Monday, July 03, 2017
#FreeSpeech in the News: July 3, 2017
As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news - and what you should know about - in the past week.
“In our politically divided nation, it is too often being left to big corporations to decide the limits of acceptable political speech.”
Juan Williams: The land of free speech, The Hill
“But libel cases can arise in surprising places. As a matter of fact, the most consequential libel case in contemporary American history, The New York Times Company v. L. B. Sullivan, was not fought over a news article or an editorial or anything else prepared by our staff.”
1964 | A Libel Suit Yields a Vigorous Defense of Free Speech, The New York Times
“Freedom of speech is such a buzzword that people can rally around… and that works really well in their favor. They’re weaponizing free speech to maintain their cultural dominance.”
Save Free Speech From Trolls, The New York Times
“Baking is creative expression, which is speech, which is constitutionally protected, as are religious beliefs, Masterpiece argues.”
"We therefore call on the government of Myanmar to provide the necessary legal protection for journalists to work in a free and enabling environment without fear of intimidation, arrest or prosecution."
“Whatever First Amendment value De Ritis’ statements had, those statements gave Roger adequate justification to treat him differently from a member of the public.”
“I have taught at four universities, over a period of seven years, and I’ve never once felt frightened — annoyed, yes, even angry — but never afraid.”
“Speech is seldom criminalized. But in the 20 years since the Magna Carta decision, more questions have been raised about how much protection certain kinds of speech deserves.”
“If universities continue to allow students to violently protest against speakers they disagree with, they will be conditioned to believe this behavior is acceptable, and even noble.”
Stifling free speech promotes polarization, not conversation, Washington Examiner