Category Archives: Freedom of Speech

When it seems anyone can say or write almost anything and have it published on the internet, recent events offer reminders that the freedom of expression is not universal.

The Financial Times first reported this week that the Chinese government has banned Winnie-the-Poohs likeness and name on social media.

Yes, that Winnie-the-Pooh, the anthropomorphic bear created by author A.A. Milne and digitized by Disney. As USA Today reported in a follow-up: The characters name in Chinese was censored in posts on Sina Weibo, a social media platform similar to Twitter, while a collection of Winnie-the-Pooh gifts vanished from social messaging service WeChat. ... Any attempts to post Poohs Chinese name on Weibo prompted a message: 'Content is illegal.' "

Insiders speculated that government censors acted on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was the subject of an internet meme featuring roly-poly Pooh and his wiry pal Tigger. Those images emerged in 2013 after the stout Xi was photographed with the slender President Barack Obama.

As is often the case, examples of absurd government censorship in China and elsewhere are accompanied by appalling abuses of human rights. Too often one leads to another, or vice versa.

It has been widely reported in the free world that Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recently died in Chinese custody denied access to his wife, who is under house arrest. But Chinese officials who control the media have been on social sites busily blocking news of Lius death and monitoring private conversations.

Liu was in state custody because he had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for writing about and advocating universal values shared by all humankind, including human rights, equality, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Eleven years.

For advocating universal values shared by all humankind.

Horrifying.

China is one of the most populous offenders but hardly alone. We have written previously about Raif Badawi, a blogger who has criticized the entanglement of religion, namely Islam, and government in Saudi Arabia and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes as a result. Considered a foe of the state and the national religion, he remains in custody; little is known about his condition or the extent of the beatings he has suffered.

Examples of repression are everywhere. Credible reports by watchdogs show that 34 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 with evidence that the killings were in retribution for coverage of public- and private-sector corruption. Turkey has recently jailed human-rights advocates.

And, yes, in the United States, there are troubling signs of intolerance: Campus speakers have been threatened and shouted down by political opponents, the tenor of the cultural wars is increasingly hostile and dishonest journalists have been labeled by the president as enemies of the people.

But at least in America we have the First Amendment and its protections, which have seldom seemed more necessary and valuable.

This editorial was originally published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a sister newspaper of the Daily News within GateHouse Media.

Here is the original post:
EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech never more valuable - Holmes County Times Advertiser

Richard Dawkins and other leading atheists have hit out at a California radio station after it canceled an event upon learning of the scientists controversial views on Islam.

Dawkins was supposed to speak at an August event about his memoir, A Brief Candle in the Dark, hosted by Berkeleys KPFA radio station.

But in an email, which Dawkins published on his blog, the station informed ticketholders that the event was canceled.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

We had booked this event based entirely on [Dawkinss] excellent new book on science, the email read, when we didnt know he had offended and hurtin his tweets and other comments on Islamso many people.

Responding in an open letter, Dawkins said,I used to love your station when I lived in Berkeley for two years, shortly after that beloved place had become the iconic home of free speech.

My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking. I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources.

You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of abusive speech. Why didnt you check your facts... before summarily canceling my event?

I have never used abusive speech against Islam. I have called IslamISM vile but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam.

Far from attacking Muslims, I understand, as perhaps you do not,that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.

A letter in support of Dawkins from philosopher Stephen Pinker said,Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of the 20th and 21st century. He has criticized doctrines of Islam, together with doctrines of other religions, but criticism is not abuse.

Robyn Blumner, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, said in a statement thatfor KPFA to suddenly break its commitment to Richard and the hundreds of people who were so looking forward to seeing and hearing him is unconscionable, and the baseless accusation that Richard has engaged in abusive speech is a betrayal of the values KPFA has, until now, been known for.

Dawkins, who is known for his atheist views as well as his work as a scientist, has repeatedly spoken out strongly against Islam.

Among other incidents, he described Islam as the most evil religion in the world at a British book festival this spring, according to The Daily Telegraph, and received condemnation in 2015 when he walked out of an interview with the New Statesman magazine after a disagreement over the Muslim journalists faith.

At the time, journalist Emad Ahmed wrote that I was genuinely stunned when he decided to angrily walk away from our scheduled interview after I confirmed my beliefs in the revelations of the Islamic faith, calling my views pathetic.

Dawkins later said it was the journalists belief that the Prophet Muhammad rode a winged horse that led him to abandon the interview.

Read this article:
Freedom of Speech: Atheist Richard Dawkins Pulled From Berkeley Radio Station over remarks against Islam - Newsweek

Arch Linux, one of the many open-source distributions based on the free kernel, has been embroiled in controversy after one of the hosts, known as 'Alucard', used an offensive mirror address for one of the packages available to fellow users. However, after this came to light when another user complained, the host responded by saying that his 'freedom of speech' was being suppressed by the complainant.

The domain name 'loli.forsale' prompted a user by the name Florian to complain that a friend was extremely offended by the address, and asked that it be changed immediately. Loli is a term that describes under-aged girls in Hentai, according to Urban Dictionary, which paired with 'for sale' is objectively offensive.

Even though this was changed, he went on to defend this choice by referring to his 'freedom of speech', likening the complaint of the offensive content to oppression. Beyond that, he discussed the time and effort he put into the Arch Linux project. However, this was immaterial to the domain name in question. The defendant had to allegedly obtain professional assistance in his lengthy response due to a disability. His question read as follows:

What does it take to remove all forms of free speech, before it doesn't matter to anyone at all? Please, do ponder that. Take your time. Don't worry about me, and the ISP I'm building in Portugal to maintain Free Software projects, and users with the same kind of principle.

According to a user on Reddit by the name of 'fameistheproduct', this isn't the first time something in the community has offended some users. At one point, the system automatically generated license codes that could be regarded as offensive by some. The offending content has since been removed by the organization.

Source: Reddit | Image via Faster Land

Read this article:
Arch Linux host cites freedom of speech defense, after using offensive domain name - Neowin

When it seems anyone can say or write almost anything and have it published on the internet, recent events offer reminders that the freedom of expression is not universal.

The Financial Times first reported this week that the Chinese government has banned Winnie-the-Poohs likeness and name on social media.

Yes, that Winnie-the-Pooh, the anthropomorphic bear created by author A.A. Milne and digitized by Disney. As USA Today reported in a follow-up: The characters name in Chinese was censored in posts on Sina Weibo, a social media platform similar to Twitter, while a collection of Winnie-the-Pooh gifts vanished from social messaging service WeChat. ... Any attempts to post Poohs Chinese name on Weibo prompted a message: 'Content is illegal.' "

Insiders speculated that government censors acted on behalf of Chinese President Xi Jinping, who was the subject of an internet meme featuring roly-poly Pooh and his wiry pal Tigger. Those images emerged in 2013 after the stout Xi was photographed with the slender President Barack Obama.

As is often the case, examples of absurd government censorship in China and elsewhere are accompanied by appalling abuses of human rights. Too often one leads to another, or vice versa.

It has been widely reported in the free world that Liu Xiaobo, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, recently died in Chinese custody denied access to his wife, who is under house arrest. But Chinese officials who control the media have been on social sites busily blocking news of Lius death and monitoring private conversations.

Liu was in state custody because he had been sentenced to 11 years in prison for writing about and advocating universal values shared by all humankind, including human rights, equality, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Eleven years.

For advocating universal values shared by all humankind.

Horrifying.

China is one of the most populous offenders but hardly alone. We have written previously about Raif Badawi, a blogger who has criticized the entanglement of religion, namely Islam, and government in Saudi Arabia and was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes as a result. Considered a foe of the state and the national religion, he remains in custody; little is known about his condition or the extent of the beatings he has suffered.

Examples of repression are everywhere. Credible reports by watchdogs show that 34 journalists have been killed in Russia since 2000 with evidence that the killings were in retribution for coverage of public- and private-sector corruption. Turkey has recently jailed human-rights advocates.

And, yes, in the United States, there are troubling signs of intolerance: Campus speakers have been threatened and shouted down by political opponents, the tenor of the cultural wars is increasingly hostile and dishonest journalists have been labeled by the president as enemies of the people.

But at least in America we have the First Amendment and its protections, which have seldom seemed more necessary and valuable.

This editorial was originally published in the Sarasota Herald Tribune, a sister newspaper of the Daily News within GateHouse Media.

Continue reading here:
EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech never more valuable - The Northwest Florida Daily News

RE: AZ Star (7/18/17) - "Opponents of vouchers find funds..." In response to the possibility that groups opposing vouchers are successful in collecting enough signatures to get a petition regarding the vouchers on the 2018 election ballot, state representative Debbie Lesko has a strategy to defeat the voters. She stated that if the referendum drive succeeds and the issue goes to the ballot, the legislature could make changes prior to the election. She explained that that would effectively repeal the current legislation and eliminate a public vote. If the public didn't like the new plan they would have to start the referendum drive all over again.

Such thinking demonstrates a clear disdain for the public exercising its right to free speech through voting. Lesko introduced a large number of bills in an effort to further weaken public education and promote the use of public funds for for-profit schools.

Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.

See original here:
Letter: Lesko shows disdain for citizens' freedom of speech - Arizona Daily Star

The city of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, ended months of debate Monday by eliminating a free speech zone at Veterans Memorial Park, blocking a proposed satanic monument and forcing other religious displays to be removed.

The original intent of providing the public space was to recognize those who have bravely contributed to defending our nation through their military service, city leaders said in a statement. In recent weeks and months, though, that intent has been overshadowed by freedom of speech concerns expressed by both religious and nonreligious communities.

The controversy started in January when the city ordered a Christian-themed statue of a praying soldier to be removed from the city-owned park, fearing a lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The order was met with local backlash, and the Belle Plaine City Council passed a resolution in February designating a free speech zone at the park. That opened the door, however, to all speech, and an application from the Satanic Temple of Salem Massachusetts to erect a satanic monument at the park renewed tensions.

Mondays vote by the City Council rescinds the free speech resolution and blocks the satanic display from ever going up, a local NBC affiliate reported.

The debate between those communities has drawn significant regional and national attention to our city, and has promoted divisiveness among our own residents, the citys statement said. While this debate has a place in public dialogue, it has detracted from our citys original intent of designating a space solely for the purpose of honoring and memorializing military veterans, and has also portrayed our city in a negative light.

Owners of all privately owned displays in Veterans Park were given 10 days to remove them from the property.

See the original post here:
Minnesota city eliminates free speech zone at veterans park, blocking satanic monument - Washington Times

The University of California at Berkeley is again blocking a conservative speaker from coming to the flagship public campus, an advocacy group claimed, threatening the constitutional rights of students.

But university officials said they welcome Ben Shapiro and are just trying to find a large enough, and safe enough, venue for the conservative columnist to speak to students in September.

We think theres a very strong likelihood we can make this work, university spokesman Dan Mogulof said Wednesday evening.

He said university officials are trying to meet with students to talk about it and that efforts to resolve the situation would be better served by a face-to-face meeting than by a public fight in the media.

Berkeley, long known for its liberal-leaning student body and its role in the Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, has become a cultural battleground, with pitched fights between far-left and far-right activists.

When Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer who calls himself a free-speech fundamentalist and whom critics call a hatemonger, tried to speak on campus in February,University of California police locked down the campus and canceledthe event after 150 or so black bloc anarchists in masks streamed into a large crowd of peaceful student protesters, breaking windows, setting a propane tank ablaze and attacking police with rocks and firecrackers.

That decision was polarizing: Some saw it as the smothering of conservative thought, an assault on the First Amendment. Others saw it as the only rational response to the imminent threat of dangerous riots.

President Trump jumped into the fray with a tweet the morning after: If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

In the months to come, there were violent clashes between far-right and far-left protesters in Berkeley. The Berkeley College Republicans, who had invited Yiannopoulos, asked conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus, and that sparked another fight, as campus officialscanceled the event over safety concerns.

After pushback, they invited her to speak the following week in a safer venue. The Young Americas Foundation and College Republicans filed a lawsuit against the university, claiming it had violated their right to free speech.

Coulter never gave the speech. Protesters swarmed campus anyway.

[Ben Shapiro plans to speak at UC-Berkeley, where clashes have shut down other conservative speakers]

This summer, Berkeley College Republicans, with the help of the conservative advocacy group Young Americas Foundation, invited Shapiro.

University officials said, when they learned of the invitation, that they welcomed him and would work to find a secure site for the speech.

The university continues its shameful tactic of hiding behind vague security concerns, Naweed Tahmas, external vice president of the UC Berkeley College Republicans, wrote in an email Wednesday night.

Most recently, the university police and the administration cited broad concerns that Ann Coulters speaking engagement would spark violent protests.

Ultimately, after massive police presence the day of Ms. Coulters proposed speaking date, the Anti-Fascists and other left-wing groups did not show. In fact, they released an op-ed stating that they had no intentions or plans to disrupt Ann Coulters speaking engagement at UC Berkeley. After canceling our last three events, UC Berkeley has solidified itself as an ideological echo chamber, as only favored viewpoints may be heard on campus with no meaningful opposition or challenge permitted.This is a disservice to students as it is incumbent upon universities to expose students to a breadth of different ideological views.

The Young Americas Foundation announced: Berkeleys inability to find a lecture hall more than two months in advance is laughable.

Ben Shapiro, in a written statement, said, Using ridiculous pretexts to keep conservatives from speaking is unsurprising but disappointing.

Well find a way to get this event done, and UC Berkeley has a moral and legal obligation to ensure we do so.

Mogulof said there are three venues on campus that are free to student groups and large enough to accommodate the event but that they were already booked for that time, so they have asked the student group if another time or a smaller venue would be acceptable or if they would be willing to pay to rent another space.

He said they were hoping to get a better understanding of their request, not through the media but by sitting down to talk about it.

They support the right to have a wide variety of speakers on campus, and freedom of speech, he said.

We want to have this event. he said.

[Trump threatens UC-Berkeleys funding after violent protests shut down a speaker]

[UC-Berkeley readies police, concerned Ann Coulter plans to speak in public plaza on campus]

Continued here:
Berkeley free-speech fight flares up again over Ben Shapiro - The ... - Washington Post

Jul 19, 2017 at 9:58 am | Print View

Tim Bickels July 9 letter Exercise your right to free speech was a completely inaccurate representation of what the freedom of speech truly is.

The impression I got from his letter is that he wanted to be able to say what he wanted whenever he wanted and no one is allowed to respond or be critical of it. Thats not how it works. If you say something that is anti-gay, thats homophobic and you will be told that youre homophobic. If you say something thats discriminatory toward Islam, then yes you are Islamaphobic. Theres a big difference between being critical of something and demonstrating out right hate and bigotry toward it. Being critical of something is dissecting the various points of it and stating why you disagree with it without classifying it in a discriminatory light.

Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to express yourself without interference from the federal government, thats a very basic laymans term definition of it. But that doesnt mean that a person can say something and another person isnt allowed to retort and classify them as what theyre demonstrating when they speak.

My interpretation of what Bickel wanted was to be able to demonstrate discriminatory thinking, but not carry that label along with him. I think he may need to re-examine things.

I wish for people to exercise freedom of speech with the understanding that others will too and if youre discriminatory the First Amendment doesnt protect you from that.

Chandra Jordan

Marion

We make it easy to stay connected:

Visit link:
Letter: What freedom of speech truly is - The Gazette: Eastern Iowa Breaking News and Headlines

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The death of Liu Xiaobo from liver cancer on July 13, under guard at a hospital in Shenyang, marks the passing of a great defender of freedoma man who was willing to speak truth to power.

As the lead signatory to Charter 08, which called for the rule of law and constitutional government, Liu was sentenced to 11 years in prison for inciting the subversion of state power.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Before his sentencing in 2009, Liu stood before the court and declared, To block freedom of speech is to trample on human rights, to strangle humanity, and to suppress the truth.

With proper treatment and freedom, Liu would have lived on to voice his support for a free society.

Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida, on April 6, 2017. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty

While Lius advocacy of limited government, democracy, and a free market for ideas won him the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, Chinas leadership viewed him as a criminal and refused to allow him to travel to Oslo to receive the award.

Instead, the prize was placed on an empty chair at the ceremony, a lasting symbol of Lius courage in the face of state suppression.

Beijing also prevented liberal Mao Yushi, cofounder of the Unirule Institute, from attending the ceremony to honor Liu.

The mistreatment of Liu, and other human rights proponents, is a stark reminder that while the Middle Kingdom has made significant progress in liberalizing its economy, it has yet to liberate the minds of the Chinese people or its own political institutions.

The tension between freedom and state power threatens Chinas future. As former premier Wen Jiabao warned in a speech in August 2010, Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost. Later, in an interview with CNN in October, he held that freedom of speech is indispensable for any country.

Article 33, Section 3, of the PRCs Constitution holds that the State respects and protects human rights. Such language, added by the National Peoples Congress in 2004, encouraged liberals to test the waters, only to find that the reality did not match the rhetoric.

The Chinese Communist Party pays lip service to a free market in ideas, noting: There can never be an end to the need for the emancipation of individual thought ( China Daily , November 16, 2013).

However, Party doctrine strictly regulates that market. Consequently, under market socialism with Chinese characteristics, there is bound to be an ever-present tension between the individual and the state.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal (September 22, 2015), President Xi argued that freedom is the purpose of order, and order the guarantee of freedom.

The real meaning of that statement is that Chinas ruling elite will not tolerate dissent: individuals will be free to communicate ideas, but only those consistent with the states current interpretation of socialist principles.

This socialist vision contrasts sharply with that of market liberalism, which holds that freedom is not the purpose of order; it is the essential means to an emergent or spontaneous order. In the terms of traditional Chinese Taoism, freedom is the source of order.

Simply put, voluntary exchange based on the principle of freedom or nonintervention, which Lao Tzu called wu wei , expands the range of choices open to individuals.

Denying Chinas 1.4 billion people a free market in ideas has led to one of the lowest rankings in the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters without Borders.

In the 2016 report, China ranked 176 out of 180 countries, only a few notches above North Koreaand the situation appears to be getting worse. Under President Xi Jinpings consolidation of power in preparation for this years Party Congress, the websites of liberal think tanks, such as the Unirule Institute, have been shut down, and virtual private networks (VPNs) are being closed, preventing internet users from circumventing the Great Firewall.

Lius death is a tragic reminder that China is still an authoritarian regime whose leaders seek to hold onto power at the cost of the lives of those like Liu who seek only peace and harmony through limiting the power of government and safeguarding individual rights.

James A. Dorn is vice president for monetary studies, editor of the Cato Journal , senior fellow, and director of Catos annual monetary conference.

See the original post:
What Liu Xiaobo's Grisly Prison Death Tells Us About Free Speech in Xi's China - Newsweek

Michigan State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, is the leading sponsor for the Campus Free Speech Act, a proposed bill that would restrict certain kinds of protesting on Michigan college campuses. Students who have twice been found responsible for infringing upon the expressive rights of others, would either be suspended for a year or expelled permanently.

Colbeck says that the bill would allow speakers to visit campuses without being disrupted by students who disagree with their views, referring to when author and commentator Ann Coulter canceled her speaking engagement at the University of California, Berkley, because of pushback from students.

The CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, Dan Hurley, said that such instances are intentionally set up by individuals who are not students, not affiliated with the university." He does not believe there is a problem with free speech or expression at colleges, he said.

Michigan's 15 public universities and 28 community colleges would adopt the rules set out by the bill, and would also abolish free speech zones. In May, Sen. Colbeck said, Ultimately, theres people that are just trying to shut down any discussion of issues that they dont agree with.

Michigan students are split on the bill, some thinking that it would infringe on their own free speech rights. Vikrant Garg is a graduate student at the University of Michigan and helped found Students4Justice, a group for students of color at UM who organize to target inequities on our campus.

What this does is criminalize people for expressing their freedom of speech, Garg said.

This bill, and the people that make these decisions, including the police who are used to enforce these policies operate under a framework in which they can silence us and inflict violence against us with no consequences. They can inflict violence against us for speaking out."

Gregory Magarian, professor of law at Washington University in Saint Louis and a free speech expert, says that colleges should address the issue on their campuses individually.

Nancy Schmitz, dean of students and assistant vice president of student affairs at Oakland University said, Our student affairs office works hand in hand with the Oakland University Police Departments chief of police and group leaders to ensure access and safety in organizing such events. In addition, we always comply with all federal and state laws on the matter and will follow developments with the latest legislation being proposed.

Some faculty members believe the bill is unnecessary. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, an organization that rates speech codes on campuses, rules restricting or limiting free speech already exist on Michigan's public university campuses.

Ultimately, the legislation could promote an atmosphere of discussion and civil debate. Sen. Colbeck said, "if campus leaders believe some speech creates a safety concern because of unruly audience members wishing to use violence, they must police those who would break the law in order to stifle free speech, ... intellectual freedom on our campuses must not be bullied into silence."

Women's March Organizer Labels CNN's Tapper 'Alt Right' for Calling Out Her Group

What McConnell Said When He Was Asked to Justify Health Care Failure to Voters

See the original post:
Michigan Students Object to Campus Free Speech Bill - Townhall