There is an ongoing dust up involving the First Amendment, allegations of prohibited viewpoint discrimination and legislative immunity in the Texas Senate. Its fascinating stuff for political scientists, political practitioners, and journalists.

It started on Thursday, February 27, when a man testified at a Texas State Senate hearing wearing a t-shirt that said, F**K the POLICE, (but his shirt featured all the letters) and, to drive the sentiment home, accompanied by an image of a hand with the middle finger outstretched.

After learning about the hearing, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick tweeted out:

Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur.Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick tweeted out his disapproval of people wearing vulgar shirts ... [+] while testifying before the Senate.

His tweet was met with a volley of criticism by First Amendment advocates who maintained that Lieutenant Governor Patrickand the Legislature in generaldoesnt have the right to abridge speech or pick and choose between types of speech.(Note to readers outside of Texas: the lieutenant governor in Texas is the most powerful lieutenant governor in the nation in that the person in that office actually runs the State Senate, not unlike how the Speaker of the House runs the House.)

Common in the citations to make their point was a U.S. Supreme Court decision from the Vietnam era. In Cohen v. California, the court ruled on the case of a 19-year-old man who was arrested for wearing a jacket that read, F**k the Draft, Stop the War, into a California courthouse. The court overturned his arrest and conviction on a 5-4 decision that determined that Californias law that prohibited the display of offensive messages was a violation of the freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment.

Cohen v. California, decided in 1971, was often cited as the case that would prevent viewpoint ... [+] discrimination in a legislative body - but it likely doesn't as legislative bodies aren't public spaces and they're immune from interference by other branches of government.

It is interesting to note that in the Cohen case, the appellant did wear his offensive jacket in the courthouse hallways but removed it upon entering a judges courtroom, folding it over his arm. He was only arrested after leaving the courtroom for having worn the jacket in the public hallways of the courthouse. Had the reverse been true, and the judge ordered him ejected from his courtroom for wearing the jacket, and he resisted, the ruling likely would have gone the other way.

Of course, judges to this day enforce rules of decorum in their courtroomslook at any jury summonsit will instruct the prospective juror on the acceptable attire and conduct in a courtroom.

First Amendment advocates will admit to this but are quick to add that judges should not engage in viewpoint discriminationthough many still do today.

Which brings up back to Lieutenant Governor Patricks tweet. Lets break it down to its chief components.

First, that the shirt in question was vulgar and has no place in a Senate hearing.

Second, that the shirt was especially offensive in that it denigrated the brave men & women of law enforcement.

Third, that if you dont like it, you can take the lieutenant governor to court.

To the first question, while most analysts would admit that, just as a judge can set rules for their courtroom, so to can a legislative body set rules for decorum in the deliberative portions of their chambers, such as the floor and in hearing rooms. These are seen as different than public places, for example, the rotunda in a state capitol building or a public sidewalk.

Even so, Ari Cohn formerly a director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that brings many successful free speech lawsuits against educational institutions, insisted that there is no decent enforceable legal definition of vulgar. So, even if the Texas Senate were to uniformly enforce a ban on offensive clothing, it wouldnt stand, presumably if any clothing with a message were allowed, even something as innocuous as a shirt that read Lake Travis High School.

Well return to this question in a moment.

The second issue is that the vulgar shirt in question was particularly offensive as it denigrated law enforcement officers. This is where the accusation of viewpoint discrimination focused. The lieutenant governor cannot, his critics claimed, pick and choose between messages he likes and those he doesnt likeeither take them all or ban them all.

And, lastly, if you dont like Lieutenant Governor Patricks actions, you can take him to court.

Butand heres the big questionis the Legislature in the course of its official business, subject to any restraint by the courts?

I would argue that, in its internal operations, the answer is an emphatic No!unless specifically proscribed by the Constitution or a state constitution.

First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight in 1984 that there is no constitutional right to force officers of the State acting in an official policymaking capacity to listen to the views of the public. Secondly, in Curnin v. Town of Egremont, decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court allowing the ruling to stand in 2008 (denying certiorari), that The First Amendment does not give non-legislators the right to speak at meetings of deliberating legislative bodies and that

The Supreme Court has never extended First Amendment forum analysis to a deliberating legislative body or to the body's rules about who may speak. While no Supreme Court case is directly on point, the Court has addressed the underlying issue of the public's ability to address government policymakers:

The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy Policymaking organs in our system of government have never operated under a constitutional constraint requiring them to afford every interested member of the public an opportunity to present testimony before any policy is adopted Public officials at all levels of government daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear. To recognize a constitutional right to participate directly in government policymaking would work a revolution in existing government practices.

The court goes on to note that, Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, there are constitutional separation of powers protections for Congress. Further, that The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently. That This immunity extends to injunctive relief. And finally, that, while, No explicit federal constitutional protections cover state or local legislative bodies. there are still federalism and separation of powers concerns, which have led to the adoption of similar immunities for state legislators, citing the Knight decision.

Turning to the Texas Constitution, we see in Article III, governing the Legislative Department, Section 15, that disrespectful or disorderly conduct by any person not a member in the presence of the a house conducting its business can result in imprisonment for up to 48 hours. Given that this action would not involve executive branch law enforcement or judicial branch court proceedings, its likely that such an imprisonment would not accrue to someones arrest record or criminal record as the violation would be unique to the Legislature.

Lastly, going to the heart of the matter of viewpoint discrimination, is it permissible, under the any rules of a legislative body, that a committee chairman might only accept testimony from all Democrats or all Republicans? Yes, of course. As the federal courts have noted, Public officials daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear.

Id argue that a hearing where ten Republicans testify with no Democrat witnesses is a far more egregious form of viewpoint discrimination than is banning an offensive shirt, yet, its perfectly acceptable, legal, and constitutional for a legislative body to decide to do so and theres nothing the courts can do about it. Its done in the U.S. Congress all the time. Its an internal matter of that legislative body. The legislative function must be performed independently. Anything less would admit to judicial supremacy. Dont like it? Win the majority and run the house as you will.

Of course, if the courts did try to meddle in the internal affairs of the Legislative branch, that branch has the tools to fight back: they can impeach and remove judges, if they muster the political will to do so. They can also use their budgetary powers in creative ways so as to concentrate the minds of an overambitious co-equal branch.

While such actions are constitutional, whether they should be done or not crosses into ethical behavior and considerations of political prudence. Just because a legislative majority can do something, doesnt mean that they should or that there might not be consequences come election time.

Bottom line: Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and other officers of the Texas Legislature are free to order the official and internal affairs of their respective legislative chambers as they wish, in accordance with the will of that body and free from interference of either the judicial or executive branches.

Read this article:

Do Non-Lawmakers Have A First Amendment Right To Speak Before A Legislative Body? Its A Question In Texas After A Man Testified Wearing A Profane...

As a journalism major in college, I learned a lot about the First Amendment and its importance. I don't have to like or agree with everything that is reported, discussed, aired, etc. However, it must be protected and not be restricted. So, I am very disappointed that the Tennessee Legislature is trying to pass a House Joint Resolution calling some news media outlets fake news and condemn them for denigrating our citizens. It is HJR 0779 and has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee after going to the Constitutional Protections and Sentencing Subcommittee.

As a journalism major in college, I learned a lot about the First Amendment and its importance. I dont have to like or agree with everything that is reported, discussed, aired, etc. However, it must be protected and not be restricted. So, I am very disappointed that the Tennessee Legislature is trying to pass a House Joint Resolution calling some news media outlets fake news and condemn them for denigrating our citizens. It is HJR 0779 and has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee after going to the Constitutional Protections and Sentencing Subcommittee.

This goes against the First Amendment. It is not right to single out certain media outlets that people dont like or dont agree with. If we start that, eventually every publication will have to go away since one side calls certain networks or publications bad, corrupt, or slanted against their cause/people. And, the other side does the same with different publications. And that just shouldnt happen.

Our founders knew the importance of a Free Press. The First Amendment states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the press is supposed to be free from government interference. The question might be: Does this apply to the Tennessee Legislature as it does to Congress and the federal government? I think that it does, but I am not a constitutional expert or attorney. That possibly is what the subcommittees will look into.

Even if this resolution is adopted (or passes, I am not sure which), I will not be told how or what to think about the media and media outlets. I will decide that for myself. I will continue to watch and read the media outlets that I decide upon. We all have to determine what we listen to, read, watch, and follow. No one should be telling us that, especially not the Legislature, the governor, or the Congress, or the president.

We may not like what they are writing or airing but they have a right to do so. If we dont like it, we should change the channel, stop reading the article, or write a Letter To The Editor. Instead, we tend to overreact as this resolution is doing, fan the flames of discord, and call the other side awful things cult like, the deep state, etc.

I read and watch both of the publications listed in HJR 0779 as fake news CNN and The Washington Post. I also watch/read/listen to: PBS News, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Associated Press, MSNBC, Fox News, NPR, Time Magazine, The New York Times, San Diego Union-Tribune, The Oak Ridger, The Knoxville News Sentinel, Oak Ridge Today, The Tennessean, and others.

I dont watch or read them all of the time, but do regularly tune in and do buy papers. The newspaper industry has changed so much in recent years, and fewer people are supporting it. I continue to do my part so local news and other print options continue to be available.

I know people who regularly watch news channels and shows that I totally disagree with. But, is it my right to tell them to stop watching it? No. And, is it their right to tell me to stop watching what I choose? Again, no.

I am passionate about this since my first job out of college was a general assignment reporter for a small, twice-weekly county paper. I covered county government, county agencies, county courts, county commission, county school board, as well as the fire department, police department, sheriff department and ambulance service.

It was fascinating to learn how things work at the local level. It is something that in my opinion needs to continue. We need to know what is going on in our local communities that affect our children, our families, our health, our schools, our business opportunities, our taxes that we owe and so much more.

There are so many platforms now that anyone can write, post, talk, etc. This does concern me if those writers, bloggers or pundits have certain agendas. There are ways to verify the facts of an article. Also just because you dont like an article or a slant, that doesnt mean its fake news.

Perhaps slanted news, or extreme opinion in some cases. Or they are actually printing the truth that you dont acknowledge or agree with. In journalism school, we learned to verify facts, that opinions had no place in a news article, and to take our time without rushing to judgment. So much has changed since then.

I remember the days when Walter Cronkite ended his newscast with And thats the way it is after briefing the audience on the news of the day. Occasionally, he or someone else on the show would air an opinion piece.

Now, there are different bots and sites on Facebook, Twitter, and numerous web sites that post fake news and try to pass it off as real news. These often are re-posted or retweeted without any regard for the truth or who is behind the writing. I keep my guard up for these sites.

And, I may not like what a publication reports or prints, but since we have the First Amendment, they must be allowed to air it or print it. I just dont have to have watch it or read it, since I, too, have a First Amendment right.

A lot could and probably should be improved in the media today. I for one, get sick and tired of the extreme opinions from both sides that are regularly broadcast in the evening. Both have their own slant. I think it is up to us as informed citizens to view both ends of the spectrum to see where the other side is coming from. And to see the difference in how the same stories are told.

To read more about HJR 0779, please click on http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0779. The resolution itself can then be read by clicking on HJR 0779 by Van Huss on the left column of the screen or clicking on http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/111/Bill/HJR0779.pdf.

Patti Truex Cates is an Oak Ridge resident.

More here:

Guest Column: On the 1st Amendment and restrictive resolutions - Oak Ridger

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.

If we needed a pristine example of why justices are bestowed lifetime appointments and shielded from the intimidation tactics of unethical politicians, Sen. Chuck Schumer has now provided us with one.

Speaking to pro-abortion protesters in front of the Supreme Court this week, the Senate minority leader threatened theres no other way to put it two sitting justices with repercussions if they uphold a Louisiana law aimed at protecting babies who survive abortions.

He said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Its possible that Schumer who doesnt have the slightest interest in protecting abortion survivors cant think of any good reason for hospital-admitting privileges for abortion providers, as the Louisiana law requires. But treating that as an undue burden is just an example of the Democrats abortion extremism. Threatening justices over the case is hysterical.

Moreover, Schumers thuggish rhetoric is a transparent attempt to intimidate justices. And wow a sitting senator threatening an independent judiciary. Surely the champions of norms and decency will be horrified by this development. When President Trump, rather absurdly, demanded that Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg recuse themselves from Trump-related cases because of their partisan positions and yes, Notorious RBG is openly partisan and anti-Trump it was a major national story. In this case, I suspect were going to hear a lot about a general coarsening of discourse.

Whatever the case, this is an unprecedented attack on Supreme Court justices. And by unprecedented, I mean that you wont be able to unearth an instance in modern history of a member of Congress threatening a justice by name, no less for ruling against his wishes. Which is why, I imagine, Chief Justice John Roberts felt the need to release this statement:

Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.

Sometimes, in highly charged debates over public policy, the moment gets the better of a person. Its happened to all of us. Yet, rather than walking back his statement, Schumer compounded the ugly behavior by smearing the chief justice as a partisan ideologue.

A spokesman said: For Justice Roberts to follow the right wings deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes. The senator meant only that there would be a political price Republicans will pay for putting them on the court, the statement added.

First of all, is Schumer really arguing that being critical of justices is tantamount to threatening them? If thats the case, why, during President Barack Obamas State of the Union address in 2010, did Schumer stand and clap for Obamas norm-breaking attack on the Supreme Court justices who had upheld the First Amendment in Citizens United? It seems clear that Obama was attempting to manipulate the court, as well, but at least he had the decency not to sound like some wannabe Mafioso.

By accusing Roberts of misrepresenting his comments for partisan reasons, Schumer (via his spokesman) is obviously trying to influence the chief justice, as well. But hes lying. Schumers initial statement specifically and unequivocally named two justices one of whom he and his colleagues had already attempted to humiliate and defame. He was not calling out the Republicans who put Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the court.

Schumer doesnt have the power to follow through on any threats, thankfully. His attack, like many less obvious ones, is just part of the lefts concerted effort to delegitimize the court, denigrate its justices and undermine the legality of its decisions. This isnt surprising; the Constitution and the jurists who are inclined to uphold it are the biggest impediments to the progressive agenda. So expect a lot more of this.

Twitter: @DavidHarsanyi

Excerpt from:

Schumers SCOTUS threat was truly unprecedented, then he made it worse - New York Post

By ZACH MONTELLARO

03/05/2020 10:00 AM EST

Updated 03/05/2020 03:39 PM EST

Editors Note: Morning Score is a free version of POLITICO Pro Campaigns morning newsletter, which is delivered to our subscribers each morning at 6 a.m. The POLITICO Pro platform combines the news you need with tools you can use to take action on the days biggest stories. Act on the news with POLITICO Pro.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) holding off a tough primary challenge headlines the list of downballot Super Tuesday races that were called Wednesday, but many California races are still unresolved.

Mike Bloomberg formally ended his presidential campaign on Wednesday, winnowing the field further still. Meanwhile, Joe Biden was declared the winner in Maine, eeking out a narrow victory.

The Senate is poised to take action on President Donald Trumps Federal Election Commission nominee, which could give the embattled federal election watchdog a quorum. But many Democrats and money-in-politics groups are not happy with the prospective commissioner.

A message from the Partnership for America's Health Care Future:

Every American deserves access to affordable, high-quality care, but Medicare for All would force them to pay more to wait longer for worse care. See how.

Good Thursday morning. Email me at zmontellaro@politico.com, and follow me at @ZachMontellaro.

Email the rest of the Campaign Pro team at sshepard@politico.com, jarkin@politico.com and amutnick@politico.com. Follow them on Twitter: @POLITICO_Steve, @JamesArkin and allymutnick.

Days until the March 10 primaries: 5

Days until the Phoenix Democratic debate: 10

Days until the March 17 primaries: 12

Days until the 2020 election: 243

Rep. Henry Cuellar narrowly beat out a primary challenger in a race that was called on Wednesday. | Getty Images

THE LATE CALLS Super Tuesday stretched well into weary Wednesday. I shamelessly stole a colleagues joke to highlight the fact that not all of the downballot races were called on Tuesday and some are still outstanding. Topping the list of races that were called on Wednesday: Cuellar holding off a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros in TX-28.

A win that tight by Cuellar will likely do little to quell the liberal forces who had pegged the race as the next major opportunity to shake up the Democratic caucus, POLITICOs Ally Mutnick and Sarah Ferris wrote. Her near-miss is likely to embolden a score of liberal primary challengers hoping to take out House Democrats, including two later this month. In Illinois, Democrat Marie Newman is making another run at Rep. Dan Lipinski who, like Cuellar, also opposes abortion rights. And in Ohio, Rep. Joyce Beatty faces a stiff challenge from consumer advocate Morgan Harper. Cuellar, perhaps spooked by the rash of Democratic incumbents who fell last cycle, assembled a formidable campaign apparatus.

But that wasnt the only big race call on Wednesday. In Texas, the DSCC-endorsed MJ Hegar now knows her runoff opponent: Royce West, who edged out Cristina Tzintzn Ramirez for the second runoff spot for the Democratic Senate nomination. And heres the rest of the calls in the races we were watching:

AL-02: Former state Rep. Barry Moore will face businessman Jeff Coleman in the March 31 primary runoff for this safe, red seat.

CA-08: Republican Jay Obernolte secured a spot in November in the red seat. The second spot remains undecided between Democrat Chris Bubser and Republican Tom Donnelly.

CA-10: Freshman Democratic Rep. Josh Harder will face Republican Ted Howze in November.

CA-25: The simultaneous primary and special election remain muddled. Democrat Christy Smith won a spot in the special election runoff, but the other spot (and the two candidates who will face off in November in the regular election) remain uncalled, with Republicans Steve Knight and Mike Garcia battling.

CA-50: In this open, red-leaning seat, Democrat Ammar Campa-Najjar secured his spot in the November election. Republicans Darrell Issa and Carl DeMaio are dueling for the second spot.

CA-53: Democrat Sara Jacobs won a spot in the general election in November. Democrat Georgette Gomez and Republican Chris Stoddard are fighting for the second.

TX-23: Republicans Tony Gonzales and Raul Reyes are officially headed for a runoff in the GOP-held open seat. The winner will face Gina Ortiz Jones, who easily won her primary.

TX-24: Democrats Kim Olson and Candace Valenzuela are headed to a runoff, and the winner will face Republican Beth Van Duyne, who won her primary for the Dallas-area open seat.

TX-32: Republican Genevieve Collins won the Republican nomination outright, avoiding a runoff, and will face freshman Democratic Rep. Colin Allred in November.

SEE YOU LATER Bloomberg officially called it quits on Wednesday, ending his half-billion-plus presidential campaign with little to show for it. Bloomberg huddled early Wednesday morning with his closest advisers in one of his Manhattan offices. Alongside campaign manager Kevin Sheekey, chair Patti Harris and adviser Howard Wolfson, Bloomberg reviewed the final results from the biggest night of the Democratic primary, POLITICOs Sally Goldenberg and Chris Cadelago reported. They saw no path to success. He then opted to drop out of the race and throw his support and potentially his vast resources behind Biden.

More: Bloomberg aides said it was still unclear how hed be involved in Bidens campaign. Advisers on the all-staff call said they are working on a plan for how they'll wind down the campaign. The advisers stressed they built their massive operation to continue the fight against Trump in battlegrounds regardless of whether hes the nominee.

Elizabeth Warrens team is considering ending her campaign. An aide to Warren told POLITICOs Alex Thompson that she was spending Wednesday with her team to assess the path forward. [Campaign manager Roger] Lau wrote [in an email to staff] that [t]his decision is in her hands, and its important that she has the time and space to consider what comes next.

Top allies of Warren and Bernie Sanders are also discussing ways for their two camps to unite and push a common liberal agenda, with the expectation that Warren is likely to leave the presidential campaign soon, The Washington Posts Annie Linskey and Sean Sullivan wrote. Warren allies also talked with Bidenworld, Linskey and Sullivan reported.

TAKING STOCK After a rough Super Tuesday, Sanders is changing his strategy. The decades-long refusal to air negative TV ads is out. Spots highlighting former President Barack Obamas praise of him are in, POLITICOs Holly Otterbein wrote (heres the Biden attack ad, hitting him over social security, and heres the ad featuring Obama). After facing questions for weeks about whether Sanders would shift his message to broaden his base, Sanders campaign co-chair, Rep. Ro Khanna, said his candidate will work to appeal more to older voters and mainstream Democrats.

More from Holly: Sanders aides still very much see a path to victory, however. They believe he has a shot at winning five of the six states that vote next week, including Michigan and Washington, which have the days largest delegate hauls.

Team Bidens response to the change in tune from Sanders? Remember the last primary. Framing Sanders as a divisive party outsider who won't accept defeat, the Biden campaign pointed to his bitter Democratic primary fight four years ago with his party nemesis, Hillary Clinton. That ended with a chaotic nominating convention and Donald Trumps election months later, POLITICOs Marc Caputo and Natasha Korecki wrote.

NEXT ONE UP Michigan is the biggest prize in next Tuesdays primaries, both in terms of how many delegates are awarded and for its political value. It was Michigan where Sanders engineered a primary day miracle four years ago, upsetting Hillary Clinton and imprinting his populist agenda on the industrial Midwest, POLITICOs David Siders and Holly wrote. But Super Tuesday laid bare the full force of the momentum Biden drew from winning South Carolina, prompting moderate Democrats to coalesce around him and persuading many undecided voters to break his way.

HOW HE DID IT Bidens support on Super Tuesday was a primary coalition he and other Democrats have yearned to build for a year, fusing domination among black voters with strong support from whites that crossed over class lines, POLITICOs Laura Barrn-Lpez wrote. Latino voters were, however, a particularly strong group for Sanders.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE Trumps relationship with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is souring in the crucial swing state. DeSantis is no verbal knife fighter, something Trump expects from his inner circle, and the onetime Fox News stalwart has ceased appearing on the cable channel, POLITICO Floridas Matt Dixon writes. And with Election Day just eight months away, his pick to lead the Republican Party of Florida resigned on Tuesday after failing to deliver crucial get-out-the-vote infrastructure. DeSantis defenders cast the chatter as a sour-grapes narrative.

DELEGATE HEADCOUNT Before Bloomberg (and Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar) dropped out, they did manage to win delegates to the national convention. So what happens to their delegates? It is a lot more difficult than simply adding their totals to Biden, I wrote but it is a complicated dance that will only really matter if someone else cant secure an outright majority.

WHAT GIVES? Bloomberg essentially ran out the clock on transparency for his financial records after he asked for (and was granted) extensions on filing his public disclosure forms, the Center for Public Integritys Dave Levinthal wrote, dropping out before submitting it.

ENDORSEMENT CORNER Congressional endorsements continue to pour in for Biden. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) backed him, as did Florida Reps. Kathy Castor, Lois Frankel and Ted Deutch, Illinois Mike Quigley, Robin Kelly and Bill Foster and New Jerseys Andy Kim. (This is Kims third endorsement of the cycle, having previously backed Cory Booker and then Buttigieg.) Sarah and Heather Caygle also have more on the celebration among some House Democrats on Bidens surge (and Sanders speedbumps) on Super Tuesday.

THE ENFORCERS? The deadlock at the Federal Election Commission could soon come to an end. Trump nominated Texas attorney Trey Trainor to be a FEC commissioner. That itself is not new; Trainor has been nominated in the past, and the Senate has let his nomination languish. But this time, the Senate is poised to take action. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a hearing on Trainors nomination on March 10, the first step toward Trainor actually being confirmed (the movement was first reported by the CPIs Levinthal, who has been all over the FECs trials and tribulations for awhile now). Democrats are, however, furious at the break in tradition, which typically sees a bipartisan pair of nominees put forward, Roll Calls Kate Ackley wrote.

But if Trainors hearing goes smoothly, and he is eventually confirmed, there would once again be a quorum at the FEC. The countrys chief election watchdog has languished without one for more than six months, being unable to take action on a bevy of things (heres what I wrote back in December about the lack of a quorum). But some campaign finance-focused groups are not happy about the movement on Trainor. Reopening the Federal Election Commission with a nominee who does not think we should enforce the nations campaign finance laws will only make matters worse, Meredith McGehee, the executive director of Issue One, said in a statement. (Trainor, generally, has fought for less campaign finance regulation, having publicly questioned the value of disclosing donors.)

The Institute for Free Speech which was founded by former FEC commissioner Bradley Smith and argues against many campaign finance-related restrictions on First Amendment grounds praised Trainor as a well-qualified practitioner.

THE SENATE MAP Democrats are poised to land a major recruit in the battle for the Senate: Term-limited Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who had previously (and adamantly) denied that he was going to run. In recent days, Democrats are starting to believe the two-term governor could jump in the race to challenge GOP Sen. Steve Daines, a move that would expand the Senate map for Democrats by giving them another battleground target in their bid to take back the chamber, POLITICOs James Arkin and Marianne LeVine reported. Bullock has not yet indicated publicly an interest in the race, and it is not a done deal that Bullock will run, according to multiple Democratic sources. (The New York Times Jonathan Martin first reported Bullocks apparent change of heart.)

We have some polling numbers in the Georgia special Senate election, with Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) battling it out. The University of Georgia School of Public & International Affairs poll has Collins at 21 percent to 19 percent for Loeffler. Democrat Matt Lieberman is at 11 percent and the DSCC-endorsed Raphael Warnock is at 6 percent, with a handful of other candidates below him (1,117 likely general election voters; Feb. 24-March 2; +/- 2.9 percentage point MOE).

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is raising some big cash for his new colleagues. The first-term senator is hosting three events Sunday and Monday, benefiting six Senate Republicans on the ballot this year and one GOP challenger, James reported.

We approached, but did not quite hit, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions worst nightmare as he hopes to return to the Senate in Alabama. Trump retweeted an AP tweet announcing that Tommy Tuberville, Sessions rival for the nomination, advanced to a runoff on Wednesday morning. He followed it up with a quote-tweet of the POLITICO story saying Sessions finished well short of a majority in a primary: This is what happens to someone who loyally gets appointed Attorney General of the United States & then doesnt have the wisdom or courage to stare down & end the phony Russia Witch Hunt. Thats not exactly a Tuberville endorsement, but it is getting awfully close to one.

THE GOVERNATORS A race I neglected to mention in Wednesdays Score, because the primary was entirely uncompetitive: North Carolina governor. Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Forest emerged from his primary fairly easily and will face Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in whats expected to be one of the most hotly-contested gubernatorial races this year.

WAY DOWN BALLOT The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee announced that it raised $2.6 million in February, its best February ever.

THE OUTSIDE GROUPS Tom Lopach, a former Bullock aide and former DSCC executive director, was named the president and CEO of the Voter Participation Center and Center for Voter Information.

A message from the Partnership for America's Health Care Future:

A one-size-fits-all government health insurance system, like Medicare for All, would eliminate the choice and control millions of Americans deserve, in exchange for higher taxes and lower quality care. Lets build on whats working, not start over with Medicare for All. Learn more.

CODA DYSTOPIAN HEADLINE OF THE DAY: Bloomberg attracted few votes but his ads still grabbed the attention of many kids, from The Washington Post.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of Morning Score misstated the DLCC's fundraising record. This February was the best February the committee has ever had.

See the original post here:

Cuellar holds off primary challenge, and other late calls - Politico

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., introduced two amendments to an energy bill this week that would help increase the opportunities for locating and processing rare earth elements in Wyoming.

The first amendment would help ensure that Wyomings rare earth industry is included in a report the Department of Energy (DOE) sends to Congress. The second amendment would require DOE to study the importance of rare earth minerals to our national security.

Rare earth elements are important to our countrys energy independence and are crucial in meeting our technological needs from smartphones and televisions to wind turbines and jet fighter engines, Enzi said in a news release. These amendments would help highlight the importance of rare earth elements and the role Wyoming can play in mining and producing them.

According to the Wyoming Mining Association, Wyoming is home to some of the highest quality rare earth deposits in the country.

Enzi offered both amendments to the American Energy Innovation Act introduced by U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, which is being considered on the Senate floor and aims to ensure the U.S. remains a global energy leader.

Read the original here:

Enzi introduces amendments to encourage production of rare earth elements - Wyoming Tribune

San Francisco is expected to pay Bryan Carmody $369,000 to settle a claim the freelance journalist filed last year after police raided his home as part of a leak investigation.

Last April, the San Francisco Police Department asked Carmody to reveal the source of a leaked police report concerning the death of public defender Jeff Adachi. Carmody refused, and a month later officers came to his home with search warrants, seizing computers, cameras and phones while FBI agents questioned the journalist.

All of the warrants were later nullified, deemed illegal under Californias shield law, which allows journalists to protect confidential sources and materials.

Filed last August, Carmodys claim against San Francisco is related to the illegal warrants and the conduct of the police department in carrying them out, according to San Franciscos resolution to settle. Courthouse News Service reported on Tuesday that the resolution is expected to head to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Government Audit and Oversight Committee. If approved, it will then move to the full board for a vote.

The raid of Carmodys home made national news, sparking outrage among journalists and press freedom advocates.

Any search targeting a journalists confidential material is a particularly egregious affront to First Amendment rights and should be investigated thoroughly, Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown said in a statement last May. Mr. Carmodys devices and work product should be returned immediately.

When Carmody moved to have his equipment and materials returned, Reporters Committee attorneys gathered a coalition of 60 media organizations and sent a letter supporting his motion to the California Superior Court.

The Reporters Committee has also pursued records related to the presence of the FBI during the raid. Though FBI personnel did not participate in the search itself, the agency has confirmed that its agents were on site to question Carmody.

According to an FBI document obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Reporters Committee in September, those agents knew that Carmody was a journalist. The Justice Department guidelines generally require authorization from the attorney general before a member of the news media can be questioned. But its unclear whether these guidelines were followed here.

The Justice Department policies were put in place to handle criminal investigations in a careful and thoughtful manner based on a particular set of circumstances and provide meaningful protections for newsgathering, policy analyst Melissa Wasser and Stanton Foundation National Security Fellow Linda Moon wrote in October. The public deserves to know whether these policies were followed, and if they werent, the FBI needs to provide public justification.

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

The rest is here:

San Francisco expected to pay $369,000 settlement to Bryan Carmody - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Anger exploded in the days following the controversial flag incident on the Arcata High School campus, raising questions over first amendment rights and political symbolism on public school campuses.

On Feb. 26, a group of students wore clothing supporting President Donald Trump, and flew Trump flags and American flags off of their cars, in support of what they called Patriotism Day.

During nutrition break and lunch that day, the students drove two cars around the parking lot, each trailing large American flags or Trump flags.

Assistant Principal Jim Monge stopped one car and spoke to the student driving. Principal Dave Navarre also spoke to the students involved but did not speak on the record about what he said. After the interactions, the students removed the flags from their cars after backlash from non-Trump supporters.

Many students on campus took offense to the display and were angered by what they thought the Trump supporters were trying to say.

On the same Wednesday that the Trump group brought their flags and clothing, the Black Student Union started to run assemblies meant to educate students on Black History Month as well as microaggressions and appropriation towards black people in society.

Some students assumed the Trump and American flags were in direct response to the assemblies, which the Trump supporters denied.

We mainly did it because people were showing their support for Bernie, and we wanted to show our support (for the president) we had no idea that the BSU thing was happening. The teachers were very bad at informing us with that information, and we would not have picked that day if we knew, said Casey McAtasney, one of the Trump supporters who wore clothing supporting Trump.

The information was in the bulletin. However, it was placed in the faculty section, which some teachers do not read to their students.

Some students felt that it was not a coincidence that Patriotism Day was held on the same day as the first of three BSU assemblies.

Immediately I thought that they were doing it on purpose because it was like the first time having a meeting for Black Student Union, so I thought they were doing it for (the) intent to get a reaction, Axeri Ramirez, a junior, said of their actions.

Social media exploded with videos mocking and criticizing the students who took part in publicly supporting Trump. One student called them clowns while others called them racist. Junior Riley Walsh, one of the students who drove one of the cars flying a flag, claimed that he received some death threats and was told to kill himself. When Monge stopped the car to speak to the driver, a student ripped a flag off Walshs car. At lunch, another student ripped a Trump flag off senior Mateo Vincents car.

Some students reacted physically towards the Trump supporters. A student threw Kool-Aid at the car of one of the students who attached a Trump flag and American flag to the back.

The events of Wednesday were not contained to the Arcata High campus. Members of the community heard that it was a white supremacy event, and one individual called on people to come support the BSU. Terry Uyeki called on people to show support to the African American students and the observance of Black History Month, in her email addressed to social justice warriors.

We had various reports that we were gonna have, essentially, rallies, on our campus, in support of various causes, Navarre stated.

Several community members did show up to the event, and were invited to stay as visitors of the assembly.

However, the student Trump supporters did not mean to incite backlash. According to members of the group, they picked the day because they were celebrating the anniversary of the Fifteenth Amendment and because they were feeling patriotic that day.

We were just supporting our country. It wasnt a protest, McAtasney stated. Their claimed intent was not to undermine the BSU assembly, but to show support for the president.

It was not perceived that way, though. For some students, especially students of color, Trump, and by association his flag, represents something very different than patriotism.

I dont think (support for Trump) is a really positive thing to be spreading on campus because of what he stands for. He stands for racism, sexism, sexual assault, and also just like, his name can scare a lot of people who have immigrated to America, junior Bella Volz-Broughton said.

Others echoed Volz-Broughtons sentiments.

America is not that great. Theres a lot of things we need to solve, and a lot we need to fix, so dont even try that, and also its just kinda disrespectful, senior and president of BSU Nishyra Aaron-Williams said.

In an article for Pepperbox, Madeline Henny Lassiter-Chavarria and Ramirez expressed that in seeing support for Trump, they see support for racism and worry that it may create a situation that endangers them. Since Trumps election, there has been a statistical increase in hate crimes. According to a Politifact analysis of federal data, there was a 17% increase in hate crimes from 2016-2017, the year following Trumps election.

The controversy surrounding Trump paraphernalia at schools is not isolated to Arcata High. A school in Fresno was sued after not allowing a student to wear a MAGA hat because it would make others feel unsafe. In North Carolina, a cheerleading squad got placed on probation for displaying a Trump sign at a school event.

While students on a high school campus have limited rights, they do have the right to free speech as long as it is not obscene, libelous, likely to incite material disruption or violation of school rules, or is deemed a true threat, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Political free speech does not fall under any of these categories unless it contains fighting words, which the Trump-supporters were not voicing.

Students have free speech just like anybody else, and the thing that schools have is that it cant interfere with school activities, Monge explained. He did not feel that school had been interrupted by Patriotism Day.

(School) pretty much ran as normal. We had a few flags, and then we didnt, Monge said.

With the events of last Wednesday still fresh, how the campus moves forward is up to everyone. People involved with the day say that they are planning on having more Patriotism Days in the future, but they also say they have learned from this one.

Senior Emma Frazzel said, We know that some people got their feelings hurt, so maybe next time we wont put ourselves out there as much. We know that people were like that was too far, so lets take a step back, still show our support, but maybe in other ways.

For others on campus, the event simply represented students taking action on their rights.

I think when (free speech) becomes aggressive or like threatening then its not okay, but they didnt say anything mean about any of the other candidates, Judah Thompson said.

Izzy Knife summed up how she feels about not only political free speech but the issue at large.

I know a lot of people generalize, so when they see the Trump flag, they think about racists and sexism and things Trump has said. but I feel like everyone should be judged individually.

Stella Walston is the managing editor andJack Taylor is the opinion editor of The Pepperbox, where this story was originally published. Additional research was done by research by Martina Mapatis, Fiona Murphy, and Bailey Ives.

View post:

Trump flags and controversy on the Arcata High campus - Eureka Times-Standard

Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel, NetChoice

What youre seeing is a misunderstanding of what Section 230 is, what it does and its necessity, Szabo said. None of the sponsors of this act have supported existing congressional efforts to explore the unintended consequences of SESTA, a bill passed in 2018 that amends Section 230 to include provisions waiving liability protections for online platforms that host illegal sexual content. They seem unwilling to recognize that SESTA has harmed the very victims it has tried to help. Until we understand the harm of the only other amendment to Section 230, it is premature to consider this legislation.

Patrick Trueman, president and CEO, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation

Tech companies dont do what is reasonable to do and what every parent would like them to do and what Congress would like them to do, Trueman said. Congress is giving them one last chance before they eliminate the immunities afforded by Section 230.

They can complain all they want about that, but they had their chance and this is their last best hope.

Emma Llans, director of the Center for Democracy and Technologys Free Expression Project

There are pretty conflicting messages today about how to address children sexual abuse materials online, Llans said, noting the Thursday release of voluntary principles from a coalition including a group of U.S. agencies, along with the governments of Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, that were crafted in conjunction with several technology companies.

Its a bit hard to understand why the Graham bill would be necessary if there is in fact this recognition that there is a lot going on and, in fact, discussion already about what best practices are not only between the companies and the U.S. government but also the other countries.

India McKinney, director of federal affairs, the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Regarding the commission this bill creates, McKinney said: Giving the ability to create law to an unelected body is really problematic, and making best practices mandatory is also really problematic, and we think that runs into some First Amendment problems.

Some of the bill sponsors have said to us in the past that they arent necessarily interested in going out and looking at encryption, but its clear to us that the DOJ, and specifically the attorney general, are.

This story has been updated to include additional comments.

Excerpt from:

EARN IT Act: Instant Reaction - Morning Consult

(Roman Genn)Sanders and the Democrats are birds of a feather

In 2016, there was a groundswell of conservative and Republican opposition to Donald Trump, led in no small part by this magazine. In 2020, there is not much sign of a comparable movement among Democrats in opposition to Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont from Brooklyn who is running for the presidential nomination of a party to which he does not belong as a confessing socialist calling for revolution.

Why is there no Never Bernie movement to speak of?

The New York Post went looking for one in early February and did not come up with much: some rumors of discontent, but only vague ones. Democratic activist Jim Kessler of Third Way was exemplary: Ill still put a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on my car, he told the Post, but a lot of people wont. Who? Donna Brazile, the former DNC chair, denied that there was any effort from any high-level Democrats to stop Sandersonly a few moody donors.

There is a purely strategic anti-Sanders effort, to be sure, typified by the Big Tent Project, which works to promote less radical candidates (it helped Joe Biden in South Carolina) and warns Democrats that nominating Bernie means we reelect Trump. There is a very large difference between worrying that a candidate will lose and believing that he does not deserve to winthat he is, as many conservatives said of Trump in 2016, fundamentally unfit for the office he seeks. Which Senator Sanders manifestly is. Democrats may be concerned that his radicalism is likely to be a political loser, but there is not much intellectual or moral pushback against the radicalism itself.

To the extent that one exists at all, the supra-strategic Never Bernie tendency consists of 7,844 nobodies on Twitter and David Brooks, a conservative-leaning New York Times columnist who interned for William F. Buckley Jr. and who has been an ex-Republican for about as long as Donald Trump has been a Republican. The Twitter nobodies are mostly disappointed partisans of the campaigns of other Democratic-primary contenders who cannot forgive Senator Sanderss often brutish supporters for their abuses, e.g., field director Ben Moras mockery of Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warrens looks (chunky and looks like sh**, respectively) and Pete Buttigiegs sexuality, threatening violence at Joe Biden events, etc. Tom Watson, a Democratic strategist, reports a level of pure antipathy Ive never seen before among anti-Sanders Democrats, but other than the desultory social-media stuff, it is not much in evidence.

If you want to see pure antipathy, consider the Democratic response to Brookss column arguing that Sanders, with his socialism and his calls for revolution, is illiberal, something like a left-wing Donald Trump. In a hysterically stupid but terribly typical response, Paul Waldman complained in the Washington Post that Brooks wrote as though Sanders has proposed herding us all into collective farms, starving half the population and establishing a gulag where hell send his political enemies butget this!failed to produce a single quote from Sanders calling for that.

Well.

As it turns out, Lenin did not publicly advocate starving millions of Ukrainians to death, Castro did not publicly advocate murdering librarians and imprisoning homosexuals, Chvez did not publicly advocate turning Venezuela into a basket case . . . Senator Sanders says that what he has in mind is Denmark, but the policies he proposes are nothing like Danish policies, which he evidently knows absolutely nothing about, and he has spent his life as an apologist for the Soviet Union (where he vacationed), Castros brutal regime (literacy programs!), Chvezs Venezuela (his Senate website posted an article praising that socialist backwater as the new home of the American dream), etc. In fact, if you listen to Kim Jong-un talk about his philosophy of government, it turns out to besurprise!rather different from how things actually work in North Korea. I have yet to find a single quotation from the Dear Leader in which he argues that his fellow countrymen should be starved until they are reduced to cannibalism.

Progressives in general rallied to Senator Sanders in defending him against criticism of the agenda that he himself describes as socialism. Tom Scocca of Slate dismissed Brookss column as a grotesque pack of lies, while Jonathan Chait of New York insisted that Bernie is an economic socialist but a political liberal. Senator Sanders proposes, among other things, to gut the First Amendment in order to put political speech under direct federal controlthat is not liberalism, but its opposite. Brookss characterization of Sanderss populist demagoguery and the mode of politics it impliesmajoritarian dominationnot only is apt and accurate, it is precisely what Senator Sanders himself promises: a revolution that will leave his political opponents unable to oppose his agenda because they will be regulated into silence or politically bullied into acquiescence.

Dont expect to see an anti-Sanders movement comparable to the anti-Trump movement of 2016, for at least four reasons.

First, there is no principled anti-Sanders movement because Democrats principles are Sanderss principles. Whereas Republicans in 2016 had good reason to doubt Trump on everything from abortion to the Second Amendment to taxes, Democrats have no such qualms about Sanders. Sanders calls himself a socialist, Warren insists that she is a capitalist, but they come down pretty close together on health care, business regulation, taxes, and much more. (With capitalists like these, who needs socialists?) Sanders wants a monopoly health-care system, punitive taxation, a (further) weaponized regulatory state, and a radical expansion in federal spending and federal power. Democrats may quibble, but they simply are not in the position of 2016 Republicans who doubted Trumps reliability on their core issues.

Second, Democrats do not actually believe socialism to be outside the boundaries of respectable opinion. They may worry about it as a marketing matter, but Sanderss enthusiasm for left-wing autocrats from Moscow to Havana to Caracas is not, from the progressive point of view, morally comparable to disreputable right-wing enthusiasmsfor Pinochet or Franco, once upon a time, or for Orban or Alternative fr Deutschland today. They are committed to their belief that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs were on the right side of history, that those who opposed them were monsters, and that those who rallied to the flag of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were only humanitarians with excessive enthusiasmliberals in a hurry, as they used to say.

Third, unlike 2016 Republicans, 2020 Democrats do not believe that Sanderss performative outrage, rhetorical incontinence, facile extremism, defects of judgment, etc., disqualify him from the office. They only worry that voters might think this and punish his campaign and their partywhich, let us remember, are not the same thingfor these excesses. Trump abominates CNN, and Democrats see a would-be censor and a threat to the First Amendment. (Never mind that every single Democrat in the Senate voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment only a few years ago.) Democrats complain about Fox Newsand Senator Sanders complains more generally about the corporate mediaand progressives hear only a call to arms. Both Senator Sanders and Senator Warren have taken the lead in outlining repressive new measures curbing political speech in the name of campaign-finance reform, but practically every major Democrat accepts these or similar measures enthusiastically.

Fourth and finally for this discussion, the Democratic Partys transformation into the Party of Oberlin is, if not quite complete (see South Carolina and the resurgence of Joe Biden), then very far along. When James Carville warns about driving away blue-collar and rural voters, Democrats in Brooklyn hear that Southern accent and quietly whisper, Good riddance. The Democrats are in the mood for culture war, not for coalition-building and reconciliation. They do not wish to win with moderation and compromise, because they do not wish to govern with moderation and compromise. They feel themselves to have been humiliated by the Trump administration, and they have set upon Sanders as the instrument of their vengeance. That Senator Sanders has so much in common with Trumpan outsider to the party who loathes the party leadership, a demagogue who detests compromise and bipartisanship, who has a funky outer-boroughs accent and zany hair, who until the day before yesterday voiced remarkably Trumpian views on immigration and trade, etc.is no accident, and it is not something that Democrats are having to hold their collective nose and swallow. Democrats speak in public as though the Republican Party has been ruined by Donald Trump, but in truth their detestation is larded with envy. Trump has given the Republicans something the Democrats want for themselves.

For better and for worse, the Trumpiness of Senator Sanders is the sizzle and the steak, and not only for the hardline left-wingers. They could have had a Buttigieg or a Klobuchar, and they may yet nominate Biden as a kind of placeholder and caretaker. But Senator Sanders, a man with the freshest ideas from the 1930s and the cultural affect of the 1970s, is the future of the Democratic Party.

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members getallof our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

Read this article:

Negligible 'Never Bernie' - National Review

A bill that would direct Wyoming's Attorney General to sue the federal government over any federal infringements on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has passed a Wyoming Senate Committee and is now headed to the full Senate.

The bill lists several potential actions that it deems as infringements, including such things as gun registration or confiscation programs, special taxes on firearms and accessories that don't apply to other items, and other actions that would inhibit ''law-abiding citizens'' from possessing firearms.

The vote on House Bill 118 in the Senate Judiciary Committee was 4-1. Lisa Anselmi-Dalton [D-Rock Springs] was the lone vote against the bill.

But Sen. Brian Boner [R-Converse/Patte counties], who voted for the measure in committee, said he was concerned that a series of amendments attached to the measure in committee would weaken the bill by giving the Attorney General too much latitude in deciding whether to take court action against the bill.

Opponents of the bill, including the Wyoming Chapter of ''Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense In America" argued in committee that such bills increase the danger to the public. Some opponents also questioned whether the bill was constitutional. But bill co-sponsor Sen. Lynn Hutchings [R-Cheyenne] argued that under the constitution, governments can only act with the consent of the governed.

Another sponsor, Rep. Tim Salazar [R-Fremont County] ''I often hear people say 'I support the Second Amendment, but..'' He said he seldom hears such comments about the First Amendment or other such amendments."

Read more:

'Second Amendment Preservation Bill' Passes Wyoming Committee - Kgab

Its an increasingly familiar sight at busy intersections and shopping center entryways.A person or persons positioned on the side of the road often displaying a handmade sign asking for money or food.

Begging for money or goods in a public space is legal in Kentucky. A 2017 state Supreme Court ruling declared that panhandling is free speech protected by the First Amendment. With enforcement powers stripped, authorities are left to manage the public safety hazard created by panhandlers and well-meaning citizens.

While panhandling is not against the law in Kentucky, panhandlers and well-intentioned citizens can pose a public safety hazard in the states roadways.

Hear the audio version of Barb's story.

It can be extremely dangerous not only for vehicular traffic you know someone stopping for instance to hand money to somebody whos panhandling and possibly getting involved in an accident but there have also been multiple instances where somebody thats out panhandling actually gets struck by a vehicle, said Officer Andrew Boggess, the Public Information Officer with the Owensboro Police Department.

So, its actually much more than a safety concern for us than anything to do with a First Amendment free speech claim.

To combat the problem, the Owensboro Police Department has launched a massive educational campaign discouraging people from giving to panhandlers and encouraging more targeted giving.

Hopefully, educating the public and getting the proper information out there where people can donate to the correct causes can help to reduce it, Boggess said. Ive had instances of where Ive encountered somebody thats out there panhandling and they will literally have a backpack full of food that theyre basically throwing away, even though its well-intended, a lot of times doing something like that with the right intention actually can backfire. The money can go a lot further if its given to a legitimate organization thats going to make sure its utilized to the fullest extent.

Bowling Green, Elizabethtown, and Lexington are using signs to educate citizens about panhandling. Officer John Thomas, the Public Information Officer with the Elizabethtown Police Department, said his city partnered with the United Way on their signage.

They say, Keep the change. Dont support panhandling. And then there is a link at the bottom that says, Go to etowncares.com, which is a webpage managed by United Way and encourages people to give to vetted sources such as United Way, Thomas explained.

When you give to a panhandler you dont know what you are giving to, you dont know if you are enabling an addiction for example, you dont know if you are supporting someone who is simply taking advantage of others generosity. Were just telling people you really cant know.

See original here:

Owensboro and Elizabethtown Tackling Issue of Panhandling Through Information - WKU Public Radio

Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks to the media in Washington, D.C., January 23, 2020. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Elizabeth Warren has proposed repealing the First Amendment. (Again.) Per CNBC:

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday released a plan to fight disinformation to hold tech companies accountable for their actions in light of the 2016 election.

Thats one way of putting it, certainly. Another would be: Having bought into the conspiracy theory that the 2016 election was meaningfully affected by people arguing stupidly online, Elizabeth Warren has released a plan for the federal government to regulate the press, the publishing industry, and the Internet.

Why? To save democracy, naturally:

Disinformation and online foreign interference erode our democracy, and Donald Trump has invited both, Warren said in a Tweet Wednesday. Anyone who seeks to challenge and defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 election must be fully prepared to take this on and Ive got a plan to do it.

Warren proposed to combat disinformation by holding big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google responsible for spreading misinformation designed to suppress voters from turning out.

I will push for new laws that impose tough civil and criminal penalties for knowingly disseminating this kind of information, which has the explicit purpose of undermining the basic right to vote, Warren said in a press release.

It is difficult to know where to start here. No such democracy exemption exists within the First Amendment, and no such exemption should exist within the First Amendment. The merits of my doing so aside, if I wish to say or write that particular people should not vote, or that immigrants such as myself should be disenfranchised or that the 19th Amendment was a mistake, that is my right. Were this not the case were it the case, that is, that the First Amendment could be regulated in such cases as it were being used to attack other parts of the Constitution then Elizabeth Warren herself would be liable for prosecution. (Or, at the very least, for being held accountable by the president, whatever that means.)

Ironically enough, Warrens proposal would represent a boon to precisely the sort of corruption and entrenchment of power that she insists she wishes to fight. In the vast majority of cases it would be wholly impossible for the government to determine what sort of speech served to undermine the basic right to vote or to to polarize and disenfranchise particular groups or to disempower voters, such that any concerted attempt to do so would necessarily be driven by partisan interest and little else besides. Warren complains that the same tactics employed by the Russian government are just as easily accessible to domestic groups seeking to promote or oppose candidates and political or social issues. Those tactics, lest we forget, were . . . arguing about politics. There is simply no way for the federal government to superintend domestic groups seeking to promote or oppose candidates and political or social issues without the federal government controlling political speech.

It was recently proposed that it should be unconstitutional to vote Republican. Warrens idea is merely that scheme applied to the First Amendment. In effect, Warren is seeking the power to decide what is true and what is not and what may be disseminated and what may not and to apply this power to the elections in which she herself takes part. That she is chasing this authority while accusing the incumbent president of seeking to use his office for personal political gain (which he did) is startling.

Link:

Elizabeth Warren Would Like to Be Appointed as the Arbiter of Truth - National Review

Kendra Espinoza, a single mother of two young girls, never dreamed that sending her daughters to a Christian school in Kalispell, Montana, would lead her to the national stage. But on Wednesday, her lawsuit, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, and its far-reaching implications could impact Pennsylvanians education options.

Espinoza homeschooled her daughters until her husband unexpectedly left, forcing her to enroll them in the local public school. The school wasnt a good fit for her daughters they werent thriving. Stillwater Christian School seemed like the perfect solution, but tuition was more than she could afford. Still, she worked extra jobs, held a big yard sale, and raffled quilts to come up with the money. Her older daughter even mowed lawns to contribute.

It was barely enough.

Then, Espinoza learned of a recently enacted program in Montana, similar to Pennsylvanias tax credit scholarships, that could help her afford tuition for future school years. Her glimmer of hope was short-lived, though. Montanas program bars religious schools, and the state refused to grant her daughters scholarships.

Espinoza felt that amounted to discrimination. She and two other moms in similar situations sued the department with the help of nonprofit law firm, the Institute for Justice. But the Montana Supreme Court doubled down, ruling the entire scholarship program unconstitutional in 2018.

The families appealed and are now before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that ending the scholarship program because it included religious schools violates the First Amendment.

At issue is the Montana constitutions Blaine Amendment, which prohibits the government from giving public funds to religious schools. There are similar provisions in 36 other state constitutions, including right here in Pennsylvania. These amendments trace their roots to the late 1800s, when anti-Catholic sentiment was rampant and protestant legislators sought to starve them of public funds. Congressman James Blaine and many other anti-Catholic legislators required prospective states to adopt Blaine Amendments in order to be admitted to the union and persuaded many existing states to adopt similar amendments.

Now, the Supreme Court will decide if these provisions violate the U.S. Constitution.

The issues presented in Espinoza are not new to the Court. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court upheld an Ohio school voucher program, ruling that it was neutral with respect to religion since parents not the government are the ones directing government aid to the schools.

And in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the Court found that Missouris denial of a church application for new playground surfacing was a violation of the churchs First Amendment protections by denying a generally available benefit solely on account of the [applicants] religious identity.

If the Court follows the same logic, Espinoza and the other Montana moms stand a good chance of winning. Similar to the situation in Zelman, the Montana program was impartial to religion and was designed to help disadvantaged students. Moreover, the ruling in Trinity Lutheran created a precedent for greater scrutiny when the state excludes a church from public benefits. With these cases setting the stage, the Supreme Court has the opportunity in Espinoza to defend the rights of parents to access public programs without compromising their constitutional rights. As a result, anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments in Montana and dozens of other states, may be laid to rest.

Such an outcome will liberate students across the country including in Pennsylvania to pursue broader educational choices that satisfy their needs. While Pennsylvanias tax credit scholarships pass constitutional muster, removing our Blaine Amendment will open the door to new educational freedoms for students.

If we win at the Supreme Court, it makes a difference for my girls and for so many other families, says Kendra Espinoza. I believe school choice is important for all families, not just for myself and my children. Its my right as a parent to choose how my children are educatednot the governments right.

Colleen Hroncich is a senior policy analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org), Pennsylvanias free market think tank.

Read the original post:

The First Amendment and Supreme Court | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

From Stavridanoudakis v. U.S. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, decided Friday by Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill (E.D. Cal.):

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") codifies the protections of migratory birds as outlined in various conventions between the United States and four foreign countries: Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The MBTA only applies to migratory birds native to the United States, which includes several types of Falconiformes (vultures, kites, eagles, hawks, caracaras, and falcons) and Strigiformes (owls). The MBTA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior ("Secretary") to adopt suitable regulations to determine, inter alia, when, and to what extent, it may be permissible to hunt, take, capture, possess, sale, and transfer protected birds, bird parts, nests, and eggs.

Pursuant to the authority of the MBTA, the Secretary promulgated regulations to regulate falconry standards and falconry permitting . 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(i) prohibits photographing or filming falconry raptors for "movies commercials, or in other commercial ventures." 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(ii) prohibits falconers from photographing or filming their birds for "advertisements; as a representation of any business, company, corporation, or other organization; or for promotion or endorsement of any products, merchandise, goods, services, meetings, or fairs"unless the promotion or endorsement is of "a nonprofit falconry organization or association" or "products or endeavors related to falconry."

50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(8)(v) dictates that during conservation education programs, falconers "must provide information about the biology, ecological roles, and conservation needs of raptors although not all of these topics must be addressed in every presentation."

In Count III of the FAC, Plaintiffs claim that 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(i) is a content-based restriction that violates the First Amendment. Section 21.29(f)(9)(i) states "You may not use raptors to make movies, commercials, or in other commercial ventures that are not related to falconry."

In Count IV, Plaintiffs contend that 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(ii) is an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. ECF No. 16 at 15-16. 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(ii) states that falconers may not use their raptors for "commercial entertainment; for advertisements; as representation of any business or for promotion of any products [or] services with the following exceptions: (A) to promote a nonprofit falconry organization [and] (B) to promote products related to falconry ."

In Count V, Plaintiffs challenge 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(8)(v) which requires falconers giving conservation education programs to provide "information about the biology, ecological roles, and conservation needs of raptors."

In Count VI, Plaintiffs challenge the prohibitions on charging fees that exceed the amount required to recoup costs under 50 C.F.R. 21.20(f)(8)(iv).

The Supreme Court has recognized that various forms of entertainment and visual expression are purely expressive activitiesincluding movies. Therefore, 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(i)'s restrictions on movies and 21.29(f)(9)(ii)'s restriction on commercial entertainment go beyond restricting expressive conduct and restrict purely expressive activity.

The restriction compelling the content of falconers' conservation education program under 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(8)(v) is clearly a content-based restriction because it explicitly restricts the topic of the speech that can be discussed: "you must provide information about the biology, ecological roles, and conservation needs of raptors ." The regulation unequivocally discriminates based on the topic of the educational presentation.

"A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech." Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 115 (1991). 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(8)(iv) limits the fee that falconers can charge when giving a conservation education program. Therefore, this regulation imposes a financial burden on falconers depending on the content of their presentation.

The Federal Defendants do not argue in the motion to dismiss that the regulations restrict excludable speech (i.e. obscenity), or that the regulations are valid time, place, and manner restrictions. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989). It is inconsequential that falconers could merely use nonnative raptors to engage in the prohibited activities. Because the restrictions are content based, they are not subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Id. (the government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech). The Federal Defendants provide no such support that the restriction on use of native raptors is no less a restriction on falconers' speech.

In addition, the Federal Defendants make no argument in the motion to dismiss that the content-based restrictions pass strict scrutiny. Thus, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts III, IV, V, and VI on the grounds that the regulations do not restrict protected speech is DENIED.

Next, the Federal Defendants contend that, assuming the speech restricted by the regulations is protected speech, the regulations do not violate the First Amendment because they are permissible regulations on commercial speech. {As discussed below, even assuming the speech regulations are aimed at only commercial speech, the Court finds that Defendants are not entitled to dismissal. In light of that finding and because the First Amendment test for commercial speech is less stringent, at this stage, the Court is not required to determine definitively the commercial or noncommercial nature of speech being restricted.}

In the present case, the limits on "commercials," under 21.29(f)(9)(i) and "advertisements," under subsection (ii), standing alone, are restrictions on commercial speech. However, restrictions on film (movies), photography, or on commercial entertainment are not restrictions on commercial speech. See ETW v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915, 925 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding "prints," or copies, of paintings were not commercial speech because they did not propose a commercial transaction); see also Anderson, 621 F.3d at 1060 (recognizing various forms of entertainment and visual expressionincluding moviesare purely expressive activities). Thus, 21.29(f)(9)(i) & (ii) place restrictions on commercial speech advertisements, commercials, and promoting a business or productand on non-commercial, fully-protected speech.

The Court evaluates restrictions on commercial speech using the four-part test in Central Hudson: "(1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold matter; in order for the restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) [t]he State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech; (3) the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."

Plaintiffs argue that Defendants cannot make the showing on the fourth prong that the restrictions fit the government's interest at the motion to dismiss stage. Where the challenged regulation is a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny, the issue of whether the challenged restrictions adequately fit the government interest was a question for summary judgment or trial. Frudden v. Pilling, 742 F.3d 1199, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2014). The summary judgment process requires defendants to show a compelling government interest and permits plaintiffs an opportunity to present countervailing evidence.

The Court acknowledges Defendants have a substantial interest in protecting native raptors. In arguing that the regulations meet the fourth prong as a matter of law, the Federal Defendants claim that "the regulations are directed specifically at commercial endeavors, with a limited carve-out for falconry related undertakings." ECF No. 24-1 at 19. However, in light of Frudden, the present record is not developed sufficiently. Accordingly, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the challenges to 50 C.F.R. 21.29(f)(9)(i) and (ii) (Counts III & IV) on the theory that they are permissible commercial speech restrictions is DENIED.

In Count VI (Second Count), Plaintiffs claim that the California regulation, 14 C.C.R. 670(h)(13)(A), violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments in the same way that the federal regulations do. This regulation states: "Education and Exhibiting. A licensee may use raptors in his or her possession for training purposes, education, field meets, and media (filming, photography, advertisements, etc.), as noted in 50 CFR 21, if the licensee possesses the appropriate valid federal permits, as long as the raptor is primarily used for falconry and the activity is related to the practice of falconry or biology, ecology or conservation of raptors and other migratory birds. Any fees charged, compensation, or pay received during the use of falconry raptors for these purposes may not exceed the amount required to recover costs."

Like the federal regulations in Counts III, IV, V, and VI, this regulation is also a restriction of expressive activity based on content. It demands that when using the raptors in presentations or media, the content must be related to falconry. Section 670(h)(13)(A) also imposes a restriction on compensation that corresponds to the federal regulations. The State Defendants argue that 670(h)(13)(A) does not ban speech. For the same reasons stated above that the federal regulations are content-based restrictions on expressive activity, the Court rejects this argument. Because the regulations are content based, they are presumptively unreasonable and subject to strict scrutiny review.

Next, the State Defendants contend that should falconers desire to use raptors for exhibiting or commercial uses not authorized in 670(h)(13)(A), they may obtain the appropriate permit to engage in such activity. It is somewhat unclear what State Defendants are pecking at. The Court has reviewed the falconry regulations raised by the parties. It is possible there is a separate regulatory regime that supports State Defendants' argument that falconers can obtain a separate permit to engage in the prohibited activities. State Defendants have not identified any such alternative regulations or laws.

The language of the regulations does not support the State Defendant's position.14 C.C.R. 670(h)(13)(A) provides "A licensee may use raptors in his or her possession for training purposes, education field meets, and media (filming, photography, advertisements, etc.), as noted in 50 CFR 21, if the licensee possesses the appropriate valid federal permits, as long as the raptor is primarily used for falconry and the activity is related to the practice of falconry or biology, ecology or conservation of raptors and other migratory birds." By this provision's plain language, it does not appear that a falconer could seek a permit to give a talk with the raptor that is unrelated to the practice of falconry. For instance, even with an exhibiting permit under 14 C.C.R. 671.1(b)(6), a falconer could not give a presentation using her raptor about her political or religious views, or throw a Harry Potter party for a relative, because these topics are not related to the practice of falconry or the biology, ecology, or conservation of raptors. Furthermore, it is notable that the provision requires the licensee to possess the "appropriate valid federal permits." Thus, the Court rejects the State Defendants' argument that Count VI (Second Count) fails to state a claim for relief on the theory Plaintiffs could simply get a separate federal permit.

[T]he strength of the government's interest for the challenged regulations and the fit of those interests to the speech restrictions at issue are material to the Court's preliminary injunction analysis for all three categories of the First Amendment challenges.

The Court tentatively finds that the government has a strong interest in protecting the native raptor species, but because the briefing has failed to sufficiently discuss any aspect of fit, and because the Court is responsible for evaluating how a preliminary injunction would impact the public interest, the Court must hear from the Federal and State Defendants before it takes any action.

For example, it is unclear from the present record whether prohibiting falconers from earning money for educational presentations is a narrowly-tailored solution to combat a marketplace for the protected birds. Federal and State Defendants must discuss why the restrictions on falconers' ability to give presentations and to film and photograph their birds meet strict scrutiny.

As with analyzing the restrictions on falconers' ability to give presentations and film their birds, the Court will need supplemental briefing to thoroughly analyze whether the compensation restrictions are narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest. Federal and State Defendants must discuss why the compensation restrictions meets strict scrutiny.

As to the third category relating to commercial speech, the Federal Defendants contend that the regulations affecting commercial transactions of falconers are necessary to prevent a market for the protected birds from developing. Federal Defendants argue that lifting the regulations would undermine the goal of falconry raptor preservation and cause detrimental effects on the protected species.

Under Central Hudson, the restriction must not be more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest. The test is sometimes phrased as requiring a "reasonable fit" between the government's legitimate interests and the means it uses to serve those interests, or that the government narrowly tailors the means to meet its objective.

At present, the Federal and State Defendants' briefing does not explain how the regulations are not more extensive than necessary to serve an important state interest. The State Defendants similarly do not address how the restrictions on commercial speech are not more extensive than necessary to promote the health and welfare of raptors. Therefore, on the present record, the Court cannot determine if the restrictions on commercial speech are not more extensive than necessary to serve these interests.

The Court will order the Federal and State Defendants to submit supplemental briefing with respect to these narrow issues. The Defendants should discuss the nature of the government interest involved and how the three categories of speech restrictions (falconers' presentations and media, compensation, and commercial speech) are drawn to meet such interest. Lastly, Defendants should provide an analysis for the third and fourth prongs of the Winter test: the balance of equities and the public interest. Plaintiffs will then have an opportunity to respond.

The State and Federal Defendants are ordered to file supplemental briefs addressing the state interest(s) in the regulations challenged under the First Amendment and how those speech restrictions are tailored to achieve those interests, and relatedly, the balance of equities and the public interest prongs under Winter. The Defendants shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file the briefs. Toucan, of course, play at this game, so Plaintiffs will then have 30 days from the date they are served with both State Defendants' and Federal Defendants' briefs to file a responsive brief.

Read more from the original source:

First Amendment Challenge to Restrictions on Use of Falcons in Videos and Commercials - Reason

Getting it right is one reliable defense for a free press in todays media world against critics who often base objections and critiques more on political differences than factual error.

However, criticism for getting it wrong is fair game for press skeptics with wrong covering a multitude of alleged sins, as occurred following the Jan. 26 deaths of NBA superstar Kobe Bryant, his daughter and seven others in a helicopter crash.

Even though many times the news outlets themselves quickly corrected errors or apologized, those moves often fell short of placating many on social media.

The BBC apologized quickly Sunday for using video of NBA star LeBron James during a segment on Bryants death a mistake the harkened to an old racist saw that to whites, all black people look alike.

The BBCs quick apology: In tonights coverage of the death of Kobe Bryant on #BBCNewsTen, we mistakenly used pictures of LeBron James in one section of the report, BBC Editor Paul Royall tweeted hours later. We apologize for this human error, which fell below our usual standards.

A slew of online critics some starting an online petition calling for resignation have questioned the sincerity of an MSNBC anchors apology Sunday after she appeared to use the n-word when reporting on Bryants death. Alison Morris later posted on Twitter: Earlier today, while reporting on the tragic news of Kobe Bryants passing, I unfortunately stuttered on air, combining the names of the Knicks and the Lakers to say Nakers. Please know I did not & would NEVER use a racist term. I apologize for the confusion this caused.

Gossip site TMZ was the first to report Bryants death. Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva later said, It would be extremely disrespectful to understand that your loved one perished and you learn about it from TMZ. Los Angeles County Undersheriff Tim Murakami tweeted that he understood the pressures related to getting the scoop, but please allow us time to make personal notifications to their loved ones. Its very cold to hear of the loss via media.

Less clear is why The Washington Post placed a national political reporter, Felicia Sonmez, on administrative leave Monday only to reverse the action Tuesday because of tweets that began with a link to a 2016 Daily Beast story titled, Kobe Bryants Disturbing Rape Case: The DNA Evidence, the Accusers Story and the Half-Confession.

It is unclear whether the Posts initial action was in response to many online critics who called the tweet insensitive some issuing death threats, Sonmez said or because one of her tweets on the subject included a screen shot of her work email inbox, showing the names of critics.

By Tuesday, newsroom colleagues were rallying around Sonmez and Post columnist Erik Wemple wrote that the newspapers concerns, per an email from management to Sonmez, were that they didnt pertain to the reporters coverage area and that your behavior on social media is making it harder for others to do their work as Washington Post journalists. In the same column, Sonmez was quoted as saying she was never told the suspension involved the screen grab of her work email box.

Wemple raised questions about the action, noting that if journalists at the Post are prone to suspension for tweeting stories off their beats, the entire newsroom should be on administrative leave.

On Tuesday evening, After conducting an internal review, we have determined that, while we consider Felicias tweets ill-timed, she was not in clear and direct violation of our social media policy, Tracy Grant, managing editor of the Post, said in a statement.

Several news outlets drew a line from an early Fox News report with the incorrect number of those who died to a President Trump tweet repeating the error. ABC News on Wednesday suspended correspondent Matt Gutman after he erroneously reported on Sunday that all four of Bryants daughters were on the helicopter that crashed. Gutman, who also reported strong criticism on social media, apologized: We are in the business of holding people accountable, and I hold myself accountable for a terrible mistake, which I deeply regret.

A common factor here is the desire for a speedy post, reaction or comment, seemingly based on an assumption that readers and viewers and listeners care most about hearing news and seeing reactions now. But what about the values of accuracy, deliberation and thoroughness in an era in which much of the nation considers the news media unreliable, if not deliberately manipulative and unduly provocative?

Yes, many major news operations got it right by waiting for information to be verified. The Los Angeles Times at least took the intermediate approach of acknowledging online the early accounts of Bryants death and advising its readers it still was investigating those reports.

Sonmezs incident is a more challenging call for the Post, for the public and for a free press generally. Certainly, there is the longstanding social pressure and even journalistic guidelines to avoid sensationalism and inflicting undue pain that seems to lean toward avoiding disparaging news of a person immediately after his/her death.

But then, to ignore a womans allegation and resulting legal action in the #MeToo era (or anytime) likely would have resulted in legitimate complaints that journalists were channeling gender bias and hero worship and sanitizing a life. For the record, criminal charges against Bryan were dropped and a civil lawsuit settled out of court.

There is not one perfect way to gather or report news. The tasks are too complex and dependent on facts of each instance to produce cookie-cutter rules. And to large degree, the First Amendment rules out the enforceable codes of conduct that govern professions such as law and medicine.

But having been a young reporter at one time whose on-deadline job all too often was to collect a photo and interview family members of a recently deceased newsworthy person, I know there is a better way, with sensitivity, honesty and an emphasis on getting things right the first time, even when giving audiences an accurate news account.

Those terms sensitivity, honesty, getting it right and accurate are not in the First Amendments 45 words, to be sure. But that doesnt mean those values arent as real or applicable to how a free press should operate.

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

Visit link:

INSIDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT: 'Getting it right' - on Kobe Bryant and everything else - Meridian Star

To the Editor:

Sandra Rzepecki in her letter states that restriction set out in a memorandum from the developer can override the rights granted under the United States Constitution. I probably need not say any more to show that her position is inane.She may not be aware that for many years deed restrictions (as opposed to a mere memorandum) prohibited home owners from selling to blacks, Jews and sometimes Catholics.In 1948 the Supreme Court held in Shelley v. Kraemer, that race restrictions in deeds were unconstitutional.By that same reasoning the Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech, especially political speech (the heart of the First Amendment) cannot be forfeited by a memorandum or deed restriction or home owners association by laws.Would Ms. Rzepecki find it acceptable if the developer put out a memorandum stating thatDemocrats, Jews, and blacks prohibit are prohibited from voting; or that every resident to vote for a certain political party.I do not particularly like Donald Trump. But, I also do not like hypocrisy or people making mis-statements about the law. With all due respect: how ill informed are you Ms. Rzepecki?

James MarkowskiVillage of Hadley

See the rest here:

Letters mis-stating the First Amendment and Trump flags - Villages-News

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United unleashed a flood of corporate money into American politics, giving corporations and wealthy donors free rein to influence our elections. On February 6, 2020, the Democracy for All Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would change campaign finance laws and limit the amount of money that can be used to influence elections, will have a public hearing for the first time in the 116th Congress. Learn about the history of Citizens United, previous attempts at passing a constitutional amendment, and other effects of the 2010 ruling by exploring the resources below, all contributed over the years by Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md. 8), a former senior fellow at People For the American Way.

The only effect of Citizens United was to give CEOs of business corporations the power to take unlimited amounts of money from corporate treasuries and spend it advancing or defeating political candidates of their choosing. Its real-world consequence was thus not to expand the political freedom of citizens but to reduce the political power of citizens vis--vis huge corporations with vast fortunes. These corporations, endowed with limited shareholder liability, perpetual life, and other privileges, may now freely engage in motivated political spending to enrich themselves and their executives, leaving workers and other citizens behind.

Read more here.

On March 25, 2015, PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin previewed his upcoming report, The Supreme Court in the Citizens United Era, during a member telebriefing. Executive Vice President Marge Baker and Senior Legislative Counsel Paul Gordon also joined the call to answer questions from members and discuss PFAW efforts to promote fair and just courts. Drew Courtney, former director of communications for PFAW, moderated.

Read more here.

The [proposed] 28th Amendment would reaffirm and restore congressional and state power to regulate campaign finance, but nothing in it could interfere in any way with the First Amendment doctrines of viewpoint and content neutrality as they would apply to such regulations. The 28th Amendment would, for example, empower Congress to restore the aggregate candidate contribution limits that had been in place under FECA for decades and were just invalidated by the Supreme Court in the 5-4 McCutcheon decision.

Read more here.

Thus, if the justification being offered forCitizens United is to allow individual citizens to associate and combine resources in the corporate for to participate more effectively in the political process, as the question posits, then this justification is hollow and specious because all Americans already had that right. Without a rationale for the decision that explains specifically why the managers of for-profit business corporations must have the power to spend corporate treasury resources on political campaigningthe power, that is, to convert economic wealth amassed in business by a corporation into political finance capitalwe are left with the implication that five justices on the Court overturned multiple constitutional precedents [] and struck down dozens of federal and state laws, all simply in order to increase the political power of corporate executives and the candidates they may choose to fund.

Read more here.

Four years ago, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Roberts Court majority bulldozed an essential block of the wall, the one that kept trillions of dollars in corporate treasury wealth from flowing into federal campaigns. In Arizona Free Enterprise Clubs Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), the Court stifled public debate and destroyed vast new opportunities for political speech by striking down public financing programs that use matching funds to amplify the voices of less affluent candidates competing to be heard over the roar of big wealth. In McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), the Court took a sledgehammer to the aggregate contribution limits, empowering political tycoons and shrewd business investors to max out to every Member of Congress and all their opponents. All of these assaults on political equality and free speech were justified in the name of the First Amendment.

Read more here.

If right-wing America had set out to design a Supreme Court case that combined all of its political fetishes, it could not have done better than to come up with Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, a devilishly complex assault on Obamacare, womens health care rights in the workplace, and the embattled idea that the Bill of Rights is for people, not corporations. The outlandish claims of the company involved would not have a prayer except for Citizens United, the miracle gift of 2010 that just keeps giving.

Read more here.

Now, in the bitterly divided Citizens United decision (2010), five Justices on the Roberts Court have held that corporations have the right to spend unlimited sums of money promoting or disparaging political candidates. This decision built on the dangerous fallacy that state-chartered corporations enjoy the same political free speech rights as the people strikes another dangerous blow against popular democracy. It is a blueprint for government of the big corporations, by the big corporations and for the big corporations.

Read more here.

Continue reading here:

Former PFAW Senior Fellow and Then-Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin On a Constitutional Amendment to Citizens United - People For the American Way

The Auburn Public Theater is launching series of celebrations starting Friday marking the centennial of the 19th amendment with two evenings of feminist performances. Here's a preview of what to expect from the 19 local and regional artists as they take the stage Friday and Saturday nights.

Beth Beer Cuddy and Kelly Chambala are co-hosts of the Strange Country podcast.

"Welcome to Strange Country. I'm Beth."

"I'm Kelly."

"We are former reporters turned librarians who enjoy researching and telling stories without having to sit in school board meetings or stand outside stand-offs," Cuddy said in an introduction.

"We are your weekly podcast written and curated by your friends. We work late nights and early mornings every week to bring you stories of historical importance.So today's story is about women in publishing who may have had to struggle with things or deal with stuff..." said Chambala.

"Because they have two X chromosomes," Cuddy chimed in.

Cuddy will be one of the performers at the extravaganza. Founding member and artistic director of the theater Angela Daddabbo says the format is loosely based on Eve Enslers Vagina Monologues.

"We thought let's go to a variety of people and give them this prompt: 'What is the significance of the women's suffrace centennial to you.' We've asked them to respond in a three to five minute format. We have several people who have choreographed dances. We have a couple people reading original poems. We have someone reading an original short story, we have several people reading existent material," said Daddabbo.

"A lot of Louisa May Alcott's stories were written under a pen name. They had way more action and grit. They were more serious, and not about women getting married and having boring children," said Chambala.

"Was it a male name, like L.M. Alcott, the J.K. Rowling route?" asked Cuddy.

"Yes, she did do that," Chambala said.

Daddabbo says she wants to go beyond the opinions of celebrities, athletes, and authors to create a meaningful dialogue on the local level with people she might see in Wegmans.

"Central New York, and Auburn itself, as we know, is the birthplace of the women's rights movement. There were several Auburnian women who were part of that first meeting in Seneca Falls to get the ball rolling. I feel, as people in Central New York, we have this added responsibility to make our voices heard from this place," said Daddabbo.

The Loving Cup podcast urges guests to think about what theyre grateful for in their lives and communities. Host Katie MacIntyre will be one of the performers at the Feminist Extravaganza.

"Hello. Today is December 7, 2018. We're live from the Seneca Falls-based Fingerlakes1.com studios. Welcome to the Loving Cup - elevate your gratitude..."

In this episode, she talks to teacher turned Auburn Mayor turned activist Melina Carnicelli.

"...the social justice roots that are part of the sacred ground of Central New York, the Finger Lakes, and Auburn as part of that from the indigenous women, all the way through the activist women, and the opening of the Equal Rights Heritage Center in downtown Auburn. That lineage and heritage of social justice is really what I'm so grateful for," Carnicelli said.

Carnicelli is also founder of First Amendment, First Vote, a non-partisan civic engagement group that works with high school girls to create a pipeline of young women willing and able to run for office. Ten percent of the ticket proceeds from the extravaganza will benefit the organization. Daddabbo with Auburn Public theater says she was very intentional about making sure this years womens suffrage centennial programming features plenty of content celebrating local women and history. In March, the theater will offer multiple free screenings of the film Harriet, based on abolitionist and Auburn resident Harriet Tubman.

A Feminist Extravaganza: An Evening of Wild Feminist Readings takes place Friday and Saturday at 7 p.m. at Auburn Public Theaters Main Stage. Tickets are $19. More information at Auburn Public Theater.org.

Read more from the original source:

Auburn Public Theater's Feminist Extravaganza Features 19 Women Celebrating the 19th Amendment - WAER

Another year, another decline in union membership in the United States. While private-sector unions long have been shrinking, public-sector unionization rates now also are on a downward trend. In its annual union survey, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found a decline of 0.2 percentage points in the overall unionization rate of the workforce, from 10.5 percent to 10.3 percent.

The unionization rate in the private sector is just 6.2 percent, down from nearly 17 percent in the early 1980s. Thats the lowest rate ever recorded.

Until recently, the national rate of unionization had been buoyed somewhat by their gains among state and local workers. The public-sector unionization rate was steady for 40 years, with just shy of 40 percent of government workers unionized. But that rate began to decline in 2011, fueled perhaps by the passage of right-to-work laws in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia. Then, membership in government employee unions dropped reaching 33.6 percent in 2019.

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Courts Janus decision affirmed the First Amendment rights of all public employees. Teachers, police officers, firefighters, state employees, local government workers and everyone else who draws a government paycheck now cannot be required to pay dues or fees, and have the ability to fully leave a union. In short, the decision extended right-to-work to all public-sector workers.

The change in unionization rates in the largest, most heavily unionized states has been mixed over the past decade; some increased and some decreased. But since 2017, the last full year before the Janus decision, unionization rates have declined significantly in the big labor states of New York, Alaska, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey and California.

While unions oppose policies allowing workers to leave, the usual complaints about negative effects from right-to-work laws do not appear in the government data. But a long-term look at the evidence shows that right-to-work states are gaining the most in total jobs, household income and population.

The legislative fight over right-to-work is not necessarily related to public policy or economic outcomes. Unions are a key source of support for the Democratic Party, and they can help Democrats more if workers are forced to financially support them. The single largest grant from one of the nations largest unions the American Federation of Teachers went to a Democratic Party super PAC. Given the partisan realities of unions political activities, some politicians always will support right-to-work laws and others always will oppose them.

The fight over mandatory union membership versus freedom of association will continue. Legislators in Virginia could be the first in decades to remove a state right-to-work law. But neighboring Tennessee is heading in the other direction, looking to enshrine the freedom of choice in union membership into its state constitution.

In California, New York, New Jersey and elsewhere, lawmakers are passing union-backed legislation to hobble workers trying to leave. In Alaska and Florida, conservatives have pushed legal interpretations and laws making it easier for workers to know their rights about union membership, including their options for leaving it behind.

Like a businesss membership in a local chamber of commerce, union membership may help or hurt individual employees. Each situation is different and each person can weigh the pros and cons of joining. Thats the beauty of freedom of association which hopefully will be embraced, not taken away, going forward.

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Follow him on Twitter @JarrettSkorup.

Read more here:

Unions decline again and public-sector right-to-work may be a reason | TheHill - The Hill

A quality deepfake video clip, released at the right time, could almost certainly swing an election result.

The technology needed to create these deceptive video clips which convey people saying or doing things they never said or did has peaked just as primary voters and caucus-goers register the first results of the 2020 presidential election in the coming days and weeks.

Its obvious something should be done to safeguard our election process from such powerful disinformation, especially during a time when our social media communities are awash in intentionally false and misleading political information.

The best solution to deepfakes, however, is a little less obvious. Its downright counter-intuitive. We need tech firms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter to protect us. Yes, I am suggesting the wolves guard the henhouse. Heres why.

Deepfakes represent a historically unique threat to democratic discourse. A video clip is different than a text-based message. It puts the audience in the moment. Viewers see with their eyes and hear with their ears. Its the most visceral form of information.

When tech-savvy bad actors manipulate machine-learning tools to create false video footage of political candidates doing or saying something that would disenfranchise or encourage voters, it is difficult for us to notice.

Just the same, First Amendment protections limit the tools lawmakers can use to protect democracy from such manipulation and false information. Laws that restrict content, particularly when it relates to political speech, risk violating foundational free speech safeguards. Even intentionally misleading information, the Supreme Court has ruled, is often protected by the First Amendment. So, any law-related solution would face an uphill climb.

Despite these concerns, Texas is one of two states that has a deepfake law. It criminalizes deepfakes that are used to influence an election and allows the state to penalize the deepfake creator and the forum, such as YouTube.

Californias law has similar aims but is far more expansive. It criminalizes deepfakes that are used to harm the political process but provides numerous exemptions, including for parody and satire. It also exempts news media. While California lawmakers careful efforts to clarify the laws scope help, they also provide gray areas where those who are accused can claim their work fits within the exemptions.

Neither states law has been tested in court. Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, make their survival unlikely.

Despite lawmakers laudable efforts, these are 20th-century solutions to a 21st-century problem. It is often impossible to know who created a deepfake. Even if we have that information, what if the creator was outside the states jurisdiction or the U.S. for that matter?

Texass law conflicts with a federal law that protects online forum providers from liability for how people use their services.

This is why, at least in the short term, we need a little help from the tech firms that have created the forums in which false information flourishes.

Social media firms do not face geographic barriers or First Amendment safeguards. At any point, they could implement systems to block, delete, or label deepfakes or other suspected doctored videos if they want to. Thats the catch.

Weve had some encouraging moves lately. Twitter surveyed its users in November, asking a series of questions about how the service should mitigate deepfakes.

Facebook announced its manipulated media policy in early January. The firm stated deepfakes that would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not say will be removed unless they are published as satire or parody.

Its unclear how, and how well, Facebook will implement this policy. Consistent enforcement of its policies, on Instagram and Facebook, has been problematic. Thats the drawback when the wolves guard the henhouse the company is going to fend for itself before it worries about democracy. We rely on a corporations altruism to protect the flow of information.

This is not ideal, but its the least bad option.

The system could be more effective if tech firms created an industry-wide independent advisory board that encouraged policy change and enforcement. This could be somewhat modeled after the Motion Picture Association, which has operated as a form of industry self-regulation for nearly a century.

Facebook has taken steps in this direction, particularly with its announcement this week about forming a board that will advise the firm regarding content moderation decisions. This, however, deals only with one company rather than the industry. The conflict between corporate interests and protecting democracy remains too direct.

We also have a part to play. We must let the tech firms know what we expect from them by tagging them in posts about our concerns and using their support features. We have to be on the lookout for video clips that dont seem right. When we see them, we have to verify the information with a trusted source. If they are a deepfake, we must report them.

Big tech firms have shown encouraging signs in their recent efforts to monitor and block deepfakes, but as the election approaches, we need more from these services.

Jared Schroeder is an assistant professor of journalism at SMU Dallas, where he specializes in First Amendment law. He is the author of the 2018 book The Press Clause and Digital Technology's Fourth Wave: Media Law and the Symbiotic Web.

Read the original post:

We all need to be deepfake detectors but especially social media platforms | TheHill - The Hill