‘Liberty and freedom’ | Other counties say they will not require masks like Harris County, Houston – KHOU.com

Judges of Galveston, Brazoria and Montgomery counties said although Harris County is requiring face coverings in public, they will not issue such a mandate.

HOUSTON While Harris County is set to implement a 30-day order requiring face coverings in public starting Monday, other county judges are making it clear they will not mandate residents cover their faces.

The Harris County order requires residents ages 10 and older to cover their nose and mouth when in public. It is set to begin Monday, April 27 and will last for 30 days. Residents who dont follow the order could face a $1,000 fine.

Galveston County Judge Mark Henry tweeted while covering ones face in public is recommended by national and local authorities, he will not mandate face coverings, as he believes it is unconstitutional to do so.

Just as critical as getting our economy back up and running, it is important that elected officials uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution and ensure individual freedoms remain intact during and after this pandemic, he said in a statement.

Montgomery County Judge Mark Keough also said he will not mandate face coverings in public.

I do not find a statutory or legal basis that would allow me or anyone else in government to issue an order requiring citizens to wear a mask In public, especially under the fear of making it a criminal offense if they dont, he said in a video statement.

I will not be issuing an order mandating the wearing of mask In public places. This is my statement on the issue.

Judge Keough encouraged residents to respect each other whether they choose to wear a mask and continue practicing social distancing.

Brazoria County Judge Matt Sebesta also said he will not mandate residents to wear masks in public unless the county health authority strongly recommends it. However, Judge Sebesta highly encourages everyone to wear a mask when out in public.

Fort Bend County Judge KP George said he is not issuing a mandate but still "strong recommends" residents wear masks in public.

Officials in Chambers, Waller and Liberty counties also said they have no such required face covering orders in place.

Coronavirus symptoms

The symptoms of coronavirus can be similar to the flu or a bad cold. Symptoms include a fever, cough and shortness of breath, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Some patients also have nausea, body aches, headaches and stomach issues. Losing your sense of taste and/or smell can also be an early warning sign.

Most healthy people will have mild symptoms. A study of more than 72,000 patients by the Centers for Disease Control in China showed 80 percent of the cases there were mild.

But infections can cause pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure and even death, according to the World Health Organization. Older people with underlying health conditions are most at risk for becoming seriously ill. However, U.S. experts are seeing a significant number of younger people being hospitalized, including some in ICU.

The CDC believes symptoms may appear anywhere from two to 14 days after being exposed.

Human coronaviruses are usually spread through...

Help stop the spread of coronavirus

Lower your risk

Get complete coverage of the coronavirus by texting 'FACTS' to 713-526-1111.

View post:

'Liberty and freedom' | Other counties say they will not require masks like Harris County, Houston - KHOU.com

A Second Amendment Challenge in the Green Mountain State – Cato Institute

In early 2018, Vermonts governor signed into law Act 94, which placed numerous restrictions on Vermonters ability to acquire and own firearms. One of these restrictions is aban on largecapacity magazines (LCMs), which the statute defines as magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition for along gun or more than fifteen rounds for ahandgun. Max Misch, aVermont resident who traveled to New Hampshire to buy two 30round rifle magazines and brought them back to Vermont, was charged with violating the LCM ban.

Misch moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the ban violates the Vermont Constitution, which declares that the people have aright to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. The trial court denied his motion, despite recognizing the long history of the right to bear arms in Vermont. Although the court acknowledged that the LCM ban imposed aburden on aconstitutional right, it determined that the burden was minimal and reasonable.

The question of the LCM bans constitutionality has now been taken up by the Vermont Supreme Court. Cato, together with the Independence Institute and four firearmspolicy organizationshas filed abrief supporting Mr. Misch.

We argue that Vermonts magazine ban is irreconcilable with the social and political setting in which the states constitution originated and is therefore unconstitutional. We trace the lengthy history of repeating firearms with magazines exceeding the size allowed under the LCM ban. Guns with magazine sizes banned by the new law have existed and enjoyed enduring popularity for the entire history of Vermont. By contrast, restrictions on magazine size have been ararity throughout American history.

Vermont ratified its first constitutionwhich contained the current arms provisionin 1777, against abackground of Britishimposed arms controls. After the Founders experience with those restrictions, they hardly intended that their government would have the power to outlaw some of the most common firearms components in the nation. Ethan and Ira Allen, Vermonts founders, were particularly strong advocates of the right to bear arms. In 1796, Ira successfully defended himself against British seizure of 20,000 arms that he was transporting from France, explaining how in Vermont, citizens were free to turn their gardens into parks of artillery, and their houses into arsenals, without danger to Government.

The right to bear arms that Vermonts founding generation fought and died for is as relevant today as it has been throughout the states history. We urge the Vermont Supreme Court to make clear that the states constitutional protection of its citizens right to bear arms in selfdefense has not become adead letter, and to hold the LCM ban unconstitutional.

See the rest here:

A Second Amendment Challenge in the Green Mountain State - Cato Institute

‘Freedom and liberty to work’ rally is canceled; or is it? – Martha’s Vineyard Times

Updated 12:30 pm

A freedom and liberty to work rally at Five Corners for Wednesday, April 22, from 3 to 5 pm, was canceled by its organizers, which included members of the family that owns the popular Black Dog restaurants, cafes, and shops.

The idea for the rally started as a discussion of the biological and economic issues the Island was facing, Robbie Douglas told The Times Wednesday morning.

Our idea was to have a gathering or a rally just to ask some questions, which we thought were important to address, Douglas said.

Douglas stressed there were no demands, only a desire to have an open dialogue about a smart and safe reopening of the economy, protecting the vulnerable, and letting the healthy work to support the nation.

After the rally post went up on Facebook, Douglas said he started to get a significant number of calls about why the rally was happening and decided the best thing to do was to cancel it.

We received a significant amount of calls questioning why we were doing it and it just seemed like it got out of control. Im not so sure our original message was read, but if it was going to put more distress into the community thats never what we were about.

Douglas said they were concerned about the potential effect on business, but didnt anticipate India Roses website calling for a boycott of the company.

Douglas said their main concern is to discuss what the community could do to address the long-term effects on the economy.

The great unknown to us is the economical, which will lead back to our families and to our communities, Douglas said. We see it as an ecosystem that works when were all healthy. If were not all healthy biologically or economically, what are the consequences?

Kenny MacDonald, a friend of the Douglases and a Navy Seal veteran who helped organize the rally, said he volunteered at the food pantry and saw many families showing up for assistance. The rally was a way to bring up these issues.

Im seeing a struggling community, MacDonald said. Im seeing my neighbors that are struggling, Im seeing small businesses that might be going under and theres no jobs to go back to for those workers that dont have a job currently Losing a job is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person.

For now, Douglas said they will pull back and reassess how to have a healthy discussion. He also advocated for his 190 employees whom he furloughed.

When you look into the eyes of these people who have mortgages, daycare payments, car payments and you say hey, thank you for your 20 years of service, well talk to you in two or three months and we hope to be able to bring you back. Thats a painful experience that I personally had to deal with. We wanted to continue to have the discussion so I can bring these individuals back. The employees succeed, the businesses succeed, and then the economy succeeds and the community succeeds.

Douglas brother Jamie Douglas said he is used to being on the frontlines with customers, and its important to maintain the summer economy.

I believe through smart measures we can do that and afford ourselves some type of an economy for the summer, which is so vital and critical to every single person that lives out here, Jamie Douglas said. This is a tourist resort Island driven by a seasonal economy 90 percent. Its essential that theres a semblance of that that remains.

While the Douglas brothers and MacDonald stepped away from the rally, they want to continue a dialogue and discuss reopening the Island economy in conjunction with healthcare professionals.

This is not political for us. This is about economic survival, Robbie Douglas said.

MacDonalds Facebook page includes posts about the tyrannical approach of the U.S. America, youve been robbed of your money, your liberty and your dignity, he wrote on April 13. Your governments have declared you unable to make responsible decisions. This should insult any freedom loving person. But instead of revolting, we applaud and defend our oppressors.

On that same post, Robbie Douglas commented with a link to one of the highly publicized and politically charged protests in Michigan.

After Douglas told The Times Wednesdays rally was off, Ben Ferry wrote on the Islanders Talk Facebook page that it is still on. This has never been about Black Dog nor will it be in the future, he wrote. This is about the crippling effect this shutdown has had on working class families in our community.

Ferrys post ignited a raging debate on the Facebook page between those who want a return to some normalcy and those who say its too soon.

When the Douglas family was still involved, the initial call for a rally was kicked off in an April 19 Facebook post by Jamie Douglas who called for people to get back to work and restore our freedom and to save M.V. economy.

The post says everyone will practice social distancing, and calls for a smart and safe reopening of the economy and that the cure cant be worse than the disease.

Douglas brother Robbie Douglas was also tagged in the post.

There was almost immediate backlash to the proposed rally, which follows highly publicized events in Michigan, Ohio, and a more modest one at the Bourne Rotary on Cape Cod.

India Rose, a business consultant from Vineyard Haven, created boycottblackdog.com, a website encouraging people to stop patronizing the company.

The CEO of The Black Dog company is planning a liberation type of protest at Five Corners in Vineyard Haven on Marthas Vineyard on Wednesday April 22, 2020. In protest of current safety and stay-at-home orders. This is an act of selfish greed and the Island of Marthas Vineyard does not want this nonsense here. We encourage everyone to boycott all of their restaurants and shops and support other Island businesses that are REAL small businesses that care about this community, the website reads.

In a phone conversation with The Times, Rose said her call for a boycott was in counter protest to the Five Corners gathering.

I think what theyre doing is dangerous and counter productive, Rose said, adding that she and her family have made sacrifices like everyone else. Its not good for anybody, its not good for our community. All of us are making sacrifices. My parents live in Vineyard Haven and we dont go to their house. Were all doing our part to keep each other safe.

She said it followed a similar trend across the country of groups holding rallies and gatherings demanding the reopening of the economy.

Hopefully they [will] just really reconsider the reasoning and what theyre doing, she said.

Updated to include an interview with the Douglas brothers and their friend on Wednesday. -ed.

See the rest here:

'Freedom and liberty to work' rally is canceled; or is it? - Martha's Vineyard Times

The US Supreme Court vs the First Amendment – The Independent

The United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment which guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assembly into a weapon of the rich and powerful. The new interpretation has thwarted legislative efforts to address the increasing political and economic inequality that afflicts our society. The long-term consequence is a weakening of American democracy.

Free speech is a cause traditionally advanced by outsiders, people espousing dissident ideas or supporting social or economic changes. In the 19th century, the principal proponents of free speech were abolitionists who sought to criticise the southern slaveholders attempt to build a pro-slavery antidemocratic state. In his Plea for Free Speech, Frederick Douglass proclaimed that slavery cannot tolerate free speech, and when the anti-lynching advocate Ida Wells founded a newspaper in Memphis, she named it Free Speech, thus maintaining the tradition of making free speech a central part of the struggle for racial justice.

This pattern continued into the 20th century. During those years, the principal litigants in First Amendment cases in the US Supreme Court were outsiders such as civil-rights organisations representing minority groups. People and organisations who had very little economic, political, or social power typified free-speech litigants, and their challenges sought to alter the status quo.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

Continue reading here:

The US Supreme Court vs the First Amendment - The Independent

Article 19: The freedom of Speech and expression – India Today

The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression gives its citizens the right to express his views. Read through the better explanation of the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 as given by the Indian Constitution to understand what rights it confers upon us.

All the fundamental rights are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India.

Let us better understand Article 19

The Right of freedom of Speech and Expression implies that every citizen has the rights to express his views, opinions, belief, and convictions freely by mouth, writing, printing or through any other methods.

The supreme court held the freedom of Speech and Expression includes the protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc.

to freedom of speech and expression;

to assemble peaceably and without arms;

to form associations or unions;

to move freely throughout the territory of India;

to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and omitted

to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

Article 19 in the Indian constitution gives us the freedom of speech and expression with some reasonable restrictions under as follows:

It should not affect the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.

Nothing in sub-clause of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to it.

Read: How to pre-register for JioMart: Check out the direct link

Read the original:

Article 19: The freedom of Speech and expression - India Today

Two Universities React as Antisemitism Steps Out of the Shadows – Lubavitch.com

Viva, viva intifada! The chant filled the atrium and echoed back through bullhorns outside. Waving Palestinian flags and wearing black and white keffiyah scarves, 600 students had converged on the building to vent their hostility toward Israel and its citizens. The second Palestinian terror campaign may have ended in 2005, but at Torontos York University, it is alive and well.

In a half-full lecture hall deeper inside Vari Hall, five former Israeli Defense Forces soldiers were giving a presentation. The group, Reservists on Duty, speaks at college campuses around North America to combat antisemitism and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The protest lasted three hours, says fourth-year student Lauren Isaacs, who organized the soldiers event for Herut Canada, a Zionist student club. They were banging on the walls.

Despite several interruptions from protestors in the room, the event continued. Afterwards, the soldiers, Isaacs, and the attendees were escorted by police out the back door. There had been violence, later attributed to outside groups. One person was injured.

The protest, which took place on November 20, made international news and elicited tweets of outrage from government officials, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford. The York administration released statement after statement, asserting zero tolerance for hate, establishing freedom of speech working groups, and initiating an internal investigation. But the situation only seemed to get worse.

A week later, on November 28, the York Federation of Students passed a motion entitled Fighting Imperialist Propaganda on Our Campuses. It promised to prevent representatives of the Israeli State from speaking at the school, using its multi-million dollar apparatus to organize resistance. Since all York student groups operate under the federation, the motion effectively barred any Israeli from speaking on campus.

A History of Incidents

Yorks 3,500 Jewish students braced for another wave of controversy and media attention. The group that organized the protest, Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA), has been suspended by the administration twice before: in 2013, for staging a protest that disrupted classes, and in 2009, for effectively barricading Jewish students in the Hillel building while chanting anti-Israel and antisemitic slogans. But SAIA, one of the most active student groups on campus, was always reinstated.

SAIA is notorious for making Jewish students uncomfortable, saysRachel, a second-year student who asked to remain anonymous. I dont feel like Im being protected by the administration. There have been all of these incidents. And the university has done nothing about it.

Rachel, who is involved in Israel advocacy through Hillel, recalled a meeting with York president Rhonda Lenton: It seemed like she herself wasnt sure what to do. But if youre the head of the university and you cant do something, theres a problem.

When Free Speech Is Hate Speech

On December 11, in the midst of Yorks troubles, PresidentTrump signed an executive order intended to address what has become an epidemic of antisemitic incidents on campuses across the country. (A 2017 report by Tel Aviv University called American campuses hotbeds of antisemitism). The order, which classifies antisemitism as a civil rights violation, brought new attention to the churning debate at universities where administrators are struggling to protect both freedom of expression, and their students.

Joanne Vogel is Deputy Vice President of Student Services at Arizona State University, where a rash of antisemitic incidents, including a protest eerily similar to the one at York, shook the Jewish community last year. Hate speech is protected speech and makes balancing individual rights with the effects on the community very challenging, she shared with Lubavitch International. Nevertheless, more dialogue is the only effective way forward.

But to Jewish students, there is a terrifying gap between dialogue and safety. At York, ASU, and many other schools, Chabad representatives stepped in to help fill the void, building relationships, working with administrators, and empowering Jewish students to make their voices heard.

A Light on Campus

York students have always been politically active, Rabbi Vidal Bekerman told me, perhaps a residual effect of the schools early years as a liberal arts college. However, Israel was not a hot issue in the late 90s, when Rabbi Bekerman himself was an education student at York. A year on exchange at Hebrew University sparked his interest in Judaism, and, after a brief stint in law school, he found his way to a Chabad yeshivah in Morristown, New Jersey.

In 2006, he and his wife, Chana Leah, also a York alumna, returned to the campus to open the Rohr Chabad Jewish Student Centre. Chana Leah says that the couple's ability to relate to the experience of present-day students has become an invaluable asset: Their growth, their process, their journey. We were there.

It also gives them a granular understanding of how the university functions. Ive seen it over a twenty-five-year period, Rabbi Bekerman says. I get the student population. I get the culture. And he understands why its so hard for the administration to change the environment of hostility toward Israel on campus. The York Federation of Students is separately incorporated, essentially independent of the administration, he told me, with, indeed, its own multi-million dollar budget. Theyve adopted all kinds of anti-Israel resolutions. BDS is part of their platform.

In general, the Bekermans have elected to remain apolitical. Our rock is the Torah. Our rock is the Rebbe, Chana Leah says. And the Rebbes position is to be a light on campus.

In that capacity, the couple takes every opportunity to educate the student body about Jews and Judaism. ProfessorRandal Schnoor, who teaches Jewish studies, including a course on antisemitism and islamophobia in Canada, has invited them to speak to his students several times. The Bekermans are doing outstanding work for Jewish students on campus, he wrote in an email. They have the ability to connect very well with Jewish students from all backgrounds (as well as non-Jewish students). We are lucky to have them at York to share their passion for Jewish life.

The couple also makes their presence felt by tabling regularly on the main campus thoroughfare, sometimes with a picture of the Kotel, the Western Wall, behind them. The prop is not intended as a political statement, just a reminder to Yorks Jews of their rich history and heritage. The Chabad table will be appearing more often in the spring semester, Chana Leah says. The goal is simply to be present. We feel the students need it more than ever.

Not infrequently, members of pro-Palestinian groups stop to ask questions. The conversations are always civil, but sitting at the table can be an uncomfortable experience. Im a little nervous every time, says a third-year student active in the Chabad student club. Gedaliah, as she asked to be called, is about to complete her degree in Human Rights. After graduation, she wants to get a job fighting antisemitism on campus, a decision she made while at York. I want Jewish students to feel safe.

The Bekermans have created a haven for students like her to express themselves Jewishly, she says. The first time I went, I thought, this is not my place. And then the attack in Pittsburgh happens. And I just started going more. I go for the community. The Bekermans are my family.

Love Not Hate

At ASU, it started with the posters. In early November, a flyer mysteriously appeared on Arizona State Universitys Tempe campus bearing the words Love Not Hate. The o of love was replaced with a swastika, the a of hate with a Jewish star.

That was a turning point, recalls RabbiShmuel Tiechtel, a Chabad representative at ASU for sixteen years. I never saw anything like it. The laid-back atmosphere at Americas largest university had always been hospitable to Jewish students. In fact, the administration had recently started a kosher meal plan, at considerable expense. The rabbi quotes ASUs charter: a university measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes.

But in the fall of 2019, things seemed to be changing, senior David Magat told me. Soon after the posters, there was a letter to the editor in the State Press [ASUs student paper], calling for BDS and a boycott of every Israel club. Magat, who runs the student group affiliated with AIPAC, says the effect was instantaneous. Jewish students felt scared.

Then came the protest. On November 13, Rabbi Tiechtel had arranged for two Israeli soldiers, who were wounded in action, to speak on campus through Lev Echad, an Israeli Chabad center in New York City. When he arrived at the event with the soldiers, however, they found that a pro-Palestinian group had staged a sit-in, complete with Viva intifada signs. The soldiers moved to a different room, but the protestors followed, banging on the door.

Seeing those signs promoting the intifada, that really hit home for me, says Neta Galili, who immigrated to the U.S. from Israel with her family when she was fourteen. I wanted to go up to them and say, I dont know if you know what the intifada is, but my sister served in the military during the intifada.

Galili, who graduated in December with a degree in finance and accounting, recalled her first semester on campus. Feeling lonely and overwhelmed, she accompanied a friend to a sukkah party at Chabad. As soon as I came in, a guy came up to me and started speaking to me in Hebrew with a big smile. That was Rabbi Shmuel. I was introduced to more people, and today I call them my brothers and my sisters.

Four years later, when ASUs student senate debated passing a BDS resolution, Galiliby then a leader in the Chabad student groupwas among the many Jewish students who turned out to oppose it. Afterward, she strode to the front of the room to confront the motions sponsor. I explained to him my familys history, she says. As an Israeli student, BDS is a boycott of me.

A Different Response

While the incidents at ASU followed a similar pattern to those at other schools, the response of the administration was markedly different. As soon as the posters appeared, Rabbi Tiechtel reached out to the administration. They got back to him immediately, promising to take the posters down and asking him to keep in touch, he says. They gave me their cell phone numbers.

After the protest, the dean of students announced that she would meet with anyone in the university community who wanted to express their concerns about the situation. The invitation was accepted by many Jewish students, several of whom asked the rabbi to accompany them. Deputy Vice President Vogel was present in those meetings as well. Rabbi Tiechtel amplified the voice of Jewish students and stood in solidarity with them, she wrote in an email.

Thanks to lobbying by Magats group and others, the BDS motion did not pass. Instead, on December 3, sophomore student senator Megan Hall put forward a Resolution to stand with Jewish students at ASU. It was passed by acclamation (unanimously). Afterwards, Hall and the dean of students attended a Shabbat dinner at Chabad.

When classes resumed in January, York was still grappling with the events of the previous semester. After first suspending and then reinstating both SAIA and Herut, the administration has arranged for an external investigation into the events of November 20 and the universitys policies governing freedom of speech.

The Bekermans are not waiting for the results. On January 24, they organized a grand Jewnity Shabbat cosponsored by Aish Toronto, Hillel, and Ohr Sameach. Over 200 people attended the event, held in Torontos Sephardic Kehila Centre, Gedaliah told me. There was a lot of unity and love. It showed that no matter what happens, no matter what our ideologies are, were all one.

Friday evening services were held in the Centres beautiful sanctuary: Everyone was singing Lecha Dodi, and I had never heard that tune before, she says. The women began dancing in a circle first, then the men. In that one instant, we all forgot our problems. And we were just there, present.

Read the original here:

Two Universities React as Antisemitism Steps Out of the Shadows - Lubavitch.com

After FIRs for Hate Speech, Arnab Goswami Will Be Back in the Studio With SC Protection – Qrius

While the rest of the world grapples with thepandemic, India has a variety of other problems that include communal divides, poverty, and Arnab Goswami. All at the same time.

A lot has happened in the life of Arnab Goswami over the last few days. Besides dramatically but unexpectedly announcing that he wasquittingthe Editors Guild of India during a live broadcast on Republic TV a body he didnt really participate in Goswami went on to claim that Congress leader Sonia Gandhi was likely happy about the barbaric Palghar mob lynching.

What followed was an even more dramatic video where Goswami claimed that he had been attacked by two men on a bike, and showed his car splashed with ink or black paint as evidence. He also claimed that the attackers had confessed to his security men that they were Youth Congress workers. Even as two men were apprehended in connection with the case, that didnt deter Youth Congress members all across the country from filing FIRs against Goswami. A bunch of them are in Maharashtra alone, besides others in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, New Delhi, UP, and Jharkhand. Most of these FIRs were filed for deliberately making inflammatory statements against Sonia Gandhi.

The Supreme Court began its hearing of the petition today.

SC bench of justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah has gone on to direct the Commissioner of Mumbai Police to give protection to the Republic TV Office and the petitioner, who must cooperate with the investigation. The Bench has also declared that no coercive actions to be taken against him [Arnab Goswami] for two weeks as they grant him three weeks protection.

Court intends to protect the the petitioner for a period of three weeks from today & permit him to move anticipatory bail application before the trial court or high court. For a period of two weeks, the petitioner shall be protected against any coercive steps in relation to the FIRs arising out of the telecast that took place on April 21.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state of Maharashtra, has stated that the claims made by Goswami during the live broadcast were provocative and has needlessly communalised thePalghar mob lynching. His comments against Congress President Sonia Gandhi were also vicious and was an attempt to tarnish her image. Sibal also termed that the the petition was based on fake freedom of speech. You are creating communal violence by citing such statements, he further argued.

ANI@ANI

Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Maharashtra says You are creating communal violence by citing such statements, if FIRs have been registered, how can you quash it at this stage? Let the people be investigated, what is wrong in it? https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1253558266090549248ANI@ANITwo-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice Dr D Y Chandrachud and also comprising Justice M R Shah starts hearing the petition filed by Arnab Goswami, challenging the FIRs registered against him in various parts of the country.78311:32 AM Apr 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy219 people are talking about this

Championing the same thought, Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for the state of Chhattisgarh, sought for a restraining order on Goswami for his statements. However, Justice Chandrachud opinionated, Speaking for myself I believe there should be no restraint on the media. I am averse to imposing any restrictions on media.

Arnab Goswami issued a video message expressing his gratitude towards the Supreme Court for giving him protection and for upholding [his] Constitutional rights to report and broadcast and for defending [his] freedom of expression as a journalist.

Republic@republic

#BREAKING | Arnab Goswami issues video message as Supreme Court upholds his right to report; Watch https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/general-news/arnab-goswami-issues-video-message-as-supreme-court-upholds-his-right.html

1,1931:19 PM Apr 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy343 people are talking about this

Arnab also states that the Congress party has threatened him and his channel for their Palghar reports, and that the party orchestrated an attack on him and his wife. While members of his own security staff claimed that the attackers were from the Youth Congress, further investigation led to their arrest for the incident, but no political affiliations were revealed.

However, the Press Council of India has condemned the assault against Goswami and issued a statement that violence was not the answer even against bad journalism.

Shoma Chaudhury@ShomaChaudhury

#ArnabGoswami is not a free speech issue. Free speech is right to have an opinion. Even distasteful ones. But fake facts & inciting violence is not free speech. Muslims were not the lynchers. Sonia Gandhi did not support Sadhus murders. Goswami is an assault on every media norm.4,2029:58 PM Apr 23, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy1,493 people are talking about this

The Supreme Court decision has outraged those who dont agree withGoswamis brand of journalism.

Journalist Shoma Choudhary points out that free speech is right to have an opinion. Even distasteful ones. But fake facts & inciting violence is not free speech.

Shoma Chaudhury@ShomaChaudhury

#ArnabGoswami is not a free speech issue. Free speech is right to have an opinion. Even distasteful ones. But fake facts & inciting violence is not free speech. Muslims were not the lynchers. Sonia Gandhi did not support Sadhus murders. Goswami is an assault on every media norm.4,2029:58 PM Apr 23, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy1,493 people are talking about this

Manu Sebastian, Managing Editor of Live Law, is shocked by the lies on the affidavit.

Manu Sebastian@manuvichar

#ArnabGoswami states in his plea in SC that he has always used his platform to foster communal harmony and has been strongly opposed to any communalization.The audacity of stating such a blatant lie on affidavit before the apex court is quite shocking.#ArnabLiar

The Supreme Courts decision in determining the urgency of cases by listing Goswamis petition as a priority has reasonably been unsettling.

Live Law@LiveLawIndia

An Advocate has written to the Secretary General of SC highlighting his grievance against working of the Top Courts registry & has alleged its discrimination in terms of listing/ urgency of cases.He exemplifies it by pointing to immediate listing of #ArnabGoswamis petition.2,3951:59 PM Apr 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy1,121 people are talking about this

Tarique Anwer@tanwer_m

SC while hearing Delhi Riots plea: Let this stop first.

SC while hearing migrant crisis: If they are being provided meals, then why do they need money for meals?

SC to hear cases of only urgent nature due to lockdown

SC while #ArnabGoswami filed a plea: Hold my beer.72612:13 AM Apr 24, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy338 people are talking about this

Nikhil Inamdar, India Business Correspondent for BBC World, highlights the number of cases likely pending in the Indian court.

Nikhil Inamdar@Nik_Inamdar

#ArnabGoswami has moved the Supreme Court to fight the various FIRs against him. The court will expediently hear him at 10:30AM tomorrow.

Thats great, esp in a pandemic!

But note this there are about 45 lakh cases pending in Indias courts. Many languishing for decades!1,40111:06 PM Apr 23, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy562 people are talking about this

The outrage is legit. But for Arnab, it will be business as usual with protection, of course.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) and may not necessarily reflect Qrius Editorial Policy.

This article was first published in Arre

Stay updated with all the insights.Navigate news, 1 email day.Subscribe to Qrius

Read more:

After FIRs for Hate Speech, Arnab Goswami Will Be Back in the Studio With SC Protection - Qrius

Halting disinformation in a time of pandemic: the need to tread very carefully – The Hill Times

OTTAWAA newish term we have all begun to see much more often these days is that of disinformation (a.k.a. misinformation). We all read about attempts by the Russians and other nefarious actors to influence the democratic process in the U.S. and France by flooding the internet with made-up stuff. At one point, this was headline news and even raised in conjunction with a possible impeachment of a U.S. president.

It is probable that the word means different things to different people, but, in essence, it is the attempt to gain influence through the creation, distribution and promotion of lies. Sometimes these falsehoods are the work of states and at others that of individuals (or groups). They become dangerous, and hence of interest to governments, when they begin to have an impact on issues relating to public safety and/or national security.

One such instance of disinformation that has reached this level of effect is unfolding as I write. I am referring, of course, to the current COVID-19/novel coronavirus which is sweeping the world. The health consequences are dire enoughacute illness and deathas are those on our economy and national well-being.

As a result, states have a vested interest in trying to ensure that their citizens have the best (real or true) information at their disposal to make the best possible decisions, all aimed at lessening the damage wrought by the disease, which will lead to a return to normalcy, or the best proximity to life before COVID-19.

The types of lies that are rampant on social media and other platforms include things such as the contention that there is no health crisis requiring social/physical isolation; quack medical remedies; claims that the virus is a bioweapon designed by any or all of the CIA, China or Bill Gates; or the belief that this was all a plan by the deep state to take away our freedoms, and so on.

In this light, the state has both the duty and the right to take action to minimize, or better yet eliminate, these lies. It cannot allow coronavirus deniers to propagate their views as this will undermine the steps taken to flatten the curve. It has an obligation to shut down fake cures that could cause unnecessary death or injury. It has a need to tell citizens that there is no grand plan (i.e., a conspiracy theory) to take over the world. All these are indeed both public safety and national security issues.

So, how far should or can a government go to achieve all these goals? Can it mandate the destruction of disinformation? Can it force social media outlets to monitor, identify and erase misinformation placed on their platforms? Can it ask citizens to snitch on those behind the flummery?

These are all very good questions that we need to ask if we want to maintain our liberal democratic societies. What, then, about legislation to give these measures the power of the law? That is what the Trudeau government appears to be considering.

According to Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, the federal government is considering introducing legislation to make it an offence to knowingly spread misinformation that could harm people. And it is eliciting opposing views from MPs.

This is not a question of freedom of speech. This is a question of people who are actually actively working to spread disinformation, whether its through troll bot farms, whether [its] state operators or whether its really conspiracy theorist cranks who seem to get their kicks out of creating havoc. NDP MP Charlie Angus

Expressing a different view, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer stated that, Were concerned when this government starts talking about free-speech issues. Theyve got a terrible history over the past few years of proposing ideas that would infringe upon free speech. Any time this government starts talking about regulating what people can say and not say, we start off the conversation with a great deal of healthy skepticism.

What then to do?

This is indeed a tricky issue. What constitutes disinformation when it comes to COVID-19? Who decides? Who implements the removal of information? Does the law apply only to coronavirus fakery? What are the penalties for companies that do not act fast enough or at all? Social media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to fight misinformation onlinebut some critics in Canada saythey could still do more.

Perhaps the most fundamental question is whether Canadians want their government to act as a nanny state or a gatekeeper who decides what we can and cannot consume in terms of information. Are any of us okay with that?

Would a better solution not be to counter disinformation with better information? I see these efforts as a colossal game of whack-a-mole whereby the government and private sector are continuously taking down sites and posts only to see more proliferate. Hercules had an easier time with the Hydra!

I think we all agree that the crap out there on coronaviruses is not helpful. Less garbage is clearly better than more. But what is the best way to get to that goal?

Phil Gurski is the director of the security, economics, and technology program at the University of Ottawa and a former strategic analyst at CSIS.

The Hill Times

More:

Halting disinformation in a time of pandemic: the need to tread very carefully - The Hill Times

China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomats show teeth in defending virus response – The Times of Israel

BEIJING (AP) From Asia to Africa, London to Berlin, Chinese envoys have set off diplomatic firestorms with a combative defense whenever their country is accused of not acting quickly enough to stem the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

They belong to a new generation of wolf warrior diplomats, named after patriotic blockbuster films starring a muscle-bound Chinese commando killing American bad guys in Africa and Southeast Asia with his bare hands.

The tougher approach has been building for several years under President Xi Jinping, who has effectively jettisoned former leader Deng Xiaopings approach of hiding Chinas ambitions and biding its time. His government has urged its diplomats to pursue major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics a call for China to reassert its historic status as a global power.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

The days when China can be put in a submissive position are long gone, said an editorial in the Global Times, a state-run newspaper known for its outspoken views. The Chinese people, it said, are no longer satisfied with a flaccid diplomatic tone.

Ambassador Gui Congyou has belittled journalists in Sweden, comparing them to a lightweight boxer seeking to go toe-to-toe with a heavyweight China. A commentary on the embassy website last month assailed a Swedish reporter for an article on the impact of Chinas one-party political system on its virus response.

People wearing protective face masks to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus walk across a street in Beijing, April 12, 2020. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)

Using this epidemic for political purposes, waging ideological attacks and spreading lies in the name of freedom of speech will only lead to self-sabotage. Its like lifting a rock and dropping it on your own toes, it said.

Experts say Beijing sees critics as assailing not just its actions, but also its leadership and right to rule.

If anyone tries to attack China on this issue, China will resolutely fight back, said Shi Yinhong, professor of International Studies at Renmin University. Chinese leaders may think if China doesnt fight back, it will hurt China even more.

Chinese diplomats are increasingly taking to Twitter and Facebook platforms that are blocked in their own country. Theyre following in the footsteps of Zhao Lijian, a pioneering firebrand whose tweets while stationed in Pakistan attracted a huge following and also led Americas former UN Ambassador Susan Rice to call him a racist disgrace who should be dismissed.

Instead, China promoted him to foreign ministry spokesman.

Xi has clearly indicated a preference for wolf warrior diplomats, said Carl Minzner, an expert on Chinese politics at Fordham Law School in New York City.

These new-style diplomats are reading the tea leaves, and are using bombastic language overseas as a tool to garner attention from nationalistic audiences at home both among the party elite and among society at large regardless of the impact on Chinas image abroad, Minzner said.

Overseas, the newly strident tone has been less appreciated. The French foreign minister summoned the Chinese ambassador after an embassy statement, in apparent response to Western criticism, accused French nursing home workers of deserting and letting their residents die from starvation and disease.

The US protested after Zhao tweeted unsubstantiated speculation that the American military may have brought the virus to China.

Chinas envoys in Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda have been berated over reports of virus-related harassment of Africans in the city of Guangzhou, a rare public rebuke of Beijing by African nations. The Chinese Embassy in Zimbabwe waved away the anger, tweeting dismissively about so-called racial discrimination.

Passengers from Wuhan are sorted by district after they arrive on a high speed train in Beijing on Sunday, April 19, 2020. (AP/Ng Han Guan)

Chinese officials fume at what they see as Western hypocrisy. They say US President Donald Trump and other leaders ignored the brewing pandemic, then began scapegoating China once the virus arrived on their shores.

French President Emmanuel Macron has questioned Chinas virus response, telling the Financial Times that there are clearly things that have happened that we dont know about. Britains top diplomat said it couldnt go back to business as usual with China.

Chinas Embassy in Berlin posted an open letter to Bild that accused the mass-circulation tabloid of bad taste for blaming the pandemic on China and calculating how much it owes Germany in damages for failing to contain it. The embassy in Spain tweeted Freedom of expression has limits, in response to a far-right politician who posted a video about Spanish antibodies fighting the damned Chinese viruses.

In this April 13, 2020, file photo, a woman wearing a face mask walks by a Chinese flag placed on a street prior a curfew set up to limit the spread of the new coronavirus in Belgrade, Serbia (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic, File)

Under Xi, Beijing has launched coordinated efforts to shape Chinas image abroad. Lifting a page from Russias playbook, it has mobilized thousands of bots to tweet the Communist Party line, according to Twitter. China has pumped funds into state media outlets broadcasting in Swahili, Arabic, Spanish, and dozens of other languages.

In the past, Chinas diplomacy was far away from the people, said Chu Yin, a professor at Chinas University of International Relations. Now, Chinese diplomats feel its safe for them to show they are tough. Being tough wont be wrong, at least.

In Thailand, the embassy on Facebook called critics disrespectful and accused them of betraying history in a social media battle over the origin of the virus and the status of Hong Kong and Taiwan. In Sri Lanka, the mission erupted in fury this month after Twitter suspended its account, demanding free speech and accusing the tech giant of double standards. Twitter reversed the suspension the next day.

Beijings diplomats see the virus as a chance to assert leadership among countries critical of the West. Many leaders have praised China for sending medical equipment and teams, with one flight greeted by the president of Serbia kissing the Chinese flag.

In the 1990s, some in China dismissed their diplomats as the Ministry of Traitors, annoyed at perceived deference to Western powers. No more.

Weve approached the center of the world stage like never before, but we still dont have full grasp of the microphone in our hands, said Hua Chunying, the foreign ministrys chief spokeswoman. We must assert our right to speak.

See the rest here:

China's 'wolf warrior' diplomats show teeth in defending virus response - The Times of Israel

FREEDOM OF PRESS IN AGE OF ‘RETREATING DEMOCRACY’ – Kashmir Reader

Rohool Banka

India is not just a democracy but the largest democracy in the world. But what is democracy? Lets analyse first the old-school definition. The simplest characteristic of democracy is that the government is chosen by the people. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, Democracy is rule of people, for the people, and by the people. However, it is not just people but institutions that sustain democracy, for example an independent judiciary, a credible opposition, and a free press. Here I shall talk about the institution of the press or media and its role in a democracy.The press or media holds up a mirror to society and reports, discusses, and comments on issues that are important to society. In the age of information technology and social media, there is proliferation of fake news and yellow journalism. Freedom of speech and expression is at the heart of a democracy but should this freedom be extended to those who spread wrong information? Should they be allowed to confuse or mislead the people? Should they be allowed to ridicule the faith of others? That debate should be settled by the judiciary. If some journalist, say Peerzada Ashiq or Masrat Zahra, has misinformed or tried to misguide the people, they should be summoned to court and tried according to law and judicial procedure. But to slap on them charges that are meant for terrorists, under draconian laws like Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), is not befitting a democracy. The amended (in 2019) UAPA confers powers upon the central government to designate an individual as a terrorist without benefit of trial, and such an individual can be arrested with no provision of bail. The government can easily misuse this law in the name of protecting the integrity and sovereignty of the country, just as it misused the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Under such draconian laws, most of the journalists in Jammu and Kashmir are being intimidated and interrogated on flimsy grounds.The fact of the matter is that there have been many cases of human right violations in Jammu and Kashmir but all those stories remain buried because of restrictions placed on journalists. In fact, manufactured facts are published through the means of embedded journalism. This creates more rage among the public and intensifies the conflict between the state and citizens.Suppression of journalism is not unique to India, it has become a global phenomenon in most of the democratic states. Populist political parties the world over are trying to undermine the media by harassing journalists, censoring press, and shutting down media outlets that oppose them. Simultaneously, they are saturating the media environment with party-sponsored and sympathetic private media channels. In the age of social media and internet, populists are heavily dependent on mass media to deliver their message and mobilise people directly. Earlier, political parties used to solely rely on part membership and civil society organisations to mobilise supporters. Now, taming the media, be it print or electronic or digital, is the main objective of every government.The question we really have to ask ourselves is: Are we on the right track of democracy or are we seeing the retreat of democracy? Observing the frequent violations of freedom of the press, I must rephrase the old-school definition as, Democracy is now far from the people. Surely, it is time for course correction before it is too late.

The writer is as an independent researcher based in Srinagar.rohoolbanka@gmail.com

Facebook Twitter WhatsAppEmailPrint

Visit link:

FREEDOM OF PRESS IN AGE OF 'RETREATING DEMOCRACY' - Kashmir Reader

Trump Escalates His Angry Assault On The First Amendment – The National Memo

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

Donald Trump is at war with the First Amendment and the free press. The war is on full display nearly every day in his rage-filled press conferences on the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he regularly condemns the "fake news" media and bashes reporters who dare to ask the slightest probative questions about his handling of the ongoing public-health crisis.

Trump's war is also longstanding. And it is waged not only on television and in angry tweets and at campaign rallies (which have been put on hold because of the coronavirus), but also in courtrooms across the country in the form of defamation lawsuits designed to shame, silence and punish his critics.

The latest victim of the president's intimidation-by-litigation strategy is TV station WJFW, an NBC affiliate located in Price County in the rural reaches of northern Wisconsin. On April 13, Trump's principal reelection campaign committeeDonald J. Trump for President, Inc., headquartered in New York Citysued the station in the county's circuit court. The suit alleges that the station had libeled the campaign and harmed the reputation of the president by airing an anti-Trump attack ad produced by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Democratic Super PAC.

Entitled "Exponential Threat," the ad features audio and video clips of Trump downplaying the severity of the virus and disavowing any responsibility for his administration's slow and incompetent response to the virus overlaid against a graph displaying the exponential rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since January.

The lawsuit contends that the ad stitched together Trump's statements about the virus in a false, misleading, deceptive and malicious manner to make it appear that he had called the virus a "hoax." According to the complaint, Trump never termed the virus itself a hoax, but instead said at a rally in Charleston, South Carolina, on February 28, that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax by politicizing his record on the virus.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of other recent threats made by the Trump campaign to take legal action against TV outlets in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania for broadcasting the same ad.

The president's campaign committee has also been busy suing print media. In March, the committee sued the Washington Post for defamation allegedly arising from opinion columns written by journalists Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman in June 2019 on the possibility of renewed foreign collusion in the 2020 election. And in February, Trump's 2016 campaign committee sued the New York Times, claiming defamation stemming from an op-ed about Russian collusion written in March 2019 by Max Frankel, who had served as the paper's executive editor from 1986-94.

Sadly, the president's latest round of defamation revenge is part of a pattern that dates back to his formative days as a real-estate developer and publicity-seeking huckster in New York City.

As detailed in a 2016 study published by the Media Law Resource Center, Trump filed his first major libel suit in 1984, when he took the Chicago Tribune and architecture columnist Paul Gapp to court, claiming that he had sustained $500 million in damages as a result of an article Gapp had written, maligning Trump's plans to build a 150-story skyscraper in lower Manhattan. The case was dismissed the following year after the presiding judge determined Gapp's article was a constitutionally protected expression of opinion.

The Media Law Resource Center study also summarizes Trump's failed defamation lawsuit against writer Timothy O'Brien and the Time Warner Book Group, Inc. Now a senior columnist with Bloomberg Opinion, O'Brien asserted in a 2005 bookTrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donaldthat Trump wasn't actually a billionaire. O'Brien's estimate of Trump's net wealth so rankled the future president that he demanded "a whopping $5 billion in damages." Like the lawsuit against Gapp, the case was eventually dismissed.

In addition, the study chronicles Trump's case against comedian Bill Maher. Trump targeted Maher in 2013 for a disparaging joke he told on NBC's Tonight Show, in which he offered to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he was not "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan." After Trump sent a copy of his birth certificate to Maher and the comedian refused to pay up, Trump sued Maher for breach of contract in California. Trump voluntarily withdrew the case eight months later, however. Although his then-spokesperson, Michael Cohen, told Politico that Trump planned to amend and renew the lawsuit, he never did.

Like most of Trump's past defamation forays, the president's latest round of defamation lawsuits seems destined to crash and burn. The cases will falter for one simple reason: they are utterly devoid of legal merit.

Under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, criticism of public officials is entitled to stringent First Amendment protections. As the great liberal Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court in Sullivan, the Constitution embodies our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks"

Public officials, Brennan instructed, must be precluded from recovering damages for allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct unless they prove that the statements are made with "actual malice"that is, that they are made with the knowledge that they are false or with "reckless disregard" of whether they are true or false.

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court extended Sullivan's "actual malice" holding to defamation lawsuits initiated by "public figures" and business entities that have obtained public-figure status, such as Trump's political campaign committees.

Sullivan is one of the Supreme Court's most consequential decisions, providing the press with the safeguards needed to keep the public informed and hold the rich and powerful to account. Among the court's current members, only Clarence Thomas has gone on record to suggest that Sullivan be reconsidered.

Why, then, does the president persist? The answer, it appears, is purely political.

At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2016, Trump told a throng of cheering red-meat followers, "I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I've ever met. They're terrible. If I become president, oh, do they have problems. They're going to have such problems."

And then he added, in a veiled reference to Sullivan:

As of now, the president is losing his war on the First Amendment and the free press. But as Trump's improbable rise to power confirms, the future remains uncertain. If we have learned anything in the Trump era, it is that our constitutional rights can never be taken for granted.

Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles. He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers: Prejudicial Error, The Last Appeal, and The Face of Justice.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

View original post here:

Trump Escalates His Angry Assault On The First Amendment - The National Memo

First amendment and Facebook | Opinion – Teton Valley News

Representative Chad Christensens platform says that he believes in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. There are no exceptions. But his behavior belies this belief when he violates the First Amendment rights of people by blocking them from commenting on his official Facebook page. Crusading for his own rights while denying other peoples is a hallmark of Representative Chad Christensens tenure in our state legislature.

In Randall v. Davison, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled early last year that a public official cannot block an individual from commenting on the officials Facebook page. The court held that blocking would be viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. In a similar decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled later last year in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump that President Trump could not block an individual from his Twitter account. A quote from that case says it all: While [the public official] is certainly not required to listen, once he opens up the interactive features of his account to the public at large he is not entitled to censor selected users because they express views with which he disagrees.

The Facebook page Chad Christensen for Idaho is described on the page as a political organization, not Rep. Christensens personal page. He regularly uses it to discuss legislative matters. He regularly allows comments by non-constituents, so long as the comments support him and his positions.

One of us, Maggie, was blocked on April 17 from Representative Christensens public Facebook page. I was highly critical of his protest in Boise. I had requested that he remain away from Teton County for 14 days post protest. He was venturing to a higher COVID transmission area and could be exposed. He said that he would come to Teton County if he wanted but in a responsible manner. He would don a mask. I watched the protest online. He was behaving in a foolhardy manner no mask, too close to others. I told him so. I also requested that instead of protesting, he work on supply chain issues for more testing or harvesting issues for farmers. No one wants this shut down. It is a horrendous hardship for all. I explained to Representative Christensen that the shutdown protected healthcare workers and the most vulnerable members of society. I explained that his actions would endanger others. I was blocked. My voice was silenced.

One of us, Carolyn, was blocked twice. The first time was for simply asking how Representative Christensen interpreted some language in the Second Amendment. He did not reply, merely blocked me. After I made some public comments on another page, he unblocked me. The second time was for asking whether mocking people who created a safe space in the Idaho Capitol building comported with the Christian values that Rep. Christensen claims to follow.

Rep. Christensen has said that he blocks people for harassment. Nothing that either of us have said amounts to harassment. Criticism of positions, however harsh, doesnt rise to that level. He also claims to block people for name-calling. We have never called names. We have been called names many times by Rep. Christensen and others on the page, none of whom ever appeared to be blocked.

We expect that we will always differ in opinion from the District 32B representative on any number of issues. As grown-ups, we understand that reasonable minds can differ, and others dont have to agree with us. But a public official has the obligation to listen respectfully to differing views. Holding office requires the ability to listen and govern people who possess varying political ideas. While in office a great many individuals will disagree with you. Representative Christensen has shown repeatedly he is incapable of tolerating criticism.

Further, a public official has the obligation not to violate the First Amendment rights of others. Representative Christensen will champion his own rights and those of his loyalists, but he infringes on the rights of others. This is all accomplished while he touts his love of the Constitution. Individuals who understand and respect the Constitution do not deny others their First Amendment rights. The people of his district deserve better.

Carolyn Dessin and Maggie Shaw, Driggs

View post:

First amendment and Facebook | Opinion - Teton Valley News

Attorney General: Houses of Worship protected by First Amendment can worship in person – Washington Examiner

A new guidance issued by the Texas Attorney Generals Office says that local and county orders cannot prohibit religious organizations from holding in-person worship services.

While churches were prohibited from holding services on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, Muslims will not be prohibited from gathering for one of their most important holidays, Ramadan, which begins on Friday.

Judges in Dallas and Harris counties prohibited houses of worship from congregating after Gov. Greg Abbotts initial executive order mandated that they hold online services. Most churches have complied, but as Texas continues to post record low coronavirus numbers and record high unemployment, some Christian leaders have said enough is enough.

Houston-based CEO of a Texas medical company, Dr. Steven Hotze, along with four pastors and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, sued Harris County Judge Linda Hidalgo for an order she issued mandating all non-essential businesses to close, including churches.

After several announcements that Abbott might be reopening the economy, Pastor Steve Riggle, who leads Grace Community Church in the Woodlands, posted a video message on Facebook, urging the governor and state officials to reopen Texas.

We have been patient, even though every projection of the impact of the coronavirus has been grossly wrong, he said. We were told to flatten the curve because there was no cure, even though a very small number actually die from the virus in comparison with the population and other diseases and causes of death we live with on a daily basis.

According to State Department of Health Services (DSHS), as of April 17, .0055 or half of one percent of Texas residents have tested for COVID-19, roughly 169,536 people out of 29 million, and among them .0006 or 6/100 of one percent have tested positive.

Yet in the month of March, more people filed for unemployment in Texas than those who filed during the entire year in 2019.

Riggle argues the governor made an announcement about an announcement and appointed a task force to further delay getting everyone back to work when he could have restored everything with a stroke of his pen.

The number of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in Texas is 1,522, or 5/1000 of one percent; the number of people who have died due to COVID-19 is 428, or 1/1000 of one percent.

Jared R. Woodfill, CEO and attorney at Woodfill Law Firm, which represents the Houston plaintiffs, told The Center Square, It is amazing to me that the Governor will not come out and state clearly and unequivocally that places of worship are open without restrictions.

With respect to these incremental Executive Orders, the Governor continues to chip away at our religious liberties, Woodfill added. This is horrible precedent that can now be used by future governors to justify encroachments on our ability to worship freely.

The Attorney Generals guidance states that essential services include religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and houses of worship, and that if there is conflict between the governors order and a local county orders, the governors order take precedent.

Local governments may not order houses of worship to close, it states.

Houses of worship should conduct as many of their activities as possible remotely, in accordance with guidance from the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Houses of worship should instruct sick employees, volunteers, and guests to stay home, the order states, along with practicing social distancing and good hygiene, implement environmental cleanliness and sanitization practices, and clean and disinfect work areas frequently.

Houses of worship are encouraged to have all attendees 65-years-old and older to stay home and watch services online, or provide a senior service exclusively for attendees 65 and older to attend in person. All attendees with underlying at-risk health conditions should stay home and watch the services online, the order states. Houses of Worship are encouraged to equip ushers and greeters with gloves and masks and consider keeping childcare closed, unless they are able to comply with CDC guidelines for childcare facilities

The guidance came about largely through the work of the Houston-based Texas Pastor Council, which enlisted a team of over 50 of key pastors from around the state to give recommendations and input to Attorney Generals Office.

We prepared a list of suggested guideline points to recommend to churches, received outstanding counsel and revisions from our pastors and presented a final list to AG Paxton that was largely incorporated in the finished guidelines, Rev. Dave Welch, president of the Texas Pastor Council, told The Center Square.

Welch praised state leaders in an email to The Center Square, arguing that they understand the invaluable role churches serve in every community to minister to the spirit, soul and body of people."

Woodfill emphasized in an email to The Center Square that the Texas Constitution guarantees the God-given unalienable right to worship, to peaceably assemble, and to move about freely without unconstitutional restrictions on ones ingress and egress. None of these rights is contingent upon our health status or subject to the limitations Governor Abbott is attempting to impose on these rights. If Governor Abbotts Orders are not declared unconstitutional and void, once this virus passes, the rights we are afforded under the Texas Constitution will be forever damaged.

Woodfill has also sued the governors office over the unconstitutionality of executive orders, the first lawsuit of its kind in the State of Texas.

Visit link:

Attorney General: Houses of Worship protected by First Amendment can worship in person - Washington Examiner

Public Colleges Are Violating The 1st Amendment In Using Facebook Filters – Techdirt

from the the-1st-amendment-applies dept

We've discussed in the past the various court rulings that say that public officials (such as the President) cannot block users on social media as it violates the 1st Amendment. There has been vigorous debate on this (as well as plenty of confusion) but the basic concept is that the courts view the space beneath a social media post -- where people comment -- as a "designated public forum" and as such, bars any content-based discrimination.

That should apply to all government institutions -- not just the social media accounts of those holding elected office. A fascinating new report from FIRE, digs deep into this issue by highlighting that tons of public universities are using opaque Facebook blocklists to hide student comments. For private universities, it wouldn't be a 1st Amendment issue, but courts have repeatedly said that public universities are an arm of the government, and thus Constitutional limits apply to them as well. From the opening of the report:

In October 2019, Facebook founder and chief executiveofficer Mark Zuckerberg spoke at Georgetown University,extolling the virtues of freedom of expression and notingin particular the importance of college students abilityto express who they were and what mattered to them,including through challeng[ing] some established ways ofdoing things on campus.

Because Facebook is a private entity, the First Amendmentwhich only limits government actorsdoes not require itto honor expressive freedom. Zuckerbergs endorsementof freedom of expression as a principle is a welcome andencouraging development.

It is, however, at odds with the fact that Facebook providesgovernments the tools to censor. These actors includepublic universities and colleges which are bound by theFirst Amendmentthose very campuses where studentshave challenged some established ways of doing things.

These tools include Facebooks automated content filters,which allow state institutions to automatically hide userscomments if they contain words included on Facebooksundisclosed list of offensive words or the governmentactors customized list of prohibited words. These toolsenable public universitiesand other government actorsto quietly remove critical posts, transforming the Facebookpages into less of a forum and more of a vehicle for positivepublicity.

And yes, this does create a serious 1st Amendment issue:

Theres no social media exception to the First Amendment, said Adam Steinbaugh, author of the FIRE report. Government actors cannot sanitize public discourse whether its President Trump blocking Twitter critics or American colleges filtering dissent on their social media accounts. By selectively eliminating particular viewpoints, universities are violating the First Amendment.

The report contains numerous examples of problematic filters:

The report also notes that -- even more closely related to the Trump case -- that many public universities block user accounts:

Because of this, FIRE, together with EFF, have sent a letter to Mark Zuckerberg, asking him to help fix this issue:

Facebook can curb abuse of its tools through transparency and restrictions on accountsbelonging to state actors. As our report recommends, Facebook should:

For what it's worth, this is also a good example of how FOIA laws help aid in transparency. Part of the report was developed via heavy use of FOIA and similar laws to request the details of the social media filters used by public universities:

Altogether, FIREs surveyissued public recordsrequests to 224 publicuniversities and collegesin 47 states and theDistrict of Columbia.198 institutions providedsubstantive responses.

While some may have arguments for why colleges should be allowed to filter aspects of their social media accounts, when we're talking about public universities, the 1st Amendment needs to apply.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, blocking, filters, public universities, social media filtersCompanies: facebook

See more here:

Public Colleges Are Violating The 1st Amendment In Using Facebook Filters - Techdirt

How Trump is ratcheting up his dangerous war on the First Amendment – AlterNet

Donald Trump is at war with the First Amendment and the free press. The war is on full display nearly every day in hisrage-filled press conferenceson the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he regularly condemns the fake news media and bashes reporters who dare to ask the slightest probative questions about his handling of the ongoing public-health crisis.

Trumps war is also longstanding. And it is waged not only on television and inangry tweetsand atcampaign rallies(which have been put on hold because of the coronavirus), but also in courtrooms across the country in the form of defamation lawsuits designed to shame, silence and punish his critics.

The latest victim of the presidents intimidation-by-litigation strategy is TV stationWJFW, an NBC affiliate located in Price County in the rural reaches of northern Wisconsin. On April 13, Trumps principal reelection campaign committeeDonald J. Trump for President, Inc., headquartered in New York Citysued the stationin the countys circuit court. The suit alleges that the station had libeled the campaign and harmed the reputation of the president by airing an anti-Trump attack ad produced by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Democratic Super PAC.

Entitled Exponential Threat, the ad features audio and video clips of Trump downplaying the severity of the virus and disavowing any responsibility for his administrations slow and incompetent response to the virus overlaid against a graph displaying the exponential rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since January.

The lawsuit contends that the ad stitched together Trumps statements about the virus in a false, misleading, deceptive and malicious manner to make it appear that he had called the virus a hoax. According to the complaint, Trump never termed the virus itself a hoax, but instead said at arallyin Charleston, South Carolina, on February 28, that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax by politicizing his record on the virus.

The lawsuit comes on the heels ofother recent threatsmade by the Trump campaign to take legal action against TV outlets in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania for broadcasting the same ad.

The presidents campaign committee has also been busy suing print media. In March, the committeesued the Washington Postfor defamation allegedly arising from opinion columns written by journalistsGreg SargentandPaul Waldmanin June 2019 on the possibility of renewed foreign collusion in the 2020 election. And in February, Trumps 2016 campaign committeesued the New York Times, claiming defamation stemming from an op-ed about Russian collusion written in March 2019 by Max Frankel, who had served as the papers executive editor from 1986-94.

Sadly, the presidents latest round of defamation revenge is part of a pattern that dates back to his formative days as a real-estate developer and publicity-seeking huckster in New York City.

As detailed in a2016 studypublished by the Media Law Resource Center, Trump filed his first major libel suit in 1984, when he took the Chicago Tribune and architecture columnist Paul Gapp to court, claiming that he had sustained $500 million in damages as a result of an article Gapp had written, maligning Trumps plans to build a 150-story skyscraper in lower Manhattan. The case wasdismissedthe following year after the presiding judge determined Gapps article was a constitutionally protected expression of opinion.

The Media Law Resource Center study alsosummarizesTrumps failed defamation lawsuit against writer Timothy OBrien and the Time Warner Book Group, Inc. Now asenior columnist with Bloomberg Opinion, OBrien asserted in a 2005 bookTrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donaldthat Trump wasnt actually a billionaire. OBriens estimate of Trumps net wealth so rankled the future president that he demandeda whopping $5 billion in damages.Like the lawsuit against Gapp, the case was eventuallydismissed.

In addition, thestudychroniclesTrumps case against comedian Bill Maher. Trump targeted Maher in 2013 for a disparaging joke he told on NBCsTonight Show, in which he offered to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he was not the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan. After Trump sent a copy of his birth certificate to Maher and the comedian refused to pay up, Trump sued Maher for breach of contract in California. Trump voluntarilywithdrew the caseeight months later, however. Although his then-spokesperson, Michael Cohen,told Politicothat Trump planned to amend and renew the lawsuit, he never did.

Like most of Trumps past defamation forays, the presidents latest round of defamation lawsuits seems destined to crash and burn. The cases will falter for one simple reason: they are utterly devoid of legal merit.

Under the Supreme Courts landmark 1964 ruling inNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, criticism of public officials is entitled to stringent First Amendment protections. As the great liberal Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court inSullivan, the Constitution embodies our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks

Public officials, Brennan instructed, must be precluded from recovering damages for allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct unless they prove that the statements are made with actual malicethat is, that they are made with the knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are true or false.

Insubsequentcases, the Supreme Court extendedSullivans actual malice holding to defamation lawsuits initiated by public figures andbusiness entitiesthat have obtained public-figure status, such as Trumps political campaign committees.

Sullivanis one of the Supreme Courts most consequential decisions, providing the press with the safeguards needed to keep the public informed and hold the rich and powerful to account. Among the courts current members, onlyClarence Thomashas gone on record to suggest thatSullivanbe reconsidered.

Why, then, does the president persist? The answer, it appears, is purely political.

At arally in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2016, Trump told a throng of cheering red-meat followers, I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people Ive ever met. Theyre terrible. If I become president, oh, do they have problems. Theyre going to have such problems.

And thenhe added, in a veiled reference toSullivan:

One of the things Im going to do if I win, and I hope we do, and were certainly leading, is Im going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. Were going to open up those libel laws so that when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because theyre totally protected.

As of now, the president is losing his war on the First Amendment and the free press. But as Trumps improbable rise to power confirms, the future remains uncertain. If we have learned anything in the Trump era, it is that our constitutional rights can never be taken for granted.

Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles. He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers:Prejudicial Error,The Last Appeal, andThe Face of Justice.

This article was produced by theIndependent Media Institute.

Read the rest here:

How Trump is ratcheting up his dangerous war on the First Amendment - AlterNet

Trump keeps escalating his war on the First Amendment and hes losing the fight – Raw Story

Donald Trump is at war with the First Amendment and the free press. The war is on full display nearly every day in hisrage-filled press conferenceson the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he regularly condemns the fake news media and bashes reporters who dare to ask the slightest probative questions about his handling of the ongoing public-health crisis.

Trumps war is also longstanding. And it is waged not only on television and inangry tweetsand atcampaign rallies(which have been put on hold because of the coronavirus), but also in courtrooms across the country in the form of defamation lawsuits designed to shame, silence and punish his critics.

The latest victim of the presidents intimidation-by-litigation strategy is TV stationWJFW, an NBC affiliate located in Price County in the rural reaches of northern Wisconsin. On April 13, Trumps principal reelection campaign committeeDonald J. Trump for President, Inc., headquartered in New York Citysued the stationin the countys circuit court. The suit alleges that the station had libeled the campaign and harmed the reputation of the president by airing an anti-Trump attack ad produced by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Democratic Super PAC.

Entitled Exponential Threat, the ad features audio and video clips of Trump downplaying the severity of the virus and disavowing any responsibility for his administrations slow and incompetent response to the virus overlaid against a graph displaying the exponential rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since January.

The lawsuit contends that the ad stitched together Trumps statements about the virus in a false, misleading, deceptive and malicious manner to make it appear that he had called the virus a hoax. According to the complaint, Trump never termed the virus itself a hoax, but instead said at arallyin Charleston, South Carolina, on February 28, that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax by politicizing his record on the virus.

The lawsuit comes on the heels ofother recent threatsmade by the Trump campaign to take legal action against TV outlets in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania for broadcasting the same ad.

The presidents campaign committee has also been busy suing print media. In March, the committeesued the Washington Postfor defamation allegedly arising from opinion columns written by journalistsGreg SargentandPaul Waldmanin June 2019 on the possibility of renewed foreign collusion in the 2020 election. And in February, Trumps 2016 campaign committeesued the New York Times, claiming defamation stemming from an op-ed about Russian collusion written in March 2019 by Max Frankel, who had served as the papers executive editor from 1986-94.

Sadly, the presidents latest round of defamation revenge is part of a pattern that dates back to his formative days as a real-estate developer and publicity-seeking huckster in New York City.

As detailed in a2016 studypublished by the Media Law Resource Center, Trump filed his first major libel suit in 1984, when he took the Chicago Tribune and architecture columnist Paul Gapp to court, claiming that he had sustained $500 million in damages as a result of an article Gapp had written, maligning Trumps plans to build a 150-story skyscraper in lower Manhattan. The case wasdismissedthe following year after the presiding judge determined Gapps article was a constitutionally protected expression of opinion.

The Media Law Resource Center study alsosummarizesTrumps failed defamation lawsuit against writer Timothy OBrien and the Time Warner Book Group, Inc. Now asenior columnist with Bloomberg Opinion, OBrien asserted in a 2005 bookTrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donaldthat Trump wasnt actually a billionaire. OBriens estimate of Trumps net wealth so rankled the future president that he demandeda whopping $5 billion in damages.Like the lawsuit against Gapp, the case was eventuallydismissed.

In addition, thestudychroniclesTrumps case against comedian Bill Maher. Trump targeted Maher in 2013 for a disparaging joke he told on NBCsTonight Show, in which he offered to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he was not the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan. After Trump sent a copy of his birth certificate to Maher and the comedian refused to pay up, Trump sued Maher for breach of contract in California. Trump voluntarilywithdrew the caseeight months later, however. Although his then-spokesperson, Michael Cohen,told Politicothat Trump planned to amend and renew the lawsuit, he never did.

Like most of Trumps past defamation forays, the presidents latest round of defamation lawsuits seems destined to crash and burn. The cases will falter for one simple reason: they are utterly devoid of legal merit.

Under the Supreme Courts landmark 1964 ruling inNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, criticism of public officials is entitled to stringent First Amendment protections. As the great liberal Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court inSullivan, the Constitution embodies our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks

Public officials, Brennan instructed, must be precluded from recovering damages for allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct unless they prove that the statements are made with actual malicethat is, that they are made with the knowledge that they are false or with reckless disregard of whether they are true or false.

Insubsequentcases, the Supreme Court extendedSullivans actual malice holding to defamation lawsuits initiated by public figures andbusiness entitiesthat have obtained public-figure status, such as Trumps political campaign committees.

Sullivanis one of the Supreme Courts most consequential decisions, providing the press with the safeguards needed to keep the public informed and hold the rich and powerful to account. Among the courts current members, onlyClarence Thomashas gone on record to suggest thatSullivanbe reconsidered.

Why, then, does the president persist? The answer, it appears, is purely political.

At arally in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2016, Trump told a throng of cheering red-meat followers, I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people Ive ever met. Theyre terrible. If I become president, oh, do they have problems. Theyre going to have such problems.

And thenhe added, in a veiled reference toSullivan:

One of the things Im going to do if I win, and I hope we do, and were certainly leading, is Im going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. Were going to open up those libel laws so that when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because theyre totally protected.

As of now, the president is losing his war on the First Amendment and the free press. But as Trumps improbable rise to power confirms, the future remains uncertain. If we have learned anything in the Trump era, it is that our constitutional rights can never be taken for granted.

Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles. He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers:Prejudicial Error,The Last Appeal, andThe Face of Justice.

then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has cut advertising rates in half, and we need your help. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, weve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has cut advertising rates in half, and we need your help. Like you, we believe in the power of progressive journalism and were investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

Go here to read the rest:

Trump keeps escalating his war on the First Amendment and hes losing the fight - Raw Story

Why freedom of the press is a matter of life and death in coronavirus era | Plazas – Tennessean

Tennessean Opinion Editor David Plazas spoke to Linda Peek Schacht, former Harvard fellow and former Lipscomb University administrator Nashville Tennessean

Journalists work hard to be accurate, trustworthy, and to seek truth and report it truthfully. Facts and good information matter especially when lives are stake.

Students in Jennifer Ducks journalism classes at Belmont University learn how to assess the credibility of information and sources.

Duck also teaches her classes how to debunk myths, which are bountiful on places like social media platforms, where people tend to share links, often without clicking on, reading or vetting them.

The COVID-19 pandemic makes the stakes higher than ever.

This is a matter of life or death, said Duck, an instructor at Belmont in Nashvilleand a Clemson University Ph.D. student. We need truth and we need facts. Journalists help us separate fact from fiction.

Her research focuses on the importance of a free press, which is more important than ever as mixed messages have emerged from government leaders, generally at the national level, about how to handle the novel coronavirus crisis.

Media organizations including The Tennessean and others have striven to separate fact from fiction in daily fact check articles and deep reporting, which seeks to use data, credible sources and science to help inform the public and keep people safe.

So, it is encouraging that Duck urged students to compete in the National Student Essay Competition on the topic of freedom of the press, sponsored by The McCarthy Family Foundation in partnership with The Tennessean, the Committee to Protect Journalists and other U.S. newsrooms.

First Amendment of the US Constitution text, with other Constitution text above(Photo: Getty Images)

Several students, from middle school to college, submitted essays by the April 24 deadline.

They all show a great deal of maturity in wanting to be informed and discerning citizens who defend constitutional freedoms.

Remember: Freedom of the press is one of five freedoms delineated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government from enacting laws to abridge it.

Hear more Tennessee Voices:Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Our founding fathers valued a free press, wrote Frank Runyon, a seventh grader at Richview Middle School in Clarksville. Thomas Jefferson once said,Freedom will be a short-lived possession unless the people are informed. Our founding fathers who believed in democracy thought that freedom of the press was an essential key to our freedom.

Jefferson and other presidents also became angry at the press when journalists were critical, but holding government accountable is why the Founding Fathers wanted to protect a free press.

Tennessee Voices, Episode 22: Linda Peek Schacht on leadership and truth

Tennessee Voices, Episode 11: Shanna Hughey, president of ThinkTennessee

Often, people will lump all journalists as the media, but citizens need to push back against this slight and ask: Which media organization? What did they get wrong (or right)? Is this just a propaganda attempt to discredit the free-flow of information to citizens who deserve to know the truth?

Katie Kuhnash, a senior studying music business at Belmont, reflected in her essay on the importance of being well-informed at a time when Americans are so limited in their ability to spend time with friends, see their families and do commerce because of stay-at-home orders.

In a time where so much is limited, I think it is more important than ever to keep our press free, she wrote. This is also one of the most mysterious, uninformed times we have ever lived through, where being informed is more important than ever.Where being a democracy is more important than ever.

Citizens should search for the truth and be discerning.

But know this: Journalists work hard to be accurate andtrustworthy, and to seek truth and report it truthfully.

We take the First Amendment seriously and are keenly aware that credible information, especially today, is a matter of life and death.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network newsrooms in Tennessee and an editorial board member of The Tennessean. Call him at (615) 259-8063, email him atdplazas@tennessean.comor tweet to him at@davidplazas. Subscribe and support local journalism.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/columnists/david-plazas/2020/04/26/coronavirus-era-freedom-press-matter-life-and-death/3008537001/

Read the original here:

Why freedom of the press is a matter of life and death in coronavirus era | Plazas - Tennessean

If Liquor Stores Are Essential During the Coronavirus Pandemic, Why Isnt Church? – The New York Times

Churches and synagogues were tragically empty two weekends ago, among the holiest days of the year for Americas Christians and Jews. With few exceptions, the nations faithful found solace via computer screens and in solitary prayer, acquiescing to restrictions on their constitutional liberty that would have seemed unthinkable a few months ago.

But many are asking: How long must this go on? America was founded in no small part so that people of every creed and conviction could worship without hindrance, in accordance with conscience and tradition.

Individual churches have been closed for health reasons in the past. History buffs may recall that the first Free Exercise Clause case in Supreme Court history, in 1845, involved the prohibition of open-coffin funeral services in a New Orleans church during a yellow fever outbreak. But this is the first mass closure of churches, synagogues, temples and mosques all over the country. And it has lasted for almost a month.

Other important activities from shopping in hardware stores to voting manage to take place with appropriate safeguards against the spread of the disease. Yet worshipers have been prevented from gathering together (six to 10 feet apart) in cars in the church parking lot; Catholic churches have been told to close their doors even for solitary prayer; traditional sunrise services were canceled even when they would take place in the fresh air, observing the rules of social distancing.

In the early weeks of the crisis, it made sense to enforce sweeping closure rules against all public gatherings no exceptions. And even now, until the crisis subsides, religious communities will have to refrain from activities long central to the expression of love of God and one another. We would know: One of us had to forgo being with family who were sitting shiva, mourning his cousin. The son of the other could not be received into the church on Easter morning. Sacraments cannot be taken by Zoom.

But in the days ahead, religious leaders and public health officials will need to find new ways to deal with the novel conundrums forced on us by this novel coronavirus. Fortunately, these new arrangements can be fashioned with some very old materials: the centuries-old principles of the First Amendment.

Three time-tested principles of the First Amendment stand out as guideposts for navigating the competing demands of religious exercise and public health in a time of contagion.

First, separation of church and state does not give religious communities immunity from regulation that is necessary for the common good. As long ago as 1905, the Supreme Court rejected the religious objections of a Massachusetts pastor to compulsory vaccination against smallpox. Other legal rights, too, are affected. Less than two weeks ago, an appellate court approved restrictions on some abortion procedures during the crisis, saying, When faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the measures have at least some real or substantial relation to the public health crisis and are not beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.

The second principle is that government can regulate religious activity only through what the Supreme Court calls neutral and generally applicable laws. This means that a government requirement cannot single out religious activity on the ground that it is somehow dispensable or nonessential. The government may regulate religious activities no more strictly than it regulates secular activities that present comparable risks. This principle was invoked by Judge Justin Walker of the Western District of Kentucky when he allowed a drive-in Easter service to take place in a church parking lot with cars six feet apart from one another. Noting that Kentucky permitted drive-through liquor stores to continue operating, the court quipped, if beer is essential, so is Easter. It is not for government officials to decide whether religious worship is essential; the First Amendment already decided that. The question is whether, and how, it may be conducted without undue risk to public health.

Third, both sides must seek what the courts call reasonable accommodations. These are tailored arrangements that allow people to practice their faith to the maximum practicable extent while still minimizing the dangers those activities pose to the public. Sacramental wine was permitted during Prohibition; Quakers are not drafted into the Army; kosher and halal facilities are excused from some of the details of meatpacking regulations.

Reasonable accommodation is the most important principle as we emerge from the first phase of this crisis. Government officials must continue to be vigilant about realistic public health dangers from religious practice, but they must identify less restrictive means for achieving their purposes. For instance, Jewish ritual baths, called mikvahs, are permitted to operate in the tristate area, but are doing so with stricter rules and regulations, including enhanced disinfection and cleaning, and they are visited by appointment only. Similarly, priests in New York City hospitals designated by the Catholic Archdiocese are permitted to enter patients rooms to give communion, so long as they wear all necessary protective equipment. These accommodations require a bit of trust on the part of the government and will need to be verified, potentially with clergy attesting to compliance with certain rules. But such trust is also required when California and Colorado deem marijuana dispensaries essential businesses.

Religious leaders and congregations will have to remember that the First Amendment is not an exemption from law applicable to all. And government officials must not forget that religious exercise is at the apex of our national values. Mass is not a football game, a minyan not a cruise. Worship cannot shelter in place indefinitely.

Michael W. McConnell, a former federal judge, is a law professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at the Stanford Law School. Max Raskin (@maxraskin) is an adjunct professor of law at New York University.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

The rest is here:

If Liquor Stores Are Essential During the Coronavirus Pandemic, Why Isnt Church? - The New York Times

NBC News Chief Andy Lack: Journalists Are Winning In Face Of White House Attacks, Coronavirus Challenges – Deadline

NBC News and MSNBC Chairman Andrew Lack says that journalists are succeeding in their reporting on the coronavirus in the face of attacks from the White House.

He also defended the way that the network has carried and covered President Donald Trumps daily White House press briefings.

In an essay for the networks opinion site NBC News Think, Lack wrote that Trump came into office railing against many of the foundations of our democratic institutions, including a free press.Forty months into his administration, coverage of the coronavirus outbreak is the latest sign that contrary to conventional wisdom he hasnt laid a glove on serious journalism. His attacks, most recently against excellent reporters like Jonathan Karl (ABC), Yamiche Alcindor (PBS), Peter Alexander (NBC) and Paula Reid (CBS), put the bully in bully pulpit, but they havent shaken the soul of the First Amendment.

Lack also defended the way that the network usually via MSNBC has approached the presidents daily coronavirus press briefings, which he said have frequently become a sideshow, filled with false and misleading statements, compulsive boasting and self-promotional videos.

Lack wrote that many news outlets, including ours, are aggressively fact-checking in real time, assessing the value to viewers minute to minute and cutting away when warranted.

Some on-air personalities, including MSNBCs Rachel Maddow and CNNs Don Lemon, have questioned why the news networks have been carrying the briefings live, arguing that they give the president a platform to spout misinformation or self promote.

Last week, as Centers for Disease Control director Robert Redfield appeared in the briefing room to clarify dire remarks he gave toThe Washington Postover a possible coronavirus outbreak next winter,Morning Joe co-anchor Mika Brzezinski wrote, The president is making CDC DIR clarify his comments so that the president feels less embarrassed. why Is this considered a briefing. I would not be live on this? I would be fact checking exactly what happened and waiting for scientists with News. This is pathetic.

Lack wrote that the pandemic has shown that the heart of journalism has never been stronger.

Not looking to win any popularity contests just doing what Woodward and Bernstein inspired my generation and the generations that followed to always do: seek the best obtainable version of the truth, he wrote.

He wrote that journalists have continued to do their jobs even in the face of furloughs and layoffs.

Cost-cutting measures have culled their ranks for years, and even in recent weeks, as they work to share this critical story with their communities, they have been furloughed and laid off, he wrote. They tell the stories that hit closest to home, often without the acclaim, resources or job security they deserve. And yet, they persevere.

Over the weekend, Trump tweeted that the briefings were not worth the time & effort!

What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the Lamestream Media asks nothing but hostile questions, & then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately. They get record ratings, & the American people get nothing but Fake News.

The White House has scheduled a briefing for later in the day on Monday. But its unclear whether Trump will participate.

More here:

NBC News Chief Andy Lack: Journalists Are Winning In Face Of White House Attacks, Coronavirus Challenges - Deadline

Proposed Amendments to Revamp Wilf Constitution – The Commentator

Editors Note: The author of this piece is a member of the Wilf Standing Committee on Amendments.

The Wilf General Assembly (GA) recently approved six amendments to the Wilf Student Constitution that will be voted on by the male student body in the Wilf general election. The approval comes after students were able to propose their own amendments at the constitutional amendments convention that was held on April 7. The Commentator was provided with the text of the proposed amendments from the Standing Committee on Amendments. To ensure that students have a clear understanding of each amendment before they go to the polls, The Commentator has provided a summary of each amendment.

The first amendment contains the most changes of any amendment. Some of these include formally reinstating the position of Yeshiva Student Union (YSU) Vice President of Class Affairs and allowing Juniors to hold the position. The language in the current constitution is unclear about the standing of the Vice President of Class Affairs, as it is not listed as an official position but is still given a description due to an inconsistency in the passage of an amendment last year. The YSU Vice President of Clubs would also no longer be available to juniors as students running for the position would be required to be a senior. The Amendments Committee felt that if the Vice President of Clubs is next in line to succeed the YSU President, it is appropriate to require him to be a senior, since the president must be a senior. The amendment will also require the YSU President to be eligible to serve in the GA. This seeks to clarify the issue that arose from the contested presidency earlier this semester. Further clarifying the issue, the amendment will include a clause that requires the Vice President of Clubs to resign his current position if that position conflicts with the eligibility requirements to sit on the GA.

Another restriction would be added for eligibility to serve in the GA. The amendment would bar club heads, presidents, co-presidents and members of a clubs executive board from sitting on the GA. The addition of an article outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Student Life Committee would also be included in the Constitution, as per the amendment. The Senior Co-Chair of the committee is a member of the GA, thus the amendments committee felt it was best to add an article that outlines the role of the committee, which is currently not the case.

This amendment would also eliminate the requirement for candidates to garner signatures in order to appear on the ballot. Instead, the Canvassing Committee would be allowed to create its own by-laws regarding ballot qualifications. This change comes after an amendment to lower the signature threshold was denied by the Wilf Student Court over the Passover break.

Some of the more minor changes include changing the name of all Secretary/Treasurer positions to just Treasurer and removing the position of Sergeant-at-Arms. Another minor change includes the restructuring of the articles of the Constitution. For example, all student councils would have their own article instead of containing every council's rules in one large article as is the current structure of the Constitution.

If passed, the Katz Undergraduate School would have its own representative as outlined in the second amendment. The representative would be part of YSU, similar to the class representatives, and must be a full-time student for at least two semesters. Only students in the Katz School would be able to vote for the representative who will be elected during the spring election.

The third amendment would give students in the Makor College Experience a representative to be voted on only by students in Makor. It should be noted that Makor is officially a separate program from Yeshiva University, but Makor students do pay student activities fees. The candidate would be nominated by the director of the program, currently Dr. Stephen Glicksman, who would then submit the candidate to the Canvassing Committee. Unlike candidates from other councils, the representative from Makor may not run as a write-in candidate.

The next amendment, if passed, would require the student councils to release their respective budgets. During the last week of each semester, each council would be required to release a budget from the previous semester that includes the amount the council had at the beginning and end of the semester. The amendment would also require the GA to release a more detailed record of club events that were requested and approved within the last week of each semester, the amount of funding requested by each club and the amount that was approved.

As per the fifth amendment, the General Assembly would be required to vote to approve or reject clubs petitions within one week after the petitioning period ends.

The final amendment would include a non-discrimination policy similar to that in the Beren Constitution. The policy would prohibit the Wilf student councils from discriminating against students based on many factors, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, nationality and sexual orientation.

One possible effect of this amendments ratification could be the status of the YU Pride Alliance. Earlier this semester, the Pride Alliance filed a motion in the Beren Constitutional Council arguing that Stern College for Women Student Council (SCWSC) President Aliza Katz (SCW 20) discriminated against the club by abstaining on a vote to approve the Alliances club status; this, they argued, violated the Beren Constitutions non-discrimination policy. Ultimately, the court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the Pride Alliance had filed a complaint against YU with the New York City Commission on Human Rights . It is currently unclear if a similar motion will be filed in the Wilf Student Court if the amendment is passed.

Originally, the committee decided to have one big amendment that included many structural changes and a separate amendment for each position being added. The non-discrimination policy, budget policy and the deadline to approve clubs were first proposed at the Constitutional Convention, and only approved afterword. Thus, they each received their own amendment instead of being included in a single, larger amendment.

The proposed amendments aim to clarify some confusing points in the current constitution. For example, the new requirement for a member of the GA to resign from another position that conflicts with the eligibility to serve on the GA will hopefully avoid another contested presidency in the future. Removal of all mentions of the Executive Council and Student Senate, archaic and defunct bodies of student government, are changes that are a long time coming. The formal reinstatement of the Vice President of Class Affairs clarifies its role in the student council. The quest to clarify the uncertainties in the Constitution continues every year, and the latest amendments are a great next step to ensure that the constitution serves as a document that properly governs the student body.

Photo Caption: The Wilf ConstitutionPhoto Credit: The Commentator

More here:

Proposed Amendments to Revamp Wilf Constitution - The Commentator