Archive |

No Lawsuit in London Headscarf Farce - Yet

Last 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.

This week, The London Daily news reports that Metroline "cleared" the driver after video footage emerged which refuted the women's version of the events. In fact, it appears that the driver ejected the pair because they were being "argumentative" and "abusive" after forcing their way on to the out-of-service bus.

Though Metroline has rejected the pair's complaint, the BBC writes that Yasmin and Atoofa are seeking legal counsel—which means that a civil suit is now a definite possibility.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Nathaniel Sugarman | July 30, 2010 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

One Thousand and One (or Fewer?) Arabian Nights

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.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Ann Snyder | July 22, 2010 at 8:39 am | Permalink

A Victory for Free Speech

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.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Jeffrey Azarva | July 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

Is Libel Reform in Britain Really in the Cards?

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.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Jeffrey Azarva | July 16, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

Keith Yost Gets It

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).

Continue to full text of posting...

By Adam Turner | July 15, 2010 at 11:13 am | Permalink

Moscow Can't Handle the Truth

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.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Adam Turner | July 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

Religious Thuggery Threatens Free Speech in Michigan

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.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Nathaniel Sugarman | July 6, 2010 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

A Silver Lining at the Human Rights Council

The votes are in on the Organization of the Islamic Conference's annual "defamation of religions" resolution, and for nations that value free speech, there is victory even in defeat.

On March 25^th, the UN Human Rights Council passed the resolution, which essentially calls on nations to restrict free speech regarding Islam under the guise of fighting intolerance and promoting "human dignity." This is not news. The OIC has sponsored and pushed to passage nearly identical text for the last decade.

The exciting news lies in the vote count. Last year's resolution passed by a vote of 23-11 with 13 nations abstaining; this year the gap narrowed to 20-17, with a mere eight abstentions. The drop in abstentions is key and suggests that member states are finally awakening to the looming danger these resolutions pose to free expression.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Daniel Huff | March 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

Stacking the Deck against Geert Wilders

In a brief courtroom session today, Amsterdam's District Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the case against Geert Wilders for "inciting hatred," and further announced it would allow only 3 of the 18 witnesses Wilders had requested.

Wilders had sought three categories of witnesses: 5 free speech experts, 8 Islam experts, and 5 "experiential experts." This latter category consisted of various Islamists, including Theo van Gogh's murderer, a Dutch imam who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Wilders, and the Egyptian fundamentalist Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The court decided to permit only the three Islam experts to testify: Johannes Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan. In fairness, barring the Islamist witnesses is perhaps excusable. Presumably none would be willing to testify voluntarily, and only one resides freely in the Netherlands. What is much more troubling is the court's refusal to hear from any of Wilders' five free speech experts - all of whom would likely have appeared voluntarily.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | February 3, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

The OIC shows not all condemnations are equal

The Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC) recent condemnation of extremist Muslim violence would be absolutely remarkable except for one small problem – there's no reason to believe that the OIC actually meant a word of it.

On January 3, the OIC issued a statement in English condemning the attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard for creating the controversial Mohammed cartoons. Although lukewarm, it did say that the attack ran totally against the teachings and values of Islam.

That seems encouraging, but consider this. On January 8, the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten republished six of the original 12 cartoons, alongside details of the attack on Westergaard. The OIC promptly and unequivocally condemned Aftenposten's decision in a January 10 communication, averring that the newspaper's stand against extremism would not serve any purpose other than to incite intolerance and hatred.

Continue to full text of posting...

By Aaron Eitan Meyer | January 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm | Permalink