The National Socialist Movement, the American Nazi party, does not have a First Amendment right to rally at Brandon Park (or anywhere else) because their agenda is to encourage violence. A lawsuit is underway by the City of Charlottesville based upon the efforts of the organizers of the National Socialist Movement to both plan and encourage violence at a rally held in that city.

Our mayor and City Council are wrong to believe that there is any First Amendment right. It seems quite clear that the authorities in this city have not looked even casually at the history of the National Socialist Movement or examined their postings in connection with the event to be held in Williamsport.

Williamsport will now become known as the City of Hate. It behooves our newly elected mayor, City Council and the chief of police to do some research on this organization and to deny the permit.

A number of years ago, I received a telephone call from Mayor Campana when the Ku Klux Klan sought a permit in Williamsport. The Mayor said that because of the groups history of violence, he would not permit it. I received a similar phone call from the mayor of Montoursville. The Ku Klux Klan did not hold its rally.

After the permits were denied, the head of the Ku Klux Klan was referred to me by the ACLU in Washington, D.C. I met with the Klan head in my office for over three hours. After the meeting, I told the Klan head that I would not represent him but that there were plenty of other lawyers who had a twisted notion of the First Amendment. I encouraged the Klan leader to work through conventional, non-violent channels.

The citys chief of police later told me that the man I talked to quit leading the Klan and that the organization would not be pursuing any legal action.

Our current administration has to stand tall. Have some backbone on this issue. Hatred and incitement to violence must be opposed regardless of where those extremist views come from. The question is not one of opinion, but rather a history of violence and the promoting of behaviors that are a clear and present danger to others.

One must ask whether the mayor, City Council and chief of police have looked into the organization, its history, its social media prior to rallies around the country, and what has occurred at those other events.

I am and remain a proud civil rights lawyer. As I write this piece, I am preparing a federal complaint against a school district that denied to my client her First Amendment rights and retaliated against her for exercising those rights. The First Amendment is crucial. The document inked by our Founders was meant to be enforced.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the First Amendment, the Congress of the United States, during one of the earliest administrations, passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Under the presidency of John Adams, publicists and journalists were jailed for expressing negative views and opinions about the Federalists who were in power. This was a dark and ugly history for our nation. Other attempts to quash First Amendment rights have occurred throughout our nations history. The First Amendment must be a bulwark that stands between democracy and totalitarianism.

The Supreme Court is often quoted as having stated that no one has a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. The First Amendment does not permit advocating or planning violence. People are criminally punished and go to jail who plan or try to convince others to commit violent acts. Violence is the agenda of the American Nazi Party.

No counter-demonstration or police presence will remove the stain from this citys reputation and history should it permit the Nazi event to go forward in Brandon Park. Our city officials should stand up proudly against granting this permit and should fight in the courts for the principle that violence and advocates of violence have no home in our beautiful city.

We live in an era where it seems that the First Amendment is defined by whether a particular official belongs to the left wing or right wing. Williamsport is taking an anemic stance toward a hate organization such as the Nazi party because of a misplaced and completely inaccurate view of the First Amendment. Such views are not progressive or open-minded, but rather represent the equivalent of unintended cooperation with forces of hate.

History has shown us that the Roosevelt administration not only failed to oppose the Nazi effort to destroy all Jews in Europe, but through its indifference actually encouraged the Holocaust. The Roosevelt administration was filled with anti-Semites who acted as a silent cheering section for the goals of the Third Reich. Our public officials must be cognizant of history. Liberalism and open-mindedness should never be an open highway to permit the promulgation of violence in the name of the glorious First Amendment.

The question as to whether the Nazis will be allowed to rally in Williamsport or whether the permit will be revoked is a defining moment in this citys history.

Cliff Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.

Although weve hardly reached pandemic status in the United States with the coronavirus, its impact on Chinese ...

Most of us prefer sunshine. Its rare to hear someone say, That was a nice, cloudy day. Were invigorated ...

Beginning Aug. 18, American Airlines will discontinue service to its Philadelphia hub and begin connecting service ...

Soon they will be tilling the fields in our region and state.Then they will be planting corn and a whole bunch ...

An extremist policy advocated by many Democratic presidential candidates banning fracking would cripple ...

Bernie Sanders is so far out of step with the majority of Americans, his nomination will ensure a second term for ...

View post:

Distorted view of the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

No, professors, the First Amendment does not protect you from receiving a warning from your universityaboutviolating its nondiscrimination policies when you talk to or about your transgender students in discriminatory ways in class.

Nicholas Meriwether, professor of philosophy at Shawnee State University in Ohio,had used sir while responding in his Fall 2018 political philosophy class to a transgender woman student. After class that day, the student asked Dr. Meriwether to refer to her as a woman and use feminine pronouns (she, her) or titles (Miss, Ms.) when addressing or talking about her.He refused. Instead, he resorted to referring tothe student by her last name only, while continuing to address other students in class as Mr. and Ms. followed by their last name.

Nicholas Meriwether

The student filed a complaint with the university, which investigated and presented Dr. Meriwether with a written warning to not violate the schools nondiscrimination policies. (See previous post on this here.)

Dr. Meriwether then sued Shawnee State University, arguing that the warning had violated hisConstitutional rights. From the initial decision:

He is a professing evangelical Christian and member of the Presbyterian Church of America with sincerely-held religious beliefs about gender, and he does not believe that an individuals gender can be changed after the moment of conception He objects to communicating what he believes to be a University mandated ideological message regarding gender identity that he does not believe and which he believes contradicts (and would force him to violate) his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Meriwether sought a judgment that the schools nondiscrimination policies and practices violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Shawnee State University officials named in the lawsuit asked the court to dismiss it.

This past September the court did dismiss the case, making use of various precedents, including the judgments that Universities may sanction professors whose pedagogical attitudes and teaching methods do not conform to institutional standards and that although public universities may not force professors to endorse or eschew specific viewpoints, the First Amendment does not bar a public university from requiring that its faculty treat each other and their students with civility.

Meriwether appealed to the district court, which rejected his appeallast month. Meriwether has now filed a further appeal.

The rest is here:

The First Amendment, a Philosophy Professor, and Pronouns - Daily Nous

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. First, Oklahoma lawmakers excluded the public from the Capitol because of coronavirus concerns.

Then with the public gone, lawmakers made an emergency change to the state's open-meetings law to let all governmental entities meet via video or teleconference, so long as people can watch or listen remotely.

Across the U.S., numerous governors, lawmakers, mayors and county officials have made similar decisions to keep the public away from public meetings all for the sake of public health. Ironically, the sudden policy shift has played out during the annual observation of Sunshine Week, a seven-day period intended to highlight the importance of open-government policies.

Public participation in our democracy is really fundamental to the health of our democracy," said David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a California-based nonprofit that promotes government transparency.

"I think government agencies need to be very careful not to unduly restrict the publics ability to see what government is doing and, maybe more importantly, to participate in what the governments doing, he said.

On Friday, 132 state and national groups backing open-government policies released a joint statement urging officials at all levels of government to not retrench from their duties for public involvement because of the coronavirus.

Government bodies should not opportunistically take advantage of the publics inability to attend large gatherings to make critical decisions affecting the publics interest if those decisions can reasonably be postponed, the statement said.

All U.S. states require open government meetings. Some mandate that a majority of government officials be physically present to meet. Others already allow officials to meet by video or phone, with accommodations for the public to watch or listen from a designated room.

Those mandates for in-person access have been suspended or ignored as an increasing number of governments have instructed people to stay home and avoid public gatherings to help prevent the spread of the virus that causes the COVID-19 disease.

The move toward seclusion has posed some practical and technological challenges.

When the Oklahoma Senate passed a bill this week authorizing public bodies to hold teleconference or video meetings through March 1, 2021, open-government advocates couldn't enter the closed Capitol to voice their concerns about the duration of the emergency rules.

Andy Moore, executive director of Freedom of Information Oklahoma, had been watching a live stream of the legislative debate on his computer. He posted his objections on social media. A House member then got in touch with him via text, and the House passed a new version that shortened the remote meeting policy until Nov. 15.

It worked out OK, Moore said, but anything that kind of clamps down on the flow of information makes it more difficult for the public to stay involved.

Legislators in Maine and Tennessee also excluded the public from their buildings. South Carolina lawmakers asked lobbyists and visitors to stay away.

The Pennsylvania House and Senate each voted to change their rules this past week to allow members to participate and vote remotely. And New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed a bill Thursday letting the Legislature meet remotely using technology.

Some open-government advocates worry that it may become harder for the remote-viewing public to interact with elected officials or fully understand what's going on.

Video conference meetings are great, but theres really no substitute for physical presence," Snyder said.

In Rhode Island, technical glitches frustrated some people trying to watch the first significant state meeting to be live-streamed after Democratic Gov. Gina Raimondo loosened the state's public meetings law. Those following the Board of Elections via the agency's Facebook page complained that the feed froze.

The Rhode Island chapters of Common Cause and the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that governmental bodies meeting virtually should be required to pause their proceedings if the video or audio stream is interrupted. They also said all documents discussed should be shared online in advance of the meeting.

In Waterville, Maine, the city solicitor warned Thursday that a new panel formed to address the coronavirus had been illegally meeting in secret and making decisions, including to suspend the city's plastic bag ban. Sigmund Schutz, a lawyer for MaineToday Media, told the state attorney generals office that urgent guidance is needed for compliance with the Freedom of Access Act.

Restrictions on public meetings have been implemented without resistance in some states. But Republicans in Michigan objected to actions by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Her order temporarily allows public bodies to conduct their meetings electronically, by phone or video conference, as long as they allow public access and participation.

Older Michiganders are most at risk during these times. They are also the least likely to have the technology necessary to access public meetings electronically, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey said. In a time of crisis, citizens should have more access to their elected officials, not less.

Critics said Shirkey's comments were hypocritical. Michigan is one of two states that wholly exempt both legislators and the governor's office from disclosing communications and other information to the public.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, published a legal opinion saying public meetings could be conducted remotely as long as there was plenty of notice and a means for the public to observe. He suggested that public bodies provide technical support for people who have difficulty dialing in to a phone conference or watching a video conference.

Transparency is the core of legality, Brnovich wrote. Throughout any circumstance, the government must remain accountable to the people.

Daniel Bevarly, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said he understands the need to restrict access to meetings during the coronavirus pandemic. If governmental bodies continue to live-stream their meetings even after re-opening their doors, the current crisis ultimately could lead to long-term benefits, he said.

This is an opportunity for us to re-examine this whole public engagement in a digital world," Bevarly said.

___

Associated Press writers Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey; Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix; David Eggert in Lansing, Michigan; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Philip Marcelo in Boston; and David Sharp in Portland, Maine, contributed to this report.

Follow this link:

Virus Concerns Lead to 'Public' Meetings Without the Public - The New York Times

Last week the U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga released Chelsea Manning from detainment after concluding that the grand jury that she had been subpoenaed to testify before no longer needed her, since it was being disbanded. Manning was incarcerated because of her principled stance against the secrecy of the grand jury and her refusal to cooperate in its coercive procedure.

The release of Manning came after the U.S. government tried to break her to the point of suicide. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, wrote a letter to the U.S. government late last year indicating that Manning's imprisonment amounted to torture. Her resistance is a part of the U.S. government's war on the free press, going after WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange.

Assange has been charged under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S.war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This indictment is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. In February, the first week of the U.K. hearing of the U.S. request for Assange's extradition revealed a scale of this 'war' that goes well beyond press freedom. What took place inside the Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London was a sign of a dangerous slippery slide towards fascism.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser's deliberations on the U.S.extradition request for Assange was a trial for journalism, where bullying of an innocent man is camouflaged as a judicial process and the prosecution of a publisher that has no legal ground is given legitimacy. As Assange's defense team argued, the proceedings have shown a serious disregard for the rule of law, including abuse of process and ignoring the political nature of this case.

Craig Murray, a U.K. ex-diplomat who attended the hearing everyday, gave a report of his first hand account, pointing out the very oppressive nature of the building and physical arrangement inside the maximum security anti-terrorist court. He made it clear that Assange is a remand prisoner who completed an unprecedentedly long sentence for a minor bail violation and an innocent man facing charges for publishing documents that exposed the U.S.and U.K. government's war crimes.

The former ambassador to Uzbekistan described how Assange is now treated like a violent criminal. On the first day of trial, Assange was subjected to strip searches twice, handcuffed 11 times and his court papers were removed. In the courtroom he was held behind a glass pane in the presence of private security officers, being unable to communicate with his legal team confidentially during proceedings. During the hearing, Assange spoke:

"I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day. What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?"

Clare Daly, member of the European Parliament from Ireland for the Dublin constituency was at the hearing and commented on this draconian measure taken against international standards. She mentioned that she was shocked to see Assange isolated behind the glass window, away from his legal team. Another member of the Parliament, Stelios Kouloglou, who was also at the court observing the hearing noted how what he saw reminded him of the dictatorship in Greece.

What is this prosecution of WikiLeaks founder really about? What has quietly taken place in the U.S. government's war on free press was a shredding of the Magna Carta as the very foundation of democracy. The Magna Carta is one of the most important historical documents, having established the principle of due process. It embodies the idea that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and that all are entitled to the right to a fair trial, thus guaranteeing the rights of the individual.

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered this protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment essential in securing individual liberty. For this, they aimed to guarantee the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus, in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

By prosecuting Julian Assange, the U.S.government is not only violating the First Amendment, but also engaged in a direct assault on the core of civil liberties. The steps toward destruction of the constitution didn't just begin now. It didn't happen accidentally, nor does this government's obstruction of human rights only concern Assange as an individual. If we look carefully, we can see a series of events that were carefully orchestrated, leading to the extremely disturbing scenario of the detention of a multi-award winning journalist inside a glass box, as seen during the extradition hearing.

Assange through his work with WikiLeaks came to understand the hidden oppressive force that has insidiously stripped him of his own democratic rights. In his 2006 essay Conspiracy as Governance, he wrote:

Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people's will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or out weighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

What Assange described as "conspiratorial interactions among the political elite" can be identified in power networks documented by Peter Phillips in his book "Giants: The Global Power Elites." This includes efforts such as the Project for the New American Centuryan enterprise established in 1997 for the purpose of exercising American global leadership. Consisting of top-level personale in the George W. Bush administration, it aims for total military domination of the world.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, networks of "collaborative secrecy" that Assange analyzed, seemed to have gained momentum. Investigative journalist John Pilger revealed the American plan to exploit a catastrophic event and the way the 9/11 disaster provided the "new Pearl Harbor" (discussed in the plan) as the opportunity for the extremists in America to grab the world's resources.

Right after the event the U.S., supported by its close allies, invaded Afghanistan. Then, just weeks later The USA PATRIOT Act, that radically expanded the government's capability of surveillance, was developed as anti-terrorism legislation. The following year, in 2002, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was set up in Cubain violation of due process clauses of the Constitution. From the Iraq War in 2003 to the passing by Congress of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), that completely dismantled the principle of habeas corpus, the erosion of civil liberties was made under the pretext of "fighting terrorism"America's official mission to wipe out al Qaeda and the terrorist Taliban leaders.

How did this radical transgression against democracy come about? Author Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" investigated how the state exploits crises through taking advantage of the public's psychologically vulnerable state to push through their agendas. She described the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq as a prime example of this shock doctrine.

The terror invoked by the Bush doctrine of "war on terror" in the wake of 9/11 was truly an attack on the heart of democracy. It paralyzed people and decapitated their ability to define reality, uprooting them from their own history. With the mainstream media broadcast of repeated images of the collapse of the Twin Towers, a climate of fear was amplified.

In response to the event portrayed as "terrorist attacks", President Bush in his address to Congress and the American people, expressed his patriotism with the deep emotional tones of vendetta. While the nation was disoriented, and before people had time to process this tragic incident or even really know who perpetrated it, the narrative of victimization was deftly put forth. Many wrapped themselves in the flag and joined the drumbeat of war with a sense of righteous self-defense.

The hearts of people that had frozen became numb. Many of us became unable to feel a sense of wrongness in the face of injustice. A steady advance in the reduction of civil liberties came to be normalized. In the euphemisms of "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" reprehensible human acts such as torture and kidnapping were made more acceptable. The term "bulk collection" was used to disguise "mass surveillance", making unconstitutional NSA spying of an entire world seem less severe or immoral. Cruel killings of civilians became less sensational when they are called "noncombatants" or become "collateral damage" after they were killed.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Two months after 9/11, in a news conference, President Bush urged the international community to form a coalition for military action. He said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror!"claiming there is no neutrality in this war against terror. With a police crackdown on activists creating a chilling effect, the nation entered a political winter. Consequently, Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election appeared to have lifted up the dark cloud of the post-9/11 world. Yet by the end of 2009, the American public became disillusioned with Obama's empty promises of "hope and change."

In spring of 2010, as waves of apathy were moving through the country, a shift in the tide emerged. WikiLeaks published classified military footage of the July 2007 attack by a U.S.Army helicopter gunship in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. The video, titled "Collateral Murder", depicted the killing of more than a dozen men, including two Reuters' staffers.

The release of the Collateral Murder video brought a real catalyst for change. In the 17-minute film that portrayed the everyday life of the brutal military occupation in Iraq, we were given an opportunity to see with our own eyes who those labeled as enemies in the "war on terror" really werea group of adults and children trying to defend themselves from being shot and journalists risking their lives to do their job.

The light that unveiled the U.S.military's senseless killing was the conscience of the U.S.Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. It brought an awakening to the heart that remembers our inherent obligation to one another, helping to recover stolen memories of our own history.

The act of conscience of this young American whistleblower was met with cowardliness and indifference of the established media. Manning first reached out to major U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post with material that exposed U.S. war crimes, but they turned her away.

With a vacuum of moral courage in the media landscape, WikiLeaks became the publisher of Manning's last resort. Nelson Mandela, who led the emancipation of South Africa, once spoke on how courage is "not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it" and that "the brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."

In the face of the prevailing terror of an authoritarian state, WikiLeaks demonstrated truly fearless journalism, igniting the courage of their sources. A project of Sunshine Press launched in 2006, WikiLeaks began to melt frozen hearts, revealing the reality covered up by the corporate media.

In releasing the Collateral Murder video, Assange indicated that the purpose of this publication was to show the world what modern warfare actually looks like and that "his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events." An Australian journalist, Assange explained how WikiLeaks gave a political slant to their naming of the video as a way to give it maximum political impact, because the organization wanted to "knock out the euphemism of 'collateral damage', so when anyone watches it they will think 'collateral murder'."

In the summer of 2010, the light of transparency grew stronger. WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diary, the trove of U.S.classified military records concerning the war in Afghanistan, revealing around 20,000 civilian deaths by assassination, massacre and night raids. This was quickly followed by their subsequent release of the Iraq War Logs, which informed people in Iraq about 15,000 civilian casualties previously unreported and not known to the international community. WikiLeaks' release of 779 classified reports on prisoners of the U.S.military prison in Guantnamo shed light on illegal detention and interrogation practices that were carried out during the Bush regime.

After their release of documents concerning wars in the oil-rich Middle East, the Pentagon swiftly attacked WikiLeaks. Despite the organization's careful harm minimization efforts of redacting sensitive information, U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen threatened the whistleblowing site with a bombastic line of "blood on their hands." This official spokesperson of the Pentagon called WikiLeaks publications "reckless" and "irresponsible" although not one single shred of evidence has ever been brought forth that any of these disclosures caused anyone harm.

At the time WikiLeaks began publishing the U.S. Diplomatic Cables, revealing countless wrongdoing, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (in the Obama administration) strongly condemned the whistleblowing site. Clinton, who admitted the Iraq War was a mistake and confessed how the U.S.had created Al Qaeda and ISIS, said: "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community."

Contrary to the U.S.government's portrayal of itself as a victim, WikiLeaks' released documents which have shown the truththat they are the perpetrator of human rights abuses, engaging in illegal wars. Manning's conscience, through WikiLeaks' brave act of publishing, was a response to the U.S.imperial war of aggressionthe massive political offence committed against the entire world.

America's political offense continued even after the Bush-Cheney era. President Obama not only refused to prosecute the previous administration's war criminals, he himself became a successor to their crimes. In 2009, instead of withdrawing troops, he added more, fueling the war in Afghanistan. Despite his promised "sunshine" policyto make the government more transparent Obama waged an unprecedented war against truthtellers, charging Manning and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act.

With his 2012 campaign slogan of "Forward", Obama went "forward" with Guantanamo Bay and drone attacks. He signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 that contained controversial provisions of a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention, which is still effective today. With his "kill list", this supposedly 'progressive' president expanded the power of the executive branch in ways that enabled him to act as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one, including assassinating anyone, even U.S. citizens.

In 2012, declassified military documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the U.S.government has designated WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as enemies of the United States, putting the media organization in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and violent terrorist groups.

From secret grand jury investigation to extrajudicial financial blockade, to harassment of WikiLeaks' associates at borders (including Assange's lawyer), the Obama administration attacked the publisher who has fiercely defended the public against the empire's repeated human rights abuses and egregious political offenses. Now, in the Trump administration's indictment against Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer crime, we are seeing the escalation of this unprecedented war against the First Amendment.

Assange's U.S.extradition case is our fight against the empire's perpetual "war on terror"the war that started with lies, and a war with no end. This is a political battle and Assange's freedom cannot be won by the court.

Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true functionthe role of watchdog for democracy. WikiLeaks opened a possibility for ordinary people to use information as power to participate in unfolding events, thwart authoritarian planning, so as to never repeat the tragic hijack of history that led to atrocities in distant landskilling tens of thousands of innocent people.

Networks of contagious courage that emerged through waves of whistleblowers began to dissolve the conspiracy of governance. The heart of democracy that is resuscitated now inspires us to move toward justice, to recognize our own significance and look one another in the eyes as we become who we are meant to be movers and shakers of our own history. Only through the courage of each individual to overcome fear and confront this terror that has been unleashed, can we end this war and free those who sacrificed their liberty, so we all can be free.

Continue reading here:

Assange's Extradition: An Escalation of the US War on Terror - Common Dreams

As the world reacts to the coronavirus pandemic, public meetings have suddenly become a threat to public health. In response, governmental entities across the state and the country are transitioning from in-person meetings to virtual meetings. The following tips will help local governments and state agencies in Georgia protect peoples health while upholding their commitment to open government.

What the law requires on a regular day

Heres what Georgias Open Meetings Act requires during governments normal operations. The public must have access to all open meetings held by a government entity. The Act applies broadly to every agency, board, department, office or commission, whether at the city, county, state or regional level. Meetings can only be closed to the public in a very limited set of circumstances listed in O.C.G.A. 50-14-3 (see the Georgia First Amendment Foundations Sunshine Laws: A Guide to Open Government in Georgia for more details). If a meeting does not fall into one of those exceptions, then it must be open to the public. Any action taken at a meeting that is improperly closed to the public is null and void.

In addition to providing access, government entities must give the public advance notice of any meeting. A regularly scheduled meeting requires notice at least one week in advance. For any other meetings, officials must provide notice at least 24 hours in advance (though providing more notice whenever practicable is a good idea). Government entities must also post an agenda in advance of any open meeting. Except for certain statewide agencies, all open meetings must be held in person.

Open government laws were designed for flexibility during emergencies

During emergency situations, such as the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, the state Open Meetings Act allows for deviation from these procedures in two ways. First, if officials need to act quickly, a government entity can hold an emergency meeting without providing 24 hours notice. The agency still must provide the public with advance notice of the meeting and post an agenda, and the agency must also record in the meeting minutes the specific circumstances that justified holding an emergency meeting. As the coronavirus pandemic continues, agencies may need to call emergency meetings for a variety of reasons. Agencies should provide public notice of these meetings as early as possible so that members of the public have a chance to attend and participate.

Second, when there is a public safety emergency such as the one presented by coronavirus, government officials who are otherwise required to meet in person can instead conduct their meetings by teleconference. This is particularly important now, when in-person meetings would likely violate recent guidance to avoid gatherings of 10 or more people.

Technology makes public access manageable, even in a crisis

Whether its an emergency meeting or a regularly scheduled meeting by teleconference, members of the public still must have access. Amid todays emergency procedures, the Georgia First Amendment Foundation encourages all of Georgias public agencies to explore technological solutions such as live streaming and teleconferencing that allow the public to attend remotely. A wide variety of platforms enable virtual meetings where members of the public could watch or listen to the actions taken by their governmental representative. If your agency normally has a process for public comment at meetings, consider asking attendees of virtual meetings to submit comments by email before or during the meeting.

Now more than ever, transparency in government is vital to giving the public confidence in their governmental representatives and ensuring they understand and have the ability to weigh in on actions taken under emergency conditions. As governments at all levels change their operations in response to the coronavirus pandemic, they must do so in a way that maintains and promotes Georgians access to the publics business.

The Georgia First Amendment Foundation is available to help public officials, as well as citizens, as they navigate laws governing public access during this crisis. We encourage agencies to contact us with questions as they make the transition to virtual meetings. Reach us at [emailprotected].

Read more from the original source:

Government transparency in the time of coronavirus; virtual meeting tips - Georgia Recorder

Colorado oil and gas representatives Thursday hailed a federal courts dismissal of a case challenging the states forced-pooling law as a win for private property rights and the public good. But the community organization that sued said it might appeal.

In a decision released Wednesday, Federal Judge R. Brooke Jackson dismissed the case by the Wildgrass Oil and Gas Committee, formed by members of the Wildgrass Homeowners Association in Broomfield. The homeowners argued that the practice of forced pooling by oil and gas companies is unconstitutional.

The practice allows a company to drill oil or gas in an area even if all the mineral rights owners dont agree. Colorado used to let a company drill if just one of the owners consented.

Under legislation passed in 2019 to revamp oil and gas rules, a company now must get the consent from the owners of least 45% of the mineral rights before it can move ahead.

We respect Judge Jackson so much. We just disagree with his decision, said Joe Salazar, an attorney and executive director of Colorado Rising who represents the Broomfield homeowners in the lawsuit. Were weighing our options. We might appeal.

The Wildgrass group sued after challenging a decision by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in 2019 to allow Extraction Oil and Gas to proceed even though not all the owners wanted their minerals drilled. Members of the group said forced pooling violates their First Amendment right of freedom of association and their constitutional right to due process because it amounts to the taking of private property for private use.

The lawsuit named the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Gov. Jared Polis.

Jackson abstained from deciding the homeowners challenge of the state commissions jurisdiction. He invoked an exemption meant to protect state administrative processes from undue federal influence.

Regarding other claims, Jackson said the homeowners hadnt established that their First Amendment rights were violated. He said previous court decisions found that similar oil and gas regulations served the public interest and protected a states economy.

We are pleased with the District Courts decisive ruling on behalf of the state, as it affirms both existing law as well as the private property rights of Coloradans, Lynn Granger, executive director of the American Petroleum Institute-Colorado, said in an email.

Dan Haley, CEO and president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said in a statement that pooling serves a public purpose by curbing resource waste while also protecting the correlative rights of property owners, ensuring that those property owners receive a fair return.

But Salazar of Colorado Rising, an environmental group that has advocated for stronger oil and gas regulations, said he disagreed with Jacksons decision that state courts, not federal, are the appropriate venue to decide the lawsuits claims.

Federal constitutional law is the province of federal courts, Salazar said.

He added that the Colorado Constitution prohibits the state from allowing the taking of private property for private use.

The state is forcing people to give up their private property to a private corporation even when they dont want to, Salazar said.

Visit link:

Oil, gas industry hails federal courts dismissal of lawsuit on forced pooling - The Denver Post

The Gary City Council amended its adopted abortion ordinance Thursday, removing bans on Plan B sales and references to specific abortion organizations. Officials also added a clause regarding free speech.

The amendments were made after the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging abortion ban ordinances passed in seven East Texas cities on Feb. 25. The changes were made to the Gary ordinance to unify it with other cities ordinances and bolster it against the lawsuit, officials said. Other cities that passed abortion ban ordinances, such as Joaquin and Waskom, are also amending their ordinances.

The original adopted ordinance named reproductive choice organizations and advocacy groups as criminal organizations. In the lawsuit, the ACLU represents two abortion funds, the Lilith Fund and the Texas Equal Access Fund both of which were specifically labeled as criminal entities in the original ordinance and argues the ordinances violate those groups rights to free expression and association under the First Amendment.

In the amended ordinance, the clause declaring these organizations as criminal entities has been removed. A clause stating No provision of Section C may be construed to prohibit any conduct protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as made applicable to the States through the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was added.

The amended ordinance also removes the clause prohibiting the sale and distribution of emergency contraception within the City of Gary.

The amended ordinance still outlaws abortions of any type within the city limits, with no exceptions but abortion bans are unenforceable under current law because Roe v. Wade has not been overturned.

The changes to the ordinance in Gary and other cities were made at the recommendation of legal council to put more focus on the prohibition of surgical and medical abortions, Right to Life East Texas Director Mark Lee Dickson said in an email.

This has been done to unify the ordinances in preparation for a sweeping legal victory, Dickson said.

Gary and the other cities named in the ACLUs lawsuit are being represented by attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell at no cost to the cities or their taxpayers, Dickson said.

Both Right To Life of East Texas and Texas Right To Life stand fully behind every city which has outlawed abortion, as well as every city which will outlaw abortion in the near future, Dickson said. We are all willing and prepared to go to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to defend these constitutional ordinances enacted to protect baby Texans from the baby-murdering industry.

Dickson said that more Texas cities in the near future will be taking the same steps that Waskom and other God-fearing cities took to outlaw abortion in their cities and become sanctuary cities for the unborn.

See the rest here:

Gary amends abortion ordinance to remove Plan B restriction, abortion organizations - panolawatchman.com

Jim Zachary Published 6:26 p.m. CT March 19, 2020 | Updated 7:26 p.m. CT March 19, 2020

The media is most definitely not your enemy.

Far from being the enemy of the people, day in and day out we take our role as the Fourth Estate seriously and work hard to protect your right to know, making public records requests and attending public meetings to keep you informed.

Why?

Because we believe all the business government does, whether in open public meetings or behind closed doors, is your business.

We believe every last penny government spends is your money.

We believe it is your right to know every transaction, every decision, every expenditure and every deliberation of your government.

Whether talking about the White House, the statehouse or the county courthouse, all the documents held in government halls belong to the people, and all the business conducted by our governors is public business.

We believe our government your government can only be of, by and for the people when it is out in front of the people.

Primary to our Republic is the understanding that we are the government and the government is us.

The only powers held by federal, state or local government are the powers we give.

So, whether it is Congress, the states General Assembly, county commission, city council or the board of education, it is your right to know all of the peoples business.

When you attend local city, county or school board meetings, ask questions and hold elected representatives accountable, you are not minding their business, you are minding your own business.

When you make a public records request, you are not asking local records custodians to give you something that just belongs to them or the office where they work. You are simply asking for your own documents.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment which guarantees the freedom of speech and the freedom of press, is not intended to protect the media, per se. Rather, the founders built a hedge of protection around the media because of the media guards and fights for the publics right to know.

According to a Brookings Institution report,more than 2,000 newspapers across the country ceased publication in the last 15 years or so. The shuttering of newspapers presents a very real and present danger to our most basic freedoms. Thats why communities should support their local newspapers, through subscriptions and advertising, now more than ever before.

Journalists keep an eye on government, shine the light on its actions, fight the good fight for access to documents and meetings, champion transparency and defend the First Amendment because of a core belief in your basic, fundamental rights principally, your right to know.

CNHI Deputy National Editor Jim Zachary is the president of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. He can be reached ajzachary@cnhi.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/2020/03/19/jim-zachary-sunshine-week-its-always-your-right-know/5048146002/

More here:

Sunshine Week: Its always your right to know - News-Leader

by Lata Nott

Freedom Forum

In times of crisis, safety and freedom may seem like theyre at odds with each other. A society that respects individual liberty cant implement the same kinds of drastic laws and policies that a more authoritarian one can.

This puts more of an onus on citizens of a democracy to make responsible choices. As we face a virus that we can easily pass on without realizing it, that may not cause any symptoms in those who are young and healthy but is potentially deadly to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions, we need to keep in mind that our independent media and civil society can be assets in this fight, as long as we balance our personal freedoms with care and compassion for each other.

As I write this column, 7,038 people have tested positive for COVID-19 in the United States. The highly contagious nature of the virus has led Ohio to postpone its presidential primary, Washington and Maryland to shut down all restaurants and bars (except for delivery and takeout) and California to call for all people 65 and older to shelter inside their homes. More than 30 states have closed their schools. On Sunday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that no gatherings of 50 people or more be held in the U.S. for the next eight weeks. On Monday, it amended that warning to apply to gatherings of more than 10 people. Im certain that by the time you read this, there will be more cases of COVID-19, as well as more shutdowns, both voluntary and mandated by state and local officials.

All of this was unimaginable last week. Just last month, the coronavirus seemed like a rather distant problem, even though the first confirmed case in the U.S. occurred in late January. We had several weeks to observe Chinas handling of COVID-19 and at first, a lot of our conversations had a tone of reluctant admiration for how swiftly an authoritarian government could act in the face of an outbreak. In a matter of days, the Chinese government had quarantined entire cities, suspended travel, closed schools and businesses and built two new specialized hospitals. What democracy could match that?

It didnt take long for the truth to come to light. Not that the Chinese government had been censoring information and violating civil liberties that was sort of a given but that censoring information and violating civil liberties actually made the outbreak worse. Chinas suppression of news about the outbreak prevented health care practitioners and individuals from being able to take appropriate precautions and hindered officials from being able to coordinate a response. As this personal essay from an anonymous resident of Wuhan put it, Before this coronavirus, I always thought it was OK to sacrifice some level of democracy and freedom for better living conditions. But now I have changed my attitude. Without democracy and freedom, the truth of the outbreak in Wuhan would never be known.

Of course, now that its our turn to deal with the virus, its hard to argue that were doing much better. For weeks, the Trump administration downplayed the severity of the situation, contradicting public health experts and news media reports and delaying containment and mitigation efforts. According to The Washington Post, early problems with manufacturing coronavirus tests, along with an initial decision to test only a narrow set of people and delays in expanding testing to other labs, gave the virus a head start to spread undetected and helped perpetuate a false sense of security that leaves the United States dangerously behind. Officials in China are reportedly watching our mishandling of the outbreak with a mix of shock and pleasure. They find it hard to believe that the worlds top superpower might be bungling its response to the virus, even after having had weeks to prepare for its possible arrival.

As the national security law blog Lawfare has pointed out, many observers are using the coronavirus as a proxy war for democracies versus authoritarian systems. This is, of course, an oversimplification, but it does highlight an important truth civil liberties do have an impact on how governments deal with crises. Our freedoms of press and speech ensure the free flow of information, but they also allow misinformation to spread. And while South Korea, a fellow democracy but one with less regard for civil liberties, was able to curtail its COVID-19 outbreak by forcibly shutting down a series of churches where the virus initially spread, its hard to imagine an American government official doing the same. Such an action, might register to many Americans as an egregious violation of basic First Amendment instincts regarding the freedom of religion, right to assemble and separation of church and state.

Our state, city and federal officials do have the power to place people in isolation or quarantine, but that power is tempered by the Constitution (the government cannot confine people arbitrarily and without adequate explanation) and by the norms of our society (the impact on liberty means that these are considered measures of last resort). Officials in the U.S. are more likely to recommend that people voluntarily practice social distancing. And even when they do make some aspects of this behavior compulsory, these policies arent nearly as draconian as they would be in an authoritarian system. When Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine ordered bars, restaurants and recreation centers closed, he added, we hope that Ohioans will follow this advice. Just as with every other law or rule, you cant enforce it every time. Compare this to language a Chinese party committee used to discourage citizens from hiding infections: Whoever deliberately delays or conceals reporting for the sake of their own interests will be forever nailed to historys pillar of shame.

Our democratic approach means that we run the risk of our citizens not taking the warnings seriously. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie observed on Monday that, There are still too many Americans going out to restaurants, bars and other public areas as if this is business as usual. In a way, this is the cost of our freedoms. Weve been advised, whether we are healthy or ill, to practice social distancing, by minimizing contact with other people, limiting nonessential travel, working from home and avoiding gatherings. But for most of us, this isnt a mandate. Instead, its a choice we make every time we cancel plans, stay in our homes and forego human contact for another day. These decisions might not make much of a difference to your personal health and safety, but can have an outsized impact on the health and safety of others. As the director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, has said, I think we as a nation have to get into a place of not just thinking about ourselves, but thinking about everybody else around us, and particularly the most vulnerable people those who are older and those people with chronic diseases. Young people may have a relatively low risk of serious illness, kids seem to have a very low risk, but if you want to avoid what could be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, then it is incumbent on all of us to severely limit our social interactions. We need to ask the question about every interaction we have and whether it is necessary or not.

It can be quite daunting to realize that flattening the curve slowing the rate of new infections in order to buy researchers more time to develop vaccines and give hospitals some respite is a responsibility that falls on all of us as individuals. But the thing about democracies is that theyre fundamentally optimistic about human nature. We give people civil liberties, knowing full well that some will abuse those rights, because we expect that, on the whole, most will use them wisely. We protect heinous speech, false information and pointless assembly from government crackdowns because we dont want to risk infringing on valuable speech, information and assembly and with that there is an inherent assumption that its worth it, that the good outweighs the bad.

There is no requirement that you exercise your freedoms responsibly, but the fact that you have them reflects the underlying belief that you will.

See the article here:

First Five: In crisis times, balancing safety and freedom - McDowell News

There are few things more intimate than a personalized license plate. Yet California's Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) rejects tens of thousands of applications for individualized plate slogans each year for being offensive to "good taste and decency."

Yesterday, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a public interest law firm, filed a lawsuit against state DMV director Steve Gordon alleging his department's license plate policy violates the First Amendment's free speech protections. The DMV, they are arguing, is using a dangerously expansive definition of "government speech" to unconstitutionally censor motorists' expression.

"Our lawsuit is about vague laws that give government bureaucrats unbridled discretion to regulate speech, and that inevitably leads to arbitrary results," says Wen Fa, an attorney with PLF. "It's basically at the DMV's whims what might be offensive and what isn't."

In 2018, the state DMV rejected 30,000 of the roughly 249,000 personal plate applications they received. PLF is representing five people who've similarly had their plate applications rejected.

That includes Paul Ogilvie, an army veteran, who wanted to combine his military nickname 'OG' with childhood nickname 'Woolf' to make an 'OGWOOLF' license plate. The DMV rejected this for supposedly being offensive.

They did the same thing to Amrit Kohli, a gay computer programmer and musician, whose application for a license plate saying "QUEER"a reference to Kohli's own identitywas rejected for being "insulting, degrading, or expressing contempt for a specific group or person," according to the PLF complaint.

James Blair is also suing the DMV after being told that his proposed "SLAAYRR" platea reference to the metal band Slayerwas "threatening, aggressive, or hostile" and therefore violated the department's prohibition on offensive plates.

In addition, PLF is representing English pub owner Paul Crawford, whose proposed "BO11LUX" license plate was turned down for being too sexual, and motorcycle enthusiast Andrea Campanile for a rejected "DUK N A" license plate (a reference to Ducati motorcycles and her first name).

This is not the first time California's personal plate regulations have come under attack. Last year PLF sued the department on behalf of university professor Jon Kotler who'd likewise had his application for a personalized plate rejected.

The state DMV argued in that case that because it was the one issuing the plates, it was the government speaking, and not the private citizen requesting the plates. Therefore, it was up to the discretion of the department which messages it would allow.

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected this argument in denying a government motion to dismiss the case, writing that it "it strains believability to argue thatviewers perceive the government as speaking through personalized vanity plates."

That case was resolved in January 2020 when the DMV decided to issue Kotler the initially rejected plate. However, the department has kept its regulations about offensive plates on the books, prompting PLF to file a second lawsuit.

"The government speech doctrine has very wide implications for free speech in general. The government is increasingly relying on that doctrine to say individuals have no free speech rights at all, and therefore the government can ban speech it finds offensive or hateful," says Fa. "If the DMV's logic were correct, then the government could censor offensive speech in public parks, which is also government property."

See the article here:

Do You Have a First Amendment Right to a Slayer-Themed License Plate? - Reason

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government workers may not be mandated to pay union dues as a condition of employment. The ruling was a victory for free speech and free association.

Now, in a lawsuit out of Maine, the justices have another opportunity to rein in the power of labor organizations to force workers to accept their representation. The case could have major ramifications for many states, including Nevada.

The legal action brought by Jonathan Reisman, an associate professor of economics in the University of Maine system involves the common practice of governments granting public-sector unions exclusive workplace bargaining rights. Mr. Reisman argues that this runs afoul of the Constitution because it prevents him and other like-minded individuals from speaking for themselves in contract negotiations and forces him to associate with an organization that acts contrary to his beliefs.

If the state cannot compel public employees to financially support union advocacy how can states require these same public employees to accept representation from unions that many of them have chosen not to join? an attorney for Mr. Reisman asked.

Mr. Reisman, according to news accounts, was formerly a union officer, but came to object to many of the policy positions for which his labor group advocated. A federal appeals court rejected his arguments, but the Supreme Court is now considering whether to accept the case.

The matter is ripe for review. As Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burris and Michael Collins wrote last month for the Cato Institute, arrangements involving exclusive representation restrict a number of individual freedoms.

Exclusive representation simply cant be justified by any state interest, let alone a compelling one, that would validate the serious impingements it imposes on dissenting nonmembers associational rights, they argue. Put plainly there is no labor law exception to the First Amendment, and labor laws that violate constitutional principles must be held to heightened judicial scrutiny.

Indeed, union complaints about free riders nonmembers who dont pay dues yet nevertheless enjoy the wages and protections negotiated during union contract talks are legitimate only because of exclusive representation powers that many states have granted public-sector labor groups. There are no free riders if independent workers are able to represent themselves as they see fit.

Gov. Steve Sisolak last year signed legislation allowing state of Nevada workers to bargain collectively. It will eventually bust the budget, but it also grants exclusive representation rights to labor. Lets hope the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutional difficulties inherent in such a provision.

Original post:

EDITORIAL: No labor law exception to the First Amendment - Las Vegas Review-Journal

So now President Donald Trumps re-election campaign is filing SLAPP suits against news organizations that is, libel suits with no legal merit whose goal is to intimidate rather than to expose the truth.

The lawsuits have targeted The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN, all of which have the resources to defend themselves. But the Trump campaigns tactics raise a larger question: Will these suits embolden others to weaponize the courts against media outlets that lack the financial wherewithal to fight back against deep-pocketed opponents?

SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation. A typical example might involve a developer whos seeking to build a controversial strip mall and who files a frivolous libel suit against neighborhood critics or a small local newspaper in order to silence them. According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 31 states, including Massachusetts, have anti-SLAPP laws aimed at discouraging such suits. There is no federal anti-SLAPP law.

For a president's political operation to sue news organizations for libel is virtually unprecedented but not surprising coming from Trump, who said during the 2016 campaign that he wanted to open up our libel laws so that it would be easier for public figures to collect damages. The lawsuits involve four opinion pieces all of which, as Jacob Gershman notes in The Wall Street Journal, contain passages implying Donald Trump sought or welcomed Russia's intervention in the 2016 presidential election or the 2020 race.

The articles in question were written by Max Frankel, former executive editor of the Times; two Post opinion journalists, Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman; and CNN contributor Larry Noble, a former general counsel at the Federal Election Commission.

Without going into too much detail, the pieces all assert that the Trump campaign had sought help from the Russians during the 2016 campaign and that it appeared to be willing to do so again. (Noble links to an ABC News interview with Trump in which the president all but invited foreign interference in 2020.) Among other things, the Trump campaign cites the Mueller Report as evidence that there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia.

Yet the Frankel commentary was published several weeks before the mostly unredacted version of the Mueller Report was released. Moreover, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton last week lambasted Attorney General William Barr for mischaracterizing the Mueller Report in his initial summary, writing that Barr had sought to obscure ties between the Trump campaign and Russia as well as multiple episodes of possible obstruction of justice. You could almost say that it sounds like collusion.

As for 2020, the Times recently reported that Russia is attempting once again to help Trump (as well as Bernie Sanders, according to the Post). Trumps indifference and even outright hostility to efforts aimed at curbing that influence could certainly be characterized as welcoming Russian interference.

All this is by way of arguing that the lawsuits are publicity stunts aimed at stirring up the Trumpist base. Not only are they outrageous in and of themselves, but they could also pose a threat to the First Amendment.

Im not a lawyer, but the constitutional principles at issue are well understood. First, there is the fact that the articles in question are opinion pieces. Opinion is protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court put it in Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974), there is no such thing as a false idea. Of course, if you make a defamatory statement about someone that could be proven false, merely labeling it as opinion is no protection, as the court ruled in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1990). But the facts laid out in the Mueller Report, as well the Trump interview with ABC News cited by Noble, cut against the Trump campaign's legal argument.

More important, the three news organizations are protected by the 1964 precedent set in New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the court found that public officials would have to prove actual malice in order to win a libel suit; that standard was later extended to public figures as well. Because of the Times decision, the Trump campaign would have to show that the media outlets published the four pieces in question despite knowing or suspecting they were false. (As I wrote last year, Justice Clarence Thomas has said that he would like to weaken the Times v. Sullivan protections. But of course.)

Not only would the Trump campaign find it virtually impossible to prove that the Times, the Post and CNN knew what they were publishing was false there are mountains of evidence to suggest that what they published was true.

In other words, these are the presidential equivalent of SLAPP suits, designed solely to harass and intimidate.

So what is the solution? Judges are strongly encouraged to throw out frivolous libel suits at the earliest possible stage because of the chilling effect that they have on news organizations and others seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights. That is exactly what should happen with the Trump campaigns suits.

More broadly, the suits should serve as a wake-up call. The libel laws are intended as a way for people who have been harmed by false, defamatory statements to obtain compensation. But libel can also be used to silence critics or, in the case of the Times, the Post and CNN to discredit them in the eyes of Trumps supporters.

Not only do the courts need to throw out these suits as quickly as possible; they also must take steps to ensure that the Trump campaigns actions dont trickle down to the state and local levels, which would encourage the widespread abuse of the courts for partisan political advantage.

One possible answer: Passing anti-SLAPP laws in places that dont have them, including the federal courts. And, where necessary, strengthening them to make sure they have real teeth.

WGBH News contributor Dan Kennedys blog, Media Nation, is online at dankennedy.net.

Read this article:

How The Trump Campaign Is Weaponizing Libel And Threatening The First Amendment - wgbh.org

Last week, in June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that once again raises questions about the extent to which the Constitution protects a womans right to end a pregnancy. But the way in which the court resolves the case is likely to reveal more than just its views on abortion rights.

This column, the first in a series of three, describes the legal and historical path that led to June Medical Services. The next two will explore what the case suggests about, respectively, how the current court will treat constitutional precedent with which it disagrees, and how much deference it will give to laws enacted for deceptive reasons.

Laws that limit freedom are usually constitutional. Constitutional challenges to freedom-limiting laws fail if the legislature enacted the law for a legitimate purpose and sought to further that purpose in a rational manner.

Thus, for example, laws limiting the freedom to drive to persons 16 and older are constitutional. Imposing an age limit for driving advances a legitimate governmental purpose (road safety) and proceeds from the common-sense assumption that immature drivers would undermine that purpose.

Some freedoms, though, are special. These special freedoms may be limited only in extraordinary circumstances, and only if the government refrains from limiting them any more than is strictly necessary to address the extraordinary situation. Constitutional challenges to laws that limit special freedoms, known in constitutional law as fundamental rights, usually succeed.

So, what rights are fundamental, and thus presumably free from governmental interference?

There is widespread agreement that the rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution e.g., the speech, religion, association, and press rights listed in the First Amendment; the Fourth Amendments right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Eighth Amendments right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments are fundamental.

More controversially, the court also recognizes certain rights not mentioned in the text of the Constitution as fundamental. Examples include rights to direct the upbringing and education of ones children, a right to marry, a right to be free from forced sterilization, and a general right of privacy that includes the right to use contraceptives.

The abortion right falls within this latter category of unenumerated fundamental rights. The right, which derives from the more general right of privacy, was first recognized in Roe v. Wade (1973), which held unconstitutional laws banning or discouraging abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Interestingly, Roe was a 7-2 decision featuring five Republican Supreme Court appointees in the majority and a Democratic appointee in the dissent.

Shortly after Roe was decided, however, our abortion politics underwent a radical transformation. President Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980, called for Roe to be overruled and promised to appoint judges who shared his views on abortion. President Reagans successor, President George H.W. Bush, continued these efforts. Between 1981 and 1991, Presidents Reagan and Bush combined to appoint five new justices to the court.

Thus, by the end of President Bushs first term, it looked as though the court might be poised to overrule Roe. The case through which such an overruling was sought, Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), challenged the constitutionality of a number of Pennsylvania laws that, despite Roe, were enacted to discourage abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy.

But to the surprise of many, three of the five Reagan/Bush Court appointees Justices Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter jointly authored an opinion holding that the right to an abortion was still specially protected as a constitutional matter.

To be sure, Casey significantly trimmed back Roes protections. It entirely eliminated Roes trimester framework. And it explicitly authorized legislatures to enact laws designed to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion during the first two trimesters of her pregnancy. But Casey did not restore to legislatures the complete regulatory power that they held prior to Roe.

Emphasizing the importance of respecting constitutional precedent, Casey held that legislatures may not enact a law that imposes an undue burden on the abortion right. A law imposes an undue burden if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy that is, before the fetus becomes viable by having a realistic chance of surviving outside of the womb.

Since 1992, the court has been quite deferential to legislative judgments in enforcing Caseys undue-burden standard. In Casey itself, the court upheld laws imposing waiting periods of at least 24 hours after the woman seeking the abortion is provided information about adoption, and requiring parental notification in most cases where a minor seeks an abortion. In 2007, the court also upheld a federal law prohibiting a form of second-trimester abortion called (by some) partial-birth abortion.

But at the same time, the court has struck down some laws as imposing an undue burden, including (in Casey) a law conditioning abortion on prior notice to the pregnant womans spouse.

Fast forward to the present. Recently, states with legislatures opposed to abortion rights have become far more aggressive in enacting laws designed to reduce or eliminate the availability of the procedure within their borders. Alabama has enacted a law that effectively bans nearly all abortions, and a number of other states have enacted laws outlawing abortions at or shortly after the point in time when a fetal heartbeat may be detected (a mere 6 six weeks into the pregnancy). Because these laws have the undeniable purpose of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, lower courts have uniformly invoked Casey either to strike them down or to place them on hold pending appellate review.

The Louisiana law challenged in June Medical Services, which requires that physicians performing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the procedure is performed, takes a different approach. It does not on its face express hostility to abortion rights. Indeed, it presents itself as a measure designed to safeguard maternal health by ensuring the availability of a nearby hospital bed should complications arise.

But abortion is a safe procedure that almost never requires hospitalization. Moreover, hospitals typically condition admitting privileges on the number of patients that a physician admits. The law thus creates a catch-22: Physicians who perform abortions must have admitting privileges, but they cannot obtain or maintain them because the need for hospitalization in connection with abortion is so rare. The legislative history shows that the authors of the law were well aware of this problem sought to exploit it to reduce the availability of abortion in Louisiana.

It would be understandable if you are experiencing deja vu. Fewer than four years ago, in Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the court applied Casey to strike down a nearly identical Texas law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the co-authors of Casey, also was one of the five justices who joined the majority opinion. And Justice Kennedy has since retired and been replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Will this change in the courts composition spell the end of constitutional protections for abortion rights? Stay tuned. A decision in June Medical Services is expected by the end of June.

(John Greabe teaches constitutional law and directs the Warren B. Rudman Center for Justice, Leadership & Public Service at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law. The opinions he expresses in his Constitutional Connections columns are entirely his own.)

Read more here:

Constitutional Connections: Is the right to abortion still specially protected? - Concord Monitor

The National Socialist Movement, the American Nazi party, does not have a First Amendment right to rally in Williamsport at Brandon Park (or anywhere else) because their agenda is to encourage violence. Currently, a lawsuit is underway by the City of Charlottesville based upon the efforts of the organizers of the National Socialist Movement to both plan and encourage violence at a rally held in that city.

Our Mayor and City Council are wrong to believe that there is any First Amendment right. It seems quite clear that the authorities in this city have not looked even casually at the history of the National Socialist Movement or examined their postings in connection with the event to be held in Williamsport.

Williamsport, Pennsylvania will now become known as the City of Hate. It behooves our newly elected Mayor, City Council and the Chief of Police to do some research on this organization and to deny the permit.

A number of years ago, I received a telephone call from Mayor Campana when the Ku Klux Klan sought a permit in Williamsport. The Mayor said that because of the groups history of violence, he would not permit it. I received a similar phone call from the Mayor of Montoursville. The Ku Klux Klan did not hold its rally.

After the permits were denied, the head of the Ku Klux Klan was referred to me by the ACLU in Washington, DC. I met with the Klan head in my office for approximately 3-1/2 hours. After the meeting, I told the Klan head that I would not represent him but that there were plenty of other lawyers who had a twisted notion of the First Amendment. I encouraged the Klan leader to work through conventional, non-violent channels.

The Chief of Police of the City of Williamsport later told me that the man I talked to quit leading the Klan and that the organization would not be pursuing any legal action.

Our current Administration has to stand tall. Have some backbone on this issue. Hatred and incitement to violence must be opposed regardless of where those extremist views come from. The question is not one of opinion, but rather a history of violence and the promoting of behaviors that are a clear and present danger to others.

One must ask whether the Mayor, City Council and Chief of Police have looked into the organization, its history, its social media prior to rallies around the country, and what has occurred at those other events.

I am and remain a proud civil rights lawyer. As I write this piece, I am preparing a federal complaint against a school district that denied to my client her first amendment rights and retaliated against her for exercising those rights. The First Amendment is crucial. The document inked by our Founders was meant to be enforced.

Nevertheless, and in spite of the First Amendment, the Congress of the United States, during one of the earliest administrations, passed the Alien and Sedition Act. Under the Presidency of John Adams, publicists and journalists were jailed for expressing negative views and opinions about the Federalists who were in power. This was a dark and ugly history for our nation. Other attempts to quash First Amendment rights have occurred throughout our nations history. The First Amendment must be a bulwark that stands between democracy and totalitarianism.

The Supreme Court is often quoted as having stated that one has a right to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. The First Amendment does not permit advocating or planning violence. People are criminally punished and go to jail who plan or try to convince others to commit violent acts. Violence is the agenda of the American Nazi Party.

No counter-demonstration or police presence will remove the stain from this Citys reputation and history should it permit the Nazi event to go forward in Brandon Park. Our City officials should stand up proudly against granting this permit and should fight in the courts for the principle that violence and advocates of violence have no home in our beautiful City.

We live in an era where it seems that the First Amendment is defined by whether a particular official belongs to the left wing or right wing. Williamsport is taking an anemic stance towards a hate organization such as the Nazi party because of a misplaced and completely inaccurate view of the First Amendment. Such views are not progressive or open-minded, but rather represent the equivalent of unintended cooperation with forces of hate. History has shown us that the Roosevelt administration not only failed to oppose the Nazi effort to destroy all Jews in Europe, but through its indifference actually encouraged the Holocaust. The Roosevelt administration was filled with anti-Semites who acted as a silent cheering section for the goals of the Third Reich. Our public officials must be cognizant of history. Liberalism and open-mindedness should never be an open highway to permit the promulgation of violence in the name of the glorious First Amendment to our Constitution.

The question as to whether the Nazis will be allowed to rally in Williamsport or whether the permit will be revoked is a defining moment in this Citys history.

Cliff Rieders is a Board Certified Trial Advocate in Williamsport, is Past President of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association and a past member of the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority.

See the original post here:

Distorted View of the First Amendment | Clifford Rieders - The Times of Israel

Nashville Tennessean Published 10:39 a.m. CT March 11, 2020

First Amendment and Independence Hall(Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The USA TODAY Network in Tennesseejoins news publications across the U.S. in supporting a National Student Essay Competition designed to deepen a recognition of the First Amendment that strengthens freedom of the press and rebuilds trust.

The Tennessean, The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, The Knoxville News Sentinel, The Jackson Sun, The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle and the Daily News Journal in Murfreesboro are inviting young readers to compete in the contest.

There is no more important time than now to focus conversation and critical reflection on understanding the crucial relationships among the First Amendment, a free press, and the foundations of democracy.

Students in grades six through eight, grades nine through twelve, and those at universities and colleges are invited to submit essays up to 500 words examining the state of freedom of the press in the United States today in light of the First Amendment to our Constitution. The specific topic is:Why a free press matters in a democracy." Send essays to USA TODAY Network Tennessee Opinion and Engagement Director David Plazas at dplazas@gannett.com.

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

National Student Essay Competition Director Mary Kay Lazarus said, The competition is designed to engage the important voices of our students, voices that are vital to the future of a robust democracy, and to expand national dialogue about press freedom by encouraging discussion at home and in school.

Students may submit essays from now through Friday April 17. Winners in each category selected by one of the network publicationswill then be submitted to a national jury who will select the semi-finalists and then the finalists by early September 2020. The publications will announcewinners the first week in June.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The national winner in each category (grades six-eight; grades nine-twelve; and grades university/college) will each receive a $5,000 check from the Boston Globe Foundation. The winning essayist with the highest ranking among the three categories will also receive a full four-year scholarship, currently valued at $38,000 a year, to Westminster College in Salt Lake City.

Prizes will be awarded late fall at the 15th Annual McCarthey Family Foundation Lecture Series: In Praise of Independent Journalism.

For more information and entry guidelines, visit https://mklpr.com/national-student-essay-competition.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/03/11/tennessee-students-submit-essay-press-freedom-compete-money/5015271002/

See the original post here:

Tennessee students: Submit essay on freedom of the press and compete for prize money - Tennessean

The media are most definitely not your enemy.

Far from being the enemy of the people, day in and day out we take our role as the Fourth Estate seriously and work hard to protect your right to know, making public records requests and attending public meetings to keep you informed.

Why?

Because we believe all the business government does, whether in open public meetings or behind closed doors, is your business.

We believe every last penny government spends is your money.

We believe it is your right to know every transaction, every decision, every expenditure and every deliberation of your government.

Whether talking about the White House, the statehouse or the county courthouse, all the documents held in government halls belong to the people, and all the business conducted by our governors is public business.

We believe our government your government can only be of, by and for the people when it is out in front of the people.

Primary to our Republic is the understanding that we are the government and the government is us.

The only powers held by federal, state or local government are the powers we give.

So, whether it is Congress, the states General Assembly, county commissioners, city council or the board of education, it is your right to know all of the peoples business.

When you attend local city, county or school board meetings, ask questions and hold elected representatives accountable, you are not minding their business, you are minding your own business.

When you make a public records request, you are not asking local records custodians to give you something that just belongs to them or the office where they work. You are simply asking for your own documents.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment, which guarantees the freedom of speech and the freedom of press, is not intended to protect the media per se.

Rather, the founders built a hedge of protection around the media because the media guard and fight for the publics right to know.

According to a Brookings Institution report, more than 2,000 newspapers across the country ceased publication in the past 15 years or so.

The shuttering of newspapers presents a very real and present danger to our most basic freedoms.

Thats why communities should support their local newspapers through subscriptions and advertising, now more than ever before.

Journalists keep an eye on government, shine the light on its actions, fight the good fight for access to documents and meetings, champion transparency and defend the First Amendment because of a core belief in your basic, fundamental rights principally, your right to know.

CNHI Deputy National Editor Jim Zachary is the president of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation. He can be reached a jzachary@cnhi.com

Excerpt from:

Jim Zachary | It's always your right to know - TribDem.com

Two years ago, just after the Chester County school superintendent filed a lawsuit against the school board's chairwoman and its attorney, Travis Jenkins did what any good journalist would do.

The editor of the Chester News and Reporter submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking copies of emails to and from the superintendent. It was a routine request for messages that could provide insight into a breakdown in leadership no different from other requests Jenkins has sent during his 17 years at the paper.

What was different was the bill he got back.

They said they could accommodate my request for the low, low price of $29,000, Jenkins said. I didnt have the money.

Thats just one example of the eye-popping fees S.C. government agencies have levied for public records in recent years, even after state lawmakers changed the law in 2017 to speed up records requests and rein in charges for retrieving and turning over the documents.

Just before passing the General Assembly, that new law was stripped of a key section that would have made it easier and cheaper for members of the public to challenge fees they cant afford. Also slipped in was a sentence allowing government agencies to charge the public for the first time for the costs of redacting documents.

Since then, newspaper editors and First Amendment lawyers say they have seen a surge of exorbitant FOIA costs, especially from local police agencies, school boards and city and county councils.

They are the most inclined to set exorbitant fees to prevent people from seeking information that might be embarrassing to the local government, said Jay Bender, a longtime First Amendment lawyer who also represents The Post and Courier. Im firmly of a mind that that its an effort to discourage citizens from looking into what government is doing.

A few South Carolinians and news outlets have sued over hefty FOIA fees. But most don't have the money. More often, news editors say, high fees have led them to postpone stories and find workarounds, greatly narrow their requests for information or give up on stories altogether.

The smaller papers cannot afford to challenge these charges in court, said Bill Rogers, president of the South Carolina Press Association. They just cant afford to do it anymore. Government agencies know they can do whatever they want to do and nobody is going to challenge them.

Such records are crucial to newsgathering, the public's understanding of government and the democratic process. They include spending receipts, government contracts, officials emails and police arrest records. Stories written from those documents have altered the outcome of elections, prompted new laws and sent powerful officials to prison.

Dan Johnson, the former 5th Circuit solicitor, is currently behind bars in part because of 2018 newspaper stories that stemmed from open records requests. Richland and Kershaw counties collectively charged more than $4,000 for the documents that detailed Johnsons spending of more than $44,000 in taxpayer money on lavish trips to Las Vegas, Chicago and other locales.

The states Freedom of Information Act was written in 1976 to guarantee public access to that kind of information. But it was riddled with loopholes and exceptions that agencies have worn out in denying access to potentially embarrassing information.

Public bodies receive thousands of FOIA requests each year, many of them from private citizens, businesses, researchers and political activists as well as news outlets.

The law allows government bodies to charge for the reasonable costs of researching and retrieving requested documents. Those requests can take time and cost money to complete, especially if they seek documents that are older or scattered among different departments, said Kent Lesesne, director of government relations for the S.C. Association of Counties.

Lesesne said he advises counties to clearly spell out how they calculated a FOIA fee, especially with larger amounts that could come with sticker shock.

"I try to advise them on what the law says," Lesesne said. "It has to be reasonable. It has to be the actual cost."

But critics contend some agencies have abused that part of the law, jacking up fees to avoid turning over damaging information that could lead to critical stories.

Last year, the Horry County Police Department sought to charge the Myrtle Beach Sun News $75,500 for records related to lawsuits it has settled over the past five years, and it refused to explain why the request would be so expensive. The Sun News reported that other local governments in the area fulfilled the same request for less than $50.

In 2018, the same agency told the Sun News it would cost more than $23,000 to provide a breakdown explaining how sex crimes with minors have been investigated over the past five years. An Horry County police officer recently paid a $300 fine after pleading guilty to misconduct in office related to failing to investigate child abuse and other crimes.

They constantly need a reminder that they work for the public and they work for the citizens, said Sun News Executive Editor Stephanie Pedersen. Charging those enormous amounts really contradicts their jobs.

A small fraction of the disputes has led to litigation.

A Port Royal resident sued Beaufort County last year after it requested $12,000 to release County Council members emails, saying it would take 167 work hours at as much as $72 an hour for county employees to compile the electronic records and redact them.

The Charleston Police Department tried to charge The Post and Courier $200,000 in 2015 for access to the agencys field contact records, which include personal information from thousands of people who crossed paths with officers but were not charged with a crime. The agency eventually agreed to settlea legal fight with the newspaper.

But not everyone can pay the thousands of dollars necessary to file a lawsuit and take their case to the states circuit court. That leaves them with little recourse if a public agency demands an extraordinary sum for records.

The State newspaper in Columbia recently had to pay $350 for the personnel records of two Lexington County sheriffs deputies it reported were involved in a controversial death investigation. Sheriff Jay Koon said the department was charging $22 per hour for the records but declined to explain why it would take nearly 16 hours to turn over two personnel files.

But a similar fee was too much for the Independent Voice of Blythewood and Fairfield, two newspapers that share one full-time editor and several freelance writers.

Barbara Ball, the publisher, said the outlet recently abandoned a story because the public body at the center of it requested more than $300 to provide critical records.

Were so shorthanded, Ball said. When they asked for that much money, we cant sue. So it didnt go any further than that.

In 2018, Ball said, Richland County charged her paper $309 to provide council spending records it had already retrieved and provided to The State newspaper. Ball said her paper wound up getting the documents from The State instead of paying the county for them.

Even South Carolinas largest papers arent immune.

The Greenville News has seen a series of pricey FOIA estimates while researching for recent projects, news director Steve Bruss said.

The paper has shelled out hundreds of dollars for a few requests and as much as $1,200 for one set of documents. But it couldnt afford an $8,000 charge from the Greenville County Sheriffs Office for internal affairs reports on disciplinary actions for deputies, Bruss said.

We passed and looked for other ways to get the information, he said.

The first draft of the 2017 FOIA law change included a possible solution: Let S.C. residents quickly and cheaply dispute those charges in a special administrative law court.

But at the tail end of a seven-year push for the new law, state Sen. Margie Bright Matthews, D-Walterboro, successfully argued to strip out that section. She said it makes no sense to require local governments and the people challenging them to drive to Columbia for hearings that can be held locally in circuit court.

She instead proposed an amendment that requires FOIA cases to be heard in circuit court within 10 days of a case being filed and settled within six months.

Bright Matthews said this week she doesn't believe moving the cases to administrative law court would have been less costly. She said the new law aims to drive down costs for municipalities as well as the public.

"I believe in transparency, and I also believe in keeping costs down for taxpayers," she said.

But the new law isn't working well enough, said state Rep. Bill Taylor, an Aiken Republican who helped write it. Taylor, a former television news reporter, has filed separate legislation to move FOIA cases to administrative law court, but that proposal has yet to gain traction in the General Assembly.

The circuit court is a poor process in that it is extremely expensive and time-consuming, Taylor said. People wont use that as an avenue for FOIA. The administrative law court would have been an easy solution to that.

In lieu of those changes, S.C. reporters and researchers have relied on government bodies to fill records requests in good faith. Sometimes that works. Other times, news outlets have written stories and columns publicly shaming agencies for their fees.

Jenkins', for example, wound up getting most of the emails he wanted from Chester County School District after writing a series of stories and editorials about the fees. Others outlets haven't been as fortunate.

"The 2017 amendments (to the FOIA law) had the right goal in mind," said Desa Ballard, a West Columbia attorney who has sued several S.C. agencies for public records. "The compliance has continued to be as spotty as it was before the 2017 legislation."

See the original post here:

Despite new law, SC cities, counties are charging thousands of dollars for public records - Charleston Post Courier

What happens to the rule of law when even the top law enforcement official in the land refuses to obey it?

Thats the question raised in a stinging rebuke of Attorney General William Barr and his Justice Department that came from an unusual source earlier this year: Federal Appeals Court Judge Frank Easterbrook.

Easterbrook excoriated Barr and the department for defying an order issued by his court.

The order in question concerned the case of Jorge Baez-Sanchez, a man living in the U.S. illegally, who was convicted of aggravated battery of a police officer and scheduled to be deported. Easterbrook quoted a letter from Attorney General Barr to the Justice Departments Board of Immigration Appeals saying that the Seventh Circuit decision stopping that deportation was incorrect and need not be followed.

Responding to Barrs assertion, Easterbrook insisted that while executive branch officials are free to maintain that our decision is mistaken until the court reverses itself the Executive Branch must honor that decision. Easterbrook said the Constitution gives courts the right to make conclusive decisions, which are not subject to disapproval or revision by another branch of government.

As someone who has studied what happens when public officials violate the law, I findBarrs defiance reminiscent of other times in American history when powerful figures challenged the authority of the courts. Such challenges risk undermining the authority of the Constitution in the eyes of everyday Americans.

The courts authority to interpret the law is derived from an 1803 Supreme Court decision, Marbury v. Madison, not from the Constitution itself. William Marbury, who had been appointed a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams, was denied the official commission for that office by James Madison, secretary of state in the incoming Jefferson administration. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his commission. The court held that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which Marbury said gave it the power to do so, violated the Constitution. As a result, it could not provide the relief Marbury sought.

And, since that decision, from time to time political leaders have questioned the courts authority.

President Andrew Jackson mounted one of the most important of those challenges when he refused to enforce an 1832 Supreme Court ruling that the states could not regulate Native American land.

After that ruling, Jackson took a swipe at, the courts chief justice: John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.

Moreover, that same year, Jackson vetoed an act of Congress granting a charter for the Second Bank of the United States on the grounds that the bank was unconstitutional. He did so despite an 1819 Supreme Court decision affirming its constitutionality.

In his veto message, Jackson invoked the separation of powers and said, The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the president is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.

Jacksons effort to stop the National Bank ultimately prevailed when it was replaced by an independent federal treasury system.

A little more than a century later, in the immediate aftermath of the 1954 landmark school desegregation ruling, Brown v. Board of Education, Southern political leaders, including members of Congress, followed Jacksons example.

In 1956 they issued a Southern Manifesto, which called Brown a clear abuse of judicial power. The manifesto commended states for resisting forced integration of schools and claimed states had the right to defy federal court orders that they regarded as incorrect.

One of the most blatant examples of such resistance occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. Responding to a federal district court which ordered the immediate integration of the schools, Governor Orval Faubus called out the National Guard to stop black children from attending Central High School.

When lawyers for those black children sought help from the United States Supreme Court, the court anticipating Easterbrooks response to Barr rebuked the Arkansas governor and reaffirmed the desegregation order.

Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote that Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court. Even this Court has the last say only for a time. Being composed of fallible men, it may err. But revision of its errors must be by orderly process of law.

And, despite his own reservations about the Brown decision, President Dwight Eisenhower sent federal troops to Little Rock to enforce the court order.

In 2015, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Opposition to the decision came quickly. Some local officials announced that, because same-sex unions violated their religious beliefs, they would not issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

One of the resisters, Katie Lang, county clerk of Hood County, Texas, said that the Supreme Court had fabricated a new constitutional right which could not diminish, overrule, or call into question the First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion that formed the first freedom in the Bill of Rights in 1791.

She was supported by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who told county clerks and judges that they did not have to issue same-sex marriage licenses or conduct wedding ceremonies if they have religious objections to doing so.

Separation of powers, states rights and religious freedom each have been invoked as a justification for official noncompliance with court orders. Attorney General Barr adds his broad view of executive power to that list of reasons.

Yet no matter what the reason, any time government officials defy the courts, they undermine the Constitutions authority and send a powerful message to citizens. Today many Americans seem ready to heed that message, with a quarter of the respondents to national surveys now saying that a president should be able to disobey court decisions with which he disagrees.

While the rule of law survived Jackson, massive resistance in the South, and defiance of the Supreme Courts gay marriage decision, there is something particularly perilous when the attorney general defies the courts. As a 1980 opinion of the departments Office of Legal Counsel noted, it is his responsibility to defend and enforce both the Acts of Congress and the Constitution.

That danger is compounded at a time when the president repeatedly expresses his view that judges are really nothing more than partisans in black robes and derides them and their decisions.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis correctly observed almost a century ago that, In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Austin Sarat, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Visit link:

William Barr isnt the first powerful official to defy the courts and risk legitimizing contempt for the law - Raw Story

Press release content from Newswire. The AP news staff was not involved in its creation.

Click to copy

LOS ANGELES - March 12, 2020 - ( Newswire.com )

On June 24, 2019, Jim Bellino filed a lawsuit in Orange County for defamation against podcaster Heather McDonald. The complaint alleges that McDonalds podcast guests, Tamra Judge and Shannon Beador, said false statements about Jim and his divorce from former Real Housewives of Orange County cast member, Alexis Bellino.

The First Amendment does not permit public figures to silence critics through lawsuits costing tens of thousands of dollars.For this reason, McDonalds attorney, Jeff Lewis, filed an anti-SLAPP motion to request a dismissal of the defamation lawsuit.

OnMarch 9, 2020, Judge Layne Melzer granted the motion and dismissed Bellinos defamation case.

ThisWINfor Heather McDonald protects the rights of podcasters to report the news whether it is a report about a world peace summit or celebrity gossip.Fortunately, California has enacted an anti-SLAPP law which allows defendants like McDonald to get to the front of the line and obtain a quick dismissal of a case.

# # #

About Heather McDonald

Heather McDonald is the host of the #1 PopCulture PODCAST JUICY SCOOP.The show is available on the iTunes Podcast, Spotify, Stitcher, and iHeartRadio app. Heather is a 2 Time Best Selling NY Author, Headlining comedian Showtime and Netflix and podcaster

Heather wrote, produced and appeared on E!s top-rated showCHELSEA LATELYfor its entire 7-year run. She also starred inAFTER LATELY, a mockumentary series on E! for its 3 successful seasons. For more information about Heather go towww.HeatherMcDonald.NET

To arrange an interview please email:

Peter Dobias. 818-649-9696

HeatherMcdonaldManagement@gmail.com

About Jeff Lewis

Jeff Lewis Law is a First Amendment attorney who regularly represents defendants who speak their mind and are unfairly targeted with lawsuits. For more information about Jeff Lewis, see, https://www.jefflewislaw.com/practice-areas/anti-slapp-and-first-amendment

Press Release Service by Newswire.com

Original Source: Heather McDonald Wins Defamation Court Hearing

Follow this link:

Heather McDonald Wins Defamation Court Hearing - Associated Press

Floridians looking to amend the state Constitution to expand Medicaid or allow recreational cannabis will face a more costly and complicated process under a bill headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Florida House on Wednesday voted, 73-45, for a bill (SB 1794) that would impose new barriers for citizen groups seeking to collect enough voter signatures to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

The Senate voted, 23-17, for the bill earlier in the week. Both votes were along party lines, with the Republicans in support and Democrats in opposition.

The bill will make it harder for citizen groups to trigger a Florida Supreme Court review of the ballot measures by increasing the required number of voter signatures from 10 percent of the total voters in the last presidential election to 25 percent. Court approval is a critical step in placing an amendment on the ballot.

This year, citizen petition groups, like those trying to legalize recreational marijuana or expand Medicaid coverage, had to collect 76,620 validated signatures to qualify for a court review. Under the bill, they would have needed to collect nearly 192,000 signatures.

Other changes include requiring citizen initiatives to collect signatures in more congressional districts in order to trigger the court review. It would increase from at least a quarter of the 27 congressional districts to at least half, which would mean 14 districts.

The bill also prohibits citizen groups from using voter signatures gathered in one election for a later election. Currently, the signatures are valid for two years after they are collected.The bill would allow local supervisors of elections to charge the actual cost of verifying the voter signatures that are submitted for review.

And the bill would give the state Supreme Court the authority to decide whether the ballot measures are facially invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents said the measure is another attempt to limit the use of citizen petition drives that have led to constitutional amendments that limited class sizes in schools, linked a state minimum wage to an inflation index, authorized the use of medical marijuana, established voting rights for ex-felons, and directed lawmakers to spend more money on conservation lands.

Voters will get a chance this fall to vote on another citizen initiative that would raise Floridas minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of several years.

Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Miami-Dade County Democrat who opposed the measure, said the bill adds more barriers to the petition process that will effectively eliminate the ability of grassroots groups to put issues before the voters.

Were just making the citizen initiative process more costly and more complicated, forcing operations from grassroots to professional, Rodriguez said. Its taking a system that was meant for citizens to act when this Legislature would not and flipping it on its head and making it something that only the billionaires can access.

In the House, Democrats said the increased regulations were an infringement on the First Amendment rights of voters to petition their government.

I just cant sit quietly by while we are taking power away from the people, said Rep. Margaret Good, a Sarasota Democrat. We dont have to have constitutional amendments, if we do what the people wanted us to do.

But Rep. James Grant, a Tampa Republican who supported the bill, said the legislation would not prevent citizen groups from advancing constitutional amendments, although he acknowledged the measure was increasing the signature threshold and adding more regulations.

I stand ready to have lawsuits again filed against this Legislature. I welcome the argument that this would violate the First Amendment, Grant said. Im confident in that argument, our product is sound because nobody here is telling voters that they cant engage or cant speak. What were actually saying is speak louder.

Here is an earlier Florida Phoenix story on the issue.

Originally posted here:

Lawmakers send a bill to governor making it harder for citizen groups to advance constitutional amendments - Florida Phoenix