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



Greg Lukianoff: Freedom From Speech
Greg Lukianoff: Freedom From Speech.

By: Narayan12

See the original post here:
Greg Lukianoff: Freedom From Speech – Video

Topeka U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts last week voted against a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit campaign expenditures by corporations. But Greg Orman, his independent challenger in this year’s election, said he would support such an amendment.

Roberts was among 42 Republican senators who voted Thursday against closing debate on Senate Joint Resolution 19, a constitutional amendment that would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as “Citizens United.”

The court said in that case that limits on independent expenditures by corporations and other groups violate their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Our founding fathers knew that those in power would be inclined to retain it and, unless constrained, would use their power to punish those who would seek to challenge them or remove them from office, Roberts said in a speech to the Senate Sept. 8. The First Amendment denies us that power. It explicitly prohibits this Congress from passing laws that restrict the speech of the American people. With this amendment, the majority wants to try to remove that prohibition. They want to grant themselves the power to control speech to silence their opposition.

Orman, however, said he would support such an amendment as part of a broader package of campaign finance reform measures, including stricter limits on contributions from political action committees.

Current campaign finance laws are a perfect example of how both parties are focused on their personal or partisan benefit instead of the American public, Orman said in a statement released Monday. The lack of transparency allowed under Citizens United benefits Washingtons broken system at the expense of an informed electorate, and even more alarming is that the decision opens up the door for significant foreign influence in U.S. elections because donations can be made through any U.S. corporation.

The Citizens United case involved a conservative political group that wanted to air a film during the 2008 election cycle that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was then a U.S. senator from New York seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. The group also sought to buy advertising time to promote the movie, and to distribute it through video-on-demand cable services.

But the Federal Election Commission said that would have violated the campaign finance law in place at the time, a law known as the McCain-Feingold Act which prohibited corporations and labor unions from making direct or independent expenditures in support or opposition to identifiable candidates.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the FEC, in favor of Citizens United, saying among other things that corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

The vote to end debate on the amendment failed on a straight party-line vote: 54 Democrats voted yes, while 42 Republicans, including both senators from Kansas, voted no. Three Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

See original here:
Senate candidates differ on overturning Citizens United ruling



Sen. Flake Speaks in Opposition of Constitutional Amendment to Limit Free Speech
U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) yesterday took to the Senate floor to speak in opposition to legislation that would amend the Constitution to limit free speech u…

By: Sen. Jeff Flake

Link:
Sen. Flake Speaks in Opposition of Constitutional Amendment to Limit Free Speech – Video



Journalism First Amendment Speech

By: madelineskiles

See the rest here:
Journalism First Amendment Speech – Video

Americas system of military honors is vulnerable to fraud, says Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Samuel Alito, who was honored at the 2014 Congressional Medal of Honor Society Awards gala in Knoxville, Tenn. on Saturday, spoke with regret about the legal fallout from a recent First Amendment case over the right to lie about being a war hero.

I fervently wish that we find a way, that Congress will find a way to protect the integrity of our countrys system of military honors, Justice Alito said, making a comparison to laws cracking down on counterfeit luxury goods. If there is no First Amendment right to buy a fake Rolex, why should there be a First Amendment right to wear a fake Medal of Honor? he said at the ceremony.

Justice Alito was one of three dissenting votes in a 2012 Supreme Court free-speech ruling striking down a law that made it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded military medals.

The high-court declared unconstitutional the Stolen Valor Act, a 2006 statute Congress passed to protect the reputation and meaning of military honors.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said: Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable.

In response, Congress last year passed a new Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to knowingly profit from lying about receiving military medals and decorations.

Justice Alito, in his weekend remarks, said he couldnt comment specifically on the new statute.

Read more:
Justice Alito Urges Congress to Protect Nations Military Honors System



Hatch Slams Senate Democrats Latest Attack on Free Speech
September 9, 2014 Senate Floor.

By: SenatorOrrinHatch

See the original post here:
Hatch Slams Senate Democrats Latest Attack on Free Speech – Video



Three Martini Lunch: Free Speech?
Jim and Greg discuss Obama's tanking approval numbers, Harry Reid's bid to hobble the First Amendment, and the Ray Rice scandal.

By: National Review

Follow this link:
Three Martini Lunch: Free Speech? – Video



Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats
This segment originally aired on the September 7th, 2014 episode of Ring of Fire on Free Speech TV. If you've spent any time listening to right wing hate talkers, you might think that the…

By: Ring of Fire Radio

Continue reading here:
Far Right Groups Pose Serious Security Threats – Video



Allow Free Speech, You Communist Bastards!
Voicemail on communist bastards (Dave and Louis) On the Bonus Show: What not to do to an off duty US Marshall, cardboard license plates, restorers destroy the world's oldest pyramid,…

By: David Pakman Show

Read the original here:
Allow Free Speech, You Communist Bastards! – Video



Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time
Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time.

By: Adana Patnkja

Go here to read the rest:
Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time – Video



NATO Wales Summit: Osprey Flight, NATO Special Operations Speech
Osprey flight at the NATO Wales Summit. Includes a speech on NATO Special Operations. Like us on Facebook at “US Military” – https://www.facebook.com/USMilitaryVids Follow us on Twitter at…

By: US Military Videos Photos

Go here to see the original:
NATO Wales Summit: Osprey Flight, NATO Special Operations Speech – Video



What happens if Scotland goes independent and the country starts to fail? – Free Speech – BBC Three
Programme website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04hbjp5 The Free Speech audience debates Scottish independence in Edinburgh.

By: BBC Three

Read more:
What happens if Scotland goes independent and the country starts to fail? – Free Speech – BBC Three – Video



Manhattanville College: Free Speech
Stephanie Camerone '14 talks about how she was able to contribute to Manhattanville College.

By: Manhattanville College

Visit link:
Manhattanville College: Free Speech – Video



Sen. Ted Cruz Objects to Democrats Attempt to Repeal Free Speech Protections
September 9, 2014.

By: SenTedCruz

View post:
Sen. Ted Cruz Objects to Democrats Attempt to Repeal Free Speech Protections – Video

Dear Chancellor Dirks,

The Free Speech Movement Archives and the Organizing Committee for the FSM 50th Anniversary would like to thank you for generously supporting our efforts to commemorate the Free Speech Movement, and to keep the memory of those events alive. We look forward to seeing you at our reunion. In the spirit of civil discourse, we would like to bring to your attention some history regarding the question of what the Free Speech Movement was about, what we won, and what it means for the campus today.

In your letter to the campus community of Friday, September 5th you said, the boundaries between protected speech and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between debate and demagoguery have never been fully settled. In fact, these questions were fully settled. On December 8th, 1964, the Berkeley Academic Senate adopted a resolution stating that: the content of speech or advocacy shall not be restricted by the University. This resolution was then reinforced by the Regents resolution of December 14th which stated: Henceforth University regulations will not go beyond the purview of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In celebrating the half century that the UC Berkeley campus has been a symbol and embodiment of the idea of free speech, you are proudly and properly referring to the outcome produced by the Free Speech Movement in the fall of 1964. Your statement seems to miss the central point. The struggle of the FSM was all about the right to political advocacy on campus. The UC Administration of that time insisted it would not permit speech on campus advocating student participation in off-campus demonstrations that might lead to arrests. The African-American civil rights movement was then at its height and students rejected these restrictions. This attempt to restrict our rights produced the Free Speech Movement.

It is precisely the right to speech on subjects that are divisive, controversial, and capable of arousing strong feelings that we fought for in 1964. . . From the roof of the police car blockaded in Sproul Plaza, we heard a song written by a UC graduate (BA, MA, PhD) Malvina Reynolds that summed up our feelings toward the UC Administration and others who were then trying to reign-in the civil rights movement. The song was titled, It Isnt Nice.

It isnt nice to block the doorways, it isnt nice to go to jail!/

There are nicer ways to do it, but the nice ways always fail./

It isnt nice, it isnt nice, you told us once you told us twice/

But if thats freedoms price, we dont mind.

We note that the charge of uncivility was used by Chancellor Phyllis Wise of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, to justify the discharge of Professor Steve Salaita. For this reason, many now read the call for civility in your letter as a potential threat.

Originally posted here:
An Open Letter About Free Speech to Chancellor Dirks

U.C. Berkeleys Chancellor Nicholas Dirks has been kind enough to spice up the imminent Free Speech Movement reunion which starts next week. You can get all the information about the innumerable talks, movies, panels, dinners and especially the new play about the FSM (by Joan Holden with music by Bruce Barthol and Daniel Savio, Marios son) here.

Its a full plate of reminiscences and inspiration, but the part that the chancellor might enhance is the kickoff happy hour on Friday, September 26, from 5:30-6:30 at the Free Speech Movement Cafe Terrace. According to the published schedule: the new(ish) Chancellor, Nicholas Dirks will stop by for a few minutes.

Why might that be big fun, if hes not afraid to show up? Well, hes been catching a fair amount of flack online and in the press since September 5. The focus is a smarmy memo he emailed that day, reprinted here in full:

This Fall marks the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, which made the right to free expression of ideas a signature issue for our campus, and indeed for universities around the world. Free speech is the cornerstone of our nation and society which is precisely why the founders of the country made it the First Amendment to the Constitution. For a half century now, our University has been a symbol and embodiment of that ideal

As we honor this turning point in our history, it is important that we recognize the broader social context required in order for free speech to thrive. For free speech to have meaning it must not just be tolerated, it must also be heard, listened to, engaged and debated. Yet this is easier said than done, for the boundaries between protected and unprotected speech, between free speech and political advocacy, between the campus and the classroom, between debate and demagoguery, between freedom and responsibility, have never been fully settled. As a consequence, when issues are inherently divisive, controversial and capable of arousing strong feelings, the commitment to free speech and expression can lead to division and divisiveness that undermine a communitys foundation. This fall, like every fall, there will be no shortage of issues to animate and engage us all. Our capacity to maintain that delicate balance between communal interests and free expression, between openness of thought and the requirements and disciplines of academic knowledge, will be tested anew.

Specifically, we can only exercise our right to free speech insofar as we feel safe and respected in doing so, and this in turn requires that people treat each other with civility. Simply put, courteousness and respect in words and deeds are basic preconditions to any meaningful exchange of ideas. In this sense, free speech and civility are two sides of a single coin the coin of open, democratic society.

Insofar as we wish to honor the ideal of Free Speech, therefore, we should do so by exercising it graciously. This is true not just of political speech on Sproul Plaza, but also in our everyday interactions with each other in the classroom, in the office, and in the lab. Sincerely…

Researching reaction to this pronouncement on the web has yielded a treasure trove of impassioned defenses of, yes, Free Speech, and a great variety of well-crafted explanations of just exactly how Dirks misses the point.

The favorite bte noire seems to be this paragraph:

Continued here:
Chancellor Dirks Upholds a Berkeley Tradition



Alexander on Senate Democrats effort to change First Amendment and Limit Free Speech
U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander today spoke on the Senate Floor on his opposition to Senate Democrats' effort to change the U.S. Constitution to give politician…

By: lamaralexander

Read more here:
Alexander on Senate Democrats effort to change First Amendment and Limit Free Speech – Video

Published: Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 3:15 a.m. Last Modified: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.

Since Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nomination, said “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” Democrats have been decrying Republican “extremism.”

Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitution’s architecture of ordered liberty is rare. This week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class’ convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment, as the First Congress passed it and the states ratified it 223 years ago, states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as people seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as “relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.” But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech.

The Democrats’ amendment states: “Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections,” and may “prohibit” corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money “to influence elections,” which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits would be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed “reasonable” would surely serve incumbents’ interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this “improvement” of James Madison’s First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It stated only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendment’s most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a “dangerous intrusion on free speech.” And that no Fortune 100 corporation “appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.”

Original post:
Will: Group of senators tries to 'improve' First Amendment

SINCE Barry Goldwater, accepting the Republicans 1964 presidential nomination, said extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, Democrats have been decrying Republican extremism. Actually, although there is abundant foolishness and unseemliness in American politics, real extremism measures or movements that menace the Constitutions architecture of ordered liberty is rare. Last week, however, extremism stained the Senate.

Forty-eight members of the Democratic caucus attempted to do something never previously done amend the Bill of Rights. They tried to radically shrink First Amendment protection of political speech. They evidently think extremism in defense of the political class convenience is no vice.

The First Amendment as the First Congress passed it, and the states ratified it 223 years ago, says: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The 48 senators understand that this is incompatible by its plain text, and in light of numerous Supreme Court rulings with their desire to empower Congress and state legislatures to determine the permissible quantity, content and timing of political speech. Including, of course, speech by and about members of Congress and their challengers as well as persons seeking the presidency or state offices.

The 48 senators proposing to give legislators speech-regulating powers describe their amendment in anodyne language, as relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. But what affects elections is speech, and the vast majority of contributions and expenditures are made to disseminate speech. The Democrats amendment says: Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections, and may prohibit corporations including nonprofit issue advocacy corporations (such as the Sierra Club, NARAL Pro-Choice America and thousands of others across the political spectrum) from spending any money to influence elections, which is what most of them exist to do.

Because all limits will be set by incumbent legislators, the limits deemed reasonable will surely serve incumbents interests. The lower the limits, the more valuable will be the myriad (and unregulated) advantages of officeholders.

The point of this improvement of James Madisons First Amendment is to reverse the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. It left in place the ban on corporate contributions to candidates. It said only that Americans do not forfeit their speech rights when they band together to express themselves on political issues through corporations, which they generally do through nonprofit advocacy corporations.

Floyd Abrams, among the First Amendments most distinguished defenders, notes that the proposed amendment deals only with political money that funds speech. That it would leave political speech less protected than pornography, political protests at funerals, and Nazi parades. That by aiming to equalize the political influence of persons and groups, it would reverse the 1976 Buckley decision joined by such champions of free expression as Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall and Potter Stewart. That one reason President Harry Truman vetoed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act was that he considered its ban on corporations and unions making independent expenditures to affect federal elections a dangerous intrusion on free speech. And that no Fortune 100 corporation appears to have contributed even a cent to any of the 10 highest-grossing super PACs in either the 2010, 2012 or 2014 election cycles.

There are not the 67 Democratic senators and 290 Democratic representatives necessary to send this amendment to the states for ratification. The mere proposing of it, however, has usefully revealed the senators who are eager to regulate speech about themselves:

Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Benjamin Cardin (Md.), Thomas Carper (Del.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Al Franken (Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Angus King (Maine), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Edward Markey (Mass.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Christopher Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.), John Rockefeller (W.Va.), Bernard Sanders (Vt.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.), Mark Udall (Colo.), John Walsh (Mont.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Ron Wyden (Ore.).

The italicized names are of senators on the ballot this November. But all 48 Senate co-sponsors are American rarities real extremists.

Read more from the original source:
George Will Eviscerating the 1st Amendment is extremism



Khari: Free at Last S2E21 | Racist Words or Free Speech?
Khari: Free at Last S2E21 | Racist Words or Free Speech? Host: Khari Enaharo Guest: Earth O. Jallow Rev. John Coats Donella Martin-Braddix Topics: – How do y…

By: Bounce23TV

See the original post here:
Khari: Free at Last S2E21 | Racist Words or Free Speech? – Video



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com