Washington State Ferry personnel assault photographer
On 10 JAN 2015, I was conducting a follow up First Amendment Audit of the Washington State Ferry Terminal when I was assaulted by staff. Evidently, if you wear a high visibility jacket, you...
By: Rogue Reflections
Read more:
Washington State Ferry personnel assault photographer - Video
When Is Annoying Illegal?
Subscribe! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml The First Amendment protects free speech, but there are some exceptions. How annoying can you be before it becomes illegal? Learn More: There #39;s Actually...
By: TestTube
Read the original post:
When Is Annoying Illegal? - Video
LONDON, UK The attacks against French newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris last week have sparked a worldwide conversation about free speech.
Now the satirical paper is going to print again with its first post-attack edition, and the freedom of expression debate is raging on.
Whats on the cover? You guessed it a new cartoon of Prophet Muhammad. That's forbidden in Islam, but Charlie Hebdo and its fast-growing fan base insist the paper has the right to print it.
Some are wondering what that right is all about. Americans know something about their First Amendment. International law also protects freedom of expression and opinion its in the second sentence of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In practice, it varies considerably by country, even within Europe.
Heres a brief explainer on the different legal interpretations of free speech in the United States, Britain and France.
The US has the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.What First Amendment protections exist in say France or Britain?
None. The Bill of Rights applies only in the US.
Thats irritating.
Sorry. But both France and Britain are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which spell out countries obligation to protect citizens rights to free expression, even of controversial or inflammatory opinions. (The US has signed on to the ICCPR as well.) They have national laws protecting free speech as well.
And citizens here are serious about that freedom. When marchers mobbed the streets across France this weekend, many raising pens toward the sky, they were showing solidarity with the slain staff of Charlie Hebdo. But demonstrators were also taking a stand for the newspapers right to express itself through controversial cartoons.
Go here to see the original:
#FreedomOfSpeech: What that means in the US, Britain and France
"We have the right to make dumb jokes."
-- Tina Fey
I'm a free speech advocate. I've been arrested and I have served jail time for exercising my First Amendment rights. As a reporter, magazine editor and political cartoonist, I've received complaints (and a few rare death threats) for my work. So it goes without saying that I share the global outrage over the brutal murders of the cartoonists and staff at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. It chills the blood to imagine any American cartoonist being placed in the crosshairs of a Kalashnikov. No matter your race, religion, history or lifestyle, murder is a heinous crimefar worse than even the most wounding insult.
But after dwelling on the causes and effects of this tragedy, I find that I have some qualms about the argument that there should be no limits to the exercise of free speech.
My concerns begin with a question: "At what point does satire become bullying?" At what point does satire morph from a deftly wielded surgical tool into a blunt instrument of personal or cultural assault? As we have seen, a pen can draw a cartoon but a weaponized cartoon can draw blood. Does the cause of "free speech" bind us to defend slanders, lies and defamation?
Many advocates of free speech make a point of defending uncensored and fearless public expressionbut only so long as the speech does not veer into venomous and hateful rhetoric. When "free speech" devolves into racist or misogynistic invective, it can prove as devastating to public peace as yelling "Fire!" in the legendary "crowded auditorium." Such mean-spirited expressions are classified as "hate speech" and are characterized by content that "offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."
Unclothed Emperors Versus the Naked Masses
Satire, as a form of mockery, reads entirely differently depending on where and how it is directed. Ridicule directed against the powerfulwhether the target be a wealthy member of the elite or a multinational corporationis most easily recognized as the proper use of the satiric tool. However, ridicule directed against the powerless, the disenfranchised, or the disabled can be seen as inappropriate and coldhearted bullying.
Even hate speech can be nuanced by the interplay of social realities. It's one thing for the oppressed to call for the elimination of the ruling classes; it's another matter for the rulers to call for the elimination of masses. Regicide and genocide are both crimes but there is a vast difference in scale.
Satire, as defined by Wikipedia, is "a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement."
Read the original here:
Satire and Sanity: Where Do You Draw the Line? (News Analysis)