The US Supreme Court rules an anti-gay church has the right to picket military funerals under the US constitution’s free speech protections.
See the original post:
US court allows funeral protests
Rep. James Clyburn asserts , without evidence, that the Tucson shooting proves that this country needs to curtail free speech in the name of public safety: ‘Free speech is as free speech does,’ he said. ‘You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.’ Clyburn used as an example a comment made by Sharron Angle, an unsuccessful U.S. senatorial candidate in Nevada, who said the frustrated public may consider turning to ‘Second Amendment remedies’ for political disputes unless Congress changed course. Clyburn said the man accused of shooting Giffords did just that. ‘He saw a Second Amendment remedy and that’s what occurred here and there is no way not to make that connection,’ Clyburn said. Despite Clyburn’s position, law enforcement has not yet revealed the suspect’s motives in the shooting.
View original post here:
A New Threat to Free Speech
Elliot Cohen’s reputation for prescient reporting precedes his new book, “Mass Surveillance and State Control: The Total Information Awareness Project.” In 2007, years before today’s comparatively widespread coverage of the Comcast-NBC merger and other threats to net neutrality, Cohen won the first place Project Censored award for his story about the free speech implications of the 2005 Supreme Court decision cementing the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) position that read more
Given the frenetic closing days of 2010 in Washington politics — passage of the tax bill; repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; approval of the New Start treaty; defeat of the DREAM Act and the Omnibus Spending Bill — it is not surprising that the December 21 decision by the Federal Communications Commission on network neutrality was barely noticed. Unless you are a communications industry executive or one of the lawyers, lobbyists, or advocacy groups in a long-running debate, this fundamental move to regulate the technologies that increasingly manage our business or personal activities could not have made much of an impact. But it should have. MORE ON Net Neutrality: Steve Wozniak: Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free Bruce Gottlieb: Net Neutrality and the Academics Who Love It Alexis Madrigal: Google and Verizon Want to Redefine the Internet The FCC vote of three (Democrats) against two (Republicans) was meant to be the culmination of an already protracted review process that would make all wired and Wi-Fi technologies broadly accessible as they become increasingly dominant in daily life. From the outset, the Obama administration’s stated goal was that all services should be fairly priced and provided in ways that make them available to the maximum extent possible on an equal basis to the public. So in the quieter interregnum of post-Christmas week, I pulled out my net neutrality file, read reports of the FCC decision and the raft of commentaries that appeared in the days around the FCC vote, determined to reach my own judgment on what had happened to this essential aspect of communications policy. The major conclusion of this exercise is that the net neutrality issue is actually far from resolved, despite the FCC action. In fact, by reaching what was essentially a compromise decision, the FCC set the stage for another round of contention, almost certain litigation, and possibly a move for congressional action to override the FCC. In the meantime, what the FCC did was adopt rules that do assure access to material on the Internet — Facebook and YouTube, for example — without restrictions or extra pricing. But when it comes to wireless providers and mobile devices, the major companies such as Verizon and AT&T now have latitude, which they seem destined eventually to use to create tiers of service that are determined by price or other factors that the companies will determine. While the Internet is approaching universal usage, Wi-Fi and mobile technologies are evolving into the fastest growing sectors of communications. What the FCC has done is create a major administrative loophole that enables the providers to determine how those technologies will work — although it does require them to be more transparent in explaining their decisions as they are made. For those of us outside the orbit of the great corporations on one side or the open access/free speech advocates on the other, one recognizable analogy to the debate is the record of cable television. Over the decades, television has progressed from networks and a handful of independents to cable systems with hundreds of stations that gradually have become tiered so that premium programming is now substantially more expensive than the free television that was the standard a generation or two ago. The FCC has determined that the Internet should, in effect, remain open to all on equal conditions. But while not explicitly recognizing that wireless providers will create a class system of services, it has given them opportunity to do so — which, given the record of corporations of all kinds in telecommunications, seems inevitable. Julius Genachowski, the FCC chairman, hailed the outcome of the deliberations, saying : “for the first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness.” President Obama’s statement was equally enthusiastic. He said that the government would “remain vigilant and see to it that innovation is allowed to flourish, that consumers are protected from abuse and that the democratic spirit of the Internet remains intact.” Both those declarations strike me as exaggerated. Having considered the arguments from a variety of viewpoints, I have come down on the side of Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, one of the leading open access advocacy groups, who wrote in a letter to supporters: “For the first time in the history of telecommunications law, the FCC has given its explicit stamp of approval to online discrimination…. For wireless communications, the rule provides virtually no protections at all.” Silver does acknowledge that the FCC actions discourage “unjust and unreasonable” practices. That means that dominant industry players will need to provide data in support of the rationale for their service changes rather than simply imposing them. But given their resources and determination, big corporations are likely to prevail in most instances. The Obama administration’s commitment to net neutrality — the broadest possible access for the public to technology across all platforms — has been significantly weakened in many respects by the FCC decision to split the Internet and wireless regulation. But rest assured that, whatever the FCC has done so far, the issues are not finally resolved. In a scathing editorial last week, the Wall Street Journal said : “The FCC’s brazen power grab is already producing a welcome backlash on Capitol Hill. GOP Representative Marsha Blackburn says she’ll introduce legislation to prohibit the FCC from enforcing net neutrality rules.” The stakes are very high. The technology corporations, the communications industry interests, the open access advocates, Congress, and ultimately the courts will have much more to say on the subject, and they will all be in the fray as the impact of last year’s decision takes hold in the New Year.
Continue reading here:
What Happened to Net Neutrality?
The human being is an animal of protocol. Our behaviors – whether consciously or not – obey codes. Until just recently, protocol was an instrument of hegemonic power. The more one mastered the rules and their construction, the more one controlled the population. The writing and policing of protocols were the privilege of the dominant elites. read more
Read more here:
Wikileaks: Who Rules by the Code, Will Fall by the Code
Craigslist gave in to long-applied pressure this past September when it shut down its Adult Services section across the United States. Attorneys general from 17 states gathered to write a public-facing letter that argued the classified ad website was facilitating both child trafficking and prostitution. Craigslist supporters declared the move a blow to free speech. How will those people react when they learn that Craigslist has shut down Adult Services on all 700 of its sites around the world? But now the exclusion of that category has expanded to account for all 700 sites in 70 countries where users upload to Craigslist, a according to Wired’s Ryan Singel , who noticed “ the unannounced disappearance of the section from the international versions of the site.” In some countries, such as Thailand, my native land, where I’m visiting for the holidays, therapeutic services may very well now be the go-to place for finding that extra something something. I clicked on a “5 Star Massage” which led to a link that looks suspiciously escort-like, with silhouettes of nude girls. Oh, and this small banner ad was probably a giveaway, too: “Undress her! Some are genuine escorts in Seattle!” Also over in Craigslist Paris , “Young Thai boy for a sensual massage” also fell under the therapeutic services category. Read the full story at MSNBC .
Continue reading here:
Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services Sections Around the World
Over the past 10 days, there has been endless palaver over the significance of Wikileaked cables showing diplomats and public officials to be somewhat less than “these like saints appearing.” But the real “leak” in the WikiLeaks affair is that it has forced the U.S. Government to drop its mask and reveal itself as a vindictive ogre that brings all its force to bear on hunting down a single man as a sacrificial prelude to extinguishing fearless, free speech, informed debate and open government. read more
With Facebook’s prominence on the Web, the site’s role as an arbiter of free speech is likely to become even more pronounced.
See the article here:
Facebook Wrestles With Free Speech and Civility
Since this summer, WikiLeaks has published huge tranches of classified U.S. intelligence. The online organization’s actions have ignited fierce debate over whether the First Amendment’s free speech rights will keep its members and its founder, Julian Assange, safe from prosecution.
View original post here:
Toobin: First Amendment may not help
In the name of ‘free speech,’ Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is making sure it’s not blunt.
More:
In seeking ‘free speech,’ Wikileaks strikes a blow against honest speech
The recent news item about a Connecticut worker fired for Facebook postings that annoyed her employer, like other accounts of employees sacked for private speech, was bound to draw a lot of attention. Americans hold First Amendment rights to free speech as a kind of sacrosanct birthright, and for many of us the idea that you can lose your job for expressing private thoughts away from work offends the core principle of freedom of expression.
Continued here:
Opinion: Facebook vs. your job
As the Supreme Court begins its new term, it will be a baptism by fire for its greenest justice, Elena Kagan. In the coming months, the court’s docket features several potentially divisive First Amendment cases and both worry free speech advocates. One…
Original post:
Free Speech Cases Highlight New Term
Craigslist Shuts Down Adult Services Sections Around the World
Monday, December 20th, 2010In seeking ‘free speech,’ Wikileaks strikes a blow against honest speech
Tuesday, November 30th, 2010
