Difference between revisions of "Freedom of speech"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(link to national security)
(Cameron's crusade !!)
Line 34: Line 34:
  
 
===9/11 Attacks===
 
===9/11 Attacks===
In 2006 [[Clare Swinney]] brought a complaint to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority pointing out that TVNZ’s claim that [[Osama bin Laden]] organised the [[9/11]] attacks was an outright lie. Shortly afterwards, she was incarcerated for 11 days in a psychiatric ward and subjected to compulsory treatment, The head psychiatrist told a judge that in light of she should remain in hospital as her belief that 9/11 was an inside job was evidence she was “delusional.” The judge agreed.<ref>http://uncensored.co.nz/2008/08/27/apology-from-hospital-for-misdiagnosis-as-delusional-owing-to-political-beliefs-at-last/</ref>
+
In 2006 [[Clare Swinney]] brought a complaint to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority pointing out that TVNZ’s claim that [[Osama bin Laden]] organised the [[9/11]] attacks was an outright lie. Shortly afterwards, she was incarcerated for 11 days in a psychiatric ward and subjected to compulsory treatment, The head psychiatrist told a judge that in light of she should remain in hospital as her belief that [[9/11]] was an inside job was evidence she was “delusional.” The judge agreed.<ref>http://uncensored.co.nz/2008/08/27/apology-from-hospital-for-misdiagnosis-as-delusional-owing-to-political-beliefs-at-last/</ref>
  
 +
==UK==
 +
In May 2015, [[David Cameron]] announced a plan to give "the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”. He did this ''in the name of free speech'', stating further "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the [[law]], we will leave you alone... Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. [[Democracy]]. The rule of law."<ref>[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150513/07020630985/uk-plans-to-do-away-with-free-speech-name-free-speech.shtml UK Plans To Do Away With Free Speech... In The Name Of Free Speech]</ref><ref>http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/counter-terrorism-bill-extremism-disruption-orders-david-cameron</ref>
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 +
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 17:06, 14 May 2015

Concept.png Freedom of speech Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png 4
Freedom of speech.jpg
Interest of• 'Anonymous'
• Big Brother Watch
• BitChute
• Brandnewtube
• Silkie Carlo
• Iain Davis
• Jack Dorsey
• Gettr
• Barbara Kulaszka
• Jacob Mchangama
• Minds
• Odysee
• Rumble
• James Tracy
• Kurt Westergaard
• WinterWatch

Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[1] England’s Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of 'freedom of speech in Parliament' which is still in effect.[2] The US Constitution also grants freedom of speech, though it has been deemed not to apply in certain circumstances.

Official Narrative

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities... [and may] therefore be subject to certain restrictions... [when necessary] [f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others... [or] [f]or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals".[3]

Problems

The commercially-controlled media is highly partisan in its application of "Freedom of speech", as its control by the deep state might suggest. It is used to spread incitements to murder. It also unquestioningly echoed establishment allegations that at least one page on this website was "clearly anti-semitic" - but without naming the site or linking to it so as to allow readers to check for themselves.[4][5][6][7]

Censorship

Full article: Rated 4/5 Internet/Censorship

A suite of technological advances (primarily the internet) has facilitated global exchange of ideas, allowing thoughts to be disseminated not based upon the social position of those who express them, but upon the ideas' own merit. This appears to have caused concern amongst the establishment, who are attempting to rollback this development by a variety of tactics. In 2015, a municipality in Canada announced that it had been taking legal action against people caught insulting police officers online, and floated the idea of fines for anyone caught insulting that municipal employees or police online.[8]

Geographical Limitations

In USA, the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech has been deemed not to apply in schools or universities. Instead, these institutions devise policies which limit how much speech is permissible. California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, has a strong policy prohibiting the distribution of fliers. Prohibited on over 99.99% of their campus, it is permitted only within a small "free speech zone" if the fliers are approved and the distributor has a "permit" signed by an administrator. This policy is facing a legal challenge by Nicolas Tomas after he was stopped by police on February 4, 2015 for handing out fliers.

Increasingly, restrictions are being set on the freedom to protest at events such as the G20 meetings. These are enforced sometimes without any legal review.

Subject Limitations

Left (legal "free speech"), a Charlie Hebdo cover of July 2013, referring to the killing of Egyptian protestors after the military coup.
Right (illegal "defense of terrorism") posted on the net in 2015, referring to the Charlie Hebdo shooting.[9]

Free speech is not free if certain topics are off limits. It is interesting that some nations explicitly prohibit certain the public expression of certain opinions on certain topics (most notably The Holocaust), while other subjects appear to be implicitly p

The Holocaust

Many European countries have laws forbidding or limiting critical discussion of the Holocaust official narrative. These include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Switzerland. In practice, the extent to which these are enforced varies, but some people have been

Antisemitism

In February 2015, Rev. Stephen Sizer posted a Facebook link to the Wikispooks page "9-11/Israel did it" (not alleging that he believed the article true, merely stating that "It raises so many questions"). The commercially-controlled media and Church of England were quick to accuse him of "antisemitism".

"Terrorism"

Under cover of the "War on Terrorism", freedom of speech has been rapidly curtailed since 9/11. In January 2015, less that a week after freedom of speech was celebrated in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, dozens of people were arrested in an act of mass censorship by the French government.[9]

9/11 Attacks

In 2006 Clare Swinney brought a complaint to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority pointing out that TVNZ’s claim that Osama bin Laden organised the 9/11 attacks was an outright lie. Shortly afterwards, she was incarcerated for 11 days in a psychiatric ward and subjected to compulsory treatment, The head psychiatrist told a judge that in light of she should remain in hospital as her belief that 9/11 was an inside job was evidence she was “delusional.” The judge agreed.[10]

UK

In May 2015, David Cameron announced a plan to give "the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”. He did this in the name of free speech, stating further "For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone... Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law."[11][12]

 

An example

Page nameDescription
Section 230Federal regulations mainly affecting Big Tech.

 

Related Quotations

PageQuoteAuthorDate
"Extremism"“Should these extremist views be allow [sic.] in society with the risk they could incite some to violence?”Admin9 April 2011
"Hate speech"“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”George Orwell
Idi Amin“There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech.”Idi Amin
Boston Herald“These are the facts: Vaccines don’t cause autism. Measles can kill. And lying to vulnerable people about the health and safety of their children ought to be a hanging offense.”Boston Herald editorial staff8 May 2017
Daily Mail“The headline should read "Sussex University examines claims made by professor etc", not just "investigate professor" without certifying if the claim he made is valid or not. Another case of guilty before case proven!”'Fizzelle'7 November 2018
Saagar Enjeti@jack was the last of the tech CEOS who at least on a personal level was committed to free speech. His departure is probably going to make Twitter a lot worse for censorship (which is truly saying something)”Saagar Enjeti29 November 2021
Michael Gunner“The BS that’s flying around on the internet about the territory is coming from flogs outside the territory – mostly America, Canada and the UK,” Mr Gunner told a media conference on Thursday. People who have nothing better to do than make up lies about us because their own lives are so small and so sad. If anybody thinks we’re going to be distracted by tin foil hat-wearing tossers sitting in their parents’ basement in Florida – then you do not know us Territorians”Michael Gunner25 November 2021
Internet/Censorship“For some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift”Tony AbbottSeptember 2014
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador“Yes, social media should not be used to incite violence and all that, but this cannot be used as a pretext to suspend freedom of expression. How can a company act as if it was all powerful, omnipotent, as a sort of Spanish Inquisition on what is expressed?”Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador14 January 2021

 

Related Documents

TitleTypePublication dateAuthor(s)Description
Document:Tactics of Organized Jewry in Suppressing Free Speechspeech transcriptJune 2002Tony MartinAn edited transcript of Prof. Martins address to the 14th Conference of the Institute for Historical Review in Irvine, California about the tactics of organised Jewry in suppressing information they deem harmful to them
Document:White House Must Establish Disinformation Defense and Free Expression Task Forceopen letter29 April 2021Electronic Frontier Foundation
Center for American Progress
Poynter Institute
Free Press
Access Now
Public Knowledge
Common Cause
PEN America
Andre Banks
Ashley Bryant
Win Black
Center for Democracy & Technology
Digital Democracy Project
Katy Byron
Simply Secure
Voto Latino
A number of alleged "free-speech organizations" begging to join the US government in implementing censorship in an Orwellian-named "Free Expression Task Force".


Rating

4star.png 9 April 2019 Robin  Good overview of this important topic
A useful closer look at this increasingly important topic.
Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.



References