Category Archives: Free Speech

31 Oct 2012

The arrest of editor Kostas Vaxevanis for exposing alleged tax cheats is just the latest attack on free speech in Greece. Democracy itself is now in danger, say Asteris Masouras and Veroniki Krikoni

UPDATE: Since this article was published, journalist Spiros Karatzaferis was arrested on an outstanding charge after claiming he would publish classified documents relating to Greeces financial bailout. Read here

In recent months Greece has recorded multiple instances of censorship and attacks on the press. Systematic efforts to curtail media freedom are taking place against a backdrop of rising police brutality used to quell anti-austerity protests and mounting neo-Nazi violence against journalists,immigrants, and homosexuals linked to rise of the far-right Golden Dawn party, which gained 18 seats in Junes parliamentary elections (having achieved a record 21 seats in the May election).

28 October, National Day in Greece, sawthe arrest of investigative journalist Kostas Vaxevanis, whoseHot Doc magazine published a leaked list (nicknamed the Lagarde list) of over 2,000 names of Greeks with bank accounts in Switzerland. Reporters Sans Frontieresappealed for his release, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Dunja Mijatovi,expressed her concern, and netizens rallied to his support on Twitter, gathering over 16,000 signatures on apetition demanding that charges be dropped,as did the European Federation of Journalists.

They are after me instead of the truth,Vaxevanisstatedin a video uploaded on the night before his arrest.

A New York Times editorial slammed the Greek government for being shamefully quick to attack the messenger and strip basic social services from the countrys most vulnerable citizens but shamefully slow at probing possible tax evasion by the well-connected. Vaxevanis, whose magazine has been steadily publishing investigative reports on graft and corruption scandals, hadreported a seemingly abortive ambush at his home on the northern suburbs of Athens earlier in September by five unknown individuals.

Several other incidents of censorship have plagued the media in the last month, leading to international condemnation and grave concerns about the state of democracy in its nominal birthplace.

On 25 September, a 27-year-old netizen was remanded to trialonblasphemy charges for maintaining aFacebook page titled Gerontas Pastitsios (Elder Pastitsios), which included satirical comments on Christianity and the noted Eastern Orthodox monkElder Paisiosand his alleged prophecies, as well as the commercial exploitation of Paisioss legacy. The matter was raised by a member of parliament from Golden Dawn.According to the

On 9 October, the Guardian published areport by the Nations Maria Margaronis ontorture allegationsmade by anti-fascist protesters arrested after a clash with Golden Dawn members on 26 September, in which detainees spoke of being subjected to an Abu Ghraib-style humiliation at police headquarters in Athens. The inister of Public Order, Nikos Dendias, later announced hisintention to sue the British newspaper for defamation and instead of ordering a public inquiry while investigating the torture allegations in a sworn administrative inquiry, a processdescribed by the UNHCR in 2008 as an internal and confidential police procedure designed to protect the rights of the officer involved rather than those of the complainant.

See more here:
Greece: Free speech faces abyss

The abysmal state offree speech at Canadian public universities is stifling students right to speak their minds, according to a new report card that gives mostly failing grades to universities and their student unions.

The 2012 Campus Freedom Index (download PDF), released Wednesday by the Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, awarded only three As to 35 universities and student unions it analyzed in its second annual report. A grade of F was far more common handed out 28 times to 12 universities and 16 student unions for everything from cancelling controversial speakers and obstructing pro-life groups to banning the expression Israeli Apartheid.

Everyones forced to pay for these universities through tax dollars and the universities get the money in part by claiming to be these centres of free inquiry, said JCCF president John Carpay, who co-authored the report. Its fundamentally dishonest for the university to go to the government and ask for hundreds of millions of dollars on the pretext that they are a centre for free inquiry and then receive the money and turn around and censor unpopular opinions.

While universities scored an average grade of C for having fairly sound policies and principles around free speech, the report said they werent as good at following them.

For example, the University of Toronto earned an A for its policies, which include a statement on freedom of speech from its governing council and student code of conduct provisions that protect a persons right to voice views not everyone may agree with. But it scored an F for its actions the report citing the administrations 2008 effort to have pro-life groups turn their graphic posters towards the wall. Another example was a group being charged a $400 security fee for holding an Israeli Apartheid Week, a move study authors deemed unfair.

Student unions scored lower in the rankings, earning a D average on both policies and actions.

The Index sheds light on the significant role that Canadian student unions play in damaging the free speech climate on campus, the authors wrote, adding that they were particularly troubled that 10 student unions denied official club certification to student groups based solely on the content of their message, not because of misconduct. The student unions at Carleton University and Memorial University of Newfoundland scored Fs because they refused to certify pro-life clubs, the report said.

Student unions at the University of Saskatchewan, University of Victoria, University of Calgary, University of Western Ontario, University of Guelph, McGill University and Lakehead University have all banned campus pro-life groups at different times in recent years, earning them Fs, according to the report.

Pro-life groups seem to be the current target on campuses, Mr. Carpay said, but in 20 years it could well be another group that doesnt fit with the popular view of the day. He was especially troubled by the arrest of pro-life protesters at Carleton University in October, 2010, whose trespassing charges have since been dropped. President of the Carleton University Students Association, Alexander Golovko, said in an email to the Post that the results from this index are not fully representative of the current state of affairs at Carleton. This year my team and I are striving to ensure there are open and accessible debates on issues that matter to students.

The national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, Adam Awad, dismissed the index, saying it did not explain its methodology well enough to support its criticism of student unions.

Read the original here:
Free speech at Canadian universities ‘abysmal,’ report says

Students discuss a controversial anti-abortion display at the University of Calgary in 2009. Universities were the birthplace of political correctness and now a right-leaning group says that on most Canadian campuses the trend has eroded free speech.

The Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued its 2012 Campus Freedom Index, which surveyed 35 Canadian universities and student unions.

It awarded only three A grades, compared with 28 Fs to 12 universities and 26 student unions for things like cancelling campus appearances of controversial speakers to trying to keep out pro-life groups and banning the expression "Israeli apartheid," the National Post reported.

"Everyone's forced to pay for these universities through tax dollars and the universities get the money in part by claiming to be these centres of free inquiry," justice centre president John Carpay, who co-authored the report, told the Post.

[ Related: Maclean's annual university rankings: Western schools on the rise ]

"It's fundamentally dishonest for the university to go to the government and ask for hundreds of millions of dollars on the pretext that they are a centre for free inquiry and then receive the money and turn around and censor unpopular opinions."

The report gives universities an average grade of C for having fairly good policies and principles regarding free speech but said they weren't very good at following them.

Student unions fared worse, scoring an average of D on both policies and actions.

"The index sheds light on the significant role that Canadian student unions play in damaging the free speech climate on campus," the report said.

The report focused on student unions' treatment of pro-life groups, noting 10 denied official certification to pro-life campus clubs based solely on the content of their message and not because of any misconduct, the Post reported.

See the original post here:
‘Campus Freedom Index’ gives free speech a failing grade at Canadian universities

CINCINNATI A Kentucky man committed no crime when he asked groups of people at an event in a public park here if they wanted to laugh at the crippled girl, a Hamilton County jury decided Thursday.

The win for Forest Thomer II, 25, of suburban Cold Spring, Ky., also is a win for free-speech rights, he said.

I think weve taken a negative situation and turned it into a positive situation, Thomer said after Thursdays verdict.

Thomer was doing what he called guerrilla marketing when he went to the May 23 Party in the Park event, hosted by the USA Regional Chamber of Commerce. To promote the comedy career of his friend, Ally Bruener, Thomer walked up to groups of people, pointed at Bruener -- who has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair -- and asked, Do you want to laugh at the crippled girl?

As the people were trying to recover from the seemingly inappropriate question, Bruener wheeled up, told a joke and then announced when and where her next performance would be.

Lori Salzarulo of the USA Regional Chamber of Commerce complained to police about Thomers comments. Police threatened to shock Thomer with a Taser then arrest him.

Cincinnati Police Officer Dan Kreider charged Thomer with disorderly conduct, accusing him of grossly abusive language.

The charge is a crime that could have sent Thomer to jail for up to 30 days and, Thomer insisted, also violated his right to free speech.

After Thomer accused the police of censorship, the city twice changed the charges, finally deciding to try him on a charge of turbulent behavior.

Thomer and his lawyer, Danielle Anderson, believe Salzarulo wanted Thomer thrown out because she feared his kind of humor would ruin the chambers event.

Read the rest here:
Free speech wins in 'crippled girl' case

Doss_High_School_Football_FieldLyle Denniston examines a recent case of Texas public high school cheerleaders who claim free speech allows them to use religious statements at football games.

It is the individual speech of the cheerleaders and not in fact the government speakingThat is their individual choices that are being portrayed on the banner.

David Starnes, a Beaumont, Texas, attorney, in a statement on October 18 defending the public school cheerleading squad in Kountze, Texas, whom he represents in a lawsuit over their right to display banners containing religious messages at the Kountze High Schools football games.

If the temporary injunction is not issued, the [high schools] unlawful policy prohibiting private religious expression will remain in effect and the [students] will be prohibited from exercising their constitutional and statutory rights at all football games and other school sporting events.

Hardin County, Texas, District Judge Steven Thomas, in an order October 18 temporarily forbidding Kountze High School administrators from banning the display of cheerleaders banners bearing religious messages at school football games. The judge set a trial date of next June 24.

checkThe First Amendment both guarantees religious freedom and forbids official government endorsement or promotion of a particular faith. Separating the two, though, has long been a problem for the courts as they confront religious expression in the public sphere. There is no more disputed arena in which this constitutional drama plays out than the public school. What is happening now in the small eastern Texas town of Kountze is a perfect illustration.

There, the high school cheerleading team for years has prepared banners that are unfurled at the start of home football games, with the Kountze players bursting through the streamers, measuring 30 feet by 10 feet. They are meant to inspire the team, and encourage the crowd. They used to be taunts of the visiting team, but this year the cheerleaders decided to engage in what their lawyer calls positive encouragement. And, for these students and followers of the Christian faith, that has meant banners with religious messages, such as Thanks be to God, which gives us victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

School officials banned the practice this semester, after a protest from a private advocacy group, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which promotes separation of church and state. The cheerleaders and their parents sued in Hardin County District Court and, so far, they are winning, with the school ban now on hold by Judge Steven Thomass order until a trial can occur, now set for next June.

The wording of Judge Thomas order and, in fact, the description of the banner activity in the text of the cheerleaders lawsuit both treat the expression on the banners as purely that of the students. That was decisive for the judge, and it was the strategic choice of the students attorney, because the Supreme Court has made clear that government has less power to restrict the private speech of students even while they are at school than it does to curtail student expression that seems to speak for the school, making the school the endorser of the students message.

When the message is religious, and is attributed to the school system, that violates the First Amendments separation doctrine, the Court has said.

Read the rest here:
Constitution Check: Do students speak for themselves, or for the school?

The race for Clackamas County Commission chair is really turning into a mud fight. Instead of debating the issues, giving logical answers that will help the people of Clackamas County, the supporters and/or the fringe groups of the current county commissioners are engaging in tried-and-true Chicago-style politics: 1) campaign sign destruction; 2) unknown websites calling candidates names.

We have all heard the stories of conservative signs disappearing throughout the county, most recently in the Oak Grove-Milwaukie area. Radio talk show hosts have been highlighting the double standard of the liberal and conservative perspectives on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

Liberals most often believe freedom of speech applies when it supports their viewpoint but if it supports a conservative, there is a backlash against them. President Obama said back in 2008 "if you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from." That is exactly what is happening in the race for Clackamas County chair. Scoundrels or vandals have been lurking around the area looking to do damage to conservative campaign signs. Some people are creating websites trying to scare voters away from conservatives and their positions by name-calling and or other disruptive behavior.

Recently, while traveling around the county and talking with candidates on the issues, people have approached me about the new "John Ludlow is a Bully" signs with a website that are popping up all around the county. I typed in the website and wanted to learn more about these comments. Upon reading through the website, it is full of name calling and unfounded claims against Mr. Ludlow. The most telling part of the site was at the end -- it does not accept comments to refute any of the claims made by the unknown author.

We are Americans and take our First Amendment very seriously and I stand up for it, but if you create an opinion site, you should take responsibility and be accountable for your words. I created my own blog to highlight and discuss the issues in the news from the federal, state and local levels; however, my blog is an opinion forum. I welcome comments and discussion if I get something wrong or misspeak; I will not hide behind a curtain and call candidates names. I will give reasons why I believe their policies are wrong.

We are better than this and that's why I support a change in course. I will not stand for reckless denial of free speech just because someone has a different point of view from you. Campaign-sign destruction cannot stand and I call for candidates to come out and stand on principles and denounce this type of behavior. We are not Chicago, we are Oregon, we reject partisan rhetoric and welcome discussion on the issues. We believe in the voice of the people and the freedom of speech of our citizens. Kevin Moss lives in Sandy and is vice chair of the 3rd Congressional District for the Oregon Republican Party.

Originally posted here:
Commentary: Free speech denied in race for Clackamas County chair

Rumors are swirling that the federal government is about to sue Google over claims that the company rigs its search results. Google has responded by invoking its right to free speech but not everyone is buying this.

Tim Wu, a prominent law professor at Columbia, is not convinced that Google is invoking its First Amendment rights in good faith. He suggests that Google and other big companies are cynically invoking constitutional freedoms as part of a corporate deregulation agenda.

Were living in a golden age of First Amendment opportunism, said Wu, speaking Friday at a Penn Law School conference titled The Evolving Internet.

In Wus view, search results are not really speech in the first space. Instead, he argues, Googles algorithms are closer to other automated communication tools like navigation devices or even car alarms.

Google, of course, doesnt share this view. The company prefers to be compared to a newspaper editor whose choice of what to put in the paper is an undisputed free speech right. In practical terms, this means Google should be able to favor its own restaurant reviews over competing services like Yelp.

So who is right? Most of us would agree with Wu that Googles search results fall somewhere in the middle of a communication continuum where the editor is on one end and the car alarm is on the other. The hard question is whether Google is far enough along the line to qualify for the First Amendment.

More broadly, this dilemma doesnt apply just to Google. In the age of the algorithm, other companies may also rush to protect computer-based communication. Should Amazon, for instance, be allowed to argue that its product recommendation are a form of free speech?

The point here is that the choice of whether or not to sue Google is part of a larger process in which the country must decide where free speech stops and legitimate regulation begins.

(Image bykentohvia Shutterstock)

More From paidContent.org

Originally posted here:
Is Google a free speech opportunist?

LONDON Americans often cite free speech when controversial statements offend certain groups of people, but what if you went to jail for making an ill-humored joke on Facebook? That's what happened to one British man recently, over his status update. But the case raises questions about free speech laws in the U.K.

Matthew Woods, 20, became one of the most hated people in the U.K. after posting an offensive status update on Facebook about an abducted 5-year-old girl. Woods "offensive" comments included sexually aggressive and suggestive references, which attracted a number of supportive and equally derogatory replies.

Woods was charged by British police under section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act 2003, which found that his message was "grossly offensive" or "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." He was arrested "for his own safety," reports The Guardian, following the comments posted on Facebook about 5-year-old April Jones, who was abducted close to her home in Machynlleth, Wales early this month.

The British media capitalized upon the conviction: Was Woods' comment truly "criminal?"

Free speech and social media's delicate dance

Despite being the closest ally to the United States on political, economic and defense matters, by comparison the U.K.'s free speech principles feel archaic and its laws stagnant in the digital age.

It was the same law that found Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, guilty of unlawfully sending a message that was also deemed "grossly offensive" or "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character," in 2010, after he tweeted that he would "[blow] the airport sky high!" after his flight was cancelled following poor weather at Robin Hood Airport, U.K.

Chambers' conviction was subsequently quashed on a second appeal at the U.K. High Court in London earlier this year. The judge in the Chambers' case noted in his ruling:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humor, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [the Communications Act]."

While U.S. prosecutors could have charged Chambers with terrorism offenses, U.K. prosecutors instead opted to charge him by the contents of his tweet, despite being arrested initially by British anti-terror police.

Read the original:
U.K. man jailed over Facebook status raises questions over free speech

Courts College says misunderstanding led to religious groups getting affiliate status.

An evangelical Christian club claims Snow College is unfairly giving "second tier" status to student groups that have a religious affiliation, constitutionally infringing on free speech and free association rights.

In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, the Solid Rock Christian Club alleges the designation deprives such groups from being able to reserve campus facilities without charge, to advertise events on campus and to receive funding from student fees. That allows the college to favor "the speech of popular groups and exclude unpopular ones," the club alleges.

The lawsuit names the college, top school officials, the schools board of trustees and the state Board of Regents as defendants.

Scott Wyatt, president of Snow College, said Tuesday the lawsuit may be a result of a misunderstanding. He said that after realizing the impact of the affiliate status on religious clubs, "we undid this." Wyatt, who said he just received a copy of the lawsuit and had not yet read it, said it is possible none of the clubs were aware of that course correction.

"The Solid Rock ministry is a very important organization for us," Wyatt said. "They serve a number of students and we value them highly and want to continue to be a support in every way we can of their mission and their goals. I think this lawsuit is largely a misunderstanding and am confident we will work it out in a good manner and everyone will be satisfied. I am just very confident in working through all this.

Solid Rock has operated on the Snow campus, located in Ephraim, for eight years. The complaint describes the club as committed to "exalting and glorifying Jesus Christ on campus" and encouraging students and faculty to believe in Jesus Christ. The club is associated with Tri Grace Ministries, which according to their web site, also is committed to "challenging the heretical doctrines of Mormonism and ... leading as many Mormons as possible into a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ."

With a brief exception during the 2010 school year, the club was able to use facilities without paying a community rental rate, the lawsuit states. It freely advertised activities and received student fee funding. During the 2010 school year, the college designated Solid Rock an "organization," with fewer privileges, but relented after student leaders of the group protested.

The club, one of about 32 at the college, now alleges that over the summer, college officials changed its policies regarding student groups and gave Solid Rock an "affiliate" rather than "club" status that deprived it of those benefits.

According to the current handbook, clubs must not be affiliated with any commercial or for-profit organization or religious institution. An official told the clubs advisor that "due to an internal audit, funding will not be allowed for religious organizations."

Read this article:
Christian club sues Snow College over alleged free speech issues

Conservative MP Dominic Raab talks to Mike Harris about civil liberties, free speech and how he wouldnt lose any sleep if the UKs communications data bill were canned

This is the first of a new Index Interviews series

LONDON, 16/10/2012 (INDEX). Dominic Raabs father fled Czechoslovakia just before the Second World War. The Conservative politician cites the fall of the Berlin Wall as one of his biggest political influences and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn as the writer whose life he most admires. In many ways, his style is from another generation of politicians; he shoots from the hip describing Vladimir Putin as a very Machiavellian, ruthless politician, he is unaccompanied by an aide, and, rarer still, he doesnt check his BlackBerry every five minutes.

Index is meeting Raab in a side room off Portcullis House, Parliaments new office block for members of Parliament (MPs) and their staff. On the agenda are free speech issues both in the UK and abroad from the Leveson Inquiry to the Kremlins suppression of Russian NGOs.

Lets start with an easy question: Does he believe the culture of offence has got worse? He does.

There is certainly much more legal restriction on what you can say. Weve seen it with the incitement to religious hatred debate, he says, the glorification of terrorism debate and the ASBOs (Antisocial Behaviour Orders) that originated under the last government. His concern is that these limitations are making society less open: Were narrowing the space where free speech and open debate takes place.

Raab defends preacher Philip Howard, who was banned from street preaching by Westminster Council in 2006:

I used to walk past him on Oxford Street with his microphone. The eccentricities of British life thrive on there being an open space where free expression can take place, and I dont think most people thought he was such a nuisance that he ought to have been banned from preaching. Were seeing the salami slicing of free speech.

The law I draw is the very clear one that John Stuart Mill drew, that you shouldnt be saying things which incite violence or disorder, or cause tangible concrete harm to other people. Mere offence or insults dont satisfy that test.

Raab is clear he thinks the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has over-prosecuted free speech cases in the past citing the Paul Chambers Twitter joke trial case: Aside from the free speech issue, what a waste of money!

Go here to see the original:
Index Interview: The salami slicing of free speech