Journalist Shield Law: A Governmental Threat to Free Speech

Recently, Ted Cruz has talked about the government’s control of the internet as a threat to free speech. He referenced the Journalist “shield law” that claims to give journalists more protection by protecting them from being forced to reveal their sources; however, the threat to free speech arose when a Democratic Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, “wanted to only extend the protection to ‘real reporters’ and not, a 17-year-old with his own website.” She said that she could not support the bill if “everyone who has a blog has a special privilege.” Now, I’m no legal scholar, but I’m pretty sure the First Amendment freedom of the press and speech is not considered a special privilege. Senator Feinstein went on to say that she wanted to define journalists as people that get paid a salary to report news; thus ensuring that no one else is covered under the proposed bill. The article poses the very relevant question that if journalist was so narrowly defined, then would the federal government “take measures to force bloggers, who have been key to exposing corruption in government over the past decade, to go to journalism school so that they can get their reports approved by the White House before publishing them?” The issue here is that 17-year-olds with blogs should have the same freedom of speech and press as a paid journalist.

By: Megan Grier

Here are the sources that I used:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/04/09/the-senates-media-shield-law-is-toothless-and-arbitrary

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/10/cruz-government-control-of-internet-is-threat-to-free-speech/

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/09/feinstein-wants-define-journalist/

Tennessee School District Bans All Flags To Avoid Confederate Flag Debate

Due to the recent controversy surrounding the Confederate battle flag being flown in Southern States, everybody who remotely cares about the subject is on edge. This is undoubtedly why this school district in Tennessee decided to avoid the problem altogether and put a blanket ban on students flying flags from their vehicles in general. While this situation is, obviously, not the same as a national government incident, it is still an instance of a government restricting free speech as a solution to disagreement.

What this policy does is remove all speech from the picture–neither side can have a say in the usual discourse. While this is done in an attempt to curb damage, ultimately it does more harm than good. According to Milton, this effective shutdown of debate is unhealthy for society, particularly one that relies so heavily on the democratic process.

Read the story here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/24/tennessee-school-district-bans-flags-including-ame/

Kyle Doud 

Alissa Apecechea - Facebook Threat

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/

On June 1, 2015, in the state of Pennsylvania, there was a very big controversial issue that occurred when a man was left by his wife and posted saying on Facebook that crossed the line of free speech. These messages were considered vicious and were also considered a threat. This was the first time that the Supreme Court would take up a case of free speech over something that was posted on a social media site. Some of the posts that he wrote said, “There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you” (CNN). Another one of his postings said, “Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined” (CNN). These were two examples of the postings. Although he claimed that there was no proof that he planned on actually doing those things, the U.S. Government still considered this a threat and therefore arrested him.

            The man’s lawyer was saying that he believed that his client was using his freedom of speech. His lawyer stated, “The First Amendment’s basic command is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable” (CNN). His lawyer also claimed that he was posting these because he was an artist and was encouraged by Eminem.

            The court proved him guilty, saying that he knew what the meaning of his words were and that these were very serious posts and not posts that would be taken lightly by people. In Lewis’s book, Freedom For The Thought That We Hate, he mentions that, “Our constitution was never intended to protect malice, scandal, and defamation when untrue or published with bad motives or without justifiable ends. It a shield for the honest, careful and conscientious press” (Lewis 44). These statements are statements of bad motives, which is exactly what the constitution does not protect. 

China's cyberwar on free speech

Ruiming Li

CNN published the update in March 25, 2015 which mentioned that Chinese government declared that Internet is the new battlefield to against “pornography and unlawful information”. However, the major target that Chinese focuses on is freedom of expression.

The censorship online is one of the control mode in China to stifle any expression which is criticize the government and China Communist Party. The censorship system checking the phrases online on social media, and forced close them or delate the information based on the phrases which is possible to harm the stable of China regime and ruling party. For some international websites such as Wikipedia, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, they are still blocked by Chinese government because of some topic or information on them are forbid in China, such as Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989 or the recent Hong Kong pro-democracy protests. The national and social stability are the guise, in fact, the suppressing to legitimate opinions of public is a serious issue that influence the freedom expression in China.     

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/24/opinions/china-internet-dissent-roseann-rife/

Madi Smith-Free Speech plays no part in North Korean government

If Americans feel as if they do not have an opportunity to express their opinion, the circumstances of North Korean citizens would give them a different perspective. It says that, “Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association. The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations”. This sounds similar to American policies, but in North Korea this is merely an illusion and not carried through. Some say North Korean is the closest thing to Adolf Hitler’s political approach. The loyalty citizens have to the Korean government is above all else. Not only do citizens need permission to leave the country, their government regulates and controls everything they see and do. Nothing is allowed without the governments approval. Even if someone has done no wrong, if a family member was part of a political crime, they could be shunned to a political concentration camp. On top of this, only people of power have access to the internet, and the government also controls what citizens see on television. Where you stand in the country is based off of your family’s stance politically. You are born into your destiny, and the citizens thoughts have no impact on their circumstances. There is no freedom of religion or opinion. North Korea’s government does not value free speech in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I’d even go as far to say it is non existent. A North Korean’s life is in the hands of the government. If they want to arrest you for no reason they do as they please. If they simply don’t like you, they do as they please. The Korean government is a threat to North Koreans’ freedom of speech each and every day.

http://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/learn-nk-challenges/

https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/north-korea/

New Net Neutrality Laws Could Threaten Free Expression

Mason Morgan

This article focuses on the most recent hearings that have to do with net neutrality as a “common carrier.” The background behind this is that Internet service providers have never had to deal with the same regulations as other communication mediums. The new laws give the FCC the right to regulate the outputs of the Internet and ISP’s can censor what people see and don’t see. The journalist reporting this says it predates back to the McCarthy era during the Red Scare; where the government could trump free expression to the point where it violates the First Amendment. He quotes a vice president of Public Knowledge that says we have become “so dazzled by the promise of new technology that we forgot the foundational principles on which (mass communications) networks (and our freedoms must be built.”

This article is interesting because it brings in prior history to reference a current issue. Sort of like how Geoffrey Stone organizes his book, the right of free expression is applicable to everyone, no matter what form of communication method is used. The author might over-dramatize the situation a little bit by comparing it to the Red Scare, but it is a legitimate threat to our normal understanding of free expression.

Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/258103-net-neutrality-proponents-have-joined-forces-with-the-greatest