|
|
||||
 |
The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum, works to protect the right in the West to freely discuss Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding. [More]
Commentary & Analysis
No Lawsuit in London Headscarf Farce - Yet
by Nathaniel Sugarman • July 30, 2010 at 1:19 pm
 Send |
  
|
ShareLast week, two Muslim women told the BBC that a "bigoted" driver forced them to exit a Metroline bus because they were wearing Islamic headscarves. Yasmin and Atoofa, identified by the BBC only by their first names, also filed an official complaint with Metroline, though they did not immediately commence a lawsuit.
Full Text...
One Thousand and One (or Fewer?) Arabian Nights
by Ann Snyder • July 22, 2010 at 8:39 am
| Send |
|
The tales that so captivated King Shahryar that he spared the life of Scheherazade have narrowly escaped their own demise (or at least expurgation). The L.A. Times reported that a group of Egyptian attorneys filed a suit aimed at banning completely or at least censoring supposedly offensive passages from a recent edition of the classic, The Arabian Nights. Fortunately, the prosecutor general of Egypt threw out that suit.
However, the group, Lawyers Without Shackles, has other works in its sights. According to the article, they are "determined to delete salacious passages from contemporary literature and cherished classics."
by Jeffrey Azarva • July 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm
| Send |
|
Yesterday afternoon, the Senate took a critical step in eradicating "libel tourism" when it passed the SPEECH Act by unanimous voice vote. The result was a victory for the Legal Project which, early on in the effort, began providing research and information to the Senate committee which produced the bill.
Is Libel Reform in Britain Really in the Cards?
by Jeffrey Azarva • July 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm
| Send |
|
On July 9, Lord McNally, U.K. Minister of State for Justice, announced plans to introduce a draft bill in early 2011 that would seek wholesale reform of England's notorious defamation laws. Free-speech advocates applauded the move, and with good reason—the U.K.'s plaintiff-friendly libel regime (e.g., burden of proof on defendant; weak "public interest" defense; broad jurisdictional reach; no single publication rule) has long succeeded in stifling free expression.
McNally's proposal is not the first time the government has tried its hand at libel reform. Prior to its ouster from power in the 2010 general election, the Labour Party mounted a last-ditch bid to amend the law, but the effort fell victim to political pitfalls.
by Adam Turner • July 15, 2010 at 11:13 am
| Send |
|
In an opinion piece titled, Free speech in chains, written by a Keith Yost, a student at M.I.T., for the M.I.T. newspaper, The Tech, Mr. Yost eloquently speaks out against the war Islamist radicals are conducting against the free speech rights of Americans (and all others).
The critical paragraphs in his op-ed are:
"The line seems to keep getting pushed back further and further. With van Gogh, we discovered that we cannot criticize Islam. With Jyllands-Posten, we found that we cannot criticize our inability to criticize Islam. And now with South Park we find that we cannot even criticize our inability to criticize. Forget Islam for a moment (-) how is it that our society, which enshrines free speech as a fundamental right, came to self-censor a debate on self-censorship?
by Adam Turner • July 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm
| Send |
|
Lawmakers in Moscow have introduced legislation to ban the media from mentioning the nationality, race and religion of criminals. This is a reversal of the usual Russian policy of reinforcing and/or even demanding ethnic identifications (e.g., Russian passports have generally stated ethnicity.) One of the bill's sponsors, Moscow City Duma Deputy Aleksandr Semennikov, explained his reasons for introducing this new bill:
This kind of information often causes a stir in public opinion, especially among people that aren't very tolerant or aware of the consequences of their actions. There are groups that will call for revenge, said Semennikov.
Religious Thuggery Threatens Free Speech in Michigan
by Nathaniel Sugarman • July 6, 2010 at 11:35 pm
| Send |
|
The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will soon decide whether a public bus company can refuse to run ads that may offend Muslims.
The bus ads, sponsored by Pamela Geller's Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), promote RefugeFromIslam.com, a website that reaches out to Muslims who have chosen to leave the faith but lack the tools to do so. The campaign has illuminated an inevitable choice that Michigan must make between supporting free speech and permitting the Dearborn Islamic Community to dictate what is publishable and what is off-limits.
Is the First Amendment in Jeopardy?
by Daniel Huff • July 6, 2010 • Fox News
| Send |
|
The Declaration of Independence did more than dissolve the bonds with England. It put the world on notice that America is sovereign; that the rights of its citizens will not be dictated by foreign powers.
That is why it is hard to believe that free speech, the pillar of American democracy, could be in any actual jeopardy from U.N. treaties banning "hate speech" or recent efforts to proscribe what is being called "defamation of religions." This complacency is reinforced because the U.S. government has always reserved the right to ignore any treaty provisions inconsistent with the First Amendment.
The problem is international law and the First Amendment are not independent issues.
The existence of treaties limiting speech can color the way U.S. courts construe the boundaries of free expression. The more such treaties there are, the greater the likelihood courts will find they embody a compelling government interest which trumps the First Amendment.
Latest Blog Posts
News
Most Viewed
© 2010 The Legal Project.