Former Ambassador and National Security Advisor John Bolton is hoping the First Amendment saves him from claims by the government that he violated his own nondisclosure agreements and should therefore be penalized for publishing his recent memoir about President Donald Trumps White House.

A 44-page motion to dismiss all claims against Bolton, filed by his attorneys late Thursday in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., leans heavily of the right to speak freely about matters of political importance in its opening paragraphs and subsequent arguments.

Speech on a politically important and controversial topic is the essence of First Amendment expression, the motion begins. No form of speech is entitled to greater constitutional protection.

Boltons motion comes after a federal district court judge ruled in late June that Bolton could publish his book as a matter of First Amendment law but that Bolton had gambled with the national security of the United States, exposed his country to harm, and furthermore exposed himself to civil (and potentially criminal) liability. Bolton, with his book now for sale worldwide, argues he should face no liability at all. (Given the federal judges June rebuke of Bolton, which called Boltons tactics a gamble, some arent so sure these arguments will work.) Still, Boltons motion takes aim at the governments use of nondisclosure agreements to prevent officials from speaking about how public business is conducted.

When the Government erects a scheme designed to foreclose that speech even before it is uttered by imposing a prior restraint upon the communication of news and commentary on current events, it must shoulder a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint, the document goes on to say (internal citations and punctuation omitted). And it has been settled since the Early Republic that the Government cannot escape First Amendment scrutiny by switching to the tactic of punishing core political speech after the fact.

That line is aimed at government claims that Bolton should be forced to forego royalties or even be punished criminally for publishing his book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.

[A] law inflicting penalties on printed publications, would have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previous restraint on them, Boltons motion then says, quoting James Madison, the author of the First Amendment. It would seem a mockery to say, that no law should be passed, preventing publications from being made, but that laws might be passed for punishing them in case they should be made.

The Bolton motion invites the D.C. District Court to not forget these bedrock constitutional principles in evaluating the Governments attempt in this case to punish the Presidents former National Security Advisor, Defendant John R. Bolton, for publishing speech that is embarrassing to the President.

The Bolton motion invoked previous arguments that a nearly four-month pre-publication government review of Boltons book ferreted out classified information, that Bolton was free to publish, and that the Trump White House continued to assert that classified information existed in the book merely to prevent it from being published. To that end, Boltons motion asserts that neither of his own nondisclosure agreements imposes on a former government employee any obligationnone at allto submit for prepublication review:

The Governments claims are all foreclosed by the text of the very contractual documents upon which they purport to be based, since those contracts simply cannot reasonably be interpreted as imposing the contractual duty that the Government claims Ambassador Bolton breached: the duty to submit to prepublication review, and await written authorization before publishing, a book that he had no reason whatsoever to believe contained any classified material. And even if those contracts were susceptible to an interpretation imposing such a requirementin effect, a blanket prior restraint of virtually any speech by former government employeesthat requirement would be flatly contrary to the First Amendment. The Court thus labors under the solemn constitutional duty to avoid interpreting the contracts, if at all possible, as imposing such a blanket prior restraintand if such an interpretation is not possible, the even more solemn duty to invalidate that plainly unconstitutional requirement.

The motion concludes that even if the governments interpretations of Bolstons so-called Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SCI NDA) are true, they do not stand in the face of the First Amendment.

READ Boltons arguments in the document below:

John Bolton Motion to Dismiss by Law&Crime on Scribd

[photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Excerpt from:

John Bolton Gambles That Constitution Will Save Profits on Book That Was Embarrassing to the President - Law & Crime

I was tagged in these pages last week as mystery man the person Town Moderator Mary-Jo Avellar reported to the police for handing out fliers criticizing her as I stood on Commercial Street outside her workplace. Im not really a mystery. Ive been a part-time resident and taxpayer here for 20 years.

After Ms. Avellar took my picture, her Finance Committee appointee Mark Hatch posted it on Facebook in an effort to divine my identity. It wasnt a coincidence that Hatch, who chairs that committee, anointed himself Avellars private investigator.

Under the town charter, Avellar is primarily responsible for reviewing recent allegations thatHatch authored social media posts that were misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and otherwise degrading toward immigrants and participants in Black Lives Matter protests. But like most of Provincetowns elected leaders, shes brushed off Hatchs pattern of intemperate online hate speech.

Instead of taking appropriate action, she foreshadowed the later comments of our witless President when she recently told the Banner, Even the Ku Klux Klan . . . are entitled to free speech. Yet no one has a constitutional right to serve on a town committee, much less chair it. Even House Republicans found enough guts to kick Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) off his committees for the bigotry he voiced.

In a true perversion of the First Amendment, several of Hatchs Facebook followers seem to think it was bad taste or even illegal to protest against a public official on a public street in front ofthat person'sworkplace. Heres what I think: Its bad taste not to mention, ignorant for the Town Moderator to invoke the Ku Klux Klan as an excuse for protecting the alleged hate speech of her own appointee. The Klan is a terrorist organization primarily known for beating and murdering African-Americans, as well as Jews, Catholics, immigrants, and their allies.

I took this step because Avellars outrageous excuse required an outraged response. Many people here today are immigrants, as were the ancestors of many Provincetown families. At least half the towns population is female. Our neighbors include Jews and people of color. We deserve better from the Town Moderator and the Finance Committee.

That committees Code of Conduct states, Remember that you represent the entire community at all times not just while sitting behind a dais. If Provincetown is supposed to be a loving, welcoming community, committee chairs shouldnt spew hate online, and a top elected official cant hide behind the KKK as a reason for refusing to investigate credible allegations that this Code of Conduct provision was violated.

The Town Moderator has already prejudged this matter, so it would be inappropriate for her to act on it. But under Chapter 3, Section 5 of the town charter, the Select Board may investigate and impose sanctions for the alleged misconduct of any member of a town board, commission, or committee. Theres been a formal complaint filed. Its time for the Select Board to step up and act.

Its also well past time the Town Moderator was reminded that her job, by definition, is to create order out of chaos not to keep sowing greater chaos, either among the Towns residents or leaders. If some confidantes would have the courage to tell her that, maybe shed take the message to heart.

Go here to see the original:

My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown

from the what-public-discourse dept

The Second Circuit just issued an ugly decision in a defamation lawsuit against Joy Reid. It not only revived the case against her, but it greased the skids for many more defamation cases to be brought in federal court, including plenty even less meritorious.

The case, La Liberte v. Reid, involves two of Reid's social media posts from 2018. The first was from June 29:

At some point during the Council Meeting, La Liberte was photographed interacting with a fourteen-year-old teenager who appears to be (and is) Hispanic (the "Photograph"). The Photograph showed La Liberte with her mouth open and her hand at her throat in a gagging gesture. On June 28th, a social media activist named Alan Vargas tweeted the Photograph along with the following caption: "'You are going to be the first deported' [and] 'dirty Mexican' [w]ere some of the things they yelled they yelled [sic] at this 14 year old boy. He was defending immigrants at a rally and was shouted down. Spread this far and wide this woman needs to be put on blast." The Photograph went viral. The next day, Joy Reid, a personality on the MSNBC cable station, retweeted (i.e., shared) the Vargas tweet to her approximately 1.24 million followers. (La Liberte is not alleging defamation by Reid as to that communication.) Later that same day (June 29), Reid posted the Photograph on her Instagram with the following caption: "He showed up to a rally to defend immigrants . . . . She showed up too, in her MAGA hat, and screamed, 'You are going to be the first deported' . . . 'dirty Mexican!' He is 14 years old. She is an adult. Make the picture black and white and it could be the 1950s and the desegregation of a school. Hate is real, yall. It hasnt even really gone away." [p.6-7]

The second was from July 1:

Two days later (July 1), Reid published another post about La Liberte, this time on Instagram and Facebook. This post juxtaposed the Photograph of La Liberte with the 1957 photograph showing one of the Little Rock Nine walking past a screaming white woman. Reid added the following caption: "It was inevitable that this [juxtaposition] would be made. It's also easy to look at old black and white photos and think: I can't believe that person screaming at a child, with their face twisted in rage, is real. By [sic] every one of them were. History sometimes repeats. And it is full of rage. Hat tip to @joseiswriting. #regram #history #chooselove" [p. 7-8]

Subsequently, further media coverage revealed that the plaintiff had not been the source of the cited racist comments. [p. 7] On July 2 the plaintiff contacted Reid to ask that she delete the posts and apologize, which Reid did later that day. [p. 8]. Despite her doing so, the plaintiff sued anyway, but the district court in EDNY then dismissed it.

The Second Circuit has now stepped in to revive the case, and in doing so opened the door not only to this troublingly weak case but plenty of others even weaker.

There are a number of issues with the decision:

Section 230 became an issue because Reid had raised it as a defense for her June 29 posting of the picture on Instagram with her caption (although not her July 1 post on Instagram and Facebook). The district court rejected that defense, and the Second Circuit agreed with that rejection. But whereas it mattered less in the district court because it had found other reasons to dismiss the case against Reid, because the Second Circuit kept the case alive, it doing so also on Section 230 grounds raises more concerns (plus, it is an appeals court, so its decision will reverberate more into the future).

In denying her the statute's protection the court did get the basic rules right: only the party that created the offending expression can be held liable for it. Furthermore, citing earlier Circuit precedent, "a defendant will not be considered to have developed third-party content unless the defendant directly and 'materially' contributed to what made the content itself 'unlawful.'" [p. 22]. But in denying her the protection it applied these rules in a way that may expose myriad other social media posters - and even platforms themselves - to litigation in the future, and in a way that Section 230 should really forestall.

Reid was ostensibly only being sued for the commentary that she added to her re-posts of the original picture, and not the photographer's original tweet. Had it been the latter, Section 230 would have more clearly applied. Asserting it for her own speech is an aggressive argument, but not a ridiculous one. It's also not one that the court dismissed out of hand. As that prior precedent made clear, liability for speech hinges on who imbued the speech with its allegedly wrongful quality. Reid argued that it wasn't her: The original post had been of a picture of the plaintiff seemingly shouting threateningly at a Latino boy, and included a caption indicating that this picture was captured at an event where racist invective was shouted at him. Thus it was reasonable to take the original post as the statement that La Liberte was one of the people doing that shouting. Unfortunately that statement turned out to be wrong, but Reid repeating that statement in her own words was not what introduced the wrongfulness. Therefore she was not actually the "information content provider" with respect to this message, and Section 230 should have applied.

The trouble is, in the court's view, she had been the one to imbue the message with its wrongful quality. What might have made this case a close call was that the original post had only included an unspecific "they" in reference to the shouters, whereas Reid had attributed it to the plaintiff by name. However that attribution had already been made in the original post not by her name, true, but by her picture. Thus Reid did not introduce anything new to the overall expression. Indeed, that she believed, albeit erroneously, that the plaintiff had screamed the invective at the boy was because that was the message the original post had conveyed. It may have been an erroneous message, but she was not the one who originated it.

The problem with now finding her the "information content provider" in this situation is that it reads into Section 230 a duty of care that does not exist in the statutory language, requiring people who share others' expression to make some sort of investigation into the veracity of that expression. While it might be good if people did we certainly would like for people sharing things on social media to be careful about what they were sharing Section 230 exists because it is hard to get intermediation of expression right, and we risk choking off speech if we make it legally risky to get wrong. (See what happened to Reid, where even if she had been wrong about the significance of the underlying tweet, it was a reasonable error to make.)

Worse, not only would it chill social media sharing, but this decision is unlikely to stay tightly cabined to that sort of intermediation of others' expression. If it were the rule that you had to vet the expression you allowed to be shared before you could be safe from sharing other people's expression, then Section 230 could almost never apply and *everyone* would be vulnerable to being sued over the expression they intermediate, since no matter how much care they took since they'd still have to defend those efforts in court. Such a rule would represent a profound shift in how Section 230 works, which up to now has not been conditional. Twenty-plus years of jurisprudence has made clear that Section 230 protection is not contingent on the intermediary vetting the expression produced by third parties that it helps share, and this decision undermines that clarity. And not just for social media users, but the platforms they use as well.

Ultimately, if Section 230 can apply to individuals sharing others' social media posts (prior precedent supports that conclusion, and this court accepted it as well [see footnote 8]) and if it can apply to original, summarizing content (as this court also accepted), then there's no principled reason it should not have applied here.

Limited-purpose public figures

Denying Section 230 protection is only the tip of the iceberg. Not only does it make people who share on social media vulnerable to being sued, but other aspects of the decision make it more likely that it is litigation they will lose.

The court's refusal to find that the plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure is one of these aspects. Because open discourse about matters of public concern is a value the First Amendment exists to protect, the Supreme Court has developed the concept of the "public figure" to help ensure that it is. A public figure is someone whose fame has so intertwined them in matters of public interest that they must plead "actual malice," a fairly exacting standard, on the part of a speaker in order to prevail on a claim that the speaker defamed them.

Here, no one argued that the plaintiff was a general purpose public figure. But there are also "limited-purpose public figures." These are people who are not inherently intertwined in matters of public interest but who may insert themselves in matters that are and thus become public figures within the context of that matter. In such cases they would also need to plead actual malice in any defamation lawsuit where there had been commentary about them in this context.

Reid argued that the plaintiff was a limited purpose public figure. In particular, she regularly appeared at council meetings about the immigration issue and had been visibly, and publicly, vocal on the subject. The court rejected the contention:

That is not nearly enough. [T]he district court did not take into account the requirement that a limited purpose public figure maintain "regular and continuing access to the media." One reason for imposing the actual malice burden on public figures and limited purpose public figures is that "[t]hey have media access enabling them to effectively defend their reputations in the public arena." We have therefore made "regular and continuing access to the media" an element in our four-part test for determining whether someone is a limited purpose public figure. [p. 24-25]

Per the court, "La Liberte plainly lacked such media access." [p. 25].

The earlier photograph, which showed her conversing, was in a Washington Post photo spread of attendees at an SB 54 protest. The article did not name La Liberte, let alone mention her views. The single caption described everyone depicted as [s]upporters and opponents of [SB 54] rally[ing] and debat[ing] outside Los Alamitos City Hall. Such incidental and anonymous treatment hardly bespeaks regular and continuing access to the media. [p. 25]

Furthermore:

Nor does La Libertes participation at city council meetings. La Liberte is said to have testif[ied] eight times around the state (Appellees Br. at 26 (citing App. at 102-05)); but Reid does not identify instances in which the media singled out La Libertes participation as newsworthy. Nor does speech, even a lot of it, make a citizen (or non-citizen) fair game for attack. Imposition of the actual malice requirement on people who speak out at government meetings would chill public participation in politics and community dialogue. [p. 26]

The problem with this analysis is that it better applies to why a person engaging in civic affairs does not become a full-fledged public figure, where every aspect of their life can be a matter of public interest. It misses the significance of why we have the limited purpose public figure doctrine in the first place, which is that in the context of a specific matter of public concern a person's behavior can become a matter of public interest. Here the plaintiff had concertedly inserted herself into a matter of public concern the policymaking surrounding immigration - on a "regular and continuing" and conspicuously public basis. The court's ruling puts that public behavior beyond the reach of effective public comment by treating it as if it were private and thus lowering the standard of what the plaintiff would have to plead to support a defamation claim.

State anti-SLAPP in federal court

The decision also reaches an unfortunate conclusion we've taken issue with before: disallowing state anti-SLAPP laws in cases that end up in federal court via diversity jurisdiction. It's a conclusion that seems to reflect dubious constitutional analysis, is bad policy, and in this case, conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent.

As we explained before:

Diversity jurisdiction arises when the parties in the litigation are from separate states and the amount in controversy is more than $75,000 and the issue in dispute is solely a question of state law. Federal courts ordinarily can't hear cases that only involve state law, but because of the concern that it could be unfair for an out-of-state litigant to have to be heard in a foreign state court, diversity jurisdiction can allow a case that would have been heard in state court to be heard by the federal one for the area instead.

At the same time, we don't want it to be unfair for the other party to now have to litigate in federal court if being there means it would lose some of the protection of local state law. We also don't want litigants to be too eager to get into federal court if being there could confer an advantage they would not have had if the case were instead being heard in state court. These two policy goals underpin what is commonly known as the "Erie doctrine," named after a 1938 US Supreme Court case that is still followed today.

The first problem with the Second Circuit's decision is that it does not even *mention* the Erie doctrine instead it just dives right into a procedural rules' analysis. [p. 13]. The second problem is that its decision directly conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent that applied Erie to find that California's anti-SLAPP law indeed applied in federal diversity occasions. In other words, the Second Circuit has just reached across the country and into the Ninth Circuit to snatch away the protection of a law that the Ninth Circuit already had assured Californians that they had.

The third problem is that it is bad policy because it would encourage forum-shopping, which is normally discouraged. As the Ninth Circuit articulated in that case, US Ex Rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co.:

[I]f the anti-SLAPP provisions are held not to apply in federal court, a litigant interested in bringing meritless SLAPP claims would have a significant incentive to shop for a federal forum. Conversely, a litigant otherwise entitled to the protections of the Anti-SLAPP statute would find considerable disadvantage in a federal proceeding.

The Second Circuit appeared indifferent to these concerns:

Finally, amici warn that refusal to apply the anti-SLAPP statute will encourage forum shopping and lead to an increased burden on federal courts in this Circuit. (Amici Br. at 11.) That may be so; but our answer to a legal question does not turn on our workload; and in any event, the incentive to forum-shop created by a circuit split can be fixed, though not here. [p. 16]

The concern about forum-shopping is not that it will overburden federal courts; the concern the is manifest unfairness to defendants that will arise when they suddenly lose the benefit of the the substantive protections for speech California gave them and upon which they may have depended on to speak because an out-of-state litigant was able haul them into federal court.

Mootness

It is also not clear why the Second Circuit even reached the anti-SLAPP question. If its public figure analysis was correct, the defense would be unlikely to be able to even use it, because by that logic the expression at issue would have failed to meet the anti-SLAPP law's requirement that it be about a matter of "public issue." Thus there was no need for this court to ever reach the anti-SLAPP question, and yet it chose to opine on it first, before even reaching the Section 230 and then the public figure discussions. But because after those latter two analyses there was no reason to reach the anti-SLAPP discussion, and it raises the question of whether at this point it was even a ripe enough issue for the court to have had appellate jurisdiction over. But even if it did, doctrines of judicial restraint should have precluded deciding the issue and creating a mess that speakers who thought they were protected will now have to contend with.

Filed Under: 2nd circuit, anti-slapp, defamation, joy reid, la liberte, public figure, retweets, section 230

More here:

Second Circuit Wrecks All Sorts Of First Amendment Protections To Keep Lawsuit Against Joy Reid Alive - Techdirt

Im not old enough to have watched ABCs Wide World of Sports myself, but Ive heard tell. Apparently, there were all sorts of events televised on the program, from log rolling to arm wrestling to demolition derbies.

The Blades news headlines werent so different this past week. On Tuesday, Brighton City Council unanimously voted to opt out of Tri-County Health Departments mask mandate, joining other cities that could be on the more conservative end of the political spectrum. Eventually, that vote was nullified by Gov. Jared Polis statewide mandate.

However, city councils vote, its leadup and its aftermath were fascinating to observe. Some people see mask wearing as a simple act that helps ensure public health and safety. Others cite different scientific claims arguing the opposite. Then theres a whole other cohort that opposes the mandate because they dont like orders from Tri-Countys board, who Mayor Greg Mills called unelected bureaucrats. After council cast its vote, residents didnt hesitate to share those differing opinions with fierce passion.

The night thereafter, I saw another side of politics I hadnt previously: First Amendment auditing. At a city council finalist meet-and-greet, three YouTubers showed up to pose a series of questions to finalist Jane Shang. All the while, they live streamed the confrontation on YouTube. After the confrontation happened, I pulled these figures aside to ask them questions, which they also proceeded to live stream.

The next day, I learned a little more about their shtick. First Amendment auditors is a term loosely used to describe a community of YouTubers that tests the First Amendments limits. A person in that camp who I spoke with described another auditor as a constitutionalist, or in this instance, someone who acts out of an inerrant, superseding belief in rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

These auditors live stream themselves in public, confronting police officers or public officials who they allege are corrupt. They keep at it until, many times, authorities see no other choice but to arrest them. When that YouTuber is arrested, though, their supporters might see them as a martyr, only fueling the movement.

No arrests happened at the meet-and-greet, but the YouTubers certainly made a scene. Eric Brandt, one of the auditors in attendance, told me that instead of getting Shang to admit to wrongdoing, I was there to get that womans reaction. In other words, he was trolling Shang out of deeply held political beliefs, and he did it all through a specific social media platform.

The politics I observed this past week, with both the mask debate and First Amendment auditing, were completely new to me. I saw libertarianism and constitutionalism in ways I wasnt previously exposed to. By the way, Im not commenting on the merit of those ideologies or whether I think theyre right or wrong. Thats not my place as a reporter. My whole point is that Im fascinated by it all. You cant make it up.

Im not surprised that new forms of political eclecticism are coming out of the woodwork in Brighton. To the south of the city is relatively liberal Denver and to the north is relatively conservative Weld County. Brighton is smack dab in the middle. What surprises me is how eclectic that eclecticism is. So, Brighton, thanks for keeping it spicy.

Cheers,

Liam

Read and share your thoughts on this story

Here is the original post:

Staff column: the Wide World of Politics, in Brighton - Brighton Standard-Blade

On Thursday, the Technology and Press Freedom Projects Linda Moon will join Digital Strategist Tim Schwartz, author of A Public Service: Whistleblowing, Disclosure, and Anonymity, for a webinar dedicated to unpacking the rights of journalists and content producers during times of pandemic and protest. The webinar, hosted by Alley, a digital consulting firm, will explore strategies to help journalists safely document protests and police brutality and work with sources securely and remotely. Register for the webinarhere.

Also, the First Amendment Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law is hiring alegal fellowfor the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 academic years. The fellow will work with Reporters Committee attorneys Gabe Rottman and Jennifer Nelson, who administer the Clinic.

Heres what the staff of the Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is tracking this week.

A journalist has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming police violated his federal and state constitutional rights, including the right to record police activity in public, after he was tackled and arrested while covering aJune 1 Black Lives Matter protestin Asbury Park, New Jersey.

According to a filingin the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Gustavo Martnez Contreras, a reporter for the Asbury Park Press, waslive-streaming the protestwhen he noticed police officers violently arrest two teenagers. The reporter was backing away from the scene, per instructions by the officers, but continued to record.

As documented in footage from the reporter and police body-worn cameras, officers then swore at Martnez Contreras, slapped his phone out of his hand, tackled him, and arrested him. The filing alleges that an officer later asked about the badge the journalist was wearing around his neck, which showed his press credentials, and that Martnez Contreras identified himself as a reporter on four other occasions.

The complaint, filed on July 13, notes that reporters rights must be as ingrained in policing as Miranda rights, and asks the court to order police not to interfere with First Amendment activities in the future. It also asks that the court require law enforcement to change their policies to prevent such interference, and for unspecified damages.

A press badge should not be a bullseye, the filing reads. Reporters should not be in danger of violence or arrest at the hands of the police seeking to silence their reports on public protests especially where those reports cover police violence against civilians protesting peacefully against police misconduct.

The same day the suit was filed, the Reporters Committeesent a letterto New Jersey officials protesting a local prosecutors reliance on Reporters Committee resources to clear the officers who arrested Martnez Contreras of wrongdoing.

Ininvestigative findingsreleased on June 8, the Monmouth County prosecutors office, which covers Asbury Park, claimed that the officers reasonably believed Martnez Contreras was a protester disobeying a lawful order. The report further claimed that the officers did not know Martnez Contreras was a reporter because he was allegedly not wearing bright clothing. The prosecutors office cited the Reporters Committeesguideandtip sheetfor journalists covering protests, which only provide practical safety advice, including that journalists should try not to wear clothing that matches what protesters are wearing.

The relevant legal standard, however, is whether officers reasonably should have known that Martnez Contreras was a reporter. The letter thus argues that the Reporters Committees resources do not support the prosecutors arguments, and asks that the findings be updated accordingly.

Abe Kenmore

NPR recentlyreportedthat foreign nationals working for Voice of America and other U.S. international broadcasters may not have their visas extended upon expiration, raisingfurther concernsover theeditorial independenceof VOA and its sister services. A decision not to renew these visas could impact dozens of employees, some of whom could face retaliation for their reporting if forced to return to their home countries.

The video app TikTok said it received500 demands for user datafrom governments in the first half of the year, up 67 percent from the second half of 2019. Most demands came from India which has since banned the app. The company reported that none of the demands were from China, the home of TikToks parent company. Reporters at theWashington Postrecently analyzed the data TikTok collects from users.

Verizon recentlylauncheda feature called Number Lock to provide added security to its customers. Number Lock allows users to prevent scammers from SIM swapping, or transferring a users number to another carrier in order to take control of bank, email, and social media accounts.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper has announcedan investigationwithin the Pentagon to weed out leakers, while White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadowsreportedly told some staffersthat he has fed information to suspected leakers to determine whether they then pass the information to the media. The inquiry comes in the wake of disclosures that led to reports of Russia offering bounties to Afghan militants for killing American troops.

On Thursday, Twitterreportedthat it was the target of a coordinated social engineering attack, which resulted in the accounts of hundreds of popular users posting spam-like messages about crypto currency. The company said the breach was conducted by unspecified individuals who targeted company employees with access to sensitive internal administrative systems.

Smart reads

Adeep diveby Voxs Recode explores the development and future of smartphone trackers, which can extract and aggregate data from a wide variety of apps.

Thisanalysisfrom the Columbia Journalism Review details the lengths media organizations have gone to in order to obtain and disseminate accurate data about COVID-19. Many news outlets have sued local officials for access to data, while others have created their own statistical tools to provide a complete picture of the pandemic in the absence of similar government resources.

Gif of the Week:Many quick hits this week remind us that cell phones can raise paw-sonal privacy issues.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get This Week in Technology + Press Freedom delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee Attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Fellow Linda Moon, Legal Fellows Jordan Murov-Goodman and Lyndsey Wajert, Policy Interns Abe Kenmore and Joey Oteng, and Legal Intern Sasha Peters.

Visit link:

This Week in Technology + Press Freedom: July 19, 2020 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

In December 2018, the Potsdam Village Board of Trustees passed a junk storage law to address issues of unsightly items left out in public.

The new local law requires that items that could be categorized as junk cannot be in sight of people traveling the public highways, streets or thoroughfares of the village, according to the law, according to a story published Dec. 4, 2018, in the Watertown Daily Times. In a statement on the purpose of the measure, the village Board of Trustees wrote that having visible junk on front lawn is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The board also claimed that junk posed an attractive nuisance to children and may imperil their safety and that junk depreciates the value of property upon which junk is found as well as neighboring properties.

Trustees said this law was not an attempt to target parcels of land owned by Frederick J. Robar Sr.; they just believed some folks needed to tidy up around their homes. However, its difficult taking this claim seriously.

Since 2004, Mr. Robar has displayed what he calls toilet gardens. Its no secret that village officials dont hold their constituents artistic sentiments in high esteem, and the junk storage law was the latest mechanism implemented to compel him to clean up his sites.

Mr. Robar popped onto the villages radar in 2004 when he asked to get a zone change at his property on 82-84 Market St. so he could sell it to a buyer who would put in a Dunkin Donuts. When the village denied his request, he set up what is referred to now as a toilet garden. Since then, he and the village have butted heads twice inconclusively and unsuccessfully in the village court system, a June 30 article in the Times reported. In 2008, the village issued Mr. Robar an appearance ticket for a code violation. Mr. Robar argued that the toilet gardens are art and its his First Amendment right to have them. The case was dismissed because code enforcement officer John F. Hill failed to bring documents to the court. In 2010 the village tried again, but after the presiding judge resigned amid cocaine-use allegations, the case was dropped and the village decided not to pursue it.

Representatives of Clarkson University, the St. Lawrence Health System and Temple Beth El spoke out against Mr. Robars gardens. There likely arent too many people who enjoy viewing rows of toilets on adjacent property.

But Mr. Robars attorney, Mark Snider, said the law was created to punish his client after the fact. This would violate his constitutional rights, Mr. Snider said.

The village has so far been unable to force Mr. Robar to dismantle the gardens. This unconventional artist has maintained his landscape scenery through a court of law if not the court of public opinion. Officials are scheduled to discuss the matter Monday.

But for Potsdam to pursue this further may be flushing good tax dollars down the well, you know. This could end up being an expensive legal battle for the village with nothing in the end being changed.

The junk storage law does not apply to Mr. Robars properties. Hes not merely dumping unused bathroom fixtures outside his home because he doesnt know what else to do with them. He placed the toilets there as a personal expression, an act clearly protected by the First Amendment.

Village officials may not appreciate his artistic objective, but thats irrelevant. Its not their job to define what constitutes free speech the U.S. Constitution already does that.

Potsdam authorities are violating Mr. Robars rights by mandating he adhere to their idea of an acceptable visual presentation, and they need to stop their campaign against him.

Excerpt from:

Editorial A flushtrated community: Potsdam trampling on First Amendment rights of toilet artist - NNY360

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, real estate owners and tenants have faced unprecedented day-to-day operational challenges from the loss of business and income. Two new real estate lawsuits seek to address these issues.

The first is by a flagship retail lingerie store tenant doing business in the heart of Herald Square. The second is by property owners seeking a judicial declaration that new legislation enacted by the City Council on June 20 [Commercial Harassment Law (New York City Local Law 53 of 2020), Residential Harassment Law (New York City Local Law 56 of 2020), and the Guaranty Law (New York City Local Law 55 of 2020), collectively, the Harassment Law] is constitutionally defective and unenforceable. Victorias Secret Stores v. Herald Square Owner LLC, No. 651833/2020, (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. 2020) and Melendez et al. v. City of New York et al., No. 20 Civ. 05301, (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The outcomes of these two cases may significantly impact the real estate industry and subsequent lawsuits, shifting the burdens of the pandemic from one segment of society to another.

On June 8, 2020, Victorias Secret sued its landlord, Herald Square Owner LLC, in New York State Supreme Court in connection with its lease of Two Herald Square claiming the store has been shuttered since mid-March and abandoned due to COVID-19. Victorias Secret seeks a declaration that its obligation to pay the $937,734.17 monthly rent is rescinded. The suit is predicated on three legal theories: frustration of purpose, impossibility of performance and reformation of the lease.

The Landlord recently moved to dismiss the Complaint. It first alleges that the parties negotiated and agreed to limit the abatement of rent (in a provision not found in the standard form commercial leases), whereby the Tenant agreed that if forced to close its store for 6 consecutive days solely because Landlord failed to perform any obligation, where such failure is expressly not caused by governmental preemption in connection with a national emergency or government order. Second, it argues that the contractual defenses of frustration of purpose and impossibility of performance are limited to cases where the event was not foreseen at the time the lease was made and the parties could have limited their exposure contractually, but did not do so. Third, the Landlord contends that the two types permissible reformation (scriveners error and mutual mistake) do not apply here, insofar as this particular lease generally allocated risk requiring the Tenant to pay rent for any forced store closing that is not due to an inexcusable failure solely by the Landlord, that the mistake was not about a fact existing at the time of lease execution and that such reformation is time-barred (6 years from the date of signing here, August 2001).

Victorias Secrets opposition to the Landlords motion is not due until July 29, 2020. Oral argument awaits.

On July 10, plaintiffs Marcia Melendez and Ling Yang both first-generation immigrants and landlords, sued in the Southern District of New York seeking to invalidate the Harassment Laws and Guarantee Law. They allege that the Harassment Laws violate the First Amendment, insofar as they prohibit otherwise lawful commercial speech (i.e., owners requesting the payment of rent and back rent). They contend that the Harassment Laws impermissibly restrict speech, and do not directly advance a government interest, nor are they tailored to meet that interest. Plaintiffs claim that the interest in helping small business owners is not advanced by the legislation, which actually hurts them as small business property owners insofar as it prevents them from making otherwise lawful requests for rent and back rent. The Plaintiffs further claim that the legislation is overly broad and vague by failing to define material terms. (Notably, the law itself does not define the term threatening or impacted by COVID-19.) The Harassment Laws impose civil penalties of $10,000 - $50,000. Parallel Fourteenth Amendment due process claims are also alleged under both federal and state law.

The Plaintiffs also bring another constitutional challenge against the Guarantee Law, claiming that it violates the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution that restricts passage of any law impairing the obligation of contracts (here, leases), by prohibiting landlords from enforcing personal (good guy) guarantees for unpaid rent owed by the tenant for the period March 7, 2020 to September 20, 2020. They argue that the law bars them forever from collecting unpaid rent, utilities, fees, building maintenance charges, or taxes owed by the tenant for defaults occurring during the same seven-month period by defining such collection efforts as harassment.

Finally, the Plaintiffs allege that the Harassment Laws directly conflict with existing New York State laws, particularly the State Legislatures conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Governor the authority to shape the contours of his Executive Orders on a state-wide basis to address the pandemic. The City has not yet responded to the lawsuit, which has been assigned to Judge Gregory H. Woods.

As we noted in our prior AF Alert, the force majeure defense in New York generally does not apply to the obligation to pay rent. This may be why Victorias Secret did not allege it (or possibly because as the landlord alleges, no such clause is in the lease). By the same token, New York law restricts the defenses of impossibility of performance and frustration of purpose to instances where the event triggering the lawsuit was unforeseen at the time the parties signed the lease. Victorias Secret like many other suits recently filed thus pits the classic battle between the express language of the lease against the tenants contention that COVID-19 was unforeseen. Parties would be advised to review their lease with a view toward negotiating appropriate language in connection with amendments, renewals, or rent adjustments. It would also be prudent to review insurance policies for coverage for specific causes of loss.

In regard to the Melendez case, the United States Supreme Courts decision in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) set up the first question that the district court likely will address: whether the speech at issue here (owners request for rent or back rent) is fraudulent or illegal. The Plaintiffs contend that there was negligible evidence demonstrating that landlords were using fraudulent means in requesting the rent. If the speech is found fraudulent or illegal, though, government regulation may be freely applied without First Amendment constraints. Proper consideration of whether the governments interest in protecting tenants was sufficiently tailored will also be at issue. The claims will also test whether the demand for rent during such a pandemic is fraught with overreaching or simply a contractual obligation that ought to be enforced. Stay tuned.

More:

New Developments in COVID-19 Litigation for New York City Landlords: Saving Grace or Hail Mary? - JD Supra

President Donald Trump talks to reporters on Monday in the White House about expanding his secret police force.Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images

Over the weekend, a group of Portland, Oregon, moms confronted federal officers who had fired tear gas at them and other peaceful protesters on Saturday outside of a federal courthouse. The escalation of the Portland protests came as unidentified federal officers in paramilitary uniforms were caught on tape abducting protesters and as President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he might send more federal law enforcement to cities run by liberal Democrats to replicate the Portland tactics against protesters, including efforts to grab them, a lot of people in jail. On Monday, it was reported that the Department of Homeland Security would be sending 150 federal agents to Chicago this week with an unspecified mandate. The apparent legal justification for the abduction of protesters is weak, and it should be vigorously challenged in the courts before Trump can export these tactics to other cities for use against citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Last week, people wearing combat fatigues were seen pulling apparently peaceful protesters off the streets of Portland, Oregon, and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. Their uniforms carried no identifying insignia, but they were clearly military uniforms.Based on the video evidence so far, the people being arrested were not engaged in crime. So we are faced with two questions.First, are these people military personnel, or are they police officers dressed up like soldiers? Second, do these people have the authority to sweep people off the street like this?

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the answer to the first question is that the force patrolling the streets of Portland consists of the FederalProtective Service, whose job it is to protect federal property. Personnel from other federal agenciesprincipally the Border Patrolhave also reportedly been deputized to assist in that mission.So these uniformed personnel are a militarized police force, which is always a dangerous thing. The answer to the second question is that, under the Fourth Amendment, this force does not have the authority to detain people like this. But government lawyers will rely on expansive theories of police power that cripple Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizures.This would not be the first time the federal government has tried this, though it appears to be one of the first targeting people exercising their First Amendment right to protest.

The Federal Protective Service has the authority to make arrests if the officer or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a felony.If that doesnt sound right to you, it shouldnt. People cant be arrested unless the arresting officer has probable causenot merely reasonable groundsto believe a crime has been committed or is underway. Thats required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which presumptively prohibits seizures without probable cause.

The problem is that this presumption has been overwhelmed by constitutional semantics.When the Supreme Court decided that the stop-and-frisk tactic was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, it created a category of detention short of an arrest and authorized it where a police officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime, instead of probable cause.Over time, the court has set aside the probable cause requirement for every seizure that doesnt count as the direct enforcement of criminal law. When Border Patrol agents arrest someone for sneaking across the border, for example, they dont need probable cause.They dont even need a reasonable suspicion. They only need to detain the person in a reasonable mannerbecause patrolling the border is not criminal law enforcement.So both of the federal agencies involved here have been told they dont need probable cause to make arrests. And the legal theory behind these dangerous rules is the same: that these federal agents are engaged in protecting national security instead of criminal law enforcement.

But where the arrests in Portland are concerned, there are two reasons to believe that this wont stand up.First, there is the word felony in the law authorizing the Federal Protective Service to arrest without probable cause. An arrest for a felony is the direct enforcement of criminal law by definition. Nothing in the semantic campaign to drag as many seizures as possible into the national security category can change that definition. And an arrest for a felony requires probable cause.

Second, when government agents claim they have made a seizure for some purpose other than criminal law enforcementsuch as national securitythe Supreme Court has allowed the target of that seizure to argue that this purported purpose is an unlawful pretext. In the arrests captured on video so far, no imminent threat to federal property can be seen. More importantly, while Trump occasionally mentions protecting property, he has insisted again and again that city officials have failed to get control over antifa, anarchists, and agitators, and that he will do the job if they cant.If we take the president at his word, then the defense of property is a pretext, and the law allowing arrests on a reasonable basis for that purpose doesnt apply.

The uniforms these government agents are wearing are a deliberate attempt to evade accountability. But ultimately, it doesnt matter which federal agency is committing these unlawful seizures.Constitutional search and seizure questions turn on what government officials do, not which agency they work for.The important thing is that federal agents are lawless actors here. Their uniforms are nothing more or less than part of the national security pretext for their actions.

It is important to understand the full implications of the governments legal theory as it is playing out in Portland. It is the equivalent of declaring martial law for purposes of national security, based on the lie that military force is needed to keep the peace. Imposing martial law for national security is a tool of dictators, and Donald Trump has been a dictator in waiting for years. We can only hope that the wait isnt over.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Read the rest here:

Trumps Legal Justification for the Abduction of Portland Protesters Is Absurd - Slate

Care provided to chimpanzees at Project Chimps, a sanctuary for chimpanzees located in Georgia, has come under fire by [m]ore than 20 former staffers and volunteers, as reported by Rachel Fobar in Animal Wildlife Watch on July 8, 2020. Wildlife watch is an investigative reporting project between National Geographic Society and National Geographic Partners.

In 2015, NIH announced that it would retire the 50 NIH-owned chimpanzees that were then available for research, send them to sanctuaries and would also phase out its funding for the remaining research chimpanzees that it supports.

At the time, and since then, those involved with and responsible for the care of chimpanzees at universities and primate facilities expressed concern that the care these chimps would receive in sanctuaries would not meet the same standards of excellence in the facilities where staff had extensive training and expertise in their care, as previously reported.

As Dr. Cindy Buckmaster, Chair of Americans for Medical Progress described in 2016, some chimps who had been moved from their long-term care facilities to new sanctuaries suffered and some died after such a move. For example, Gimp, a 45 year old disabled chimp, tragically died after he was introduced and attacked by new cohorts at a sanctuary he had been relocated to. He had previously been housed at the retirement facility Chimpanzee Breeding and Rehabilitation Resource in Bastrop, Texaslater known as the Keeling Center and now officially coined the National Center for Chimpanzee Care (NCCC) for 35 of his 45 years. Gimp was described as a sweet, vulnerable chimp who would not hurt a sole.

If the reports about Project Chimps are true, then such unintended consequences resulting from the forced relocation of chimps to such sanctuaries may be repeated. Project Chimps, reportedly funded in part by the Humane Society of the United States, has been cited by USDA inspectors for (1) storing containers of materials toxic to the chimps including bleach and other disinfectants on an open shelf in the chimp housing areas (described as a repeat citation during a routine inspection on April 25, 2019; (2) on July 26, 2017 there were 2 non-compliant items listed on the inspection report, one for failure to maintain feed as required and without required labeling; and another because [t]he enrichment plan currently incorporated into the Chimpanzee Care Manual is not complete. It does not address the current social housing structure and the special considerations for chimps that may exhibit signs of psychological distress, juveniles and individually housed; and (3) on May 11, 2017 USDA was not able to inspect the facility because reportedly, [a] responsible adult was not available to accompany APHIS Officials during the inspection process at 11:50 am on that day.

Project Chimps filed a lawsuit against two former employees, Crystal Alba and Lindsay Vanderhoogt, first in state court on June 1, 2020 and later in federal court on July 13, 2020. In the latter lawsuit, which appears to be the active case, the following counts are alleged against one or both defendants: Breach of Contract, Defamation and Libel, Misappropriation under the Defend Secrets Act, Misappropriation under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act, Conversion, Tortious Interference with Business Relations, Violation of the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act, Violation of the Stored Communication Act and Civil Conspiracy. Project Chimp alleges that the chimps medical records are amongst the documents it claims are its trade secrets.

No answer or substantive response has been filed by defendants in response to the Complaint. It remains to be seen whether whistleblower status and first amendment defenses will be raised. The parties have entered into settlement discussions, according to the Animal Wildlife Watch article.

[View source.]

Original post:

Allegations Swirl Around The Care Of Chimpanzees At Project Chimps, As reported In Animal Wildlife Watch - JD Supra

At least six more athletic conferences across various National Collegiate Athletic Association divisions announced on Friday that they were canceling fall conference play or postponing until the spring.

The Colonial Athletic Association on Friday canceled its schedule of conference football play for the fall due to the coronavirus pandemic, but member universities are permitted to pursue an independent football schedule. The CAA teams play in the NCAA's DivisionI Football Championship Subdivision.

The conference said it would explore the possibility of organizing a football season next spring.

A number of colleges that play football in the conference announced they were suspending fall sports, including football, or postponing the season until the winter or spring. Colleges that made such announcements included the College of William & Mary, in Virginia; the State University of New York at Albany; Towson University, in Maryland; and the Universities of Delaware, Maine and New Hampshire.

Several other conference members indicated they still plan or hope to play fall sports despite the cancellation of conference play. James Madison University, in Virginia, the reigning conference championship and runner-up in the FCS national championship game last season, said it remains committed to an open exploration of various options for its competitive seasons for all sports in keeping with evolving guidance on health and public safety.

The America East and Atlantic 10 conferences, both DivisionI conferences that do not sponsor conference play in football, announced they were postponing all fall sports until the spring. The Atlantic10 said, however, that its members had agreed to what they described as a look-in window in mid-September, allowing for a potentially truncated competitive schedule amongst conference opponents if the COVID-19 risk has substantially been reduced.

The East Coast Conference, which is affiliated with the NCAAs DivisionII, and two DivisionIII conferences -- the Commonwealth Coast Conference and the North Eastern Athletic Conference -- also announced cancellations of intercollegiate competition for the fall semester.

Several other conferences, including the Ivy League, the New England Small College Athletic Conference and the Patriot League, previously announced cancellation of fall sports. Two football powerhouse conferences, the Pacific-12 and the BigTen, have said they will only schedule conference games.

In nonathletic news, Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian college in Michigan famous for its refusal to accept government funding, held an in-person graduation ceremony on Saturday in defiance of state Attorney General Dana Nessel, whose office called the event illegal, The Detroit News reported. Outdoor gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited under executive order in Michigan, where COVID-19 cases are rising.

The ceremony came at the end of three days of festivities including dinners, cocktails, music recitals and a party, according to The Detroit News. The college required attendees to wear masks and took their temperatures. At some events, attendees were seated six feet apart and instructed not to walk around.

Hillsdale defended the legality of its outdoor commencement, saying in a press release issued in advance of the ceremony it was "consistent with the governors executive orders providing that you can have these outdoor First Amendment expressive events subject to [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines."

This is not an act of defiance -- this is totally legal, Robert Norton, Hillsdale's vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. Because this is a core First Amendment expressive activity, the governors own guidance and the FAQs tell us that it is appropriate for us to be able to hold such an event as this if we follow leading medical guidelines. Were not only following those guidelines -- were exceeding them.

Ithaca College, a private college in the Finger Lakes region of New York, will not allow students from states on a travel advisory list maintained by New York State to travel to campus until their states are removed from the list, the Ithaca Journal reported. Students who hail from states on the list -- which as of Friday included 22 states -- will have to start classes online.

Under an executive order from Governor Andrew Cuomo, individuals from the 22 affected states must quarantine for 14 days upon arrival in New York. Ithaca administrators said they do not have the resources or infrastructure to quarantine the large number of students who would be affected by the quarantine order.

"As a result, we have made the difficult decision that students who have not remained in New York during the summer and whose permanent address is in a state on New Yorks mandatory quarantine list will need to take their classes remotely until the state of their permanent address is removed from the New York mandatory quarantine list," Ithaca said in a letter to students and families. "No exceptions will be granted."

Original post:

More conferences cancel fall sports and other COVID-19 news - Inside Higher Ed

Protesters and police gather in the Logan Square neighborhood on Saturday, July 18, 2020. (@soit_goes / Twitter)

Hundreds of protesters gathered near Mayor Lori Lightfoots Logan Square home late Saturday, continuing calls to defund the Chicago Police Department, end police presence in Chicago Public Schools and demand the district reverse stated plans to reopen schools in the fall amid the COVID-19 pandemic and instead implement fully remote learning.

Alycia Kamil, an activist with the organization GoodKids MadCity, said with CPS current plan to reopen schools, Lightfoot is putting childrens health at risk, and not taking into consideration the lack of access most Black and Brown students have when it comes to tools at home such as laptops or even internet access.

Police in riot gear barricaded the mayors block and a CPD armored vehicle was present as activists marched, chanted, sang and danced in the blocks surrounding the mayors home.

They come with war ready tactics for some unarmed teenagers, Kamil said. Its ridiculous. Ive become desensitized to war and scare tactics which is so worrisome to me because I know it can only really get worse.

In what has become a signature tactic at recent protests, activists looked up badge numbers of officers present at the scene and read aloud from an online database allegations of abuse and misconduct against those officers.

Saturday nights demonstration marked a comparatively peaceful follow-up to the events of Friday night, when an attempt by protesters to tear down the Christopher Columbus statue in Grant Park took a violent turn. Activists say police used tear gas on the crowd and beat some participants; according to a statement from CPD, some protesters threw frozen water bottles, cans and rocks at police officers, who were clad in riot gear.

The Civilian Office of Police Accountability announced Saturday afternoon it had opened investigations into the most egregious complaints alleging police misconduct during Fridays protests.

Residents of this City have a right to exercise their First Amendment rights, COPA Chief Administrator Sydney Roberts said in a statement. As the civilian led oversight body of the Chicago Police Department we take every complaint seriously, conduct our investigations with the utmost integrity and remain accountable to the residents of this City.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot addressed Friday nights protests in a statement, saying her administration had been in the process of developing a plan for public monuments as well as condemning violence on the part of both activists and police officers.

It is my sincere hope that we can strike the right balance to ensure people can rightfully express themselves and their First Amendment rights, but to do so in a way that does not put anyones physical safety at risk, Lightfoot said.

Among those making allegations of police brutality is 18-year-old Miracle Boyd, who was captured on cellphone video getting hit in the face by a CPD officer, which knocked out and broke Boyds front teeth.

Boyd and other members of GoodKids MadCity announced they will hold a press conference on Monday to discuss the clash with police in Grant Park.

Read more here:

Protesters Gather Near Mayor's Home Following Clash With Police in Grant Park - WTTW News

President Donald Trump said in an interview aired Sunday that he wants to have a "big rally" in Michigan but his campaign isn't allowed to during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The president made the comment during an interview with Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." Trump argued that Democrats are purposely keeping their schools and states closed. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has said changing the trajectory of new coronavirus cases in the state is key to schools reopening for in-person instruction in seven weeks.

"I called Michigan. I want to have a big rally in Michigan. Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Michigan?" Trump said. "Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Minnesota? Do you know were not allowed to have a rally in Nevada? Were not allowed to have rallies in these Democrat-run states."

President Donald Trump speaks during a law enforcement briefing in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, July 15, 2020, in Washington.(Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP)

Trump didn't identify the person or official he called about having an event in Michigan.

But Wallace responded, noting some would say the events are a "health risk." Trump then argued that officials would keep the events from taking place even if precautions were taken.

Whitmer's spokeswoman, Tiffany Brown, said the governor's administration hadn't heard from Trump about wanting to hold a rally in the state

Michigan had reported 6,119 deaths linked to COVID-19 as of Sunday and new cases of the virus have been rising in the state for weeks.

On Saturday night during a "tele-rally" over Facebook with supporters in Michigan, Trump also spoke of having an in-person event in the state, according to a recording provided by his campaign.

I want to get out there and do the rally as soon as we can and we will be doing that," the president said. "Between COVID and your governors restrictions, it really makes it very difficult but well be out there eventually."

In June, Whitmer, a Democrat, said she would think very seriously about trying to stop Trump from holding a rally in Michigan during the pandemic, according to an Associated Press report.

The state currently has limits on public gatherings in place to stem the spread of the virus but there are exceptions for protests and other events protected by the First Amendment.

In an interview on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Dr. Joneigh Khaldun, the state's chief medical executive, said she remains concerned about people gathering in large groups and making "simple things," like mask-wearing, political.

"I'm very concerned," Khaldun said. "But I'm also confident that Michiganders can do the right thing. Because we did it before. We saw over 150 deaths a day in Michigan back in March and April. We brought that curve down. So I am confident we can do that again."

Earlier this month, the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., told reporters that he wouldn't be shocked if Whitmer tried to prevent his father from holding events in the state ahead of the November election "under the guise" of COVID-19.

"There would be little shock to me whatsoever that she would do whatever they can under the guise of corona, of course," Trump Jr. said.

"Because again, you could do it safely. You could do it with masks. You could socially distance. You could still have those events realistically."

In response to Trump Jr.'s comments, Whitmer's spokesman Zack Pohl said the governor "is focused on saving the lives of Michigandersand remains unbothered by partisan games and political attacks."

"If the Trump administration was as concerned about protecting the publics health as it is about hosting dangerous rallies that can be breeding grounds for spreading COVID-19, perhaps there would be a national pandemic response plan or federal mask-up campaign to combat this virus that has already killed tens of thousands of Americans across the United States," Pohl said.

Trump won Michigan by 10,704 votes in 2016 when he became the first Republican presidential nominee since 1988 to carry the state but polls this summer have shown himtrailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Trump held a rally in Tulsa in June. According to the Associated Press, Tulsa City-County Health Department Director Dr. Bruce Dart said the event "likely contributed" to a surge in new cases of COVID-19.

cmauger@detroitnews.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/19/trump-wants-have-big-rally-michigan-says-he-isnt-allowed/5467709002/

Follow this link:

Trump wants to have a 'big rally' in Michigan, says he isn't allowed - The Detroit News

A Ninth Circuit opinion handed down in January affirmed the First Amendment principle that the right of public access to new court filings attaches as soon as the clerk receives them.

But during the preceding oral argument at the Ninth Circuits Pasadena courthouse, Judge Mary Murguia asked a natural question: Doesnt Ventura County have to docket those physical files first?

I remembered the question because earlier this year, on the other side of the country, Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. asked in essence the same question.

Well, the thing of it is, the clerk has got to make some record of the case being filed before they put it in the box, said Morgan on the federal bench in Norfolk, Virginia. I mean, somebody could walk off with a newly filed case, and if the clerk hadnt entered it somehow

Being in the audience, I could not answer Murguia, but, being in the witness box, I could answer Morgan. Your Honor, there was a, usually like in federal court in Los Angeles, there was an intake log with the case numbers, and the intake clerk did put a case number on the case.

So there was some form of processing before it was placed in the box.

Yes, sir. And the stamping and processing of the check.

***

Read the Schaefer trial transcript: Volume 1Volume 2Volume 3Volume 4

***

Those procedures are part of intake, the actual filing of a legal document, not the later work of putting that filing into the courts docket. Rulings in both cases one against a clerk in California, the other against two clerks in Virginia affirmed a First Amendment right of access at the point of the clerks receipt. But both cases also involved courts based on paper, a medium that is fast disappearing in the rearview mirror of history.

So the same question will be asked by a judge in the future about a digital court: Doesnt the court need to docket those electronic files first?

The answer is more simple in the digital era.

A new document sent electronically from a lawyer to the clerk is filed on its receipt. It is automatically given a number, either a case number or a transaction number, and housed on a server controlled by the court.

Nobody can walk off with it.

In that digital world, the arguments against press access get tougher. Because the e-filed document itself is secure and accounted for. That answers the doubt expressed by both judges.

At that point, the matter of access-on-receipt is no longer a practical one. It is now purely a matter of First Amendment interpretation.

Should the press have access at the point of receipt.

The answer from restrictionist clerks will, based on experience, not rely on facts, because the facts are inconvenient. The answer will instead rely on an analogy that I call The Ghost of Williamsburg.

At a conference on public access organized by the Conference of State Court Administrators that took place in Williamsburg from 2013 to 2016, the overriding theme was that public access to public records in electronic form should be restricted.

In the course of panel discussions, an analogy emerged to combat the notion of press access on receipt. It went like this: You reporters want to go up to people waiting in line and ask them what they are about to file.

In the years since the conference, that old ghost of an analogy keeps popping up. I believe it hangs around because it has a purpose. It allows restrictionists to suggest that the press is asking for something new and crazy, While theyre in line! Ridiculous!

But the analogy is false.

The point of filing was at the clerks counter in the paper world, and the press saw the new cases after they crossed over the counter. It is the same in the electronic world.

The point of filing is the clerks virtual counter where the documents are received and automatically given a number. The press corps wants to see the new cases after they have crossed that virtual counter, not, as the old ghost says, before.

As I have observed, it lurks only in the halls of state courts and has never been seen in a federal courthouse.

When it does show up, the Ghost of Williamsburg almost never comes alone. It is accompanied by a kind of illusion that involves redefining the word filing to mean the point at which the document is placed into the docket.

It goes like this: The document is not really filed until it is put in the case management system by the clerk and then it is backdated to the time it was received. The word backdated is used brazenly by clerks in this context.

But the illusion bumps up against the reality that court rules throughout America, state and federal courts, without exception, say an electronic document is filed when it is tendered or received. Not at the later point when it is placed in the docket.

So at some time in the future, a judge, faced with a First Amendment action over access to electronic filings, will surely ask the question: Doesnt the court need to docket those electronic files first?

And the answer will be: No. It does not.

_____

More stories and columns on the Virginia trial:

First Amendment Bright Line in the Digital Age * National Press Corps Enter First Amendment Fray to See Court Filings on Same Day*U.S. Judge Slaps Virginia Clerks With $2 Million Fee Award in First Amendment Case*E-Filing and the First Amendment* Matter of Choice *The Dicta: Guesswork About Press Access * Presumption and Fact: The Ask for Access *CNSs View Accurately Told*Access Solution: The E-Inbox *Access Law in the Electronic Age * Bread and News * Flip Side of Court Tech * First Amendment Right to See Court Documents on Day of Filing * Tradition of Same-Day Access * The News Cycle

Like Loading...

More:

Two Judges and the Williamsburg Ghost - Courthouse News Service

The US Army Esports team isguilty of a violation of theFirst Amendment, according toVera Eidelman, a staff attorney for the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. As reported by Vice, theUS Army Esports team, which regularly does streaming sessions on Twitch, banned several people from its channel forasking questions about USwar crimes. While speaking to the publication house,Eidelman said the US government or a government organisation cannot pick and choose what comments it allows on a public forum, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment'sfree speech protections.The staff attorney also claimed there's a recent history of "case law" to back the accusation.

Also Read |Hezbollah Protest Over US Army Commander Visit

Announced in 2018, the US Army Esports team consists of professional gamer who are either active to reserve personnel. The main agenda of the Esports team was generally to increase the appeal of the defence forces in front of the youth in order to boost its annual recruitment. However, since June 2020, the team has repeatedly embroiled itself in numerous controversies surrounding attempts to suppress theuncomfortable questions. It quickly turned into a game for the viewers to see how fast can one get banned from their Twitch or Discord channel by asking edgyquestions.

Also Read |SpaceX Signs Three-year Agreement With US Army To Assess Starlink Broadband

From linkingthe Wikipedia page forwar crimes committed by the United States to bombarding the comment section withanti-army jokesor memes, users have used multiple techniques to rile up theUS Army Esports into banning them. Activist Jordan Uhl,runs his own Twitch stream, told Vice: "It is interesting that(The Army is)being aggressive with removing any incidences of US war crimes (from their Twitch/Discord channels)in what is essentially a recruiting tool for the military. While Uhl understands its simple trolling by the users, he still feelsenraged that the Army isrecruiting on Twitch.

Uhl concludes stating if the US Army is looking to exploit "modern tools andplatforms" that are widely used by the younger generation today, the kids should at least have the right to what the military is all about and what it hasdonein the past.

Also Read |US Army Chief Of Staff Meets Thai PM

Also Read |Hundreds Petition Against The Constitutional AmendmentIn Russia

Here is the original post:

US Army eSports team accused of violating First Amendment Act: Report - Republic World - Republic World

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.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution

Donald J. Pickard has made the right call.

Reacting to a concern raised by a voter in Bourne, Mr. Pickard, who is the town moderator, has decided to drop the invocation at the start of Town Meeting.

Mr. Pickard said he understands that his decision will upset a number of people in town.

However, I believe it is more important that we do not offend anyone and their specific religious beliefs by providing an invocation that is perceived as Christianized, he said.

The First Amendment to the Constitution is usually mentioned in connection with freedom of speech or of the press.

But if you look even moderately closely at the wording of the amendment, youll see that theres more in there.

Besides freedom of speech and the press, the amendment also brings in the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of their grievancesa right brought home recently in the widespread and justified protests over the death of a Minneapolis man, George Floyd, while in police custody.

But the very first line of the First Amendment concerns religion: that Congress will not make any law respecting a particular religion or prohibiting the exercise of any religion.

The line was and remains a masterstroke. In 16 words, the Founders took religion off the table. Aware of then-recent European history, when religious wars had devastated the European continent from which they came, the Founders set the entire issue aside.

You can practice whatever religion you want, the First Amendment says, but dont expect that the government will elevate your religion over another or provide you with any special favors.

America essentially has hewed to that idea ever since.

Certainly there was fuzziness around the edges. The Founders were, for the most part, practicing Christians, nearly all of them Protestant. The Christian God was woven into their lives and into their ideals.

So you do have some seepage, such as the phrase In God We Trust or the eye atop the pyramid on American currency.

And, human nature being what it is, religious tensions didnt disappear from the United Statesanything but.

The Roman Catholics, who were fellow Christians, were hardly greeted with open arms by Protestants as they immigrated in increasing numbers into the United States.

The Jews encountered the same discrimination as they arrived on these shores from Protestants and Catholics alike.

In recent decades, Muslim immigrants have run into resistance from Americans who already were here, regardless of whether those Americans practiced any religion themselves.

Leaving aside religious bigotry and discrimination that continue to be practiced by some American citizens, theres the issue of the intrusion of religious, usually Christian, words and practices into what should be secular proceedings and matters.

Flash points in recent decades have included what had been the longtime presence of creches at Christmastime on public land outside town halls and the like.

And prayer in public schools was outlawed only about six decades ago.

Its true that sessions of Congress are opened with a prayer. But in light of a true reading of the First Amendment, the practice is questionable.

Here in Bourne, the issue has properly arisen over the invocation that opens Town Meeting.

A Bourne voter, Robert Zibbell, questioned the Christian nature of the invocation that opened last years Fall Town Meeting. The selectmen told Mr. Zibbell that they would take action to make certain that invocations in the future would be nondenominational in nature.

Along comes last months Annual Town Meetingand a Christian-infused invocation.

Mr. Zibbell again objected, properly. In response, the chairwoman of the board of selectmen, Judith Froman, said communication had fallen down regarding the selectmens decision on the issue last fall.

The town moderator, Mr. Pickard, subsequently decided to drop the invocation entirely for the reason stated above.

Elsewhere on this page, Mr. Zibbell makes the case in a letter to the editor to keep the invocation but to make certain the words are more inclusive and not favoring one religious belief or another.

But any invocation as an official part of a government proceeding is going to violate the First Amendment, even a Town Meeting in a relatively small New England municipality.

On a human level, put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesnt believe in a deity, nondenominational or not. Why should you have to listen to a statement espousing a deity-based message?

This doesnt mean that voters going to Town Meeting should be prohibited from praying. Indeed, they should feel free to pray if they wish to do so.

Exercising their First Amendment rights, they can pray out loud with fellow believers before Town Meeting starts. They can pray silently during the moment of silence just before the meeting, which Mr. Pickard plans to retain. They also can pray silently during some of the lengthy debates that characterize Bourne Town Meetingan understandable reaction in more than a few cases.

But an official prayer from the podium to launch the meeting is, as the expression goes, a bridge too far.

Rather than insist on publicly sponsored words, why not follow the core beliefs of so much spirituality present and active in the United Stateswhether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or otherand make a point of speaking kindly at Town Meeting, of listening closely, of not judging others by their appearance, of resolving to better understand and appreciate the views and thoughts of others?

Original post:

The Right Call On The Invocation - Editorial | Editorials - CapeNews.net

Guest Opinion By David Frederick | July 18, 2020

Prior to COVID-19 no one alive today had witnessed a worldwide pandemic. The last pandemic, also caused by a virus, resulted in the death of millions. It occurred just over a century ago.

It would seem reasonable to assume that Americans would be comparatively well protected from the reoccurrence of such a plague. Our country is home to many of the most sophisticated scientific research facilities; and in the case of one particularly deadly and disabling epidemic, which occurred in the first half of the 20th century, the United States successfully led the effort to destroy it. That epidemic ended in the 1950s, when publicly funded American universities played a pivotal role in the development of the poliomyelitis vaccine.

Quite the opposite has occurred with the COVID-19 virus. Pandemic statistics demonstrate that the United States with less than 5 percent of the worlds population has experienced close to one-quarter of all COVID-19 deaths. It is to our shame that the United States has been one of the least effective nations in protecting its citizens. Four months after the pandemic had been declared, the federal government had not yet completed implementing adequate testing. Testing remains a necessary prerequisite for identifying and tracking the contagion, as well as developing vaccines, treatments, and public policies necessary to prevent, cure, or control the disease.

How could this happen? One contributing factor is the extreme narcissism demonstrated by Donald J. Trump.

The Mayo Clinic has published an online report that identifies the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Of the 20 symptoms listed, at least 18 are displayed by the president in his Tweets, disinformation campaigns, and the firing of competent public servants for fulfilling their duties.

Although not specifically stated in the Mayo Clinic report, it seems reasonable to assume that the greater the number of symptoms displayed, the more likely it is that the narcissism will be cognitively disabling. For example, exhibiting four out of the 20 defined symptoms e.g., lacking empathy, unable to express remorse, pathological lying, demanding absolute allegiance from others demonstrates a level of narcissism, which although dysfunctional, may be less than disabling.

On the other hand, demonstrating 18 out of 20 symptoms is a strong indication of a more serious incapacitation, wherein afflicted individuals would be unable to confront problems in any context other than how those problems impact them personally. As such, an extreme narcissistic personality disorder would make it virtually impossible for an afflicted individual to have the ability to fulfill obligations defined by the president's oath of office: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In other words, to serve the collective good.

What can be done to protect the nation when leaders either cannot or will not fulfill that duty? A good first step would be to protect our republic from inept or corrupt leaders. One step in doing that is to recognize that normative protocols which have worked for decades are no longer sufficient. Laws are now necessary. An example of this is requiring financial disclosure of all presidential candidates.

Citizens have the right as verified by the Supreme Court decisions of July 10, 2020 to access verifiable information that enables them to determine if candidates for federal elected office have financial or other interests that constitute a potential conflict of interest with the duties of the office they seek. Their submission of income tax returns has been the way this information has traditionally been made available. There have been only two presidential candidates who refused to comply with this norm.

One of those was Richard Nixon. During that era the Republican leadership gave him a choice: He could either submit the tax returns or not be their candidate. The other who refused to comply was Trump. However, in this case, the Republican Party stood mostly silent and watched. Trump not only did not submit his tax returns and repeatably lied about his reasons for failing to do so but also faced no consequences. He had the protection of the GOP, which controlled the Senate.

The second step in protecting our republic from corrupt leadership is the preventing of incessant lying. The pattern of lying goes well beyond Trump. This was demonstrated by the mock impeachment trial conducted in the Senate, wherein Republicans demonstrated their commitment to disregarding traditional norms pertaining to subpoenas, testimony, truth, and justice.

The First Amendment is frequently used as either an explanation or excuse for being constitutionally unable to prevent politicians, news media, and social media from promoting disinformation and propaganda. Thats just nonsense.

The First Amendment is composed of a single sentence containing 45 words. It was created by revolutionaries who, having just liberated the country from a tyrannical monarchy, were distrustful of placing too much power with the government they were creating. As such, the intent of the amendment was to prevent a government from: . . . 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.

In essence, the Founding Fathers intent was to enable the governed to take truth to power without being subjected to political or judicial retribution. The First Amendment does not provide foreign or domestic propagandists the right to corrupt public discourse any more than it allows an individual to create panic by screaming fire in a crowded theater.

Establishing public perjury laws will be difficult, but they are necessary. If We the People do not take the actions necessary to prevent elected officials from committing perjury without consequences, the world will likely witness the end of the American experiment in developing a democratic republic.

David Frederick, a centrist-based Independent, regards extremist political partisanship as a dangerous threat to the well-being and security of middle-class Americans. He further believes reestablishing coordinated grassroots truth-to-power messaging is a prerequisite for diminishing that threat. dcf13343@gmail.com

Here is the original post:

COVID-19: Our Failures and the Path to Correction - northernexpress.com

This spring-now-summer of protest shows no signs of fading away, as demonstrators make their voices heard on issues as disparate as health regulations, gun violence, Confederate statues and institutionalized racism.

Through it all, the First Amendment both fuels those voices and protects those rights at times in collaboration with other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Still, few of us are steeped in constitutional law and statutory regulations. Primers can provide any citizen with the basics on rights, responsibilities and potential entanglements with a patchwork quilt of federal, state and local laws.

Heres a First Amendment-friendly guide with links to those primers, classes and advisories about protest how the rights of free speech, assembly and petition work when you step outside or go online to be heard.

From the Freedom Forum:

Freedom of Assembly protects the right to peacefully gather with others, without regard to views and opinions when we take the streets in protest or in support of a causes.

Everything you need to know whether youre a student, parent, teacher, school administrator or lawyer about classroom walk-outs and school protests.

Social media platforms are private companies and since the First Amendment only applies to government, they can accept or reject what people post. But given their growing role in public discourse, what are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other and to the First Amendments protections?

Im just speaking my mind, at work or in a public place how protected is what I say?

Pushing the limits of protected speech: When is disruptive too disruptive?

How it was done: (Video) Shirlene Mercer remembering the modern civil rights-era protests around lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro, N.C.

From other sources:

The experts at New York Universitys online First Amendment Watch have produced a detailed guide for citizens when recording police activity. Learn about federal and state laws, how your rights apply in different situations and the legal roots for this still-new tool in holding police accountable.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a quick, to-the-point general guide to know your rights at a protest.

The online legal services site FindLaw has a guide to legal issues ranging from basic rights to a section titled somewhat ominously wartime policies. The same site also provides a guide to each states unique laws about protesting in public.

To all of that information, lets add a few additional items:

When protesting, there is no immunity under the First Amendment that allows you to disregard, without potential arrest and penalty, a direct order even one you believe is illegal from a police officer.

The First Amendment rights of petition and assembly do not give you permission to cross or occupy private property; thats still called trespassing. And as to occupying public property: Since the occupy movement a few years ago, many jurisdictions updated their policies regarding public squares, parks and such, with many outlawing overnight stays or blocking the space so that other, non-involved persons are unable to pass through it.

Blocking traffic on a public street, whether an individual effort or a mass protest, likely is illegal. Again, there is no First Amendment shield against arrest, though police action may well depend on balancing the taking of protesters into custody versus clearing the thoroughfare.

The rights of assembly and petition on National Park Service property have certain limitations, with permits required if a group of 25 or more, or pay attention to this the protest is likely to attract a combined audience of participants and those watching of more than 25. A court decision some years ago cleared the way for individuals to protest with no permit conditions, as long as the person was not blocking others from using the park.

Granted, a recitation of the rules, regulations and legal circumstances around exercising your free speech when assembling peaceably to petition for change may lack the passion of the real thing.

But its those freedoms that give legal protection for the passions that have changed the nations laws, policies and even attitudes, about womens rights, racial injustice, juvenile protection laws, labor regulations and rights and much more.

And thats a lot from a little: the simple but majestic 45 words of the First Amendment.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

See more here:

Gene Policinski: Our rights to speak, assembly and seek change have limits - The Mercury

Q: This is an election year. I saw a cartoon about Trump that was just plain offensive. Does anything go legally, its all OK?

-D.H., Hawthorne

A: Political speech is a right fundamentally defended by the First Amendment. Unless actual malice can be proven with regard to a depiction, the public figure or politician is fair game. An important case in this regard was decided in 1970 about former Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty. He sued the Los Angeles Times and its publisher for a caricature done by the well-known editorial cartoonist Paul Conrad, arguing it represented that Yorty was insane and should be placed in a straight jacket. In denying his claim for libel, the court held that opinions about the fitness of a person for public office are protected even though (the) view are those of a political adversary and are presented in rhetorical hyperbole. In addition, the court held the cartoon was not intended to be a literal depiction, and that reasonable readers would know.

Q: Can a tweet, or an online post, actually lead to a defamation claim?

-K.B., Long Beach

A: Defamation is a publication to a third person, which is not privileged (in other words, subject to some legal protection), that is false and damages a persons reputation. There are two kinds of defamation: Slander, which is oral, and libel, which is written. A post on twitter, or online generally, can rise to the level of defamation for the simple reason it may meet the definition. There is nothing about social media that is all that different from libeling someone in a letter (a writing) that is false and has been sent to one or more others.

This is a well-established procedure in California, which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The law is intended to prevent people from using the courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are properly exercising their First Amendment rights. The way it works is if a person is sued, he or she makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff, or plaintiffs, then has the immediate burden of showing the court a probability he or she will prevail in the suit. This means, often very early on, having to show evidence that a favorable outcome for plaintiff is likely; if the plaintiff cannot do so, thats the end of that claim and the plaintiff may have to pay attorney fees to the other side.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 35 years of experience. His column, which appears in print on Wednesdays, presents a summary of the law and should not be construed as legal advice. Email questions and comments to him at RonSEsq@aol.com.

See the rest here:

Is satire in political cartoons fully protected? Ask the lawyer - The Daily Breeze

By Blake Fontenay

Bari Weiss, an opinion editor and writer at the New York Times, created a disturbance within the journalism world a few days ago when she tendered her resignation.

Weiss wasnt forced out because she had fabricated source material, libeled someone or committed some other unforgivable transgression. Instead, in her resignation letter, she said that she was quitting because she felt bullied and harassed by some of her Times colleagues for giving voice to moderate and conservative viewpoints within the newspapers predominantly liberal opinion pages.

I have to say that this story resonated with me on a deeply personal level. Not that Ive experienced that type of animosity from my colleagues here at the Daily Camera.

Most of them are still working from home as part of the newspapers efforts to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Those I have met during my first few weeks on the job have been far too polite to tell me if they think Im running this newspapers opinion pages into the ground.

However, some readers are a different story. On an almost-daily basis, I hear from readers who have complaints about particular letters, editorials, cartoons or guest columns that have appeared on these pages.

Thats nothing new. I have worked at a lot of different newspapers over the course of my career and fielding complaints from readers goes with the territory.

I think healthy interaction between journalists and readers is one of the things that makes newspapers superior to other forms of news media. I mean really, when was the last time you called someone at a local TV or radio station to provide feedback on something you saw or heard there?

That said, Im seeing a pattern emerging that I find troubling, both as a journalist and an American. A great number of the complaints Ive received to date have come from people who believe certain pieces of commentary shouldnt have been published because the ideas expressed dont align with their own personal beliefs.

If you truly believe in the First Amendment and the freedom of expression, as I do, this line of thinking provides a path down a very dark road.

I go back to that famous quote we learned in elementary school, attributed to the French writer Voltaire but probably actually written by one of his biographers, which said: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Thats the ideal on which our First Amendment was based.

I wonder, in our politically polarized society, how many people today could truthfully speak those words. If youre a supporter of President Donald Trump, would you really fight to the death to defend the free speech rights of one of the presidents critics?

Oh, but that argument cuts both ways. If you hate Trump and all that he stands for, are you still willing to fight to the death, or even a little bit to protect the views of the Make America Great Again crowd?

In my years as an opinion page editor and writer, I have yet to meet anyone willing to confess a desire to censor opposing points of view. Oh, no. Its never that.

The conversations usually start this way: Im all for hearing different opinions, but and what follows the but is a rationalization for why a particular piece of commentary was somehow beyond the pale and shouldnt have been published.

I agree that there are certain types of content that have no place in a general circulation newspaper. But the standard for excluding something has to be higher than this has the potential to offend someone. A lot higher.

If that were the standard, then there arent enough people writing about puppies and rainbows to fill our opinion pages each week.

Look, Im well aware that Boulder is predominantly a left-leaning community. The citys Wikipedia page even makes a light-hearted reference to the Peoples Republic of Boulder.

And thats absolutely fine with me. I wouldnt have agreed to take this job if I wasnt OK with that.

However, judging by some of the comments made to and about me on social media (where I think the term keyboard courage applies), some people apparently think my employment here at the Daily Camera is part of an evil plot to secretly transform Boulder into another Colorado Springs.

Right. And while Im working on that project, Ill also be trying to level off the Flatirons with a sandbox shovel.

For the record, I dont agree with every piece of content that appears on our opinion pages. You can be reasonably sure Im in agreement with the positions taken in our staff-written editorials, although even those represent not just my views, but the consensus of the editorial board.

The rest of the pages are an open forum where I strongly believe a variety of different viewpoints deserve a fair hearing. A former editor of mine used to refer to opinion pages as a garden of ideas. While I disagreed with him on nearly everything else, I think his views on that point were exactly right.

I think thats the right approach to take anywhere, but especially in a town like Boulder, with so many smart and well-educated people. This is, after all, a college town where a premium is placed on learning. And how can people truly learn without being exposed to ideas that fall outside of their personal belief systems?

I did my research on Boulder before I started work here. I know this is a place where tolerance and inclusion are highly valued. But tolerance and inclusion apply not only to peoples skin color or sexual orientation, but also to their ways of thinking.

I dont want to be in a position where Im asked to curate content to keep readers from being unduly influenced by potentially objectionable material. I have more faith in the critical thinking abilities of Boulderites than that. And I hope you have the same faith in your neighbors and yourselves.

Blake Fontenay is the opinion editor for the Daily Camera.

Read more:

Opinion: Blake Fontenay: Buts on the road to censorship - The Daily Camera

The July 7 article about militias flocking to Gettysburg is frightening. There are many levels to this story, but the bottom line is that these actions are a direct and dangerous assault on our country.

First, the tactics themselves showing up with guns, rifles, and bats were used by the Black Guard in Italy and the Brownshirts in Germany to bring the Fascists and Nazis to power.

The next point deals with the militias Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense and to defend America. However, in this case, they are bringing arms to attack Americans expressing their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

It was a Supreme Court decision that burning the American flag is the right of Americans. So legitimate use of guns and bats would be to protect the rights of the flag burners. The militias, in showing up to attack Americans rights, prove they are a dangerous enemy to America.

Another irony is the militants claim that burning the flag is treasonous, but they are proud to wave the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is a symbol of treason. Their right to display it is protected by the same rights granted in the First Amendment as the flag burners have.

The mindset at work here is terrifying, leaving me again to question what kind of future America has.

One last question: Where were the Park Rangers while this was going on?

Five decades of Democratic Party policies have reshaped public discourse into what we are witnessing: anger, frustration, lack of self-worth.

Democrats hold on minorities has been the catalyst for social welfare programs and dependency through welfare institutions. If one studies the make-up of Democrat-controlled cities, minorities have not progressed much in five decades.

What has progressed is the welfare state. Democrats preach redistribution of wealth, equality, and social rights, yet use dependency of the poor to push their social agenda over minority groups. In doing so they get to push their political agenda through welfare politics.

Cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, New York, Seattle are run by Democrats. Even in Connecticut, Bridgeport, New Haven, Norwich, Stamford, Waterbury are Democratic strongholds. Have these cities improved the lives of minority populations? Protests and riots taking place indicate otherwise.

Use of welfare has been institutionalized by Democrats. By doing so they control a segment of the population that enables them to reach political objectives, proclaiming themselves change agents.

But the concept of welfare is social integration of dependency and control. It is a political means to an end.

In Connecticut going on welfare gets you free health insurance, unemployment support, child care allowances, rent and fuel subsidies, a cellphone, transportation, food, education incentives, financial aid, computers, etc. all under the guise that government is here to help you. Why would anyone want to go back to work? Why would anyone want to become independent?

This is why the Democratic Party is the purveyor of policies helping those in need. They want the poor to have material well-being in the form of welfare. It is social reciprocity for control. It is purposeful, deliberate, and political. If you remain on subsistence long enough you become subservient to their liberal ideology.

Sadly, in many cases this continues to a second or third generation. Many do not own property or pay taxes, yet get to vote in favor of liberal polices that support the welfare system and cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

This fits the Democratic Partys narrative. The Democrats ultimate goal is socialism.

See original here:

July 18-19 letters | Letters to the Editor | journalinquirer.com - Journal Inquirer