Liberty University filed a lawsuit against the New York Times and two of its journalists on Wednesday over a story reporting that students at the Virginia school contracted COVID-19 after the university partially re-opened campus amid the coronavirus pandemic.

In response to the lawsuit, Katie Townsend, legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, made the following statement:

This lawsuit is an affront to the First Amendment and the guarantee of a free press. Its clearly intended to harass journalists and a news organization simply for reporting on the impact of Liberty Universitys decision to partially reopen during a pandemic.

People across the country are relying on the news media for accurate, critical information about how institutions are responding to COVID-19, and journalists and news organizations should not have to face retaliation or threats of criminal penalties for fulfilling that responsibility.

The lawsuit comes four months after Liberty University Police filed arrest warrants for ProPublica reporter Alec MacGillis and Rendleman, claiming they trespassed on university property. The Reporters Committee issued a statement condemning the criminal trespassing charges, which were later dismissed by a local prosecutor.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

See the article here:

RCFP statement on Liberty University lawsuit against New York Times - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

United States Supreme Court Building, Washington DC, America

It makes a certain amount of common sense; a religious organization ought to have the freedom to make sure that all its staff are on the same faith page. But the Supreme Court just took this argument much, much further.

In 2012 the court issued a decision onHosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Schoolv.Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that cemented the ministerial exception, the principle that religious organizations should be exempt from the usual anti-discrimination laws when it came to their employees involved in ministry. The case didnt provide a clear guide to exactly which employees counted as ministers, but thanks to the Supreme Courts new decision, we know that teachers at religious schools come under that umbrella.

The court lumped two cases togetherOur Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru, and Kristen Biel v. St. James Schoolto address this very issue. This has been touted as a First Amendment case, based on both the free expression clause and the establishment clause. Basically, the idea is that the government should not be able to tell a religious school how to run its business.

The court found against the fired teachers at the center of both cases, holding that ministerial exception applied to anyone who teach faith to students, even if they have neither the training or title involved in doing so.

One may argue that this all makes sensewhy would a Catholic School want to hire a Muslim or atheist teacher, and why would those teachers want to work at a private Christian school in the first place? Shouldnt a religious school be able to keep a staff of believers?

But the decision goes far beyond that question. Groups like the American Center for Law and Justice have been applauding the decision as a win for religious freedom, but they havent been very vocal about the actual content of the cases.

That may be because neither has anything to do with the fired teachers faith. Morrissey-Bellu sued her school alleging age biasbeing fired for being too old. Biels case is also disturbing. She alleges that she was fired after telling administration that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and would have to take time off for treatment. She was told that having two teachers in the year would be too confusing for the students.

The Supreme Court didnt take a position on whether or not the alleged discrimination had actually occurred; their ruling is essentially that even if discrimination (discrimination that would be illegal in any other work setting) actually occurred, it was none of the courts business. As Justice Alito wrote for the 7-2 majority:

The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission

Discrimination in private religious schools is nothing new. Investigations found many Florida private schools exercising anti-LGBTQ policies, and the Catholic church has more than once fired teachers for being gay.

This ruling throws the doors wide open. A private religious school need only assign every teacher something like a ten-minute devotional duty as part of the day, and that teacher now falls under the ministerial exception. The school may fire that teacher at any time, for any reason, and that teacher will have no legal recourse. This may be called a win for religious school First Amendment rights, but the First Amendment rights of their teachers have just been clobbered.

The capper here is that in some states, those private religious schools are able to accept students paid for with vouchers, meaning that taxpayers foot the bill for schools that are able to freely discriminate in ways the taxpayer might find objectionable. Private religious schools have often resisted taking taxpayer dollars because of fears that government money comes with government strings attached; slowly but surely, the Supreme Court is cutting those strings, and with them, any sort of accountability to taxpayers themselves.

See original here:

SCOTUS Gives Private Religious Schools The Okay To Discriminate Freely - Forbes

REVOLT.TV is home to exclusive interviews from rising stars to the biggest entertainers and public figures of today. Here is where you get the never-before-heard stories about whats really happening in the culture from the people who are pushing it forward.

Due to the past few months of the Black community dealing with the killings of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd and more back-to-back; we are no stranger to the art of protesting. Thankfully, when Atlanta protesters are arrested and resources are limited, attorney Durante Partridge offers pro bono legal help to those in need.

I know a lot of lawyers Im familiar with or I interact with regularly, Partridge tells REVOLT about his extensive network who he can rely on to help protesters nationwide. They post things on their social media and things like that just to let it be known. Do research a bit [about] different lawyers and try the different bar organizations to see if they have the information that can lead you in the right way.

REVOLT had the chance to speak with attorney Partridge to get his insight on what actions to take when stopped by the police, pro bono representation, and how to properly exercise your First Amendment right. Get the legal facts below.

What inspired your pro bono representation of protesters who were arrested in Atlanta?

My background. Since I have been an attorney, and even before, [Ive been] just doing a lot of protesting, organizing and just being part of different groups who also do the same thing or thats their foundation. Theyre in the streets protesting, theyre challenging politicians to change policy and things along those lines. Ive always been around it, so it was a no brainer to step out and step up to do something... That doesnt take away from public defenders or anything like that. I respect everyone thats on the frontline, but we all have a job to do. We all have a role to play in that regard.

How exactly do these pro bono services work?

Essentially, we have a group of lawyers in Atlanta who are normally retained by clients and I believe it was about 300-400 lawyers who got together, and created the ATL Justice Lawyers Group on Facebook. If anyone needed assistance or continued to need assistance with respect to our representation for protesting, they could contact us at our email [address]... Once they email us, someone from the team will grab their information, make contact with them and pair them with representation. Its a lot bigger than myself.

One of the lawyers that I look up to in the community a lawyer by the name of Lawrence Silverman just put out a tweet that really compelled a lot of people to just step up and help out, including myself. Basically that call-to-action which wasnt necessarily a call-to-action but just seeing fellow colleagues put themselves [out there] made sense for a lot of other people to do the same, and we just came together to form this coalition of lawyers who are helping people and trying to do good work for the community.

For those Black or brown people who may not be in Atlanta or have the means to pay for legal help if theyre arrested, how do you advise them on seeking out help?

I actually went to law school in Houston and I have a couple colleagues out there [a] lawyer by the name of Brenda DeRouen. She tapped into her network and basically created a list of names as it relates to different lawyers, different Black lawyers specifically, that were interested in helping out and [representing] some of our protesters who are out... If you have been arrested and you dont know, just check with some of the local bar association platforms within the local community. Thats probably a good place to start. From there, just check-in with different lawyers to see if they offer some service with respects to help with protesters.

How have you seen corrupt police officers abuse power and their positions in the courtroom?

Its interesting and its part of the reason why Im not practicing as an assistant D.A. I saw so much. I still see so much as it relates to police reports not [being] 100% accurate and things like that. What happens when we talk about an abuse of power, just having that authority as an officer to write your own reports and in some instances, youre not writing those reports right on the spot. You might take some notes and then revisit it later, but a lot of that comes off of your recollection of what happened. As humans, we have a tendency sometimes to paint things in a certain light that may appear to be more positive for our narrative or not in some situations. I did see a lot of that and had to correct a lot of that as well, especially in those situations where things were recorded and the police report contradicts that of whats in the recording, or vice versa.

I try to challenge officers all the time as it relates to their police reports and I like to give the best evidence that I can, which typically is gonna be dash cam video, bodycam video or things like that, which will shed light on what really happened as opposed to relying on someones memory.

I tell clients all the time, We have a police report [and] a police report is helpful to give us some direction. But, I dont 100% rely on police reports and I have to remind some of my prosecutor colleagues, as well, that they should not also.

What actions do you advise Black people to take when theyre stopped by police?

If at all possible, I would record the interaction. We want to make sure that we survive the encounter and that we document the encounter as best as possible. If were in a situation where were being pulled over, just start your camera. Even if its just audio recording, have some sort of documentation as it relates to the altercation. We see cases where officers will turn off their bodycam, or not activate the bodycam... Just so theres no issues in respect to what actually happened, I would definitely say document everything, take notes in relation to who stopped you and how they interacted with you, as well, because if theres any issues with that interaction, you are empowered to go and make a complaint against those officers. Theyre not totally immune to any issues if they are doing wrong.

The most important thing, I think, is to survive the encounter. Its unfortunate that we have to have that outlook, but given some of the things that weve seen in the media, I just feel like thats the most important thing and that we can live to fight another day. In some situations, weve done nothing to provoke the negative actions or reactions. So, Im not saying we should bow down or anything like that. But, if an officer is doing the wrong thing, then we need to be able to survive that, file our complaint and be able to follow up to get those people removed from the local police department or wherever theyre working. Those are the primary things that I would suggest when getting stopped.

Theres a lot of misconceptions about exercising our rights, and what we can and cannot do. How do we properly exercise our First Amendment?

I tell people all the time, especially during this climate, the First Amendment is very important. We have to realize the fine line that we have regarding the First Amendment. What I can say in regards to that... just do it. Speak your mind, speak on your opinions, and your thoughts, and spread the narrative. Thats the most important thing we can do is speak. Now, the limitations come on the First Amendment when we are impeding on someone elses rights typically. For instance, if we have a non-disclosure [agreement] or something like that in place and were speaking on something that were under contract to not speak on, then that creates a problem. Or if were inciting some type of violence or something along those lines, then we dont have the freedom to speak as it relates to that. Again, thats impeding on someone elses rights.

As far as protesting, posting everything that goes to not necessarily pushing a narrative, but exploiting information and just putting a bigger spotlight on these issues, continue to do it and dont shut up. A lot of us here in Atlanta, were older or generations above the current generation thats leading the protests right now. Were encouraging them to stay out in the streets and keep going because youre making the change whether you see it or not. These policymakers are actually talking about this stuff on a daily basis, [and] trying to figure it out. A number of confederate monuments are starting to come down and were really gaining traction and the talks of reparations. Its just beautiful and a lot of things are happening at this point. We just have to keep going and doing what we have to do.

Original post:

Protesters, here is legal advice on getting pro bono representation after an arrest and your First Amendment - REVOLT TV

Staff report

The San Clemente Chamber of Commerces July Sip-N-Learn Event will focus on Bias in the Media, and will be presented by First Amendment Voice.

The Zoom call event will take place on Thursday, July 23 from 5:30-6:45 p.m. and will be led by Steve Miska, Executive Director of First Amendment Voice. First Amendment Voice is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501c (3) organization that aims to facilitate inclusive dialogue on civic matters to educate and inspire citizens to engage on important matters in their communities.

Bias in the Media event topics will include exploring trends in the media landscape, learning how technological change shapes information consumption, the importance of local news and breakout sessions. Picket Fence Media Publisher Norb Garrett will participate in the event.

To register, email susie@scchamber.com by Friday, July 17. A small donation of $8 is requested for this event. Cost for Chamber members is $5. To learn more about First Amendment Voice, visit firstamendmentvoice.org.

Related

Original post:

Chamber Sip-N-Learn Event Will Cover Bias in Media - San Clemente Times

SAN DIEGO, Calif. A California woman took to social media to criticize a Starbucks barista for refusing to serve her because she didnt have on a mask. That barista ended up getting $100,000 dollars in donations.

Now the spurned customer wants half of that money and is threatening to sue to get it.

Amber Gilles says she posted a photo of barista Lenin Gutierrez after he asked her to wear a mask at Starbucks.

The caption reads Meet Lenen from Starbucks who refused to serve me cause Im not wearing a mask. Next time I will wait for cops and bring a medical exemption.

That post exploded online, and a GoFundMe to raise tip money for Gutierrez surpassed $100,000.

Gilles claims she has medical problems preventing her from wearing a mask and that she was discriminated against. She also said she thinks masks are not effective.

I get shortness of breath, dizziness and it messes with the heartbeat, said Gilles. And I do have asthma as well, and I do get maskne. So theres several things going on and not only that but it doesnt even work.

She shared two pieces of paperwork to show what she calls a medical exemption. A 2015 doctors report she shared shows analysis of her uterus and an ovarian cyst.

And a handwritten note with a San Diego chiropractors letterhead that she asked not to be shown on camera says she has underlying health conditions that prevent her from wearing a mask.

She says her post about the experience is a First Amendment right.

It was discrimination and everybody is okay with it and enabling and rewarding that kind of behavior, said Gilles.

Gilles wants half of the money donated, which was given to Gutierrez in cash last week, and is threatening to sue.

She says the lawyers shes spoken to about taking her case are expensive and she cant afford one yet so she started her own GoFundMe to raise legal fees.

When asked if she has any apology or message to the public, Gilles replied: No absolutely not. I feel like I need the apology. Ive been discriminated against, Im the one whos sick.

Starbucks now requires customers to wear facial coverings or masks in all 9,000 of its company-owned American stores.

The mandate supersedes local laws in some states or cities that might not require wearing one.

Customers who refuse to wear a mask inside can order using delivery, the drive-thru or curbside pickup, the company said.

See original here:

Woman who refused to wear mask wants half of $100,000 donated to Starbucks barista - WANE

The school released a list of safety precautions it is taking for the ceremony. Among them, graduates and other attendees will be screened for Covid-19 symptoms, required to wear masks and sit 6 feet apart from each other.

But Ryan Jarvi, press secretary for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessels office, said that "organized gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited by law in that part of the state, and such events clearly show a lack of consideration for the dangerous threat this virus presents."

Emily Stack Davis, a spokesperson for the college, did not confirm how many people were expected to attend. MLive reported that the ceremony is expected to bring 2,600 people to the city of 8,000 residents.

Jarvi said, Should this event proceed, we trust the local law enforcement agencies to exercise their authority and discretion in their enforcement efforts.

We sympathize with those who want to celebrate the success of college graduates, but the unfortunate circumstances surrounding this pandemic have made that difficult for many, and we encourage alternatives to large assemblies that could further jeopardize the health of many people."

Hillsdale College said it had communicated its plans to Gov. Gretchen Whitmers office more than a month before the events. The college also said it continued to work with local law enforcement and health officials; the state Attorney Generals office likewise suggested this was the appropriate and necessary step.

The college, in a press release, said Hillsdale Colleges Commencement is an 'expressive activity' protected by the First Amendment. So far, the college still intends to put on the ceremony.

"Commencement is the most significant event in the life of a college, said Arnn. As old as the first universities, this milestone represents the conclusion of the Colleges labor and also inaugurates an even greater undertaking: each graduates commencing to live a good and happy life in accordance with the highest principles, a life for which they have spent four years preparing.

Continue reading here:

Trump-connected college to host in-person graduation, despite state limits on gatherings - POLITICO

In a year beset by disappointing decisions from the Supreme Court, a trio of religious liberty cases decided this term provides constitutionalists with some hope.

Lets review:

Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania: The Little Sisters of the Poor need no introduction. This order of female Catholics has been serving the elderly in 30 countries for more than 175 years. Although the Little Sisters seem like an unlikely target, the order has been in the crosshairs of one government or another for nearly a decade. In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the authority to exempt the Little Sisters from its birth control mandate.

Sadly, the legal battle may not be at an end for the Little Sisters. The case likely will go forward on other grounds, but the court strongly implied that the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) would operate to protect the conscience rights of the Little Sisters. That statute, the court explained, provides very broad protection for religious liberty. It forbids the government from substantially burdening a persons exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that there is no less restrictive means by which it can further a compelling government interest.

The contraceptive mandate clearly fails RFRAs test. Certainly, there are other ways the government can provide contraceptives without forcing nuns to do so.

In Espinoza v. Montana, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental right of families to send their children to the school of their choice, including religious schools. By a vote of 5-4, the court held that a state program to help families cover the cost of private school may not discriminate against schools with religious missions.

At issue in the case was a modest Montana program that granted tax credits for donations to organizations that awarded private-school tuition scholarships. The Montana Supreme Court held that the states Blaine Amendment forbade Montana from providing the tax credits to parents who chose a religious school.

The Supreme Court reversed. The court held that Montanas Blaine Amendment discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend them.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious observers against unequal treatment. Montana had discriminated on the basis of a schools religious status, plain and simple. The courts decision strongly suggests that similar amendments remaining in 35 states are constitutionally infirm and may not be used to discriminate against religious schools.

In Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrissey-Berru, the court held that the First Amendment bars courts from intervening in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools. Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the First Amendment protects church autonomy including the right of religious institutions to decide matters of faith and doctrine without government intrusion. This protection, Alito noted, was crucial to the Framers of our Constitution the British Crown, for example, had the right to fill religious offices and to otherwise control religion.

As applied to schools, the court recognized that teachers who are entrusted with inculcating religious values and beliefs are ministers of the faith, even though they are not formally ordained. As such, the government may not interfere with a religious schools decision to hire or fire such an employee.

As Alito recognized, parents choose to send their children to religious schools for religious education and formation. Thus, a narrow interpretation of the ministerial exception would have interfered with the ability of parents to raise their children with a distinctly religious education. In short, teachers at religious schools play a critical role in transmitting the faith to the next generation and are properly categorized as ministers.

Justice Thomas has famously lamented that the Free Exercise Clause seems to rest precariously on the lowest rung of the courts ladder of rights. With its trifecta of religious liberty decisions this term, the Supreme Court may finally be poised to give equal weight to religious liberty. Its about time.

Erin Hawley is a senior legal fellow at Independent Womens Law Center. She wrote this for InsideSources.com. The BDN publishes opinions from partner news services to bring a wider variety of perspectives to readers.

Excerpt from:

Religious liberty scores a win at the Supreme Court - Bangor Daily News