Freedom of religion and freedom of speech - The United States, Australia and Singapore compared

Freedom of Religion (more correctly, freedom of conscience, belief and religion under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (ICCPR)), and Freedom of Speech have been logically tied together since human beings were sentient creatures. The two rights are inseparably connected by logic, since one cannot speak freely unless one has the freedom of conscience to think out something to say. For this reason, the two rights were combined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution in 1789 and that joinder has cemented the connection ever since even though the extrapolation of the two rights has seen them separated in modern human rights instruments. That latter-day separation in the interests of more complete expression however, seems to have disconnected the two rights in the minds of modern philosophers, legislators and judges

Prensa, política e “intelectuales mediáticos” / The press, politics and “media intellectuals”

Quieren ser libres de decir lo que piensan, aunque no sean libres de pensar lo que dicen; por otra parte no se cuestiona si son libres los medios de propiedad privada donde escriben y hablan. A esta dramaturgia parece reducirse hoy todo el debate sobre la libertad de expresión y de prensa: libertad de expresión sin libertad intelectual y libertad de prensa sin prensa libre de la propiedad privada. Esto mismo explica por qué los medios y la prensa necesitan de intelectuales, para legitimarse ideológica y políticamente, y por qué los intelectuales se vuelven mediáticos, al modificarse su “posición de clase” en la sociedad actual.They want to be free to express what they think, even though they are not free to think what they say; on the other hand, it is not questioned whether the private media organizations from where they speak and write are free. Currently, it seems that all debates on freedom of speech and press have been reduced to this drama freedom of speech without intellectual freedom and press freedom without free press from private property. This explains why the media and the press need intellectuals, in order to legitimize themselves ideologically and politically, and why intellectuals turn into the media, when their “class position” within current society is modified

Trends of Epistemic Oppression and Academic Dependency in Africa's Development: The Need for a New Intellectual Path

Abstract A simple dictionary definition of 'freedom' shows that it implies the power to think, act, and speak as one deems fit without any hindrance. It also denotes the power of 'being' or 'doing'. When many countries in Africa gained independence in the 1950s and beyond, this notion of freedom was what they all aspired to. And although many countries have been formally detached from their colonial heritage, most of them remain attached to the colonial intellectual roots. We argue that this practice is opposed to the independence and development that African countries have sought for several years, and thus, it kills initiative and renders the efforts towards freedom and sustained development meaningless. Therefore this paper highlights trends of epistemic oppression and academic dependency in some African countries, arguing that African people should think creatively from within and produce knowledge that is more in tune with an African context rather than depending on books, theories, and approaches from elsewhere. The overall claim of the paper is that until Africa gains the substantial ability to think, act and speak for itself through progressive scholarship and writing, 'true' intellectual freedom and home-grown development will be unlikely

Foreseeably Uncertain: The (In)Ability of School Officials to Reasonably Foresee Substantial Disruption to the School Environment

“Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever met.” While the name of this Facebook page is perhaps a bit harsh, most would hardly view it as grounds for school suspension. The very heart of the First Amendment, and indeed the notion for which our Framers drafted it, is the right of citizens to “think, speak, write and worship as they wish, not as the Government commands.” Without this fundamental freedom—one that has persevered despite countless efforts to narrow its reach—the American people would live in constant fear of backlash and suppression for merely voicing their opinions

A sanctuary from intolerance

I appreciate Michael Lane\u27s column Sensitivity U. in the Feb. 12, 1996 edition of the Maine Campus. His points are frequently well researched and written, though I frequently disagree with his interpretations of events. Such is the case with his views on the residence hall Safe Zone for lesbian, gay, bisexual students and their allies. Contrary to his anticipation, I do not consider him a homophobe, I support his freedom to speak his mind. I also think his understanding of the experience of lesbian, gays, and bisexuals and the First Amendment could be better informed

Defense Against the Dark Arts: Justice Jackson, Justice Kennedy and the No-Compelled-Speech Doctrine

According to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought. If this is so, and I believe it is, then the greatest threat to freedom, the darkest of the dark arts of government, occurs when the law compels persons to speak and thus commandeers their intellectual autonomy. Only a vibrant First Amendment is an adequate defense against this darkest of the dark arts. This Article traces the Supreme Court\u27s First Amendment jurisprudence protecting speaker autonomy and the right not to speak from its origins in the flag salute cases to the present. In particular, I focus on two magnificent judicial opinions defending this fundamental free speech right, the majority opinion of Justice Jackson in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA). These two eloquent and powerful opinions are true landmarks of liberty and strong shields against an authoritarian government\u27s tyrannical attempts to coerce ideological orthodoxy by compelling individuals to say things they wish not to say. In Justice Kennedy\u27s case, his concurring opinion in NIFLA was issued near the end of his final term on the Supreme Court, and thus it represents an exclamation point on his wonderful legacy of protecting freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Although these opinions are separated by seventy-five years, they share a common understanding of the importance of the First Amendment for the protection of intellectual autonomy from authoritarian officials and compelled ideological conformity

KEBEBASAN BERAGAMA DAN BERBICARA DALAM BINGKAI KAJIAN TAFSIR NUSANTARA

Freedom of belief is one of the human rights that is often discussed in the international community, including freedom of religion. It has been stated in the Quran very clearly that everyone has the freedom to embrace a religion they believe in, beside it has also been explained by Allah that Islam is the most blessed religion. However, there are still forces in choosing a religion in various ways. One of the gifts that Allah has given to humans is freedom of religion based on his own beliefs and freedom of speech. This research focused on how the interpretation of the Archipelago Mufassir about freedom of religion and speech in the al-Qur'an. This study used a qualitative literature approach (Library Research). This type used the thematic analysis method. The primary data source was Tafsir Nusantara, the secondary data was the writer tried to collect data related to the discussion. The results of this study indicated that freedom of religion and speech according to Nusantara Mufassir’s (as Hamka, Quraisy Shihab dan Hasbi Ash-Shidieqy) interpretations towards QS. al-Baqarrah verse 256 that Allah has ordered his people not to force someone to adhere Islam but invite people to think about the truth of Islam. Furthermore, QS. al-Isra' verse 36 implies freedom of speech, it is explained that someone is allowed to speak the truth and not spread lies; a prohibition against talking about something uncertain and to determine something based on personal prejudice and allegation. This verse also prevents from such disadvantages, as accusation, wrong prejudice, lies and false witnesses

Freedom and destiny

286 p.Personal freedom is a central problem for modern men and women as well as for our society. Writing out of his long experience as a therapist, Rollo May, author of the groundbreaking Love and Will, shows how personal freedom is in daily crisis. Modern man has forgotten that personal freedom can be experienced only in juxtaposition with human destiny. The conscious freedom to think and feel and speak authentically is a uniquely human quality. Always in conflict with one's destiny, this freedom is the foundation of human values such as love, honesty, and courage. Without personal freedom there will be no lasting values in our culture. Yet destiny is the vital design of the universe expressed in each of us. May proposes the steps for our rediscovery of the relation between freedom and destiny. He emphasizes that both are intertwined and that one gives birth to the other. Yet the renewal of life can come only with a recovery of the polarity between freedom and destiny

Between Rhetoric, Social Norms, and Law: Liberty of Speech in Republican Rome

Although modern Republicanism, which highly values the right of freedom of speech, finds its inspiration in the historical reality of the Roman Republic, it seems that in the course of the Republican period citizens shared a recognised ability to speak freely in public, but did not enjoy equal status with one another in the domain of speech as protected by law. Of course, Republican Rome knew laws regulating free speech and perhaps even later provisions had been passed concerning iniuria. However, in these cases, as later on under Augustus, these measures acted as means of restraint and inhibition and did not directly address the right of the individual to speak freely. The fundamental question this paper addresses is why, in the course of the Republic, the right to speak freely was not protected by law and never came to be recognised as a formalised subjective right in Republican Rome. The answer, I argue, lies in the fact that in Rome speaking freely was conceived as the positive moral quality that characterised a natural ability of human beings, and thereby it could not have provided a field of legislation. It follows that the Roman Republic would not have passed the ‘straight talk test’ that modern Republicanism requires for the establishment of a free and just society. However, Republican Rome invites us to think about liberty of speech as belonging to the realm of ethics: as a moral quality sustained by contemporary social norms, not subject to legislation, which inevitably ends up protecting the interests of a group or groups and their specific speech regimes

Sovereign Violence and the Power of Acting – (Imagining the Unsovereign Law)

Starting from Kant’s distinction between private and public reason, the idea is to challenge the meaning of political intervention today, political discourse. What is to be a scholar in the digital age? What are the limits of the law, and how can one speak of an alternative, unsovereign law? What is to resist subjection and build the new? True maturity and freedom cannot be reconciled with blind obedience and docility in the private sphere. Only lives guided by reason in Spinoza’s sense can overcome the logics of coercion and consent, both leading into subjection and servitude. Yet, for this, it is necessary to think about the role of contingency and the desire for freedom