Category Archives: Free Speech

Tripoli The Libyan Supreme Court's decision on June 14, 2012, that declared unconstitutional a law that criminalized a variety of political speech is a landmark decision. The court ruled that Law 37/2012 was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

"Today, the Supreme Court of Libya has shown what freedom means," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "By declaring this law unconstitutional, it has affirmed free speech for the Libyan people, even for critical and controversial views."

This is the first judicial review of a law issued by the National Transitional Council (NTC), which has been governing Libya since Muammar Gaddafi's fall in 2011. A group of Libyan lawyers challenged the law under the interim constitutional covenant, as well as international law. The presiding Judge, Kamal Edhan, declared the law unconstitutional, but added that the decision did not affect other pre-existing restrictions on speech, such as insulting Islam.

Law 37, which the NTC passed on May 2, criminalized a variety of types of political speech, including speech that "glorifies the tyrant [Muammar Gaddafi]," did "damage [to] the February 17 Revolution," or insulted Libya's institutions. Human Rights Watch had criticized the law as a violation of freedom of expression and called on the NTC to revoke it.

Human Rights Watch urged the NTC and any incoming new government to abolish all laws in Libya that restrict free expression in violation of international law.

Copyright 2012 Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.

Go here to read the rest:
Libya: Law Restricting Speech Ruled Unconstitutional

15-06-2012 09:05 Says Obama administration wants to radically change the nature of free speech in the US, and warns that they will attempt to intimidate and harass critics into silence

See the article here:
Sen. Mitch McConnell on 1st Amendment, campaign finance,

CHEYENNE Attorneys for three Wyoming residents who formed a grassroots organization called Free Speech filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Federal Election Commission rules. Attorneys for Free Speech and the Wyoming Liberty Group claim the FEC rules, which may require grassroots groups like Free Speech to register as political action committees, are vague and overly broad. The lawsuit, filed in the court of federal District Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper, seeks an injunction against the FEC to bar it from enforcing the rules and a declaratory judgment that the commissions definition of express advocacy is unconstitutional. Free Speech members want to spend about $2,000 on advertising to express their opinions on Wyoming issues, not to advocate for candidates, said Stephen Klein, attorney for the Wyoming Liberty Group. The problem is the three Wyoming residents and the FEC dont know whether Free Speech must register as a political action committee, Klein and Free Speech attorney Jack Speight said Thursday. The organization in February sought an advisory opinion from the FEC to be sure its program would be consistent with the law. Ultimately, the FEC provided three contradictory draft advisory opinions, the lawsuit said. If the group does not register as a political action committee and then runs ads, it could be deemed in violation of the rules and subject to civil and criminal penalties. The three board members of Free Speech listed in the lawsuit are Max Douglas Watford Jr. and Robert T. Brinkmann, both of Cheyenne and Charles Curley of Thermopolis. Their Free Speech group formed in February as an unincorporated, nonprofit association under Wyoming law and registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a 527 group. Free Speech is interested in gun, environmental, and farming and ranching issues, Speight said. The groups by-laws require that it operate independently of political candidates, committees and political parties, the lawsuit said. Two separate federal circuit courts have ruled against the FEC in similar lawsuits while a third upheld the FEC. This is the first time the FEC rules have been challenged in a court in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This law is so vague nobody can follow it, so vague the government can arbitrarily enforce it, Klein said. There needs to be a bright line between regulating candidate advocacy and regulating issue advocacy.

CHEYENNE Attorneys for three Wyoming residents who formed a grassroots organization called Free Speech filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday challenging Federal Election Commission rules.

Attorneys for Free Speech and the Wyoming Liberty Group claim the FEC rules, which may require grassroots groups like Free Speech to register as political action committees, are vague and overly broad.

The lawsuit, filed in the court of federal District Judge Scott Skavdahl in Casper, seeks an injunction against the FEC to bar it from enforcing the rules and a declaratory judgment that the commissions definition of express advocacy is unconstitutional.

Free Speech members want to spend about $2,000 on advertising to express their opinions on Wyoming issues, not to advocate for candidates, said Stephen Klein, attorney for the Wyoming Liberty Group.

The problem is the three Wyoming residents and the FEC dont know whether Free Speech must register as a political action committee, Klein and Free Speech attorney Jack Speight said Thursday.

The organization in February sought an advisory opinion from the FEC to be sure its program would be consistent with the law.

Ultimately, the FEC provided three contradictory draft advisory opinions, the lawsuit said.

If the group does not register as a political action committee and then runs ads, it could be deemed in violation of the rules and subject to civil and criminal penalties.

The three board members of Free Speech listed in the lawsuit are Max Douglas Watford Jr. and Robert T. Brinkmann, both of Cheyenne and Charles Curley of Thermopolis.

Read more from the original source:
Wyoming lawsuit challenges FEC regulations

LOS ANGELES, June 14, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --For most people when they click the "like" button on a Facebook page they don't think twice about whether that could affect their job. But, as social media rises in popularity and becomes more of a fixture in our everyday lives, consumers will have to start considering how their actions on social media sites could affect their 'offline' lives, reports Los Angeles employment lawyer Eric Grover of Keller Grover LLP.

The question about Facebook "liking" is now showing up in courtrooms across the country as judges are trying to determine whether First Amendment rights protect employees in the social networking world.

According to a recent decision by a Virginia district court judge, a Facebook "like" is not constitutionally protected free speech.The case looked at whether Sheriff B. J. Roberts of Hampton was entitled to fire six employees, because their actions on the social media site allegedly "hindered the harmony and efficiency of the office." The terminated employees had all clicked the "like" button on the page of the sheriff's political opponent, Jim Adams, in a 2009 re-election bid which Roberts won, the New York Times reports.

The terminated employees subsequently sued after they were fired, claiming that their First Amendment rights were violated. But Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the Federal District Court determined that simply clicking Facebook's thumbs up button did not constitute expressive speech. The judge clarified the point by indicating that if the employees had written out a message and posted it on the site, it would then be covered under their First Amendment rights.

The crux of this employment lawsuit ultimately hinges on whether a "like" qualifies as protected speech. Typically the court would have to determine what role an employee's statements played in their termination and whether there were other sufficient grounds for termination, such as insubordination or incompetence.That said if the speech was not protected then it cannot be a factor in determining whether the termination was legitimate.

The terminated employees allege that their expression of support for the sheriff's opponent was a protected political statement and that the "thumbs up" icon for a Facebook "like" is no different that an actual thumbs up, which is a legitimate expression of an opinion, hence protected.

"The laws regarding the limits of free speech in the new world of social media are just starting to develop," noted Bay Area employment lawyer Eric Grover."Until clearer standards evolve, both employers and employees need to be careful about what they say or do on social media outlets."

The ruling is expected to be appealed and potentially may even reach the Supreme Court.

To bookmark this article please click here: Facebook 'Like' Isn't Protected Speech Reports Los Angeles Employment Lawyer.

See the article here:
Facebook 'Like' Isn't Protected Speech Notes Los Angeles Employment Lawyer

A Florida animal rights activist is arguing that discussions of graphic violence against a Wayne State University animal researcher are federally protected free speech and not stalking.

Outside her preliminary examination Thursday in Detroit's 36th District Court, Camille Marino, 47, said she never intended to act on the violence she wrote about in an Oct. 22, 2011, e-mail to Dr. Donal O'Leary. The physiologist is in charge of cardiovascular research at Wayne State's medical school and conducts research on dogs and rats.

"I'm not a violent person," said Marino, accompanied by two women wearing T-shirts with the words "Wayne State murders and tortures dogs" on the back.

Her defense attorney, Matt Savich, said Marino's actions are free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Marino is charged with aggravated stalking and unlawful posting of messages online, both five-year felonies, and trespassing. She was arrested May 2 after she chained herself to the doors of Wayne State's undergraduate library, surrounded by posters about O'Leary.

The preliminary examination, in front of Judge E. Lynise Bryant-Weekes, was continued until July 13 to give prosecutors time to respond to the constitutional argument.

O'Leary said Marino's words frightened him and his family. Calling the e-mail a "demented missive," O'Leary read parts of it in court, starting with the title "Welcome to Your Nightmare," and a reference to Freddy Krueger, a movie character that stalks and kills.

The e-mail included threats to strap O'Leary down and cut off his limbs with rusty saws, rip his teeth out one-by-one with pliers and pound them into his skull, crack his testicles "like walnuts" and feed his limbless body to starving dogs.

"I felt they were clearly from a disturbed individual that was threatening me personally, threatening my children, threatening my home, threatening my colleagues and my students," O'Leary said.

O'Leary testified that he and his neighbors received postcards with a picture of him and the words "I torture animals." He said he saw his name, picture and threats on Marino's Facebook page more than 20 times -- as recently as three days ago.

Here is the original post:
Florida animal rights activist says talk of violence against Wayne State University professor is free speech

PARSIPPANY Wasim Khan, a frequent Democratic candidate in Republican Morris County, hasnt won any elections, but Wednesday he scored a big victory in the state Supreme Court.

The court ruled 5-1 that the homeowners association at his Parsippany townhouse complex violated his free-speech rights when it ordered him to remove campaign signs from his window and door during his run for township council in 2005.

"Its a great victory for free speech," Khan said. "Im so proud of our Supreme Court and our state. Its incredible."

"Ideas cannot be fleshed out unless people have fearlessness that what they do will not have any repercussion," said Khan, 56, a physician who works in cancer research as a consultant to pharmaceutical companies.

The Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners Association ordered Khan to remove his signs, telling him the complexs rules allowed only "for sale" signs to be posted, according to court documents.

A judge in Superior Court found that the sign prohibition did not violate Khans free-speech rights, but Khan appealed. An appellate court ruled in his favor and yesterdays ruling upheld the appeals courts decision.

"Balancing the minimal interference with Mazdabrooks private property interest against Khans free-speech right to post political signs on his own property, we conclude that the sign policy in question violates the free-speech clause of the State Constitution," the court ruled.

The court noted the U.S. Supreme Court has called residential signs "a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important" and that has "played an important part in political campaigns."

Frank Askin, director of the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic, who filed a brief supporting Khan on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision "a fantastic free-speech victory for the million-plus residents" who live in condominium or townhouse complexes governed by associations.

"Almost all of these associations have regulations banning signs," Askin said, "Its a very important decision."

See the original post:
N.J. Supreme Court: Homeowners group can't order resident to remove political signs

Forest Thomer walked up to a small group of people at a May 23 Party in the Park event, pointed to a slight, wheelchair-bound woman next to him and asked, Do you want to laugh at the crippled girl?

The politically incorrect question wasnt intended to demean Ally Bruener and her battle with congenital muscular dystrophy but rather to promote her next gig as a comedian. After Thomer asked the question, Bruener wheeled her chair up to the group, told them a joke and where she next was performing.

Thomers guerrilla marketing, though, erupted into such a to do that he was arrested by Cincinnati police and charged with disorderly conduct, punishable by up to 30 days in jail. Now, Thomer (pronounced Toe-mer) and Bruener insist they are in a free speech fight.

The police are trying to censor us. Theyre trying to tell us how we can or cant promote my comedy, Bruener said from her Alexandria home.

I dont know when it became a bad thing for just saying words, said Thomer, 25, of Cold Spring.

Bruener, 23, wants to break down the stigma the word cripple connotes and engage those who think because her body confines her to a wheelchair shes mentally deficient.

They assume I have no common sense, she said. Theres a lot of harsh stereotypes against people with disabilities.

After graduating from Campbell County High, Bruener received an academic scholarship to the University of Louisville. She dropped out seeking a career in comedy. Shes appeared in several clubs and comedy events in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana, making her disability part of her act.

I want to open the door to the conversation, Bruener said. People dont expect the crippled girl to talk about it. When I bring it to light, it makes me more comfortable.

Her self-mocking website is replete with references to and jokes about muscular dystrophy, a degenerative disease that usually affects voluntary muscles, and her life in a wheelchair.

Read the original here:
'Crippled girl' gag: Crime or free speech issue?

Such a town, as much a resort as a port city, should have collapsed instantaneously before the IWW onslaught, writes historian Kevin Starr, yet San Diego escalated the conflict.

By the end of February 1912, police had arrested so many protestors in the free-speech fight, the city and county jails were overloaded. Sheriff Jennings ordered Dr. D.B. Northrup to inspect both lockups. You have 154 men confined where you have accommodations for only 76, Northrup reported. Conditions are unsanitary. There is much sickness and liability of a severe epidemic at any time.

Each prisoner demanded a separate trial. Never before, wrote the Sun, were so manyon trial at one time in San Diego. The small, poorly ventilated courtroom required extra benches and became almost as crammed as the jail. When the bailiff called a name at the initial hearings, the prisoner answered, There!

But few could hear the reply, or the proceedings. The jail was next door to the courtroom, and Wobblies, singing at the top of their lungs, drowned everything out. The big noise irritated police so much, one threatened a cold bath: turn a fire hose on the vocalists.

Solidarity wasnt 100 percent. After two weeks of shoulder-to-shoulder confinement, a toilet in near-constant use, and rancid food twice a day, Oscar Erickson and Chris Tone wanted out. In exchange for freedom, they promised to quit the IWW and find work as mechanics.

The Wobblies strategy of flooding the jails and courts worked so well, police demanded an open-air stockade at Grape Street to handle the overflow.

And more possibly thousands more were on the way. Vincent St. John, highest ranking officer of the IWW, sent San Diego mayor James E. Wadham a letter from Chicago: The fight will be continued until free speech is established in San Diego, if it takes 20,000 members and 20 years.

The major appealed to governor Hiram Johnson for state troops. But Johnson, whose progressive views cost him the San Diego vote, said that since the city had created the problem, it could damn well get itself out.

A possible sign of things to come: on February 26, the Free Speech League held a parade of protest. People from all walks of life marched five abreast through downtown. The parade was two miles long.

Shortly after, urged on by the city council and businessmen, district attorney H.S. Utley proposed a compromise: if the IWW stopped soap-boxing, the prisoners could go free. Ernest Kirk, legal counsel for protestors, favored the proposal. On February 28, he recommended it to the IWW. But they voted him down.

Read more from the original source:
Free-speech protesters got the fire hose.

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear oral arguments in the so-called "candy cane" case.

Shutterstock

Enlarge photo

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear oral arguments in the so-called "candy cane" case, clearing two Texas school principals of claims they restricted the free speech of students who wanted to distribute religious-themed gifts.

We are disappointed The Supreme Court denied review of this case, said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation of the Liberty Institute, which has represented the parents and students in the case. We were hoping to finally put this issue to rest: that government school officials should be held accountable when they violate the law and students First Amendment rights. No student should be subjected to religious discrimination by the government.

Meanwhile, attorneys for the principals being sued said the ruling shows the case is not about First Amendment rights.

"There have been a number of people and organizations who have characterized this as a seminal First Amendment decision," said attorney Tom Brandt. "However, as the court has shown us in today's decision, the core legal question was not about freedom of expression, but about the necessary protections for two outstanding educators."

While the immunity issue is closed, other parts of the case are still to be decided at the appellate and district court levels. A majority of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the principals went too far and may have violated the children's free-speech rights.

The case, which has come to symbolize what many call "the war on Christmas," originated in 2003 when third-grade student, Jonathan Morgan, brought candy cane-shaped pens to school to hand them out to his fellow classmates during a winter party at Thomas Elementary School in Plano, Texas, according to the Christian Post. The pens had religious messages attached to them, explaining the Christian origin of candy canes.

An entire class was also prohibited from writing "Merry Christmas" on cards to American troops serving overseas.

Excerpt from:
Supreme Court denies appeal in 'Candy Cane' case

(Rick Egan | The Salt Lake Tribune) A man holds a sign on the I-15 off ramp at 11400 South in Draper, Monday, June 11, 2012.

Steve Ray Evans relies on a hand-lettered sign and the kindness of strangers to make it day-to-day, but a federal lawsuit filed Monday says Draper is trying to bar his constitutional right to stand on a public sidewalk and ask for help.

The city is enforcing the same statute a federal judge struck down in March, said Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney representing Evans.

The law

In March, a federal judge found language in Utahs law against use of a roadway by pedestrians too broad. That law says: A person may not sit, stand or loiter on or near a roadway for the purpose of soliciting from the occupant of a vehicle: a ride, contributions, employment, the parking, watching, or guarding of a vehicle; or other business.

"Its like Draper city hasnt gotten the news," Barnard said.

Evans is unemployed, homeless and does not receive Social Security or disability benefits. Instead, he holds a sign while standing on public sidewalks and in other public areas requesting work and financial donations from passersby, an activity that provides his only source of income, Barnard said.

But Evans has been cited and prosecuted by Draper police under a statute they claim bars people standing near roadways from soliciting money.

"As of a week ago, Draper City police officers flat out told our client it is illegal to panhandle in the state of Utah, which is a misstatement of the law, and told him if he continued to do so that they would cite him or arrest him," Barnard said.

Go here to see the original:
Panhandler says city of Draper quashing his free speech