Instructions
The layout design for these subpages is at Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/Layout.
- Add a new Selected article to the next available subpage.
- The "blurb" for all selected articles should be approximately 10 lines, for appropriate formatting in the portal main page.
- Update "max=" to new total for its {{Random portal component}} on the main page.
Selected articles list
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/1
American War of Independence, electoral reform had become a substantial issue, and
William Pitt the Younger attempted to bring a Bill before Parliament to reform the electoral system. In its support Shipley republished a pamphlet written by his brother-in-law,
Sir William Jones, which noted the defects of the existing system and argued in support of Pitt's reforms. Thomas FitzMaurice, the brother of the
Earl of Shelburne, reacted by indicting Shipley for seditious libel, a criminal offence which acted as "the government's chief weapon against criticism", since merely publishing something that an individual judge interpreted as libel was enough for a conviction; a jury was prohibited from deciding whether or not the material was actually libellous. The law was widely seen as unfair, and a Society for Constitutional Information was formed to pay Shipley's legal fees. With financial backing from the society Shipley was able to secure the services of
Thomas Erskine KC as his barrister. Shipley was tried in 1784 by
Mr Justice Buller and a specially convened jury at
Shrewsbury.
Edward Bearcroft, counsel for the prosecution, argued that on the basis of the existing system the jury could not decide on the nature of the pamphlet, while Erskine argued not only that they could, but that the material did not constitute seditious libel, containing as it did "a solemn protest against all sedition". Persuaded by Erskine's arguments, the jury ruled that Shipley was not "guilty" or "not guilty", but instead "guilty of publication only", a confusing and non-standard ruling which, after a long dialogue, Mr Justice Buller declared to mean "guilty on all charges". Erskine appealed the decision to the
Court of King's Bench on 8 November, where the judges again ruled that juries could not decide whether material was libellous, but nevertheless released Shipley on a technicality; his freedom was greeted with fireworks and bonfires, and Erskine was rewarded with the
Freedom of the City of
Gloucester. Still seeking to reform the law, Erskine sent the court records to
Charles James Fox and
Lord Camden, who, after much effort, passed the
Libel Act 1792
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/2
Liverpool Daily Post & Echo, who ran a series of articles on 13 and 14 June 2002 asserting that a director of Cream had been bribing a local council official in Liverpool. Cream applied for an emergency injunction on 18 June in the
High Court of Justice, where
Lloyd J decided on 5 July that Cream had shown "a real prospect of success" at trial, granting the injunction. This judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal on 13 February 2003. Leave was given to appeal to the House of Lords, where a judgment was given on 14 October 2004 by
Lord Nicholls
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/3
LJJ, with Brooke delivering the judgment on 5 November 2004. In it, Brooke judged that defamation, the subject of Greene, was significantly different from breach of confidentiality, the subject in Cream. While the damage from a breach of confidentiality can never be undone, justifiying a simple test for issuing injunctions, a defamation case that is won vindicates the injured party. Making it easier to grant injunctions in defamation cases would damage the delicate balance between freedom of the press and the right to privacy; as such, despite the Human Rights Act, Bonnard is still a valid test.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/4
The editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet
Muhammad, were published in the
Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding
criticism of Islam and
self-censorship. Danish Muslim organizations, who objected to the depictions, responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of
Jyllands-Posten's publication. The
controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were
reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, altogether), including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, storming European buildings, and
desecrating the
Danish,
Norwegian and
German flags in
Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including
Mahmoud al-Zahar of
Hamas, issued death threats. Various groups, primarily in the
Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support for free speech in Denmark.
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as
Denmark's worst
international crisis since
World War II
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/5
The freedom to petition, and the
right to keep and bear arms, preventing unreasonable
search and seizure,
cruel and unusual punishment, and
self-incrimination, and guaranteeing
due process of law and a
speedy,
public trial with an impartial
jury. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. The Bill of Rights plays a central role in
American law
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/6
The Franklin Roosevelt delivered to the
77th United States Congress on January 6, 1941. During the speech he identified four essential
human rights that should be universally protected and should serve as a reminder of our motivation for fighting. The theme was incorporated into the
Atlantic Charter, and it became part of the charter of the
United Nations
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/7
academia, there were more critical responses to the Court's holding. Several
journals published articles that argued that the use of a 'distortion principle' to decide violations of free speech was unreasonable while others wrote that the Court mishandled the interpretation of the
law
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/8
freedom of speech in the
United States written by
Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by
Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U.S. within the context of the actions of individuals and how they affected change. The author writes that protests and actions by citizens helped to evolve the notions surrounding free speech in the U.S. before definitive statements on the matter from U.S. courts. Curtis writes that free speech rights were first developed in "the forum of public opinion", and that, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied generally and equally". For his work on
Free Speech, "The People’s Darling Privilege", Curtis received the
Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award and the Mayflower Cup Award. Critics gave the book a positive reception. A review in
Columbia Journalism Review called it a "rich and original study", and
The Journal of American History said that it includes "fine analytic discussions".
Perspectives on Political Science called the book "an extremely valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in America." Timothy C. Shiell of the
University of Wisconsin–Stout reviewed it for
The Historian
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/9
The
banned
users reposting the information. This sparked what some describe as a digital revolt, or "cyber-riot", in which users posted and spread the key throughout the internet en masse. The AACS LA described this situation as an "interesting new twist".
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/10
The .
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/11
The
Reference re Alberta Statutes
, the court found that it was unconstitutional, and it was never signed into law.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/12
The Virginia Resolutions, and the main reason for producing the Report was to answer criticisms that had been leveled at the Resolutions. The arguments made in the Resolutions and the Report were later used frequently during the
nullification crisis of 1832, when
South Carolina declared federal
tariffs to be unconstitutional and void within the state. Madison, however, rejected the concept of nullification and the notion that his arguments supported such a practice. Whether Madison's theory of
republicanism
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/13
To Kill a Mockingbird is a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Harper Lee published in 1960. It was instantly successful upon its release and has become a classic of modern American fiction. The novel is loosely based on the author's observations of her family and neighbors, as well as an event that occurred near her hometown in 1936, when she was 10 years old. The novel is renowned for its warmth and humor, despite dealing with the serious issues of rape and racial inequality. The narrator's father, Atticus Finch, has served as a moral hero for many readers, and a model of integrity for lawyers. One critic explained the novel's impact by writing, "[i]n the twentieth century, To Kill a Mockingbird is probably the most widely read book dealing with race in America, and its protagonist, Atticus Finch, the most enduring fictional image of racial heroism." As a Southern Gothic novel and a bildungsroman, the primary themes of To Kill a Mockingbird involve racial injustice and the destruction of innocence, but scholars have also noted that Lee addresses the issues of class tensions, courage and compassion, and gender roles in the American Deep South. The book is widely taught in schools in English-speaking countries with lessons that emphasize tolerance and decry prejudice. Despite its themes, To Kill a Mockingbird has been the target of various campaigns to have it removed from public classrooms.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/14
The bibliography of George Orwell includes journalism, essays, books, and fiction written by the British writer Eric Arthur Blair, pen name
George Orwell (1903–50). Orwell was a prolific writer on topics related to contemporary English society and literary criticism, whom British newsweekly
The Economist in 2008 declared "perhaps the 20th century's best chronicler of English culture." His non-fiction cultural and political criticism constitutes the majority of his work, but Orwell also wrote in several genres of fictional literature. Orwell is best remembered for his political commentary as a left-wing anti-totalitarian—as he explained in the 1946 essay "
Why I Write", "every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." To that end, Orwell used his fiction writing as well as his journalism to defend his political convictions. He first achieved widespread acclaim with his fictional
novella Animal Farm and cemented his place in history as a novelist with the publication of
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/15
The .
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/16
freedom of speech and expression,
peaceful assembly without arms, and
association. However, the enjoyment of these rights may be restricted by laws imposed by the
Parliament of Singapore on the grounds stated in Article 14(2) of the
Constitution. There are two types of grounds. For the first type, it must be shown that restricting the rights is "necessary or expedient in the interest" of the grounds. The grounds are the security of Singapore and public order (applicable to all three rights protected by Article 14(1)), morality (freedom of speech and freedom of association), and friendly relations with other countries (freedom of speech only). In a 2005 judgment, the
High Court
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/17
Law and Politics Book Review
concluded, "Beyond the First Amendment is an intriguing and important contribution to the literature on free speech."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/18
The MIT Press. Godwin graduated from the
University of Texas School of Law in 1990 and was the first staff counsel for the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Written with a first-person perspective,
Cyber Rights gives the reader a background in legal issues and history pertaining to free speech on the Internet. It documents the author's experiences in defending free speech online, and puts forth the thesis that "the remedy for the abuse of free speech is more speech". Godwin emphasizes that decisions made about the expression of ideas on the Internet have an impact on freedom of speech in other mediums of communication as well, as granted by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book was received favorably by
Library Journal, where it was "Recommended for anyone concerned about expression on the Internet and democratic society."
Booklist recommended
Cyber Rights, for both circulating and professional collections", and
School Library Journal recommended it for young readers.
Law Library Journal recommended
Cyber Rights for "large academic law libraries".
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/19
Journal of Popular Culture characterized the book as "an informative, thought-provoking, and occasionally laugh-out-loud funny examination of specific ways the privatization of ideas suppresses creativity in contemporary culture."
Publishers Weekly
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/20
unique visitors per month. Although the print version of the paper remains both the largest local metropolitan newspaper in the United States, as well the third largest newspaper overall, behind
The Wall Street Journal and
USA Today, its weekday circulation has fallen since 1990 (not unlike other newspapers) to fewer than one million copies daily, for the first time since the 1980s. Nicknamed "the Old Gray Lady", and long regarded within the industry as a national "
newspaper of record",
The New York Times is owned by
The New York Times Company, which also publishes 18 other newspapers including the
International Herald Tribune and
The Boston Globe. The company's chairman is
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., whose family has controlled the paper since 1896. The paper's motto, printed in the upper left-hand corner of the front page, is "All the News That's Fit to Print." It is organized into sections: News, Opinions, Business, Arts, Science, Sports, Style, Home, and Features.
The New York Times stayed with the eight-column format for several years after most papers switched to six columns, and it was one of the last newspapers to adopt
color photography. Access to the newspaper's online content is through a metered
paywall which was put into place in 2011. Frequent users (over 20 articles per month) have to purchase digital subscriptions, unless they are subscribers to the print edition. Access remains free for light users. There are also apps to access content for various mobile devices, such as
Android devices and Apple's
iOS
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/21
in United States v. Schwimmer, "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Lewis warns the reader against the potential for government to utilize periods of fear and upheaval in society in order to suppress criticism and freedom of speech by members of the citizenry.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/22
Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries described the book as a sincere analysis of the word and its history of censorship. After the book's release, Fairman was consulted by media sources including
CNN and
The New York Times, as well as the
American Civil Liberties Union, on issues surrounding
word taboo
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/23
The organization was formed, creating a nationwide network of birth control clinics.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/24
The decision, which held that defendants could be prosecuted only for their actions, not for their beliefs. Membership in the CPUSA plummeted due to the trials, and never recovered.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/25
.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/26
The 1992–97 civil war; Guatemalan newspaper
Siglo Veintiuno (1995), which was subject to police and army raids for its uncensored coverage of government corruption and human rights violations; and Turkish newspaper
Özgür Gündem (1996), which was subject to a campaign of publication bans, assassinations, and arrests for its reporting on the conflict between the
Turkish Armed Forces and the
Kurdistan Workers' Party
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/27
its own similar legislation that banned anyone with links to paramilitary groups from the airwaves, but repealed this in January 1994. This added pressure on the British government to do likewise. The broadcast ban was finally lifted on 16 September 1994, a fortnight after the first
Provisional Irish Republican Army
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/28
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (formerly titled as Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association) is a United States Supreme Court case that struck down a California law enacted in 2005 that was intended to ban the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision. In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the lower court decisions and revoked the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media. The Court left open the possibility that a more narrowly tailored law regulating the sale of video games to minors could survive constitutional scrutiny. The ruling was seen as a significant victory for the video game industry and a defeat for parental rights groups. Several of the Court's justices suggested that the issue may need to be re-examined in the future, considering the changing nature of video games and their continuously improving technology. Some video game analysts have seen this as a wake-up call for the industry to mature in light of the Court's opinions.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/29
In
February 28 Incident. The term "White Terror" in its broadest meaning refers to the entire period from 1947 to 1987. Around 140,000 Taiwanese were imprisoned during this period, of whom from about 3,000 to 4,000 were executed for their real or perceived opposition to the
Kuomintang (KMT, Chinese Nationalist Party) government led by
Chiang Kai-shek. Most of those prosecuted were labeled by the Kuomintang as "
bandit spies [zh]", meaning spies for Chinese communists, and punished as such.
The KMT mostly imprisoned Taiwan's intellectual and social elite out of fear that they might resist KMT rule or sympathize with communism. For example, the
Taiwanese independence group established in 1947 which the KMT believed to be under communist control, leading to its members being arrested in 1950. The
World United Formosans for Independence was persecuted for similar reasons. However, other prosecutions did not have such clear reasoning; in 1968
Bo Yang was imprisoned for his choice of words in translating a
Popeye comic strip. A large number of the White Terror's other victims were mainland Chinese, many of whom owed their evacuation to Taiwan to the KMT. Often, after having come unaccompanied to Taiwan, these refugees to Taiwan were considered more disposable than local Taiwanese. Many of the mainland Chinese who survived the White Terror in Taiwan, like
Bo Yang and
Li Ao, moved on to promote Taiwan's democratization and the reform of the Kuomintang. In 1969, future president
Lee Teng-hui was detained and interrogated for more than a week by the
Taiwan Garrison Command, which demanded to know about his "communist activities" and told him "killing you at this moment is as easy as crushing an ant to death."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/30
The New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against
prior restraint
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/31
copyright law up until the present day. It established the
common law
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/32
The in 1997.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/33
The
anarchist principles
. In the fallout over the war, Kropotkin became increasingly isolated, with many former friends cutting their ties to him.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/34
demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries. During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or
actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute. The most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the
Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director
J. Edgar Hoover
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/35
business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community. A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for Microsoft products and training.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/36
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
, and for being unreasonably narrow in the types of creative works it covers.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/37
Motte v Faulkner (decided 28 November 1735) was a copyright lawsuit between Benjamin Motte and George Faulkner over who had the legal rights to publish the works of Jonathan Swift in London. This trial was one of the first to test the Statute of Anne copyright law in regards to Irish publishing independence. Although neither held the copyright to all of Swift's works, the suit became a legal struggle over Irish rights, which were eventually denied by the English courts. Faulkner, in 1735, published the Works of Jonathan Swift in Dublin. However, a few of the works were under Motte's copyright within the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when Faulkner sought to sell his book in London, Motte issued a formal complaint to Jonathan Swift and then proceeded to sue Faulkner. An injunction was issued in Motte's favor, and the book was prohibited from being sold on British soil. The basis of the law protected the rights of the author, and not the publisher, of the works, and Swift was unwilling to support a lawsuit against Faulkner. With Swift's reaction used as a basis, the lawsuit was later seen as a struggle between the rights of Irishmen to print material that were denied under English law.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/38
The
Schoolkids OZ
issue.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/39
cease-and-desist emails to
downloaders. Odex halted active enforcement after its third subpoena was rejected by the courts and lost a lawsuit when trying to obtain customer data from another ISP. In January 2008, Odex appealed the decision, and the
High Court of Singapore ruled that one ISP was required to release data, but only directly to Japanese anime studios. Subsequently, these studios started their own legal actions against Singaporean downloaders. Some observers predicted that the High Court's decision would set a
precedent for online privacy in Singapore by making it more difficult for copyright licensees to take legal action against downloading. The case raised issues of individual privacy, intellectual property, and free use of the Internet. Odex's actions attracted widespread criticism in Singapore and international attention and press coverage, which coincided with similar actions against
consumer file sharing of music
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/40
The Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document that sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. Passed on 7 June 1628, the Petition contains restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and restricts the use of martial law. Following disputes between Parliament and King Charles I over the execution of the Thirty Years' War, Parliament refused to grant subsidies to support the war effort, leading to Charles gathering "forced loans" without Parliamentary approval and arbitrarily imprisoning those who refused to pay. Moreover, the war footing of the nation led to the forced billeting of soldiers within the homes of private citizens, and the declaration of martial law over large swathes of the country. In response, the House of Commons prepared a set of four Resolutions, decrying these actions and restating the validity of Magna Carta and the legal requirement of habeas corpus. These were rejected by Charles, who also announced that Parliament would be dissolved; in response, the Commons met on 6 May to discuss alternatives, and concluded that a petition of right was the way forward. Accordingly, a committee under Sir Edward Coke drafted such a petition, and it was passed by the Commons on 8 May and sent to the House of Lords. After three weeks of debates and conferences between the two chambers, the Petition of Right was ratified by both houses on the 26th and 27 May. Following additional debates in which the King restricted the right of the Commons to freely speak, he bowed to the pressure; in need of Parliamentary support for the war effort, the Petition was accepted on 2 June. Unhappy with the method chosen, both houses joined together and demanded the King fully ratify the Petition, which he did on 7 June. Despite debates over its legal status, the Petition of Right was highly influential. Domestically, the Petition is seen as "one of England's most famous constitutional documents", of equal value to the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689. In a period in which Charles's main protection from the Commons was the House of Lords, the willingness of both chambers to work together marked a new stage in the constitutional crisis that would eventually lead to the English Civil War. The Petition remains in force in the United Kingdom and, thanks to Imperial legislation, many parts of the Commonwealth of Nations including Australia and New Zealand. Internationally, it helped influence the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, and is seen as a predecessor to the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/41
"
Annie Award
nomination for directing.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/42
The Royal Assent on 2 July 1998, the Act came into force on 2 July 1999. It protects employees who make disclosures of certain types of information, including evidence of illegal activity or damage to the environment, from retribution from their employers, such as dismissal or being passed over for promotion. In cases where such retribution takes place the employee may bring a case before an
employment tribunal, which can award compensation. As a result of the Act, many more employers have instituted internal whistleblowing procedures, although only 38 percent of individuals surveyed worked for a company with such procedures in place. The Act has been criticised for failing to force employers to institute such a policy, containing no provisions preventing the "
blacklisting" of employees who make such disclosures, and failing to protect the employee from libel proceedings should his
allegation turn out to be false
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/43
Madonna,
Courtney Love,
Sting, and
Yoko Ono. Public opinion in Russia was generally less sympathetic towards the women. Putin stated that the band had "undermined the moral foundations" of the nation and "got what they asked for". Prime Minister
Dmitry Medvedev
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/44
Lord Mansfield in the
Court of King's Bench on 23 November 1778. After four of the barristers had spoken, Mansfield announced that the court session would resume the next morning rather than continue into the night, which gave Erskine the time he needed to present a full speech rather than a brief comment. In it he accused Sandwich of cowardice and of orchestrating the attack on Baillie, arguing that Baillie was merely doing his duty by attempting to bring the problems with the hospital into the public eye, and was therefore not acting in bad faith. If the issues with the hospital were not acknowledged, Erskine claimed, the Royal Navy would be "crippled by abuses", with seamen no longer willing to risk their lives for a fleet that would fail to treat them well in their retirement. Erskine was successful in having Baillie found not guilty, and after leaving the court was met with a standing ovation;
Emory Speer
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/45
prosecution who has made arguments that the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional may have the arguments turned against him (or her). Such arguments, even if based on honestly held beliefs, may constitute evidence that helps the prosecutor prove willfulness, one of the elements of tax evasion.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/46
."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/47
Stolen Valor Act, a federal law that criminalized false statements about having a military medal. The law had been passed as an effort to stem instances where people falsely claimed to have won the medal in an attempt to protect the "valor" of those who really had. While a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional under the
First Amendment
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/48
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in
bad faith by threatening Nintendo's licensees and that it had no right over the name
King Kong or the characters and story. He further held that there was no possibility for consumers to confuse Nintendo's game and characters with the
King Kong films and their characters. Universal
appealed the case, but the verdict was upheld. The case was an enormous victory for Nintendo, which was still a newcomer to the U.S. market. The case established Nintendo as a major player in the industry and arguably gave the company the confidence that it could compete with the giants of American media. The case was selected as #20 on
GameSpy
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/49
The AIDS victims,
environmental damage,
religious freedom,
freedom of speech and
the press, and defending the rights of other lawyers facing disbarment or imprisonment. Individuals involved in the Weiquan movement have met with occasionally harsh reprisals from Chinese officials, including disbarment, detention, harassment, and, in extreme instances, torture. Authorities have also responded to the movement with the launch of an education campaign on the "socialist concept of rule of law," which reasserts the role of the Communist Party and the primacy of political considerations in the legal profession, and with the
Three Supremes
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/50
video blogging, short original videos, and educational videos. Most of the content on YouTube has been uploaded by individuals, although media corporations including
CBS, the
BBC,
Vevo,
Hulu, and other organizations offer some of their material via the site, as part of the YouTube partnership program. Unregistered users can watch videos, while registered users can upload an unlimited number of videos. Videos considered to contain potentially offensive content are available only to registered users at least 18 years old. YouTube, LLC was bought by
Google for US$1.65 billion in November 2006 and now operates as a Google
subsidiary
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/51
The characterized the organization as one "that addresses both international and national sexual freedom issues as well as a host of other health and human rights issues."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/52
Stalinist regime
in 1929.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/53
Citizen Media Law Project
agreed that Beck's trademark claim in his complaint against the website was ridiculous. The assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project commented at the conclusion of the case, "It's good to see that this WIPO arbitrator had no interest in allowing Beck to circumvent the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/54
The anti-war activists during the
Vietnam War who burnt draft cards or wore armbands. The ACLU was involved in the
Miranda case, which addressed misconduct by police during interrogations; and in the
New York Times
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/55
'.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/56
In
may be used between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/57
said, "Ultimately, [it] is a movie about free speech ... Freedom of expression must extend to words that offend."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/58
The
; eliminating discrimination against women, minorities, and homosexuals; supporting the rights of prisoners and opposing torture; supporting the right of religious persons to practice their faiths without government interference; and opposing government preference for religion over non-religion, or for particular faiths over others.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/59
Salmaan Taseer
were both killed for advocating on her behalf and opposing the blasphemy laws. Noreen's family has gone into hiding due to receiving death threats and has voiced concerns that she could be killed by extremists if released from prison.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/60
DynCorp International in post-war
Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1999. While there, she discovered a
sex trafficking ring serving (and facilitated by) DynCorp employees. Bolkovac was fired and forced out of the country after attempting to report (and shut down) the ring. She took the story to
BBC News in England, and won a wrongful-dismissal lawsuit against DynCorp. Kondracki wanted her debut film to concern human trafficking, and encountered Bolkovac's story in college. She and Kirwan struggled to obtain financial support for the project. Eight years after Kondracki decided to produce the film, she secured funding and production began when Weisz agreed to play the lead role. Filming took place in
Romania from October to December 2009. Advertised as a fictionalization of events occurring during the late 1990s, Kondracki said that the facts are broadly accurate but some details were omitted for the film; for example, a three-week "breaking-in" period for trafficking victims was not shown.
The Whistleblower premiered at the
2010 Toronto International Film Festival, and was released theatrically in the United States by
Samuel Goldwyn Films in August 2011. The film received mixed reviews. The performances by Weisz and her co-stars were praised but the intense violence depicted in several scenes was debated by critics, with some calling it exploitive. Kondracki and Weisz responded that what happened in Bosnia had been toned down for the film.
The Whistleblower received several awards and nominations, including the 2012
Genie Awards
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/61
freedom of expression
and the scope of imagination.
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/62
obscene.
Free speech lawyer
Marc Randazza represented the site and appealed the decision.
Orlando Weekly called his legal brief, "one of the most entertaining legal documents you're likely to come across." The appeal was denied in April 2008 and the case was terminated. Randazza's argument in the case became known as
The Fuck Brief. The website has received analysis from journalists and academics studying sexuality. Writer
Regina Lynn highlighted the site's emphasis on communication, and
Annalee Newitz of
AlterNet classed it as part of
Porn 2.0. Violet Blue wrote in
The Adventurous Couple's Guide to Sex Toys that it helped popularize the idea of machines aiding in sex acts. The 2008 edition of
The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History described the aesthetic of the devices as disturbing. Jessica Roy wrote for
The New York Observer that Fucking Machines' examples of orgasms were a form of
transhumanism. Sarah Schaschek devoted a chapter to the phenomenon in
Screening the Dark Side of Love: From Euro-Horror to American Cinema, titled "Fucking Machines: High-Tech Bodies in Pornography". She observed, "Strictly speaking, the women in these videos are both the controllers and the controlled."
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/63
explicit material. Heins asserts that there is no simple tactic by which the government could censor material from children without violating the rights guaranteed to adults by the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Not in Front of the Children concludes that censorship performed under the auspices of looking out for the believed negative impact on youths, actually harms these individuals through the censorship itself.
Not in Front of the Children received the Eli M. Oboler Award in 2002 from the
American Library Association
Portal:Freedom of speech/Selected article/64
New York University Law School. The FEPP conducted a survey in 2001 which revealed that online monitoring software including
Net Nanny,
SurfWatch, and Cybersitter cast too broad a net and often blocked legitimate educational websites in their attempts to censor material from youths. In 2003, the organization assisted 33 academics in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in a challenge to a law which restricted the sale of violent video games to minors. In coordination with the Brennan Center for Justice of New York University Law School, the FEPP released a public policy report in 2006 on the inefficiency of
Internet filtering; the report concluded freedom of expression was harmed by such online censorship activity. In 2007, the FEPP became independent of its prior supportive organizations: National Coalition Against Censorship and New York University Law School.
The New Walford Guide to Reference Resources praised the FEPP website for its links to resources on freedom of expression and censorship. FEPP has been characterized by the
Austin American-Statesman as a
think tank devoted to researching the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Denver Post described the organization as a censorship
watchdog organization, and a separate article from the same newspaper called it a
left-of-center politically aligned group which advocated for both
intellectual freedom and
artistic freedom
Nominations
- Adding articles
- Feel free to add Featured quality Freedom of speech articles to the above list.
- If you are unsure or do not know how to add an entry, feel free to post a question, suggestion or nomination here below, or at the talk page Portal talk:Freedom of speech.
.svg)
(a)_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Singapore_(1999_Reprint).jpg)
.svg){kind=logo}
.png){kind=small}
.svg)
.jpg)
