Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speechBy Jonathan Turley, Published: October 13

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”

A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514a_print.html

Rupert Murdoch has labelled victims of phone hacking "scumbag celebrities" after they met the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, during the Conservative party conference.

Mr Murdoch took to Twitter to criticise the talks in Birmingham between Mr Cameron and members of the Hacked Off campaign, the singer Charlotte Church, actor Hugh Grant and a former TV presenter, Jacqui Hames.

Murdoch tweeted: "Told UK's Cameron receiving scumbag celebrities pushing for even more privacy laws. Trust the toffs! Transparency under attack. Bad."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/rupert-murdoch-labels-hacking-victims-scumbag-celebrities-20121015-27lqz.html#ixzz29JmgG1Jc

The 81-year-old was swiftly taken to task by other Twitter users and later apologised for his language and insisted that he was not specifically referring to Church and Hames.

However, both women sent messages to Murdoch demanding that he withdraw the comment. "His tweet was a revelation of the ruthless and unrepentant Murdoch, the man who spent 30 years either excusing News of the World excesses or simply ignoring them," wrote Roy Greenslade in The Guardian. Murdoch's next trick was to link the Leveson Inquiry to the Jimmy Savile scandal. In reply to another message on Twitter, he insinuated that new privacy laws would aid people like the late BBC presenter, now accused of being a predatory sex offender. "Likes of Saville [sic] further protected if we don't fight Cameron, dodgy celebrities in UK. Could not happen in US," Murdoch wrote.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/49569/murdoch-leveson-could-end-helping-future-jimmy-saviles#ixzz29OyVplDh

Rupert Murdoch’s hopes for a peaceful gathering at News Corp's annual general meeting of shareholders in Los Angeles today have likely been dashed by a report in The Financial Times that says Rebekah Brooks received a pay-off totaling more than £7m in cash and pension payments, an allowance for legal fees and the use of a chauffeur-driven car.

The substantial severance for an executive facing charges of conspiracy charges in connection with the News of the World phone-hacking investigation, will serve to further anger institutional investors calling for the appointment of an independent chairman.

According to CNBC, there is a growing list of investors opposing Rupert Murdoch and his family's control over News Corp.

"There's been a lack of responsiveness by the board to this scandal," says a spokesman for Christian Brothers, which invests about $4 billion for largely Catholic institutions. "The company is at risk where a scandal like this could happen again without having very clear and strong oversight."

The California State Teachers Retirement System, with $153 million dollars in management, is preparing to vote against the re-election of every single News Corp director while the California Public Employees Retirement System, which has $273 billion under management, is opposing the re-election of Rupert Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan to the board.

The pension funds join a list of investors concerned about the Murdoch family's lack of independent perspective on the board. In July, a consortium of 18 companies, including Aviva Investors, Calvert Investments, and the Connecticut State Pension Fund, wrote: "We believe the board is in need of independent leadership."

Shareholder advisory firms such as Glass Lewis have endorsed the measure, says Businessweek, and it's won support from investors who are otherwise supportive of Murdoch's leadership.

But how likely are the rebels to succeed in their quest to separate the chairman and CEO roles - both held by Murdoch Snr - to increase accountability? Not very, seems to be the answer. Investors may not like the taint that comes from the hacking inquiry but they can hardly complain that News Corp shares have risen 37 per cent this year.

The company laid out its official position to the demand last month: "Mandating a separation of the positions of chairman and CEO would weaken the company's current leadership structure. The proposal would deprive the board of the valuable flexibility to exercise its business judgment in selecting the individual best suited to serve as chairman in the future."

Murdoch meanwhile twittered that he's been busy preparing for the meeting. "Signs pretty peaceful, but any shareholders with complaints should take profits and sell!" he said. 

Rebekah Brooks' £7m Pay-Off Set To Overshadow News Corp AGM

RUPERT MURDOCH has slammed the ABC and demanded an apology over its coverage of recent comments he made about victims of the British phone-hacking scandal.
"Typical ABC in Oz alleged I called hacking victims scumbags," Mr Murdoch wrote on Twitter early this morning. "Direct lie. Major correction and apology please."
Mr Murdoch's comments relate to the ABC's coverage of a tweet he wrote on Sunday: "Told UK's Cameron receiving scumbag celebrities pushing for even more privacy laws. Trust the toffs! Transparency under attack. Bad."
That tweet apparently referred to a meeting between the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and representatives of Hacked Off, a lobby group for victims of phone hacking.
Mr Cameron met privately with celebrities from the group, including the actor Hugh Grant, the singer Charlotte Church and a TV presenter, Jacqui Hames, and discussed greater regulation of the press.
The ABC reported on its website that Mr Murdoch had labelled "some phone hacking victims as 'scumbag celebrities'."
It is unclear what part of the ABC's reporting Mr Murdoch objected to. The broadcaster was not immediately available for comment on Mr Murdoch's criticism.His original comments were followed by a hail of criticism on Twitter.
A former British MP, Evan Harris, tweeted: "By 'scumbag celebs' do u mean the WPC [woman police constable] u put under surveillance, the teen girl yr papers perved over, or the actor u hacked?"
Mr Harris accused Mr Murdoch of hypocrisy. "I was at meeting & unlike yr secret meetngs w/ PMs promoting yr business, the victims went in front door & told media abt it," he tweeted.
Mr Murdoch later seemed to qualify his first tweet, saying to another user: "not referring to these ladies."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/murdoch-demands-abc-apologise-for-lie-20121018-27tvb.html#ixzz29e8xg3YI

Rupert Murdoch has apologised to Hugh Grant after he suggested on Twitter that the actor had abandoned his "love child".

The News Corporation boss made his second Twitter climbdown in less than 24 hours on Thursday, as he expressed regret for earlier comments about Grant's personal life.

Murdoch said on Twitter: "Hugh Grant states that he is deeply involved in his daughter's life – I accept that,regret tweet on the matter. Apologies to both parents."

Grant was furious about Murdoch's tweet three days ago and is understood to have been considering legal action.

Murdoch made the slip up after getting entangled in a row over his "scumbag celebrity" tweet after being tackled on Twitter by another user. When one Twitter user responded to Murdoch: "Scumbags? And your journalists and executives are what?", the media baron replied: "They don't get arrested for indecency on major LA highways! Or abandon love child's."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/18/rupert-murdoch-hugh-grant/print