Category Archives: Free Speech

It took guts for the New York Times to publish an op-ed by Tim Wu, the Columbia law professor who coined the phrase "network neutrality," arguing that the First Amendment doesn't protect the contents of the New York Times website. A significant amount of the content on the Times websitestock tickers, the "most e-mailed" list, various interactive featureswere generated not by human beings, but by computer programs. And, Wu argues, that has constitutional implications:

Protecting a computers "speech" is only indirectly related to the purposes of the First Amendment, which is intended to protect actual humans against the evil of state censorship. The First Amendment has wandered far from its purposes when it is recruited to protect commercial automatons from regulatory scrutiny.

OK, I fibbed. The target of Wu's op-ed was Google and Facebook, not the New York Times. But accepting Wu's audacious claim that computer-generated content doesn't deserve First Amendment protection endangers the free speech rights not only of the tech titans, but of every modern media outlet.

No one believes that the output of computer programs, as such, are protected by the First Amendment. It would be ridiculous, for example, to argue that the First Amendment barred the government from regulating a computer that controlled a nuclear power plant. But when a firm is in the business of providing information to the public, that information enjoys First Amendment protection regardless of whether the firm creates the information "by hand," or using a computer.

Wu's argument depends on drawing a sharp distinction between constitutionally protected human speech and computer speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. But closer examination demonstrates how nonsensical this distinction is. To make the point, we don't need to look any further than the grey lady herself.

Articles published by the New York Times are often composed using word processors, and pages in the print newspaper are laid out using page layout software. The nytimes.com website is sent to readers by a Web server (a computer program) and rendered by a Web browser (also a computer program).

Of course, Wu isn't talking about those programs. He means programs that are directly involved in the production or selection of content. But the New York Times website has plenty of examples of those too. The home page features an automated stock ticker. A box on the right-hand side of the page shows "most e-mailed" and "recommended for you" storiesalso generated automatically. The millions of ads the Times shows its readers every month are almost certainly chosen by computer algorithms.

In 2010, the Times produced an interactive feature called "You Fix the Budget." Users were invited to try to balance the US federal budget by choosing a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. A January feature, called "What Percent Are You?," invited readers to enter their household income in order to see how it compares with others in hundreds of metropolitan areas around the country. Features like this would be impossible to create "by hand."

On election night, the Times typically has an extensive section of its website featuring election results from around the country, complete with maps, charts, and poll results. These features are updated in real time, far too quickly for a human staff to keep them up to date.

The Times employs Nate Silver, a statistician who collects thousands of poll results and produces sophisticated mathematical models of election outcomes. These models are complex enough that his results could only be generated by a computer, and indeed even Silver himself can't always explain exactly why the model produces a particular outcome.

Read the original:
Do you lose free speech rights if you speak using a computer?

WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange has sought asylum in a country notorious for crackdowns on free speech. Brian Braiker reports.

Julian Assange has defied his bail conditions by taking refuge at the Ecuador embassy in London. (Reuters)

Julian Assange may not have had many options when he was considering where to seek asylum, but still, Ecuador is a far from obvious choice. He faces extradition to Sweden for questioning over alleged sex crimes after Britains top court said last week that it had rejected a legal request to reconsider his case.

Assange was on bail and living with friends before his extradition.

Assange interviewed the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, on the Russia Today TV channel last month. During their exchange, the Australian explained that he had been under house arrest in England for 500 days and elicited sympathy from the left-wing populist leader.

But Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is a counterintuitive refuge for the free-speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuadors justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Amnesty International.

Poorest record of free speech It is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has after Cuba the poorest record of free speech in the region and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research, said Jos Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watchs Americas division.

He pointed out that in April 2011 Ecuador expelled the US ambassador, Heather Hodges, over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption in the Ecuadorian police. Maybe Assange feels President Correa owes something to him.

Still, the fact remains that free-speech watchdogs are quick to tick off a laundry list of Ecuadors breaches. In a referendum held in May 2011, President Rafael Correa obtained a popular mandate for constitutional reforms that could significantly increase government powers to constrain the media and influence the appointment and dismissal of judges, Human Rights Watch wrote in its 2011 Ecuador report.

Go here to see the original:
Ecuador an odd choice for Assange

20-06-2012 14:42 Free speech zones, always controversial and vaguely Orwellian, have been dealt a blow by a federal judge, telling the University of Cincinnati that they must revise their policies of barring protestors from 99.9% of the campus grounds. Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks and John Iadarola discuss on TYT University. Do you think this could be the beginning of the end for these controversial free speech zones? Are Ana and John being too hard on the University? Or is the use of these zones as bad as they think? Let us know! And if you liked this video, "Like" it as well! 🙂 Subscribe to TYT U for more Submit a video to TYT U! We love hearing from students and faculty Follow us on twitter!!! TAGS: "free speech zones" "free speech" "orwellian" "free speech in america" "free country" "university of cincinnati" "cincinnati" "free speech ruling" "the young turks" "tyt university"

More:
"Free Speech Zones" SLAPPED Down at U Cincinnati - Video

21-06-2012 10:26 ... Simon Singh: The Fight for Freedom of Speech and Against Pseudoscience. Simon Singh is being interviewed by Julia Offe (GWUP) at the 6th World Skeptics Congress in Berlin 2012. Simon Singh talks about his fight for freedom of speech and against pseudoscience in the UK regarding the chiropractic lawsuit: In 2008, The Guardian published Singh's column "Beware the Spinal Trap", an article that was critical of the practice of chiropractic and which resulted in Singh being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA). When the case was first brought against him, The Guardian supported him and funded his legal advice, as well as offering to pay the BCA's legal costs in an out-of-court settlement if Singh chose to settle. Court case: In 2009, Mr Justice Eady ruled in a preliminary hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice that merely using the phrase "happily promotes bogus treatments" meant that Singh was stating, as a matter of fact (rather than as a matter of personal opinion or metaphor), that the British Chiropractic Association was being consciously dishonest in promoting chiropractic for treating the children's ailments in question. Singh denied he intended any such meaning. Singh decided to appeal the ruling, which raised substantially the potential financial liability that he would face if he lost the case. Leave to appeal was granted in October 2009. The pre-trial hearing took place in February 2010 before three senior judges at the Royal ...

See the rest here:
Simon Singh and the Fight for Free Speech - Video

Ecuador is an unlikely place for WikiLeaks mastermind and self-styled free speech activist Julian Assange to seek asylum, given its long history of repression, corruption and human rights violations.

The South American nation is set to decide whether to grant the request to Assange, who has been holed up in its embassy in London since Tuesday. Assange faces extradition back to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning over alleged sexual assaults on two women. But turning to Ecuador for help is a curious choice, according to experts familiar with the nation's history and current regime of Rafael Correa.

"For someone like Julian Assange, it is a remarkably cynical and hypocritical move to make," said Arch Puddington, vice president of research at Freedom House, a New York-based human rights advocacy group. "I don't think he would find life in Ecuador very comfortable. It's a country that does not value freedom of the press or freedom of expression.

"He certainly would be unable to continue his work on WikiLeaks," Puddington added.

Human Rights Watch says Correa has continued a longstanding policy of not allowing dissent.

"Ecuadors laws restrict freedom of expression, and government officials, including Correa, use these laws against his critics," the world watchdog says. "Those involved in protests marred by violence may be prosecuted on inflated and inappropriate terrorism charges.

The Ecuadorean government has an insult law in place known as Descato, which historically has criminalized free speech and expression. Under Descato, which is part of the Ecuadorian Criminal Code, any person who offends the president could be sentenced up to two years in prison and up to three months for offending any government official.

Police corruption and abuses are widespread across the country and murder cases involving criminal gangs never go to trial as they are often attributed to a settling of accounts, according to critics.

Assange told Australian Broadcasting Corp radio via phone that he decided to turn to Ecuador after his native Australia refused to intervene in his planned extradition from Britain to Sweden.

He said Wikileaks had "heard that the Ecuadorians were sympathetic in relation to my struggles and the struggles of the organization with the United States."

See the article here:
Repressive Ecuador odd pick for WikiLeaks' Assange- OPINION: Hypocrisy of Assange, free speech crusader

By an 8-0 vote, the Supreme Court today threw out fines the Federal Communications Commission filed against Fox and ABC.

The court did not address whether the FCC rules violated anyone's First Amendment right to free speech. Instead, the justices ruled that the FCC "failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent."

The justices added that their ruling "leaves the Commission free to modify its current indecency policy in light of its determination of the public interest."

The Associated Press sums up the news this way:

"The justices declined on Thursday to issue a broad ruling on the constitutionality of the FCC indecency policy. Instead, the court concluded only that broadcasters could not have known in advance that obscenities uttered during awards show programs and a brief display of nudity on an episode of ABC television's NYPD Blue could give rise to sanctions."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not take part in the ruling.

Correction at 5:18 p.m. ET. An earlier version of this post incorrectly said the Supreme Court had struck down FCC rules that govern indecency. The Supreme Court did not go that far in its ruling. Instead it decided only to throw out the fines assessed against Fox and ABC.

Read more from the original source:
Supreme Court Strikes Indecency Rules, Doesn't Address Free Speech Issue

A day after Google announced a 49 percent increase in censorship requests from India, an Indian member of parliament spoke out against the country's moves to police the web in an interview with the Wall Street Journal's "India Real Time" blog.

As mentioned in GlobalPost's report on the so-called "Internet Hindus" earlier this week, in April last year India framednew rules for implementing the 2000 Information Technology Act, which required companies like Google and Facebook toremove any content which could be deemed offensive or objectionable within 36 hours of receiving a complaint.

Dangerous?

"The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) rules that are being proposed, represent a serious risk to our democracy and they could be seen as legal intimidation of citizens and entrepreneurs by the government, established political and business interests and religious and cultural bigots," Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an independent member of parliament, told the Journal. "They also violate the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression of the Internet users in the country, by providing for a system of censorship or self-censorship by private parties."

According to Chandrasekhar, the risk is that either the government or internet companies will be too zealous in censoring political speech, just because a particular group doesn't like it, rather than because it meets any legal definition of defamation or hate speech. When, for instance, should the government step in to censor so-called "blasphem?"

"India has a due process of law," Chandrasekhar says. "With a legislation like the Information Technology Act that explicitly provides for actions for defamation and obscenity, the courts or tribunals should decide who is right or wrong and not a bureaucrat or politician. Most of the categories specified under the rules are ambiguous and undefined. For example, grossly harmful is not defined."

Unfortunately, despite a robust legal system, India's political structure has never really separated church and state. Instead, the idea of secularism developed by Jawarlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, endeavors to protect and propogate India's various religions, going as far as to enshrine different laws for people born into different faiths.

And that will make dealing with a sticky subject like blasphemy very politically incorrect -- whether the gods in question are Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/india/india-assault-free-speech

Read more:
India: the dangers of an assault on free speech

The residents of Middleborough, Mass., have had enough. In a state with a storied history of Puritan-inspired prohibitions, they voted 183-50 in a town meeting last week to approve a proposal that would, among other things, impose a $20 fine on public profanity, First Amendment be damned.

In a town of roughly 20,000 people best known for its cranberry bogs, profanity was just one of several practices addressed in the recently passed bylaw.

This proposal toes an uncomfortable line, as do most attempts to restrict speech of any kind in public. Even if the goal is to foster respect among residents, its not the best idea to let officers start ticketing vulgar language they hear in public spaces like parks or downtown. In fact, its not even clear where the line is and just what, exactly, the officers would be ticketing. As a local sergeant recently told the Boston Globe: I think we all know, in our minds, what is inappropriate. Do we? And is that really something thats best for police to decide?

Its easy to sympathize with Middleborough residents who dont want to live in a perpetual rap song and encounter profanity everywhere they go. Its also easy to see why the towns Board of Selectmen would want to make their community a kinder, more genial place. Still, there are arguably bigger risks in imposing a law. If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected. As it stands, the First Amendment protects profanity unless its coupled with true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

If not, as former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote in the courts Cohen v. California opinion: One mans vulgarity is another mans lyric.

Another mans lyric shouldnt have to cost him $20.

Read the original:
Free speech be damned

Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks

by Horace Cooper

Summary

Labor unions are notorious for coercive, strong-arm tactics. They have a sordid history of intimidating workers to join a union and stifling members and non-members who oppose that union's agenda. The facts in Knox v. SEIU show that California's public employees' union is no exception to this general rule, resorting to trickery and gimmicks in order to suppress the First Amendment free speech rights of 28,000 non-union workers.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide whether California's Service Employees International Union ("SEIU") -- or any other union -- may temporarily hike union dues or issue special short-term assessments for political advocacy without formally notifying employees. In Knox v. SEIU, the Court will decide whether a State or its union may require a special union assessment intended solely for political campaigning purposes without giving formal notice, or providing employees with an opportunity to opt out of those assessments.

Under California law, California's non-union employees must pay compulsory "fair share fees" to the SEIU as a condition of their employment in order to defray the union's collective bargaining expenses.1 But the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has recognized that every state and local employee is entitled to object to compulsory dues being used for political advocacy that is unrelated to collective bargaining, and as such, a notice advising employees of the union's expenses, as well as the fees and dues it plans to collect, is required.

In June 2005, the SEIU sent its annual notice laying out the union's finances and giving non-union employees thirty days to object to the fair share fee. After the thirty days had expired, the SEIU announced that a new, undisclosed fee would be assessed to fund the "Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund." According to the union, the money was slated for a variety of political advertisements and campaigns, including four California ballot initiatives aimed at reining-in the power of public sector unions -- not exactly geared to collective bargaining. The compulsory "Fight-Back Fund" fee, employees would later learn, amounted to a 25%-33% increase over the paycheck deductions that had been announced in June -- and this time, no one was able to object or opt-out.

In other words, the union forced workers to pay for "short term or interim assessment hikes" in order to fund left-wing initiatives and political activities that had absolutely nothing to do with bargaining for better benefits and wages.

Here is the original post:
Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks in Knox v. SEIU

We worry about rising crime, the shocking standards in education and public safety, increased cost of living, but now we face the new fear: words.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

In the history of early Malacca, Indian traders introduced the bullock-cart or kereta-lembu, which became the main mode of transport. Those who could afford bullock-carts had some form of identification tag, much like our modern-day registration plates.

During a recent excavation near the Malacca River, archaeologists unearthed Ming pottery, several timber structures and gold. Much of the wood had been preserved by layers of sediment, soft silt and compacted clay. These timber structures were believed to be the remnants of bullock-carts of early Malacca.

The most valuable find was a rectangular gold shield with the inscription which looked curiously like LLL1.

Some speculate that LLL1 could mean Lembu Lari Laju. The remains of the cart are of course priceless, but the gold has retained its intrinsic value. If modern cars are found in a future archaeological site, their plastic number plates will be worth nothing and the cars would have rusted away.

The Sultan of Johor, who paid RM520,000 for a number plate, was enraged when former Perak menteri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, suggested ways in which a similar amount of money could benefit the poor.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Read the rest here:
Free speech sends shivers down our spines