Sentences with phrase «for the free speech rights»

«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.

Not exact matches

A number of the users whose accounts were limited after this feature was being tested complained that their free - speech rights were being restricted for no reason, just because they used a specific word.

While it speaks volumes that many Americans value their right to free speech, this does not mean that we have to pay for their vitriol.

In the speech that urged the Alliance to embrace social conservatives, Harper also said that left - wing Canadians stand for «radical, responsibility - free individualism» and «tribalism in the form of group rights.»

As blame fell to Facebook for Trump's election, word of Facebook prototyping a censorship tool for operating in China escaped, triggering questions about its respect for human rights and free speech.

For precisely the same reasons that I found your statement to be laughable, the government must insure that mechanisms are put in place to insure that the actual persons granted free speech rights by the Supreme Court (the owners of the corporations) are the ones actually exercising their new rights instead of having those rights stolen by fat - cat executives and self - appointed boards.

His ban from visiting Britain in June 2009 has made him the «poster child» for free speech, not only for Americans concerned about the cultural shift towards totalitarianism and their rights to freedom of expression, but for people around the globe.

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.

Constitutional Amendment 1: «Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances»

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

I mentioned the ninth amendment for one reason, one can not use ones free speech to disparage the right of free religion of another.

The issue is that free speech was provided for anti choice proponents, but an alternative plate giving the same right to free speech to pro choice proponents was voted down by the legislature.

Critics argue the law suppresses free speech and makes South Korea like its northern counterpart, known for its human rights abuses and oppression of religious and political minorities.

When the U.S. Muslim community sounds out LOUD and CLEAR, without equivocation, and immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold dear.

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.

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?

If I am to have a right to free speech, for example, then I must be empowered to speak and be heard, which means using the power of the state to give me the resources I need and to suppress anything that might disempower me.

And, having devoted much of my time at Princeton to fighting for free speech, I am glad to see you, my friends, exercising your First Amendment rights and voicing your dissent.

We have rights to free speech just as you do and I, for one, am SICK TO DEATH of hearing just your side of things!

And I find it offensive that some people are apologizing for our free speech — they can condemn the message but please do not apologize for our right to express it!

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.

Lets look at the 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our First Amendment guarantees of a free press and free speech are among the most cherished rights in America, and for good reason.

Among them are life, liberty, security of person, freedom from slavery and from torture and inhumane treatment; equality before the law; the right to judicial remedies for wrongs; freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention; fair trials and due process of law, including the presumption of innocence; privacy; freedom of movement; equal rights in marriage; freedoms of speech, press, assembly and association; and free elections.

I think it is time to discover who at CNN is deleting my comments and sue them for a violation of my rights of free speech.

Do you see what they are doing that a man that wants to run a business the way he wants has a terror gay organization trying to limit his free speech - LIE, it's people who are trying to fighting for the equal civil rights of gays.

«Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to peti.tion the Government for a redress of grievances.»

The NFL Players» Union issued a statement defending its members right to free speech, saying «It is a source of enormous pride that some of the best conversations about these issues have taken place in our locker rooms in a respectful, civil and thoughtful way that should serve as a model for how all of us can communicate with each other.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And then we can get pepper - sprayed and tazed to death by the thugs wearing uniforms for using our free speech rights!

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.

So you support the jailing of Europeans for expressing their God - given right of free speech?

But free speech does not mean protection from backlash and people standing up for what's right.

Going by what is happening at the global stage, there is again, a telling proof that «for democracy to succeed, a relative level of literacy, a growing middle class, and political institutions that support free speech and human rights is desirable.

The National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO), has indefinitely suspended one of its officers in the Ashanti Region, for exercising his rights to free speech, saying he had breached the Civil Service Law — PNDC Law 327 by mocking the first two gentlemen of the land.

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

The National Organiztion for Marriage has filed a lawsuit in federal court that seeks to circumvent the state's campaign contributions limits, arguing that the caps violate its right to free speech.

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 prosprights, 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 prospRights; 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.

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.

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.

Occupy Wall Street was a gim me issue for progressives around the city and the world, but in the neighborhood surrounding Zuccotti Park, it was a thorny situation in which free speech and assembly rights had to be balanced against the need of residents not to be disrupted, and Menin led the effort to forge a compromise resolution at C.B. 1.

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.

The question I wonder then is what logic does China use to justify the barring of free speech (through the use of extensive censorship of the internet and media, the deployment of state - sponsored propaganda ads and loudspeaker announcements, and hefty penalties for violation of any of these measures) given that it puts it right there in its Constitution, and furthermore nobody within the party seems to protest this?

«When our government criminalizes the very free speech that the First Amendment was written to protect, sends people to prison for simply exercising their constitutional rights, and wields its power like a weapon against political enemies, we are all in trouble.»

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The forcible removal of branding would infringe fundamental legal rights, severely damage principles around intellectual property and set a dangerous precedent for the future of commercial free speech.

I have decided that since Republicans for years have argued that political money amounts to «free speech» and since THEIR Supreme Court appointments have upheld this dubious idea they no longer have any right ot bith about fundraising.

Which could probably conflict with EU rules for the rights of minorities / free speech / political activities, but it is not the same than «death threat against a national minority».

«Russia's own constitution is under assault as Putin cracks down on the rights of gays and lesbians, any NGO receiving non-Russian funding, and free speech rights for all Russians.»