Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Free Speech Tag

Posted by New Neo on February 16, 2015 11 Comments
So now we know the identity of Copenhagen shooter Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, whose crime has mirrored the recent terrorist attacks in Paris but with a smaller death total and a single perpetrator. More details will no doubt emerge, but already it seems fairly clear what's going on here: a continuation of the assault on the West's freedom of speech, perpetrated by a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist (or one in sympathy with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists). The idea is to silence what they see as blasphemy against Islam, as well as to exert a chilling effect on anyone who would sympathize with or support such freedom of speech. In addition, it is an attack on Jews and those who would protect them. The goal? Non-Muslims should not be free to criticize Islam in ways that the group deems blasphemous; Jews would not be free to practice Judaism; and the penalty for both crimes would be death. The moment when the West should have become aware of the growing seriousness of the threat to Western free speech was the 1989 fatwa against author Salman Rushdie. Perhaps some people were able to minimize it at the time by reminding themselves that Rushdie had been born a Muslim in India, which made him an apostate when he renounced the religion. But he was definitely a Westerner, having lived in Britain since the age of fourteen, and his books were written in English and aimed at a Western audience. To refresh your memory:
Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief [for his novel The Satanic Verses] and in 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. Numerous killings, attempted killings, and bombings resulted from Muslim anger over the novel. The Iranian government backed the fatwa against Rushdie until 1998, when the succeeding government of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said it no longer supported the killing of Rushdie. However, the fatwa remains in place.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 13, 2015 3 Comments
Canada's equivalent of Fox News shut down early this morning. In a land where the state run Human Rights Commission works tirelessly to squash free speech, Sun News Network will be missed. Sun News' closing leave the network's commentators like Ezra Levant, who've consistently spoken out against Canada's penchant for political correctness are now without network home, and Free Speech, largely without a national voice. Citing difficulty obtaining a buyer, the network was left with no viable way to remain operational. In August of 2013, federal regulators denied Sun News a mandatory cable spot, making it difficult for the network to attract viewers. CBC News reports:

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 18, 2015 12 Comments
Bill Maher has been on a free speech tear lately, and if you look back at the last few months it makes perfect sense. In December of 2014 he was booked to speak at UC-Berkeley's commencement; but liberal students who disagreed with his views on Islam and free speech tried to shut him down. Of course, Professor Jacobson predicted all of this. Maher ultimately spoke at Berkeley---and used the opportunity to bash Republicans. Even so, you have to admire Maher's recent strong defense of free speech. Here's a clip from his Friday show where he took liberals to task on political correctness over Islam. He even takes a poke at the "Stop Rush" crowd. (NSFW for language) Josh Feldman of Mediaite does a great job outlining the segment:

Posted by New Neo on January 14, 2015 9 Comments
This seems to be a disturbing development in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings:
France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and those glorifying terrorism... Authorities said 54 people had been arrested for hate speech and defending terrorism since terror attacks killed 20 people in Paris last week, including three gunmen... Like many European countries, France has strong laws against hate speech, especially anti-Semitism in the wake of the Holocaust. The Justice Ministry sent a letter to all French prosecutors and judges urging more aggressive tactics against racist or anti-Semitic speech or acts.
"Speech or acts"---there's a big, big difference between the two. It is easier to justify criminalizing acts rather than speech---although of course it depends on what the speech is. To be legally actionable, the speech had better be the rough equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 14, 2015 31 Comments
What is wrong with this picture? Neil Munro of The Daily Caller reports that Obama is planning to use his influence as president to run interference in the media on behalf of Jihadists. Naturally, he's doing it for the troops:
White House: Obama Will Fight Media To Stop Anti-Jihad Articles President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12. “The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing. The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
Here's a video report:

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 24, 2014 26 Comments
The first questions one must ask are, When did Florida begin allowing Satanic holiday displays in their capitol at Christmas, and why would Satanists feel the need to celebrate the birth of Christ? While I don't know the answer to the first question, I'll take a guess at the second. Modern Satanists, who desperately want attention, are taking advantage of our politically correct culture. Anyone who has children knows that moment when a child says something like "But you let (insert other child's name here) have one!" Following this logic means that if Christians are allowed to erect a Christmas display in the capitol, then Satanists should also be allowed to do so, even if the core of their belief system is the direct antithesis of everything represented by the Christmas holiday. Like everyone else in America, Satanists are entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment; but don't tell me their display was meant to be anything other than a thumb in the eye to Christians. Joel Landau of the New York Daily News describes the display:
The organization set up the holiday display, which featured an angel falling into a pit of fire, as a protest for the state allowing a Nativity scene in the government building.
An unidentified woman has been arrested for the damage.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 23, 2014 8 Comments
Bloomington City Attorney Sandra Johnson is making moves to hold accountable the organizers of this past Saturday's "Black Lives Matter" protest at the Mall of America. Officers were present on-site, and once the chanting started, moved to close almost 100 stores and several entrances to the mall. I say "moved to" as opposed to "were forced to" because the shutdown occurred as soon as the protests began, and there were no reports of some sort of violent instigating event; but perhaps it's a good thing the officers moved so quickly, based on how mall employees describe what happened next: From CBS Minnesota:
Nate Bash works at one store near the rotunda, which he didn’t want us to name. “You had people yelling and screaming inside the mall that wanted out and you had people yelling and screaming outside the mall that wanted in,” he said. “I would say the mall was less than half as busy as it should have been considering what day it was.” “This was a powder keg just waiting for a match,” said Johnson.
Police officers are busy using social media in an attempt to single out the organizers (arresting every single protester would be chaos, and not worth the trouble;) their goal is to target the organizers and participants who encouraged others to come to the mall even after officials made moves to emphasize that the Mall of America is privately owned, and those disrutping business would be asked to leave. Officials don't yet know how much money was lost during the shutdown, but they're throwing around words like "staggering," so I'm willing to assume that losses were well worth the effort to track these people down and file a lawsuit.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 02, 2014 6 Comments
Common Core is generating a lot of concerns around the country, and teacher input without fear of retaliation is essential. The reality is, however, that teachers critical of Common Core may be intimidated by school district and state officials into silence. That is what a teacher is alleging in a lawsuit (full Complaint here) filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against the Arizona Superintendent of Education, as described by The Goldwater Institute press release:
Today the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tucson, Ariz. teacher Brad McQueen, who was retaliated against by employees of the Arizona Department of Education for speaking out against the Common Core State Standards. For years, Mr. McQueen was paid to serve on several committees of teachers who advised the state department of education on issues related to standardized testing. When he spoke out against the Common Core and its accompanying standardized test earlier this year in a newspaper article, he was removed from the committees (even those that had nothing to do with the Common Core), notes were made in his file at the department that could impact future employment opportunities, and he was disparaged in official department emails. “The First Amendment guarantees that all Americans have the right to speak out on important issues of the day without fear of being persecuted,” said Kurt Altman, a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute. “When you exercise your rights and find your livelihood and reputation are threatened, especially by the government, that sends a message to everyone around you to keep their mouths shut.”

Posted by Amy Miller on December 02, 2014 7 Comments
The relationship between the media and Connecticut courts is about to get very, very ugly. The Connecticut Law Tribune has come forward with information showing that New Britain Superior Court Judge Steven Frazzini has enjoined the newspaper from publishing a story based on court documents entered into the public record and published on the Judicial Branch's website. Tribune lawyer Daniel Klau has already filed an appeal, but even Klau himself has been slapped with a court order demanding his silence on the subject. From the Connecticut Law Tribune:
The action before Frazzini was in juvenile court session, where judges have the discretion to limit proceedings to those participants deemed necessary. A writer representing the Law Tribune was not permitted to remain in the courtroom to witness the proceedings, after his presence was objected to by a lawyer for one of the parents in an underlying custody case and by a guardian ad litem. Klau said he was not sure he could talk specifically about who the lawyers were in the case, or even the judge. The lawyer for the mother in the custody case is Stephen Dembo, of West Hartford, who took the unusual step of requesting the injunction to prevent the newspaper's publication of a story about the court filing. The guardian ad litem is Susan Cousineau, a prominent voice in the ranks of guardians ad litem, who also cochaired a legislative task force on GAL reform in the last legislative session. The Department of Children and Families legal director, Barbara J. Claire, wanted to make it clear that her agency was not behind the request for the publication ban, and said in a statement: "The department did not request that a court grant a motion to prevent media coverage in a confidential child protection case." The motion to bar publication was filed on Friday, Nov. 17. The Law Tribune immediately filed an objection to the motion, arguing that any prior restraint on publication is unconstitutional. "Prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringements on First Amendment rights," the brief states, quoting the 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case of Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart.

Posted by Amy Miller on December 02, 2014 5 Comments
Both parties in the high-profile Elonis vs. United States had their day before the Supreme Court yesterday, and lawyers and analysts alike aren't sure what to make of the Court's reaction to oral arguments. Elonis (described in detail here) is shaping up to be a real barn burner because it tackles a question almost all of us have asked ourselves at some point: can you SAY that on Facebook? "That" being, of course, profanity- and violence-saturated rants directed at a particular person or group of people. We don't have a cohesive standard for what constitutes a "true threat" against another person, and the murky waters of social media have added an extra layer into an already complicated case. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide a kind of semi-anonymous catharsis for users; you can post a picture, or a song lyric, or random thought, and (barring any run-ins with the platform's TOS) no one can find cause to complain because it's your space on the internet to use as you wish. Enter Elonis' pointed, violent rants. Is it enough to claim catharsis and artistic expression when your content is clearly aimed at another person, and that person feels threatened? Elonis' attorneys are banking on the Nine to accept this argument:
John Elwood, a lawyer for Mr. Elonis, said prosecutors should have to show that someone accused of making threats intended to put the listener in fear. Merely being reckless with comments on Facebook or elsewhere shouldn’t be enough to make someone guilty, he said. “Many of the people who are being prosecuted now are teenagers who are essentially shooting off their mouths or making sort of ill-timed, sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail,” Mr. Elwood said. He cited a Texas prosecution of a teenager who made remarks in a videogame chat room about attacking a school. And he suggested the government’s preferred legal approach would allow the prosecution of someone from Ferguson who tweeted a violent message along with a picture of police officers during the riots.
Justices Alito and Ginsburg balked at this argument, with Alito citing concerns that condoning Elonis' conduct could lead to a situation where estranged spouses could post threatening content against their partner and get away with it, and Ginsburg asking how a prosecutor could somehow tease out what was in the perpetrator's mind when he posted the threatening content.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 24, 2014 38 Comments
In the 2003 barnburner Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a statute that in part stated that the act of burning a cross constituted prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor said that "just as a State may regulate only that obscenity which is the most obscene due to its prurient content, so too may a State choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." Next week, the Supreme Court will be asked to apply this standard to speech in a new and controversial venue: a man's Facebook timeline. Anthony D. Elonis was sentenced to four years in federal prison after a court determined that violent rants posted to his personal Facebook page constituted a "true threat" to his estranged wife, former coworkers, and even a federal agent. The Washington Post has the background:
About a week after Tara Elonis convinced a judge to issue a protective order against her estranged husband, Anthony, her soon-to-be ex had this to say:
“Fold up your PFA [protection-from-abuse order] and put it in your pocket Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”
... He was fired after co-workers interpreted one of his Facebook postings as a threat to them. He responded: ““Someone once told me that I was a firecracker. Nah, I’m a nuclear bomb and Dorney Park just f----- with the timer.” ... In other postings, Elonis suggested that his son dress as “Matricide” for Halloween, with his wife’s “head on a stick” as a prop. He pondered making a name for himself by shooting up an elementary school and noted that there were so many nearby to choose from — “hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 01, 2014 10 Comments
Last Sunday, we told you about the Democratic Party's attempt to use the Federal Elections Commission to regulate free speech on the internet. Bill Whittle has put perspective on the issue in a new video from Truth Revolt. Here's an excerpt:
This smiling, normal-looking woman is Ann Ravel. She heads the FEC — the Federal Elections Commission. She’s a Democrat in a Democratic administration pursuing the Democratic party’s goal of intimidating, jailing and otherwise harassing their political opponents, who are mean because they don’t like being told what to do, or to think — the way nice people do. So she has been ordered to weaponize the government against unregulated speech — we don’t call it “free speech” any more because that term is archaic and also probably racist. It’s not like she doesn’t want to! As a typical progressive Democrat, Ann Ravel has two overriding psychological needs: First, regulate everything. How on earth with people like Ann Ravel and, for that matter, the President of the United States, ever be able to feel secure when the American people are just running around starting businesses willy-nilly, or irresponsibly making internet videos that don’t conform to the Official Truth, or reading news stories — “news stories!” — on places like Fox or the Drudge Report.
Watch the video: This actually dovetails perfectly with Professor Jacobson's new column at Townhall.com:

Posted by Amy Miller on October 30, 2014 16 Comments
We wrote previously about UC Berkeley students' attempt to block comedian Bill Maher from speaking at the university's commencement ceremonies. Students circulated a petition citing "hateful" statements like the one contained in the tweet below as reasons why Maher should not be allowed to speak at the ceremony. Unfortunately for Berkeley's future community organizers, Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks disagrees with the premise of their petition, and has overturned a student vote blocking Maher from speaking at graduation. Via Inside Higher Ed:
"The UC Berkeley administration cannot and will not accept this decision, which appears to have been based solely on Mr. Maher’s opinions and beliefs, which he conveyed through constitutionally protected speech," said a statement from the university. "For that reason Chancellor Dirks has decided that the invitation will stand, and he looks forward to welcoming Mr. Maher to the Berkeley campus. It should be noted that this decision does not constitute an endorsement of any of Mr. Maher’s prior statements: indeed, the administration’s position on Mr. Maher’s opinions and perspectives is irrelevant in this context, since we fully respect and support his right to express them. More broadly, this university has not in the past and will not in the future shy away from hosting speakers who some deem provocative."

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 28, 2014 24 Comments
Back in September, Prof. Jacobson asked How long before Bill Maher is banned on campus? It turns out the answer is... about a month. Greg Piper of the College Fix reported yesterday:
UC-Berkeley students try to derail Bill Maher from speaking at graduation Comedian, pundit and HBO host Bill Maher is scheduled to speak at the University of California-Berkeley’s December graduation, and students are already lining up to get him disinvited, citing his controversial remarks on Islam, the Daily Californian reports:
The Change.org petition was authored by ASUC Senator Marium Navid, who is backed by the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition, or MEMSA, and Khwaja Ahmed, an active MEMSA member. The petition, which urges students to boycott the decision and asks the campus to stop him from speaking, has already gathered more than 1,400 signatures as of Sunday. … “It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate,” Navid said. “The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.” … “(Jon) Stewart and (Stephen) Colbert are critical of religion, too, but Bill Maher has, on several occasions, said to rise up against religious people and religious institutions and take action,” Ahmed said.
Here's an example of what's gotten Maher into trouble with Berkeley students. (language warning – NSFW) If you watched the video, you may have noticed that Maher mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 26, 2014 20 Comments
This is just another case of Democrats doing something they would be outraged about if Republicans tried it. In this instance, they want to use the power of government to silence opposition. Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reports:
Dems on FEC move to regulate Internet campaigns, blogs, Drudge In a surprise move late Friday, a key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report. Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long over due,” she said. The power play followed a deadlocked 3-3 vote on whether an Ohio anti-President Obama Internet campaign featuring two videos violated FEC rules when it did not report its finances or offer a disclosure on the ads. The ads were placed for free on YouTube and were not paid advertising.
This is all about the accumulation and retention of power. As John Hinderaker of Powerline recently noted, that's just how the left rolls:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 16, 2014 46 Comments
Houston's summer was marred by a battle over religious liberties and overreaching government. Sparring over a city ordinance that would force businesses, among other things, to allow transgendered clientele the use of opposite sex restrooms or risk discrimination suits, Bayou City area clergy and the government aren't exactly on the best of terms. Rather than placing the measure on the ballot, City Council enacted the reform via city ordinance. Rallying together, clergy and concerned citizens submitted over more than twice as many required to repeal the ordinance. Then the validity of the signatures was called to question by the city attorney. And that's where this story picks up. The Houston City government made a bad situation worse when it subpoenaed five local area pastors. The subpoena requests any and all communication, electronic and otherwise that remotely mentions the above mentioned city ordinance battle. But it doesn't stop there:
All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.
Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status and can lose that status by engaging in electioneering or elicit candidate endorsement, just the same as any other 501(c)(3) organization; but none of the subpoenaed material falls within that category.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 07, 2014 3 Comments
Turns out Twitter is also fed up with this administration's war on transparency. Last month, Twitter released a report detailing how they'd been banned from reporting the extent of government surveillance on the platform. In that report Twitter explained:
"...if the government will not allow us to publish the actual number of requests, we want the freedom to provide that information in much smaller ranges that will be more meaningful to Twitter’s users, and more in line with the relatively small number of non-national security information requests we receive. We also pressed for the ability to be specific about different kinds of national security requests and to be able to indicate “zero requests” if that applies to any particular category of request. Unfortunately, we were not able to make any progress at this meeting, and we were not satisfied with the restrictions set forth by the DOJ.
Today Twitter announced they're taking the transparency fight to court:
Our ability to speak has been restricted by laws that prohibit and even criminalize a service provider like us from disclosing the exact number of national security letters (“NSLs”) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) court orders received — even if that number is zero. It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges. So, today, we have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to publish our full Transparency Report, and asking the court to declare these restrictions on our ability to speak about government surveillance as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering the constitutionality of the non-disclosure provisions of the NSL law later this week.
You can read the filing in its entirety beneath:
Accessibility by WAH