Free Speech Roundup: Week of Apr. 1st, 2018

A summary of the top free speech related news and events from the past week. This week we have news on a few lawsuits, dismissed charges, and international news from Malaysia and Nigeria.

Freedom of speech is the right from which all other human rights follow because it allows people to address grievances and protest for their other rights. It is therefore of the utmost importance to protect the right to express oneself freely from those who seek to restrict it.

Malaysia Outlaws Fake News

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-election-fakenews/malaysia-outlaws-fake-news-sets-jail-of-up-to-six-years-idUSKCN1H90Y9
Malaysia passed a law banning “fake news” which is defined as “news, information, data and reports which is or are wholly or partly false.” Punishment for those who maliciously spread “fake news” could be as much as 6 years in prison and a 500,000 ringgit ($123,000) fine. People inside and outside of Malaysia, even foreigners, could find themselves in trouble if they spread “fake news” affecting Malaysia or Malaysian citizens. Law Minister Azalina Othman Said claims the law would still allow for freedom of speech, but critics are concerned it could be used to stifle dissent ahead of the upcoming general election. According to Reuters, Malaysia already has laws which “have been used to clamp down on unfavorable news and social media posts.”

Nigerian Hate Speech Bill

https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/controversies-apprehension-over-hate-speech-bill/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-01/nigeria-hate-speech-death-penalty-feared-to-hurt-free-speech/9597614
The bill proposed by Nigerian Senator Aliyu Sabi-Abdullahi would impose death by hanging for any person found guilty of hate speech which results in the death of another person. It also seeks to establish an Independent National Commission for Hate Speeches to enforce hate speech laws and jail time or fines for harassment on the grounds of ethnicity or race. Critics fear that the proposed law would undermine freedom of expression. They are concerned by the vague definition of hate speech and the possibility the law could be used as an instrument of censorship. Proponents of the bill say that it is necessary for curtailing ethnic violence. I wrote about this story HERE.

Virginia Chef Sues Over Happy Hour Laws

http://www.roanoke.com/business/news/chef-sues-over-virginia-s-happy-hour-laws/article_2f9c54aa-ed95-5ae2-8075-8d7cf6a9f790.html
Chef Geoff Tracy, owner of 3 Washington, D.C.-area restaurants, is suing Virginia’s alcohol control board for violating his free speech with its arcane happy hour rules. Signs and ads promoting alcohol discounts became legal in Virginia only 4 years ago, but only the phrases “happy hour” or “drink specials” can be used and prices cannot be advertised. It is also unclear whether he can legally advertise his happy hour specials in a newspaper for all locations when only 1 of 3 is affected by the Virginia law. Penalties for first-time violators can be a $500 fine and weeklong liquor license suspension. Anastasia Boden of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Tracy, says that if it’s legal to do something, it should be legal to say it.

Texas Judge Dismisses Felony Case

https://texasmonitor.org/crazy-fat-lady-wins-free-speech-victory/
Judge Monica Z. Notzon dismissed felony charges against Priscilla Villarreal, self-described as La Gordiloca, or “crazy fat lady,” for information published to her Facebook page. The Laredo Police Department charged her with 2 third-degree felony counts of “misuse of information.” Judge Notzon ruled the charges were unconstitutionally vague and that a state statute was not violated because there was no prior prohibition on the information and it was unclear she derived any benefit. Villarreal publishes, among other local news, police blotter items to her page. The information in question was the name of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection employee who had recently committed suicide. She believes the police department holds a personal grudge against her for the information she posts. While the judge did not directly rule on the free speech implications, the ruling still protects the dissemination of public information, according to Joe Larsen of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

Woman Fired For Flipping Off Trump Sues

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-suing-for-my-right-to-flip-off-the-president/2018/04/05/a0abcf10-38e8-11e8-9c0a-85d477d9a226_story.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/politics/woman-flipped-off-trump-sues/index.html
The woman who was the subject of a viral photo, showing her flipping off President Trump’s motorcade while riding a bike, is suing her former employer for wrongful termination. Akima LLC fired Juli Briskman in November after she volunteered that she was the woman in the photo, saying she violated their social media policy. Briskman believes that Akima fired her out of fear of illegal retaliation by the government, with whom they do business. She says that suppressing her freedom of expression on her own time violates Virginia employment law. According to her attorney, “Juli's expression of disapproval of the President is fundamental political speech protected by both the United States Constitution and Virginia state law.”

Judge To Decide If Neo-Nazi Trolling Is Free Speech

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-to-decide-if-neo-nazi-troll-storm-is-protected-speech/
U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch heard argument on Tuesday from the attorneys of Tanya Gersh and Andrew Anglin. Gersh sued Anglin, of The Daily Stormer, last year for harassing messages from Anglin’s followers. Anglin had accused Gersh, a real estate agent in Montana, of extorting the mother of Richard Spencer into selling her property and directed his followers to unleash an “old fashioned troll storm.” Anglin argues he only invited protest of her actions, the information posted was publicly available, and that he’s not responsible for his followers’ actions. Gersh’s attorneys argue that he wasn’t speaking on broad public issues and that the First Amendment doesn’t protect a coordinated attack through private communications. The judge has yet to make a ruling in the case.

---

What do you think about these stories? Leave a comment below!

Recent Free Speech Roundups:

Free Speech Roundup: Week of Mar. 25th, 2018
Free Speech Roundup: Week of Mar. 18th, 2018
Free Speech Roundup: Week of Mar. 11th, 2018
Free Speech Roundup: Week of Mar. 4th, 2018
Free Speech Roundup: Week of Feb. 25th, 2018

Other Free Speech Posts:

Response to Opinion Piece in Toronto Sun
Nigerian Bill Proposes Death Penalty for Hate Speech
UK Parliament Report on Campus Free Speech
Thoughtcrime in the UK?
New Study Shows College Students Conflicted on Free Speech
Who is most supportive of free speech?
Campus Free Speech Zones
Hitchens on Free Speech - Must Watch

Free Speech Resources:

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
The American Civil Liberties Union
Notable 1st Amendment Cases – ALA
Milton’s Areopagitica – Modern English Translation
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill – Audiobook

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.
~ First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States