Rowan Atkinson on England and Freedom of Speech

[pieter]

Political activism

In June 2005, Atkinson led a coalition of the United Kingdom's most prominent actors and writers, including Nicholas Hytner, Stephen Fry, and Ian McEwan, to the British Parliament in an attempt to force a review of the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, which they felt would give overwhelming power to religious groups to impose censorship on the arts. In 2009, he criticized homophobic speech legislation, saying that the House of Lords must vote against a government attempt to remove a free speech clause in an anti-gay hate law.

In October 2012, he voiced his support for the Reform Section 5 campaign, which aims to reform or repeal Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, particularly its statement that an insult can be grounds for arrest and punishment. It is a reaction to several recent high-profile arrests, which Atkinson sees as a restriction of freedom of expression.

Religious views

Atkinson is an outspoken critic of religious views and opposes the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 law.

[pieter]

[pieter]

[pieter]

Big Think

Published on 14 jun. 2011



The legendary First Amendment lawyer gives a primer on what everyone needs to know about freedoms of religion, speech and press.

Question: What should everyone know about the First Amendment? Floyd Abrams: Well, I guess the first thing one has to know about the First Amendment is that it wouldn't be there at all if Thomas Jefferson had not insisted. The Constitution had been pretty well drafted and Jefferson, who was not at the Constitution Convention and who was in Paris at that time, basically took the position that without a Bill of Rights and in particular without a Bill of Rights that protected freedom of speech and freedom of the press, that he would not support the new Constitution.
So a Bill of Rights—this Bill of Rights and this 1st Amendment—was a essential ingredient of the Constitution from the start. And from the start it protected a number of different sorts of speech beliefs, conscience, and the like. It protects freedom of religion, it protects freedom of speech, protects freedom of press, protects freedom of assembly, all of them.
And through the many years since the drafting of the Constitution and the adoption of the Bill of Rights which of course starts with the First Amendment. Through that time period we've had many, many cases in the courts which have adopted through interpretation the First Amendment to new problems being sustained by the people and by the states as well. At the beginning, the First Amendment applied only to the Federal Government—after all it does say, "Congress shall make no law." After the Civil War and the adoption of amendments post-Civil War, they were held to apply to the states but really not until late 1920s, early 1930s. So through most of American history the First Amendment really had nothing to do with what states did and what state law turned out to be. There was state constitutions but the federal Constitution, the First Amendment, applied only to the Federal Government. Where have we gone? Well we have gone through the years in a direction generally of more protection. The First Amendment, remember, applies only as a protection against the government, not against private employers, not against friends, or enemies, or this, or that. It is a protection against the government. The government depriving people of their freedom of religion. The government is telling them in effect who to pray to or whether to pray at all, and in what way. And the government depriving people of freedom of speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly. I mean, at its core it is a protection of human freedom by protecting against government overreaching. That was debated a lot when the First Amendment was adopted. Alexander Hamilton said, "Why do we need a Bill of Rights at all? Whoever said Congress could pass a law stripping the people of freedom of speech? They don't have the power to do it, so why do we need to have a Bill of Rights or why do we need a First Amendment in the first place?" And, as I said, Jefferson insisted. Jefferson said, "Any constitution for this country ought to say and say in so many words that there was a list of untouchable areas into which Congress could not transgress, into which the new Federal, National Government couldn't go." And with that background—while even from the start there were problems, First Amendment problems, the Alien and Sedition Act was adopted in 1798, that close to the adoption of the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights. And it quite literally made it a crime to speak to badly of the President, then John Adams. Not the Vice President, because it was Jefferson—even then we had politics. But it made a crime to say critical things about the President at least if they were "false," which of course lead to lots of issues about what's an opinion and what's a fact, what's true and what's false. But that law was our first law which on the face of it violated the First Amendment. Jefferson called it, "living under a rain of witches." And ultimately the verdict of history as the Supreme Court came to say, the verdict of history was that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and through the years some acts of Congress have been held to be unconstitutional. Many acts, more recently of states have been held to be unconstitutional, and in all these ways the adoption of the First Amendment has been an incalculable protection of the public against overstepping by the government.

Recorded July 29, 2010
Interviewed by Max Miller





Big Think, a multimedia web portal, was founded in 2007 with the intent to organize and connect information on the internet. The website is a collection of interviews, presentations, and roundtable discussions with speakers from a range of fields. Individuals and interested companies can utilize filters and e-learning tools to find refined information.

Founding of Big Think

The concept for Big Think was developed by Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins. Victoria Brown is the acting CEO while Peter Hopkins maintains the role of co-founder and president of the company. Both founders envisioned “an online platform where the world’s leading experts could weigh in on current issues”. Hopkins envisioned the platform as being a YouTube for intellectuals.

Victoria Brown and Peter Hopkins, co-founders of Big Think (Photo: Business Wire)

The company began when the pair met while working with Google Video to digitize the VHS archives of the show Charlie Rose in 2006. The shared employment lead to Brown and Hopkins contemplating how to organize information into “short-form intellectual videos targeting online audiences”.


Charles Peete Rose Jr. (born January 5, 1942)[1][2] is an American television journalist and former talk show host. From 1991 to 2017, he was the host and executive producer of the talk show Charlie Rose on PBS and Bloomberg LP.

Beginning with solely video content in 2008, Big Think started adding blogs and written content into Big Think in 2009, adding the first big blogger, Mr. Michio Kaku and Strangemaps, in 2010. In 2012, Big Think started live-streaming parts of company interviews, providing individual and companies with “real-time interaction with notable guests”. As of March 2012, the Big Think YouTube channel passed 20 million views, and the video archive of the website included 1200+ clips from 2000+ experts.


An example of Strangemaps

bigthink.com/articles?blog=strange-maps


The first big blogger, Mr. Michio Kaku

Initial Investors

Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from Paypal, Tom Scott of Natucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers.


Television producer Gary David Goldberg


Former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers

Expansion of Big Think

Since its creation, the website has spawned several specified sites, such as Big Think Edge for Business and Floating University for Higher Education. Big Think has stayed privately-owned and works with roughly 50 employees.

[pieter]

Steve Vondran



Published on 29 March 2015
vondranlegal.com/free-speech-l...

Most people think "I can say whatever I want its a free country" or "with free speech I can say whatever is on my mind." While this may be physically true, legally free speech can be costly. Most people I have met in my life really don't know much about the First Amendment Free Speech. As Attorney Steve points out in the video "Free speech is not absolute." Speech can be regulated, prohibited, or outlawed in certain instances making your speech potentially illegal resulting in civil fines, penalties, damages, lawsuits, or worse yet, criminal violations such as a misdemeanor or potentially a felony.

Some areas that are "not absolute" are:

1. Hate speech

2. Fighting words

3. Clear and present danger / inciting riots

4. Defamation (libel / slander)

5. Disclosure of trade secrets or breaching non-disclosure agreements

6. Obscenity

7. Certain commercial speech

Watch this video so you can be ONE UP on your friends who do not truly understand the 1st amendment, or how it requires a "state actor" in most cases, or how the 1st amendment is incorporated into the 14th amendment and made applicable to the states or fail to understand the "strict scrutiny" test for laws that infringe on, or impinge free speech rights keeping in mind that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations on free speech (not directed toward the content of the message) will normally be upheld as constitutional.

Feel free to share this video on your social media networks! Hope you enjoy!

[pieter]

YES YOU CAN SHARE OUR VIDEOS ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKS. PLEASE GIVE A LINK BACK TO ATTORNEYSTEVEVIDEOS.COM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!!

In this video Attorney Steve discusses California hate speech law. Specifically, California Civil Code Section 51.7 known as the "Ralph Act." The jury instructions are discussed.

Keep in mind when you are rallying or protesting based on political parties in the state of California, you need to have some degree of respect for eachother, or should I say, at least do not threaten or commit acts of violence motivated by a perception of another persons political party, or political views such as:

1. Antifa (Anti Fascists)
2. Black Lives Matter
3. Trump Supporters
4. Alt-Right
5. Alt-Left
6. Others

When you recognize and identify someone by these types of political affiliations, and the threaten violence (which can be done by words and/or acts) for example:

1. Take the Trump hat off before I mace you!
2. Trump will not Make America Great, I am going to make you suffer

Things like this. These things, while seemingly protected by the first amendment, if the threat or actual violence is used, could lead to a lawsuit being filed under the Ralph Act.

This should not be taken lightly as California Defendants can face a claim for the following depending upon the facts of the case:

1. $25,000 civil penalty
2. Punitive damages (an amount designed to "punish" and "deter" future unlawful conduct
3. Claim for attorney fees

So keep it peaceful out there in the trenches. Learn to talk it out peacefully. Its okay to "talk politics" but I think it's also important to "listen" and bear in mind that violence can also be considered an "assault and battery" which can carry lifelong criminal penalties.

So fight for your side, but keep it in line with the requirements of the law. Hope you like this video! If so, subscribe, leave comments, or give me a THUMBS UP!! Thank you!!

- Attorney Steve -

P.S.- Pieter's question: Jaga, Kaima, John, Jeanne and Ludwik I wonder how the law is in your states on this matter, thus the state law of Idaho, Alaska, New Hampshire and Massachusetts?

[pieter]

Jordan Bernt Peterson



Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology, with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance.

Peterson studied at the University of Alberta and McGill University. He remained at McGill as a post-doctoral fellow from 1991 to 1993 before moving to Harvard University, where he was an assistant and then associate professor in the psychology department. In 1998, he moved back to Canada, as a faculty member in the psychology department at the University of Toronto, where he is currently a full professor.

Peterson's first book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, published in 1999, examined several academic fields to describe the structure of systems of beliefs and myths, their role in the regulation of emotion, creation of meaning, and motivation for genocide. His second book, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, was released in January 2018.

In 2016, Peterson released a series of YouTube videos criticizing political correctness and the Canadian government's Bill C-16 due to free speech implications. He subsequently received significant media coverage, attracting both support and criticism.

[pieter]

Sources obout the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech:

www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment
www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



“Freedom of expression” and censorship



Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.

The shift from the more political to the more individualistic view of liberty may be seen in how the constitutional guarantees with respect to speech and the press are typically spoken of in the United States. Restraints upon speaking and publishing, and indeed upon action generally, are fewer now than at most times in the history of the country. This absence of restraints is reflected as well in the very terms in which these rights and privileges are described. What would once have been referred to as “freedom of speech and of the press” (drawing upon the language of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States) is now often referred to as “freedom of expression.”



To make much of freedom of expression is to encourage a liberation of the self from the constraints of the community. It may even be to assume that the self has, intrinsic to it or somehow available to it independent of any social guidance, intimations of what it is and what it wants. Thus, liberation may be seen in the desire of most people to be free to pursue their own goals and life plans—which may involve a reliance upon standards and objectives that are solely their own. It is tempting, in such circumstances, to adopt a radical subjectivism that tends to result in a thoroughgoing relativism with respect to moral and political judgments. One consequence of this approach is to identify an ever-expanding array of forms and media of expression that are entitled to immunity from government regulation—including not only broadcast and print media (books and newspapers) but also text messaging and Internet media such as blogs, social networking sites, and e-commerce sites.



On the other hand, if the emphasis is placed upon the more traditional language, “freedom of speech and of the press,” the requirements and prerogatives of a self-governing people are apt to be made more of. This means, among other things, that a people must be prepared and equipped to make effective use of its considerable political power. (Even those rulers who act without the authority of the people must take care to shape their people in accordance with the needs and circumstances of their regime. This kind of effort need not be altogether selfish on the part of such rulers, since all regimes do have an interest in law and order, in common decency, and in a routine reliability or loyalty.) It should be evident that a people entrusted with the power of self-government must be able to exercise a disciplined judgment: not everything goes, and there are better and worse things awaiting the community and its citizens.



What is particularly difficult to argue for, and to maintain, is an arrangement that, while it leaves a people clearly free politically to discuss fully all matters of public interest with a view toward governing itself, routinely prepares that same people for an effective exercise of its considerable freedom. In such circumstances, there are some who would take the case for, and the rhetoric of, liberty one step farther, insisting that no one should try to tell anyone else what kind of person he should be. There are others, however, who maintain that a person is truly free only if he knows what he is doing and chooses to do what is right. Anyone else, in their view, is a prisoner of illusions and appetites, however much he may believe that he is freely expressing himself.



There are, then, two related sets of concerns evident in any consideration of the forms and uses of censorship. One set of concerns has to do with the everyday governance of the community; the other, with the permanent shaping of the character of the people. The former is more political in its methods, and the latter is more educational.

[pieter]