Sentences with phrase «for free speech on»

Weighing in on a trade secret case that could have dramatic implications for free speech on the...

As the university year draws to a close, it is a perfect opportunity to reflect on what appears to be a disastrous 12 months for free speech on campus.

Thank God for free speech on this side of the pond.

Not exact matches

Wednesday's speech from the throne, which included a promise from the federal government to institute a pick - and - pay system where consumers would be free to choose only the channels they want, has drawn a lot of flak from media commentators for being short on details, silent on major issues and overly populist.

In her speech, May said: «The best way to raise living standards for all is through economic growth based on free enterprise, operating in inclusive, fair and open rules - based markets.»

An employee does not have free reign [sic] to engage in political speech that disrupts the workplace, but punishing an employee for deviating from company orthodoxy on a political issue is not allowed either.

A free - trade segment of his speech focused on his proposal for the «Reagan Economic Zone of Prosperity,» a vaguely - defined multilateral agreement that would promote free trade and punish the «cheaters,» particularly China.

While the terrorist attacks in France have dominated the headlines this week, advocates for free speech are fighting a war on multiple fronts.

In acting this way, Chick - fil - A is setting an example for other companies, and contributing to an overall pattern that is liable to have a chilling effect on free speech and entrepreneurship.

There have been rumblings, for example, that Germany's hate speech law goes too far in clamping down on free speech.

Cultivating relationships with other nonprofit organizations, including those focused on environmental, global hunger, public health, free speech, and food safety issues, to build alliances and support for the policies that will be most effective at increasing plant - based options and readying the path to market for clean meat.

If the federal and state governments come in and slap new regulations and oversight on these companies, it's their own fault for practicing elitist arrogance in an attempt to shape a specific narrative that damages the very fabric of a society where the first amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of free expression and free speech.

Facebook doesn't like to decide what kind of rhetoric is appropriate or inappropriate for fear of encroaching on its users» free speech rights.

Well, if you're a tech company, then it's much easier to regulate your product without worries about infringing on free speech and freedom of the press, particularly if it can be proven that Facebook is bad for mental health and perhaps even for democracy.

I'm reading NFIB v. Sebelius (the Obamacare decision) in preparation for teaching the case to my constitutional law students and came across the following most interesting passage in in Justice Ginsburg's opinion: «A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.»

So many people who advocate or speak publicly for political or personal reasons aren't acknowledged as much when it comes to religion when someone is wanting to speak out about there faith a light bulb goes off and says we don't want to hear, or talk, or, air any thing that has to do with the mentioning of God but because of the high profile story and because this is the President of the United States it's ok hats off to them for not being ashamed to speak about there faith I agree with Richard some people just because they profess there faith doesn't mean there trying to push there beliefs on anyone people of faith have a right to free speech also.

Even in the Peoria speech that gained him national attention, however, he left no doubt that his opposition to Kansas - Nebraska was based on the conviction that the «new free states are places for poor people to go to and better their condition.»

Imans on a worldwide daily basis call for the extermination of non-Muslims but are allowed to get away with their hateful fatwas on the basis of free speech which of course they deny to any group other than themselves.

Besides, are you suggesting that we suppress anyone's right to free speech because if you are than you need to move to one of these bass ackward countries where a less than middle school quality production of a total farce can insight people to act as a pack of rabid dogs blaming America for why they live in dirt... We are LUCKY and BLESSED to live in a land where we can smile and walk away from an opinion that we disagree with... that South Park can but Jesus in a boxing ring against Satan and depict Moses as a glowing spinning dreidl... and these nutcases want to burn and pillage because one lunatic makes a childish and stupid play on videotape?

«This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,» said Chris Brook of the ACLU.

In a joint statement aimed at fighting the government's Extremism Disruption Orders they warned the «writing could be on the wall» for free speech.

Even SCOTUS has put some limits on free speech, some of which are for these very reasons.

Spelled out in a lengthy lead editorial entitled «Evangelicals in the Social Struggle,» as well as in books such as Aspects of Christian Social Ethics, Henry's understanding of Christian social responsibility stressed (a) society's need for the spiritual regeneration of all men and women, (b) an interim social program of humanitarian care, ethical proclamation, and personal, structural application, and (c) a theory of limited government centering on certain «freedom rights,» e. g., the rights to public property, free speech, and so on.18 Though the shape of this social ethic thus closely parallels that of the present editorial position of Moody Monthly, it must be distinguished from its counterpart by the time period involved (it pushed others like Moody Monthly into a more active involvement in the social arena), by the intensity of its commitment to social responsibility, by the sophistication of its insight into political theory and practice, and by its willingness to offer structural critique on the American political system.

As for your point on free speech... I guess instead of having any rules we should abolish any and all rules... sounds like that is what you want anyway.

This «Fairness Doctrine» has become the foundation of free speech on radio and television, and it has prevented many of the more blatant attempts by some broadcasters to use the public airwaves as nothing more than a sounding board for their own special views and interests.

You said:» As for your point on free speech... I guess instead of having any rules we should abolish any and all rules... sounds like that is what you want anyway.

And there is nothing controversial in the documents commitment to freedom and democracy throughout the world, to peaceful cooperation in international relations, and to «the nonnegotiable demands of human dignity; the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property.»

@mensaman: Are you really calling for a ban on free speech in museums?

If Chick - fil - A discriminates based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, then they should be subject to government intervention, but a government can not and should not punish someone for free speech.

«The verdict in the highly publicized case appeared to satisfy no one, with the artistic community seeing it as an infringement on free speech, and Russian Orthodox believers, who had hoped for a prison sentence, saying the fines were too lenient,» the Moscow Times wrote July 13.

A congressional bill introduced in February, it proposes reforming the Johnson Amendment to allow pastors to maintain their free speech and political speech rights in their day - to - day roles, but restricts additional spending on political messaging — the kind that could turn churches into tax - free shelters for political fundraising.

StemExpress, a for - profit company partnered with over 30 abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, to harvest and sell aborted baby parts and provide a «financial benefit» to Planned Parenthood clinics, is attempting to use meritless litigation to cover - up this illegal baby parts trade, suppress free speech, and silence the citizen press reporting on issues of burning concern to the American public.

Isn't it odd a news organization which insists on «free speech» protection for itself doesn't for others?

Depending on the government for our religion freedom is counterproductive, and leads people to believe that freedom of religion is based on the other freedom which the governments grants, such as the freedom to collect tax - free tithes, the freedom to assemble, and the freedom of free speech.

I got to see my food writer hero Michael Pollan give his Sun Food Agenda speech at Washington State University on Wednesday for free!

So if this isn't a place for free speech who on this site is going to tel us what we can write?

You have no understanding or respect for others and that's why you jump on this free speech bandwagon also.

On the evaluation front... don't know if you have them in your neck of the woods, but around here Area Education Agencies do free of charge evaluations for speech and hearing issues and also provide assistance on sliding scale basiOn the evaluation front... don't know if you have them in your neck of the woods, but around here Area Education Agencies do free of charge evaluations for speech and hearing issues and also provide assistance on sliding scale basion sliding scale basis.

Even now, the supposedly free - speech press mocks Lib Dems for voting on policy, typically by saying they're «washing their dirty laundry in public».

But the attacks on him are not motivated by concern for free speech or human rights.

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) in Ghana believes in the principles that democratic societies provide individuals with the best conditions for political liberty, personal freedom, equality of opportunity and economic development under the rule of law; and therefore being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular, the right of free speech, organization, assembly and non-violent dissent; the right to free elections and the freedom to organize effective parliamentary opposition to government; the right to a free and independent media; the right to religious belief; equality before the law; and individual opportunity and prosperity.

For instance, in a major policy speech before the Constituent Assembly in Karachi on August 11, 1947, just three days before Pakistan's inception, he stated, «You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this state of Pakistan.

But Okudzeto Ablakwa chose to give the impression in his feature article devoted to insulting me with reckless abandon that he respects elders, at least in the NDC, and excuses his attacks on me for exercising my right to free speech in congratulating the Kenyan Supreme Court for the Court's decision annulling the 8th August 2017 elections on the flimsy ground that I had attacked «the former President» whom I believe is supposedly dumb figuratively and therefore unable to speak for himself.

But there will be a couple of modifications: firstly, on British troops serving abroad during a conflict, and secondly to tilt the balance of rights more towards a British legal tradition, for instance by emphasising free speech over privacy.

Some even believe that being criticised for making a statement is an attack on one's free speech.

In response to calls from Humanists UK and others, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has today published comprehensive guidance on the law protecting and limiting free speech for students and universities.

In another example of national tensions over the parameters of free speech on campus, those opposed to the daylong «Let Freedom Ring» conference held signs reading «Shame on Siena,» «Ban Bigots» and «No Sanctuary for Racists.»

Let's remember the roll call of shame - cuts to legal aid, curtailing judicial review, attacks on human rights legislation, making freedom of information request more difficult and legislating for the loathed gagging bill amount to a substantial onslaught on free speech, campaigning and democracy.

He reacted angrily last year when May made a speech on free schools without notifying him — a move widely seen as preparing the ground for a future leadership bid.

Another terror attack allows Cameron to revive his support for the snoopers» charter - but you don't save free speech by clamping down on it