Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Tolerance is as vital as free speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Tolerance is as vital as free speech
Apr 142015
 

In her book “The Friends of Voltaire,” Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote, I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unfortunately, free speech is again under attack. The recent debacle with the French magazine Charlie Hebdo is but the most recent in a line of assaults. In this struggle, the enemy is the culture of political correctness.

Earlier this year, Islamic terrorists carried out an atrocious attack on Charlie Hebdos Parisian headquarters. This attack claimed the lives of 12 people and injured 11 more. The source of the terrorists motives dwelled with the magazines history of publishing cartoons that they claimed were offensive in its portrayals of the prophet Muhammad.

In the wake of the attack, many expressed solidarity for Charlie Hebdo by rallying behind the slogan, Je suis Charlie [I am Charlie]. Inspired by a defiant spirit of freedom, the magazine published what has been dubbed a survivors issue. The cover of this issue unapologetically depicts Muhammad on the cover holding a sign that reads, Je suis Charlie, as a single tear trickles from his eye. And yet, many news companies refused to either print or show the cover, citing a desire not to offend.

Political correctness in American society holds that some topics may not be discussed for fear of being impertinent. There is merit in this doctrine. Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker has spoken about how this politically correct culture arose as a response to some very big problems. During the early to mid-19th century, many doctrinesparticularly in regard to racewere simply rude, insensitive and unacceptable.

Profanity, vulgarity, tastelessness, racism and discrimination (amongst other things) should not have a place in a civilized and enlightened society. British author Alfred George Gardiner captured this quite well when he wrote, A reasonable consideration for the rights or feelings of others is the foundation of social conduct.

From this, it would follow that speech that is detrimental to order and coexistence should be discouraged. The question is whether the caricature of Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo was indeed harmful to either individual persons or society as a whole. It is very hard to point to an injury in fact resulting from this harmless cartoon. Many people feel that these cartoons are insulting, and they are entitled to feel this way. But one does not have a right not to be insulted.

The English philosopher John Stuart Mill discussed free speech extensively in his famous essay On Liberty. He said that the benefits of free speech are not for the one speaking, but rather for society as a whole. This sounds counterintuitive, but Mill has a strong argument.

The only way that truth may be discovered is through free and open discourse. If a new idea is correct, then society benefits through a replacement or augmentation of previous opinions. And if a new idea is wrong, then society benefits from an exercise in understanding why the received opinion is right. No truth is so firmly situated that it cannot be questioned. Bertrand Russell once said that, In all affairs, love, religion, politics or business, its a healthy idea, now and then, to hang a question mark on things you have long taken for granted.

Truth is not a democracy, as truth exists regardless of whether one believes in it. Yet the way that truth is uncovered is democratic. And through this democratic process, ones perceptions of reality can be made better to reflect reality as it is. Truth does not always win out in the marketplace of ideas, but in the end, it will triumph. As Freud said, The voice of reason is small but persistent.

Political correctness can be seen as a barrier to free speech, as it prevents certain claims from being made. Many of the greatest ideas that the human mind has conceived must have seemed revolutionary and insulting in their time. Copernicus, Darwin, Marx and Einstein all broke with the status quo and insulted a great many people. Yet humanity would be the worse without their contributions.

More:
Tolerance is as vital as free speech

FGCU tries to STOP me w/ Bogus Policy – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on FGCU tries to STOP me w/ Bogus Policy – Video
Apr 112015
 



FGCU tries to STOP me w/ Bogus Policy
I was preaching at FGCU on good Friday when I was challenged by a student on FGCU's free speech policy. The staff and police that was on duty this day tried to say that their policy says that…

By: TeamJesusPreachers

Originally posted here:
FGCU tries to STOP me w/ Bogus Policy – Video

Supreme Court in India upholds free speech on internet, scraps Section 66A of IT Act – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Supreme Court in India upholds free speech on internet, scraps Section 66A of IT Act – Video
Apr 112015
 



Supreme Court in India upholds free speech on internet, scraps Section 66A of IT Act
Supreme Court in India on March 24, 2015 upholds free speech on internet, scraps 'unconstitutional' Section 66A of IT Act. The controversial cyber law that gave police sweeping powers to arrest…

By: Ravi Pradhan

Read more:
Supreme Court in India upholds free speech on internet, scraps Section 66A of IT Act – Video

Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO
Apr 112015
 

On April 8 and 9, the pianist Valentina Lisitsa was to perform the Rachmaninoff 2nd concerto with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. This week, the orchestra paid out her contract, citing deeply offensive comments she was alleged to have made on her Twitter feed about the ongoing conflict in her native Ukraine.

Lisitsa, 41, who came to prominence through her YouTube videos and who has a huge social-media following, fired back promptly and at some length in a Facebook post (despite, she averred, pressure from the symphony not to go public about the incident). She makes no bones about having taken sides in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine; she is on the side of the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who represent the majority in the Crimea, and vehemently opposed to the current Ukrainian leadership. Her posts on Twitter repeatedly call Ukrainians Nazis and depicts them as a population of idiots and the insane; one purports to illustrate the leaderships faces with a photograph of pigs testicles. The feed also has some racism and overtones of anti-Semitism thrown in for good measure. But, Lisitsa says, she was exercising her right to free speech. The orchestras position is that she went too far.

This is not about political persuasion, says Jeff Melanson, the Toronto Symphonys president and CEO, in a telephone interview on Wednesday morning. He adds, Thats no issue for us. [But] artists using their Twitter or public profile to regularly speak in an intolerant or offensive way about other human beings that, you have to think about. The orchestra invoked a clause in her contract that enabled them to dismiss her.

Theres food here for legitimate debate. But legitimate debate is not necessarily whats fostered in the kangaroo court of Twitter and Facebook. The Toronto Symphony has been besieged by an outcry about free speech, and ultimately had to cancel the concerto altogether (Stewart Goodyear, who was to have replaced Lisitsa, says her supporters bullied him out). Some of the orchestras critics include people who have their own political axes to grind; some appear to believe that Lisitsa is supporting the Ukrainian rather than the Russian side in the conflict; and some include members of prominent newspapers editorial boards: the Toronto Star, for one, has weighed in with a strong indictment.

Few, if any, have mentioned an obvious recent parallel, when Opera Australia dismissed the Georgian soprano Tamar Iveri in 2014 after a lengthy Facebook post was found in which she supported attacks on a gay-pride parade in her native Georgia and referred to gay people as fecal masses. Free speech? Sure, but Iveri found precious few defenders and certainly there were no editorials defending her right to speak out.

The case against Lisitsa is arguably not quite as clear-cut. The Toronto Symphony has amassed a seven-page collection of some of her ripest Tweets, including one that mocks Ukranians in traditional folk costume by comparing them to Africans in tribal dress. There are evocations of Nazi concentration camps and the Ku Klux Klan. Theres no question that its pretty distasteful stuff; digging around in it left this reader, at least, feeling soiled.

But where do you draw the line? You could argue that Lisitsa is writing, clumsily, in the tradition of offensive satire propagated by the magazine Charlie Hebdo, whose right to free speech many in the West passionately defended in the wake of the brutal attack on their offices earlier this year, which left 12 people dead. One of Lisitsas tweets that some found objectionable This is what happens when media gets their news out of a..uh..sphincter, she wrote about a New York Times piece on Russian leaders abandoning Ukrainian separatists included a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, depicting news outlets drinking out of each others rear ends. (In a Twitter exchange, Lisitsa confirmed that she had swapped out the names of the media outlets to make the cartoon relevant to the Ukrainian situation.)

Conversely, you could argue that a musician who uses her podium for this kind of material is not someone you want associating with your orchestra. You could also argue that Lisitsa is propagating hate speech, and that hate speech is illegal in Canada and many other countries.

Theres no doubt its a gray zone, said Melanson in a telephone interview on Wednesday morning.

Whether or not you agree with the symphonys position, they have gotten the worst of it in the social-media war in part through not being more explicit right from the start about the nature of the Tweets they were protesting. In 2014, Opera Australia made it perfectly clear why they were letting Iveri go; by contrast, Melansons initial statement about ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets made it sound as if the symphony were responding to someone elses claims which has fueled a lot of speculation about who it was that pressured them to act. Melanson, however, avers that no political pressure, no pressure from donors, no messages from foreign or local governments was responsible for the orchestras decision.

Go here to see the original:
Free speech or hate speech? Lisitsa and the TSO

Religious Freedom Debates Make Evangelicals More Tolerant, Study Finds

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Religious Freedom Debates Make Evangelicals More Tolerant, Study Finds
Apr 112015
 

April 10, 2015|4:46 pm

Protesters against U.S. President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, June 28, 2012. The Supreme Court is set to deliver on Thursday its ruling on President Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare overhaul, his signature domestic policy achievement, in a historic case that could hand him a huge triumph or a stinging rebuke just over four months before he seeks re-election.

When Evangelicals are exposed to arguments defending their own free speech and religious freedom, they become more accepting of extending similar rights to their political foes, a new study found.

“Rights, Reflection, and Reciprocity: How Rights Talk Affects the Political Process,” by political scientists Paul Djupe, Denison University; Andrew Lewis, University of Cincinnati; and Ted Jelen, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, will be presented this month at the Midwest Political Science Association’s annual meeting in Chicago.

The researchers sought to understand if the recent culture war battles between sexual freedom and religious freedom (see, for example, here, hereand here) would lead to greater or lesser division and intolerance among the combatants. (This paper focuses on the conservative side but they suggest they will also be studying the liberal side.)

In an article for the political science blog The Monkey Cage, the authors explain that their research “has identified a fascinating silver lining [to those culture war battles]. We find that evangelical Christians who are exposed to claims about religious rights actually become more willing to extend First Amendment rights to their ideological opponents. That is, the campaign to reinforce religious liberty might actually increase political tolerance in the long run.”

(Photo: The Christian Post/Sonny Hong)

Paul Djupe, associate professor of political science at Denison University, presenting “The Choice That Matters: Politics in the Role of Leaving Congregations,” at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., Aug. 30, 2014.

The study used a survey experiment. A sample of 2,141 respondents, including 274 Evangelicals and 1,867 non-Evangelicals, were divided into groups exposed to different messages from hypothetical political candidates and clergy. These messages were about pro-life protestors, the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, teaching creationism, and a photographer declining to work at a same-sex wedding. Each group had messages based upon either morality, free speech, religious liberty, and a less specific message that was used as the control group. The study also used a number of control measures that are common in studies of tolerance education, ideology, political interest, gender, age, and democratic norms.

The respondents were also asked to identify which groups they either “like the least” or “disagree with the most” from among these options: immigrants, Tea Party members, Muslims, homosexuals, Christian fundamentalists, or atheists. For the full sample, the non-Evangelicals chose Christian fundamentalists as their least liked group, followed by the Tea Party. Evangelicals chose atheists as their least liked group, followed by Muslims and the Tea Party.

The rest is here:
Religious Freedom Debates Make Evangelicals More Tolerant, Study Finds

Expulsion of University of Oklahoma students sparks free speech debate – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Expulsion of University of Oklahoma students sparks free speech debate – Video
Apr 082015
 



Expulsion of University of Oklahoma students sparks free speech debate
Legal experts say the University of Oklahoma had no right to expel the fraternity members who used racial slurs and chants on a video that went viral. Robert Corn-Revere, a First Amendment…

By: Voice of America

Go here to read the rest:
Expulsion of University of Oklahoma students sparks free speech debate – Video

IGN Censors free speech in it’s comments section – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on IGN Censors free speech in it’s comments section – Video
Apr 062015
 



IGN Censors free speech in it's comments section
This is insane. IGN no longer censors cursing, but feels the need to censor free speech when it's something they don't agree with. Someone needs to remind them of something called free speech.

By: The Goof

Read more from the original source:
IGN Censors free speech in it’s comments section – Video

Police try to limit Abolitionist’s free speech – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Police try to limit Abolitionist’s free speech – Video
Apr 032015
 



Police try to limit Abolitionist's free speech
As police tried for about 30 minutes to remove me and my signs off of public property (that is freely open to the public), I respectively stood my ground. It paid off in the end because I…

By: AbolitionistSociety ofTampa

Continue reading here:
Police try to limit Abolitionist’s free speech – Video

Nigel O’Mara – It’s Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Nigel O’Mara – It’s Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse – Video
Apr 032015
 



Nigel O'Mara – It's Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse
Please Support The Show Tune in at 8pm GMT Hayden Hewitt is the co-founder and spokesperson for one of the most popular websites in the world. He'll be chatting about free speech and…

By: Richie Allen Show

See the rest here:
Nigel O’Mara – It’s Time For Justice For The Victims Of Child Abuse – Video

How to Edit XML Blogger Templates – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on How to Edit XML Blogger Templates – Video
Apr 032015
 



How to Edit XML Blogger Templates
Download Notepad++ http://notepad-plus-plus.org/ Enter Here for More http://WWW.TRIKOBLU.COM Notepad++ is a free (as in “free speech” and also as in “free beer”) source code editor and Notepad …

By: Trikoblu

Read more here:
How to Edit XML Blogger Templates – Video

Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats
Apr 032015
 

TOMORROW, the Malaysian cartoonist Zunar is expected to be charged with sedition over an illustrated tweet critical of his nations judiciary. If found guilty, he could face several years behind bars.

Last week, Turkish cartoonists Bahadir Baruter and Ozer Aydogan of the publication Penguen were sentenced to 14 months in prison for satirically insulting the nations president, before their sentences were commuted to fines.

And last month, while visiting Washington for a free-speech talk at Freedom House, Ecuadorian cartoonist Bonil told me that he cant spend his creative energy thinking about death threats, as well as a preliminary criminal investigation over his artwork, when he returns to his country. He faces accusations of socioeconomic discrimination, and he is fighting to stay free in body as well as in speech.

Elsewhere around the world, some political cartoonists also face arrests and threats at best, and disappearance and death in the darkest scenarios, over their commitment to exercise the power of the pen.

As Zunar says in a statement this week about the true power of the politically charged cartoon: The truth is seditious.

Coming to the aid of these artists the globe over, though, is the Cartoonists Rights Network International, which for one more week is running an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for its numerous fights for cartoonist rights and protection.

The Virginia-based organization is buoyed by many of the industrys American brethren, including such Pulitzer-winning cartoonists as Joel Pett of the Lexington Herald-Leader and Matt Wuerker of Politico. And at the center of the human-rights group is executive director Robert Russell, a former Peace Corps worker who founded CRNI a quarter-century ago.

Comic Riffs caught up with Russell to talk about the mission and movements of CRNI, as well as how to best aid, protect and rescue cartoonists who risk life and liberty in the name of free speech, and in the visual pursuit of truth.

MICHAEL CAVNA: CRNI has been on the front lines of helping support cartoonists under editorial and personal attack for a quarter-century now. How much are threats against, and persecution of, cartoonists always a constant and roughly how many cartoonists around the globe would you say need your help at any given time?

ROBERT RUSSELL: At any given time, anywhere from three to five cartoonists are very high on our radar. For some of these cartoonists, the problems are just temporary and usually settled positively and without too much fanfare in the civil courts. Other of our cartoonist clients have been in and out of trouble with their antagonists for years. We also find that a consistent group of usual suspects keeps making the rounds on our radar screen. Recidivism amongst some particularly hard-hitting cartoonists can be very high.

Read more:
Cavna: Crowdfund of the week: Free-speech cartoonists vs. legal and mortal threats

Volokh Conspiracy: Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws

 Misc  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws
Apr 032015
 

With the recent and continuing hulabaloo over conflicts between antidiscrimination laws and freedom of religion, the charge inevitably arises that anyone who is opposed to, or even skeptical of, antidiscrimination laws that apply to private partieswhich means most people who identify themselves as libertariansis effectively not pro-liberty, but pro-discrimination. I therefore thought it was a good time to reprint my rebuttal of that argument from Cato Unbound, published in 2010, below.

The most serious charge has been that libertarian skepticism of antidiscrimination laws that apply to private entities reflects, at best, insensitivity to race discrimination. One blogger, reflecting a significant swath of progressive sentiment, argued that no matter how committed to racial egalitarianism any individual libertarian claims to be, Libertarianism is a racist philosophy. Libertarians are racists.

This is a rather odd criticism. For both philosophical and utilitarian reasons, libertarians are presumptively strongly opposed to any government regulation of the private sector. It naturally follows that libertarians presumptively oppose restrictions on private sector discrimination. Its hardly an indication of racial animus, or even insensitivity, for libertarians to enunciate theexact same positionon antidiscrimination laws that they take in all other contexts.

The progressive libel of libertarians as racial troglodytes for their consistent defense of private-sector autonomy is ironic, given that similar illogic has so frequently been used against modern liberals. When liberals defended Communists free speech and employment rights in the 1950s, their critics accused them of being Communist sympathizers, if not outright Communists. More recently, progressives have been accused of being American-hating jihadist sympathizers when they stood up for the rights of terrorism suspects. Critics have even charged civil libertarians with abetting racism for opposing hate speech laws.

The hate speech example is particularly telling. Some progressives argue that if libertarians were more sensitive to the concerns of minorities, they would sacrifice their anti-statist principles to the goddess of antidiscrimination. If so, progressives should similarly sacrifice their support for freedom of speech.

Confronted with the hate speech analogy, progressives will typically reply that supporting freedom of speech is completely different from supporting the right to engage in discriminatory action. After all, speech is just speechsticks and stones, and whatnotwhile discriminatory actions cause real distress to the victims. And besides, they argue, the marketplace of ideas can be trusted to ensure that egalitarian views will emerge victorious.

This argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Hate speech can directly harm members of minority by causing psychological distress or inciting violence. And indirect harms from hate speech can be catastrophic if advocates of racist views are able to win control of the government. While minorities can generally find productive economic niches in even highly prejudiced but market-oriented societies, there is no safe haven for minorities if racist ideas dominate politics and lead to harsh discriminatory legislation.

Also, a free economic market protects minorities from discrimination to some degree because businesspeople have an economic incentive to hire the most productive workers and to obtain the most customers. By contrast, individual voters and political activists have no corresponding incentive to overlook or overcome their personal prejudices. Concern for the financial bottom line mitigates the temptation of economic entrepreneurs to discriminate; concern for the electoral bottom line, meanwhile, often leads politicians to stir up resentment against minorities.

As suggested above, supporters of antidiscrimination laws typically focus on laws banning racial discrimination. They do so because opposition to race discrimination has great historical and emotional resonance in a nation that had institutionalized racial oppression, including chattel slavery, for hundreds of years. However, federal antidiscrimination laws also apply to discrimination based on religion, sex, age, disability (including ones status as a recovering drug or alcohol addict), pregnancy, marital status, veteran status, and even military recruiters. State and local antidiscrimination laws cover everything from sexual orientation to political ideology to weight to appearance to membership in a motorcycle gang.

The proliferation of antidiscrimination laws explains why libertarians are loath to concede the principle that the government may ban private sector discrimination. There is no natural limit to the scope of antidiscrimination laws, because the concept of antidiscrimination is almost infinitely malleable. Almost any economic behavior, and much other behavior, can be defined as discrimination. Is a school admitting students based on SAT scores? That is discrimination against individuals (or groups) who dont do well on standardized tests! Is a store charging more for an item than some people can afford? That is discrimination against the poor! Is an employer hiring only the best qualified candidates? That is discrimination against everyone else!

Read more:
Volokh Conspiracy: Explaining the libertarian position on antidiscrimination laws

Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy – Video
Apr 022015
 



Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy
On Black, White and Politically Incorrect, Susan Patton and I discuss the recent controversy over Trevor Noah, the man slated to take over for Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. We also ask whether…

By: Boyce Watkins

Read the original:
Do liberals believe in free speech? The Trevor Noah controversy – Video

Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?
Apr 022015
 

The Institute for Justice had petitioned the Supreme Court to take an interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit involving the suppression of free speech protesting a taking of private property. Here is the press release:

Case Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court Shows How If We Lose One Right, We Can Lose Them All

First the Government Tried to Illegally Take Their Land, Then the Government Silenced Them So They Couldnt Hang a Protest Banner on Their Own Property

Key Facts This case started with government abusing its power of eminent domain. 10 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamousKeloruling eviscerating constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse. Company hung a protest banner; the government demanded they cover it up.

Arlington, Va.Ten years ago, in its infamousKelodecision, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a radically broad interpretation of the governments power to take private property through eminent domain. But the Court recognized that the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain are matters of legitimate public debate. Central Radio Company attempted to participate in that debate when the government tried to take its property through eminent domain. The city of Norfolk, Va., however, prevented it from doing so, barring the company from hanging a protest banner on the land in dispute. Now Central Radio is taking its fight to the U.S. Supreme Court,asking the Court to review a major case at the intersection of free speech and property rights.

This case demonstrates just how intertwined our constitutional rights arehow protecting free speech is essential to protecting our other fundamental liberties, including property rights, noted Michael Bindas, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which represents Central Radio.

Central Radio has been a Norfolk institution for more than 80 years, but in 2010 the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority moved to take its land and building through eminent domain and turn it over to nearby Old Dominion University (a land grab Central Radio would ultimately defeat). In response to the threat, Central Radio hunga 375-square foot protest banneron the very building the government was trying to take. It read: 50 years on this street/78 years in Norfolk/100 workers/Threatened by eminent domain!

Acting on a complaint made by an official at Old Dominionthe very entity that stood to acquire Central Radios propertythe city quickly cited Central Radio and ordered the banner be taken down. Yet, under Norfolks sign code, the banner would have been allowed if it had fallen into one of the various favored categories of signs that Norfolk exempts from regulation. For example, a banner of the same size, in the same location, would have been perfectly permissible if, rather than protesting city policy, it depicted the city flag or crest.

In the fall of 2013, the Virginia Supreme Court held that the citys attempted taking of Central Radios property was illegal, vindicating the companys property rights. Unfortunately, however, the federal courts refused to vindicate Central Radios free speech rights. When the company challenged the citys sign code under the First Amendment, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld it. And in January 2015, a divided 2-1decision of the U.S. 4thCircuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court.

According to the 4thCircuit majority opinion, it was irrelevant that the sign code drew distinctions between different types of banners based on their content so long as those distinctions were what the court deemed reasonable. Moreover, restricting Central Radios banner was warranted, according to the majority, because some passersby had reacted emphatically to the sign by waving, honking and shouting in support when they saw it. The majority claimed that these expressions of support were evidence that motorists [we]re distracted by [the] sign while driving.

Originally posted here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Can a city suppress speech protesting eminent domain?

SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? – Video
Apr 012015
 



SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech?
SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? http://www.NS7.tv facebook: http://fb.com/News7Tamil twitter: http://twitter.com/News7Tamil.

By: News7Tamil

See the original post here:
SC striking down 66A of IT Act is a triumph to free speech? – Video

is Censorship Vital in White Peoples System of White Supremacy? Pt 1 – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on is Censorship Vital in White Peoples System of White Supremacy? Pt 1 – Video
Mar 312015
 



is Censorship Vital in White Peoples System of White Supremacy? Pt 1
I discussed what I think is an oxymoron in America, which is free speech. Do white people feel it is absolutely necessary to control speech? There is no doubt in my mind that white people censor…

By: Aaron B

More:
is Censorship Vital in White Peoples System of White Supremacy? Pt 1 – Video

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech – Video
Mar 312015
 



Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech
http://www.AskAttorneySteve.com Most people think “I can say whatever I want its a free country” or “with free speech I can say whatever is on my mind.” While this may be physically true,…

By: Steve Vondran

Read more:
Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of 1st amendment free speech – Video

In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech

 Free Speech  Comments Off on In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech
Mar 312015
 

From nooses to swastikas and repulsive chants, college campuses in the United States have had no shortage of racial tensions. But where is the line drawn between racism and free speech?

In an interview with The Daily Pennsylvanian, President Amy Gutmann, who is trained in political philosophy and political science, discussed the balance between fighting racism while protecting free speech. Gutmann has written extensively about deliberative democracies and has been a vocal supporter of having all beliefs even the most unpopular ones openly expressed.

Even for an expert like Gutmann, its a tricky issue.

There is no simple way of drawing a line. Its not that you can draw a line and something is on one side or the other, and thats all you have to do. Gutmann told the DP. I begin with the time-tested belief that free speech is the lifeblood of a thriving democratic society, and it is also the lifeblood of universities and institutions of higher education like Penn.

We can only succeed in addressing complex and controversial issues if we commit ourselves as a community to respecting diverse perspectives or beliefs of others, she added.

Gutmann believes that freedom of speech is most vulnerable when it involves unpopular speech.

The challenge of free speech is when there is speech you really dont like and we have to live up to that challenge, Gutmann said. We have to stand by free speech when its offensive speech, as well as when its speech we like.

Gutmann conceded, though, that there are limitations to free speech that must be considered, including threatening others or falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. She added that the context in which the statements are taken must be examined carefully.

Regardless of whether certain speech is protected by the first amendment, Gutmann says that everyone has a responsibility to respond to speech they do not like.

The right to free speech is often defended without the understanding that it comes along with the responsibility, when we can and as long as were protected, to speak our minds in response to offensive, sometimes disgusting and demeaning speech, she said.

The rest is here:
In wake of OU scandal, Gutmann addresses free speech

Supreme Court scraps section 66A of IT Act – Video

 Free Speech  Comments Off on Supreme Court scraps section 66A of IT Act – Video
Mar 282015
 



Supreme Court scraps section 66A of IT Act
With the Supreme Court scrapping Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, haters of free speech come together for group therapy. Watch more videos: http://www.ndtv.com/video?yt.

By: NDTV

Excerpt from:
Supreme Court scraps section 66A of IT Act – Video




Pierre Teilhard De Chardin | Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism