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.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
' 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
Read the whole story:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/scotus.bonghits.ap/index.html
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
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."
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."
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/03/14/asia/AS-GEN-Hong-Kong-Yahoo-Jailed-Reporter.php
Friday, March 16, 2007
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?
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?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
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
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm3.htm
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
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."
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."
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
