Sentences with phrase «question of free speech»

It's just a question of free speech after all, right?

It goes to the heart of the question of free speech on campus.

This will not resolve today's complex questions of free speech, community standards, and government subsidies.

Not exact matches

Since his identity as Hogan's backer was revealed, Thiel's crusade against Gawker has been decried by a number of prominent journalists and defenders of a free press, who note that a billionaire bankrupting a media outlet as part of a personal vendetta raises serious questions about free speech.

It's not a question of safety or of free speech.

Mr. Zuckerberg declined to answer whether Facebook is a neutral public forum or if it is expressing its own views of free speech, avoiding a complex legal question that Mr. Cruz was posing.

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.

After raising in a light way some deep questions about equality, democracy, and free speech, he concludes: «The ultimate failure of the United States will probably not derive from the problems we see or the conflicts we wage.

It's also part of a broader problem, in that politically - minded young people often seem instinctively uninterested in JS Mill - type arguments for free speech, and consider censorship questions as more about protecting certain groups from emotional pain than protecting individuals from those who would stop them participating in debate.

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?

Cabinet Office questions are winding up with another volley of attacks about the limits it places on free speech.

President - elect Donald Trump, in a free - flowing speech last night at a dinner honoring his running mate, Mike Pence, jabbed at his new Republican allies and his critics alike, questioned the ethics of «super PACs» and talked about creating a «merit - based» immigration system.

Before today's speech, it was rumoured that, because of the distractions of the Scottish referendum and «The English Question», Miliband would this year be relying on flash cards, rather than delivering his usual note - free tour de force.

Whether we're talking about free speech on Usenet, the policy questions of legitimate marketing and com - mercial activity conducted over email, or the desirable but spam - ish mes - sages that trip the filters and disappear, there is always friction not around the most egregious case (no one argues for Leo Kuvayev's «\ / 1@gR / - \» messages) but at the blurry places where spam threatens to blend into acceptable use, and fighting one might have a deleterious effect on the other.

These meetings are free of cost and held in a public space, typically beginning with a short speech from an elected official and then an open Q&A, where attendees can ask questions about a piece of legislation or a specific issue.

This led to an investigation which confirmed the buy and resulted in various firings, not to mention sparking a multitude of questions about free speech.

One local school board member has banned me from commenting on his «public figure» Facebook page (which I see as a free speech violation), both because I questioned his denial of SGPs and some other conflicts of interests I saw, although indirectly related to this particular case.

The three projects Hysterical Choir of the Frightened (HCF)(2014), House of Rumor (2016), and Free Radicals: The Performance (2016), question the limits of agency, the use of cryptic speech in the production of guilt and fear.

On issues of integrity and responsibility in science and research, Judith Curry asks the key question: «What is responsible behavior of scientists in balancing the challenges of rights of free speech and political activism?

The Litigation Center also regularly participates in cases that present important constitutional questions regarding the separation of powers, due process rights, unreasonable searches and seizures, property rights, federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause, free speech, and many other issues.

or methods to effect industrial or political change or revolution, though no such teaching or advocacy attended the meeting in question, violates the constitutional principles of free speech and assembly.

So the correct statement of the question is whether the limits we've imposed on hate speech are a reasonably justied limit on free expression.

This is rather a matter which explores the important question of the boundaries of acceptable free speech and association by judges in their capacity as private citizens.

I'm looking for the latter - a differential account of how different countries address the question «that hurts» (with it's application to hatred as an exception to free speech)

Assumption: Both US and non-US concept of free - speech apply to answers in this question.

Here are our guest attorney's responses to a handful of divorce, custody, free speech, and second amendment questions.

I might be more impressed with the Law Society's commitment to the Charter if it questioned the accreditation of law schools whose university's codes of conduct are routinely used to suppress free speech on campus — Ottawa, York, Calgary being some notable, infamous, recent examples), it's not clear why a university's commitment to charter values is at all relvant to the function of the LSUC, namely to: ``... to ensure that,

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.

To a question on the misuse of digital platform, Prasad emphasised that he advocated free media and free speech.

That raises the question of how free speech scales to user - generated content sharing networks that lack the curation and editorial oversight of traditional news distribution systems.

The peak professional group for Australia's media questions the government's «free speech» motivations for the RDA inquiry, arguing that it occurred against a backdrop of much graver threats (many directly due to government legislation), including: