, make free call, how to make free calls on android, make a call ...
By: Oya Ba?
Original post:
Free Speech TV Occupy the Media June 20th, 2012 Skype Interview with Deborah Harris - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free Speech TV Occupy the Media June 20th, 2012 Skype Interview with Deborah Harris – Video
Free Speech, Campaign Donations, and Abortion: The Supreme Court's New Term
Posted: at 8:41 am
After last year's blockbuster cases involving gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court gathers on Monday to start work on the new term's cases, which cover campaign finance, abortion, affirmative action, and more. Despite the government shutdown, the court will forge forward on opening oral arguments for these cases.
Case:McCullen v. Coakley
Dates: No date set yet.
Basic Facts: A Massachusetts law creates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, within which political protests from non-clinic workers are not allowed.
Major issues at stake: The case is a mix of first amendment free speech rights and abortion questions. InHill v. Colorado (2000), the court by a 6-3 vote upheld a similar Colorado law because it was "content neutral," i.e. it did not explicitly favor pro-choice or pro-life protestors. Now, the challengers argue that allowing clinic workers to speak within this buffer zone, but restricting all others, means that only the clinic's point of view will be heard, thereby restricting the opponents' free speech.
Case: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Dates: Arguments begin tomorrow, Oct. 8.
Basic Facts: Supported by the Republican National Convention, Shaun McCutcheon is challenging the constitutionality of the aggregate limits on political contributions, which currently makes $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to parties the maximum possible donation in any two-year election cycle.
Major issues at stake: McCutcheon would like the limitations thrown out because he argues the limits violate free speech, as the court has long found political spendingto be equivalent to speech. On the other hand, the intention of donation limits are to democratize political support, so that rich individuals cannot have too much influence on an election. The 1976 case Buckley v. Valeo upheld the constitutionality of those limits, but that precedent will now be put to the test.Slate's Richard Hasencompares McCutcheon v. FEC to Citizen's United in its implications for opening political contributions to the wealthy few, andwrites that this one "will be bigor huge." The Hill'sStephen Spaulding suggestively asks,"Will the Supreme Court make it easier to bribe politicians during the midterm elections?"
Case: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
Link:
Free Speech, Campaign Donations, and Abortion: The Supreme Court's New Term
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on Free Speech, Campaign Donations, and Abortion: The Supreme Court's New Term
avelezi Winter Park Free Speech y Lower Long Trail 21 09 13 – Video
Posted: October 4, 2013 at 10:40 pm
avelezi Winter Park Free Speech y Lower Long Trail 21 09 13
By: Alfonso Velez
View original post here:
avelezi Winter Park Free Speech y Lower Long Trail 21 09 13 - Video
Posted in Free Speech
Comments Off on avelezi Winter Park Free Speech y Lower Long Trail 21 09 13 – Video