12345...102030...


Is the Supreme Court using the First Amendment to empower corporations, the right? – Berkeleyside

William Turner. Photo: Michael Erickson

Longtime Berkeley lawyer and educator William Bennett Turner has been increasingly disillusioned by First Amendment decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Turner practiced constitutional law for 45 years, argued cases before the court and has published widely on free-speech issues. He has taught courses on freedom of speech and the press at UC Berkeley for more than three decades. Now, hes written a book charging that the court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has been deploying the First Amendment in ways that serve the interests of corporations and the religious right instead of the individuals who traditionally need the amendments protection to get their voices heard. Turner says the court has taken free speech principles developed decades ago to shield and empower oppressed citizens and applied them to further conservative political interests.

The book, just published by Roaring Forties Press in Berkeley, is Free Speech for Some: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing the First Amendment to Empower Corporations and the Religious Right. I wondered what had convinced him that more people need to know what the Supreme Court is doing these days about free speech.

Free speech has been loudly proclaimed, especially in Berkeley, for decades. Most recently, the First Amendment was tested in the violent protests surrounding the appearance of Milo Yiannopoulos and others on the UC Berkeley campus throughout 2017. Security for the events cost the campus and local law enforcement millions of dollars.

Turner and I talked about his book at the Baker & Commons Caf, a calm venue on College Avenue in the Elmwood, which itself has been in the past the site of more than one bitter community controversy. The conversation has been edited for clarity and concision.

Having taught generations of Berkeley students about these explosive issues, you say, What the First Amendment means is what at least five current justices say it means. So the meaning can change as the composition of the court changes?

It can and does. The text of the amendment doesnt give us any answers, not even clues, to the free speech issues that come before the court. Now that the Roberts Court has a solid majority of political conservatives, they are free to decide cases in ways that favor conservative political and economic interests, and thats what theyve been doingsystematically.

The originalists on the court, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hold that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was in 1787?

Yes, the Originalists, now also including Neil Gorsuch and to some extent, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, say the Constitution should be interpreted the way the framers would have understood it. But theres precious little information about what the framers had in mind in adopting the First Amendment. Its pretty clear they wanted to protect political speech, but thats about it. How they would think about Facebook, Twitter, violent video games and 21st-century communications is anybodys guess.

Is there historical precedent for the First Amendment being used in favor of business and corporations?

Traditionally, the amendment was used to shield individuals and groups like civil rights demonstrators, antiwar activists, and eccentrics who needed the amendment to get their voices heard. Theres some precedent for corporations having free speech rights, and Citizens United took that precedent and ran with it. Generally, corporations dont have more or better free speech rights than individuals. But the Roberts Court has decided that certain categories of individuals dont have full First Amendment rights: students, prisoners, government employees and military personnel. The court in Citizens United didnt satisfactorily explain why corporations should have greater speech protection than these real human beings.

Could you explain the Lochner ruling, which used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to target social welfare legislation like Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal? How was that similar to what you see happening in the courts free speech decisions today?

Thats complicated but important. Lochner, in 1905, used the Due Process clause to strike down all kinds of laws opposed by business. It said the liberty protected by Due Process included a fictional liberty of contract between, for example, employers and employees, so laws that set minimum wages and hours interfered with that liberty and violated the Constitution. During the Lochner era, the court threw out maybe 200 state and federal laws on this reasoning. Lochner is now viewed as a disgraceful period in the courts history. Even Chief Justice Roberts has denounced it. What he doesnt acknowledge is that his court is accomplishing much the same resultsgetting government off the backs of businessby using a different amendment, the First. In other words, a new Lochner era is afoot, with the majority justices using a broad, unspecific constitutional provision and reading into it their political and economic preferences.

The Roberts Court is the most business-friendly since the Lochner era. It has consistently struck down environmental and consumer protections, limited the rights of injured individuals to receive fair compensation, restricted class actions, hobbled labor unions and made it more difficult for ordinary citizens to get access to the courts to redress their grievances. This pro-business bent has been widely recognized. Whats new is the courts now deploying the First Amendment to further business interests.

The courts Citizens United decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act, which had limited corporate spending in campaigns. What else did it do?

Citizens United drew an important distinction between contributions to candidates campaigns, which are still limited and were not involved in Citizens United at all, and independent expenditures, which is spending on elections that is not coordinated with any candidate or campaign. The court said independent expenditures for example, spending your own money to take out television ads expressing your candidate or policy preferences are incapable of creating corruption, and therefore beyond governments authority to limit. Theyre speech protected by the First Amendment.

Theres a misconception that the Roberts Court invented the concept of corporate personhood for constitutional purposes. It didnt. Another misconception is that the court blessed Super PACs. It didnt; none existed at the time of the decision. The creation of Super PACs was probably an unintended consequence of the decision. And the court did not rule that corporations could now put dark money into political campaigns. The court, in fact, upheld the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold. A lot of dark money (undisclosed, unlimited) goes through 501(c)(4) social welfare advocacy groups like the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Roves Crossroads GPS and others, but that wasnt involved in Citizens United at all.

Will you discuss the courts decision in the ruling on violent video games?

The court struck down Californias law prohibiting the sale of extremely violent video games to minors. Justice Scalias caustic, cynical, playful opinion is a classic. The court held that video games are speech, as deserving of First Amendment protection as books, movies, etc. The court rejected the states contention that violent games are of so little social value that they dont deserve any constitutional protection. The court found no evidence that playing the games caused actual violence and no credible evidence that gamers own psyches were harmed.

You could say this is just another pro-business effort by the court, this time benefitting the highly profitable video game industry. But it was more. The opinion was an impressive display of how potent an engine, for better or for worse, the modern First Amendment has become.

Where do libertarian principles fit into Free Speech rulings?

The Roberts Court has not abandoned the First Amendments libertarian tradition. It has continued to find protection for unpopular and even disturbing speech, including bigoted funeral protests, racial insults, and hate speech. It has protected the speech rights of congenital liars and registered sex offenders. Some political conservatives including judges are also libertarian, not trusting the government to make the decisions about what speech is valuable and what isnt.

You have practiced law for many years, have argued First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, have seen many changes. Is it possible that the First Amendment can be retooled?

Not likely that the current justices will renounce their background, training, personal philosophy and track record. But not impossible that some justice, perhaps most likely the chief (the court will forever bear his name), will shift position and call a halt to subserviently carrying out the agenda of a particular party. No justice should want to be viewed by history as a political hack whose votes are entirely predictable and congenial to special interests.

Frances Starns recent writings are online at francessmithstarn.in

Berkeleyside relies on reader support so we can remain free to read for everyone in Berkeley. Become a member and be part of the future of independent, local journalism.

BECOME A MEMBER TODAY

The rest is here:

Is the Supreme Court using the First Amendment to empower corporations, the right? - Berkeleyside

Short Circuit Podcast on the First Amendment and Student Newspaper Funding, – Reason

I much enjoyed participating in this podcast, which was taped in front of a student audience Wednesday here at UCLA; here is IJ's summary of the three cases my UCLA colleague Richard Re, Robert Everett Johnson (Jones Day), and I discussed:

After a student newspaper at the University of California, San Diego published a piece satirizing safe spaces and trigger warning, the student government pulled funding for all print media. A First Amendment violation? And

When doling out federal grant money for community policing efforts, the DOJ gives preference to local departments that promise to cooperate with federal immigration efforts. Which, says Los Angeles, would actually undermine community trust in police. Did the DOJ exceed the powers delegated to it by Congress? And

Religious organizations need not comply with some aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But does the so-called "ministerial exception" extend to a Catholic school that fired a fifth grade teacher who needed time off for chemotherapy?

Follow this link:

Short Circuit Podcast on the First Amendment and Student Newspaper Funding, - Reason

South Carolina GOP governor accused of violating First Amendment by leading prayers before press conferences | TheHill – The Hill

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R)was reportedly accused of violating the U.S. Constitution by holding prayers before press conferences.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national nonprofit that promotes the separation of church and state, sent a letter to McMasters office in response to two prayers that he led earlier this month before speaking to reporters about the threat of Hurricane Dorian, which made its way up the coast of the state, The Associated Press reports.

Ryan Jayne, an attorney for the foundation, allegedhis prayers violate the First Amendment and its clause barring the government from showing preference to one religion over another, according to the AP.

The foundation also mailed a letter to McMaster in January about prayers he gave before press conferences about Hurricane Florence in September 2018, the AP reported.

A spokesman in the governors office, Brian Symmes, toldThe Hill in a statementthat there will be a chaplain saying prayers before press conferences for as long as McMaster is the states chief executive and the state has to prepare for major storms.

"For as long as Henry McMaster is the governor of South Carolina, and we have to prepare for these dangerous storms, there will be a chaplain saying a prayer before each of those press conferences," Symmes said. "For every person who may get offended, countless South Carolinians likely gain strength, guidance, and comfort from these prayers."

Updated: 2:55 p.m.

Original post:

South Carolina GOP governor accused of violating First Amendment by leading prayers before press conferences | TheHill - The Hill

Observer Editorial: An ode to the First Amendment – Observer Online

In January, the Newseum tweeted that its creator, the Freedom Forum, had sold its building to Johns Hopkins University and the museum would be closing at the end of 2019.

The Newseum, a monument to the First Amendment, opened its doors on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., in 2008. On the buildings facade, a stone engraving reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We want to recognize the significance of this statement before its no longer a monument in our nations capital.

As journalists, we rely on the First Amendment for everything we do. As an independent, student-run newspaper, we are free to operate outside administrative purview and employ the rights it outlines every day.

The First Amendment gives us permission to ask questions to which our readers need answers, whether its Why cant I find former Saint Marys President Jan Cervelli anywhere? or Why cant I swipe into my best friends dorm for a late night study session? or Its 12:30 a.m. and Im at the Grotto wheres the Midnight Express?

Our reporting is built upon the foundational freedoms detailed in the First Amendment. But these rights extend far beyond those of journalists.

Members of the tri-campus community, and citizens beyond South Bend, celebrate life as it is today because of every freedom granted by the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech set the stage for 20,000 pro-life supporters to gather on the steps of the Capitol Building in the very first March for Life on January 22, 1974; for Colin Kapernick to kneel during the national anthem at a preseason game on Aug. 26, 2016; and for more than four million people to assemble in public spaces (including our campus) in over 163 countries just last week, urging leaders to take action in the Global Climate Strike.

These movements would not have been possible in America if not for the freedoms of the First Amendment. Having the ability to openly engage in any conversation, assemble in any capacity, find faith in any religion and ask questions of the government keeps the wheels of democracy turning.

As The Washington Posts slogan makes clear, democracy dies in darkness. Freedom of speech sheds light on issues that matter.

Dont let your chance to flex your First Amendment rights go to waste.

Speak up in class discussion. Tweet a hot take. Write a letter to the editor. Sign up for the school-provided New York Times subscription. Stay up-to-date with the happenings of the world.

Find your passion and pursue it. Share your thoughts on our campus climate through Show Some Skin at Notre Dame. Learn more about interfaith dialogue with Better Together Club at Saint Marys. Get involved with student governments social concerns committee at Holy Cross.

If none of these suggestions sound appealing, start your own campus group. Theres no better way to honor the First Amendment.

The Newseum might be closing its building, but the First Amendment still stands. No matter the words carved into the side of 555 Pennsylvania Avenue after this year, our commitment to upholding these freedoms must carry on.

We will continue to ask questions, uncover the truth and report it accurately. Hopefully, you will continue to exercise your rights, too.

Read this article:

Observer Editorial: An ode to the First Amendment - Observer Online

National Right to Work Foundation Praises Alaska Governor’s Order to Protect Employees’ First Amendment Rights Under Janus – National Right to Work…

New rule ensures state employees give affirmative and knowing consent before dues are collected from their paychecks

Juneau, AK (September 27, 2019) Yesterday Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy announced an executive order to help protect the First Amendment rights of all state employees under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Under the new rule, the State of Alaska will deduct union fees only from the paychecks of employees who have filed a waiver with the state acknowledging their wishes to have union dues taken from their paychecks despite their right under Janus not to fund any union activities.

In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that government workers cannot be required to pay union dues or fees and further recognized that the First Amendment is violated when any such payments are collected absent a workers clear and knowing voluntary consent.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix lauded Alaskas defense of state workers First Amendment rights:

Every American employee deserves the right to choose, free of coercion or manipulation, who will be his or her voice in the workplace. The Supreme Court in Janus extended this freedom to all public sector employees, and Alaska took a major step forward yesterday in protecting the First Amendment rights of state employees recognized in Janus.

Alaska is proactively ensuring workers are not relinquishing their First Amendment rights absent the clear and knowing voluntary waiver required by the Janus precedent. We urge other states to follow Alaskas lead and prioritize the constitutional rights of state employees under the Janus precedent.

Janus was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys in 2018. Days after the ruling came down, Foundation Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse sent a letter to then-Alaska Department of Administration Commissioner Leslie Ridle and 20 other payroll managers in states with forced union dues for government employees urging them to fully comply with the decision by stopping payments unless employees have given a knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to fund union activities. The letter points out that the Supreme Courts decision specifically held that a waiver of such rights cannot be presumed[, r]ather, to be effective, the waiver must be freely given and shown by clear and compelling evidence.

LaJeunesses letter also asserted that, if state comptrollers did not comply with Janus, Foundation staff attorneys will bring a civil rights action seeking class-wide injunctive relief. To date, Foundation staff attorneys have filed over 30 lawsuits seeking to enforce workers rights under the Janus precedent.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year.

Read the original post:

National Right to Work Foundation Praises Alaska Governor's Order to Protect Employees' First Amendment Rights Under Janus - National Right to Work...

EDITORIAL: A proposed vaping ban in San Francisco and the First Amendment – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Doctors and health professionals continue to investigate the recent epidemic of vaping-related illnesses. The outbreak, which has hospitalized more than 525 people and led to eight deaths, is believed to be related to chemical exposure to the lungs. Most of the victims, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, were vaping a marijuana ingredient called THC, while some were vaping only nicotine products.

Despite the health benefits associated with a large decrease in smoking among young people, thanks in part to the recent rise of vaping, anti-tobacco zealots have been looking for an opening to cripple the nascent e-cigarette industry. And some of these activists are willing to dismantle the First Amendment to implement their agenda.

Take San Francisco. The once-beautiful City by the Bay is fast becoming synonymous with homelessness, junkies and streets covered with human waste and drug needles. Rather than deal with those issues, the citys progressive braintrust has moved to ban e-cigarettes all while sanctioning the use of marijuana, no doubt. But not only do San Francisco supervisors want to outlaw vaping, they seek to silence those who would disagree.

The e-cigarette giant Juul is attempting to overturn the pending ban through Proposition C, a November ballot question. But Supervisor Shamann Walton arguing that the campaign violates federal restrictions on commercial claims about vaping has written the FDA urging the agency to take action against issue ads supporting the proposition. Among other things, Mr. Walton complains that one of the ads features a Proposition C advocate arguing that vaping offers a legitimate off-ramp for smokers trying to kick the habit.

As Reasons Jacob Sullum points out, never mind that the statement is true. Several studies have found vaping to be less toxic to health than traditional cigarettes. Some experts have also acknowledged that e-cigarettes could be a godsend in terms of public health by potentially reducing the massive costs associated with smoking-related illnesses.

Beyond that, however, Mr. Walton is urging the federal government to censor statements by his political opponents, Mr. Sullum notes.

Indeed, the speech to which Mr. Walton objects was delivered in the context of a political campaign involving a ballot measure. Proponents of Proposition C have an obvious constitutional right to make their case to the voters. To advocate that the state act to suppress arguments in favor of an important public policy question is to show a deep disdain for the democratic process and for free speech protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Walton is free to make the case that vaping is a scourge and must be stopped. But it says plenty about the legitimacy of his arguments that he would simultaneously ask federal regulators to muzzle his opponents.

See original here:

EDITORIAL: A proposed vaping ban in San Francisco and the First Amendment - Las Vegas Review-Journal

UGA School of Law to create First Amendment Clinic – Red and Black

The University of Georgia School of Law announced it will create a First Amendment Clinic funded by a $900,000 grant from the Stanton Foundation in a news release on Sept. 23.

The clinic aims to support First Amendment rights by regional cases involving free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and petition, as well as enhance law students understanding of the First Amendment.

School of Law Dean Peter B. Bo Rutledge said the Stanton Foundation partnership will provide UGA law students the chance to protect the rights of individuals and to raise civic awareness in communities throughout the Southeast in the release.

UGA is currently undergoing a nationwide search to find a director for the clinic.

The Stanton Foundation was founded by longtime CBS president Frank Stanton, who provided funds for the foundation upon his death in 2006 to support the First Amendment, policy research in international and nuclear security and canine welfare.

The creation of the First Amendment Clinic adds to the School of Laws robust clinical and experiential learning opportunities and furthers our mission to educate the next generation of lawyers so they can become leaders in their communities, Rutledge said in the release.

Excerpt from:

UGA School of Law to create First Amendment Clinic - Red and Black

We can’t allow presidents and public opinion to further diminish the work of the press | TheHill – The Hill

Just as the 2020 presidential election has begun with Democratic candidate debates and the nation more polarized than ever, we add to the mix the impeachment proceedings against President TrumpDonald John TrumpAmash calls McCarthy incompetent, dishonest after '60 Minutes' interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment '60 Minutes' correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE. Just when we need excellent journalism the most, the nation's news media are more incapable of informing and enlightening the public than at any time in modern history. It is a sad and in many respects tragic time for the nation's news media, marginalized by the economics of the digital age as well as by government, politics, and even the biases of the American people.

The economic calamity that has befallen news media, especially newspapers, has been well documented. The Pew Research Center reports that, in 2008, there were 114,000 journalists working in U.S. newsrooms including print, broadcast, and digital. In 2018, that number was 86,000, a decline of 25 percent. That change was particularly harsh for newspapers, with the number of newsroom employees declining to 38,000 from 71,000, a decline of 47 percent. Once-great metro newspapers in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Dallas and Atlanta have experienced dramatic decreases in circulation and news staffs. And frequently when news media have been forced to lay off employees, older and more experienced journalists are the ones out the door. Younger, less experienced and cheaper journalists fill the gaps.

In generations past, we had feisty secondary newspapers in major markets. Today, most are closed. In the few markets where secondary newspapers exist, they are just hanging on with barebones news staffs.

The University of North Carolina School of Media and Journalism reported last year that almost 1,800 newspapers 60 dailies and 1,700 weeklies have closed in the last 14 years. Many of the closures occurred in small towns and rural areas creating what university researchers call "news deserts," areas where people had no access to information about local and civic news.

Local television news has become more trivialized as viewership continues to decline. Network morning news programs are more devoted to breezy and brief news coverage with more emphasis on celebrity news and promotion of the prime-time lineup, especially programs such as The Bachelorette and Love Island.

The political damage that has been done to news media can't be underestimated. Trump has consistent applause lines in referring to journalists as "enemies of the people" and noting "fake news."

Both Trump and 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonSanders criticizes Pompeo for meeting with 'destructive' Kissinger Where's my Roy Cohn? Impeachment shakes up Democratic White House race MORE made changes to the First Amendment part of their campaigns in 2016. Trump proposed making it easier for public figures to sue media for damages, presumably eliminating the historic protections in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Times v. Sullivan in 1964. Clinton bought into the notion of changes that might overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Neither proposal had any chance of becoming reality, of course, but playing to the political base is now more important than discussions of substantive issues.

The fact that major political candidates and the dominant political parties are even discussing First Amendment changes shows how little regard exists for the protections and rights considered a foundation of our liberty. Not to mention a lack of respect for the role of the press as a check on government.

But the threats to the free flow of information and access to government didn't begin in 2016. We shouldn't forget that the Justice Department under Eric HolderEric Himpton HolderDemocrats sue over North Carolina's congressional maps Meet the Trump-appointed IG at center of whistleblower drama Eric Holder says Trump is subject to prosecution after leaving office MORE in the Obama administration seized telephone records of the Associated Press in a leak investigation in 2014. It apparently escaped administration notice that the action violated agreements protecting journalists published by the Justice Department in the 1970s.

Even earlier, the USA Patriot Act, passed within weeks of the terrorist attacks in 2001, closed off thousands of documents that had customarily been accessible, including many online. The act also provided government with a major loophole for "national security" that made it acceptable for government agencies to deny open records requests. Many state legislatures followed suit in creating new exemptions for security.

All of us appreciate government actions to keep us safe. But many journalists and First Amendment advocates found that the federal Freedom of Information Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, became virtually useless. The Associated Press reported that the Obama administration set records for refusals to the media and the public for information and also set records in tax money spent defending lawsuits over the refusals.

The track record for the Trump administration is no better and, in many cases, worse. Trump has even broken with tradition in refusing to release his tax returns. Transparency in the Trump White House seems more or less limited to opinions expressed on Twitter.

Overall trust in the nation's news media remains low, according to recent Gallup polling thathas tracked the confidence level since 1972. Only 41 percent of people surveyed have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in news media to report events fairly and accurately. When political views are considered, the data are even more troubling. Among Democrats, 69 percent have confidence in the news media; among Republicans, only 15 percent have confidence.

The "echo chamber" effect of news consumption has also been made clear in polling by various organizations. Conservatives have their news sources, and liberals have theirs. Watching the same story on Fox News and CNN is often like watching news from two different planets. We seem to want only news that confirms what we believe.

Congress fares even worse than the news media in polling of confidence levels. As the impeachment process focuses on the House, Americans are sure to have even more sharply divided opinions about government and the news media. The charges that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent are serious and deserve serious consideration from the Congress and serious, factual reporting from the nation's news media. Don't count on the public having much confidence in either.

TonyPedersonis professor of journalism and holds The Belo Foundation Endowed Distinguished Chair in Journalism at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He is the former executive editor of the Houston Chronicle.

Go here to read the rest:

We can't allow presidents and public opinion to further diminish the work of the press | TheHill - The Hill

Hate, Harassment, And The Right To Report – WUNC

The internet has a hate problem. Trolls, white supremacists, and other hate groups spew vitriol and harass users on social media. The First Amendment protects hate speech, but the internet further blurred the line between speech and crime.

The State of Things partnered with the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media for a special broadcast about the First Amendment recorded in front of a live audience at The Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill.

To unravel the web of rules and laws concerning hate speech, The State of Things partnered with the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media for a special broadcast recorded in front of a live audience at The Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill. Stasio starts the conversation with Mary-Rose Papandrea and Rachel Glickhouse who explain how a criminal act must be committed for vitriolic speech to be treated as a crime. Papandrea is a professor of constitutional law and associate dean of academic affairs at the UNC School of Law and Glickhouse is a journalist and the partner manager for ProPublica's Documenting Hate project.

They continue the conversation by homing in on the experience of female journalists who experience heightened levels of harassment online. Allen Johnson and Elisa Lees Muoz analyze the shifting job of journalism and how online hate and harassment presents new challenges. Johnson is the executive editorial page editor of the Greensboro News & Record and the Winston-Salem Journal, and Muoz is the executive director of the International Women's Media Foundation. Plus, Wendy Scott joins the conversation to talk about how speech is regulated differently in private and public venues. Scott is an associate dean for academic success and a professor at Elon Law. Host Frank Stasio talks with the panel to understand the limits of the law when it comes to hate speech and how that speech affects those on the receiving end of hate.

Interview Highlights

Mary-Rose Papandrea on the tension between protected hate speech and its impact on marginalized communities:

There's a growing concern that hate speech does cause real harm to marginalized communities, in particular, that it's silent speech. So if you're thinking more holistically about our marketplace of ideas, which is the hallmark of the Supreme Court's jurisprudencebetter to let all speech thrive and compete then you're actually silencing some important speakers in this marketplace who don't feel comfortable speaking because they are targeted because of their race or ethnicity or gender.

Rachel Glickhouse on the variance in hate crime laws nationwide:

Not all police are trained in how to investigate hate crimes or what the hate crime law is in that state. Those rules about what police should be trained in varies by state. For example, some don't get any training [on hate crime] in the police academy. Some cities have a dedicated bias crime unit, many don't. How the individual police department will treat these types of crimes and the gravity to which they assign them can vary widely.

Elisa Lees Muoz on the impact of online attacks on journalists:

What we have found through our studies is that it causes similar impacts to PTSD, to being physically attacked. So these are really serious attacks. And they've often been called online harassment, and I don't call them harassment on purpose, because they are attack. They impact journalism tremendously. They impact the way that women journalists approach their stories, and they impact the stories that they're willing to take on. And they drive younger people, mostly younger women, out of the news profession, which just exacerbates the gender inequity that already exists in the news media.

Allen Johnson on the lack of diversity in newsrooms:

I've gone through this over my career and talking about diversifying the staff and hearing very flimsy excuses for why staffs aren't more diverse: We can't find one We can't find one who's qualified enough. Or: We had one one time, and it didn't work out. I just have never bought that I've seen too many people of color who are really good and who have done wonderful work in this profession to know that that's not true.

But the other thing that's happened with the economics is we've downsized. We don't hire as much. Staffs are smaller. And when we started downsizing, a lot of journalists of color were casualties. And so a bad situation didn't become worse, it became terrible.

Wendy Scott on using the first amendment to guide private speech regulation:

That gives me pause...to say we need to jump in and regulate and say who can't say what. On the other hand, it takes us back to hate speech and the fact that there are words that cross the line. Even though the court has only carved out a few exceptions, those exceptions can give us guidance in how we regulate speech online. So if you were, for instance, to think about Alex Jones and the things that he has said, could we apply the First Amendment test? Is he falsely shouting fire? Is he inciting imminent lawlessness? Maybe that standard could be applied. That could be a guide to self regulation [or] private regulation.

Original post:

Hate, Harassment, And The Right To Report - WUNC

US Department of Justice supports Indianapolis Archdiocese in firing of gay teacher – USA TODAY

The Justice Department on Friday issued a statement of interest in support of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in its ongoing dispute with a former Catholic school teacher who alleges he was wrongfully terminated because he was in a same-sex marriage.The United States has a "substantial interest in religious liberty," the Justice Department says.

Joshua Payne-Elliott is suing the archdiocese, alleging that it illegally interfered with his contractual and employment relationship with Cathedral High School, causing Cathedral to terminate him.

But in itsstatement, the DOJ said that the First Amendment protects the right of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis to interpret and apply Catholic doctrine.

It was not immediately clear how binding the DOJ's statement is, or what impact it will have on Payne-Elliott's suit.

If the First Amendments Religion Clauses stand for anything, it is that secular courts cannot entangle themselves in questions of religious law, United States Attorney Josh Minkler said.

Background: Vatican pauses decree revoking school's Catholic status for refusing to fire a gay teacher

From July: An Indiana Catholic school fired a gay teacher for same-sex marriage. Now, a settlement

Payne-Elliott filed his suit in Marion County in July, saying in a news release that he hoped "this case will put a stop to the targeting of LGBTQ employees and their families." He was one of the three gay, married Catholic school employees fired at the direction of the archdiocese.

Two guidance counselors were fired from Roncalli High School. Payne-Elliott's husband, Layton Payne-Elliott, is a teacher at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The archdiocese stripped Brebeuf of its Catholic identity after it refused to fire Payne-Elliott, though the Vatican recently suspended that ruling pending an appeal from the school.

Joshua Payne-Elliott (right), pictured with his husband Layton Payne-Elliott, is suing the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.(Photo: Photo provided by Kathleen DeLaney)

Officials with Cathedral said the archdiocese threatened to do the same if Joshua Payne-Elliott'semployment continued.

But Indianapolis Archbishop Charles C. Thompson has maintained that the church is not targeting anyone.

Rather, Thompson said, the archdiocese has a right toset whatever rules it wants for its schools and employees, includingthat they must live according to Catholic Church doctrine. The archdiocese began requiringa morality clause in teacher, administrator and counselor contracts at some of its schools four years ago, and at all Catholic schools two years ago.

"Religious liberty, which is a hallmark of the U.S. constitution and has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledges that religious organizations may define what conduct is acceptable and contrary to the teachings of its religion, for its school leaders, guidance counselors, teachers and other ministers of faith," the archdiocese said.

A statement of interest is described in court documents as a statement that speaks to the interests of the United States in a pending suit. It is not a ruling.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of religious institutions and people to decide what their beliefs are, to teach their faith, and to associate with others who share their faith, Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney generalfor the civil rights division, said in a statement. The First Amendment rightly protects the free exercise of religion.

The statement of interest saysthe First Amendment prevents courts from impairing the constitutional rights of religious institutions. The former teachers lawsuit attempts to penalize the archdiocese for determining that schools within its diocese cannot employ teachers in public, same-sex marriages, and simultaneously identify as Catholic, the statement says.

Supreme Court precedent holds that the First Amendment protects the archdioceses right to this form of expressive association, and courts cannot interfere with that right, according to the news release.

The statement of interest also says that courts cannot second-guess how religious institutions interpret and apply their own religious laws. Supreme Court precedent holdsthat the First Amendment forbids courts from engaging in quintessentially religious controversies.

Instead, the statement of interest says, the legitimacy of the Archdioceses decision as a matter of Catholic law is committed exclusively to the judgment of the Archdiocese.

Follow Justin L. Mackon Twitter: @justinlmack.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/09/27/u-s-justice-department-supports-archdiocese-gay-teachers-firing/3791560002/

Read the original:

US Department of Justice supports Indianapolis Archdiocese in firing of gay teacher - USA TODAY

College students say they respect the First Amendment, but do they know what that means? – AZCentral

Karrin Taylor Robson, opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. MT Sept. 22, 2019

Opinion: Too many young people think free speech means silencing others. Here's what Arizona is doing to combat that.

The "free speech zone" was empty as people filed into Ferguson Auditorium to hear Bree Newsome, an activist and public speaker, at A-B Tech September 29, 2017.(Photo: Angela Wilhelm, /awilhelm@citizen-times.com)

Free speech zones. Speakers shouted down. Safe spaces. Trigger warnings.

Sometimes it feels like what needs protection most on a college campus is the First Amendment itself.

Consider these incidents that paint a picture of a disturbing national trend:

The incidents are a troubling manifestation of sentiment reflected in recent polling: Far too many young Americans view the First Amendment with uncertainty, if not antipathy.

In 2018, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and YouGov surveyed college students nationwide on matters of free expression. Fully 96%of those polled say its important that their civil liberties be protected, and a plurality cite free speech as most essential.

Butwhat constitutes acceptable free expression? A majority of students, 57%, believe universities should be able to restrict speech that offends someone. Sixty percent of students say promoting an inclusive environment that is welcoming to a diverse group of students is more important than protecting free speech.

And 70% of those polled argue universities should exclude students from extracurricular activities if they express intolerant, hurtful or offensive viewpoints.

Separately, a 2017 survey of student attitudes by the Knight Foundation and Gallup found 37% of college students believe its acceptable to shout down a speaker, and one in 10 agree with using violence to stop a speech or rally they oppose.

Clearly, we have a problem.

President Trump's executive order on free speech on college campuses is in response to concerns from conservatives that colleges are too liberal. USA TODAY

Unfettered expression is fundamental to the American experience and appropriately enshrined in the Constitution as our nations first freedom. In a university context, free speech is fundamental to the learning process and the creation of knowledge; without free speech our ability to test our own ideas and assumptions is impossible.

In a civil society we solve our problems with words, not violence.Open and civil debate acts as a pressure release valve and without it, there is only physical confrontation.

Thats dangerous.

If respect for the First Amendment is ailing, our nations public universities must be part of the cure.

Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona are already among the nations leaders in protecting speech on campus. While state law bars public universities from herding demonstrators into the tiny so-called campus free speech zones common in other states, legislation signed into law in 2018 by Gov. Doug Ducey codifies the efforts of the board and universities to ensure free speech on campus.

Among its provisions, the law requires any campus restrictions on speech to be content neutral, and enables administrators to punish students who employ shout-downs and similar tactics to interfere with the speaking rights of others. This law underscores the commitment our universities have long held to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression on our campuses.

For their pro-liberty policies, each of our public universities has been awarded by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education a green light its highest rating and an honor granted to fewer than 50 institutions in the country.

It is in this same spirit that the Arizona Regents' Cup was created. During the inaugural competition this November, teams of students from each of our states public universities will gather at the University of Arizona in Tucson to engage in a series of intellectual competitions culminating in an Oxford-style debate.

I envisioned this event as a celebration of free speech, civil discourse and democratic engagement, as well as a showcase of our public universities commitment to these bedrock principles.

Judges will include leading figures from government, industry and academia, and participating students will earn course credit while competing for $100,000 in scholarship awards, generously contributed by private donors.

For this first-of-its-kind competition, the student debaters will consider a timely topic: How best to balance freedom of expression with the needs of a diverse, inclusive and welcoming society.

As Gov. DougDucey said in his 2018 State of the State address: Here in Arizona, on our campuses, debate is encouraged, free speech is protected, and diversity of thought isnt just a platitude. Its alive and well in lecture halls, on debate stages, and in the pages of college newspapers.

Our nations young people are recommitting to the ideals of free expression at Arizonas public universities. May the Regents Cup become a shining example of civil debate at a time when our country desperately needs it.

And may the best team win.

Karrin Taylor Robsonis a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, attorney and business leader. She is the founder and president of Arizona Strategies, a land use strategy firm in Phoenix.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/09/22/first-amendment-under-assault-college-campuses-solution-arizona/2355512001/

Read this article:

College students say they respect the First Amendment, but do they know what that means? - AZCentral

National Right to Work Foundation Praises Alaska Governor’s Order to Protect Employees’ First Amendment Rights Under Janus – National Right to Work…

New rule ensures state employees give affirmative and knowing consent before dues are collected from their paychecks

Juneau, AK (September 27, 2019) Yesterday Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy announced an executive order to help protect the First Amendment rights of all state employees under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision. Under the new rule, the State of Alaska will deduct union fees only from the paychecks of employees who have filed a waiver with the state acknowledging their wishes to have union dues taken from their paychecks despite their right under Janus not to fund any union activities.

In Janus, the Supreme Court ruled that government workers cannot be required to pay union dues or fees and further recognized that the First Amendment is violated when any such payments are collected absent a workers clear and knowing voluntary consent.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix lauded Alaskas defense of state workers First Amendment rights:

Every American employee deserves the right to choose, free of coercion or manipulation, who will be his or her voice in the workplace. The Supreme Court in Janus extended this freedom to all public sector employees, and Alaska took a major step forward yesterday in protecting the First Amendment rights of state employees recognized in Janus.

Alaska is proactively ensuring workers are not relinquishing their First Amendment rights absent the clear and knowing voluntary waiver required by the Janus precedent. We urge other states to follow Alaskas lead and prioritize the constitutional rights of state employees under the Janus precedent.

Janus was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys in 2018. Days after the ruling came down, Foundation Legal Director Raymond J. LaJeunesse sent a letter to then-Alaska Department of Administration Commissioner Leslie Ridle and 20 other payroll managers in states with forced union dues for government employees urging them to fully comply with the decision by stopping payments unless employees have given a knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to fund union activities. The letter points out that the Supreme Courts decision specifically held that a waiver of such rights cannot be presumed[, r]ather, to be effective, the waiver must be freely given and shown by clear and compelling evidence.

LaJeunesses letter also asserted that, if state comptrollers did not comply with Janus, Foundation staff attorneys will bring a civil rights action seeking class-wide injunctive relief. To date, Foundation staff attorneys have filed over 30 lawsuits seeking to enforce workers rights under the Janus precedent.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year.

Read more:

National Right to Work Foundation Praises Alaska Governor's Order to Protect Employees' First Amendment Rights Under Janus - National Right to Work...

South Carolina GOP governor accused of violating First Amendment by leading prayers before press conferences | TheHill – The Hill

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R)was reportedly accused of violating the U.S. Constitution by holding prayers before press conferences.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national nonprofit that promotes the separation of church and state, sent a letter to McMasters office in response to two prayers that he led earlier this month before speaking to reporters about the threat of Hurricane Dorian, which made its way up the coast of the state, The Associated Press reports.

Ryan Jayne, an attorney for the foundation, allegedhis prayers violate the First Amendment and its clause barring the government from showing preference to one religion over another, according to the AP.

The foundation also mailed a letter to McMaster in January about prayers he gave before press conferences about Hurricane Florence in September 2018, the AP reported.

A spokesman in the governors office, Brian Symmes, toldThe Hill in a statementthat there will be a chaplain saying prayers before press conferences for as long as McMaster is the states chief executive and the state has to prepare for major storms.

"For as long as Henry McMaster is the governor of South Carolina, and we have to prepare for these dangerous storms, there will be a chaplain saying a prayer before each of those press conferences," Symmes said. "For every person who may get offended, countless South Carolinians likely gain strength, guidance, and comfort from these prayers."

Updated: 2:55 p.m.

Here is the original post:

South Carolina GOP governor accused of violating First Amendment by leading prayers before press conferences | TheHill - The Hill

Short Circuit Podcast on the First Amendment and Student Newspaper Funding, – Reason

I much enjoyed participating in this podcast, which was taped in front of a student audience Wednesday here at UCLA; here is IJ's summary of the three cases my UCLA colleague Richard Re, Robert Everett Johnson (Jones Day), and I discussed:

After a student newspaper at the University of California, San Diego published a piece satirizing safe spaces and trigger warning, the student government pulled funding for all print media. A First Amendment violation? And

When doling out federal grant money for community policing efforts, the DOJ gives preference to local departments that promise to cooperate with federal immigration efforts. Which, says Los Angeles, would actually undermine community trust in police. Did the DOJ exceed the powers delegated to it by Congress? And

Religious organizations need not comply with some aspects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But does the so-called "ministerial exception" extend to a Catholic school that fired a fifth grade teacher who needed time off for chemotherapy?

Continue reading here:

Short Circuit Podcast on the First Amendment and Student Newspaper Funding, - Reason

UGA School of Law to create First Amendment Clinic – Red and Black

The University of Georgia School of Law announced it will create a First Amendment Clinic funded by a $900,000 grant from the Stanton Foundation in a news release on Sept. 23.

The clinic aims to support First Amendment rights by regional cases involving free speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and petition, as well as enhance law students understanding of the First Amendment.

School of Law Dean Peter B. Bo Rutledge said the Stanton Foundation partnership will provide UGA law students the chance to protect the rights of individuals and to raise civic awareness in communities throughout the Southeast in the release.

UGA is currently undergoing a nationwide search to find a director for the clinic.

The Stanton Foundation was founded by longtime CBS president Frank Stanton, who provided funds for the foundation upon his death in 2006 to support the First Amendment, policy research in international and nuclear security and canine welfare.

The creation of the First Amendment Clinic adds to the School of Laws robust clinical and experiential learning opportunities and furthers our mission to educate the next generation of lawyers so they can become leaders in their communities, Rutledge said in the release.

Visit link:

UGA School of Law to create First Amendment Clinic - Red and Black

Observer Editorial: An ode to the First Amendment – Observer Online

In January, the Newseum tweeted that its creator, the Freedom Forum, had sold its building to Johns Hopkins University and the museum would be closing at the end of 2019.

The Newseum, a monument to the First Amendment, opened its doors on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., in 2008. On the buildings facade, a stone engraving reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We want to recognize the significance of this statement before its no longer a monument in our nations capital.

As journalists, we rely on the First Amendment for everything we do. As an independent, student-run newspaper, we are free to operate outside administrative purview and employ the rights it outlines every day.

The First Amendment gives us permission to ask questions to which our readers need answers, whether its Why cant I find former Saint Marys President Jan Cervelli anywhere? or Why cant I swipe into my best friends dorm for a late night study session? or Its 12:30 a.m. and Im at the Grotto wheres the Midnight Express?

Our reporting is built upon the foundational freedoms detailed in the First Amendment. But these rights extend far beyond those of journalists.

Members of the tri-campus community, and citizens beyond South Bend, celebrate life as it is today because of every freedom granted by the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech set the stage for 20,000 pro-life supporters to gather on the steps of the Capitol Building in the very first March for Life on January 22, 1974; for Colin Kapernick to kneel during the national anthem at a preseason game on Aug. 26, 2016; and for more than four million people to assemble in public spaces (including our campus) in over 163 countries just last week, urging leaders to take action in the Global Climate Strike.

These movements would not have been possible in America if not for the freedoms of the First Amendment. Having the ability to openly engage in any conversation, assemble in any capacity, find faith in any religion and ask questions of the government keeps the wheels of democracy turning.

As The Washington Posts slogan makes clear, democracy dies in darkness. Freedom of speech sheds light on issues that matter.

Dont let your chance to flex your First Amendment rights go to waste.

Speak up in class discussion. Tweet a hot take. Write a letter to the editor. Sign up for the school-provided New York Times subscription. Stay up-to-date with the happenings of the world.

Find your passion and pursue it. Share your thoughts on our campus climate through Show Some Skin at Notre Dame. Learn more about interfaith dialogue with Better Together Club at Saint Marys. Get involved with student governments social concerns committee at Holy Cross.

If none of these suggestions sound appealing, start your own campus group. Theres no better way to honor the First Amendment.

The Newseum might be closing its building, but the First Amendment still stands. No matter the words carved into the side of 555 Pennsylvania Avenue after this year, our commitment to upholding these freedoms must carry on.

We will continue to ask questions, uncover the truth and report it accurately. Hopefully, you will continue to exercise your rights, too.

See the original post here:

Observer Editorial: An ode to the First Amendment - Observer Online

Federal Judge Rules Ban on Conversion Therapy Doesnt Violate First Amendment Rights – Law & Crime

Plaintiff Christopher Doyle

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state of Marylands law banning licensed practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy treatment with minors. The legislation was signed into law by Maryland Gov.Larry Hogan(R) in May of 2018.

The lawsuit was initially filed by Christopher Doyle, a mental health therapist who teaches at Patrick Henry College in Virginia. He claimed the law infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

In a 25-page decision, which you can read in full below, U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasanow ruled that the prohibiting conversion therapy, which is a practice aimed at changing minors homosexual orientation, did not violate any constitutionally protected rights.

With regard to free speech, Chasanow reasoned that because the law only applies to professional therapists already subject to generally applicable licensing and regulatory rules in the course of their work, the government may restrict dangerous practices within that professional community.

Although [this law] regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients], Chasanow wrote.Most importantly, [this law] does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients.

Chasanow also stressed that the governments reason for banning the practice was supported by empirical research and expert opinions from within the professional community, which demonstrated a clear consensus that the practice presented a danger to children.

These sources indicate that conducting conversion therapy on minors could potentially harm their emotional and physical well-being and, thus, prohibiting the practice of conversion therapy on minors would abate the harmful outcomes caused by conversion therapy, she wrote.

Doyle also argued that the law targeted his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding human sexuality and gender by proscribing him from offering counseling consistent with those beliefs.

Chasanow rejected that argument, reasoning that the law was religiously neutral and had only an incidental effect on any religious practices.

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof,' the judge wrote. The First Amendment does not, however, provide absolute protection to engage in religiously motivated conduct.

[A] law lacks neutrality if it targets religious beliefs or if its object . . . is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation,' the judge continued. [This law] prohibits all licensed practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy without mention of or regard for their religion. Thus, the statute is, at a minimum, facially neutral.

Doyle was represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal advocacy organization that promotes litigation related to evangelical Christian values.

The group responded to the ruling by saying the judge ignored binding Supreme Court precedent and issued an opinion dismissing Liberty Counsels lawsuit seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against Marylands law prohibiting minors from receiving voluntary counseling from licensed professionals to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion.

Liberty Counsel said it will immediately appeal this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Doyle v. HOGAN et al by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via YouTube screengrab]

Read more:

Federal Judge Rules Ban on Conversion Therapy Doesnt Violate First Amendment Rights - Law & Crime

EDITORIAL: A proposed vaping ban in San Francisco and the First Amendment – Las Vegas Review-Journal

Doctors and health professionals continue to investigate the recent epidemic of vaping-related illnesses. The outbreak, which has hospitalized more than 525 people and led to eight deaths, is believed to be related to chemical exposure to the lungs. Most of the victims, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, were vaping a marijuana ingredient called THC, while some were vaping only nicotine products.

Despite the health benefits associated with a large decrease in smoking among young people, thanks in part to the recent rise of vaping, anti-tobacco zealots have been looking for an opening to cripple the nascent e-cigarette industry. And some of these activists are willing to dismantle the First Amendment to implement their agenda.

Take San Francisco. The once-beautiful City by the Bay is fast becoming synonymous with homelessness, junkies and streets covered with human waste and drug needles. Rather than deal with those issues, the citys progressive braintrust has moved to ban e-cigarettes all while sanctioning the use of marijuana, no doubt. But not only do San Francisco supervisors want to outlaw vaping, they seek to silence those who would disagree.

The e-cigarette giant Juul is attempting to overturn the pending ban through Proposition C, a November ballot question. But Supervisor Shamann Walton arguing that the campaign violates federal restrictions on commercial claims about vaping has written the FDA urging the agency to take action against issue ads supporting the proposition. Among other things, Mr. Walton complains that one of the ads features a Proposition C advocate arguing that vaping offers a legitimate off-ramp for smokers trying to kick the habit.

As Reasons Jacob Sullum points out, never mind that the statement is true. Several studies have found vaping to be less toxic to health than traditional cigarettes. Some experts have also acknowledged that e-cigarettes could be a godsend in terms of public health by potentially reducing the massive costs associated with smoking-related illnesses.

Beyond that, however, Mr. Walton is urging the federal government to censor statements by his political opponents, Mr. Sullum notes.

Indeed, the speech to which Mr. Walton objects was delivered in the context of a political campaign involving a ballot measure. Proponents of Proposition C have an obvious constitutional right to make their case to the voters. To advocate that the state act to suppress arguments in favor of an important public policy question is to show a deep disdain for the democratic process and for free speech protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Walton is free to make the case that vaping is a scourge and must be stopped. But it says plenty about the legitimacy of his arguments that he would simultaneously ask federal regulators to muzzle his opponents.

See the original post:

EDITORIAL: A proposed vaping ban in San Francisco and the First Amendment - Las Vegas Review-Journal


12345...102030...