Category Archives: Free Speech

Court Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.

A group attempting to get an employee-verification measure on Utahs Nov. 6 ballot lost its lawsuit Friday after a judge ruled that new state requirements for qualifying an initiative doesnt infringe upon free speech rights.

"The laws do not limit the ability of citizens to raise issues and initiate political discussions," 3rd District Court Judge Randall Skanchy wrote in his ruling.

The case centered around former Republican Congressman Merrill Cooks attempt to qualify a ballot measure for November that would require the state to adopt a tough E-Verify law in an attempt to halt the hiring of illegal immigrants for work in Utah.

Utah currently has an E-Verify law on the books, but it has no penalties. Cooks measure is similar to Arizonas E-Verify law, where business licenses could be revoked if employers are caught hiring people not authorized to work in the United States.

Cook argued in court that a law signed by Gov. Gary Herbert in 2011 restricts free speech because it significantly curbed the ability of volunteers to gather enough signatures to qualify initiatives for the ballot.

To get a measure on the ballot under the new law, signatures must be gathered within 316 days and their number must equal at least 10 percent of the votes cast for president. Before, it was 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election and the time frame to collect signatures could extend out to as long as three years.

Cook said the new law, SB165, was a "cynical ploy" by the Legislature to quash ballot initiatives especially E-Verify. The Legislature had a tough E-Verify bill introduced in the past session, but it died in committee.

In response to Skanchys ruling, Cook said the judge didnt understand the relationship between the petition process and free speech.

"Hes accepted a very narrow definition of free speech," said Cook, who contends that free speech on an issue means being able to sign a petition and vote on it, not just talk about it.

Read more here:
Court » Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.

Court Ruling says requirements do not infringe on free speech.

A group attempting to get an employee-verification measure on Utahs Nov. 6 ballot lost its lawsuit Friday after a judge ruled that new state requirements for qualifying an initiative doesnt infringe upon free speech rights.

"The laws do not limit the ability of citizens to raise issues and initiate political discussions," 3rd District Court Judge Randall Skanchy wrote in his ruling.

The case centered around former Republican Congressman Merrill Cooks attempt to qualify a ballot measure for November that would require the state to adopt a tough E-Verify law in an attempt to halt the hiring of illegal immigrants for work in Utah.

Utah currently has an E-Verify law on the books, but it has no penalties. Cooks measure is similar to Arizonas E-Verify law, where business licenses could be revoked if employers are caught hiring people not authorized to work in the United States.

Cook argued in court that a law signed by Gov. Gary Herbert in 2011 restricts free speech because it significantly curbed the ability of volunteers to gather enough signatures to qualify initiatives for the ballot.

To get a measure on the ballot under the new law, signatures must be gathered within 316 days and their number must equal at least 10 percent of the votes cast for president. Before, it was 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election and the time frame to collect signatures could extend out to as long as three years.

Cook said the new law, SB165, was a "cynical ploy" by the Legislature to quash ballot initiatives especially E-Verify. The Legislature had a tough E-Verify bill introduced in the past session, but it died in committee.

In response to Skanchys ruling, Cook said the judge didnt understand the relationship between the petition process and free speech.

"Hes accepted a very narrow definition of free speech," said Cook, who contends that free speech on an issue means being able to sign a petition and vote on it, not just talk about it.

View original post here:
Judge rules against foes of Utah’s initiative law

Secularists, Christians and a gay rights campaigner have struck up an unlikely alliance in support of free speech.

Veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was joined outside the Houses of Parliament this morning by The Christian Institute's Simon Calvert and Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society.

They were calling for reform of Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which outlaws "insulting words or behaviour".

The campaigners argue that Section 5 dangerously restricts freedom of speech and want to see the word "insulting" removed.

Tatchell was arrested under Section 5 whilst protesting against Iran's treatment of homosexuals.

The campaigners carried placards saying "do you know your horse is --- " in reference to an Oxford student who was arrested under Section 5 when he said to a policeman, "Excuse me, do you know your horse is gay?" Police accused the student of homophobia but he was later released after prosecutors abandoned the case.

Christians have also been affected by Section 5. Police officers warned Jamie Murray that the display of passages from the New Testament in his Christian cafe could be in breach of Section 5.

Christian hotel owners, Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, were charged under Section 5 after a row with a Muslim guest over breakfast. Their case was eventually thrown out by a district judge but the high profile court case had a "devastating" impact on their business, which subsequently suffered an 80 per cent drop in income.

The campaign has gained cross-party support and is being led in Parliament by David Davis MP.

The Home Office is due to report on its consultation into Section 5.

Read more from the original source:
Christians join free speech protest

Senate President Juan Ponce Enriles proposal for a law on blogging in the Philippines may curtail free speech in the country, a congressman representing the youth sector in the House of the Representatives said Thursday.

Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino described as alarming Enriles suggestion to enact a law that will regulate Filipino bloggers and specify their rights.

Blogs have been one of the freest avenues for opinions and discussion, and we fear that we might lose this freedom if a law is passed to regulate it, Palatino said in a statement.

He added that a bill on blogging may run counter to Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution which states that, No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Continue reading here:
Enrile's proposal for blogging law may curtail free speech - youth solon

28-08-2012 16:48 Talk Radio News Services teams up with Free Speech TV to cover the first few days of the RNC in Tampa.

More here:
Republican National Convention Day One and Two - Video

28-08-2012 11:00 So, next time you're in a job interview - and you get to the end of it, and the interviewer asks if you have any questions for him or her about the company - here's what you should probably think about asking: "What are your company's politics?" That might sound like an odd question - and maybe not the sort of impression you want to make in a job interview - but it could save you a lot of problems farther down the road. That's because - according to a group of commissioners on the Federal Election Commission - corporations - your employers - can force you to campaign for certain politicians - whether you like it or not. They can even fire you if you choose not to. In other words - a corporation can force you to spend your day phone-banking for - say, Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin. Or canvassing around the neighborhood for...I don't know...Michele Bachmann. Or standing on the side of the street with a sign telling people to vote for David Duke! Now I know this sounds crazy. Don't we as employees have a right to be free from coercion in the workplace - especially when that coercion pertains to our personally held political beliefs? You would think so - but not anymore in this post-Citizens United world. Now - the rights of corporations - like the right to use their employees as cogs in their corporate political speech machine - trump your rights as an individual in the workplace - a corporations right to free speech has become more important than your right to free ...

Excerpt from:
Your Boss Can Tell You To Campaign for Todd Akin - or You're Fired! - Video

28-08-2012 11:33 Free Speech TV interviews Richard Wolff, Economics Professor at New School University and author of 'Capitalism Hits the Fan' and 'Occupy the Economy during the RNC.

Read more:
FSTV Skype w/ Richard Wolff - Video

COMMENTARY | Paul Ryan kept up the false narrative built up around the Chick-fil-A controversy in a word association game with CBS affiliate WDBJ in Roanoke, Va., on Wednesday, telling a reporter that the first thing that came to mind when someone said "Chick-fil-A" was "good chicken," quickly followed by "free speech."

"Good chicken," Ryan said, laughing. "Good chicken. Free people exercising their free speech rights."

The second part -- that of "free speech rights" -- of the Republican vice presidential nominee's answer is as misleading as the entire narrative has been since former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee began crusading for a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" and insisting Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy had every right to say what he said, even in the implication that same-sex unions were against biblical doctrine and legalizing them would be courting divine disfavor.

Huckabee and others began repositioning Cathy's words as a "freedom of expression" issue, that gay rights advocates, liberals, and same-sex marriage proponents were attempting to take away or abridge Cathy's right to speak freely. Although factually untrue, the result was a national crusade to support Chick-fil-A and free speech. Conservatives like Mitt Romney and his wife to Sarah Palin and her husband got in on being photographed with bags of Chick-fil-A product in their hands on "Appreciation Day."

But the disconnect between reality and political spin has been rarely touched upon. The reality has always been that Cathy was -- and continues -- advocating against same-sex marriage, a policy that is discriminatory no matter how you look at it. Supporting one's argument with religion does not make it less discriminatory; it makes it religion-based discrimination.

In short, nobody attempted to divest Dan Cathy of his constitutional right to free speech. Various individuals, groups, and factions condemned his words and the way he couched his comments, but there was no mention of abridging his right to voice his opinion on the topic of same-sex marriage.

In short, "Appreciation Day" was built on a false narrative, just as the move to support Cathy's right to speak freely has been.

The one thing the Chick-fil-A controversy is not about is freedom of speech. It never was, no matter what Mike Huckabee and Paul Ryan and other politicians (and/or former politicians) say. It is about discrimination and whether or not it will be allowed. It is about thinly masked homophobic antagonisms and the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry same-sex partners.

The Chick-fil-A president implied that same-sex marriages should not be legally permitted because his interpretation of biblical scripture says so. And he has a right to his opinion, not to mention the right to voice it publicly. His right to do so is in no way infringed by others voicing a countervailing opinion.

His opinion, regardless of its base, is discriminatory in and of itself.

Excerpt from:
Paul Ryan Continues False Chick-fil-A Narrative

A reader says, "Bring back Free Speech." I'll meet you halfway: Online, and y'all run it.

Here's the deal: Print version of "Free Speech" is gone, too expensive, never enough space.

But online is another ballgame. Forget that every comment, every forum posted on this site is an example of "Free Speech."

I get it: You want a section called "Free Speech."

So here's what we'll do Every Monday, we'll create a story with the title of "Free Speech Week of ####."

We'll kick it off with a paragraph or three about local events/issues, and then you take it from there. Consider the page a jumping off point.

Using the "comment" function, registered users can post to their hearts' content under a weekly section known as "Free Speech."

A new "page" will be up every Monday, but you can continue to access the old ones by searching for "Free Speech."

To get to the page easily, we'll post the title "Free Speech Week of ###" in the upper right-hand box on the front page online. That's the box marked "Your Say."

Terms of Use rules still apply, but you can get on topic or post off-topic. It's your page.

See the original post:
FREE SPEECH — Week of Aug. 27

April Flowers for redOrbit.com Your Universe Online

A divided U.S. Federal Court of Appeals invalidated a government mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking. The majority opinion stated that the requirements were a violation of free speech.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, would have required nine written warnings such as Cigarettes are addictive and Tobacco smoke causes harm to children on the packages, along with alternating images of a corpse and smoke-infected lungs. Other images required would have been a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole, a diseased mouth, and smoke coming from a child being kissed by her mother.

These written and graphic warning labels were scheduled to begin appearing next month. They would have covered half the cigarette packaging sold at retail outlets and 20% of all cigarette advertizing.

Tobacco giant, R.J. Reynolds, along with others such as Lorillard, brought the suit, saying that the warning would be cost-prohibitive. They also asserted the graphic images would dominate the packaging and damage the promotion of their brands. The relevant legal question was whether the new labeling was purely factual and accurate in nature or was designed to discourage use of the product.

The tobacco companies won in federal court in March, but the government appealed. The 2-1 split U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has now upheld that ruling and the Food and Drug Administration was ordered to immediately revise its rules.

The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal, wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown. FDA failed to present any data much less the substantial evidence required under the federal law showing that enacting their proposed graphic warnings will accomplish the agencys stated objective of reducing smoking rates. The rule thus cannot pass muster under past court precedent.

Judge Brown and Judge A. Raymond Randolph rejected the FDAs claim that it had a governmental interest in effectively communicating health information regarding the negative effects of cigarettes.

The governments attempt to reformulate its interest as purely informational is unconvincing, as an interest in effective communication is too vague to stand on its own, said Brown. Indeed, the governments chosen buzzwords, which it reiterates through the rulemaking, prompt an obvious question: effective in what sense?

The majority opinion said the case raised novel questions about the scope of the governments authority to force the manufacturer of a product to go beyond making purely factual and accurate commercial disclosures and undermine its own economic interest [...] by making every single pack of cigarettes in the country a mini billboard for the governments anti-smoking message.

Read the rest here:
Appeals Court: FDA Tobacco Warning Label Law Violates Free Speech