Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

Please come by at https://ucla.zoom.us/j/93534879077; you can also read the article (20 pages). Here's the Introduction:

Michael Powell's June 7, 2021 New York Times article"Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis"raised a perennial issue that has roiled not only the ACLU, but also society in general, throughout my adult lifetime: do we have to choose between freedom of speech and other aspects of the civil liberties/human rights agenda? Since the ACLU's founding, more than a century ago, it has defended all fundamental freedoms for all people, including free speech and equality, especially for people and groups that have traditionally been subject to discrimination. Some ACLU critics charge that its vigorous advocacy of equality rights is somehow antithetical to its free speech advocacy. Conversely, other ACLU critics charge that its ongoing defense of free speech rights even for those who convey anti-civil-liberties messages is somehow antithetical to its equal justice advocacy.

The ACLU's mission closely parallels government's responsibility: to uphold all rights for everyone, neither privileging particular rights over others, nor privileging the rights of particular people or groups over others. Therefore, debates about the ACLU's efforts to promote our interlocking national aspirations of "liberty and justice for all" has resonance for government policy as well. The ACLU-focused debates mirror more general debates about the appropriate prioritization of racial justice and free speech in our public spherefor example, in public schools and universities.

The event is cohosted with UCLA's Institute for Technology, Law, and Policy and the University of Arizona's TechLaw Program.

Read the original post:
Zoom Conversation Today (Noon Pacific) with Nadine Strossen, Former ACLU Head - Reason

Earlier this week I wrote a story of a van I saw driving through the parking lot of the Target store in Mays Landing.

Honestly I was disgusted by some of the stickers that this person had on the back of his van - for all to see.

I posted a photo of the van, blurring out the license plate.

My editors quickly worked to also blur out some of the stickers. OK, I get it.

The story was purely MY OPINION of the guy and his van. (I called him a jerk for having the stickers on his van.)

You can check out the original story here.

I've been amazed at some of the reactions.

For example, a lot of people lit into me for being against "Freedom of Speech." Honestly, I never called for any action on anyone's part. He can do what he wants, say what he wants, put anything on his van that he wants.

I just objected to it.

So, really, if you're attacking me for stifling free speech (which I wasn't) you're kind of attacking me for expressing my free speech, aren't you? Aren't I entitled to the same free speech as he is?

Now, I do know that obscenity is not covered by free speech laws. I would personally call a bumper sticker that says, "Wanted: Your lips on my c**k" obscene. Again, though, that's just ME - my opinion. I'mneither a judge nor jury.

Yes, I think it's disgusting to display that in public - that anyone, including children, can see.

I did receive a couple of voice mails from a man who claims to be the vehicle's owner. He contended in his messages that it's all meant in fun - in good humor. "Everyone" finds it funny, he said.

Ask someone who's been sexually abused or molested if they find it funny.

Several people commented that there are worse things on the internet and TV. Of course, there are - but you can choose not to go to the internet or watch the TV shows. You can't choose not to be behind a van with vulgar stickers on it and young kids in your car.

Several people said if it bothered me, I shouldn't look at it. Well, same with this article - if bothers you, don't click on it

In conclusion - I am not against free speech, but I am for better values for our people. Am I fighting a losing battle? I hope not.

These are the top ten most-watched movies on Netflix in the U.S. for the week of December 5, 2021.

Our film critic ranks the 10 best films of the year.

Follow this link:
OPINION: Joe Kelly's Follow Up to the Van in Mays Landing NJ Story - catcountry1073.com

Column By Melissa Martin

Every person has a story. Every person is a story. Our world is laced and leathered together by stories about humanity; the rights and the wrongs. Threads of history wrap around and around and around a never-ending spool of narratives.

And while we anger at the silencing of stories in communist countries, we dare not fathom the suppressing of the pen in America. How can censorship take root and live in the United States, a great country built upon a foundation of civil liberties? By igniting and fanning fear during a pandemic, thats how.

We witnessed the shushing, hushing, and crushing of written words by the private sectors, Facebook and Twitter, concerning the 2020 presidential election. But, the flames of internet censorship continue to blaze.

Jessica Berg Wilsons husband said Twitter censored Jessicas obituary. Doctors diagnosed her withvaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia(VITT). And VITT is a rare, and sometimes fatal, blood-clotting condition triggered by COVID vaccines. How interesting that the Twitter fact-checkers failed to check the facts. Visitclarkcountytoday.comfor more of this story.

According to a recent article inThe Washington Post, YouTube is banning prominent anti-vaccine activists. Since when is questioning any medical information a crime? Since when is an opposite belief or opinion about medical treatments considered an enemy to democracy? Since megalomaniac Anthony Fauci rolled out his pandemic plan as the truth, the light, and the way for healing.

But, theres a sticky wicket. Social Media platforms are private companies and legally able to establish rules within their communities. And this includes censorship of content. Thats a big fly in the ointment.

Has Big Brother entered the Whitehouse? Is George Orwells dystopian 1949 novel,Nineteen Eighty-Four,coming to pass? Biden allied groups, including theDemocratic National Committee, are planning to engage fact-checkers more aggressively, and work with SMS carriers to dispel misinformation about vaccines that is sent over social media and text messages.Visitwww.politico.com.

What actions can citizens take to protect civil liberties?

Write to your state representatives. Write Letters to the Editor of your local and state newspapers. Join organizations that promote freedom of speech and freedom to write.

Thirty states are in the process of enacting laws against internet censorship.

The Stop Social Media Censorship Act passed Floridas Republican-majority House and Senate. DeSantis signed it into law, but a judge blocked it.

In Wisconsin, Assembly Bill 589 would prevent the censorship of media enterprises based on the content of their publication or broadcast.Assembly Bill 530 would prevent the censorship of posts by or about political candidates and elected officials.

Founded in 1922, PEN America is the largest of the more than 100 centers worldwide that make up the PEN International network. PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Visitpen.org.

TheFree Expression Network (FEN)is an alliance of organizations dedicated to protecting the First Amendment right of free expression and the values it represents, and to opposing governmental efforts to suppress constitutionally-protected speech. Visitncac.org.

The First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to advancing free speech, more open and accountable government, and public participation in civic affairs. Visitfirstamendmentcoalition.org.

We cannot allow freedom of speech or any civil liberties to be erased by anybody, no matter how powerful or greedy or corrupt.

If all printers were determined not to print anything until they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.Benjamin Franklin

Melissa Martin is an opinion editorial columnist, author, and educator. The opinion in this editorial is her own.

Please follow and like us:

See more here:
Editorial: Erasing the freedom to disagree - The Gila Herald

Liz Truss believes people can consent to conversion therapy. (Anadolu Agency via Getty/ Wiktor Szymanowicz)

Liz Truss has confirmed that the governments conversion therapy ban will include religious and free speech exemptions, and a dangerous loophole for consenting adults.

Last month, government finally published its consultation document for a conversion therapy ban, but its content was alarming.

It proposed exemptions in law for religious conversion practices, like prayer andeveryday religious practice,leaving those in faith communities especially vulnerable to legal conversion therapy.

It also created a loophole for consenting adults, despite the widely accepted legal concept that people cannot consent to serious harm.

On Wednesday (24 November), Truss was asked by Labour MP Kate Osborne in the House of Commons to confirm if the governments conversion therapy ban will cover non-physical conversion practices in religious settings, including prayer and whether she would remove the dangerous consent loophole.

Despite the outrage over gaping holes in the government conversion therapy consultation document since its release, Truss stood by the loopholes.

She said: What is important is that we make sure people are no coerced into conversion therapy. But its also important that we protect freedom of speech, the ability for adults to consent, and the freedom to express [religious] teachings.

For many, Liz Truss comments slashed all hope that the governments proposed legislation could be developed into a comprehensive conversion therapy ban.

One Twitter user asked: Begs the question whats the point of the consultation if their minds are made up?

Makes one wonder if the only point of the consultation is use it to give authority to these views, wrote another Twitter user, should it be hijacked by anti-trans/anti-LGBT+ voices.

Another person tweeted: If loopholes remain, then you are doing very little to stop conversion therapy.

You are ensuring vulnerable people are still at risk to these practices it is wrong, the government knows it is, and they dont care.

Read more:
Liz Truss insists conversion therapy ban will 'protect free speech' - PinkNews

Facebook is the largest social media site in the world, with billions of monthly users. Its also been subject to network outages, data breaches and shady privacy practices. More recently, Facebook has come under fire for putting growth above online safety and allowing misinformation to propagate on the platform.

You can leave Facebook, but we understand if youre worried about losing the things you shared with friends and families over the years. The good news is you can take most of it with you before you go. Tap or click here for instructions on downloading your entire Facebook history and deleting your account for good.

There are, of course, alternatives to Facebook, and one of them made a name by preaching freedom of speech. Parler has had a bit of a rollercoaster ride since its introduction, and just recently, Kim Komando experienced one of the social networks harmful practices. Spam text messages.

Parler launched in 2018 as an anti-Twitter platform for free speech, though the two social networks are functionally similar. However, unlike Twitter and Facebook, Parler doesnt use employees or third parties to fact-check and regulate posts. The platforms community enforces guidelines, which are based on the FCCs obscenity definitions.

Shortly after launch, Parler became the countrys number one downloaded news app. The site saw another uptick when former President Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook, and rumors circulated that he had a Parler account.

Learn the tech tips and tricks only the pros know.

Parler had a taste of the banhammer when it was removed from the Google Play Store when users were found promoting violence after the U.S. Capitol riot. Apple followed suit, removing Parler from its App Store. Parler worked with Apple and was reinstated to the App Store a few months later. It has yet to see a return to Google Play.

Social media account or otherwise, it should stick when you opt out of emails or text messages. Apparently, Parler has been text spamming, as Kim Komando knows first-hand. She had an account that she all but forgot about until a few days ago when she received a text about Parler alerts.

She replied STOP to opt out but got another text two days later. She once again responded with STOP, hoping that would be the end of it. But that may not be enough.

This brings to light something crucial for any account you have. If youre not using it, delete it. Dont simply remove the app from your phone. Go into the app and delete your account.

Heres how to delete your Parler account:

10-second Facebook security setting you need to change right now

X

Learn the tech tips and tricks only the pros know.

Social media site Gab hacked: Passwords, private messages, user data stolen

See the rest here:
If you had a Parler account, you need to remove it now - Komando

While the text and principle of the First Amendment have stayed the same, the courts interpretation has indeed changed over time. Judges, lawmakers and scholars continue to struggle with balancing strong speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society.

What do you think? Why is the freedom of speech an important right? Why might it be important to protect even unpopular or hurtful speech? And yet, when might the government draw reasonable limits on speech, and why?

_________

Before answering this question, read the full text of the amendment. What does it say about speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Next, read these excerpts from three recent articles about free speech cases that might affect your life:

In a September 2017 article, High Schools Threaten to Punish Students Who Kneel During Anthem, Christine Hauser writes:

The controversy over kneeling in protest of racial injustice moved beyond the world of professional sports this week, when a number of schools told students they were expected to stand during the national anthem.

On Long Island, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which runs a private Catholic school system, said students at its three high schools could face serious disciplinary action if they knelt during the anthem before sporting events.

In a June 2018 article, Colleges Grapple With Where or Whether to Draw the Line on Free Speech, Alina Tugend writes:

It has happened across the country, at small private colleges and large public universities: an invited guest is heckled or shouted down or disinvited because of opposing political views.

And the incident is followed by a competing chorus of accusations about the rights of free speech versus the need to feel safe and welcome.

Its something those in higher education have grappled with for decades. But after the 2016 presidential election and the increasing polarization of the country, the issue has taken on a new resonance.

In another June 2018 article, Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Barring Political Apparel at Polling Places, Adam Liptak writes:

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Minnesota law that prohibits voters from wearing T-shirts, hats and buttons expressing political views at polling places.

In a cautious 7-to-2 decision, the court acknowledged the value of decorum and solemn deliberation as voters prepare to cast their ballots. But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that Minnesotas law was not capable of reasoned application.

Students, read at least one of the above articles in its entirety, then tell us:

Why is the freedom of speech an important right? Why do you think its worth protecting?

What is the value in protecting unpopular speech?

The Supreme Court has determined that certain types of speech, such as fighting words, violent threats and misleading advertising, are of only low First Amendment value because they dont contribute to a public discussion of ideas, and are therefore not protected. Even though the text of the First Amendment does not make any distinction between low and high value speech, do you think the court is correct in ruling that some categories of speech are not worth protecting? What types of speech would you consider to be low value? What types of speech are high value, in your opinion?

What do you think about the free speech issues raised in the three articles above? For example:

Should students be allowed to kneel during the national anthem? Why? Should colleges be allowed to forbid controversial or offensive guests from speaking on campus? Why? Should individuals be able to wear overtly political T-shirts or hats to the polling booth? Why?

When might the government draw reasonable limits to the freedom of speech, and why?

We now want to ask you an important constitutional question: When does the First Amendment allow the government to limit speech? We want to hear what you think. But to clarify, were not asking for your opinion about policy. In other words, were not asking whether a certain type of speech, like flag burning or hate speech, should be protected or prohibited. Instead, were asking you to interpret the Constitution: Does the First Amendment protect that speech?

Do your best to base your interpretation on the text of the amendment itself and your knowledge of how it can be understood. You may want to consult this essay in the National Constitution Centers Interactive Constitution to learn more about how scholars and judges have interpreted the First Amendment, but rest assured, you dont have to be a Supreme Court justice to have an opinion on this matter, and even the justices themselves often disagree.

When you interpret the First Amendment, what do you think it has to say about the free speech issues raised in the three articles. For example:

Does the First Amendment protect the right of students at government-run schools (public schools) to protest? What about students who attend private schools? Does the First Amendment allow private colleges to prohibit certain controversial speakers? What about government-run colleges (public colleges)? Finally, does the First Amendment protect voters right to wear whatever they want to the polling booth?

Are any of your answers different from your answers above, when you answered the three should questions?

When scholars, judges and lawmakers try to balance strong speech protections with the goal of maintaining a peaceful society, what ideas or principles do you think are most important for them to keep in mind? Explain.

Read more:
Why Is Freedom of Speech an Important Right? When, if Ever ...

1989 studio album by Ice-T

The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say! is the third studio album by American rapper Ice-T, released on October 10, 1989 by Sire Records. The album has an uncharacteristically gritty sound, featuring some of the darkest tracks that Ice-T ever released.

The album was released after Ice-T was encountering censorship problems on tour. In The Ice Opinion: Who Gives a Fuck? the rapper states that "People had already told me what I could not say onstage in Columbus, Georgia. You couldn't say anything they called a 'swear' word. You couldn't touch yourself. They were using the same tactics they used on everyone from Elvis and Jim Morrison to 2 Live Crew".[5]

The album's cover, featuring a B-boy with a shotgun shoved in his mouth, and two pistols pressed against each side of his head, reflected Ice-T's experiences with the concept of freedom of speech. "The concept of that picture is, 'Go ahead and say what you want. But here comes the government and here come the parents, and they are ready to destroy you when you open your mouth'".[5]

"The Iceberg" alternates between typical violent metaphor, outlandish boasts, and comical sexual situations involving other members of Ice's Rhyme Syndicate. "Lethal Weapon" tells listeners that the mind is the most powerful weapon:

"The Weapon power has been witnessed upon my page/From Martin Luther's dream, to Hitler's psycho rage."

"You Played Yourself" advises listeners to be smart and not let themselves "be played". "Peel Their Caps Back" is about committing a drive-by to avenge a slain friend. Unlike other songs where violence is a metaphor for the rapper's ability to defeat other rappers lyrically, this song is a stark depiction of what could lead to such an event. However, it contains two surprising elements: in the end, the main character is killed, and the whole event is written off by the media as just another gang killing.

In "The Girl Tried to Kill Me", Ice-T raps about an encounter with a dominatrix:

"Said she wanted to take me home to make love / Now that's the kind of rap that brothers dream of / I said, "Fast, slow, hard or soft, baby?" / She said, "All the above!"

"Black and Decker" starts off with Rhyme Syndicate members complaining about the media's portrayal of their work as meaningless violence. Ice wonders aloud what it would sound like if you drilled into someone's head with a power drill. After some gory sound effects, Ice says "Probably sound like that." "Hit the Deck" offers sincere advice to wannabe-MCs:

"But if it's in your heart, get a pen / Don't stop writing til the inkflow ends / Work and work and don't halfstep / Dog the mic every chance you get."

"This One's for Me" offers Ice's take on the rap scene and music industry. "The Hunted Child" is a first-person account of a scared young gangbanger on the run. The busy, multi-layered composition, with its scratched sirens and staccato drums, samples Public Enemy's "Bring the Noise".[6]

"What Ya Wanna Do" is a 9-minute party song featuring several members of the Syndicate, including a young Everlast, who became famous as a member of House of Pain. "Freedom of Speech" was one of the first raps to focus on the First Amendment and in particular attacked Tipper Gore's PMRC with unmistakable venom:

"Hey PMRC, you stupid fuckin' assholes / The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold / Can't you see, you alcoholic idiots / The more you try to suppress us, the larger we get."

The album ends with in "My Word Is Bond", featuring Syndicate members telling one exaggerated story after another against a looped sample of Slick Rick saying "Stop lying" from his song "La Di Da Di".[7]

The album was accompanied by a VHS entitled The Iceberg. This mixed footage of Ice-T's gigs with his own commentary. In the first section, he said that some of the footage was of poor quality because it was filmed on equipment from a pawnbroker or stolen from a mall. The video featured some footage of the Dope Jam tour, including Doug E Fresh, KRS-One and Kool Moe Dee.

Sample credits

Read more:
The Iceberg/Freedom of Speech... Just Watch What You Say ...

By David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Scholar, andMahad Ghani,First Amendment Center Fellow

Last updated: September 18, 2017

The Internet revolutionized the way in which people share information and communicate with each other. But by providing an open forum for people to communicate with each other, the Internet also paved the way for speech that is usually reserved for the edges of society. Racists, misogynists, xenophobes, and terrorists have used the Web as a haven to communicate theirnoxious views, harass others, and even plan nefarious deeds.

Some Web sites deny that the Holocaust occurred. Others promote the beating of gays and lesbians. Still others rail against Muslims and Islam in the UnitedStates, or are anti-Christian. The 2016 election illuminated the extent that fake news had infiltrated society, resulting in incidents like an man armed with an assault rifle entered a family pizza restaurant because of false reporting he had read online in the Pizzagate incident. Many such sites target young people and seek to promote their hateful ideologies.

From cyberbullying to terrorists use of the Internet to recruit and incite,Internet hate speech is a serious problem, said Christopher Wolf, immediatepast chair of the International Network Against Cyber-Hate, in an e-mailinterview. The most notorious hate crimes of late such as the shooting at theHolocaust Museum (in Washington, D.C.) were committed by individuals who used the Internet to spread hate and to receive reinforcement from like-minded haters, who made hatred seem normal and acceptable.

Some contend that hate speech infringes on the 14th Amendments guarantee ofequal protection under the law. Alexander Tsesis, for example, wrote in a 2009article that hate speech is a threatening form of communication that iscontrary to democratic principles.1

However, the First Amendment provides broad protection to offensive,repugnant and hateful expression. Political speech receives the greatestprotection under the First Amendment, and discrimination against viewpoints runscounter to free-speech principles. Much hate speech qualifies as political, evenif misguided. Regulations against hate speech are sometimes imposed because thegovernment (at any level) disagrees with the views expressed. Such restrictionsmay not survive constitutional scrutiny in court.

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court inRenov. ACLU(1997) noted (albeit in a non-hate speech context) that the Internetis entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, akin to theprint medium. In other words, online hate speech receives as much protection asa hate-speech pamphlet distributed by the Ku Klux Klan.

Given these factors high protection for political speech, hostility toviewpoint discrimination and great solicitude for online speech much hatespeech is protected. However, despite its text Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech the First Amendment does not safeguard allforms of speech.

Unless online hate speech crosses the line into incitement to imminent lawless action or true threats, the speech receives protection under the First Amendment.

InBrandenburg v. Ohio(1969), the Supreme Court said that the constitutional guaranteesof free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribeadvocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy isdirected to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely toincite or produce such action.

Most online hate speech will not cross into the unprotected category ofincitement to imminent lawless action because it will not meet the imminencerequirement. A message of hate on the Internet may lead to unlawful action atsome indefinite time in the future but that possibility is not enough to meetthe highly speech-protective test inBrandenburg.

For this reason, some legal commentators have urged that theBrandenburgstandard be modified with respect to online hate speech. One commentator wrotein 2002: New standards are needed to address the growing plague of Internetspeech that plants the seeds of hatred, by combining information and incitementthat ultimately enables others to commit violence.2

Another agreed, writing: AlthoughBrandenburgmay be suitable for thetraditional media outlets, which were well-established when it was decided,Internet speech and many unforeseen changes have made such a standard outdated.3Still another called for a revised imminence requirement in Internethate-speech cases to updateBrandenburgand make it applicable online.4

Some online hate speech could fall into the unprotected categoryoftrue threats.The FirstAmendment does not protect an individual who posts online I am going to killyou about a specific individual. The Supreme Court explained the definition oftrue threats inVirginia v. Black(2003) in which it upheld most of a Virginia cross-burning statute this way:

True threats encompass those statements where the speaker meansto communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawfulviolence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker neednot actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on truethreats protect(s) individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruptionthat fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility thatthe threatened violence will occur.

The Court inVirginia v. Blackreasoned that crosses burned with an intent tointimidate others could constitutionally be barred as provided in the Virginialaw. (But the Court did strike down a part of the law that said there was apresumption that all cross-burnings were done with an intent to intimidate; forinstance, in the consolidated cases the Court considered, one involved across-burning with a property owners permission.) Thus, online hate speechmeant to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit violence andintimidate others likely would not receive First Amendment protection.

A few cases have applied the true-threat standard to online speech. InPlanned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists(2002), the 9th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals held that some vigorous anti-abortion speech including a Web site called the Nuremberg Files that listed the names andaddresses of abortion providers who should be tried for crimes againsthumanity could qualify as a true threat. The 9th Circuit emphasized that thenames of abortion providers who have been murdered because of their activitiesare lined through in black, while names of those who have been wounded arehighlighted in grey.

Similarly, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled inU.S. v. Morales(2001) that an 18-year-old high school student made true threatswhen he wrote in an Internet chat room that he planned to kill other students athis school.

Even in the speech-restrictive world of the military, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled inUnited States v. Wilcox(2008) that a member ofthe military could not be punished under the Uniform Code for Military Justicefor posting racially offensive and hateful remarks he made over the Internetabout white supremacy. The court wrote that the service members variouscommunications on the Internet are not criminal in the civilian world [and] did not constitute unprotected dangerous speech under the circumstancesof this case. No evidence was admitted that showed the communications eitherinterfere[d] with or prevent[ed] the orderly accomplishment of the mission, orpresent[ed] a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of thetroops.

The Supreme Court turned their eyes towards social media to determine whether speech online could constitute a threat in Elonis v. United States (2015). The case involved an individual that posted rap lyrics on his Facebook page in which he threatened to kill his ex-wife. He was charged for conveying threats across state lines.

When the case arrived to the Supreme Court, the case revolved around determining whether a post on social media crossed into the realm of the True Threat standard. The Court chose to apply a reasonable person standard to determine whether the threshold had been met. They ultimately ruled that a reasonable person would not have found the rap lyrics to be a true threat, and reversed the decision.

Since the Supreme Court decision, there have been cases filed when children have used things like bomb emojis and have faced penalties. The Supreme Court choosing to apply a reasonable person standard will likely guide these cases moving forward.

If hateful Internet communications do not cross the lineinto incitement to imminent lawless action or a true threat, they receive FirstAmendment protection. The First Amendment distinguishes the United States fromother countries. Alan Brownstein and Leslie Gielow Jacobs, in their book GlobalIssues in Freedom of Speech and Religion, write that the U.S. is afree[-]speech outlier in the arena of hate speech. Many other countriescriminalize online hate speech.

With social media and the Internet increasingly resulting in real world acts of violence, and as a recruiting tool for terrorists, it is likely the law will change to address the changing times.

Wolf, chair of the Anti-Defamation Leagues Internet Task Force, said muchcould be done to counter online hate speech besides criminalizing it. There isa wide range of things to be done, consistent with the First Amendment,including shining the light on hate and exposing the lies underlying hate andteaching tolerance and diversity to young people and future generations, hesaid. Counter-speech is a potent weapon.

With where the law currently stands, hate speech is protected so long as it stays in the realm of just speech. The great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thoughtnot free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. The Constitution ensures freedom of speech for all by fighting to protect even the most vile speech of all.

1Alexander Tsesis, Dignity and Speech: The Regulation ofHate Speech in a Democracy, 44Wake Forest L. Rev.497, 502 (2009).

2TiffanyKamasara, Planting the Seeds of Hatred: Why Imminence Should No Longer BeRequired to Impose Liability on Internet Communications, 29Capital UniversityL. Rev.835, 837 (2002).

3Jennifer L. Brenner, True Threats A MoreAppropriate Standard for Analyzing First Amendment Protection and Free SpeechWhen Violence is Perpetrated over the Internet, 78North Dakota L. Rev.753,783 (2002).

4John P. Cronan, The Next Challenge for the First Amendment: TheFramework for an Internet Incitement Standard, 51Catholic University L. Rev.425 (2002).

Continue reading here:
Hate Speech Online | Freedom Forum Institute

Learning Objectives

Figure 15.3

Attempts to censor material, such as banning books, typically attract a great deal of controversy and debate.

Timberland Regional Library Banned Books Display At The Lacey Library CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

To fully understand the issues of censorship and freedom of speech and how they apply to modern media, we must first explore the terms themselves. Censorship is defined as suppressing or removing anything deemed objectionable. A common, everyday example can be found on the radio or television, where potentially offensive words are bleeped out. More controversial is censorship at a political or religious level. If youve ever been banned from reading a book in school, or watched a clean version of a movie on an airplane, youve experienced censorship.

Much as media legislation can be controversial due to First Amendment protections, censorship in the media is often hotly debated. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no lawabridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (Case Summaries). Under this definition, the term speech extends to a broader sense of expression, meaning verbal, nonverbal, visual, or symbolic expression. Historically, many individuals have cited the First Amendment when protesting FCC decisions to censor certain media products or programs. However, what many people do not realize is that U.S. law establishes several exceptions to free speech, including defamation, hate speech, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, sedition, and obscenity.

To comply with U.S. law, the FCC prohibits broadcasters from airing obscene programming. The FCC decides whether or not material is obscene by using a three-prong test.

Obscene material:

Material meeting all of these criteria is officially considered obscene and usually applies to hard-core pornography (Federal Communications Commission). Indecent material, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

Indecent material:

Material deemed indecent cannot be broadcast between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., to make it less likely that children will be exposed to it (Federal Communications Commission).

These classifications symbolize the medias long struggle with what is considered appropriate and inappropriate material. Despite the existence of the guidelines, however, the process of categorizing materials is a long and arduous one.

There is a formalized process for deciding what material falls into which category. First, the FCC relies on television audiences to alert the agency of potentially controversial material that may require classification. The commission asks the public to file a complaint via letter, e-mail, fax, telephone, or the agencys website, including the station, the community, and the date and time of the broadcast. The complaint should contain enough detail about the material broadcast that the FCC can understand the exact words and language used (Federal Communications Commission). Citizens are also allowed to submit tapes or transcripts of the aired material. Upon receiving a complaint, the FCC logs it in a database, which a staff member then accesses to perform an initial review. If necessary, the agency may contact either the station licensee or the individual who filed the complaint for further information.

Once the FCC has conducted a thorough investigation, it determines a final classification for the material. In the case of profane or indecent material, the agency may take further actions, including possibly fining the network or station (Federal Communications Commission). If the material is classified as obscene, the FCC will instead refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to criminally prosecute the media outlet. If convicted in court, violators can be subject to criminal fines and/or imprisonment (Federal Communications Commission).

Each year, the FCC receives thousands of complaints regarding obscene, indecent, or profane programming. While the agency ultimately defines most programs cited in the complaints as appropriate, many complaints require in-depth investigation and may result in fines called notices of apparent liability (NAL) or federal investigation.

Table 15.1 FCC Indecency Complaints and NALs: 20002005

Year

Total Complaints Received

Radio Programs Complained About

Over-the-Air Television Programs Complained About

Cable Programs Complained About

Total Radio NALs

Total Television NALs

Total Cable NALs

2000

111

85

25

1

7

0

0

2001

346

113

33

6

6

1

0

2002

13,922

185

166

38

7

0

0

2003

166,683

122

217

36

3

0

0

2004

1,405,419

145

140

29

9

3

0

2005

233,531

488

707

355

0

0

0

Source

Although popular memory thinks of old black-and-white movies as tame or sanitized, many early filmmakers filled their movies with sexual or violent content. Edwin S. Porters 1903 silent film The Great Train Robbery, for example, is known for expressing the appealing, deeply embedded nature of violence in the frontier experience and the American civilizing process, and showcases the rather spontaneous way that the attendant violence appears in the earliest developments of cinema (Film Reference). The film ends with an image of a gunman firing a revolver directly at the camera, demonstrating that cinemas fascination with violence was present even 100 years ago.

Porter was not the only U.S. filmmaker working during the early years of cinema to employ graphic violence. Films such as Intolerance (1916) and The Birth of a Nation (1915) are notorious for their overt portrayals of violent activities. The director of both films, D. W. Griffith, intentionally portrayed content graphically because he believed that the portrayal of violence must be uncompromised to show its consequences for humanity (Film Reference).

Although audiences responded eagerly to the new medium of film, some naysayers believed that Hollywood films and their associated hedonistic culture was a negative moral influence. As you read in Chapter 8 Movies, this changed during the 1930s with the implementation of the Hays Code. Formally termed the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930, the code is popularly known by the name of its author, Will Hays, the chairman of the industrys self-regulatory Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association (MPPDA), which was founded in 1922 to police all in-house productions (Film Reference). Created to forestall what was perceived to be looming governmental control over the industry, the Hays Code was, essentially, Hollywood self-censorship. The code displayed the motion picture industrys commitment to the public, stating:

Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which have been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertainment. Hence, though regarding motion pictures primarily as entertainment without any explicit purposes of teaching or propaganda, they know that the motion picture within its own field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking (Arts Reformation).

Among other requirements, the Hays Code enacted strict guidelines on the portrayal of violence. Crimes such as murder, theft, robbery, safecracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, etc. could not be presented in detail (Arts Reformation). The code also addressed the portrayals of sex, saying that the sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing (Arts Reformation).

Figure 15.4

As the chairman of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association, Will Hays oversaw the creation of the industrys self-censoring Hays Code.

Wikimedia Commons public domain.

As television grew in popularity during the mid-1900s, the strict code placed on the film industry spread to other forms of visual media. Many early sitcoms, for example, showed married couples sleeping in separate twin beds to avoid suggesting sexual relations.

By the end of the 1940s, the MPPDA had begun to relax the rigid regulations of the Hays Code. Propelled by the changing moral standards of the 1950s and 1960s, this led to a gradual reintroduction of violence and sex into mass media.

As filmmakers began pushing the boundaries of acceptable visual content, the Hollywood studio industry scrambled to create a system to ensure appropriate audiences for films. In 1968, the successor of the MPPDA, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), established the familiar film ratings system to help alert potential audiences to the type of content they could expect from a production.

Although the ratings system changed slightly in its early years, by 1972 it seemed that the MPAA had settled on its ratings. These ratings consisted of G (general audiences), PG (parental guidance suggested), R (restricted to ages 17 or up unless accompanied by a parent), and X (completely restricted to ages 17 and up). The system worked until 1984, when several major battles took place over controversial material. During that year, the highly popular films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Gremlins both premiered with a PG rating. Both filmsand subsequently the MPAAreceived criticism for the explicit violence presented on screen, which many viewers considered too intense for the relatively mild PG rating. In response to the complaints, the MPAA introduced the PG-13 rating to indicate that some material may be inappropriate for children under the age of 13.

Another change came to the ratings system in 1990, with the introduction of the NC-17 rating. Carrying the same restrictions as the existing X rating, the new designation came at the behest of the film industry to distinguish mature films from pornographic ones. Despite the arguably milder format of the ratings name, many filmmakers find it too strict in practice; receiving an NC-17 rating often leads to a lack of promotion or distribution because numerous movie theaters and rental outlets refuse to carry films with this rating.

Regardless of these criticisms, most audience members find the rating system helpful, particularly when determining what is appropriate for children. The adoption of industry ratings for television programs and video games reflects the success of the film ratings system. During the 1990s, for example, the broadcasting industry introduced a voluntary rating system not unlike that used for films to accompany all TV shows. These ratings are displayed on screen during the first 15 seconds of a program and include TV-Y (all children), TV-Y7 (children ages 7 and up), TV-Y7-FV (older childrenfantasy violence), TV-G (general audience), TV-PG (parental guidance suggested), TV-14 (parents strongly cautioned), and TV-MA (mature audiences only).

Table 15.2 Television Ratings System

Rating

Meaning

Examples of Programs

TV-Y

Appropriate for all children

Sesame Street, Barney & Friends, Dora the Explorer

TV-Y7

Designed for children ages 7 and up

SpongeBob SquarePants, Captain Planet

TV-Y7-FV

Read the original:
15.4 Censorship and Freedom of Speech Understanding ...

Number 10

Freedomof speech, of the press, of association, of assembly and petition -- this set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has written that this freedom is "the matrix, the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom." Without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither and die.

But in spite of its "preferred position" in our constitutional hierarchy, the nation's commitment to freedom of expression has been tested over and over again. Especially during times of national stress, like war abroad or social upheaval at home, people exercising their First Amendment rights have been censored, fined, even jailed. Those with unpopular political ideas have always borne the brunt of government repression. It was during WWI -- hardly ancient history -- that a person could be jailed just for giving out anti-war leaflets. Out of those early cases, modern First Amendment law evolved. Many struggles and many cases later, ours is the most speech-protective country in the world.

The path to freedom was long and arduous. It took nearly 200 years to establish firm constitutional limits on the government's power to punish "seditious" and "subversive" speech. Many people suffered along the way, such as labor leader Eugene V. Debs, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act just for telling a rally of peaceful workers to realize they were "fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder." Or Sidney Street, jailed in 1969 for burning an American flag on a Harlem street corner to protest the shooting of civil rights figure James Meredith. (see box)

Early Americans enjoyed great freedom compared to citizens of other nations. Nevertheless, once in power, even the Constitution's framers were guilty of overstepping the First Amendment they had so recently adopted. In 1798, during the French-Indian War, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it a crime for anyone to publish "any false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government. It was used by the then-dominant Federalist Party to prosecute prominent Republican newspaper editors during the late 18th century.

Throughout the 19th century, sedition, criminal anarchy and criminal conspiracy laws were used to suppress the speech of abolitionists, religious minorities, suffragists, labor organizers, and pacifists. In Virginia prior to the Civil War, for example, anyone who "by speaking or writing maintains that owners have no right of property in slaves" was subject to a one-year prison sentence.

The early 20th century was not much better. In 1912, feminist Margaret Sanger was arrested for giving a lecture on birth control. Trade union meetings were banned and courts routinely granted injunctions prohibiting strikes and other labor protests. Violators were sentenced to prison. Peaceful protesters opposing U. S. entry into World War I were jailed for expressing their opinions. In the early 1920s, many states outlawed the display of red or black flags, symbols of communism and anarchism. In 1923, author Upton Sinclair was arrested for trying to read the text of the First Amendment at a union rally. Many people were arrested merely for membership in groups regarded as "radical" by the government. It was in response to the excesses of this period that the ACLU was founded in 1920.

Free speech rights still need constant, vigilant protection. New questions arise and old ones return. Should flag burning be a crime? What about government or private censorship of works of art that touch on sensitive issues like religion or sexuality? Should the Internet be subject to any form of government control? What about punishing college students who espouse racist or sexist opinions? In answering these questions, the history and the core values of the First Amendment should be our guide.

During our nation's early era, the courts were almost universally hostile to political minorities' First Amendment rights; free speech issues did not even reach the Supreme Court until 1919 when, inSchenck v. U.S., the Court unanimously upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member for mailing anti-anti-war leaflets to draft-age men. A turning point occurred a few months later inAbrams v. U.S.Although the defendant's conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-war leaflets was upheld, two dissenting opinions formed the cornerstone of our modern First Amendment law. Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis D. Brandeis argued speech couldonlybe punishedifit presented "a clear and present danger" of imminent harm. Mere political advocacy, they said, was protected by the First Amendment. Eventually, these justices were able to convince a majority of the Court to adopt the "clear and present danger test."

From then on, the right to freedom of expression grew more secure -- until the 1950s and McCarthyism. The Supreme Court fell prey to the witchhunt mentality of that period, seriously weakening the "clear and present danger" test by holding that speakers could be punished if they advocated overthrowing the government -- even if the danger of such an occurrence were both slight and remote. As a result, many political activists were prosecuted and jailed simply for advocating communist revolution. Loyalty oath requirements for government employees were upheld; thousands of Americans lost their jobs on the basis of flimsy evidence supplied by secret witnesses.

Finally, in 1969, inBrandenberg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member, and established a new standard: Speech can be suppressed only if it is intended,and likely to produce, "imminent lawless action." Otherwise, even speech that advocates violence is protected. The Brandenberg standard prevails today.

First Amendment protection is not limited to "pure speech" -- books, newspapers, leaflets, and rallies. It also protects "symbolic speech" -- nonverbal expression whose purpose is to communicate ideas. In its 1969 decision inTinker v. Des Moines, the Court recognized the right of public school students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. In 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and again in 1990 (U.S. v. Eichman), the Court struck down government bans on "flag desecration." Other examples of protected symbolic speech include works of art, T-shirt slogans, political buttons, music lyrics and theatrical performances.

Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech. That would be what is called viewpoint discrimination -- andthatis unconstitutional.

When a protest crosses the line from speech to action, the government can intervene more aggressively. Political protesters have the right to picket, to distribute literature, to chant and to engage passersby in debate. But they do not have the right to block building entrances or to physically harass people.

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.

The Supreme Court has recognized the government's interest in keeping some information secret, such as wartime troop deployments. But the Court has never actually upheld an injunction against speech on national security grounds. Two lessons can be learned from this historical fact. First, the amount of speech that can be curtailed in the interest of national security is very limited. And second, the government has historically overused the concept of "national security" to shield itself from criticism, and to discourage public discussion of controversial policies or decisions.

In 1971, the publication of the "Pentagon Papers" by theNew York Timesbrought the conflicting claims of free speech and national security to a head. The Pentagon Papers, a voluminous secret history and analysis of the country's involvement in Vietnam, was leaked to the press. When theTimesignored the government's demand that it cease publication, the stage was set for a Supreme Court decision. In the landmarkU.S. v. New York Timescase, the Court ruled that the government could not, through "prior restraint," block publication of any material unless it could prove that it would "surely" result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable" harm to the nation. This the government failed to prove, and the public was given access to vital information about an issue of enormous importance.

The public's First Amendment "right to know" is essential to its ability to fully participate in democratic decision-making. As the Pentagon Papers case demonstrates, the government's claims of "national security" must always be closely scrutinized to make sure they are valid.

The Supreme Court has recognized several limited exceptions to First Amendment protection.

In the 1973Miller v. Californiadecision, the Court established three conditions that must be present if a work is to be deemed "legally obscene." It must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Attempts to apply the "Miller test" have demonstrated the impossibility of formulating a precise definition of obscenity. Justice Potter Stewart once delivered a famous one-liner on the subject: "I know it when I see it." But the fact is, the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is highly subjective and practically invites government abuse.

It's the foundation of self-fulfillment. The right to express one's thoughts and to communicate freely with others affirms the dignity and worth of each and every member of society, and allows each individual to realize his or her full human potential. Thus, freedom of expression is an end in itself -- and as such, deserves society's greatest protection.

It's vital to the attainment and advancement of knowledge, and the search for the truth. The eminent 19th-century writer and civil libertarian, John Stuart Mill, contended that enlightened judgment is possible only if one considers all facts and ideas, from whatever source, and tests one's own conclusions against opposing views. Therefore, all points of view -- even those that are "bad" or socially harmful -- should be represented in society's "marketplace of ideas."

It's necessary to our system of self-government and gives the American people a "checking function" against government excess and corruption. If the American people are to be the masters of their fate and of their elected government, they must be well-informed and have access to all information, ideas and points of view. Mass ignorance is a breeding ground for oppression and tyranny.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been involved in virtually all of the landmark First Amendment cases to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains absolutely committed to the preservation of each and every individual's freedom of expression. During the 1980s, we defended the right of artists and entertainers to perform and produce works of art free of government and private censorship. During the 1990s, the organization fought to protect free speech in cyberspace when state and federal government attempted to impose content-based regulations on the Internet. In addition, the ACLU offers several books on the subject of freedom of expression:

To order call 1-800-775-ACLU

See original here:
Freedom of Expression | American Civil Liberties Union