PROTEST: BYU Shuts Down

Telecommunications Shout Free Speech Too!

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070507-verizon-says-phone-record-disclosure-is-protected-free-speech.html
Verizon wireless, a cellphone company is in the news because it has cases pending against it for turning over cellular phone record to government security services.

Verizon is detesting the lawsuit on the grounds of free speech and the first amendment.

The government is fighting for all telecommunications companies, ever since September 11th.

I think that in a way the cell phone company has a right to do this but shouldn't their be some kind of contract between the cellphone company and the customer to release personal information.

We all have seen cases where the police have used cellphones to solve a crime because they had the phone records given to them by the phone company. Then again if there is no wrong doing people still have the right to their privacy.

Even the Police Have to Follow Certain Guidelines

Two Topeka police officers who were disciplined for statements made in e-mails and in a letter to a newspaper have lost a lawsuit claiming that the city of Topeka and a former police chief breached their right to free speech.

A federal judge on Friday dismissed the lawsuit filed by officer Ken Eaton and former officer George Campbell against the city and former Chief Steve Harsha.
U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson wrote Friday that the city had the right to discipline Eaton and Campbell, who are white, for statements that the city deemed racially insensitive to Glenda Overstreet, president of the Topeka branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Read the whole story:http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/may/06/police_officers_lose_lawsuit_claiming_free_speech_/
This case is just another one of those I said what I felt at the time, I hope I don't get in trouble kind of situations. I really don't have sympathy for anyone that makes racial comments intentionally about any group of people. So, to me these police officers really got a smack on the hand nothing really major. But they want to file a lawsuit...mmm

Did You Know?

Did you know that if you write something that may be offensive or harmful to someone in a school essay you could be subjected to 30 days in jail and a $1,500 fine.

Last Monday a student at Cary-Grove High School, Allen Lee was asked by one of his teachers to write an essay expressing his feelings and emotions about a certain topic. The instructor felt that it was violent and although it was not directed to any specific person she felt the need to tell the administration from there the teen was arrested and was told to take classes elsewhere.

This is absurd, I can't believe this story. Ever since the V-Tech situation schools and their policies are becoming stricter and trying to take precaution in a way that is so ridiculous. So, I can write anything for school as long as its not violent??? I probably will use this the next time a teacher asks me to write a essay about a topic of my choice. (Just kidding Dr. Fallon)

But this makes you wonder if you are going to be careful about students are writing in classes you might as well show your concern in other areas too like what they watch on television, what they hear in music, what they read in books. Isn't war violent... don't we hear about it everyday... what makes people think that doesn't influence a young mind?

I don't know should we censor everything and try to establish peace between mankind? (A thought... sounds good.)

For more on this story visit:http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/28/america/NA-GEN-US-Student-Essay-Arrest.php

Known to be a Vodka Drinker, but also Remebered for Eliminating Censorship

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/24/world/europe/24yeltsin.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5087%0A&em&en=82990e7d30077996&ex=1177646400

On Monday April 23, former Russian President Boris Yeltsin died in Moscow. Yeltsin was having severe health problems and excessive fondness to alcohol.

He will be best remembered by the efforts he made to make Russia a democratic country, instead of continuing the communist rule over the people. He did in fact eliminate censorship of the news media, tolerated public criticism and steered Russia toward a free market.

His leadership was erratic and often crude, and as a democrat he often ruled in the manner of a czar. He showed no reluctance to use the power of the presidency to face down his opponents, as he did in 1993, when he ordered tanks to fire on a Parliament dominated by openly seditious Communists, and as he did again in 1994, when he embarked on a harsh military operation to subdue the breakaway republic of Chechnya. It began a costly and ruinous war that almost became his undoing and that was ferociously revived in 1999 and still being waged when he resigned that year.

His relationship with the United States was a complicated one. President Clinton seized on the fall of the Soviet Union as an opportunity to advance American interests, and he and Mr. Yeltsin maintained a strikingly good rapport.

Although he made some "unpopular" decisions and may not be liked because people think that during his reign he corrupted Russia's Parliament also he still made changes that not only made for the people but freed the people of Russia.

When I was seven in 1993, Yeltsin a New Constitution in Russia was approved that guaranteed private property, free enterprise and individual rights.

Of Course Goverment Officials are Good Storytellers!

http://news.yahoo.com/i/703;_ylt=AglI2UuZ.QZkUIPww2f2irALMxIF

In a recent update on the case of Army Ranger Pat Tillman, an Army Specialist was told not tell how Tillman really died.

The update concluded that Tillman was killed by his own troops gunfire, when the story first spread about Tillman's death the Government let the media and Tillman's family believe that he died of enemy fire.

"I was ordered not to tell them," U.S. Army Specialist Bryan O'Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Tillman's family said that in the beginning they would have liked the truth rather than these exaggerated stories, just to make it seem like he died in the line of duty.

To me I am glad that the O'Neal came out with the truth that way other families in the U.S. that have relatives that are in the Armed forces can see that the Government and officials that have to record such deaths don't always tell the truth.

I think this family took it kind of well in front of media considering they were lied to and thought that Pat Tillman was in a crossfire with enemy, and thought he died of a heroic act. I don't know how would feel if I were in this position but it certainly makes me think about what other important details are the Government covering up or just not revealing.

alec baldwin Degrading phone message to daughter

Is There Any Such Thing Called Privacy Anymore?

In recent celebrity news Alec Baldwin has been in the spotlight because of http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/19/baldwin.bassinger.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstoriesa disturbing voicemail he left on his 11 year-old daughter's phone. Baldwin and his ex-wife Kim Basinger have been going through a custody battle for some years now and it seems that he had a scheduled time to call his daughter, but his daughter, Ireland, does not answer the phone when he calls.

Although the message said some very negative things and in and very disrespectful manner, I think that his privacy should have been protected. I think Basinger had the right to let a judge hear the message, but for the media to get it and exploit their family's business in the way that it has, is surprising to me.

This is what Baldwin said about the message:
"Although I have been told by numerous people not to worry too much, as all parents lose their patience with their kids, I am most saddened that this was released to the media because of what it does to a child," he wrote. "I'm sorry, as everyone who knows me is aware, for losing my temper with my child. I have been driven to the edge by parental alienation for many years now. You have to go through this to understand. (Although I hope you never do.) I am sorry for what happened. But I am equally sorry that a court order was violated, which had deliberately been put under seal in this case."


In away I hope that Baldwin and his lawyer precede with a court hearing in figuring how the recording of his message got leaked out to the media. Just because you are a celebrity it doesn't matter, your business is your business, everyday people say things they regret on loved one's voice mail's everyday. On the other hand the person leaving the message should be reprimanded about their actions also, but it should not get to the point where people are being so careful as to what they say on some one's voicemail.

Beyond the Picket Line

In a story that took place in Raleigh, NC (LifeNews.com) a man that said his First Amendment right was being denied tries to get help from a pro-life firm when he was picketing against abortion.

To me abortion is a sensitive subject, and whether or not a person agrees with it they should respect others feelings about it. Although, I am not for abortion, I think that this man and his family have the right to picket for what they believe in as long as it is in a tasteful manner.

Fortunately for this man and his family the punishment was only for a citation and not jail time. I think city officials in all states need to make specific laws that are geared to what can and what cannot be rallied against.

I can remember a friend telling me how she went to planned parenthood for birth control and people that are pro-life were outside the front door picketing against abortion, but they didn't know she wasn't even pregnant. My friend said she was embarrassed and felt alone, all because some of these people think just because you are going into a place that does abortions, does not automatically mean you are getting one. Even Cook County Hospital does them, but you never see the picketers there. Ummm...

For more on the story visit: http://www.lifenews.com/state2233.html

Geraldo Identifies the Asian Killer of VTech Students

Is this why we say Fox is not NewsWorthy???

A Tragedy Results in more Communcation and Networking

As the News spread about the Virginia Tech University massacre, the reports shown on television also have revealed how the Virginia Tech students were blogging and even using Facebook.com to spread the new, give their condolences, or simply share how they felt about the whole situation. One student who works for AOL even posted something on their website about the shooter.

To me this word of mouth type of communication is great. It gives people a chance to express themselves and also receive feedback on their thoughts. In a situation like this mutual support from each other can help to cope with this type of awful tragedy.

I copied some of the comments from other people on Facebook that are not Virginia Tech students, courtesy of Facebook. It is not how the lay out of a Facebook page really is but it just shows an example of how one thing can connect different people everywhere together.


I did have some Facebook responses to the tragedy posted, but blogger would not let me link to Facebook group page directly so I apologize. The responses were of concern for the families of the students and not at all vulgar in any way so if you have a Facebook page log on and view some of the groups that have dedicated pages to the V tech students and faculty.

Shut Up! Who Cares?

Last week I posted about the Don Imus and throughout the week I have been looking at coverage about the situation and really within the Black community. It seems to me that my first reactions were wrong about Imus, at first I was like off with his head but now I am realizing this just may be a pubilicity stunt, who knows. To me the Black community is taking this way too serious than it has to me. I know I might get some agry attitudes out there but that is my opinion. The content of Imus show is just what he intended todo with the statement he made, make people lauigh, offended, and in some way embarass the players of Rutgers. I'm not condoning what he did I'm just saying the media is making this like another Anna Nicole Smith situation. On the T.V. network BET(Black Entertaiment Television) They had numerous discussions and even a hour long segment on the case. My bottom line for this matter is that Don Imus will never be silenced because of free speech and basically because he has other supporters besides the ones who dropped him. Its "news" like this that becomes the enter of attention and makes important news the background noise.

Don Imus - The Remarks, Apology, And Al Sharpton's Show

How Sorry is Don Imus?

There has been National media coverage on the racial remarks that radio host Don Imus made about Rutgers University women's basketball team but is this becoming junk news like mostly everything else in the media nowadays?

I don't know if I agree that Imus's freedom of speech has been denied but I do know that the comments he made were not called for. Racists or not, I don't know but the thing about it is the whole shutting him up for two weeks, but what NBC has failed to realize is that he is taking an apology tour and those basketball players will have to hear this story and those comments repeated over and over again, so where is the true apology?

The whole story is a perfect example of how a person can take the idea of freedom of speech to another level and abuse it.

Rosie O'Donnell said best: "Radio is not a right, it's a privilege."


There are a lot of good YouTube postings and I wish I could show you all of them but here is one that I thought covered the story better than some.

Let me know what you think!!

Check it Out

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html

The above website sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, has dedicated this website to free speech and National cases invovlig free speech. This organiztion is also dedicated to protecting free speech. People who search these sites are able take actionand write their own comments and participate in the cause.

Donald Trump attacks the Bush Administration!

Somebody please let me know should Donald Trump fear for his life??!!

Not Such an April's Fools for Indiana Teacher and Correctional Officer

Two women, one a journalism teacher, and one a correctional officer, were facing termination from their jobs because of Free Speech.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/17005912.htm
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14265704&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416045&rfi=6


The teacher was suspended because she let one of her high school students put out a report supporting homosexuals, and the correctional officer was suspended because she told the press the truth about how bad the conditions in the prison were.

Both women claim that their right of Freedom of Speech was violated. I agree with both cases. Their Freedom of Speech has been restricted, because in both cases because their superiors have set certain rules for conduct they felt that those rules were broken.

In the teacher's case the school board felt that administration should have agreed and authorized for the article to be published in the school paper.

And in the lieutenant's case the correctional facility board felt that because she was a non-union employee she was an at will employee meaning she had to follow the guidelines to whatever the prison set forth; even if she did not agree with it.

Glorification Is Not Free Speech

A House of Commons is proposing that glorifying terrorism should be considered a crime. A proposal critics fear would erode freedom of speech and alienate Muslims.

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=20314

An expert in national-security law at the University of Ottawa,Craig Forcese, states:

But individuals charged under such a provision could argue it violates
their freedom of speech under the Constitution.
"I'd be shocked if it weren't a violation of free speech."

Forcese warned the provision could ensnare individuals in Canada with tenuous links to terrorism, such as people expressing support for an aboriginal protest.

But Conservative MP Gord Brown, who chaired the subcommittee that reviewed the act, played down the risks of such abuses.

"Nobody's talking about using it for that type of charge," he said.
"This is to deal with terrorist activity."

Some Muslim groups are worried that anti-glorification measures could unfairly target their community.

Supreme Court Takes Bong Hits 4 Jesus

' Bong Hits 4 Jesus'

This story about a slogan is being defended on the bases of free speech. To me it is disrespectful and really disrespectful to religious organizations. Even though I think free speech should be exercise, like I said before it should not be demeaning or be exercised in an inappropriate manner. Negative free speech in my opinion should be restricted.

Read the whole story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/scotus.bonghits.ap/index.html

Vote Different

The Internet: "Word of mouth on steroids?"

http://www.latimes.com/business/local/la-na-hillary21mar21,1,180701.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

The Los Angeles Times reports today, that people who post videos of any kind on Youtube are protected by their privacy rights to stay annoynomous. This report came about when a posting slamming Presidential candiadte Senator Hilary Clinton on the internet.

Micah Sifry, editor of TechPresident, who has corresponded by e-mail with the person taking credit for the Clinton spot, said he would like to know the producer's identity, but didn't believe such communication should be regulated.

Calling the Internet "word of mouth on steroids," Sifry said: "The striking fact today is the knowledge and skill to make a video like this has moved out of campaign headquarters. It is the beginning of something new in politics."

The Federal Election Commission last year issued regulations leaving Internet political communications all but unfettered.
None of it is traceable, at least not without a subpoena. YouTube assures its users their privacy will be protected."Free speech. That simple," said Andrew Rasiej, founder of Personal Democracy Forum of New York, which tracks the confluence of politics and the Internet. "Posting a video is no different than sitting in a coffee shop and voicing your opinion."

Yahoo! in Hong Kong not in trouble...

I thought this was interesting, something about Freedom of Speech that happened in Hong Kong this past week. It is even more interesting because China does not have the right to Freedom of Speech or the press check this story out about a Chinese journalist who is accused of leaking information about state secrets.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/asia/AS-GEN-Hong-Kong-Yahoo-Jailed-Reporter.php

Principal Says the word 'vagina' is Inappropriate

On Monday March 12, 2007 Students were suspended for saying the word vagina.

A Westchester, New York high school Principal said that when a group of students performed the play the "vagina monolougues" in front of an audience that may have had some young attendees, the word vagina should not have been used.

The Principal said he was not trying to restrict the students free speech but he said the word was just not appropriate for some of the audience and he said that the word should not have been said out of respect for the community and the performers young guest.

Check out the whole story-http://www.cbc.ca/arts/theatre/story/2007/03/10/vaginamonologues-ensler.html

I agree with the respect point of view but this Principal is a little wierd because how many young kids not in high school already know what the word vagina means?

Dreamgirls Gone too Far...

In more cheerful news about restricted Freedom of Speech it seems that some comments that singer Smokey Robinson stated during an interview with Access Hollywood, led to a public apology to Motown Records Executive Berry Gordy. Robinson felt that if the movie Dreamgirls was supposed to depict the legendary music mogul and the other people who have been represented by the company, than it was a terrible portrayal and very untrue.

The producers and directors of the film publicly apologized to Berry Gordy and Gordy accepted, stating that the film was a good film.

In a way you have to give Smokey Robinson some credit for setting the record straight, because when I watched the movie I was wondering was this movie really about Diana Ross and the Supremes. I still think the film has some truth to it. But what happened, definitely shows how careful even if you put something in writing or show something if someone is offended by it, the right to these things might just be taken away.

In this case I feel like The freedoms the producers and directors had for this film was appropriate and was just stripped away for nothing because someone thought that it was an actual portrayal of a real person, but for the record the film is fictional. Bottom line: Settle down Smokey!

The answer to Freedom of Speech being restricted

Hello fellow bloggers I thought this reading from the U.S. Department of State about what is democracy was interesting . Especially read about what they suggests is the answer to unrestricted Free Speech.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm

John Amaechi on Ann Coulter's Anti-gay slur

Ann Coulter uses slur to describe John Edwards @ CPAC

Tim Hardaway - I Hate Gay People FULL INTERVIEW!

A Hate Speech Backfires

In the past month former NBA star John Amaechi came out the "closet," when he announced Nationally that he was gay.

Other NBA players were asked what they thought about Amaechi's decision to come out but only one statement stands out from NBA player Tim Hardaway when he was interviewed about the situation and publicly stated that he hates gay people, that he is homophobic.

Most people thought especially people against gay relationships felt that Hardaway was expressing his Freedom of Speech. The only problem was that the league's Commissioner David Stern was not pleased with Hardaway's comments and did not want the the comments to reflect any views the league has about homosexuality.

As a result Hardaway was banned from the All-star game that was hosted in LasVegas this year.

View full story:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2766213

Like I commented on a previous post that although some may feel that this is alright everyone can say what they want, in a way that is true but again be prepared if people will agree with you or not. Like in this story who knows what the commissioner feels about homosexuality, but we do know is that gay people love basketball like anyone else, so of course the commissioner is not going to let what Hardaway said affect the bigger audience that love the game of basketball. At any rate Hardaway apologized in the end and his comments did not solve anything and basically hurt his character while he was trying to insult someone else.

Amaechi is currently making a National tour promoting his book Man in the Middle.

FCC Cracks Down

The Federal Communications Commission(FCC)has buckled down on what should and shouldn't be said on radio, television, newspapers, and the worldwide web.

In an article written on March 1, 2007; entitled "FCC still interfering with freedom of speech" by Steve Chapman he writes about how a Spanish language television network is supposed to have so many hours of educational programs on during the day, and instead they decided to broadcast soap operas suggesting that they were educational enough. The FCC did not agree with this and fined the network 24 million dollars.

In the article was a great quote that sums up how some people feel that freedom of speech should be just that. Freedom of speech to some should have no regulations at all. I think that people take the meaning to literal and not with a realistic point of view. If a person acts in a way that is so degrading to mankind that defend themselves by saying I have a right to freedom of speech, I have the freedom to do this or that.

The term "freedom of speech" is used to lightly and frequently to excuse people from things they say that they know was wrong. Our society has to start realizing that this freedom is a gift because some countries do not have the privilege to exercise these freedoms like the U.S.... "The land of the free."

Anyways, I've babbled enough I just get heated when people use different rights such has freedom of speech to help get their foot out their mouths. So, here's the quote from the article:

Take the agency's rulings on the F-word: "If Tom Hanks uses the term in "Saving Private Ryan," it's OK, but if Cher does on an awards show, it's not."

LAPD HOLDING

Controversy about whether standing in the middle of a public square and hollering out obsence language is actual free speech.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Is it right for someone to ridicule choices you make in your profession just because they don't like your certain choice?

Well that is what happened February 28, 2007 to female referee Violet Palmer.

Boston Celtics radio analyst Cedric Maxwell apologized on the air Wednesday night for saying that "a female referee should go back to the kitchen" after he disagreed with one of her calls.

Maxwell appeared on WEEI-AM radio station which is owned by Entercom Communication.

Entercom's Vice President of AM programming and operations in Boston said, the station does not condone Maxwell's comments, which he called a poor attempt at humor.

For Full Story and other comments visit:
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/10029025/rss


How can you justify what this sports analyst said with Freedom of Speech. In my opinion the Maxwell was unethical with what he said.

The right to Freedom of Speech which is printed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that Freedom of Speech is not a treaty but a but a resolution that is not legally binding in its entirety. A nation has the right to censor, mostly for obscene, defamation of character, and/or hateful speeches.

In other words, Maxwell has the right to feel like what Palmer did was wrong but he did not have to disrespect her, with the comments he made. He apologized either because he knows what he said was wrong or he apologized because he would have to suffer the consequences such as the public not agreeing with his commentary and possibly getting fired from the radio station.

Could not Resist

When the American Red Cross was trying to get donations and help from people all over the United States for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, they had guest celebrities talk about their feelings about the war. One was Kanye West, I could not resist posting this. Yes, Kanye revealed his true feelings about the whole situation about the war and especially what he thinks about President George Bush, and I quote " George Bush Black people". To me even if the statement is true I feel there is some dignity to be upheld when referring to anyone in an authoritative position. I was upset to learn that there were alternative solutions to avoid the major damage that Katrina caused but the fact still remains that there were more than Black people affected by the storm. Kanye West made himself look like a fool on National television.

Even though the public did not see or hear anyone tell Kanye West that what he said was out of order, when the original broadcast televised on the East Coast and then went to the West Coast Kanye West's statement was edited and censored.

Kanye West Hurricane Katrina

Let Freedom Ring!!!

The First Amendment, of the Constitution is supposed to allow anyone to voice their opinions without censorship and punishment. Today, in the media this right seems to have restrictions whether it is the media that is being watched on what it shows, says, or writes. The other side is the components of the media such as radio, television, and newspaper showing others saying what they feel but then get a lot of criticism for what they say. Although, they do not come right out and say that they should not say some things the censorship is silent but the world knows when "freedom" of speech gets some restrictions to it.

Today's example:

Remember, when Howard Stern was a radio personality/ talk show host on major radio station but because he used profanity and said some lude things. The owners of the radio station did not want his show to reflect the integrity of the radio station and others affiliuated with it. Howard Stern decided not to change his personality. he currently hosts a radio show on Sirius satelitttle radio. This is just a basic, right out example of the quiet censorship and/or punishment of freedom of speech.